A388 than that, they are shouting all. over the world that the United States is a capitalist- ruled country, that labor here is oppressed and down-trodden, that the American Gov- ernment is the tool of big business and stands for industrial exploitation and the degradation of the workingman. That, of course, is the technique of the big lie. Hitler, I believe it was, said that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will be believed, because people will think you couldn't have the nerve to invent a really fantastic story. That’s the Russian Commu- nist method today. Look, now, at the world situation. We are the main bulwerk of democratic human freedom and private enterprise—but two- thirds of the world is still free from Commu- nist domination. We are the No. 1 target of the Communists, but the No. 1 tactic of the Communists is to separate us from all possi- ble friends and allies abroad. They seek, also, to win any possible support for their program from among our own political lead- ers and the working people. But mainly they are trying, in Germany, France, Italy, in all of Western Europe, to persuade the labor groups that Uncle Sam is a capitalist despot—that our way of life is fundamentally antilabor and pro-employer. The Commu- nists hold up Russia as labor governed, and America as capitalist dominated. The real battleground of today is not just the rice paddies of Korea—it is the minds of the po- litical leaders and the working people of Western Europe, and even of many in Eng- jand and more than a few in the United States of America. American labor is doing everything possi- bie to counteract that Communist propa- ganda in America and throughout the world. T need not tell you of the campaign within this country; you must have seen the news stories of the constant vigorous opposition to the Communist line and Communist people in all labor unions. Most-of our labor Organizations are free from uny actual Com- munist influence, although there may be individuals who are still unbalanced enough to accept the Russian ltne. But in the international field we have been no less active and determined. We have succeeded in smashing the Communist international labor front; we have destroyed the Commu- nist-dominated World Federation of Trade Unions, and set up a vigorous and effective anti-Communist world organization. I think I may justly say that American labor leader- ship was primarily responsible for this action. In the fight we have been making, we believe we are entitled to the cooperation of American businessmen—to the extent, at least, that they will not in this emergency seek to evade their fair share of the sacri- fices and burdens that are necessary to make our country strong and united so we can win this world struggle. In the development of this Nation, the Government has uniformly and consistently done its best to ald American business, Labor has no objection to the principle, in general, that Government powers should be used for the benefits of the citizens. We believe, with the founding fathers, that gov- ernments are instituted for those purposes. The long record of land grants, of tariff laws, of governmental subsidies, of patent legisla~ tion, of governmental loans and liberal Gov~ ernmen’ contracts, the direct aid given by the State Department and occasionally by the Armed Forces in foreign affairs—all of these things illustrate and attest the devo- tion of the United States Government over the last century and a half to the advance- ment of American business interests, While businessmen, industrialists, and financiers have sometimes disagreed about what meas- ures Government should adopt to foster and help the business community, they have seldom taken issue with the idea that Gov- ernment should offer such help. The great total of billions of dollars that has flowed from Government to industry, and the other direct aids that have been given, have been tremendous factors in our industrial growth. But I do not recall having heard such gov- ernmental agsistance called socialistic, or communistic, or un-American, or paternalis- tic by the representatives of business. Against this necessary background, I ask you to consider what is happening today. During the last year, and especially the last 6 months, the price level in America has risen sharply. Every American industrialist, prac- tically, has shared in the wealth thus cre- ated; his debts have shrunk, his goods on hand have grown, in terms of his dollar situation. Every American workingman, every consumer, on the other hand, has suffered; his debts oppress him more, his weekly income buys him less. Billions of dollars of real wealth have changed hands. What has been the reaction of the busi- ness community to this terrific windfall? The proposal to tax excess profits, for exam- ple, has met with an opposition that seems wholly incomprehensible in view of the facts. Business actually seems to expect that the new taxes, required in our national emer- gency, shall be secured from a Federal con- sumer’s sales tax which will fall largely upon those same groups whose incomes have been. shrinking under the impact of rising prices. And the business community, through its spokesmen, object to the control of prices to prevent profiteering, although they are re- sponsible for raising prices and the inflation that has occurred. At this time when every American family is being called upon to give its sons to the Nation for military service these business attitudes are profoundly dis- turbing to American workers. It does no good to speak a lot of hard words in such situations, but we cannot avold a feeling that too many business representatives are adopting and expressing a narrow, selfish, and greedy viewpoint in this national emer- gency. We do not expect a suspension of the desire for reasonable and fair profits; we do not believe the ordinary motives of economic activity can be set aside in this emergency, without disrupting our industrial efficiency. Labor knows the harvest that has been garnered by American business in the last year of rapid price increases, and the harvest that resulted from the price increases after the repeal of control laws in 1946. We know the rich gains to business resulting from the rapid amortization of war plants in the last war, and the sales of such plants in the post- war years. We see again the provision for 5-year retirement of plant to be used in the new defense effort. In the face of those terrific, those unprecedented gains by Amer- ican business, we believe we have a right to expect forbearance, common sense, and na- tional cooperation from those who own our industries. We cannot reconcile the national emer- gency with the efforts being made not only to raise the price level still further, but, on the legislative field to prevent excess-profit tax- ation. The worst of it, from some stand- points, is that when the workers try to get enough wages to meet these price rises and to prevent undue hardship and suffering for their families, some businessmen want to take away thelr fundamental Mberty. The right to strike is as fundamental as the right of any businessman to buy and sell, as funda- mental as any right protected by the con- tract provisions of the United States Consti- tution. It is as fundamental, and we belleve more sacred; no man’s property is as sacred as his personal liberty, his personal freedom. We cannot get around the simple fact that laws prohibiting strikes of workers in private enterprise take away one of the few great fundamental rights of every American citl- zen. We hope that the business community will rise to the level of dignity, common®e sense, and patriotism that is required of them if we are to preserve America and American- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ism through the pertls that lie immediately ahead of us. Since we all have a supreme stake in freedom, all of us must make our fullest contribution to its defense. With cooperation, labor and industrial manage- ment can get much of the additional pro- duction that will be needed for an effective military defenge and relieve much of the inflationary pressures, but the place to stop price increases is where they originate. The seller and the speculator fix prices, and if they won't stop raising prices, they must be controlled. If prices are controlled, then we agree that wages should be stabilized in parity with prices. Taxes must be raised to get the revenues to pay for our rearmament and they should come from corporation and excess profits and individual incomes. We are opposed to a national sales tax because it does not attack inflation at its source— the price and profit level. Government spending for nondefenge activities must be reduced, but this does not require curtail- ment of essential social services. Postal services should be made self-sus- taining and the charges should be raised to get the necessary revenues. There is no good reason why private business should be fur- nished parcel-post services at a loss of $100,- 000,000 a year to be made up by the tax- payers. I would like to see the advocates of pri- vate enterprise practice what they preach and agree to a correction of this unfair sub- sidized Federal competition with private transportation. Soviet aggression constitutes a challenge to our free way of life. We can overcome that challenge if we stand together, as Amer- icans have done in past emergencies. We must convince Soviet Russia that America has the will to fight and the strength to fight in defense of freedpm and international jus- tice. We must make the Soviet leaders un- derstand once and for all that America is willing to live and let live in peace. American wage earners face the future and its responsibilities seriously, but with confi- dence. We want peace and the opportunity that peace affords for new progress. But if we are compelled by circumstances beyond our control to wage another war, We are de- termined to let nothing stand in the way of vietory—victory that will mean not only a better America, but a better and more peace- ful world in our time. Survey Shows No Reversion to Isolationism EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. MIKE MANSFIELD OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSH OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following state- ment from the National Opinion Re- search Center: Bourver SHows No Reversion To IsoLaTionism The American public shows no signs of a return to old-type isolationism according to &@ survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center during the first week of January 1951. Despite military reverses in Korea and recent criticisms of United States forelgn policy by Hoover, Kennedy, end Taft, the American public continues to support aid to our allies and active participation in world affairs. As the new year began, the centér’s survey showed strong majorities of Amert- cans backed such measures as the North At-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD lantic Pact and the shipment of military sup- plies to Western Europe while the proportion of the public which would stay out of world apairs was no larger than it was a year In answer to the question, “Do you think It will be best for the future of this country if we take an active part in world affairs, or if we stay out of world affairs?” 