APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD aiming primarily at helping those living in cities 10 move from one large community to onother? Mr. Hints. The 1921 amendment to this early legislation provided for a Federal-aid primary system—which consists now of 233,- 588 mules of rural and urban roads. Inci- dentally, Pennsylvania has 7,899 miles in the primary syster and eligible for improvement with Federal funds Though most of the first construction did in fact represent con- necting roads between cities, the one group which most welcomed this work were the farmers, whose battle cry was “help get us out of the mud.” Federal help was partic- ularly important back in those days because unless the roads could be made at least, shall we say, navigable, people were not going to buy cars. And unless pecple bought cars, the State governments could not receive the large income from license taxes and gasoline taxes needed to build up their highways. Senator Myers. Since that time, of course, Congress has amended the original legisla- tion and passed additional legislation to carry on with this important work. The present law authorizes Federal grants amounting to $450,000,000 a year through 1951, and the Senate Public Works Commit- tee is now beginning work on a bull already passed by the House which carries the pro- gram, with some modifications, through 1953. How do you determine what share of this $450,000,000 goes to the various States? Mr. Hitts. Three factors receive primary consideration—the State’s area, its popula- tion, and its mileage of post roads. Penn- sylvania rates high on all of these and as a matter of fact, only two States receive a greater allocation than Pennsylvania’s $24,- 000,000. But getting back to Federal legis- lation dealing with highways, I think the effect of the 1944 legislation deserves some real emphasis. It designated two new high- way systems in addition to the already exist- ing Federal-aid primary system. One, the National Interstate Highway System, is con- sidered by most experts to be the Nation’s most vital, both in peace and war. This sys- tem will include 40,000 miles of highways and city streets which pass through one- third of the counties of the Nation and con- nect most United States cities of more than 50,000 population. And the system carries 20 percent of the Nation’s rural traffic, though the roads make up only a little more than 1 percent of the Nation’s total mileage. The other system is to be made up of the principal secondary and feeder roads, in- cluding farm-to-market roads, rural free de- livery mail, and public-school bus routes, either inside or outside municipalities of less than 5,000 population. This system now includes nearly 400,000 miles of roads. Senator Myrrs. Yes; I remember those provisions well. I was a Congressman at the time and supported the bill. Under that 1944 act and under the 1948 amendments, and under the new amendments now being studied, definite allocations are made for each of these three categories of highways. But let us talk now about specific projects in Pennsylvania. How does your office work? Do you insist that Pennsylvania and the other States meet particular standards on each project before you grant them financial aid? It would seem to me that different States have different traffic problems and dif- ferent weather conditions, and that stand- ards for the whole country would be mighty tough to set up. Mr. Hints. That has been the Bureau’s feeling, Senator. Certain suggested mini- mum. standards drawn up by the American Association of State Highway Officials are used by us as a guide, but the States have wide latitude 1n proposing the character of improvements. Most of them, of course, are quite willing to conform to the association’s standards. Senator Myrzrs. How is Pennsylvania using most of its Federal aid these days, Mr. Hilts? Mr. Hints. Well, here’s what’s happened: There are serious deficiencies on all classes of highways. Pennsylvania has elected to use much of the primary Federal-aid funds in removing the big bottlenecks in cities. Senator Myerrs. The cities certainly do need help. There’s nothing quite as eggra- vating as traveling 160 miles on the Penn- sylvania Turnpike within a few hours and then running into a bottleneck when you approach and enter Pittsburgh. Mr. Hits. Yes; Pittsburgh’s a perfect ex- ample. But when that Penn-Lincoln Park-~ way is finished in a few more years, you'll be able to go through the city in a matter of minutes. The whole project is scheduled to cost about $81,000,000, with the Federal Government assuming approximately half the bill. There will be a 27-mile-long, 4- Jane highway, 28 separation structures, a 4,225-foot twin tube tunnel through a sece tion of the city, and ample ramps and inter- changes to provide access to and from the parkway. And when one considers the im- portance of Pittsburgh in the industrial pro- duction of our country, it is easy to under- stand why the Federal Government is so willing to encourage any plan which will aid speedier movement in and out of the city. Senator Mrzurs. Then there’s the $3,256,000 highway now being built on the southern approaches of Wriliemspert, with Federal ald totaling Si,8e8UC0. ‘In:s project, al- ready about 10 percent completed, will con- sist of a modern four-lane divided highway crossing the Susquehanna River on a new bridge placed above the flood crest of the river. Mr. Hints. Yes; and that’s another project in which Federal funds—over $6,000,000, to be exact—are being used. Experts have es- timated that when completed, this facility will accommodate a traffic volume of £0,000 vehicles per day. Senator Myrrrs. These projects we’ve talked about all go through certain cities in Penn- sylvania. Are there any projects under way which completely circumvent city streets? Mr. Hitts. Plans are now being drawn up for just such a highway in Lancaster. This city is a very compact, congested one, and a highway by-passing the city will mean local traffic cam move much faster, This will be a $2,000,000 project and Federal aid will total $1,000,000. Senator Myrrrs. What about some of the other activities of the Bureau of Public Roads? I’ve been told the Bureau dces ex- tensive research work. Mr. Hitts. Most of our research today centers around such projects as making a Cetailed analysis of observations of actual maximum volumes of traffic for the many and varied conditions found on both rural and urban highways, or studies on speed and driver behavior, Our research work has en- abled us to avoid failures and improve all classes of road surfaces. For example, mod- ern heavy duty concrete pavements are twice as strong as those built in 1920. Bitumimous pavements are far more satisfactory. Study of traffic and driving habits enables us to design roads for actval rather than imagined needs. Senator Myers. Does the Bureau grant any funds to the States for research purposes? Mr. Hints. Yes, Senator, Pennsylvania and the other States are allowed to use 1% per- cent of their funds for highway planning surveys. Furthermore, the Bureau has un- dertaken to assist the States in organizing surveys and coordinating work so that data could be used for analysis on a national basis, Senator Myzrs. One last question, Mr, Hilts. How does the national defense situa- tion affect the highway construction picture? A4159 Are any plans being made for military high- ways? Mr. Hitrs. Yes, the main highways used by normal traffic are the most important military highways. Defense authorities have told us to go ahead with present plans lay- ing perticular emphasis on the National System of Interstate Highways. We dis- covered Quring the last war that with only a few exceptions, the areas that had a great deal of traffic in peace time and needed im- proved highways were the same areas that produced war material. Thus all the present expenditure could—-without stretching the point—be classified as defense expense. Senator Myrzs. Thank you, Mr, Hilts. Communists in the State Department EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo} HON. JOSEPH R. McCARTHY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, June 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp the text of an address on Communists in the State eg ment delivered by me on May 25, There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Fellow Americans, thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you tonight to discuss a subject which, in my opinion, towers in importance above all others. It is the subject of international atheistic com- munism. It deals with the problem of de- stroying the conspiracy against the people of America and free men everywhere. There are many phases of this subject which we might well discuss. However, the time is limited. Therefore, your program chairman and I have agreed that I shall briefly hit a few of the high spots and then will try to answer some of the many questions which I understand you editors want to ask about the anti-Communist fight in Washington. Ladies and gentlemen, many of you have been engaged in this all-out fight against communism long before I came on the scene. You have been engaged in what may well be that final Armageddon foretold in the Bible—that struggle between light and dark~ ness, between good and evil, between life and death, if you please. At the start, let me make it clear that in my opinion no special credit is due those of us who are making an all-out fight against this Godless force—a force which seeks to destroy all the honesty and decency that every Protestant, Jew and Catholic has been taught at his mother’s knee, It is a task for which we can claim no special credit for doing. It is one which we are obligated to perform. It is one of the tasks for which Wwe were brought into this world—for which we were born. If we fail to use all the pow-= ers of mind and body which God gave us, then I am sure our mothers, wherever they are tonight, may well sorrow for thee day of our birth. ° To fight, however, we must have facts. Those facts we do have. They stand as clear silhouettes, outlined by the fires of com- munism that are sweeping across Europe and Asia and flickering on the shores of America, We know that the major aim of com-= munism, as stated by its atheistic leaders more than 380 years ago, is to create a Red
A4160 China, thence a Red Asia, wash it with a Red Pacific—and then enslave America. In this connection let us take a look at the magnitude of Russian success and the enormity of our disaster in China, This is the disaster to which Mr. Acheson refers as the dawning of a new day; the disaster to which Mr. Lattimore refers as a “limitless horizon. of hone.” For + ot ‘ir Acheson’s new day dawn- ing? Who faces Lattimore’s limitless hori- zon of hope? Not China. Not the forces of democracy in America, but the military mas- ters of the Soviet Union. The question in the mind of a man elect= ed tc renresent the people of this Nation and _pa-reetiy the people of the world is, Why is this so? Is 1t because we are less intelligent than the Communists? Is it because we can’t match them in courage? Is it because their devotion to atheism is greater than our de= votion to God? Is it because we are less willing to stand up and fight for what we think is right? Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to all those questions is “No.” Then what is the answer? Is it in our leader- ship? To that my answer is “Yes,” and I challenge anyone to find another answer. I have been naming and presenting evi- dence against those leaders who have been responsible for selling into Communist sla- very 400,000,000 people—those leaders re- srovhta f= the creation of Communist g.cur' Ones to the American shores. ‘Inose in power in Washington say that this is not so; that those are not the men. Now if I have named the wrong men, then the American people are entitled to know who is responsible for the tremendous Com-~ munist victory in Asia and the dismal American defeat—the greatest defeat any nation has suffered in war or peace. It is essential, therefore, that we put the spotlight of exposure on those who are re- sponsible for this disaster. This is impor- tant, not for the purpose of exposing past failures, but because those same men are now doing America’s planning for the fu- ture. Unfortunately they have become so deeply entrenched that almost every power of the Government is used to sabotage any attempt to expose and root them out. Let me give you one example of the dif- ficulty experienced in pointing the spote light of exposure on those who are a threat to this Nation. It is an example of the extent to which men honored with high positions will go to conceal communism, men whose shadows hover like vultures over the corpse of China and whose actions rip at the backbone of freedom in America. It is an example of the extent to which the State Department will go in order to deceive and practice a deliberate fraud on the American people. In order to give you this example, it is necessary to publicly di- vulge information, which I had hoped could be properly presented to the committee. I am going to give you several reproductions of secret loyalty files. I have first carefully eliminated any ma- terial which might in any way interfere with the workings of our investigative agencies. The documents which are being given to you tonight should under no stretch of the imagination be kept secret. The secrecy label could only be applied to’ protect those who would cover up their incompetence or double~dealing. First, let me give you a brief history lead- ing up to the decision to make those files public. When I began the presentation of the case against Owen Lattimore, the State Department’s architect of our Far Eastern policy, I considered it necessary to present evidence having to do with his sabotage of a@ wartime ally, an ally because of whom many of your sons and brothers are today alive, I, therefore, informed the Senate that Lattimore in a letter to Joseph Barnes (an individual whose activities have been de- scribed in executive session before the sub- committee) instructed him, in effect, to get rid of all Chinese employees in the Office of War Information who were loyal to our Chi- nese ally, Chiang Kai-shek, and to replace them with Chinese Communists or with Chi- nese loyal to the Communist cause. Later, when addressing the American So- ciety of Newspaper Editors, I furnished them complete copies of and discussed the Latti- more-Barnes letter. The State Department then came screaming to Lattimore’s defense, It produced an 8-page white paper to show that McCartHy was a liar, especially in re- gard to the Lattimore letter. This white paper, which took nearly a month to produce, was supervised by Edward Barrett, Mr. Acheson’s publicity chief. He was Mr. Lattimore’s superior when both worked in the Office of War Information. He was also the superior Of Dr. Chi and Mr. Chew Hong, whom I shall discuss. Now, Mr. Barrett got the Lattimore letter from the files of Chew Hong, and if he wants to deny that, I will name the hour and the day he removed it. When Acheson’s publicity director and his expensive staff prepared the white paper they had before them the same files which I shall present to you tonight. I had hoped it would be unnecessary to produce these files in public. I frankly would not have produced them merely to present a link in the Lattimore chain of evidence. But I feel that I owe the Amer- ican people a duty to show them the calcu- lated, vicious fraud which the State Depart- ment tried to sell to the American people. The Department was given a chance to come clean, and refused. Now I could merely tell you what is in the files which I am about to show you. This I have done in a num- ber of instances, but always with the same result; namely, the issuance of a press re- lease from Acheson’s official spokesman, backed by all the power and prestige of the State Department, saying that McCarTHy lies—there is no such evidence in the files, Obviously if I were merely to tell you what was in these files the State Department would issue its 14 points or its white paper to- morrow denying each and every statement made in regard to the files. Therefore, I ask you, ladies and gentle- men, what would you do if you were in my position? In view of my past experience with Acheson’s hatchetmen, could you rece ommend any course other than the actual production of the files? The copy of the Lattimore letter, as well as the files to which I shall refer, is being supplied to you. You will find a copy of all of the documents to which I refer in these brown envelopes on the table. I in- vite you to take complete sets along with you. Now let me read to you from the State Department white paper sent to some 500 newspaper editors and produced by the State Department’s $10,000~ to $15,000-a-year men. “Point 12: Senator McCartnHy said to the ASNE: ‘This letter from Lattimore to Joseph Barnes, dated June 13, 1943, * * * was an order to Barnes to get rid of all Chinese employees with OWI who were loyal to Chiang Kai-shek, and supplant them with Chinese loyal to the Communists.’ “The facts: * * * The letter does not say what Senator McCarruy asserts it did. What it does say is: ‘In the circumstances, we have to be extremely careful about our Chinese personnel. While we need to avoid recruiting any Chinese Communists, we must be careful not to be frightened out of hiring people who have loosely been accused of being Communists. * * * For our purpose, it 1s wise to recruit as APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD many unaffiliated Chinese as we can, to pick people whose loyalty will be reasonably assured on the cone hand by the salaries which we pay them and on the other hand by the fact that they do not receive salaries or subsidies from somewhere else’.” The purpose of the white paper is to prove that the Lattimore letter actually in- structed Barnes to avoid hiring Commu- nists. Now in this respect, in view of the fact that both the State Department and McCartHy have the facts, one or the other is a liar. Furthermore, both the State Department and McCarty had plenty of time to study this letter and the files which explain it. So that the lie of which the State Depart- ment or McCartuy is guilty must be deliberate. You will note the Lattimore letter tells Barnes to get rid of all Chinese except Dr. Chi and Chew Hong and to replace all of the discharged Chinese by employees from the New China Daily News. Now this, as you will note, is mixed up with 4 pages of double talk, Now I ask you to keep in mind those three names—-Dr. Chi, Mr. Chew Hong, and the New China Daily News. Those names are the key to this letter and the State Department’s fraudulent cover up. You editors will find that the Lattimore letter boils down to the statement ‘‘Keep Dr. Chi and Mr. Chew Hong as a nucleus, fire everyone else, and then hire only those connected with the New China Daily News.” Unless, of course, you have personal knowledge of the New China Daily News or have the information in the Government files on this Communist publication and unless you have the files of Dr. Chi and Chew Hong, you could easily be deceived by the State Department’s barrage in regard to this letter. I am, therefore, submitting to you the secret files on those two men who were indispensable to Lattimor’s opera- tions, showing that the Civil Service Com- mission had found that one of them was unfit for Government service because of his Communist connections and that the other had been rejected by one of the examiners because of his communistic activities, and that his case was still pending at the time Lattimore intervened to keep them both on. You will note also that the files show that Dr. Chi whom Lattimore fought to keep with him at all costs had been discharged as commissioner of education in Shansi Prov- ince in China because of his Communist activities. You will note also that at about the time of the Lattimore letter to Barnes the Civil Service Commission, at Lattimore’s request, reopened the case on Chew Hong and Chi. You will note that the files show that Latti- more stated that even if Hong were a Com- munist he still wanted him in this job. You will not further the official finding that the New China Daily News was a publication by and for the Communists and that both Hong and Chi had been editors of that Commu- Mist paper. You will also note from the files that Lat- timore was informed of the complete back-~ ground of Chi and Chew Hong, which in- cluded the fact that Chi’s son was a member of the Communist Party, and, in fact, so high up in its councils that me was a dele- gate to the Third International in Moscow. In connection therewith I call the Justice Department’s attention to Lattimore’s testi- mony on pages 1859 and 1860 of the record in which he states he never had any informa- tion from any source to indicate young Chi was a Communist. I also call your attention to the fact that Dr. Chi’s son had been designated by the Communists as their representative to the United Nations and is waiting until Latti-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD more, Acheson, and Trygve Lie maneuver the reccenition of Communist China. I further call your attention to the state- ment of Admiral McCullough in the Steely report to the effect that if Hong, who had bean declared ineligible kecause of his com- munistic activities, were to be removed that others higher up in the organization should go for the recson that the evidence against them was more,damaging than it was against Fong. Ycu will note frcm the file that all of the Com:munist activities of Chi and Hong and the fact that the New China Daily News was a Communist paper were brought to Latti- more’ attention, but that he nevertheless in- sisted that Chi and Hong be retained and his order to Barnes to hire only employees of the Communist paper still stood. New, ladies and gentlemen, this informa- tion was all known to the State Department when its white paper was issued. It was known to Mr. Barrett who was Lattimore’s and Chi’s boss in OWI—Barrett, who inciden- tally in his white paper says all of the OWI’s correspondence is now in the State Depart- ment and available to him. The evidence in the files of Chi and Hong forms merely one of the links in the Latti- more case that could have been supplied without using the files and frankly the files would not have been used for that purpose alone. The State Department cover-up changes the picture, however. It was only after it pecame obvious that the State Department was using its entire press corps to defend Lattimore that I decided to take this step. It will be necessary to reveal other files if the cover-up continues. This cover-up is worse even than the Lucas-Tydings-Mc-~ Mahon whitewash. It is deliberate fraud, organized and propagandized with one idea in mind; conceal, cover up, Keep from the American people the truth. This, ladies and gentlemen, makes one sick way down deep inside. I cannot stomach it. I am sure that you would noteither. I doubt that any American would. Ladies and gentlemen, I would consider it criminal for any elected official to stand idly by while this fraud is being perpetrated. For it is a sinister effort to avoid honesty. It bears a basic corrup- tion that permeates the State Department’s small closely knit high command. Instead of shooting square with the American people, we find men in high places who offer us bits and pieces of evidence to help them conceal instead of reveal the truth. These men are not paid to dishonestly protect reputations of the inner circle. They are paid to put it on the line for America, not to shufile off the bottom of the deck. This is not the time to play games with half-truths. We cannot afford the luxury of high-paid phonies peddling propaganda to protect the reputations of men who have proven themselves unworthy of the confi- dence of the American people. Let us call on those men once and for all to come clean. Let us make the honest voice of this land reverberate in their ears until they tell the truth, now and forever. The tracks of liars always leave a trail. In tracing for you tonight that trail, let me say now that wherever it leads, whoever is revealed walking in those tracks, the trail will be followed to the very end. We cannot and we will not be sidetracked now by sly men who would rather save their jobs than see America secure. In that white paper the State Depart. ment also called attention to another alleged falsehood in one of my speeches. Let me again quote therefrom: “5. Senator McCartHy said to the ASNE: ‘First let’s look at that perennial joiner, Dr. Philip Jessup, our Ambassador-at-large. *  * Why does he always join Commu- nist fronts? Why not anti-Communist cr- ganizations?’ “The facts: Dr. Jessup testified, before the sukcommuitee, that he had jomed no Com- munist-front organizations.” For your information I am enclosing in the folder for each of you photostats of five Communist-front organizations with which Jessup was affiliated. You will note that Mrs. Jessup appears on the executive com- mittse of a sixth Communist-front organi- zation. The reason for including this with the photostats on Philip Jessup is because of the close affiliation of Philin Jessup with this organization also. I again quote from the white paper in re- gard to Jessup: “6. Senator McCartuy said to the ASNE: “* %* * Dr. Jessup had control of the magazine Far Hastern Survey, when the Communist campaign in 1943 was initiated therein to smear Chiang Kai-shek and deify all the Communists. * * * I pointed out that he was head of the Research Ad- visory Board having complete control of the magazine during the height of the Commu- nist Party line campaign.” “The facts: Dr. Jessup was not chairman of the Research Advisory Committee of the American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations in 1948. He was merely one of 50 trustees of the American Council.” The purpose of this, of course, was to show that Mr. Jessup did not have charge of the Far Eastern Survey. You will note the clever double talk. They quote me as having stated that at the height of the Communist party-line campaign on the part of the Far Eastern Survey that Dr. Jessup was head of the Research Advisory Council which had complete control of the maga- zine. The “facis” they give were that he was not the chairman in 1943. © Now those who prepared the white paper had my speech before them. They knew that I did not say he was chairman in 1948. They knew I said he was chairman at the time the Communist smear reached its height, which was in 1944. Now here is a photostat to show that he was head of the Research Advisory Coun~ cil in 1944, at the height of its Communist Party line campaign, as I stated, and, ladies and gentlemen, photostats do not lie—and incidentally the Research Advisory Council has complete editorial control of the pub- lication. In connection with the statement, and [ quote: “He was merely one of 50 trustees of the American Council.” Let me quote Mr. Jessup’s own testimony under oath: “I was a member of the board of trustees of the American Council of the Institute from about 1983 untilmy resignation * * * in 1946. I was chairman of the board of trustees of the American Council during 1989 and 1940. I was the chairman of the Pacific Council from 1939 to 1942. I have also at various times served as a member of the executive committee of the American Council and in 1944 as chairman of the Re- search Advisory Committee.” I also pointed out to the ASNE that this publication controlled by Jessup and which was following the Communist Party line, was being sponsored by Communist money. At that time I had succeeded in obtaining photostats of checks totaling $3,500. The State Department in answering belittled the Communist money, stating that it to- taled only $3,500 as compared with a total expense of $200,000. Now, you can be sure that the State Department had the facts and knew exactly how much Communist money had been contributed to Jessup’s publication. It was very easy for them to get this information because all they had to do was to ask Jessup. Now, let us see how truthful they are about this figure of $3,500, A4161 Since that time I have succeeded in dig- ging up photostats of another $3,080, mak- ing a total of $6,500 paid to support the ~yitiece*on which Mr. Acheson’s Ambassa- Ce. t ‘» Jessup supervised. You editors Know how difficult it 1s to obtain a photc- stat of checks from an unfriendly scurce— an almost impossible task—-so you may be reasonably certain that when I have suc- ceeded in getting photostats totaling $6,500 that many, many more thousands of dollars of Communist money was used to support that publication. Photostats of those checks are also enclosed in the folder. Now Mr Budenz has suggested to the com- mittee that they subpena the records of the Communist, Field, who was signing the checks, but the Tydings committee says “No—we will use him and Browder as char- acter witnesses for Lattimore, but we will not put on the record the total amount of Communist money used to support Jessup’s publication, nor will we put on record what projects of other State Derartmert experts were supported by Field’s Corpus... funds.” It would not seem unreasonable to ask Messrs. Lucas, TYDINGS, and McMaHON to ex- plain why they fear the financial records of Mr. Field. I have no power to get those records. They can do it very simply by subpena. Ladies and gentlemen, I have suggested time after time that a man who uses Com- munist money to support a publication which is selling the Communist Party line, should under no circumstances whatsoever hold the high position of Ambassador at Large, in which position he is helping make the plans to spend billions of American dol- lars to fight communism. As I have said before, if Philip Jessup was too dull or too naive to know why the Com- munists were supporting the magazine which he was controlling, you can be certain that the Communists knew what they were buy- ing and made certain they were getting more than a dollar’s worth for every dollar spent. When this information was brought to Truman’s attention, immediate action was taken. This action consisted of giving Jes- sup top-secret clearance to A-~ and H-bomb information. And, in the face of this, there are those who say McCartuy’s tactics of pub- licly exposing these men is wrong. He should dig up the information in secret and secretly give it to the President. What think you, ladies and gentlemen? Ten days ago I stated I would spend some time tonight answering the now thoroughly discredited attack which Senator CHAVEZ made against Louis Budenz, one of the wit-~ nesses who is responsible for lodging many Communists in jail. However, in the mean- time CHaveEz’s attack has been thoroughly discredited and effectively answered by oth- ers more competent to do so than I. As many of you know, it is now an open secret that Cxavez had practically nothing to do with writing the speech and even had difficulty reading this typical Communist Party line attack put together with the assistance of a Communist lawyer—a Com- munist lawyer who certainly deserves & pro- motion in the party for having succeeded in using the floor of the United States Senate as a transmission belt. I suggest that you analyze that speech so that you may fully grasp the clever Commu- nist line, the creation of which the Senator from New Mexico is not capable. For ex- ample, let me read to you one short para- graph: “Members of the Senate and House should stop competing with the Executive branch of the Government in purging alleged sub- versives. This is a demand that all con- gressional committees stop trying to investi- gate Communist infiltration in the United States.” This certainly requires no comment.
A4162 I have been extremely happy that Protest~ ants, Jews, and Catholics have spontaneously come to the defense of Louis Budenz since this stupidly vile attack upon him, his wife, and his family It indicates that the Com- munist Party shall not be successful in its attempt to inject religious bigotry into this fight. “Now I was not disturbed in the least by this attack from the standpomt of its effect upon Louis Budenz. As we all know, for a period of time he was a top official of the Communist Party. However, since that time he has dedicated himself to the cause of Americanism. He has given unlimited help to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is in an all-out campaign to expose Commu-~ nists in dangerous places. This is being done at great risk to his life and to the repu- tation of himself, his wife, and his family. Thus he has truly carved for himself a place in the hearts and minds of all people who love America. Fach of these Communist inspired attacks upon Louis Budenz cause him to increase In stature and will not even remotely deter him from testifying against those who would destroy America. However, I was very deeply disturbed by the fact that Senator Typrnes, chairman of the committee which ordered Budenz to ap- pear, and Senator Lucas, majority leader of the Senate, on the Senate flaw scrre*7d this attack. In so doing they ww 7 scouts impeded the task of exposing Communists in our Government. Their actions notified every prospective witness that he and his wife and family would also be subjected to this type of in- sanely vicious communistically inspired smear if he dared to help expose Communists in Government. Unfortunately, it has had the effect of making it more difficult to ob- tain valuable witnesses who are less courage~ ous than Louis Budenz. Ladies and rerntiemen. in the brief time spent with you ic1sli I have tried to give you the high lights of a dificult and danger- ous situation that exists. You have as a flaming back drop to my remarks the facts of the world as you find them today. Commu- nism is no longer a creeping threat to America. It is a racing doom that comes closer to our shore each day. To resist it we must be intelligently strong. Such strength will come only from men and women dedicated to the whole hearted aefense of democracy. The average Amer- ican who constitutes the heart and soul of this Nation is so dedicated. We must be sure that those who seek to lead up today are equally dedicated. We cannot survive on half loyalties any more than we can find the facts of the Communist conspiracy with half truths. Reverend Herbert’s Sermon at Linton Hall Military School EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSK) OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, Linton Hall Military School is a grammar school for boys, and has classes up to the eighth grade. It is located near Bristow, Va., among the rolling hills and beautiful val- leys. Itis not far from where the bloody battle of Bull Run was fought. I wish to submit a short, but excellent, _aadress that was delivered by the Rev- erend Walter W. Herbert, of Alexandria’s St. Mary’s Church, to the boys attending this Catholic school on the Nineteenth Annual Military Day: A school is like a great tree which grows from a tiny seed planted in the depths of the earth. Each year, it puts forth leaves, and then, when they are mature, sends them out on the wings of the wind to all parts of the earth. And each one of these leaves pears unmistakably the mark of the tree from which it came. Fifty-six years ago, a seed was planted in this green valley. Now, it has grown and be- come a great school Which each year sends forth its students, each bearing the mark of the things he has learned here. Out from this valley they go, one by one, hat they may be lights to light up the dark- ness of our times. They go out that by the teachings of our Lord, they may be guides to lead in a world in which leadership has come to mean the same as force. The challenge which the world throws into the face of you who go out from this school is not an easy one, Here in classroom and chapel, you have learned of the gentle Christ and have been taught that you should obey Him. But if you try to be good, the only thing the world will say is that you are weak. Here you have been taught of the goodness of God, and yet if you believe in God, the only thing that men may say about you is that you are old-fashioned. Here you have been taught that your soul is more important than anything else in the world, but if you value your self-respect more than the opin- jons of others, the only thing that they may say about you is that you are foolish. They said the same things about our Blessed Lord in his day, and He knew that nearly 2,000 years later they would be making the same remarks about His followers, and that is why He could declare from another mountain to those sitting in another green valley: “Blessed are ye when they shall revile you and persecute you and speak all that is evil against you untruly for my sake, for your reward is very great in heaven.” (Matthew v: 11-12.) And that is why also, in the Sarcrament of Confirmation, He sent you the Holy Ghost, to make you strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of the King. But as you go out into the fight for Christ, we would that you be not merely fighters in the ranks, but leaders. We wish that your good example may shine before all that many may be moved to draw close to God because of you. It is a strange thing but true that @ soul which turns its back upon God is not satisfied to go along its own miserable way to destruction alone, but must draw others after. But if that is true, it is equally true that if a soul loves God it cannot rest until all around it love God also. That is why saints are so unpopular and disturbing to many in the world. That is why they are thought to be weak, old-fashioned, or fool- ish. That is the challenge that you have to face. This is the challenge for which you have been preparing these many years at Linton Hall. You will take many memories with you as you leave these grounds in a few short weeks. There will be memories of friends, of good times spent, of games won, of the give and take of school life, which is only a little pre- view of the give and take of your life outside. As the years go on and these things become dim in your memories, you will forget much of what has happened. But there is one thing about Linton Hall that few of you will ever be able to forget, and that is the sacri- fice and devotion to those who labor here. Fifty-six years ago, four nuns planted the seed that is today Linton Hall. The struggles that have intervened have not been easy. There have been dark days when all seemed lost, days of hardship and poverty, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD put in spite of all this, Linton Hall prospered. For it 1s like the hotise in Scripture: “The rains descended and the floods came, and the winds blew and dashed against that house and it fell not because it was founded upon a rock.” (Matthew vii: 25.) Those four brave souls have now become 84, and the origimal handful of students has become 247. And now a new hall must be ‘added to shelter the ever-growing number of those who come. Indced, these stones must rise and continue to rise in the years to come as a glowing tribute to the dreams of those who first planted the seed, and as 4 pledge that all those who have labored here have not labored in vain. May nothing that you ever do betray the trust that those who have been your teachers place in you as you go forth. May nothing that you ever do erase the mark which Lin- ton Hall places upon you, for it is the mark of the cross of our Lord. > May you keep your faith, may you love all men. If you do, then in the words of St. Paul: “T am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor ~“rne'net ties. ror powers, nor things prese "™ J nts to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate you from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans viii: 38-39.) Arming of the State of Israel EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN E. RANKIN OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 31, 1950 Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, under permission granted me to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I am inserting a petition from my good friend, Hon. George W. Armstrong, of Natchez, Miss., to the President of the United States with reference to arming the State of Israel at the expense of the American taxpayers. ‘We owe a duty to those Arabs who have occupied that country for approxi- mately 2,000 years. Many of them were Christians, and they were all on friendly terms with the United States until this so-called State of Israel was set up and recognized overnight by the administra- tion without consulting the Congress of the United States. For my part, Iam not willing to appro- priate money out of the pockets of the overburdened taxpayers of the United States to underwrite the Crucifixion, or carry on a war with a friendly people. Mr. Armstrong’s petition to the Presi- dent follows: May 27, 1950. To the President and the Congress of the United States. ‘ GENTLEMEN: The Associated Press of May 26, 1950, reported that Secretary of State Dean Acheson entered into an agreement with Prime Minister Attlee of Great Britain and Prime Minister Schuman of France, by which the United States would permit the shipment of arms to the State of Israel and to the Arab countries for alleged defense pur- poses, As an American citizen I protest against this unrighteous agreement. It is in fact an agreement to sanction the invasion of Arab homes and lands by the Zionists and deny the Arabs the power of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD self-defense. Israeli is supported by the Zionists of the world with unlimited funds for the purchase of arms and munitions, while the Arabs are poor and unable to cope with them. I therefore petition you to repudiate this vicious and unholy agreement, Respectfully submitted. Gro. W. ARMSTRONG. Growth of Business in the Southeast From 1939 to 1948 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL ELLIOTT OF ALABAMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, the fol- lowing facts about the 9 Southeastern States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, are confirmed by recent releases by the United States Bureau of the Census cov- ering the 1948 census of business: First. Between 1939 and 1948, retail trade in the States mentioned increased 252 percent, as compared to a 214 percent increase for the United States as a whole. The figures for 1939 are $4,500,- 000,000. The figures for 1948 are $16,- 000,060,000. Thus, these Southeastern States had a remarkable growth over this 9-year period as a consumer market. Second. Alabama retail sales had a re- markable growth during this period, growing from $436,000,000 in 1939 to $1,631,403,000 in 1948. This is an in- crease of 274 percent as compared with a 214 percent increase for the United States as a whole. Thus, Alabama’s in- crease is 60 percent greater than the United States increase. Alabama almost quadrupled her retail sales between 1939 and 1948. Mr. Speaker, these figures indicate that the South is experiencing great growth. New sources of income, im- proved methods of farming, diversifica- tion of agriculture, new industries, all are a part of the picture. As a part of my remarks, I include an article styled “Markets and Finance: Southeast’s boom officially confirmed,” by Joseph K. Heyman, which appeared in the Birmingham News, Sunday, May 28, 1950: MarKETs AND FINANCE: SouTHEAST’S Boom OrFIcIALLY CONFIRMED (By Joseph K. Heyman) ATLANTA, May 27.—The tremendous growth of the Southeast as a consumer market has been officially confirmed by figures from the 1948 Census of Business, current Census Bu- reau releases show. Stores and other retail outlets in nine Southeastern States rang up total sales of more than $16,000,000,000 in 1948. The total was $4,500,000,000 in 1939, the last census year. These figures are derived from prelimi~ nary reports of the 1948 Census of Business which are just now being released in piece- meal form. On the basis of thees reports we have calculated retail sales totals for each Southeastern State and for the region as @ whole. The final official figures may vary slightly from ours, but probably by not more than I or 2 percent. The Southeast enjoyed a sales gain of 252 percent between the two census counts. This is substantially better than the 214 per- cent gain for the United States as a whole. It is further evidence that Dixie is on the rise. Every State in the region beat the na- tional gain. The rankings of the percentage increases are shown in the accompanying chart. Florida and Alabama top the list. Both of these States almost quadrupled their re- tail sales between 1939 and 1948, The other seven States were close together, with increases ranging from Mississippi’s 251 Percent to Georgia’s 234 percent. The new census clearly confirms that the Southeast is a bigger part of the total United States market than it was prewar. It is a segment of the United States market which is continuing to grow, a fact that business- men throughout the Nation will carefully note. In the decade from 1929 to 1939, the South- east increased its share of the national trade dollar from less than 10 cents to more than 11 cents. By 1948, our share had jumped further to 12.5 cents. Every State in the Southeast except two— Mississippi and Alabama—shared the rise in retail sales between 1929 and 1939, relative to the United States as a whole. And all nine bettered the United States average gain between 1939 and 1948. Our huge jump in retail trade has come about mostly because of our hike in income. Total income payments before taxes were about $7,000,000,000 in 1989. This figure had ballooned to over $24,000,000,000 by 1948. In addition, Southerners spend a larger portion of their total incomes in retail stores. We have to, because our incomes are lower. We must pay more of our earnings out to the grocer, the druggist, the clothing salesman, etc., for the necessities of life. Nationally, retail stores took a little over €3 cents out of every dollar of income in 1948. In the Southeast, trade took about 671% cents from each dollar. We are closing the gap as compared with other United States citizens, however. In 1839, the average southerner spent 6 cents more out of each income dollar in retail trade than the average United States citizen. In 1948, we spent only 4 cents more than the average. Despite our great improvement in retail trade, we are still well below the national average on a per capita basis. The average southerner bought a total of $640 of mer- chandise from retailers in 1948, as compared with purchases of $880 per person for the country as a whole. We still have a way to go to reach the level of the rest of the country. The table below shows the dollar totals of retail sales for 1989 and 1948 by States and the percentage gain between the two censuses. Millions of dollars Percent change 1939 1248 Alabama......--------- 436 1, €31 +274 Florida... 615 2, 329 +279 Georgia..... 625 2, 086 +234 Louisiana. 486 1, €68 +243 Mississippi_.._ 282 S +251 North Carolina... 633 2,210 +249 South Carolina... 332 1,143 +244 ‘Tennessee..._.. co7 2,074 +242 Virginia... 62: 2, 200 +250 Southeast. __ 4, 644, 16, 331 +252 United State: 2, 120, 300 +210 A4163 Award to Twentieth Century Club of Iuka, Miss., in the Build-a-Better-Community Contest EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JOHN C. STENNIS OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, June 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, have been laudable and forward-looking sponsors of a Nation-wide Build-a- Better-Community Contest, which drew 2,912 entries. Prizes were awarded at the recent fifty-ninth convention of the federation. The Twentieth Century Club of Iuka, Miss., an organization of 17 women in a fine Mississippi city of 2,000 persons, was awarded the $10,000 sweepstakes prize for the Nation’s best betterment program and $5,000 for the best job done by a club with less than 50 members. For its project the club established an eye, ear, cnd nose clinic, brought in two doctors for a general health clinic, or- ganized garbage disposal, started a can- cer study unit, organized cub scout packs, bought a merry-go-round for a play- ground, ran a clean-up campaign, land- scaped parks and the yard for the Negro school, and instigated a dial telephone system. I take great pride in the outstanding achievements of these fine ladies, who had the cooperation of the inhabitants of this splendid little city and wish to com- mend all of them publicly for their unselfish devotion to the public interest and the outstanding accomplishments of their combincd efforts. I see this as an- other indication of the progress Missis- sippi and the entire South are making. The report of the splendid achieve- ments of these patriotic and forward- looking ladies is of value and interest to the Members of the Congress and the people of the Nation, and I therefore request unanimous consent that the attached news item from the Washing- ton Post of June 2 be inserted in the Appendix of the Rrecarp. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: MississirP1 Crus ToPrs—FEDERATION NaMeEs NINE CONTEST WINNERS Boston, June 1 (U. P.).—The Twentieth Century Club, of Iuka, Miss., an organization of 17 women, won $15,000 in prizes tonight for a “face lifting’ operation on Iuka—a town of 2,000 persons. The prizes were awarded at the fifty-ninth convention of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, sponsors of a Nation-wide “Build a Better Community” contest which drew 2,912 entries. The Mississippi women’s group was one of nine clubs honored by the federation for civic improvement programs. Iuka won a $10,000 “sweepstakes” prize for the Nation’s best betterment program and $5,000 for the best job done by a club with less than 50 members.
A4164 Honored by President Truman as “one of the most vital forces in American democ~ racy,” the Iuka Club won top honors for work done almost entirely by the 17 club members. For its project the club established an ‘eye, ear, and nose clinic, brought in two doctors for a general health clinic, organized gar- page disposal, started a cancer-study unit, organized cub-scout packs, bought a merry- go-round for a playground, ran a clean-up campaign, landscaped parks and the yard for @ Negro school, and instigated a dial tele- phone system. Other winners of $5,000 prizes were the Tippecanoe County Federation of Women’s Clubs, Lafayette, Ind., for establishing a Girl Scout camp, and the Senior and Junior Women’s Clubs of Marianna, Fla., for work in combating hookworm disease in Jackson County, Fla. Prizes of $3,000 went to the Sorosis Club, of Orlando, Fla.; the Cosmos, Fidelis, and Searchlight Clubs, of Overbrook, Kans.; and the El Progreso Club, of Alpine, Tex. Other national contest winners were the Harrodsburg Women’s Club, of Harrodsburg, Ky.; the Junior Chilhowee, of Maryville, Tenn.; and the Twentieth Century, Study, and Women’s Clubs, of Roilla, N. Dak., each of which was awarded $2,000. President Truman’s message, read at the presentation ceremonies, said the federa- tion’s contest is “helping to strengthen de- mocracy at its very foundations in the local community.” “Communist and other totalitarian states believe in running affairs from the top down,” Mr. Truman said. “In the United States we are proving how superior it is to carry on our Government from the grass roots upward.” Prize money, donated by the Kroger Co., Midwest retail food chain, is to be used toward furthering civic-improvement proj- ects. The contest awards high-lighted the third day of a meeting of 2,500 delegates rep- resenting 11,000,000 clubwomen in the United States and ‘abroad. No Whitewash, Please EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND OF CALIFORNIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, June 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp an edi- torial entitled “No Whitewash, Please,” which appeared in the May 23 issue of the Oroville (Calif.). Mercury. There being no objection the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: No WHITEWASH, PLEASE—WASHINGTON Post PROPOSES TO Frzsp CONFIDENCE TO THE PEO- PLE-——-WE Want SOMETHING BETTER Things are at a pretty pass in Washington, The Capital has been “seized and convulsed by a terror,” according to the Washington Post, which comes out with a full-page edi- torial about it—an editorial that apparently has been reproduced in many large news- papers throughout the country, for it ap- peared in the San Francisco Chronicle in full-page display form. The Post devotes the space to a denuncia- tion of witch hunts such as have gripped Washington. By witch hunts it refers to such campaigns as that conducted by Sen-~ ator McCartuy, who has been making rather wild charges directed at the State Depart- ment. The Post refers to the cancerous growth of totalitarianism, the great menace of Russia and Russia’s fanatical fifth column in every country, including ours, which is menacing our safety. The Post comes up with a solution. It demands appointment of a commission of leading citizens to assess our over-all secur- ity ‘and to give to the American people the fullest possible information.” The commis- sion would be appointed by the President and would be nonpartisan, etc., etc. Two-thirds of the page is devoted to de- nouncing witch hunts. They are so bad that it is trite to denounce them. The ques- tion is, what causes witch hunts and would @ nonpartisan commission, as advocated by the Post, remove the causes back of witch hunts, The editorial devotes some space to the present plight of the State Department and cites this: *Revilement of our diplomats has come to such a pass that in a recent line-up for tickets for a symphony concert in Washing- ton a man who admitted to a reporter that he was from the State Department was pub- licly laughed at.” Such is the situation. Can a correction be made without getting at the cause? We think not. Then, what was the cause? We submit that Senator McCartry, liber- ally dealt with in the Post’s editorial, would have got no where with the public had he not had a rich field in which to sow his seeds of distrust. Here are some facts that all remember, but should be set down here to explain what led up to the present sad situation with regards the State Department: In 1945 the State Department helped to hush up the Amerasia case so that the pub- lic never got to know how it happened that hundreds of State Department documents were stolen. No one ever was brought to trial although six were arrested. Two were assessed small fines on pleas of guilty. The cases of the others were dropped. The Amerasia scandal would have died right there had it not been for the Hiss case, Years ago many of the facts in the Hiss case were taken to the State Department by Whittaker Chambers, but the State Depart- ment sneered it down. The Hiss case sim- mered along until Congressman Nixon broke it open in the House Un-American Activi- ties Committee. Now Hiss stands convicted as a traitor. Hiss had been very prominent in the State Department, helped write the United Nations Charter and stood behind President Roosevelt at Yalta when China was sold out to Stalin. Even after Hiss was con- victed, the Secretary of State rould not turn his back on him. Still the State Department might have escaped the witch hunt had it not been for the Fuchs exposure, with which it had noth- ing to do, and the loss of China to the Com- munists, with which it had everything to do. After the sell-out of Chiang Kai-shek at Yalta, where Hiss was operating “on our side,” the Russians proceeded to move in on China, and a vigorous and influential clique in the State Department proceeded to be- little Chiang and praise the Communists, They influenced Secretary of State Marshall until his uterances caused Chiang to lose face sufficiently to lose all. This major defeat for United States policy—a loss that nullified most of what we had fought for in the war of the Pacific— placed the State Department in a vulnerable position, to the extent that all the other faux pas came up to slap it in the face. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. These are the reasons for the present witch hunt, if such it is. The country isn’t con- vinced it is just a witch hunt, thinks some~ thing else exists that has not been uncovered, and that the State Department may have been covering up. Give a man or a department a bad reputa. tion and he or it must work himself out of it the hard way. It is not enough merely to call it a witch hunt and dismiss it—by appointing a com- mission “of leading citizens.” Meanwhile the President, who has refused data to Congressmen, finally lets them see it, but not to make notes, not to take their attorneys with them, not this and not that. Meanwhile the President breaks down the nonpartisan foreign policy by his actions and the Republicans take the opportunity to blame the State Department, and make it stick, too. No, you can’t salve the American people by appointing a commission of leading citizens to pass glorified hand-outs to the press. The State Department must show by its actions that it will not tolerate infiltration by Com- munists and will not tolerate Communist-~ inspired policy. It will take time for it to work itself back into the confidence of the American people, but it will take more time than necessary if it and the President don’t start now, instead of following the white wash proposal of the Washington Pest. “Tories” Using Teachers to Warp Young Minds; “Heat” on Churches EXTENSION OF REMARKS ay HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, the enclosed article reveals the clever way in which big business has set out to beat the Democratic Party and the Fair Deal ’ program that was adopted by the Demo- cratic convention. This article appeared in last week’s issue of the progressive and very alert weekly newspaper, Labor. “ToRIES’” UsING TEACHERS To WarP YounG Minps; “Heat” oN CHURCHES Close all your town’s schools for the day. March the teachers to a labor union hall. Give them a fancy dinner, and talks on the misdeeds of big business and political reac- tionaries. Tell them to pass this “infor- mation” along to their school children. Impossible? Businessmen would “raise the roof” if anything like that were tried in your town? They certainly would, but they are doing exactly that kind of thing in cities and towns all over the country. How it is being done wholesale in one State is told in a series of articles in the Madison (Wis.) Capital Times, progressive paper published by “Bill” Evjue, who knows propaganda when he sees it. “BeI-E DAYS” The National Association of Manufactur- ers and the United States Chamber of Com- merce, the articles explain, have joined in & program of Business-Industry-Education Days. Labor exposed this program when it was first revealed about a year ago. Since then, it is now disclosed, B-I-E Days have been held “in a score of Wisconsin commu- nities.” In each of them, a program carefully planned by the NAM and ©. of ©. was fol-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD lowed by local businessmen. has these steps: The schools are closed, either all day, or at least half a day. The businessmen take the teachers on “personally conducted” tours through local industrial plants, BANQUETS FOR TEACHERS Then comes a “banquet in the evening, at which the teachers are fed and enter~ tained by the local chamber of commerce or some other organization of business or in- dustry. “At each of these banquets there was a speaker—usually a prominent local banker, pusinessman, or industrialist. “An analysis of the addresses given at half a dozen of these B-I-E days in Wisconsin communities reveals the following dominat- ing themes: . “1, High taxes are Killing private enter~ prise and initiative. “2, The Truman health program is the same as socialism or communism. “3. Government regulation of business is ruining the American way of life. “4, Teachers should tell their pupils that freedom in America is being stifled by radical plans made in Washington. “5. Government spending leads to com- munism. “6, Public housing, publicly owned electric power systems, and public welfare programs are leading the United States to socialism.” FORM CHILDREN’S THINKING At Stevens Point, Wis., for example, over 200 school teachers heard a B-I-E Day speech by Carl N. Jacobs, corporation president and a director of the United States Chamber of Commerce. Jacobs gave the usual scare talk about the welfare state, complained that “business is maligned by those whose sym-~ pathies are for Government or labor,” urged the teachers to carry his message hack to their schools, and told them this: “You can inspire the youth of today to choose its form of society. The choice will, in large measure, be determined by the kind of thinking you stimulate.” Could anything be plainer than that? Plant our propa~ ganda in children’s minds, reactionary big- pusiness spokesmen tell the teachers, and the children will grow up thinking what we ‘want them to think. When George E. Watson, Wisconsin State superintendent of schools, was asked about these B-I-E days, he said they were perfectly proper. But when asked whether he would approve closing the schools for a Labor Union Day, he said, “I will have to think that over.” “HEAT PUT ON CHURCHES This column has discussed John T. Flynn’s reactionary propaganda book ‘The Road Ahead. Hundreds of thousands of a boiled- down version of it are heing distributed by the so-called Committee for Constitutional Government. The complete book contains a chapter 10, which attacks the Federal Council of Churches. That organization, composed of liberal churchmen of various Protestant de- nominations, champions progressive meas- ures and the cause of labor. The Reader’s Digest magazine, which orig- inally published the pboil-down of Flynn’s book, also printed a nasty article by Stanley High about what he called Methodism’s pink fringe. This article also was an attack upon liberal churchmen, NNO ONE SAFE FROM SLANDER Why are these attacks significant? Be- cause they show that not even prominent and obviously respectable church members and ministers are safe from slander as pinks and Reds, if they dare to challenge the reac- tionary interests represented by such propa- gandists as Flynn and High. As an eminent Presbyterian minister re- cently wrote Labor: “The ‘heat’ is being The program turned upon the churches. Ministers who have long stood with you for social justice are being persecuted by a smear campaign. Pressure is being put on us to go backward from our social viewpoints.” REA Power Lines in South Carolina EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GUY M. GILLETTE OF IOWA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, June 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcorD a communication by Claude R. Wickard, Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration, relating to REA power lines in South Carolina. The communication was published in the Washington Post of today. There being no objection, the commu- nication was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorpD, as follows: REA Power LINES IN SouTH CAROLINA (By Claude Wickard, Administrator, Rural Electrification Administration) A .full-page advertisement by the South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. in the Washing- ton Post of May 21 charged the Rural Elec- trification Administration with a misuse of Federal funds. Because of the national influence which your paper exerts and because of the false, misleading, and unfair statements and im-~ plications contained in the advertisement, we are taking this means of calling to your attention and the attention of your readers the facts regarding our lending policy in general and the facts in this case in par- ticular. The power company advertisement was di- rected specifically against a loan of $7,595,= 500 made by the Rural Electrification Ad- ministration in January 1949, to the Central Electric Power Cooperative of South Caro- lina for the construction of transmission lines. These lines will bring low~cost hydro- electric power from the Santee-Cooper Dam to rural areas served by REA cooperatives in South Carolina. The authority of the REA Administra- tor to make loans not only for distribution lines but also for generation and transmis- sion facilities was clearly set forth by the Congress in the Rural Electrification Act. Although not required under the law, it has been REA policy since the beginning of the program to make loans to finance gen~ eration and transmission facilities only where one of two conditions exists: Hither that an adequate and dependable supply of wholesale power .is not available to meet the cooperatives’ needs, or that a saving can be achieved in the cost of power to rural con- sumers. This policy is well known and has been reviewed from time to time by various committees of Congress. The application from the South Carolina cooperatives satis- fied not merely one but both of the require- ments listed above. This loan will bring about a saving aver- aging more than a quarter of a million dollars annually over the life of the loan for farmers of the State under rates they have been paying. Furthermore, with power from Santee-Cooper Dam delivered over their own transmission system, the rural people will be assured of adequate power to meet their growing needs. As to the adequacy of the present facile ities in the area, Chairman Winchester A4165 Smith, of the South Carclina Public Service Commission had this to say before the REA loan was approved: “The power transmis- sion lines in lower, central, and eastern South Carolina are wholly inadequate * * * there is a woeful shortage of dis- tribution lines, inadequate service and power in the area above-mentioned.” Contrary to the impression the advertise- ments tried to create, the transmission sys- tem to be built by the co-ops will not only improve service and effect a saving for the present 43,000 consumers, but will assure adequate low-cost power that will enable the co-ops to bring electric service for the first time to about 25,000 additional rural families. No duplication of lines is involved. Only akout one-fourth of the co-op lines will parallel the commercial utility facilities and in these cases the co-op lines are neces- sary to carry additional loads that the utility lines are not capable of handling. When a single-lane highway becomes so overcrowded that it cannot carry the traffic, the addition of another lane may be paral- lelling, but it certainly cannot be classed as duplication. Any Arlington or Alexan- dria motorist will testify that the new Potomac Bridge does not represent any un- necessary duplication of the Highway Bridge. The existing transmission facilities of the power companies were constructed to serve municipalities and densely populated areas. They were not built to handle the loads which the cooperatives have created in areas the power companies would not serve. The sole purpose of the REA loan is to enable the co-ops and the rural people to serve themselves with ample low-cost power over transmission lines designed and con- structed specifically to meet their needs. The loans made by REA must be repaid to the Government with interest. The repay- ment record of REA borrowers is outstand- ing. Therefore, these loans are no burden on the taxpayers of the Nation and there is no basis whatever for the insinuation that this loan will waste at least $9,000,000 of your money. The charge that the loan will result in killing the power company is palpably ab- surd. The cooperatives cannot take away from the company any business the company itself has developed. The only business in- volved in the REA loan is the business which they, the cooperatives, have themselves de- veloped and which they have been giving to the power company through their purchase of wholesale power. And, according to its own statement to the SEC, the power com- pany’s sale of power to the electric coopera- tives amounts to less than 1 percent of its total revenues. The cooperatives are simply exercising their right, as private business enterprises, to purchase wholesale power where they find it most advantageous. Obviously, this is fully in accord with our system of free enter- prise. On the other hand, a serious threat to our system of free enterprise lies in the actions of the power company, which wants to interfere with the free economy by main- taining a monopoly situation which would give the cooperatives no alternative and would force them to buy their power from the company on the latter’s terms. It is a matter of record that at the time the Santee-Cooper Authority was created the companies were charging the coopera- tives 11 to 14 mills per kilowatt-hour for power. They had the field to themselves and they opposed the development of power at Santee-Cooper. When this effort failed and the dam was built they insisted that they buy all the power and transmit it to the co- operatives at high rates. They successfully opposed the building of transmission lines by Santee-Cooper to carry the low-cost power to the rural electric cooperatives. It was only after repeated requests of the Santee-Cooper Authority and the cooperatives that the
A4166 power companies reluctantly reduced their rates to the cooperatives. The South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., which Mr. McMeekin represents, put up the strongest resistance to this request but fi- nally agreed to charge a 714-mill rate on the company lines. In addition, the cooperatives had to bear the cost of bringing the power from the company lines to their load centers. This 744-mill rate was in effect at the time REA made the loan to the cooperatives to put in their own central transmission sys- tem, which would deliver power from San~ tee-Cooper to their load centers at 6 mills per kilowatt-hour. On May 22, the day after the full-page advertisement appeared in the New York, Washington, and South Carolina newspa- pers, the cooperatives received a letter from Mr. MeMeekin stating that he had reduced the rate to 544 mills. Obviously, this latest reduction, coming 16 months after the loan was made, was for the purpose of confusing the issue and it should be viewed in the light of Mr. McMeekin’s prolonged and stub- born resistance to making Santee-Cooper power available to rural electric cooperatives at a reasonable cost. If Mr. McMeekin had been successful in his opposition to Santee-Cooper and the efforts of REA cooperatives to reduce power costs, the rural people in South Carolina would be paying so much for their power that it would be impossible for them ta realize maximum benefits from this essential service. It also would have precluded the possibility of thousands of farm families in the State getting electric service under the area-coverage policy of the co-ops. During the time that REA had the co-op’s application under consideration, power com- panies were given many opportunities to present their case. In April 1948, South Caro- lina power company officials conferred with us regarding the proposed loan. Again on December 21, they were invited to a con- ference with REA. Neither at this meeting nor at any other time was a firm offer made Which was nearly as favorable to the co-~ operatives as the Central Electric Power Co- operative plan, taking into account the com- bined factors of price, quality of service, and assured ability to deliver the amounts of power needed, During January 1949 representatives of the South Carolina companies outlined two al- ternative plans, Neither contaimed concrete rate proposals and both were indefinite and unsatisfactory in many other respects. On the basis of these facts, REA approved the loan and executed a loan contract with the South Carolina cooperative officials. This means REA has entered into a binding agree- ment with the cooperative to advance the loan money under the terms of the contract. REA has no legal right to withhold funds now on the basis of proposals made subse- quent to the loan by the power companies unless these proposals are approved and submitted to us by the cooperative. CuaupE R. WICKARD. WASHINGTON. Jet Transports EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON OF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, June 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Reconp an editorial entitled “Jet Trans- ports,” which appeared in the Washing- ton Post for Sunday, May 28. The edi- torial relates to a bill, recently reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which would authorize the Government to flight-test new aircraft. As it is pointed out in the editorial, both Britain and Canada have experimented extensively with jet transports, and have proved their practicability beyond doubt, Meanwhile, American aircraft manufac- turers have not produced a jet transport, nor do they have plans for doing so. I hope that soon we may see an American- designed transport equipped with a tur- bo-prop engine. . Iam also very happy that the Presi- dent has sent the name of Mr. John Mc- Cone to the Senate for confirmation as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force. Mr. McCone, together with Secretary Finletter of the Air Force, served with distinction on the President’s Air Policy Commission, and made an intensive study of the whole field of aeronautics. I believe Mr. McCone and Secretary Fin- letter will make a brilliant team which will assure the United States maximum security in the field of air power. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Jer TRANSPORTS The recent flight of a Canadian jet airliner from Toronto to New York in less than an hour emphasizes the sad position of this country with respect to jet transports. To date there is not a single jet-powered pro- totype for civil use, and the military has shown no disposition to pioneer jet craft which might be adapted for airline traffic. Meanwhile, both Britain and Canada have experimented extensively with jet transports and have proved their practicability beyond doubt. All this gives added importance to the Johnson bill now before the Senate Inter- state Commerce Committee to authorize the Government to defray the costs of testing new transport aircraft. Unlike a similar bill to provide Government help for develop= ing new private planes—a field which, de- spite the decline in sales, the manufacturers are capable of financing and marketing— this is a virgin territory. Neither the air- craft manufacturers nor the airlines can bear the expense of developing jet trans- ports, though the airlines undoubtedly would buy models already proved. Yet several good engines are available for prototypes, one more efficient and more powerful than the British counterpart. The combination of jet power with propellers in the new turbo- prop engine gives promise of being as eco- nomical as the conventional piston-type en- gine, and incomparably faster. ‘American progress in jet transports is vitally related to national defense, because in wartime the military is certain to fall back on civilian airlines to supply rapid transportation. In any future war conven- tional planes will be hopelessly slow and outmoded. Yet if there is to be jet-trans- port development, it is apparent that the Government will have to help. Prebably it is too late to expect the Johnson bill to be Included in this year’s appropriations, though it has the approval of the Bureau of the Budget. But certainly Congress ought to pass the authorizing legislation for im- plementation next year. Provision for con- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tinued progress in aircraft development is a good deal more important than most of the pork-barrel projects voted with such abandon. The South Is a Cattle Count-y EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL ELLIOTT Or ALABAMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, the South is potentially the greatest cattle country in the United States. Cotton acreage control allotments are hasten- ing a realization of this fact. Alabama increased the number of its cattle in 1949 by 11 percent. Quality is also improving at a rapid pace . Our climate, our high annual rainfall, our 10 to 12 months grazing season, our ability to grow grain crops with which to supplement our grasses and clovers, are some of the factors that will make us a great cattle country. Under leave to extend my remarks, I include an article on this subject from a recent issue of the Gulf Breeze, pub- lished in New Orleans, La.: Tue SourH Is a CarTinE COUNTRY We now have 53 head of cattle per hun- dred people in the United States—80,000,000 cattle for 151,000,000 people. The ratio of cattle to people has varied during the past 25 years from 48 per hundred people in 1928 to 62 cattle per hundred people in 1944, Cattle numbers per capita are still below average and are not likely to become exces= sive during the next several years. In the period January 1, 1949, to January 1, 1950, there was a decrease in cattle popula- tion in California, Oregon, Montana, Wyo- ming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colo- rado, and New Mexico and only an increase of 8 percent in Texas and Michigan, an in- crease of 2 percent in Washington, Nevada, and Utah, and an increase of 1 percent in Nebraska, Eansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio, and no increase in Idaho. There was an increase of 1 percent in New England, 2 percent in New York, 2 percent in Pennsylvania. During this same period there was an increase in Oklahoma of 7 per- cent, Louisiana 8 percent, Mississippi 10 per- cent, Florida 10 percent, Arkansas 11 per- cent, Alabama 11 percent, and Georgia 11 percent. There were also definite increases in Tennessee and South and North Carolina. It is interesting to compare the animal increase with increase in population of peo- ple. In 1940 we had in the continental United States, excluding possessions, 131,669,- 275 people. In 1950 we probably have 151,- 000,000 people. During the past 10 years the earning power of the American people has increased much more rapidly than has the population. We have 20,000,000 more people with more than double their former earnings, to buy livestock products, includ- ing dairy and poultry products. We show only a slight increase in cattle and hogs and a tremendous decrease in sheep; but a rapid increase in population and an even more rapid increase in purchasing power. With @ minimum wage of 75 cents per hour as contrasted with a wage of 75 cents a day within the memory of many of us, the Amer- ican people can afford to and do eat more meat, milk, and poultry products than ever efore,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Only a few years ago the country west of the Mississippi River produced approximately 70 percent of all the cattle, and the country east of the Mississippi River consumed ap- proximately 70 percent of all livestock pro- duced. The growth in population in many sections in the East has been small but growth west of the Mississippi has been tre- mendous. California and other Western States for- merly shipped to other sections a great part of the cattle and dairy products produced in that section. Their industrial population has increased so rapidly that these States now cannot supply enough of the livestock products to feed their own people and other sections are shipping beef, pork, and even dairy products into these States that for- merly exported much of their production. The west coast is rapidly becoming indus- trialized. The range country of the West where cattle have been produced is shrinking in area year by year, comparatively fewer people are living on the farm, and thousands have moved to industrial cities. Besides this, erosion, dust storms, drought, and hydroelectric development has had a tend- ency to decrease the grazing area. In the South, and especially the Southeast, (God’s country) the number of cattle is in- creasing rapidly and the quality is improving even more rapidly. We are learning to stop erosion and are learning to build good, per~ manent 12-month pastures, and we are rap-~ idly learning to produce more grain—more corn and more small grain. We are becoming the great Clover Belt of the Nation, not only from the standpoint of pastures, but also from the standpoint of seed. We have in~ creased and improved our marketing and processing facilities until now every farmer has a market and many communities have good markets and processing plants. Our businessmen—bankers, merchants, manufacturers, and distributors—as well as our farmers, need to become cattle-minded. They need to know more about the value of livestock on the farm—how it increases the per capita agricultural wealth and how it fur- nishes additional income for the lawyer, the doctor, the banker, the mechant, and every- one not on the farm. The farmer himself needs to realize the dignity of agriculture and especially the dignity of the cow. All farmers cannot be dairymen, beef-cat- tle farmers, sheep, hog, or poultry farmers, but there is a place on every southern farm for some livestock. First, we need livestock, dairy products, and poultry products to bet~ ter feed our own people. We have countless thousands of people even on our farms, to say nothing of the towns and cities, who do not consume enough livestock and poultry products. This is true all over the United States but especially true in the South where we have many farmers who do not have milk for their families, do not have butter to spread on their bread, and do not know the value of the various types of cheese. We have farmers who do not have enough eggs to supply the family and who rarely ever have a chicken for home use. If every American would add 10 cents a day to his meals in the form of some live- stock product it would require more than a billion bushels of corn to produce the food consumed by this additional 10 cents expenditure on the part of American eaters. If we consumed more of these health-giving protein foods we would enjoy better health and we would also enjoy a better prosperity. The Northwest and West simply cannot compete with the South in the production of livestock when the average southern farmer learns the value of good, permanent pastures, the need of better markets, and the necessity for better types of livestock and poultry. A cow producing 6,000 pounds of milk is worth five times as much as a cow producing 2,000 pounds. A hen that lays 50 more eggs than the average hen is of real value and if the average hen in the South could be made to produce 50 more eggs than are now produced, poultry would be profitable. But we do not produce as many pounds of beef as some sections, and we do not pro- duce as many eggs per hen; and it is simply because we are not trying to do a good job. We can become the great livestock section of the Nation—we should—we must—and we will—when we learn to utilize our natural advantages and learn to work more and play less, to plan more and dream less, and to have a pride in agriculture rather than a hope to get off the farm. We have the climate, the grasses, the clovers, the water, and the advantages of a superior freight rate to the great consum- ing markets. We must quit dreaming and sleeping and get busy and every one of us assume the responsibility of doing our full part to develop our country. What has been said as to cattle and poultry could be said with even more emphasis as to sheep. The sheep population of the United States has decreased 35 percent in 10 years. There is hardly a section in our dis- trict that could not profitably carry a few sheep. The lime lands of Alabama and Mis- sissippi and the brown loam lands and the red lands of all of our three States can pro- duce excellent pastures, and we should have within a few years 10 times the number of sheep in this district that we now have. Eighth Annual Tournament of Orators EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT R. O’CONOR OF MARYLAND IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, June 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp a statement refer- ring to the eighth annual tournament of orators. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: We have long recognized the fact that a more thorough knowledge of American his- tory and a better understanding of the contributions of our great forefathers to- ward the development of our constitutional form of government is necessary for the building of solid Americanism—indeed, it is the cornerstone of good citizenship. Very recently there occurred an incident in Maryland which I should like to call to the attention of the Senate, an incident which has profound significance in the de- velopment of young minds throughout the Nation toward a more steadfast appreciation of their privileges as Americans. The incident to which I refer is the eighth annual Tournament of Orators, sponsored throughout the Nation by the Hearst news- papers under the guidance of Mr. William Randolph Hearst, the eminent publisher. Each year, the Hearst newspapers select one of our outstanding forebears as a per- sonality to be eulogized by high-school and college students of America, in competition for some $25,000 in prizes and trips to the city staging the national finals. This year, James Madison, fourth Presi- dent and father of the Constitution under A4167 which we live and enjoy our liberty and freedom, was chosen. Forensic competitions were staged in the metropolitan areas and attracted thousands of students into the long, grueling series of elimination contests. Then, on Friday, May 12, the finalists from the Pacific coast, the Midwest, and the East coast met in Baltimore to determine the national champions of the high-school and college divisions. It was my privilege and pleasure to have attended this inspiring scene, attended also by outstanding public officials and members of the judiciary, including jurists of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, and the chief judge of the supreme bench of Bal- timore. This tournament was widely commended for its great contribution to the develop- ment of young students into a spirit of ap- preciation of what their citizenship means to them, including commendations from a number of distinguished Members of the Senate itself. For the record, I should like very much to set forth some of these tributes to the Hearst newspapers, for it is my considered opinion these newspapers have rendered in~ valuable service to the Nation at a time when our every thought should be directed toward loyalty and steadfastness in support of our American institutions. From the Supreme Court of the United States: Mr. Justice Stanley Reed: “The contest that the Hearst newspapers are sponsoring makes an important contri- bution toward a better understanding of our Constitution. I hope that it will be most successful.” Hon. Minntarp E. Typincs, Senator from Maryland: “Of the three men preeminent in estab- lishing the Constitution—Washington, Madi- son, Marshall—James Madison has been named with historic justice, the father of the Constitution. Calm, studious, tolerant, deliberate, his constructive ability and con- Ciliatory disposition fitted him admirably to take the leading part in the development and formulation of this instrument ‘of our liberties. I am happy to see honor being paid to this great American to the end that all may become better acquainted with the foremost architect of our constitutional form of government.” Hon. Harry F. Brrp, Senator from Virginia: “There has never been a time when all of us needed more to be conscious of what our Constitution means to us, to realize the blessings it bestows upon us every day, and to rededicate ourselves to its fundamental principles. “To study the life and works of James Madison is to do all these things, and there- fore I congratulate you upon the selection of President Madison as the subject of the eighth annual Tournament of Orators and compliment you on the fine work ycu are doing through this competition. “Of course I am pleased that you should select such an eminent Virginian as the subject for this year’s orations. He shared honors with Thomas Jefferson as founder of the Virginia democracy and with Jefferson and others as founder of the American Democratic Party. He served as a repre- sentative of his community in the Virginia Legislature, and as a Representative of his State in Congress. He served his friend Thomas Jefferson as his Secretary of State, and he served his Nation as its President. “But, with all his other public service, he is best known in the histery of our country as the “father of our Constitution.” In my opinion no man could ask for greater honor, and it is gratifying that the students of
A4168 this Nation should do him honor at this time.” Hon. A. Winuis Rogzrtson, Senator from Virginia : “Virginia contributed to the Colonial fight for freedom the greatest galaxy of unique minds and characters ever furnished in a limited area to a great cause. “Washington, with little formal education, contributed a leadership based primary upon his unselfishness and ureurrescsed In- tegrity. Patrick Henry, the “srrrk plus’ of the Revolution, furnished the roast e'cquent voice this Nation has ever produced; in fact I would rate him as one of the greatest orators of all time; Jefferson furnished the leadership of a brilliant mind, highly trained, and I rate him as our greatest political philosopher. “But it remained for the analytical mind and legal training of James Madison to pre~ sent the meaning of the Constitution to the Thirteen Sovereign States in a way that prought about its ratification by the neces- sary majority. But for Madison, Virginia would not have ratified; and if Virginia had not, the new Nation would not have been formed. “In my opinion, the name of Madison must be included among the truly great statesmen. of history who have helped to shape the destiny of the world. It, therefore, is most appropriate that the News-Post should use the name of Madison in connection with its Tournament of Orators, which will focus the attention of our youth on the lives and ac- complishments of the founding fathers who made this Nation great.” Hon. Warren G. Macnuson, Senator from Washington: “Your annual Tournament of Orators hon- oring President James Madison is an inspira- tion to American youth. My very geod wishes go to you and the participants.” Hon. Henry Cazsot Lopez, Jr., Senator from Massachusetts: . “The Hearst Newspapers are to be congrat~ ulated in sponsoring this national contest and I send the finalists my very best wishes.” Hon. MarGaReT CHASE Suir, Senator from Maine: “Our’ greatest hope for the future will come through our young people and I know of no greater contribution than the one that you and your associates are making in im- pressing youth with the need for apprecia= tion of the basic principles of American freedom.” Five distinguished American educators served as judges to select the two national winners. Those chosen were Agnes Mary Ott, of Mount Mary College, Milwaukee, and John Rydgren, of Franklin High School, Seattle, Wash. Each was presented a $1,000 Government savings bond which the Federal Reserve bank in Baltimore had filled out pack stage and made ready for presentation as soon as the judges’ findings were made known. It was a historic event and its inspiration will be felt tor many years by those who wit- nessed it. The Hearst Newspapers have per- formed an exemplary service to the Nation. The Civil-Rights Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CLYDE R. HOEY OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, June 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp an article by Mr. Frank R. Kent in the Washington Evening Star of June 4, 1950, discussing the civil-rights program, in which he de- scribes the whole movement as political. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Crvin-RicHTs Program TERMED PoLITIcaL An incontestable fact about politics in this country—and, probably, in any country—is that lying and hypocrisy steadily mcrease as the voting population grows. The larger the vote, the more fruitful the field for the dema-~ gogues and faKkirs. Beyond dispute, this is the basic reason for the cheapening of our public service during the last two decades in which the vote in presidential elections has gone from 38,000,- 000 in 1932 to 49,000,000 in 1948. The esti- mate for 1952 is approximately 55,000,000. Few will dispute that in those years, from the White House down, ethical standards have been lowered while the intellectual and moral inadequacy of our public representa~ tives has reached an all-time high. Perhaps the most convincmg ulustration of the situation is in the so-called civil-rights program of Mr. Truman, the chief feature of which is the fair employment practices pro- posal now pending in the Senate. It is the simple truth that among the proponents of this legislation there is more humbug and less sincerity than about any other proposal that has been before Congress in many years. With rare exceptions, not so much as a trace of sincerity on this issue exists among the politicians in either party. With these it is wholly a matter of politics, There is and has been for 14 years a contest between the parties to hold the Negro vote in the 10 States of the North where it holds the balance of power. Particularly, is this true of the Democratic Party, which since 1936 has become more or less dependent on this vote in most of these States and which only began to be interested in the Negro aiter 1936, when for the first time, it succeeded in weaning away from the Republicans a large percentage of the Negro vote which had been their basic asset since the Civil War. The story of how this was done has been told before, but the present situation makes it worth briefly repeating. In 1934, ex-Sen- ator Guffey of Pennsylvania sold the idea to James A, Farley, chairman of the Demo- cratic National Committee, that with more patronage for the Negro he could carry Penn~ sylvania. Mr, Farley felt that if this could be done in that State it could in others. He and Senator Guffey sold the idea to Mr. Roosevelt, who enthusiastically cooperated, The start was made by naming a Negro edi- tor from Pittsburgh as an Assistant Attorney General, the highest public office ever held by a Negro. This was followed by an ava- Janche of Negro appointments to a large variety of Federal jobs. In the 1986 campaign, the astute Mr. Farley supplemented this by putting on the committee pay roll a large number of Negro preachers, teachers, deacons and others more or less oratorical who were sent through the 10 States to spread the gospel that Roosevelt and the New Deal were the true friends of the Negro. As a result of that campaign, more than 90 percent of the heretofore sol- idly Republican Negro vote was transferred to the Democrats—and most of it is still Democratic. * * * * * There was not an ounce of principle or sentiment in the whole performance. It was a coldly calculated and cleverly executed po-= litical plan. Ever since the Democrats have coddled, cuddled and cajoled the Negro vote in every possible way. The climax came in the 1948 convention when the civil-rights plank, upon which the FEPC is based, was adopted. Now so deeply committed that, de- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD spite the determined revolt in the South, administration leaders cannot let go without risking loss of a vote that has become vital. Address of Clyde T. Ellis, Executive Manager, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, at State Meet- ing of Rural Electric Cooperatives, Public Power Pregress Day, Jackson, Miss., May 26, 1950 EXTENSION OF REMARKS F HON. JOHN E. RANKIN OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, under permission granted me to extend my re- marks, I am inserting an address de- livered by Hon. Clyde T. Ellis before the Rural Cooperative Power Association, at Jackson, Miss., on May 26, 1950, which I hope every Member of Congress will take the time to read. Sixteen years ago, when we started the drive for rural electrification in the Tennesseee Valley area, only 10 percent of the farms of this Nation enjoyed the use of any electricity at all. Today we have 85 percent of the farm homes of this country electrified, and it is my hope that we may soon reach them all. Electricity is the greatest servant man- kind has ever Known, and the only one the man or woman of ordinary means can afford, and they can afford it only when it is provided at rates based upon the cost of generation, transmission, and distribution. One kilowatt-hour of electricity is equal to the strength of a strong man working 10 or 12 hours. Every Member of Congress is, or should be familiar with the fact that a horsepower has always been considered to be equal to the strength of 10 men. A horsepower of electricity is 746 watts, which is a little less than three-fourths of a kilowatt. A kilowatt, which is 1,000 watts, is equal to the strength of more than 10 men. But for the sake of argu- ment, let us say it is equal to the strength of 10 strong men. A kilowatt-hour of electricity then would be equal to more than the strength of 10 strong men working 1 hour, or 1 strong man working 10 hours. In other words, pumping water the same distance, it would take a strong man more than 10 hours hard pumping to pump as much water as an electric pump would pump with one kilowatt- hour, which in the district I represent amounts to around 2 cents. This not only applies to the water pump, but it applies to the washing ma- chine, the milking machine, the feed grinder, the hay drier, the electric fan, including the attic fan, and other ap- pliances that are now being used to re- move the drudgery, brighten the home, inspire hope, and stimulate the pride of the farmers and their wives and chil- dren. It is, as I said, the greatest ser-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD vant mankind has ever known, and if we will develop the rest of the water power that is now going to waste in our navi- gable streams and their tributaries, amounting to 394,000,009,000 kilowatt- hours a year, and distribute it to the people of this Nation, and especially to the farmers, at rates based upon the c st of generation, transmission, and dis- tribution, we can make this the richest