66 percent of the population advocated taking an active part while only 25 percent advocated stay- ing out. These figures haye changed little since this question on support for isola- tionism was first asked in 1942 and are un- changed from results for the same question asked in January 1950. Questioned about the North Atlantic Pact—"an agreement with Canada and the countries of Western Europe, to defend each other against attack’—78 percent of the adult population expressed the view that it is a good idea. Only 1 person in 10 called it a bad idea. Similarly, 71 percent of the population approved of sending military supplies to the countries of Western Europe now, in order to strengthen them against any future attack. Support for this measure appears to have increased since the atart of the Korean War, for in early June 1950 62 percent of the American population favored sending American arms to Western Europe. Provided Western Europe works actively to build up its own defense, American opin- fon seems solidly behind the proposal to send American troops to aid in that defense, Almost two-thirds of the American popula- tion were not convinced that Europe is doing all it should in thig respect, however. Thirty-six percent of the American public approved of sending large numbers of Amer- fean troops to help build up the defense of Western Europe, though an additional 34 percent of the population would approve such a atep if the countries of Western Eu- rope increased the size of their own armed forces. The mill reverses in Korea were not without their effects, however. A majority of 65 percent of the population still an- swered “right” in January 1951 to the ques- tion “Do you think the United States was right or wrong in sending American troops to stop the Communist invasion of South Korea?” In September 1950 81 percent of the American population had answered “right” to the same question. The figures cited above are derived from answers to questions put to a national cross- section of 1,800 American adults, 21 years of age and over, during the period from De- cember 29, 1950, to January 8, 1961, by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. Ice Harbor Dam and Central Arizona Project EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. NORRIS POULSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. POULSON. Mr. Speaker, {t is evident that some of the spendthrift agencies of Government are going to wrap the American flag around some of these infeasible projects and declare that they are needed for the war emergency. The following editorial in the Astorian Evening Budeet, of Astoria, Oreg., very aptly covers this subject: Trax rok a Reat. APPRAISAL A reader has sent us a copy of an editorial just published by the Contractors and En- gineers Monthly, of New York City, dealing with the subject of nonessential Federal construction in these days. It is so pertinent to the subject of Ice Harbor Dam for which a new attempt to get @n initial appropriation is under way, that ve can't resist the desire to publish it here- with. The Contractors and Engineera Monthly is a trade publication of the heavy-construc- tion industry, a publication obviously well equipped for sound comment on the Army engineers and their projects. The editorial, entitled “Time for a Real Appraisal,” fol- lows: “One of the most thorough, soul-searching self-examinations ever made is due in the construction business, if that industry is to command continued respect. This is espe- clally true on public works financed wholly or in part by taxes. The United States, faced with the responsibility of maintaining power- ful armed forces for decades, perhaps, can- not and must not spend its financial strength on luxury projects whose conception in these critical times is unwise. “The Bureau of Reclamation’s central Arizona project always seemed to us to ex- emplify this theme perfectly. It is by no means an isolated example of the type of project which, if deferred indefinitely, would make the Nation stronger in her time of peril, At the present time the central Arizona project is pigeonholed in committee, but it may be called to the floor of the House for a vote at any time. “Other projects, involving astronomical sums of money, are being promoted. Some of these undertakings are gooc and wise, but many could be held in abeyance or forgotten entirely. Whenever an agency has to strain for justification excuses, as the Corps of Engineers is sornetimes doing on its amall- boat and pleasure-yacht harbor-development projects, it is time for the construction in- dustry to do some analyzing. Thelr worth- while jobs can stand on their own merits; they do not require propaganda selling. “It is not the p' of this editorial to imply that all or even a majority of Federal agency construction jobs are unnecessary. Certainly the conception of certain dams ts sound, even in these times, and some filuod- control channels are undoybtedly needed. A first-class highway network capable of stand- ing up under modern traffic is a crying necessity. “But the world situation in itself can save the Nation from attack. When the only thing a bully respects is force, the only wise course is to create that force at the expense, if need be, of construction projects no longer justified in the light of the world situation, As Dwight Eisenhower recently said, ‘It is time to get tough with ourselves,’ and Contractors and Engineers Monthly would be something less than honest if it did not point this out. “As a matter of fact, the voluntary can- cellation of unnecessary luxury projects is the healthiest course for the construction industry to follow. The Nation's contrac~ tors have an enormous job ahead to con- struct installations for the growing Armed- Porces Establishment. Equipment manu- facturers and distributors will be hard pressed to bulld and distribute machinery, and not a single unit should be used un- wisely. The construction industry cannot allow itself to be spread too thin. It must remain strong and healthy to keep the Nation solvent, and the movement in this direction must come from within to be effective. “Private hydroelectric power development projects at Kings River, Calif., and Roanoke Rapids, Va., are being blocked at this very moment by Government agencies which argue for Federal development at public expense. It ts this sart of thing which should stop at once. A389 “For projects of this nsture which are sufficiently sound for private-venture capital to underwrite should have the fullest co- operation from the construction industry. Projects which have to reach out for excuses like recreation to partially. justify thelr enormous cost shculd be deferred at least until the battle for survival this Nation is currently fighting ts over.” Housing in Alaska EXTENSION OF REMARKS cr HON. E. L. BARTLETT DELEGATE FROM ALASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 24, 1951 Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lovrg, of South Dakota, stated in an extension of remarks on December 15, 1950: . Mr. Speaker, I can only scratch my head in wonder at the antics of the administra- tion, In the hope that some of the other Members can help me out of this fix, I ask that the full text of the following press release be Included in my remarks, The press release mentioned was is~ sued by the Housing and Home Finance Agency on December 2 with reference to progress made under the remote area dwelling program conducted by the Alaska Housing Authority under the sponsoiship of the Housing and Home Finance Agency through the provisions of the Alaska Housing Act. Specific mention was made in the release of the loans which have been obtained by Eski- mos in Alaska for construction or im- provements of their homes, which are called character loans and are not in excess of $500. Mr. Lovaz, in the course of his re- marks, stated further: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything against the Eskimos but I note that while we here in this country are being called upon to accept less of certain strategic materials, the Eskimo who conforms to bureaucratic edict crn get corrugated aluminum roofing for his house. This at a time when we desperately need critical materials in the war effort. I know, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Lovre and others who read his extension of re- marks are interested enough in the sub- ject to have the facts of the case pre- sented to them. It was Congress and not the Adminis- trator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency who authorized in the Alaska Housing Act—Public Law 62 of the Fighty-first Congress, approved April 23, 1949—the Alaska Housing Authority to make character loans to individuals or cooperatives for the improvement, con- version, or construction of dwellings in remote areas to be occupied by such in- dividuals or members of such coopera- tives where the loan does not exceed $500 per dwelling. This program was begun as but @ small part of a much larger undertaking under the Alaska Housing Act for hous- ing in Alaska to help meet the needs in urban areas of civilian workers serving
A390 military activities directly or indirectly at our defense installations, To obtain funds for the purpose of un- dertaking this program and other proj- ects authorized under the act, the Alaska Housing Authority was authorized to is- sue obligations for purchase by the Housing and Home Finance Administra- tor in an amount not to exceed $15,000,- 000 and it was specifically provided that such notes and other obligations issued and outstanding for the purpose of mak- ing character loans to individuals or co- operatives shall not exceed $1,000,000. An appropriation of $10,000,000 to the Housing and Home Finance Administra- tor for loan to the Alaska Housing Au- thority for purposes authorized in the act was passed by Congress and ap- proved by the President on October 10, 1949. The remote-area dwelling program was first conceived by Father Paul C, O'Connor, 8. J., chairman of the Alaska Housing Authority, who has spent 20 years of his life among the Eskimos in the remote areas of Alaska along the Bering Sea. On a necessarily limited basis, Father O’Connor had experiment- ed with improvements to the typical Eskimo dwellings for the purpose of eliminating the extremely damp and un- healthy living conditions of these people. The ravages of tuberculosis and other diseases among this fine race have been partly attributed to substandard hous- ing. These diseases were unknown among the Eskimos prior to the advent of other people. Father O’Connor’s ex- periments with limited resources had proved quite successful and he was de- sirous of expanding these benefits which he was certain could be done on a self- help, nonsubsidy basis. He very defi- nitely opposed any effort to attempt to place the Eskimos in expensive modern homes, but instead urged that improve- ments be made gradually. Hearings on the proposed Alaska Housing Act were held by the House and Senate Banking and Currency Committees in March of 1949 at which time Father O’Connor testified effectively and in detail as to the nature, purposes and prospects of such a program. I believe Father O’Connor’s testimony makes very inter- esting and informative reading for any- one in“erested in the Territory of Alaska or more importantly interested in the defense outposts of our country in which the Eskimo takes such an active part, Special mention of Father O’Connor’s testimony and suggestion was made in both House and Senate reports on the Alaska Housing Act, which strongly en- dorsed the insertion of the character loan provision in the legislation. The Senate Committee on Banking and Cur- rency report on the legislation stated: Your committee was aleo impressed by the special housing needs of the Eskimos. Liv- ing generally in damp sod huts, they have proved to he highly susceptible to tubercu- losis brought in by civilization, and their death rate from this disease is nine times that of the population of the United States asawhole. Experiments have demonstrated that wood floors and roofe can be installed cheaply in their dwellings, which will pro- teot them to the extent of greatly diminish- “dng ocourrence of the disease. Testimony Was presented to your committee that in one Eskimo village where wood floors and roofe were installed, the incidence of tuber- culosis was reduced by 80 percent. During the summer of 1949 the Alaska Housing Authority conducted a larger experimental program of this character in the Eskimo village of Hooper Bay, on the Bering Sea, and demonstrated the feasibility of dwelling improvement or even reconstruction sufficient to satisfy the purposes within an amount of $500 for each such dwelling. This experi- mental program was financed out of limited territorial funds and was admin- istered in the form of character loans to the individual natives in an amount not to exceed $500 for each dwelling and in the form of notes to be fully repaid within 5 years, with interest at 5 per- cent. For the building season of 1950 the Alaska Housing Authority developed a program designed to improve or recon- struct dwellings for 170 families in 6 vil- lages in the remote areas of the Terri- tory. The authority applied to the Hous- ing and Home Finance Administrator for a loan in the amount of $70,000 to support its lending operations in turn to those 170 native families in individual amounts of $500 or less, payable in in- stallments over a 6-year period, with interest at 6 percent. This loan was ap- proved by the Administrator in April of 1950, and the program proceeded with the commendable success reported in the Housing and Home Finance Agency news release of December 2. The Alaska Housing Authority has now had the experience of two seasons of this program. It should be noted that the program is intended to be self-sup- porting, without subsidy, and at the present time the outstanding notes are rapidly being repaid. The total tonnage of materials consumed in the 1949 period approximated 70 tons. The total ton- nage of materials consumed in the 1950 program amounts to 421 tons. The ac- tual tonnage of aluminum roofing came to 36 tons. These materials were ordered in April of 1950, many months prior to the present situation, with its emphasis upon critical materials. It was found that aluminum was more readily avail- able than galvanized steel, which was originally ordered, and the aluminum was ordered because of its lighter weight, which was a factor in transportation, and because of its availability at that time. Metal roofing is used in this work particularly for the purpose of collecting rain water for drinking and domestic purposes of the Eskimo, which in itself amounts to almost life-saving benefits. Naturally, if aluminum roofing is not available it will not be used, but I be- lieve emphasis should be placed and due recognition given to the fact that the aluminum roofing which was used was ordered almost 3 months before the Korean crisis started. It is a tribute to the natives and to the Alaska Housing Authority that through ingenuity, initiative, and the cooperative self-help work on the part of the Eski- mos it has not only been possible to achieve an improvement in their dwell- ings of such nature as to eliminate large- ly the previous unhealthful living condi- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tions but also to construct a new dwell- ing fully sufficient for this purpose with- in the $500 limitation, particularly in consideration of the generally extremely high construction costs in these areas. Veterans’ Benefits ——aneet EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHESTER B. McMULLEN OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. McMULLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill granting to per- sons who served in the Armed Forces of the United States during the present hostilities, and to their dependents, all the rights, benefits, and privileges granted to veterans of World War II and their dependents. While this bill is genera] in nature, it authorizes and directs the Administra- tor of Veterans’ Affairs to prescribe reg- ulations and provisions to make the act effective. In my opinion, the passage by the House yesterday of House bill 1 was fair, fitting, and proper, and gives to the sol- diers now fighting in Korea some bene- fits, rights, and privileges that the vet- erans of World War II do not have. However, in my opinion, inasmuch as the boys now fighting in the Korean area are doing so under conditions never be- fore experienced in American history, namely, fighting under the United Na- tions in an undeclared war that has been called a police action, it is my firm con- viction that it is proper for these men to be granted additional benefits and they should lose none of those given to veterans of World War I and World War TI. How You Lose Your Neck Saving Truman’s Face EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 17, 1951 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is important that every sovereign citizen of this great Republic, especially the mothers and fathers with 18-year- old sons, as well as younger boys, bear in mind why this demand has been made by the Truman administration for this draft of the 16-year-olds. Our replacements of men in Korea is 15,000 per month. Must we suffer and permit the continuous slaughter of American boys while the United Nations permits itself to be dominated by our supposed allies who sympathize with Russia and Red China in the military operations now in Korea. Under leave to extend my remarks, heretofore granted, I am inserting in the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Record an editorial which appeared in the January 25 issue of the Washington Times-Herald: How You Loss Your Nace Savine TRUMAN'S Face , Somewhere in Korea, as you read this edi- torial, an American in uniform will have been killed by an agent of communism. How does it happen that the American was there to be killed? ; The official and public record ts worth re- viewing, just at this moment when the Con- gress of the United States has called on the United Nations to declare Communist China an aggressor tn war. A reasonable starting point is June 1, 1950, for it was in June that decisions were taken by President Truman and the UN—not the people of the United States of America— that have put us Americans out to be killed. dune 1: President Truman declares at a press conference he believes the world closer to peace than at any time in the past 5 years and the next day gives a gold medal to Veep Baraiey “for distinguished service.” June 6: President Truman declares that “Government action in recent years has been the salvation of private enterprise,” and accuses business of spending enormous sums of money to spread the “false” idea that his administration is promoting creeping social- ism, June 10: President Truman denounces Soviet Russia, compliments Europe for its “regoluta expression of the will to be free and to unite in common de.ense,” says the “cold war” will probably last for ‘many years to come.” “Isols.tionism,” he