and most powerful Nation the world has ever known. The organization of which Hon. Clyde T. Ellis, former Member of this House, is the head, is driving toward that end, and I take pleasure in inserting his speech in the Recorp at this point. The speech referred to reads as ‘follows: ApprRoss oF CiypE T. EuLuis, ExecuriveE Man- AGER, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSCCIATION, aT StTsTE Merrine or RuraL Exectnrc Coorrratives, Fusrrc Powerr Frocness Da¥, Jackson, Miss , May 26, 1959 Mr. Chairman and friends, this day, May 26, 1950, will long be remembered, we hope, as the date in the fifteenth year of the 1ural electrification program of the United States on which you first celebrated Public Power Progress Day. WHAT IS NRECA? Perhaps I should say a word to you about my bosses. They are the farmers of Mis- siscippi and 42 other States who are members of the rural electric co-ops and power dis- tricts which in turn are members of their national service organizations. They num- ber some 2,500,000 rural families, or about 10,000,000 people. NRECA is a voluntary as- sociation. It was organized from the grass roots to perform several services for the rural electric systems country-wide just as Mis- sissippi Services, Inc., was organized at the grass roots to perform several services State- wide. About 86 percent of the rural electrics of the country are members of NRECA, and the membership is growing constantly. MISSISSIPPI PLAYS LEADING ROLE Mississippi has enjoyed a unique and sig- nificant position in America’s internation- ally celebrated rural electrification program. The program was born in Mississippi, in the back of a furniture store at Corinth. It was there that a few Mississippi business and farm leaders met with Tennessee Valley Authority officials one afternoon in 1934 in search of ways and means of getting TVA power out to the farms. Following that meeting Alcorn County Electric Power Asso- ciation was organized. By the next year, 1935, other co-ops had been organized in the valley, and it was al- ready evident that the co-op constituted probably the best vehicle by which the farm- ers might be served, or serve themselves, with electricity. REA WAS BORN IN 1935 By that time, too, there was strong senti- ment both in the valley and in other areas for the Federal Government to expand the opportunity for farmers to help themselves via the rural electric-cooperative process. And so President Roosevelt by Executive order established the Rural Electrification Administration that year and authorized it to lend public-works funds for construction of rural power lines. It was thought then that most of the funds would be borrowed by commercial power companies. Over the next few years several million dollars were borrowed by them, but they soon lost interest. The American farm families did not lose interest, though, and by ancther year the demand for a permanent and expanded pro- gram was so great that Congress enacted and there was signed into law in May 1936 the Rural Electrification Act. Let 1t be rememtered, too, that in the year 1936 only 1 farmer in 10 in the United States had electricity, and those were principally in the suburbs and along the main highways in the North and East. The situation was far worse here wheve only nine-tenths of 1 per- cont of the farmers in Mississippi had elec- tricity. Let it be remembered, also, that by 1936 the electric age had been with us for about half a century, and that by then prac- tically all of the farmers of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Japan had electricity. WE WANT PEACE As a southern farmer and an employce of farmers, I know but one language—the lan- guage of frankness. I am not here to criti- cize, and, if what I shall say may seem criti- cal of anyone, it 1s only because the facts are that way. I must give you the facts. I can assure you that I have come here today with an olive branch in either hand. We want no fight with anyone. We want only to serve electricity to ourselves. We want to serve no customer of the power companies—and Wwe cannot under the law take one of their customers. We want no part of either communism or monopoly. We want to strengthen, and we believe we are strength- ening, the American free, competitive enter- prise system. PROGRAM HAS HAD DIFFICULT STRUGGLE When the farmers began organizing electric co-ops Most power companies refused to co- operate. They refused, and some still refuse, to sell us wholesale power at reasonable rates without restrictions on its use. Those first years were a struggle indeed. As the program got under way, most power companies rushed their crews out to skim the cream, to serve the best areas, leaving us usually the more thinly settled sections. That is still going on in some States. For several years Congress did not provide ade- quate loan funds and it was also difficult to obtain loans in many areas under the re- quirements of the original act. The interest we were required to pay was about 2.7 percent and we were required to amortize the loans in 25 years. As you know, the commercial power companies never amortize their cap- ital structure, but rather continue to pay interest dividends on their preferred stock- bonds. Finally the farmers, through their Rural Electric Cooperative Association, ini- tiated and sponsored through the Congress what is known as the Pace Act. This amend- ment to the original act reduced our interest rate from 2.7 to 2 percent, which at that time still gave the Government a net profit of about 1 percent; and it extended the amortization period from 25 to 35 years. The Pace Act was passed, however, after we were already at war and whereas it would have otherwise made possible a rapidly ex- panding, area-coverage construction program, ‘we were suddenly stopped by an order of the Office of Production Management to cease all use of copper and aluminum, The farm- ers, however, through their NRECA, were soon able to prove to Government officials that where farmers would make certain uses of electricity, those uses would constitute the equivalent of one or more farm hands. OPM relaxed its order and our construction program was permitted to continue on a limited scale. POSTWAR EXPANSION WAS RAPID After the war our construction program was accelerated to a point never before achieved in the electrical industry anywhere in the world. : As of last June 39, 78 percent of the farmers of the country had electricity. The rural electrics were serving well over half of them. Mississippi, like my native State A4169 of Arkansas, however, continued near the bottom of the lst in percentage of farms electrified. By comparison with the national figure of 78 percent on June 30, only 49 percent of your farms were electrified. I shall return to this point but will note now that a principal reason for the lagging pro- gram in Mississippi has been the lack of de- pendable wholesale power at reasonable rates without restrictions on 1ts use in some sec- tions of the State. REA PROGRAM IS MAJOR INDUSTRY Even though your program has lagged by comparison With other States, 1t has never- theless become a major industry. Already $46,907,105 have been actually invested by your 27 electric cooperatives, and REA has agreea to lend your systems $19,362,806 more. Your co-ops are already serving more than 175,000 farms and rural establishments over more than 40,000 miles of line. What in- dustries in your State are larger than that? Incidentally, I am sure you will be pleased tu Know that not one Mississippi co-op is delinquent on its repayments to RHA. In fact, 18 of them are ~cid obo-d of schedule a total of $744,338. Niu.’ s REA has not lost a dime on an electric co-op loan and its less than one-tenth of 1 percent delinquen= cies excel all known loan-repayment records on a comparable scale. Nor is the $46,000,000 investment already made by the co-ops the whole story. By the time the farmer has his house wired and purchases his refrigerator, water pump, ra- dio, and other appliances, he usually has in- vested from one to two dollars for every dol- lar that the co-op invested to get the elec- tricity to him. He buys his equipment, of course, from his local merchant and the local merchant advertises that equipment in the local newspapers and over the radios. This is all new business. The farmer thus helps the competitive, free-enterprise system of Mississippi. And in the industrial cities thousands of people labor to produce the re- frigerators, water pumps, radios, and over 200 other appliances as well as to produce the construction materials that go into the building of the Lines. In the fiscal year 1949, your Mississippi electric co-ops purchased and sold to the farmers 239,399,638 kilowatt-hours. Thirty- nine percent of this was purchased from the commercial power companies, for which your associations paid the power companies $744,333. Your co-ops expect to serve within a few years more than twice as many consumers as at present. They are already having to rebuild, “heavy-up,” their systems because the farmers are using so much more power than anyone dreamed of a few years ago. With the farmers’ loads already doubling every 5 years and with many new uses com~ ing in, such as air conditioning, television, and high-frequency cooking (the farm wife may soon be able to cook her whole meal in 5 minutes)—with all these new uses we have no idea how high our loads will sky- rocket, nor where the power is coming from. There is a growing need for your co-ops to generate some of their own power; and this will require further investments. Based on these facts it would appear that the rural electrification construction pro- gram in Mississippi is not more than one- fourth completed. MERCHANTS ARE BEING PROPAGANDIZED The merchants of this State and of the country, many of whom depend upon the trade of our members, are being fed a lot of propaganda against cooperatives. This propaganda is coming primarily from the National Tax Equality Association, which, according to its lobby registration filing, is largely financed by the commercial power companies. NTEA is endeavoring to poison the businessmen against co-opes in general
AAL79 and against electric co-ops in particular. It it endeavoring to persuade Congress to levy net income~tax equivalents on income we don’t have, Perhaps I should take a moment to give you the farmer’s concepvion of what his electric co-op is. Let’s take ten, or a hun- dred, or a thousand farmers who are neigh- bors. Mo one of them could afford to buiid his ctvn power system, but all of them to- gether could efford to build one to serve all of them. So, in order to get electricity, after waiting half a cecade, they form a coopera- tive association in which each farmer is a member and has one vote. The asscciation is just hke any other corporation except that they agree that no one will make a profit, for the motive is service. Isn’t that just about the way the farmers in the early days built the country schools and churches? The fact that the farmers now form a co-op really makes no difference; the co-op is merely @ sort of partnership arrangement. They then borrow money from REA to puild their lines and they pay it all back with interest. They own the lines, They thus recapture and put to work again that same old pioneer spirit that has built Amer- ica. Can anyone show me a better example of free enterprise at its best? Everyone ben- efits by the electric co-op, including the commercial power companies, who sell us over half of the power we use. WHO PAYS WHAT TAXES? The power companies constantly refer to themselves as “taxpaying electric companies.” But they are really just tax gatherers, for we and their other customers actually pay their taxes. And the people have to pay them several dollars in profits for every dol- lar and companies pay the Government in taxes on those profits. The power com-~ panies, you know, enjoy a special income tax status under the law. They are not re~ quired to report all of their profits as other corporations are. SPONSORED RURAL TELEPHONE LAW Time will permit me to mention only a few more of our efforts and problems. - The farmers, through their NRECA, spon- sored the Rural Telephone Act, but only after appealing desperately to the existing tele- phone companies over a 5-year period to serve the rural areas. We cannot have effi- cient electric service in the country without telephones to report outages quickly. The rural-telephone program is getting off to a slow start, partly because Congress has not approved adequate funds for administrative purposes. The Bureau of the Budget re~ quested $50,000,000 for telephone loans for next fiscal year. The House has cut that in half. Budget requested over $2,000,000 for telephone administrative purposes and the House has cut that to less than $1,000,000. REA already has $35,000,000 in telephone ap- plications on hand over and above those which it has funds to cover, and we expect the applications to continue to come in rapidly during the next fiscal year. We don’t know what the Senate will do. ADEQUATE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION LOAN FUNDS The House of Representatives has again approved adequate funds for rural-electri- fication loans for the next fiscal year, It made some cut in the budget request for rural electrification administrative funds but this is believed to be not too serious, We congratulate the House of Representa-~ tives and the Agriculture Subcommittee of its Appropriations Committee upon its re- fusal to yield to the power companies in their demands for a restriction being placed upon our right to generate our own power. Your able Congressman, JAMIE WHITTEN, is ehairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee. We don’t know what the Senate will do. POWER SUPPLY IS BIGGEST HEADACHE The Rural Electrification program’s most perplexing problem, however, both in Mis- sissippi and throughout the country, is power supply. Your northern Mississippi coopera- tives are more fortunate in being able to pur-= chase wholesale power from TVA. But we should understand now that TVA is rapidly running out of hydropower and that more and more steam plants are going to be neces- sary, for TVA hes assumed full responsibility for serving its area and it must not fail that responsibility. Propaganda campaigns are being carried on not only to hurt TVA but in an effort to stop river-development programs in other areas. Multipurpose dams similar to those of TVA are being constructed across the river in Arkansas, but the power companies are waging bitter battles to prevent the whole- sale power from being delivered to the load centers cover Government transmission lines as is being done in TVA and in the North- west. The Government, as you know, is nowhere in the retail power business, and we don’t want itin that business. Where the people’s power is produced in the people’s dams from the people’s water, we do insist that the people’s co-ops and municipally owned sys- tems should be able to buy the power whole- sale at cost delivered to the load centers over self-liquidating lines. That is America’s power policy. The power companies are endeavoring to persuade the Congress to require all Federal power to be dumped at the dams where usually only the power companies are big enough to go after it. Their fight is really a fight to maintain their monopoly over sup- ply. It is the same fight that they are wag- ing against your proposed generating plant in south Mississippi. Southern Mississippi cooperatives have never had a reasonable power supply. In the first place their rates have been too high; in the second place the power has not been delivered to their load centers; and in the third place the power companies tell the co-ops to whom they may sell power and in what amount. They even charge them a higher rate for larger loads served. Such practice is dictatorial and un-American. In southern Mississippi, when the co-ops had finished their expensive engineering studies on a generating plant, the power companies suddenly decided they could give them a better rate. And REA in passing on the application considers that last death- trap offer in determining whether there would be a sufficient saving to justify the loan, But no power company can make a contract that it or a stockholder who can show he is not receiving adequate return on his investment, or a customer who can prove he is discriminated against, cannot break. I find growing sentiment for a change of REA policy to require that, before any such last- minute offer is considered, the company shall be required to show that the rate is com- pensatory and nondiscriminatory. These power company battles to kill our efforts to generate some of our own power necessary to achieve efficient, reliable area coverage have been particularly bitter against us in the South. I came here this morning from North Dakota where I was honored Tuesday to participate in a ground-breaking ceremony at Voltaire for a 40,000-kilowatt co-op generating plant to serve the farmers of nearly half the State. Ottertail Power Co. is cooperating and will wheel much of the power we produce out to our load centers for us. As we stood out there on the prairie and watched Senator Youne turn over a spade of buffalo sod with a few hundred people, including descendants of the old Sioux war- riors, and including power company officials, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD side by side with the farmers; as we looked toward the setting sun—the last remnants of a departing winter snow glistening back at us—to view in our imaginations a multi- million-dollar living monument to men working peacefully together in a free land; and then we bowed our heads to give thanks and saw the wild, purple, crocuses smiling uw at us—well what do you think? I think He was there with us. Another power company in North Dakota is operating one of our generating plants for us. We have a similar arrangement with a power company in Iowa. In these cases the power companies benefit, the farmers bene- fit, the merchants benefit—everybody bene-~ fits. But we’ve seen nothing like that in Dixie. Our New York-controlled power companies don’t seem to know the War Between the States is over. Today the power companies of Virginia are fighting us in our efforts to generate some of our own power. They are waging an extended battle before the State regu- latory body. In Kentucky the power companies are fighting our efforts to generate some of our own power in an extended battle before the State regulatory body. In Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, and, to @ lesser extent, in Louisiana, the power companies are engaged in bitter cam- paigns against our efforts to generate some of our own power. In Alabama and Florida the power companies, by court action, have tem- perarily stopped our efforts to generate some of our own power. In South Carolina we are in the process of puilding a substantial generating and trans- mission system to supply part of our power requirements, but the power companies are carrying on a ruthless campaign to stop us. I hold here in my hand a full-page ad from last Sunday’s Washington Post entitled “Did You Tell Your Congressmen to Kill My Busi-~ ness?” and signed, S. C. McMeekin, presi~ dent of South Carolina Gas & Electric Co. This is directed at Congress and the execu~ tive branch, of course. Let me read you two sentences from it: “A Federal agency and a Government-financed power development heve combined in a project which will ulti- mately destroy us.” “The execution will waste at least $9,000,000 of your money and destroy a sound American company worth $100,000,000.” Doesn't it seem a little ridicu- lous that a $9,000,000 farmers’ co-op could destroy a $100,000,000 commercial power company? Under the law our rural electric coopera~ tives cannot serve anyone who is already served, sO we can’t take one of his customers. How then could we kill his business? It sounds like Hitler screaming that the Low Countries were about to invade Germany. Enough propaganda like this could destroy our country. OUR POLICY In closing, I want to state what has been our policy during all of these years. We de~ sire to work with the power companies. We are not against them. In our retirement program we have pur- chased substantial quantities of their stock, believing it a good investment. We appeal again to the power companies, especially in the South where they are fighting us the hardest, to stop fighting us and work with us to build a better Southland and a better America. Power companies of Dixie, you, too, are benefiting from TVA for you have beneficial power exchange arrangements with TVA. You are benefiting from our farmers’ electric co-ops, for you are selling us great quantities of power. Now, won't you throw down the sword, accept our olive branch, and join with