adds, “is the road to war and worse than that, to defeat in We insert here a request that nobody call on us to balance the remarks of June 1 with those of June 10. We're just reporting what the man said. June 20: Secretary of State Acheson gives the Governors’ Conference, meeting at White Sulphur Springs, W. Va. a 8%-hour open and closed review of State Department works and policies. The governors unanimously express satisfaction and gratitude. Acheson goes to Harvard to be anointed, June 22, as an honorary doctor of laws and there tells Russia off again. June 24, 1950, 3 p. m., eastern standard time: North Korean army crosses thirty- eighth parallel, headed for Seoul, capital of South Korea. Jun; 26, 5:45 p. m.: Security Council of United Nations issues “cease fire” order and calls for troops. June 27, 12 noon: President Truman orders General MacArthur to throw land, sea, and Air Forces in against the Reds, as per UN direction. He also reverses himself in the “hands off Formosa” policy, orders Navy to defend it, and promises weapons to the Philippine snd Indochinese Governments. The UN Security Council votes military sanctions against North Korea, meaning an agreement not to sell it munitions of war, Member nations promptly start selling to Red China and other Soviet stooges. There follows a period in which the people demand to know how the Red Koreans were able to sur and push United States forces down to the Pusan beachhead. So such types as John Fcster Dulles, who needs no introduction, explain that “we knew it was coming all the time, but we just didn’t know when.” How that equares with Mr, Truman's June 1 declaration on peace we wouldn't know. In no time at all Mr, Truman’s dishonest phrase, “police action,” is abandoned by all to describe the adventure in Korea by its right namé, “war.” The Constitution af the United States says that only Congress can declare war for this Nation, but Mr. Truman and the UN don’t mind that. July 14: The UN flag ts put above the United States flag and goes to battle that way, leading Unitéd States citizens. August 28: Nationalist Chinese headquar- ters on Formosa announce that Red Chinese have crossed Manchurian border into Korea, United States airmen report shooting down Russian bomber. September 15-16: United States forces, after fighting bitter retreating action in which UN nations send only token support, begin to spring back. General MacArthur leads Inchon landing that leads to quick victory. September 21: President Truman says it is up to UN whether our troops will cross thirty-eighth parallel in rolling back the Red forces; says United States troops will obey. October 4: UN cheers MacArthur on and, with India and Rusela objecting, directs him to take “all appropriate steps.” So he opens drive to clear Korea of Reds. October 26: South Koreans in MacArthur's forees reach Manchurian border. November 1: North Korean broadcast an- nounces Red China has decided to send “vol- unteers” to help them. ‘You know what has happened since. Now, in New York City, the UN, which took full authority and control over United States soldiers when things looked good, doesn’t know us any more. Americans in uniform are dead from one end of Korea to the other. Congress has been held up to disgrace and ridicule. It deserves as much for supine submission to a President who said on June 1, 1950, that peace is nearer than at any time in the past 5 years, and on June 26 ordered, on his own, a “police action” in support of the UN that now is full war. The citizens of the United States, who are paying for the very life and ving of the UN, the so-called governments represented in it, and the people involved, have been made fools of before the world. No wonder the mail to the White House and to Congresa is the heaviest in history. Have you sent yours? A Humiliating Defeat EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. B. W. (PAT) KEARNEY ov NEW YORK IN THE “TOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. KEARNEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include the following editorial entitled “A Humiliating De- feat” which appeared in the Washington Daily News for January 24, 1951: A Homimiatinga Dereat When the American resolution seeking to brand the Chinese Communists as aggressors in Korea was sidetracked by a 27-to-23 vote in the 60-member United Nations political committee the United States suffered its worst defeat in the UN's 5-year history, This humiliating situation invites Presi- dent Truman's personal attention, for it shows the extent to which our bargaining power has been traded away for nothing through the State Department's political ineptitude. The defeat was sustained at the hands of the British, supported by India, France, Cans ada, the Asian-Arab bloc, and the Scandi- navian countries——nations, for the most part, presumed to be our friends. The Russians took no part in the proceed- ings, because Britain and India were carrys A391 ing the ball for them. But Moscow must have found great satisfaction in this spectacle. , After all of the proud boaste about the united front against communism, and all the billions we have contributed to this build-up, the only nations voting with us on an issue directly inyolving Communist aggression were the Latin-American bloc, Greece, Tur- key, and the Phillppines—not one of them a member of the North Atlantic alliance. The ingratitude of nations fs proverbial. But 8 practical stateaman makes due allow- ances for this factor and insures himself against it. Obviously, Secretary of State Acheson was not wise enough to do this. He let himself become a rubber stamp for the British Foreign Office and apparently got no assurance that Britain would back him when he needed support. Just 2 weeks ago the United States ap- proved the British-Indian proposal, which would have given the Chinese Reds the is- land of Formosa and a UN seat in return for @ cease-fire agreement tn Korea, on the understanding that if the offer was rejected Britain and India would support the Ameri. can resolution. But when our resolution was called up those nations found a con~ venient excuse for voting to Jay it aside in favor of another appeasement proposal. When Britain votes against us rather than offend the Peiping Reds no better demon- stration of the penalty of being taken for granted could be wanted. And the other fence-straddlers walked out on us with the British, Now the United States has been left al- most alone in the position of opposing what our erstwhile allies presume to call peace, The Russians, who have been calling us war- mongers, have been given new grist for their propaganda mills. And the ammunition they will use against us was provided by our so-called friends. The unanimous votes by which the United States Senate has asked the United Nations to brand the Chinese Reds as aggressors “immediately,” and to deny them a seat in the UN, should be ® warning to the UN as a whole, and to our allies in particular.. These votes reflect the attitude of the Amer- ican people, as well as that of a body which must pass upon this country’s future con- tributions both to the UN and to all of our overseas programs, There's been too much of this tragic non- sense and double-dealing at Lake Success. This country 1s stultifying itself by being party to the proceedings. But our own State Department has been such a willing party to so much of the trafficking and pro~ crastination that we must share our measure of guilt for the sordid spectacle the United Nations has made of itself. Only the President can remove the United States from this compromising position. He can do that only by purging the State De- partment of all of the elements responsible for it, beginning with Secretary Acheson. He should not wait another day. The American Flag EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LEO E. ALLEN oF TLLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr, ALLEN of Dlinois. Mr. Speaker, it is both refreshing and inspirational in these days of intrigue and confusion to
A392 come in contact with the sentiments which He basically under our govern- mental structure and speak the devotion of those who in that earlier day carved out our Nation. Those who flung all they had in the balance and staggered through revolution to found our Repub- lic. Those bold men and pioneer women who rode the slow oxcarts to the West and bought an empire with the bitter struggles of the frontier. These shaped @ Nation and gave to the world that which, despite all its defects, has offered and still offers to you and me the larg- est way of life the human race has ever known. Such a heritage is symbolized by our American flag. I am impressed with a tribute to our flag, written by Charles Ulysses Gordon, whose great-grandfather served with Washington at Valley Forge and fought at Brandywine, Gérmantown, and Mon- mouth, Under unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Rrcorp, I include the poem of Mr. Gordon on the Ameri- can Flag: THe AMERICAN FLAG Hail! All hatl! The American flag, Glorious emblem of the world's greatest Republic, Behold! The Star-Spangled Banner as she Gracefully rises to her post of duty And gently flutters in the morning breeze Acroas our native land and above the seas; She proclaims her message of liberty and freedom; Then softly, as the red, white, and blue sways, Loyally we grant her our befitting salute. Contemplate Old Glory as she loftily floats On yonder mountain high, in the rising sun, Piercing the warmly glowing azure sky. From staff and mast she waves throughout the air, Bestowing her choicest blessings on all alike. Observe her resplendent above the stately Capitol dome; Surely she belongs in every American home. Worthy sons and daughters of freedom, she is yours To acclaim, to honor, to defend. ‘Wave on! Wave on! O glorious flag, Thy destiny is yet unknown, Amid uncertainty and mounting strife, Our Nation remains calm and serene, Surrounded by vicissitudes of a troubled world, Bhe boldly asserts her established sover- elgnty. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson wisely counseled That America avoid all entangling alliances And evermore maintain “freedom’s banner” at her door. From early sunrise until the close of day, Triumphent, the Stars and Stripes are waving. Symbol of a freeborn sovereign people; Guardian of our Charter of Liberty, Defender of our Union, peace and independ- ence, Sentinel of our honor and priceless heritage: Patriotic protector of our Bill of Rights, Supremely does our inspiring ensign pro- claim: The United States of America shall be for- ever free, —Charles Ulysses Gordon. JUNE 14, 1950, No Zeal for Nonmilitary Saving Shown in the Budget EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GLENN R. DAVIS . OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, any person who has analyzed the President's budget message will recog- nize therein a lack of sincerity in the remarks about economy in nondefense spending. Instead of reducing spending in nondefense items, the President re- quests an over-all increase in such spending. Then, too, the President has requested the Congress to embark on new spending plans in keeping with his ir- responsible schemes. It is not enough, Mr. Speaker, for either the President or Members of Congress to simply talk about economy. It is high time that we—all of us in responsible positions— do something about it. I set forth here, Mr. Speaker, a fine editorial from a recent issue of the Mil- waukee Journal: No ZEAL For NONMILITARY SAVING SHOWN IN THE Bupcer The President has given Congress a budg- et calling for appropriations of $71,600,000,- 000 for the year beginning next July 1. It is the fourth largest budget in our history, being exceeded only by the budgets for the three peak years of World War II. The revenue of the Government for the new year is estimated at $55,000,000,000, which is the highest in our history but which falls short by $16,500,000,000 of balancing costs. The public debt, which will reach 8260,- 000,000,000 by the end of the current year, will thus pass $276,000,000,000 by June 30, 1962, unless we raise our already high taxes. To balance the President's budget through the adoption of a pay-as-we-go policy—and everybody should admit that this 1s desir- able—will entail a 30-percent increase in receipts. This means higher taxes in every category than we have ever known before and perhaps some new sources of revenue. That, in brief, is the fiscal picture which the President paints. The whole matter is now in the hands of Congress. Congress cannot well challenge the five billion nine hundred million which goes to pay the interest on the national debt. It will not challenge the four billion nine hun- dred million set aside for payments to vet- erans. It will go lightly in trimming the forty-eight billion eight hundred million asked for our own military preparation and for aiding other free nations to prepare. The trimming, if there is to be trimming, must come largely from the many items which comprise the other twelve billion, While much of the expenditure here is for items related, direotly or more remotely, to defense, there should be a fertile field here for some economies. There is no evidence in the budget or in the budget message that the President has pressed for the sacrifices by Government de- partments that he has asked citizens gen~ erally to make and that they must make Qs consumer goods dwindle in supply and as taxes increase. He speaks broadly of discontinuing proj- eots and of not asking for new enterprises because of the emergency. Yet nonmilitary APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD appropriations are up by more than $2,000,- 000,000 and the cost of general government is up by $100,000;000. In view of this, it is for Congress to determine whether Govern- ment services have been put on the same emergency footing of strict economy that is contemplated for the people. It 1s not enough to get the water out of Government costs. It is essential that the services themselves be curtailed where that is possible without positive harm. On the purely domestic side, the President asks for 8 reorganization of the financing of the Post Office Department and a rise in postal rates to make the Department more nearly self-supporting. He advocates sepa- rate accounting for Government and con- gressional mail and for paying postal sub- sidies to aviation out of a separate fund, Surely there should be no resistance to this reform, He advocates a start on bullding the St. Lawrence waterway and six other power- producing projects. These proposals should be reviewed sympathetically for their de- fense potentialities, The President then goes to three more controversial issues—educational aids to the States, some type of Brannan plan aid to farmers and medical care under social security. Is there any reason why, having gone this far without them, we should now, in the throes of an emergency, start educational aids or a plan for emergency medical bene- Ats under Government auspices? And is it not time to consider withdrawal of agricul- tural aids, rather than a modification of them? The President admits that the farmer's financial situation will be good in 1952, He is disturbed, however, by the cost and waste of storing surpluses under the present aid system. Apparently the only choice he sees is a choice between support subsidies and direct subsidies. Congress should go beyond that and inyutre into the need for any sub- sidies at all at this time. This country is today committed to a policy of rapid development of its defense facilities and of defense facilities abroad which may be used in our common defense. That commitment calls for sacrifice—for @ lower standard of living, for longer hours of work, for greater production in spite of the hardships incident to the task to which we dedicate ourselves. It calls for vast expenditures—but it also calls for getting every ounce of fat out of the services of Government, and especially the nonmilitary services. Every cent that can be saved leaves a cent in the pocket of some taxpayer. Every billion dollars that can be lopped off the costs, cuts a billion dollars off the new revenues which must be obtained to balance the budget. There ia little to show that the President's 1952 budget was conceived in that light. Universal Training EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH P. O'HARA OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr, O'HARA. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial entitled “Universal Training,” which
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD appeared in the New Ulm Dally Journal, New Ulm, Minn., of January 18, 1951: Universar TRAINING Substantially strengthened by the world crisis, the proposal for universal military training 1s before Congress again. Univer- seal training is generally thought of as a de- vice with which the Armed Forces could be kept always manned at the size authorized by Congress, and with which the largest pos- sible pool of trained reservists could be maintained for emergency. The plari sponsored by the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee would build @ poo} of reservists with 1 year of train- ing, but apparently would compete with the regular services rather than aid them in the supply of men for actual service, Under this Plan, every young man would be subject to training, but he would be in an isolated training corps, not a member of any regular service. Only 4 months of his year would be spent in actual field training; at the end of his year he would, unless he voiunteered for regular service, go to the reserves. Obviously this plan would not provide the regular services with much additional man- power, They would still have to get it from thelr present sources, volunteers and the draft. Their noncombatant manpower re- quirements would be enlarged, since they would have to provide the instruction and administration for the training corps. Even the value of the reserve pool would be ques- tionable. A man with only 4 months of basic training and 8 months of class work would not attain a high degree of military ekill, and what he attained would deterio- rate rapidly after his return to civilian life. After 2 or 3 years, extensive refresher train- ing almost equivalent to that given to raw recruits would be required for these reserv- ists if it were necessary to call them into ac- tive service. It is questionable whether anything would have been gained except a year’s activity program for the youth of the Nation. If untivereal military training is needed to #trengthen and support our armed services, it should be made certain that the plan con- sidered for adoption would do that. Patriot or Politician? EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GLENN R. DAVIS OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSH OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, action speaks louder than words. When the President appeared before the Congress to deliver his annual message on the state of the Union, he spoke of rigid economy in nondefense spending. Yet, paradoxically, his budget message requested increased over-all spending for nondefense items. Rex Karney, the cnalytical associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal at Madison, Wis., has written an editorial that the apologists for this administra- tion ought to answer for the people of this country. The editorial is entitled “Patriot or Politician?”: Parator om Pourricnm? Even in an hour which he himself labels one of crisis, the. President .of the United States wallows about in the muck of cheap, dirty, partisan politics. President Truman yesterday proposed to Congress a budget for next year of §7i,- 600,000,000. He asked that Federal taxes be increased by sixteen and five-tenths billions so the Government could operate on @ pay-as-you- go basis. This would mean an assessment of about 9471 a year on every man, woman, and child in the United States. No one ig much surprised by these figures, astronomic though they are. The ordinary citizens of this Nation have long been ahead of most of their public officials in recogni- tion of the hard atruggle for survival that is to be our certain lot. And there are few citizens who would whittle one penny from the Federal appro- priations that are really vital to our defense, But what else does Harry 8. Truman de- mand in the defense budget he presents to Congress? He asks for the Brannan plan, an expensive polit'cal monstrosity on which even the members of his own party are divided. He demands public housing for low-income groups, which can mean anything the Presi- dent and his bureaucrats want it to mean. He wants Federal aid to education. He wants Federal medical tnsurance, a stert on the same socialized medical pro- gram that was repudiated in case after case in the 1960 elections. He demands a Fair Employment Practices Act, as controversial a proposal as any before Congress. All these Mr. Truman demands in th2 name of “emergency” and “national defense.” It is true that military and international categories of the Truman budget account for about 70 percent of the total. It is true that the individual appropriations for the Fair Deal social experiments are relatively small in comparison to the total. But Mr. Truman has no right, in this critical hour, to impose upon the American People one cent of spending and taxation that is not necessary to our national survival. He has no right to allow his social phi- Josophers to get their foot in the door with highly controversial programs now that will mean billions in expenditures and taxes tn the years to come. House R:publican Leader JosgPH Martin charged yesterday that Trurian administra- tion planners “are attempting to hitchhike free rides on the defense program for non- defense schemes.” He stated the case clearly and fairly. Individual Members of Congress must now perform their constitutional duty of scanning the President’s proposal carefully, and must eliminate the hitchhikers who can be classed only as excess baggage. Tribute to Edison—Correction of an Oversight EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN E. RANKIN OF MISSIBBIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 24, 1951 Mr, RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, on Janu- ary 12, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Do..iver] called atten- tion to the fact that a speech which I made on Thomas Alva Edison on Febru- ary 12, 1940, had been published in a set of books entitled “Modern Eloquence” which is generally regarded as one of the outstanding publications of its kind in the English language. A393 In response to his statement, I called attention to the fact that it had been published in several other volumes, in- cluding Principles of ‘Public Speaking, which is used as a text book In many of the leading colleges of the country, in- cluding George Washington University here in the city, and also in a book on public speaking by Hon. William Doll, a former instructor in public speaking at the University of Washington, and also at the University of Wisconsin. My attention has been called to the fact that I overlooked another great pub- lication that carried that address, I refer to Vital Speeches of the Day, which published it on April 1, 1940, and which carries it in its permanent publication. I regret this oversight very much, for I regard Vital Speeches of the Day as one of the most valuable publications of its kind in America, and one that TI should like to see in the library of every college and every high school in this country. In making my address on Edison, I had only a few minutes time in which to express my feelings concerning the man, whom I consider the greatest indi- vidual material benefactor of the human race. When you look around, especially at night, you can realize what would hap- pen if we should lose what Edison ac- complished. If all the lights were to go out, if all the electrical appliances were to cease to operate, ard if all the motor machines that have bien made possible by the spark of electricity that fires the gas that moves them on, were to come to a standstill, thea you would realize what we owe to Edison, the man who made it all possible. Electricity is the greatest servant man- kind has ever known, and the only one the man or woman of ordinary means can afford, As I said, I am very sorry that I was not aware of the fact that my tribute to Edison was first published in Vital Speeches of the Day and that I therefore did not mention that great publication in connection therewith in my remarks on this floor on January 12. The Wolf Creek Project of the Cumberland River Basin EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. VIRGIL M. CHAPMAN OF KENTUCKY IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a very in- teresting address on the subject of the Wolf Creek project of the Cutnberland River Basin, which I heard delivered be- fore the Rotary Club in Lexington, Ky., on October 12, 1950, by Col. Henry Walsh, District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, of Nashville, Tenn.
A394 There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, ns follows: Mr. Chairman, Genator Cxapman, members of the Rotary Club, and gueste, I want to thank you for your kind invitation and add that I welcome this opportunity of appear- ing before you today to talk to you briefly of the Wolf Creek project and the part this project plays in the development of the Cumberland River Basin and the surround- ing eres. I hope that it will result tn mu- tual advantages to you, a8 well as to the organization I represent. The presence of Senator CHarpman here today makes it much easier for me to pre- sent the plan for development of the Cum- berland River, since I am sure that the Sen- ator is thoroughly familiar with all the as- pects of the plan. I might add too, that the Senator has been most active and in- fluential in his support of the Wolf Creek project and in obtaining funds to continue construction of this project in an orderly manner. You should feel that these projects I am about to discuss are your projects since it is the desires and the interest of the citi- gens of the area that are the initiating and propelling forces which cause the Corps of Engineers to develop our river basins. The Wolf Creek project is an outstanding example of this type of development. We are proud of the Wolf Creek project for nu- merous reasons. First, let me say, this is truly a mammoth structure. The dam it- self is over a mile in length. The concrete portion of the structure contains over one and one-third million cubic yards of con- crete. The earth-filled partion of the dam contains almost 9,000,000 cubic yards of earth. The lake which is now being formed behind this massive structure will contain over 6,000,000 acre-feet of water. Compared on the basis of reservoir capacity, it will be the largest reservoir east of the Mississippi River. The power plant at this project, rated on installed plant capacity, will rank third in the eastern United States. Six units with a total capacity of 270,000 kilowatts Will be installed in this plant. This is suf- ficient capacity to supply the electrical de- mand of Kentucky's 10 largest cities. Besides the professional pride we have as engineers in taking a part in the construc- tion of thig structure, we are also proud of the role it occupies in the plans for the development of the water resources of the Cumberland River Basin. This comprehen- sive plan for the development of this area, which was authorized in its present form, by the Congress of the United States in 1946, provides for flood control, production of hydroelectric power, navigation improve- ment, pollution abatement, recreational de- velopment, and all related benefits for a full development of a great natural resource. Of these many benefits, probably the most important in these days of potential power shortages and increasing demands, is that of hydroelectric power production. The plan for the development of the Cumberland River Valley provides for the installation of ap- proximately 900,000 kilowatts of generating Capacity, which will produce over 3,500,000,- 000-kilowatt hours of electrical energy an- nually. This plan utilizes every foot of drop in the Cumberland River between Wolf Creek and Nashville. Of this total installed ca- pecity, the 270,000 kilowatts at Wolf Creek represents about one-third. The other two- thirds is installed at nine other sites. Wolf Creek is truly the key project in the develop- ment of the Cumberland River. The con- struction of the powerhouse is now being pushed at an accelerated pace. We expect to have the firat generators in operation in September of next year. Of almost equal importance are the flood- control benetits ta be obtained from this plan. The Cumberland River Basin has had @ long history cf disastrous floods which have annually cost the citizens of the val- ley millions of dollars in flood damages, The plan, of which Wolf Creek is the key project, will give complete protection from flood damages from the Wolf Creek Dam site to the vicinity of Clarksville, Tenn., where backwaters from the Ohio River begin to be reflected on the flow of the Cumberland. In addition to the flood control for the Cum- berland River Valley, this plan will also ma- terlally benefit the lower Ohio and Missis- sipp! Valleys, To obtain this flood protection, the plan as authorized by Congress provides for the control of the runoff from 11,000 square miles of the Cumberland River Basin. Of this total, over 6,800 square miles of the drainage basin or approximately 63 percent is controlled by the Wolf Creek Dam. The other 47 percent is provided by the Center Hill and Dale Hollow projects, both of which are now completed for flood control, and the planned structures at Stewarts Ferry, Three Islands, and Rossview. Here again, it is quite apparent that Wolf Creek 1s the key project in the plan. Last July the governor of the great Com- monwealth of Kentucky was honor guest at the closing ceremony of this massive dam. He issued an order for the placement of concrete in the remaining opening in the structure which started the formation of the Wolf Creek Reservoir. With the closure of this dam, complete flood protection from the site of the dam to the mouth of Stone's River just above Nashville, a distance of 255 miles, was provided. In other