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD us in making Public Power Progress Day a permanent public power progress, peace, and E osperity day? Wo are honor.d to work with our col- leagues, our county and home agents, our legislatures and State administrations, and our press and radio in this great program. We in your national office are honored to work with your able congressional delegation. No American has contributed more to this program than your own Joun E. Ran«KIN. We want to work with everyone. It may require the supreme effort of all of us, working together, to keep the hordes of mechanized, pagan Communists from our shores and to preserve democracy for the world. God, help us. Ireland United EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER A. LYNCH OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted me by unanimous consent, I am including in my present remarks my statement relative to the partition of Ireland which is part of the record of proceedings before the Foreign Affairs Committee. Among the witnesses who testified were my old friends, Charles T. Rice, a classmate of mine at Fordham Univer- sity, and Richard Dalton, an old-time resident of Bronx County, N..Y., a large portion of which is in my congressional district. My statement follows: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express to you and to the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs my appreciation for giving me this opportunity to make a statement with respect to House Resolution 270, intro- duced by our distinguished colleague, Hon. JoHN I. Focarry, of Rhode Island, and hav- ing to do with the partition of Ireland. I am thoroughly in favor of the resolution. It is my considered opinion that the resolution embodies that great American principle of the right of self-determination of all na- tions, and that being so fundamental an American principle it should be quickly and unanimously reported out by your distin- guished committee. I have no doubt that it will be overwhelmingly passed by the House. It indeed seems strange to me that there should be any opposition to this resolution. It is founded in justice. There is no reason that a foreign power like Great Britain should say to its small neighbor to the west that you may have your freedom except as to the people of six counties of your nation, and those people must remain under the domination of Great Britain. Ireland is an entity; it always has been and it always will be. Naturally and geo- graphically it is an entity with the people overwhelmingly of the same national origin. Ireland has always resented the imposition upon fer of the force of British arms. She has never been conquered by the British be- cause her national spirit and her national integrity have ever been bulwarks against any foreign subjugation. It is as unseemly for the British to carve out six counties from the Irish nation as it would have been for the United States, when it granted independence to the Philippines, to have carved out from those heroic islands Mindanao, Cebu, or any other part of this new Pacific republic. In spirit Ireland has been a republic since 1798 when the first Irish Republic was ini- tially proclaimed by united Irishmen. On Easter Monday of 1916 the same spirit that had moved Irishmen more than a century previously again brought forth, and for the second time proclaimed the Irish Republic. There remained, however, the recurrence of that memorable date in the year 1949, for the Republic of Ireland to be internationally recognized as such. During the intervening years between these two later dates the voice of Ireland was not unheard in the councils of the world. Unfortunately it was un- heeded. Had the strong protestations of DeValera not fallen upon the deaf ears of the nations of the world when he denounced the invasion of Ethiopia by Mussolini and the criminal attacks of the Japanese in Man~ churia, perhaps World War II would have been averted. The Irish Prime Minister knew what it meant to have his small coun- try invaded. He likewise Knew that if the great nations of the world chose, as they did, to disregard the fundamentals of nation- hood and permit a government to be im- posed upon a people, contrary to their wishes, that the result would inevitably lead to further outrages and final war. It is a strange commentary that the one nation who raised her voice for justice for Ethiopia and Manchuria should now be ex- cluded from the council of the world, the United Nations, by the veto of communistic Russia. It is likewise a strange commentary that this one nation that is so essential to the defense of western Europe should be coms pelled to refrain from joining the partner- ship of the Atlantic Pact because to do so would have meant the unthinkable recogni- tion by the Irish Government of the right of Britain to superimpose her will upon a portion of the Irish people, and refuse to them the right of self-determination in con- jugation with their fellow countrymen. Great Britain may delay the day but she cannot evade the day when all Ireland shall be united as one nation. Despite 12 gener- ations of oppression and degradation under British rule, and despite programs of con- fiscation, exile, and death, the freedom and national integrity of the Irish nation will extend, not only to 26 counties but to all of her counties. Those places in the six sepa- rated counties that have been hallowed by Irish faith and Irish ties will once again be part of the Irish nation. When partition is endéd Armagh will be what it has always been—a part of Ireland and not of Britain— and so with other places in Ireland made sacred by Irish sacrifice and Irish blood. To partition Ireland, Britain had to com- mit two crimes—one, the partition of Ireland itself; the other, the partition of Ulster. In order for the puppet government of Northern Ireland to exist, it was necessary that the British Parliament cut off from Ulster the counties of Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan. By no other way than by this exclusion from the operation of the act of partition could the dominant position of the Unionist majority around Belfast be continued. Mr. Chairman, if self-determination is to be granted to any people, it should be granted to the people of Ireland because the country meets every requirement of a united government. There are three well-estab- lished tests that bear me out. Ireland’s natural boundaries are not man-made, but God-given. The Irish Sea is more of a boundary than the line that separates Can- ada from the United States. In its second test Ireland has a national history. I ven- ture to say that no nation can claim a longer national history. Finally, the inhabitants of the island are of the same race, the same AA171 color, and speak the same language. It is true that there is a disparity of religion, but if differences of religion are grounds for na- tional partition, then, indeed, there would be few nations in the world. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, permit me to urge, with all the sincerity at my command, that your distinguished committee favorably report the Fogarty resolution so that the House of Representatives might record its belief that all nations shall have the right of self-determination and that the Repub- lic of Ireland should embrace the entire ter- ritory of.Ireland unless the clear majority of all of the people of Ireland, in a free plebiscite, determine and declare to the contrary. What Is the Difference? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend heretofore granted, I am inserting an editorial in the Rzc- orD which appeared in the Wall Street Journal under date of June 5, 1950: Wat Is THE DIFFERENCE? We pose the question: Who is more dan- gerous to the welfare of the Nation if left free to go his way, an uncaught race-track gambler or an undetected disloyal or un- trustworthy public servant? This question, to which the answer ought to be obvious, is pertinent because of the fact that President Truman recently denied a congressional investigating committee full access to Government records when it sought to probe charges of espionage yet he now throws open the records to another com- mittee probing charges of gambling. To track down and break up an alleged gambling syndicate, the President has au- thorized the opening of income-tax records in spite of the long tradition that these rec- ords be kept confidential and not be used as a general catch-all for other misdemean- ors. He is also reported to have urged all agencies of the Government to cooperate with the investigating committee. But to track down graver charges of im- proper security by Government employees, and still graver charges of some outright dis- loyalty, the President offers little help. His attitude is that the records of the FBI and other interested agencies in loyalty cases are closed. What is contained in these records is small business of Congress. Now, the interest of the administration in putting an end to a gambling ring, if such exists, is highly commendable. If a congres- sional committee, with the assistance of the executive branch, can expose such a crime syndicate and put its members behind bars, it will have performed a signal service. But is this more or less vital than the ex- posure of a spy ring, if such exists, and put- ting its members behind bars? Mr. Truman has defended his refusal to cooperate with the spy probe on the grounds that Congress ought not to go around mak- ing blanket investigations—‘fishing” expedi- tions, he called them—which invade citizens’ privacy and might unjustly besmirch some citizens’ characters. Yet the gambling probe, with which he will cooperate, is likewise a blanket investigation. Many individual income-tax records will be
A4172 scrutinized merely on suspicion; the indi- viduals will be questioned and cross-ques- tioned merely on suspicion. Here, too, men who may be innocent will be grilled simply because they associate with some unsavory characters. And here, too, the victims will scream about “guilt by association.” The fact of the matter, of course, is that the so-called blanket investigation upon rea- sonable grounds is as old as the English common law. It is the principle of the grand jury, and it 1s a principle of great value to the common welfare. Why, then, the distinction between one probe and another? There is none in law or logic, and the puzzled citizen will have to search for it elsewhere. The suspicion grows that while in one case the administration welcomes distracting headlines, in the other it dares not permit exposure, Wake Up America! EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, one of the many Wake Up America programs sponsored by the Benevolent Protective Order of Elks was held at State College, Pa., May 25, 1950. The program was preceded by a color- ful parade which traversed the streets of State College, the line of March ending in the high school stadium where several hundred persons were in attendance. It was my distinct honor to participate in the splendid patriotic program and to deliver the following address: Mr. Chairman, Exalted Ruler, brother Elks, ladies, and gentlemen, I consider it a high honor to have the privilege of participating in the first annual Wake Up America program sponsored by the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks. As a member of the Altoona lodge, No, 102 (BPOE), I have long been familiar with the great effort of the Elks in promoting love of country which, in other words, is un- adulterated patriotism. This annual observance of Wake Up Amer- ica is very timely and takes its place along- side the annual Flag Day celebrations spon- sored for many years by the Elks throughout the United States. I want to commend the officers and mem~ bers of the State College Lodge of Elks for joining with other units of our great or- ganization in a concerted effort to arouse the American people during these trying and perilous days. This demonstration of patriotism is typical of the type manifested daily by members of the Elk fraternity. It is Americanism pure and undefiled, and not the watered-down version of patriotism that some supposedly good Americans are content to call love of country. When I accepted your kind invitation to participate In this Wake Up America pro- gram, I did so because I wanted to make my contribution to your efforts to arouse the American people to the fact that the Amer- ican form of Government is being challenged, as never before, and in a cunning and deceit- ful manner. Since the close of World War I, many of us have watched the growth of communism and have warned our fellow citizens of what was taking place. Yes, many of us have been accused of being Red baiters and of seeing a Red behind every tree. Great retvictic cr- ganizations, including the Elks, hie becn ridiculed because they have pointed their finger at communism on the march. I say to you, in all sincerity, it is time for America to wake up. The fact is that while we meditate upon our standard of living, and work and pray for peace, Russia overruns the world. Al- ready she has gone farther, taken more terri-~ tory, and enslaved more people than Ger~ many had done when we were drawn into World War II. Czechoslavakia, China, Poland, Bulgaria, and half of Germany already have been swal- lowed; Jugoslavia, Malaya, Finland, and For- mosa are almost within the Russian bear’s paws. How far does it go until we are next? The Russian aim, annerertly is not war, at least not in the Zove-ce7ble tu ure. Judging from their established pattern, the Soviets hope to exhaust us economically and then destroy us by subversive force. Since the close of World War II, one fact has become increasingly clear. Communist aggression stands as an ominous threat to world peace. We have lived so long in the atmosphere of cold war that unrest and chaos are taken for granted. Communist seizure of China was virtually unopposed. Indeed, free nations have offi- cially recognized the puppet government of Red China. This regrettable action is de- plored by every red-blooded American. The Communist tactic of seizing free, sovereign governments stands as @ direct violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of United Nations’ Charter. We Americans would do well to give heed to our position on the Soviet timetable of ag- gression. No one—with average intelli- gence—could believe that America is immune from Red expansion. In the 1930’s we were aroused by the marching slogan of the Nazis: “Today, we rule Germany; tomorrow, the world.” Bitter experience, the blood at Anzio, Normandy, and Iwo Jima, burned deeply in our minds the significant lesson that tyrants love to brag about their plans. On this occasion, when we implore America to wake up, that lesson rings in our ears. It forces us to examine the boasts of our mod. ern tyrants, In every issue of Communist dogma, under the title “Problems of Leninism,” published over the signature of Stalin, appears this basic belief: “It is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue for a long period side by side with imperialistic states.” Stalin continued, by saying, “Ultimately, one or the other must conquer. Meanwhile, a@ number of terrible clashes between the Soviet Republic and capitalist states will be inevitable,” he said. That statement of Communist philosophy has been repeated many times since the close of World War II. The leaders of Russia have not only emphasized their goal of world domination, they have predicted the doom of all other political systems—especially capitalism. On May 2, 1950, in a speech in New York City, Hon. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in speak- ing of the presence of subversive persons in the United States, said: “The subversive elements are utilizing America’s tolerance as a cloak to plan and to commit crimes, which, when successful, de- stroy the very tolerance which enabled them to gain their victories. “They use tolerance as a springboard for infamy, deceit, and intolerance. These ele- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ments which would destroy American liberty are today at work in America.” The FBI director also told his audience that: “The times demand candid and forth- right words. Communists have been, and are today, at work within the very gates of America. “There are few walks in American life which they do not traverse. Their allegiance is to Moscow; their hopes are spurred by the writings of Marx and Lenin, not Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln; their enthusiasm is whetted by expediency and deceit; not toler- ance and brotherhood. “Godless materialism is the idol of com- munism, and the destruction of the God of our fathers is their goal,” said Director Hoover. He deplored the fact that many unthink- ing Americans scoff at the menace of com- munism and attempt to laugh off the fact that such a destructive force has a member- ship in the United States of approximately 55,000 and that behind this force of traitor- ous Communists stand a half million fellow travelers and sympathizers ready to do the Communist bidding. The FBI chief emphasized that “these Communist influences practice their double- dealing, double-minded, Cait e-* 97 mus 7 and double-faced tactics or. .% 2 '*- our American life, whether it be in politics, in labor, in the press, in radio, in motion pic- tures, in the schools, or even in some of our churches,” said J. Edgar Hoover. He warned Americans not to be misled by those who try to calm us by the statement that the Communist Party in the United States is not large in membership, or that they have not polled a large number of votes in an election. “This line of talk,’”? Mr. Hoover said, “is voiced by the ignorant and the apologists and appeasers of communism in our country in an effort to minimize the dangers of these sub- versives in our midst. “In some places where there are only one or two men working the Communists cause, more results are obtained than where they have larger organizations,” said J. Edgar Hoover. He continued by saying: “The thought of a Soviet United States is at once revolting to every right-thinking American. “We have seen the Communists at work and have observed the application of their principles sufficiently to know what would happen here if they succeeded in the attain- ment of their objectives. “If every American faced the reality of what the fulfillment of the Communist ob- jective would mean to him—he would be inspired to work harder to preserve the indi- vidual liberty and freedom which is part and parcel of our American way of life.” I have given you excerpts from the New York speech on May 2 of Hon. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, because he is a recognized au-~ thority on communism and subversive influ- ences in the United States. In addition, his timely admonitions are a stern warning to sympathizers and appeasers of communism who try to lull us to sleep by charging that vidilant Americans who ferret out subversives are afflicted with a bad case of the jitters. The poor deluded Americans who peddle such a line are, whether they realize it or not, dupes of Moscow. “Let us not become hysterical,” is their chant. This phrase is Red propaganda of the brightest hue and it is uttered by prominent persons who are entrusted with the respon- sibility of molding young minds, and who are supposed to be above the average in intelli- gence.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The hysteria chant is directed to all Ameri- cans who insist that Communists, fellow- travelers, pinksters, and parlor Bolshevists should be unmasked and not allowed to pose as sumon-pure Americans. This hyster*~ n~o~-~r~dr is directed in the hope that it vs" cc... America as a land of fanatics full of fear and panic and that all American citizens are living under a reign of constant terior in their daily lives. The real objective is to divert attention from the Moscow gospel of hate and to dis- courage just criticism of the Communists in the United States. To attain this objective we are asked to ignore communism as a menace to this Na- tion, and instead to shed tears for so-called intellectuals and self-styled liberals in our midst who are labeled as “martyrs” and vic- tims of a Red scare. I think you will agree that we Americans are a tolerant people when you recall the numerous spy rings and the traitorous ac- tions of the Coplans, Hislers, Fuchs, and the 12 New York Commies, and Alger Hiss, These are only a few of the parasites in our midst who have been brought to trial. Yes; we have more patience than Job in dealing with subversive elements and when our American blood boils at the thought of these traitorous characters, it is not a case of hysterics, but it is the revulsion we feel when we think of the treatment accorded a nation whose sons have shed blood on every continent in the belief they were on a mis- sion of universal peace. If we are foolish enough to allow ourselves to be rocked to sleep while being told in baby- sitter fashion of the Moscow version of the little boy who cried, “Wolf! Wolf!” and by so doing spurn the advice of Hon. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, then we are first-class morons and we deserve the fate in store for us from our decision to trade our American liberty and freedom for a double-barreled portion of intellectual hog wash with its genuine Moscow flavor. There is one happy and redeeming charac- teristic of the American people that the phony liberals overlook and that is the abil- ity to detect an assault on the American form of government as soon as the pattern of the attack becomes obvious. Already the rank and file of American citizenship is aroused over the treacherous conduct of many in our midst and you can be sure that they are not going to adopt a complacent attitude in dealing with these shysier Americans. Who will deny that the world situation overshadows every other consideration in our lives today in importance and yet our actions are weak and inadequate. We need a bold program of action equal to the task and up with the times. We need to purge the Communists not just from key positions in Government offices, but from everywhere. The plea of freedom of speech for Communists is nonsense, be- cause they intend to overthrow the Govern- ment of the United States, and that is treason. We need to double our world propaganda activities to carry the story of freedom to all peoples. We need a rebirth of the spirit of our fathers who founded this country. We need their courage, their common sense, and their concern for the common good of decent people. We need to go forward together with the conviction of free people and with the spirit of humanity to meet the challenge that Com- munist dictatorship now makes against our religion, our freedom, our flag, and our very lives, Yes, America must wake up if we are to survive, XCVI—App.——263 Was Potsdam a Success? REMARKS oF HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, President Truman did not fool the American people when he told Secretary Acheson that the London Conference was the most successful meeting since Pots- dam. Apparently he is unaware of the crimes that were committed in the name of the Potsdam Conference which he headed as Commander in Chief in July and August of 1945, It is true that Mr. Truman, as succes- sor to our war President, inherited the political sins of the Yalta and the Quebec Conferences, but it is not possible that he has forgotten the havoc and chaos that flowed from them. Mr. Speaker, so that the record may be straight on the “success” of Potsdam, I call attention to a few incidents that have happened since that unfortunate meeting: First. It confirmed and approved the sell-out of China to Communist Russia of Manchuria, Korea, and the Kurtles. China had no notice of the Roosevelt- Churchill-Stalin deal until 1 year later. Success? Second. It confirmed and approved the double cross of the liberty-loving Polish people by insisting that certain boun- daries be changed to accommodate the demands of Stalin. And further, the Conference insisted that a provisional coalition government be established, which ultimately led to Communist control of the political and economic life of the Polish people. Success? Third. It was the Potsdam meeting that inaugurated the diabolical Morgen- thau plan with the following results: *(a) Millions of people were robbed, raped, turned out of their homes, forced into slavery, tortured, starved, driven to suicide, and killed. Is this success? (b) Dismantled German industrial plants that had no connection with the war and permitted the Soviet to take and ship heavy industries to Russia at the expense of the American taxpayer. The total cost was many millions of dollars, and dismantling still continues. Is this success? (ce) It cut from Germany 30 percent of its arable land producing 25 percent of its food, with the result that the United States was called upon to furnish food to starving people. Is this success? (d) It approved the most inhuman dumping operation in history by Rus- sia, in the uprooting and expulsion into Germany of 14,000,000 defenseless refu- gees from the Sudetenland, Austria, Hungary, and Poland. It crammed at least 68,000,000 people into a war-rav- aged area smaller than Great Britain which could not support itself. Is this success? (e) Decreed that Germany was to be reduced to the status of an agricultural A4173 and grazing society, notwithstanding that Germany prior to the war was al- most wholly industrialized. Is this suc- cess? (f) It authorized the Nuremberg trials of alleged war criminals and found many guilty by virtue of association, thereby setting a precedent unheard of in Anglo- Saxon jurisprudence. Is this success? (g) It failed to insist upon the release of war prisoners contrary to the rules of war and international law. Unknown thousands are still held by Russia for slave-labor purposes. Is this success? Fourth. At Potsdam, Mr. Truman, his State Department, and his military lead- ers, agreed to a plan which resulted in Russia setting up a blockade of Berlin that denied access to that city of Amer- ican and British personnel. The Berlin airlift became necessary thereafter at a cost of millions of dollars to American taxpayers and the loss of American lives in that operation. Who was responsible for that fiasco, Mr. Speaker? The Presi- dent was then Commander in Chief and it was his responsibility. Mr. Speaker, if the Potsdam Confer- ence was a success as the President said, then we can only hope and pray that Mr. Acheson’s mission to Europe last month will never reach the same level; it was a new low in the history of our country. Even the Washington Post, in an editorial on May 31, 1950, referred to that meeting as “‘the flat, stale, and unprofitable Potsdam agreement.” The Post has never been anti-New Deal. So Potsdam must be recorded as a rank failure and not a success as Mr. Truman intimated. Ireland Must Be One and Indivisible EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, the re- cent visit of Sir Basil Brooke, Prime Min- ister of Northern Ireland, to the United States and Canada should serve to re- focus the attention of the American people on the subject of partition in Ireland. At this point, it seems to me, the Irish and Irish-Americans can use all the sup- port they can raise to secure complete unity and freedom for Ireland. My co- religionists and myself, perhaps more than other groups, can readily appre- ciate the intensity of feeling which par- tition has generated in the hearts of the Trish and in those of Irish antecedents everywhere. Ireland to them will al- ways be the little bit of heaven that dropped from out the sky one day and never, while they are conscious, will they be reconciled to what they consider Eng- land’s occupation of their six northern counties. The Irish have not been nig- gard in their support of Jewish aspira- tions in Palestine and I believe it is due,