words, there is no longer a plan for flood control in this area; it is an accomplished fact. Next in importance, and probably of major interest to many of you sportsmen, are the recreational opportunities afforded by this project. The reservoir will be 101 miles long and will have a shore line at top pool of 1,255 miles, which exceeds that of the entire State of Florida. The area of the reservoir for recreational use will vary, usually from 60,000 to 35,000 acres. Because of the remoteness of the site it was necessary to construct an access road on both sides of the river at the dam, each about 4 miles long. Upon completion of the dam, these roads will be incorporated into the Kentucky highway system, and Route 35 will be relocated to run across the top of the dam, providing permanent access to this outstanding structure. The location of this project, the topog- raphy of the area, and the inherent beauty of this reservoir will present a tourist at- traction which will be unexcelled in this section of the country. The population within a 150-mile radius from the center of Wolf Creek Reservoir is estimated at over 6,000,000. Wolf Creek Reservoir can be expected to lure tens of thousands of visi- tors annually to its shores with resulting trade benefits to the surrounding area. To properly serve the public in the use of these recreational opportunities, 8 master plan for recreational development has been prepared by the Corps of Enginoers. This plan provides for the conservation of the natural resources, development of the rec- reational features for public benefit and management of the property for the greatest good of all concerned. In developing this plan, joint field investigations and confer- ences were held with the National Park Service, United States Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Soil Conservation Serv- ice, and all other Federal, State, and local agencies which have an interest in this work, It is the policy of the Corps of Engineers to utilize the technical knowledge of these agencies to the maximum extent in develop- ing these related benefits. The water of the reservoir will be crystal clear except in the upper reaches of the main body and major tributaries where at times APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of flood a muddy condition may prevail, Little, if any, pollution is anticipated. The clear, clean water and the rugged terrain in which the reservoir lies will create a lake of spectacular beauty. Fishing in the Cum- barland River and its tributaries has always been good and it is reasonable to assume that Wolf Creek Reservoir will greatly im- prove fishing as has been true at Dale Hollow and Center Hill Reservoirs. It is safe to pre- dict that this reservoir will become one of the outstanding fishing waters of the south- eastern United States. In the development of recreationa) facill- tles it is the policy of the Corps of Engineers to provide only those facilities necessary to assure the public access to the recreational features for use in a safe and healthful man- ner. Other Federal and State agencies, counties and towns and concession operators are encouraged to take over the remaining development for full use of the recreational benefits. It is contemplated that the Wolf Creek Reservoir will be sufficiently impounded by the beginning of the recreational season of next year to permit recreational usage of the lake. In consequence, I have recently made award. after competitive bidding, of five dock sites strategically located on the reser- voir. These dock sites are shown on this map {pointing to map] and are identified as the Burnside Marina, Greiger Hill, James- town, Lee Ford, and Parnell. These suc- cessful bidders will be required to make available to the public by April of next year boats, motors, food, bait and equipment, gasoline and oil, sanitary and electrical fa- cilities, and boat moorage. Overnight facili- ties will also be available at all the sites by that date, with the exception of the Burn- side Marina, which will be located at the city of Burnside. It is believed that these five facilities will provide service for the initial public usage of the reservoir. The flexibility of the master plan permits ex- pansion of these facilities, however, as the demands increase. Also in the initial development, action has been initiated to turn over to the Common- wealth of Kentucky two areas for develop- ment by the Commonwealth. The first, a 2.300-acre tract located off Highway 35, near Jamestown, Ky., for a State park site. It 1s understood that preliminary work has been initiated by the Commonwealth in the de- velopment of this site. The second site off Highway 90 between Otter and Beaver Creeks, will be developed for a Kentucky junior con- servation camp. Both of these sites are also shown on the drawing. Provisions have been made in the master plan for the ultimate development of nine parks and public day use areas, 20 commer- cial dock sites, 8 group camp sites, and 6 colony cabin sites, together with numerous locations which will be available for solitary cabins and private club sites. Many of these, however, will be developed only after public use has demonstrated their need. There is an apparent demand for the solitary cabin site use and efforts are being made to open some of these ‘sites for development during the next year. In addition to the projecta I have men- tioned three other projects, namely, the Old Hickory, Carthage, and Celina projects, have been authorized for construction between Nashville and the Wolf Creek Dam. These projects will harness a great power potential in this section of the river and will reuse the water from the Wolf Creek, Dale Hollow, and Center Hill projects over and over again. The Old Hickory plant will have an installed ca- pacity of 100,000 kilowatts. The Carthage plant will be rated at 92,000 kilowatts and the Celina plant at 64,800 kilowatts. I will not attempt a discussion of the Lower Cumberland since a study of that sec- tion of the river 1s now under way at the President's directian. I will state, however, that the original plans o: the Corps of Engi-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD neers called for a high dam near Kuttawa, Ky., but the Governor of the ‘State and the citizens of the valley objected to this proposal and an alternate plan of three relatively low dams for the Cumberland was authorized by Congress. This relatively low dam plan seemed to conform to the wishes of the ma- jority of the citizenry at the time of submis- sion of the report in 1945. The question of costs and return from these projects 1s probably in many of your minds. I can assure you that this question of economic justification is always a basic one with the Corps of Engineers. The de- velopment of the Cumberland River Basin, however, has a very favorable benefit-to-cost ratio, For each dollar expended there will be returned in benefits $1.68 over a period of 50 years which is the normal period over which the projects are amortized. The water resources Of your area are being developed into a recreational paradise. Your interest in the development of these facilities indicate that you are aware of this vast po- tential. You undoubtedly will see a great change in the Wolf Creek area within the next few years. Should any of you have any questions about the Wolf Creek project or the over-all plan for the Cumberland, I will be happy to attempt to answer them. I thank you. Pensions for the Elderly EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, one of the greatest victories for pensions for the elderly was recorded in the vote of the people of Massachusetts on Novem- ber 7, 1950. On a proposal to liberalize the laws of the State, the vote, as offi- cially tabulated, was 918,555 yes, to 624,- 362 no, or a majority of 294,193. In all the history of the movement to take care of our elderly citizens, there has never been a more decisive and emphatic ex- pression of the way the people feel on the matter. In an article in the National Welfare Advocate, there is a complete analysis of the Massachusetts law. The article was written by William H. McMasters, of that State, who is the president of National Old-Age Pensions, Inc. It has been my distinct pleasure on occasions to have been the guest of this organi- zation at their annual conventions, in Boston. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Racorp. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Massacwustrts Votes $75 Pension Law— Eris Lorreryr (By William H. MoMasters) Bowton, Mass.—On election day, the cause of old-age pensions scored one of the most decisive victories ever recorded, The citizens of Massachusetts, although bombarded Doe vielous and false propa- da, & Senet fe tah wi 2 ne ray OPPs Sonal ae tive in June of next year. Briefty, the law aets Up a minimum of $75 per month for every elderly, needy person who can qualify for old-age assistance. Ten dollars more per month js set up for those who are blind The law wipes out the statutory provisions that compel children to contribute to the support of their parents who seek old-age assistance. The law reduces the age of eligibility from 65 to years of age. LOTTERY DEFEATED At the same time the votera of Masse- chusetts overwhelmingly defeated the pro- posal for a State-controlied lottery, designed in some measure to finance the expected costs involved in the new law. No finer example of intelligent voting has ever been seen in any election, anywhere. The voters wanted their elderly neighbors to be taken care of in a more suitable manner. But they did not wish to resort to a State lottery in order to do it. The two questions were only related to each other indirectly. There was no legal connection. In reviewing the victory for the pension cause it might be well to analyze the exact situation. The law was proposed in a petition cir- culated more than a year ago by the Massa- chusetts Society for Old Age Pensions, of which Charles C. O’Donnell ts president. He ‘was aided by National Oid Age Pensions, Inc., of which William H. McMasters is president. Both of these pension advocates are mem- pers of the