AA41T4 in part, to their own historic struggle for freedom and independerce. They, too, have long felt the yoke of an oppressor. It has occurred to me that some of my constituents, absoxzbed as they have been in a similar struggle in Palestine, may have lost sight temporarily of this problem which has bedeviled the Irish. To them, the establishment of the Re- public of Ireland may mean the end of the matter. To the Irish, nothing could be further from the truth. The Exter- nal Relations Act was repealed in De- cember 1648, but as a tribute to the en- shrined heroes of the abortive Easter Monday Rebellion of 1916, the proclama- tion of the Irish Republic was delayed until Easter Monday of 1949. Then, jubilantly, Ireland severed its last direct tie with the British Crown. For the first time in 795 years, Ireland was inde- pendent in law as wellas infact. As the saying goes, it was a great day for the Trish and they enjoyed it to the hilt. They could be safe in the thought that they were rid of the hated Black and Tans for good. The Irish could now un- furl the precious tricolor anywhere at any time, without reprisal. At long last, Pease and the martyrs who died with him were vindicated. In celebration, thousands upon thousands streamed into Dublin’s fair city. Friendship with England did not seem impossible, as a touching message from England’s King George was joyfully received. Pope Pius sent his blessing. It is said only De Va- Jera frowned. “Public rejoicing is out of place,” said he, “as long as our country remains partitioned.” You might well ask, “Why partition?” It must make as little sense to you as it does 10 the natives of Ireland. I shall try here to summarize the background of this problem, as gathered from Irish sources of information. Until the second decade of this cen- tury, Ireland had always been regarded as a national unit, until the British Gov~ ernment maneuvered a very irregular Givision, due to a struggle for power be-~ tween the two big political parties in Britain, the Liberals and the Tories. The Liberals were committed to self-govern- ment in Ireland and the Tories were violently opposed. As the Irish tell it, the Tories decided to kill two birds with one stone and used the provosed grant of home rule to Ireland to drive the Lib- erals from office. The British Tory Jeaders visited northeast Ulster, agitated the majority, armed the rank and file, and faced the Liberals with a crisis. The Liberals, rather than leave office, solved the dilemma by abandoning their pledges to Ireland and their own self-govern- ment bill, and adopted the expedient of partition, For more than 4 years prior to Decem- ber 1918,,c2veral British efforts were inade to secure Irish acceptance for some plan of dismemberment but all such negotiations broke down. On December 14, 1918, a general election was held in which the whole of Ireland participated. The issue was whether Ireland, exercis- ing the right to self-determination, pro- claimed by the victors in World War I, would declare her independence and set up a national legislation. 'The election was held under British law and was car- ried out while a British army occupied the whole island. The result was over- whelmingly in favor of national inde- pendence. Excluding the universities, there were 101 parliamentary electoral Givisions in Ireland. Seventy-eight of these declared for independence and only 23,against. In view of this trend, the elected representatives of the people assembled in Dublin on January 21, 1919, declared Ireland an independent nation and established a government and legis- lature. But Britain refused to accept the right of the Irish people to make laws for themselves, and by the imposition of martial law, by the use of the Black and Tans, set off a systematic wave of ter- rorism which will live long in the Irish memory as well as that of the world. But the Irish people held tenaciously to their bitterly won progress and it was then that the British Parliament in 1920, passed the act dividing Ireland into two parts. The British then sought to im- pose their own governmental institu- tions on each part, through the use of an army of occupation. The enforcement of such a settlement was rejected by five-sixths of Ireland. Britain succeeded, in Belfast, in setting up a separate government for the six northeastern counties. In setting up this separate government in Ulster, Britain not only defied the democratically expressed will of the Irish people, but also the majority in- side the selected area. The Tories of the northeast of Ulster were opposed to self- government for Ireland and to separation from Britain, but they were opposed also to the division of their country. While they accepted the separate government and parliament when set up, thereby accepting partition, at no time did they desire it as a solution. You cannot expect an Irishman to view dispassionately the cutting up of his homeland any more than you could expect a mother to remain calm while some intruder in her home hacked away at her child. They cannot be expected to remain quiescent when they regard the obstinate, greedy domination of the six counties by a small clique of rich men who gained their power by force and fraud and maintain it by discrimination and gerrymandering constitutencies. Such practices justify any degree of Trish bitterness. The six-county area cut off in 1920 had never existed before as an entity in history, politics, or eco- nomics. It was not Ulster, which is a Province of nine counties. It had no natural boundaries or unity within itself. The Tories—whose existence was made the excuse for partition—were in a majority in a continuous area not as large as two of the counties, with smaller concentrations in other parts of the six counties. Their strength lay principally in Belfast, in County Antrim, and in the northern half of County Down. It is the solid contention of the Irish that in the rest of the area, taken as a biock—four and a half counties out of the six—there was and still is a majority for independence. When partition was first imposed, the population of the six counties was 1,250,- 000. More than half of this population ‘APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD occupied Belfast, Antrim, and half of Down. In this area the political divi- sion was 552,000 Tories to 149,000 Na- tioralists. In the other four and a half counties, there were 281,000 Nationalists and 268,009 Tories. These figures tell the story. The numerical strength of the Tories in the one and a half counties would enable them to outvote perma- nently the Nationalist majority in the ad- joining four and a half counties. Given @ chance to vote, Armagh, Derry, Fer- managh, Tyrone, and southern Down would as a bicc have declared for union with free Ireland. However, they were given no such ehoice. To make eassur- ance doubly sure, the British statute which partitioned Ireland added to the corner in which the Tory votes were con- centrated as much Nationalist territory as it was believed those Tory votes could always dominate. In separating the northeast from the rest of Ireland, Britain intended to hold a part of Ireland in pursuance of her im- perial policy. In May 1949, the British Government introduced legislation known as the Ireland Act to determine the position of Irish citizens in Britain following the repeal of the External Re- Jations Act by tho Irish Parliament. Into this act, the British Government deliberately inserted a clause designed to endow the partition of Ireland with an abiding permanency. The British already had the power to prolong partition. They themselves hold the border with a chain of British cus- toms posts and customs officials. British armed forces occupy the six counties and the British treasury levies and collects some 90 percent of the total tax revenue, thereby exercising a great influence on the finances of the area. Not content with these powers, the British Government put into the Ireland Act, the following, as an additional bar- rier to the reunification of Ireland: Parliament (i. e., the British Parliament) hereby declares that Northern Ireland re- mains part of His Majesty’s dominions and of the United Kingdom and affirm that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty’s dominions and of the United Kingdom with- out the consent of the Parliament of North- ern Ireland. It should be stressed that the area electing the parliament was carefully designed to insure that the nationalists and others who stand for the unity of Ireland would never win a parliamentary majority. The Belfast region, although only one-third of the area, elects 34 members of the house of 52. Further, the Ireland Act specifically prevents the people of the six counties from deciding the issue. An amendment leaving the decision to the pcpple and not to the parliament was rejected by the British Government. This has been the British policy since partition was im- posed and Mr. Lloyd George in 1916, in a secret letter, stated that partition must continue even if the majority in the cut- off area wished it to end. Britain has always ignored any suggestion of holding a plebiscite on the issue of partition, just as she ignored the will of the Irish people in imposing partition. In the Ireland Act the British provide themselves with two vetoes on Irish unity.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD One through their own Parliament, at Westminster, and one through the Par- liament they forced on Beifast. The Irish make a telling point of the ingenuity of this system which enables British statesmen to insure that parti- tion continues and at the same time to assert that the matter is really one for the Irish to settle among themselves. The antidemocratic nature of the parti- tionist clause was so evident that 140 members of the British Government Party, risking political repercussions for themselves, refused to vote for the act in the critical division. The bill passed, but not until nearly 200 members of all parties, with a very large proportion from Labor, had failed to endorse the clause which makes the Parliament of Northern Ireland sole arbiter of any change. Complaint now rises not from the orig- inal act, as I understand it, but from the fact that it has never been repealed. It has been reinforced with restraints through the years. For instance, the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Af- fairs, or any police officer to whom he delegates power, may suppress any pub- lic meeting or newspapers merely by “proclaiming” it. This year St. Patrick’s Day parades were banned in Northern Ireland and protest was so widespread, we now have Sir ‘Basil Brooke publicly stating that he should not be blamed for the affair. The St. Patrick’s Day parades were banned by British home office, said he, because Na- tionalist element in North wanted to march into a Loyalist village. I guess any reason is better than no reason, to Sir Basil Brooke. A flagrant manipulation of the elector- al boundaries has been permitted to the effect that where Nationalists are in a majority they can secure only a minor- ity of the representation. For instance, Derry is the second city of importance in the partitioned area. For that reason the Tories were determined that the Na- tionalists would not represent it in Par- liament. They so gerrymandered the boundaries as to create a new “city di- vision,” cutting the city itself in two, and bringing in a huge rural area. The excluded part of the city was then placed in another constituency. In district after district it is thus made impossible for the Nationalist majority to elect a majority of the local representatives. The Tory minorities are given substan- tial majorities of the seats on county councils, urban district councils and rural district councils in areas where the population is predominantly Nationalist. Naturally this policy is encouraged by the British Government. A recent bill changed the qualification required of local electors. It gave those with prop- erty several votes and deprived many with lower incomes of the single vote they had. As the bill was going through the Belfast Parliament, a member of the administration admitted that its purpose was to prevent Nationalist voters, where they formed the majority, from con- trolling their own public boards. All Ireland has 2 population of 4,248,165. Eighty percent of that popu- lation want Ireland to be one national unit. All Ireland has 32 counties. Of these a block of 30 counties, with an area of over 80 percent, want Ireland to be one national unit. No one has truly benefited from par- tition, least of all the British, inasmuch as their policy in Northern Ireland has Placed them in a wholly untenable moral Position, She has pursued in Ireland tactics she has deplored in use against peoples elsewhere. She has served to create and maintain a festering sore in an island so adjacent to her own that the continuance of the injury seems to be the height of national folly. Britain is as dependent on the production of Ireland as she is sustained from that in Scotland and Wales. The argument is raised that Ulster has a higher standard of living than Treland on the average. Between World Wars I and II the economic situation in the cut-off area was so bad that the British Government listed the region as depressed area No. 1, worse even than the mining towns in South Wales. As the postwar boom subsides signs of eco- nomic depression are returning. The Government of the Republic of Ireland has made very substantial prog- ress in encouraging industry. Schools and hospitals have been built. A huge power plant in Limerick has harnessed the river Shannon and will eventually provide electricity to the whole country. Newspapers are well-circulated, and the people are well-informed. Unemploy- ment is low and farm prices are up. It is believed that the Irish would be ready and willing to fight with the west. Al- though exponents of communism today flourish in many countries, there are few Communists in Ireland. It is ab- normal and highly unsatisfactory for @ small island to be split in two perma- nently in a world where unity is becom- ing more and more desirable. As for Ireland as a whole, this disruption of the country prevents the fullest develop- ment of the nation’s resources through coordinated efforts on the part of all. Partition causes energy that would other- wise go to the building up of the country to be devoted to righting a wrong no group can suffer quietly. - The pattern of partition has persisted too long. It cannot be stressed too often that no rivers or mountains divide Ulster from the rest of Ireland. The frontiers established are highly artificial, cutting through streets, farms, town lands and even houses. Such an unnatural and fabricated line of demarcation is mon- strous. It is obvious no British Govern- ment, no matter what its party com- position, will lift a finger to end it. Yet the people in the Republic of Ireland are possessed of a passionate conviction that Ireland will once again be united. That their devotion to this ideal has not slackened was reaffirmed only recently by the Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Sean MacBride. He claimed that what- ever party differences might exist on matters of internal policy, all the parties in the state were loyally cooperating with a firm determination that this time they would not allow any internal differ= ences to hinder the progress of the na- tion or to weaken their effort. A4175 Partition is the sole remaining issue between Ireland and Great Britain today. In commenting on the recent Ireland bull when introduced in the British Par- liament, Minister of External Affairs MacBride voiced his chagrin about re- ports to the effect that the State Depart- ment in Washington had stated that American policy would not allow Presi- dent Truman to intervene between Ire- land and Britain to secure the ending of partition. He further stated: Tam fully aware that that has always peen the attitude of the State Department. * * * I cannot help, however, regretting that the jeading democratic republic in the worid, should not at least take an interest in and assist in ending the situation which, in addition to being undemocratic, is danger- ous and damaging to the unity which should exist in the democratic world. The statement of Minister of External Affairs MacBride is eminently sound. It does seem that the leading democ- racy in the-world, the United States, should take a decisive step to right an obvious injustice. There is now pending in the Congress House Resolution No, 270, introduced by my distinguished col- league from Rhode Island, Mr. Focarry. This resolution states in part: Resolved, That it is the sense of this House of Representatives that the Republic of Ireland should embrace the entire territory of Ireland unless the clear majority of all of the people of Ireland, in a free plebiscite, determine and declare to the contrary. I am in thorough accord with this resolution and shall support it to the nth degree. I believe it should have the unqualified support of all the Mem- bers of the House. Welcome, Veep, to Louisiana EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, under previous authority to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the RrEcorp, I wish to submit an editorial from the Southwest Citizen, published in the largest city in my district, Lake Charles, La., in connection with the recent visit of Vice President BarKuey, as follows: WELCOME, VEEP, TO LOUISIANA Few national officeholders would be more welcome in Louisiana than the Veep, and the Citizen joins the rest of the State in wishing Vice President ALBEN BARKLEY well when he comes to Baton Rouge and Ham- mond for speeches this week. The Veep has brought color and life to an office that is altogether too often without it. The Nation followed his jet-propelled romance breathlessly, and has since accorded him a good will and an almost universal popularity that few political figures enjoy. He’ll make three speeches in the State— all at extremely important and worthy functions. He'll participate in exercises marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of Southeastern Louisiana College in Hammond on Saturday,
A416 May 20. That night hell address a gather- ing in New Orleans. Next day he will be guest of honor at a community-wide meeting in Baton Rouge under auspices of the United Jewish Appeal. He'll speak on “A World Mission of Mercy,” and will describe the American effort to re- pair damage to human life and freedom in the aftermath of the war. Louisiana is lucky to have such a pleasant- spoken and distinguished visitor. We are glad to have bim on board. Annapolis and West Peint EXTENSION OF REMARES oF HON. CARL HINSHAW OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 31, 1950 Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Speaker, Maj. Gen. Hugh J. Knerr, United States Air Force, retired, was, at the time of his retirement, the Inspector General of the United States Air Force. During the ex- istence of the Congressional Aviation Policy Board of the Hightieth Congress, General Kneer acted as alternate ad- viser to Gen. H. H. “Hap” Arnold. Maj. Gen. Hugh J. Knerr graduated from the Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1908 and served as an ensign in the Navy until 1912 when he transferred to the Coast Artillery Corps of the Army. He was one of those dauntiless spirits who, in 1917, became an aviator in the then young and startling Air Corps. In 1939, while air officer of the Eighth Corps area, he retired as a colonel be- cause of physical disability incident to military service. However, later in that same year he returned to active service and was sent to England shortly after the outbreak of World War II, where he saw high administrative service in the United States strategic air forces in Europe. As stated above, he retired in 1948 as Inspector General of the United States Air Force. He was associated with Gen. William “Billy” Mitchell and was long a parti- san to get air power recognized as a strategic weapon for the United States. He collaborated with General Andrews in furthering the doctrines of a separate air force in active service. In his work as alternate adviser to the Congressional Aviation Policy Board, General Knerr contributed enormously through his thorough knowledge and understanding of all three military services, having served in each. While strongly partisan for the recognition of air power as a prime strategic weapon for the defense of our country, he was thoroughly unsympathetic toward those who adhered to the ancient philosophy of the old school tie. His own service in all three branches of the Defense Estab- lishment convinced him of the need for unification of all of the armed forces. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to ex~- tend my remarks in the Recorp, I take pleasure in including an article by Maj. Gen. Hugh J. Knerr, United States Air Force, retired, which sets forth his ideas in connection with the service schools. The article follows: Servic: ScHOoLs NEED New Ipzss—-THES PRo- FESSION OF ARMS DEMANDS CiviLian TRAIN- ING AS WELL 4S MILITARY KNOWLEDGE (By Maj. Gen. Hugh J. Knerr, USAF, Retired) While we are locked in a cold war With a relentless antagonist, to propose the abohi- tion of the service academies at West Point and Annapolis may sound like a particuwly virulent form of hercey. What! A%ohsh processes which gave us Grant and Lee, Dewey and Pershing, Arno!d and MacArthur! That the proposal comes from a graduate of the Naval Academy only compounds the heresy. Yet 15 1s my conviction that if we are to educate our military properly for the respon~ sibilities of the air-atomic age, we should, indeed, abolish these venerable institutions . as they are presently constituted. We should abolish them because as undergraduate schools they do not meet our requirements; they create more problems than they solve; they are relics of the age of Clausewitz and Mahan. Ir cemntctc “+e heresy. The Air Force, In. a el eae et cu the abolition of West Point and Annapolis, is now asking Congress to authorize a third service academy. The Joint Chiefs of Staff support this request. I spent 32 years in the Air Force and supported most of its objectives; but on this point Iam in complete disagreement with the Air Force command. The third academy, I am con- vinced, would be an expensive step backward. I believe the time has come when we should deliberately and thoughtfully redesign cur system of military education. This is the age of technology. The preparation for and the waging of war has become an infinitely com- plex operation. Our milhtary department is a vast and integral portion o° our economy, Against an enemy who may array three- fourths of the earth’s population against us, we can survive only by massive employment of superior technology. So the requirements of a military officer in 1955 and 1960 will be a long way from what they were in the gal- lant but simple days of cavalry movements across the plains. In our military department now we have approximately 180,000 officers—76,080 in the Army, 60,600 in the Air Force, 44,000 in the Navy. In the peacetime future we shall need at least 12,000 new, young officers a year for active duty, and this will increase because technology demands a higher and higher per- centage of officers. How shall we select these officers? How shall we induce them to follow military ca- reers? How shall we train them? What can we wish for them in the way of education so that they can be entrusted safely with the preservation of our western heritage? It seems to me that the elementary re- quirement must be a liberal, well-rounded college education. Our industries seek their key replacements among college graduates. Our professional schools require academic degrees of their entrants; law and medicine require prelaw and premedical degrees. I be- lieve the military must require a premilitary degree. That we must have the college graduate is being demonstrated daily. Even as we fought World War II every branch of the service was frantically sending officers to college; yet, with all this activity, the percentages of col- lege graduates including the service acade- mies, in the officers corps in 1946 were: Navy 70 percent, Army 50 percent, Air Force 30 percent. Today all branches, particularly the Army and Air Force, are struggling to give their officers basic college training. So for the future we can start with nothing less than the superior, 21-year-old college graduate. But each year where shall we find 12,000 superior 21-year-old college graduates who APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD want military careers? West Point and Annapolis currently are providing about 1,- C00; some cf these are held in service by com- pulsory 8-year contracts; and the relative im-« portance of academy graduates in our milt- tary department steadily is declining. Less than 10 percent of the cfficers now in the Air Force are from West Point or Annapo- lis. Our vital cperational commands like the Strategic Air Command and the Tactical Air Command are headed respectively by Lt. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, of Chio State, and Maj. Gen. Willis H. Hale, who advanced from the ranks. Many of the Navy’s most brilliant young Officers never saw Annapolis; and the same is true of the Army. Naturally, and for obvious reasons, most of the top commands were held by graduates of the academies. I do not disparage these officers; I am proud to have been one of them; I am aware of the historic contribu- tion made by the academies to the safety of this Nation. But I cannot agree that superior personal honor and patriotism can be instilled only at a service academy. In my experience the academy graduate has evidenced no superior capacity over the college graduate. In my own Air Force commands I have preferred the college graduate to the academy gradu- ate because the former suffered from fewer inhibitions, was more eager to learn, and more receptive to innovation. Many senior officers in every branch of the service have agreed with this opinion; some have not. So to our problem of providing each year 12,000 superior, 21-year-old college gradu- ates who want military careers—to this there are three possible solutions. Furst, we can build the air academy and let the three acad- emies provide about one-eighth of the grad. uates and the colleges seven-eights. Sec- ond, we can build the air academy, expand the three manifold, and hope that they can provide most of the 12,000. Or third, we can abolish the academy system and adopt a new plan whereby the colleges will supply them all. Since the first course is the one we have followed until now, we are familiar with its disadvantages. That there is a natural con- flict between academy and college graduates is well known. Rightly or wrongly, it is widely believec. that the academy graduates control the Military Establishment and favor one another. So, since he is aware of this handicap to himself and since he has a nat- ural antipathy for military service, why should the superior college graduate choose an active military career? The very fact that academy graduates seem to be in con- trol of the military department often pre- vents our getting superior college grad- uates and forces us to take more of the in- ferior ones. The second course can be objected to on several grounds. My principal objection is to the nature of current academy training. I don’t believe in educating American boys in a cloister. I think when you take a healthy 17-year-old away from his home environment and shut him up for 4 years, whatever you teach him, yoy are likely to do him more harm than good. You convert such boys into a class apart, and in an age when war has become total we don’t want a samurai in America. In trying to save western civilization our only resource is brains. All the advantages of brawn. and numbers are on the other side. We can forestall a war—or win one—only if our people have better technical educations; only 1f our military leaders are superior tech- nicians who are constantly finding the new and more effective means to enforce our will. I believe our colleges are more likely to pro- duce men of this type than are our service academies, Our academies are still placing too much emphasis on formal military training, In wars in the air-atomic age the only men who
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD need to march in step are the police. The pistol, the rifle, the manual of arms, squads east and west—all these are useful only to the police who establish order after the deci- sion of war has been gained with atomic and biological weapons. West Point and Annap- olis are institutions where the technical training of individuals is made secondary to gymnastic exercises in military bearing. Their 1949 football records provide a fair guide to the two academies. Annapolis is the better technical school; West Point has an excellent physical education program; but in the matter of imparting technical knowl- edge and teaching men to think, they are both far behind our better colleges. So I favor the third course, the plan under which we would abolish West Point and Annapolis as academies—as undergraduate institutions—and depend entirely on our colleges to supply the 12,000 superior and broadly educated 21-year-olds. The colleges can do the better job; the academies were founded in other times for other purposes; in any likely case the colleges must do most of the job; so why not have an end to the old conflict between college and academy graduates and pass the responsibility to col- leges which have or will create good depart- ments of military science and tactics? This plan would not necessitate abandon- ment of our traditional congressional ap- pointments to an academic education at Government expense. Public officials now making appointments to the academies could instead award scholarships to the ap- proved Reserve Officers Training Corps colleges. We might even increase the num- ber of such scholarships. But the appointee, instead of going to West Point or Annapolis, would first go to his State University or per- haps be allowed to choose any college which is on the approved list. When the appointee reported to the col- lege of his choice, ROTC officers would be- come his faculty advisers and administrators of his scholarship. They would begin teach- ing him military ethics; insist on a high order of scholarship and personal conduct; recommend technical courses to prepare him for his military specialty; begin teaching him to operate machines; send him to summer camps to train with his fellows; hold the power of dismissal over him; but otherwise, would allow him the widest possible latitude in the selection of his courses. This doesn’t mean that a military educa- tion would become any easier or any less Spartan than it is now at the academies. If anything, it would become harder; for there is no easy way for a man to educate himself for military responsibility in 1960. He can’t avoid higher mathematics, physics, chemis- try, astronomy or philosophy. He has to ex- ercise his brain and prepare to think and reason, But, by educating our officers in the col- leges, we can put the emphasis on technical instead of on military training. We can, therefore, make the military career more at- tractive to a larger number of superior men; Wwe can avoid the dangers of the cloister—of creating a class apart; we can leave the stu- ent in a natural civilian environment until he is 21; and, in my opinion, we can thus better create a young man who is more of an individual and better trained to think and initiate. On graduation, on recommendation by his ROTC officers, the young appointee-graduate then would stand competitive examinations with all the ROTC graduates who aspire to military careers. The examinations would be to determine the recipients of 12,000 proba- tionary commissions in the military depart- ment of the United States. In the competi- tion for these commissions the boy who had been educated at Government expense would have no advantage over the one who had been educated, with ROTO, at private expense. Suppose the boy educated at Gcvernment expense fails in the competitive examina- tions? He will have been given preparation for a civilian career and can be commissioned in the Reserve. At first this might seem wasteful, but it is actually less wasteful than the present system. A fifth of the wwrt: to West Point and Annapolis fail i... and a fourth of the graduates choose civilian careers. The 12,000 successful competitors would be granted probationary commissions and would be ready for assignment to one of the three graduate schools of the military depart- ment: West Point, Annapolis, and Randolph Field. Yes, I believe that West Point and An- napolis along with Randolph Field should be reconstituted as 2-year graduate schools of a single military department. The venerable academies should embrace a new and honor- tae ects able destiny: they should cease dealing with ~ 17-year-old cadets and midshipmen and be- gin dealing with 21-year-old college grad- uates; instead of training a few for 4 years they should train all of our peacetime regu- lars for 2 years. Once this change were made at West Point and Annapolis, and Randolph Field were added to them, then many of our old prob- lems would begin to disappear. The 12,000 college graduates holding probationary com- missions could be assigned to one of the three: 4,000 to each school, thus giving each a student body of 8,000. For the first year the men could be assigned without regard to specialty since the first year should be largely devoted to an over-all study of triphibious warfare. For the second year they could be shuffled again and assigned to the schools of their specialty; and upon successful completion of the second year they could be permanently commissioned and assigned to active duty. The old conflict between Academy and col- lege graduates would be ended: Promotion could be had on ability. The old Academy- spawned rivalries between Army and Navy could be forgotten, for these new officers would hold their commissions in the mili- tary department. They could all wear the same uniform and denote their specialties with suitable insignia. Even those who operated different types of machines would understand that modern warfare must be planned and waged as a single operation. We would have done with much of the old waste and duplication. A capable supply officer could purchase food, not for the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, but for the De- fense Department. Our pilots could operate today from an aircraft carrier and tomorrow from a land base. Our experts in electron- ics—and they must multiply—would be ex- pert whether they were operating on land, at sea, or in the air. We would need only one program for the development of guided missiles, not three, as we have at present. In this connection, the Air Force command, in advocating a third Academy, is breaking faith with Billy Mitchell and with most of us old-timers who fought so long for the rec- ognition of air power. Mitchell and the rest of us believed in a single military depart- ment: We believed in unification, not tripli- cation. The present organization is a compromise accepted by the Air Force in order to gain autonomy. If the Air Force is no longer to strive toward true unification, if Air Force energies are to be devoted to the construc- tion of a third service bureaucracy, then Gen. Billy Mitchell can start turning over in his grave. These are perilous times for America and for western civilization. The honorable pro- fession of arms bears a terrible responsibility. One of our responsibilities is to attract to our profession the ablest young men of the Nation, then to train them to defend ‘free- dom’s bastion in a totalitarian sea. If we are Willing to be unselfish, if we are able to make the necessary changes, if we will coop- erate first with our free colleges, and then AAI77 with our free industries I believe we can build an American defense organization which will be equal to the challenges. ET Foreign Agricultural Trade Pclicy Ad- visory Committee Stresses Importance ef Foreign Trade to the American Farmer EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. STEPHEN M. YOUNG OF OHTO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I insert the following report, dated April 28, 1950, of the Foreign Agricultural Trade Policy Advisory Committee: FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL TRADE Poiticy Apvisory COMMITTEE SUBMITS REPORT The Foreign Agricultural Trade Policy Ad- visory Committee, formed in November 1949, to advise the United States Department of Agriculture in matters involving foreign ag- ricultural trade and policies, has submitted a report to Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan following its second meeting April 24 and 265. The report is the second submitted to Secretary Brannan by the committee. The first, rendered after the committee’s initial meeting January 6, 1950, emphasized the magnitude of the foreign-trade problem and the need for detailed study by both Govern- ment and trade groups, and suggested full exploration of questions involved prior to specific policy recommendations. Seven pol- icy ‘areas were listed for such exploration, (Press release USDA 62~50.) The Foreign Agricultural Trade Policy Ad- visory Committee is composed of representa- tives of farm organizations, land-grant col- leges, the agricultural press and agricultural industry invited by Secretary Brannan to serve aS members. (Press releases USDA 22- 50 and 2526-49.) The committee’s second report follows: “The agricultural industries of the United States are being rapidly and dramatically confronted with problems growing out of the alleviation of wartime and postwar shortages of farm products. As a result farmers and others interested in agricultural production and marketing policies must of necessity give prompt and vigorous atten- tion to the developing foreign trade situa~ tion as it affects the probable future foreign markets for American farm products. “One of the questions which needs to be weighed most carefully in this connection is the fact that any agricultural or other program whieh endeavors to maintain prices above market levels for any considerable share of the time is inevitably nationalistic. It comes into conflict with efforts to develop international trade and other forms of inter- national cooperation. “Such programs are nationalistic and take us back on the road to isolationism because— “1, They lead to well-nigh irresistible demands that trade barriers be raised to keep products of other nations from shar- ing in the artificially high prices they pro- vide. “2, They involve keeping American re- sources out of fullest use to curtail output in order to raise prices, and it is not logical to expect that imports which will defeat that objective will be acceptable.
A4178 “3. They increase the difficulties of ex- porting because prices are adove those from ecmpeting sources of supply. “4 They foster programs of export dump- ing which invite retaliation from other countries. “5, They require barriers to keep products ecld abroad at lower prices from returning to cur mazkets “6. They encourage an ezpansion of State trading because cf the Government controls necessary in their eficetive operation. “7 They cncecurage similer nationalistic programs for the expansion of uneconomic prceduction in other countries to 1eplace our Products which m turn will lead to further demends for restrictive acticn. “While the inevitable adjustments in the postwar pattern of international trade will probably impose rather heavy adjustment problems on some segments of r-r.evlure, it must also be recognized that tor.ir justments may be required of cther segments cf the American economy. To the extent that nonagricultural imports into this coun- try may be developed as a result of a high level of domestic business, a high level of world preduction and trade, and a minimum of restrictive barriers, the necessary down- werd adjustments in our impertans cere "= tural industries may be iocur.cd Our agricultural and other programs should have sufficient flexibility 10 make them adaptable to a constructive foreign-trade policy. “The United States today is the world’s leading Nation. As such, 1t must weigh the consequences of its every action on its rela- tionship to the rest of the world. Our ef~ forts to get other countries to lower trade barriers and to work together for maintain-~ ing an enduring world peace will be seriously hampered, 1f nwt ewer state eemised, if this country pursue « *’ 7: * * in con- flict with our ‘+. wk It is es- sential that Americans generally recognize these facts.” Members of the committee who attended the April 24-25 meeting were: Homer L. Brinkley, secretary and general manager, American Rice Growers’ Cooperative Asso- ciation, Lake Charles, La.; E. F. Creekmore, E. F. Creekmore & Co., New Orleans, La.; E. W. J Hearty, H. W. J. Hearty, Inc, New York, N. ¥.; Edward J. Grimes, vice president, Cargill, Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.; O. B. Jes- ness, head, Division of Agricwltural Econom- ics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn.; Paul D. Sanders, editor, the Southern Planter, Richmond, Va.; W. A. Schoenfeld, dean of the School of Agriculture, Oregon State College, Corvallis, Oreg ; R. E. Short, vice president, American Farm Bureau Federation, Brinkley, Ark., and Jesse W. Tapp, vice president, Bank of America, San Francisco, Calif. Committee members unable to be present were; A. S. Goss, master, the National Grange, Washington, D. C.; Robert F, Loree, chairman of board, National Foreign Trade Council, Inc., New York, N. ¥.; W. I. Myers, dean of the College of Agriculture, Corneil University, Ithaca, N, Y.; Edward J. O’Brien, Jr., Edward J. O’Brien Co., Louisville, Ky.; and James G. Patton, president, Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America. od= Communism EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include the following ertiacle from the Chelsea Record, Chelsea, Mass., June 1, 1950: CHURCH AND COMMUNISM Far from showing a disposition to pull out of Communist-controlled ccuntries, the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions 1s planning special training for missionaries assigned to such areas, it was announced recently. Viewing the rise of communism as a new problem for the church, end pointing out that 1t must be reckoned with in nearly every part of the world, the Presbyterian statemont said that Christianity can neither fles from communism nor compromise with it on basic moral and spiritual issues. It must meet man’s nceds on the spiritual level, where communism has nothing to offer, say these churchmen. This militant stand, contrasting with cn attitude of aloof disapproval of communism, may preve in the long run to be an effective means of dealing with this destructive force. The patience ncedcd in waiting for its re- sults, however, is likely to be monumental. Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mrs, ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Recor», I include the thirty-ninth article by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop on the infiltration of communism in our country: E1zacust Story (By Frank C. Waldrop) For the 10 years from 1929 to 1909, Stalin’s greatest political concern was that of killing other Communists who had tried to make a revolution against him because there was no legal outlet for differences of opinion. Down below the Moscow stratosphere the people of Russia sweated and bled and strained to carry out the 5-year plan of 1928 and its revisions. This was supposed to make Russia a fairy~ land of ‘scientific socialism’ and guaranteed material plenty. The mere technical fact that 1t failed to do so has been overlooked ever since by Soviet apologists. The Moscow palace wars came about he- cause so many Communists themselves knew this plan was bunk and protested at the harsh and inhumane demands Stalin put upon the people in its name. The consequential 10-year purge and blood-~ letting in high places should not be confused with the special and separate issue of Stalin’s personal war on Leon Trotsky. That was simply getting rid of a talented fellow-revolutionary who knew all the tricks of overthrowing a government and had his eye on Stalin’s job. The 10-year purges from 1929 to 19389 had overtones and undertones of Trotskyism, to be sure. But more than that they repre- sented the resistance of ordinary common sense to the rigidity of Socialist planning. The official records of the world-remem- bered “Moscow Trials” of 1933-39 contain such staggering evidence as the case of Henry Yagoda, head of Stalin’s own secret police, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Yogado first killed for Stalin and then was wiped out by Stalin with no thanks for serv- ices rendered. One of the most fantastic Yagodo stories has to do with his use of drugs. He was a chemist. So he impregnated one victim's room with mercury paint to poison him slowly. Another had a bad heart. Yagoda ordered his medicines mized so as to blow the heart muscles apart. Karl Radek, once Stalin’s favorite news- paper editor, made a confession that to this day has never been fully unraveled in all its peculiarities. dust one tantalizing allusion concerned the case of Gavril Princep, earlier noted here. Princep war the utterly obscure and un- important Serbian student who shot the Austrian archduke, Franz Ferdinand, in 19i4 and set off World War I. Who put Princop up to that? And why, more than 20 years later, would Karl Radek, the old Bolshevik and confidant of com- munism’s chiefest aristocrats, drag him into court as a part of his own defense? This is a challenge to lovers of international mystery and whcels within whecls. Then, there 1s the case of Rosengoltz, the commissar of trade, who was exhibit No. 1 of the horrors of being religious in a regime Officially atheistic. This same Vishinsky, who is now Russia’s Foreign Minister and was until recently chief nuisance at the United Nations, prosecuted him. Vishinsky confronted Rosengoltz on the witness stand with the charge that when ar- rested Rosengoltz had 1n his pocket a picce of bread. Within the bread there was a rolled- up cloth. Inside the cloth was a paper. And on the paper? Not a coded message from Trotsky. Not a numbers slip, nor even the name of the hottest horse at Laurel raceways. On the *-"crlbed— incredible for an: + Hy * "--. prayer, Exposed in this criminality, Rosengoltz de- fended himself by saying that he didn’t think anything of the prayer. His wife made him carry it. In 1983, 1,000,CCO Communists were kicked out of the party. On December 1, 1934, Sergei Kirov, one of Stalin’s closest friends, governor of Leningrad and specialist in chorus girls, was shot dead in the street. In 1987 Marshals Gamarnik, Tukhachevshy, and seven other generals evaporated. It was as if Generals Bradley, Collins, and their chief assistants in our general staff were snatched from the Pentagon and shot in the Justice Department kasement It took Stalin from 1929 to 1938 to get up the nerve actually to shoot Bukharin, the old Bolshevik mentioned yesterday as the first of the top brass to be fired, but finally he did. Also, he fired Maxim Litvinov as Foreign Minister in 1939 in spite of 18 years of faithful intrigue in his service. Litvinov’s crime was to have persuaded Stalin in 1934 into the League of Nations and in early 1939 to have favored lining up with Britain against Germany. He was defined as “too western.” But this is getting over into Soviet foreign affairs. Today’s account is just a glancing note on the purges at home. The actuality is too vast «nd complex and awful for handling in less than a very long book. The important point for now is that all of it was well known to the world at the time. By 1933 Stalin’s character stood revealed to civilization as wotse than Hitler's. Yet President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who made a career of denouncing Hitler, took up Stalin. When citizens tried to warn him, he boasted, “Oh, don’t worry. I’m an old horse trader. I can handle him.” rome ooet