National Pension Committee, George H. McLain being ite national chair- man. The idea of reducing the age of eligibility for old-age assistance was borrowed from the California law that was passed 2 years ago and repealed before it had a chance to show its workability. Not one of the constitutional officers on the ballot in either the Democratic or Re- publican Parties came out in favor of the new law. Many prominent political big shots, who were very zealous for old-age pen- sions in former years, refused to open their mouths in this election. This was because the lottery question was linked up with the Old-age assistance proposal by the enemies of both. By hammering away at the lottery law from every radio station, every news- paper and practically every pulpit in the State, they hoped to defeat both questions. CaGEY POLITICIANS Bo the cagey politicians ducked the iasue and left it to the people. Candidate Cool- idge, who headed the Republican ticket, came out against the lottery, thinking that it would get him some votes. He was wrong in his expectations. But neither Governor Dever nor Attorney General Kelly, both of whom have been benefited over the years by their advocacy of help for the aged, said one word in favor of the pension law or the lot- tery law. They were mute. The only known workers for the measures were the members of the two pension organ- izations mentioned above, the Fraternal Or- der of Eagles, as alweys, and the officials of the American Federation of Labor. But this jast endorsement was of no particular value, because they were so bitter against the lot- tery that it looked as though they were not wholly in sympathy with the pension pro- posal. If ever a cause had to fight entirely on ite merits, the cause of pensions was in there pitching valiantly and with only the justness of its appeal to bring victory. But victory was the reward to the tune of more than a quarter of a million majority, The lottery was defeated by about the same vote. Hardly had the vote on the referendum been tabulated before thoze who are trying to eliminate the elderly from our economic Hfe are setting up obstacles to defeat the wishes of the people. OLD WHEEEE The most silly arguments pre being sad- vanced. The Boston Herald, spokesman for the monfed interests, now says that the people did not understand what they were doing when they voted for increased costs A395 and failed to vote for the lottery law. But the Herald shrieked to high heaven for the defeat of the lottery. The people agreed with them on the lottery, but they did not wish to let their elderly citizens struggle along, on the border line of starvation. Others, equally lacking the milk of human kindness in their character, are insisting that the law is unconstitutional, This is an old wheeze that never fails to be around when everything else fails. Another vicious thing that has crept in is a fantastic figure as to the expected cost to meet the proposals of the new law. Of course the amount has been set so high that it is out of reason, but It has been thrown in to frighten the elderly and their friends, They don't frighten so easily these days. Little by little, their morale has been bullt up until they now feel that they are citizens in good standing and no longer mendicants sitting on the street corners with tin cups hanging from their necks. I have seen this mental attitude change gradually over the years. The overwhelming victory, unaided and on its own, has put even further hope and courage into the heart and mind of every elderly citizen in the State of Massachusetts. Fortunately, the provisions of our const!- tution on matters that have successfully been on the ballot do not admit of a repeal until one or more elections have been held. No quick repealer can be tossed at the voters of the State as was done in California. The people have passed a law under the con- stitution. As for the question, “Where is the money coming from to finance this new law?” that is being leveled at us from every available source, the answer is that it will come from the same funds that now give a liberal pen- sion to our legislators and others. YOU CAN BET THEY WILL It is interesting to note that there were several members of the house of representa- tives who have always voted against every pension measure introduced into the legis- lature, who were defeated for reelection. As they are now eligible for old-age pensions as former members of the legislature, it will be interesting to eee if they accept this money from the Commonwealth, especially as they insist that money for more aid to the elderly needy te not available. Any undemocratic effort to nullify and crucify the new law will be fought by the people of the State with determination. Just as they refused to have their intelligence insulted by fake propaganda and turned to their known friends for honest advice before voting, so they will stand by those of us who have fought the fight for so many long, hard years. Massachusetts will meet her obliga- tions. I cannot refrain from reminding the readers of the National Welfare Advocate again that the battle of Massachusetts is one of our most momentous victories. It will surely help the good citizens of California when their new petition is being discussed in Sacramento, after the first of the coming year. Hon. James P. Kem, of Missouri, Fills a Necessary Role EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. FRANK CARLSON OF KANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 195 Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
A396 the Appendix of the Recorp, an editorial appearing in the Springfield, Mo., News Leader, issue of January 20, 1951. The editorial is entitled “Senator Kem Fills a Necessary Role,” and emphasizes the splendid contribution that is being made hy the distinguished senior Senator from my neighboring State of Missouri, who is one of the outstanding constitutional authorities in the Senate, and is render- ing the Nation a real service in these critical times. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Senator Kxm Fitts a Necessary Roe Benator Jastzs P. Kem, who was in Spring~- field for a visit last Friday, belongs to a race which, unfortunately, has been vanishing from the Washington scene. We mean statesmen who still cling to the quaint notion that the Constitution of the United States ‘s a mighty fortress looming larger and larger in importance as the »ul- warks it guarantees us crumble to nothing in other parts of the world. The latest example of congressional apathy to the Constitution was the shelving of Sen- ator Kem's Resolution 371, in which he tried to force from President Truman a full report, to the Senate, of the President's recent talks with Britain’s Prime Minister Clement Attlee. Many blame our international troubles to- day on the arrangements made at Cairo, Tehran, and Yalta by Franklin Roosevelt and at Potsdam by Harry Truman, agreements never ratified by or even submitted to the Senate for discussion or approval. (Pegler calls the current conflict Roosevelt's me- morial war.) Closest the Senate ever got to an examina- tion of the Truman-Attlee meeting was to read newspaper stories written from reports of their talks as relayed through the Presi- dent's press representative. Section 2 of article 2 of the Constitution states in unequivocal language that the Pres- ident makes treaties “with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate.” Roosevelt behaved illegally and so did Trumen in these talks with foreign states- men when they made any secret agreement binding the United States to a course of action. Time was when such audacity by a United States President would have been followed by impeachment as surely as night follows day. Yes; there are fewer and fewer Senator Kems in Washington. May the good Lord help us when the time comes that there is none left. But by then, it may be too late to call on the Lord, since He helps those who help themselves. Tribute to Millard F. Caldwell, Jr. EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GEORGE A. SMATHERS OF FLORIDA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, an article paying tribute to Millard F. Caldwell, Jr., recently appointed Federal Civil Defense Administrator, The tribute js in an ar- ticle by Crosby S. Noyes, and appeared in or Woshington Fvening Star on January There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: A MAN-SIzED MAN For 4 MAN-SizEp JOB (By Crosby 8. Noyes) Back in the days when he was collecting four letters at the University of Mississippi, 6-foot-3-inch Millard Fillmore Ci.! twell, Jr., earned himself the reputation of being a hard man to shove around. Today, carrying the ball in the national race for protection against an atomic attack, Federal Civil De- fenee Administrator Caldwell is keeping that reputation bright. As he told worried Congressmen when he first came back to Washington to take over his new job, he is “quite contrary in the matter of pressure”—pressure that inevitably builds up around a man put in the position of creating a powerful new Government agency virtually from scratch, The art in Mr. Caldwell's case lies in being contrary in a nice way, true to a gentle tra- dition of Southern courtesy. Admiring aides say that at such times a well-modulated draw) can york wonders, with lids half closed and a deeply bred charm providing the gracious camouflage for a mind already made up. The staff at civil defense headquarters gives him full marks on an indispensable quality of the successful administrator: “He's one guy who can tell you ‘No’ and make you like it.” There have been times, to be sure, when Millard Caldwell has said “Yes” against his personal inclination. One of these times was when, a few months ago, he told President Truman he would come back to Washington to take over a job that wil! certainly be one of the most important in the Government. Mr. Caldwell does not like Washington, If you ask him, he will tell you he prefers tho life of a small-town la--yer and banker; the pleasures of a small-town bird-shooter and fisrerman—tastes which, in spite of a 1,000-acre farm near Tallahassee, the presi- dency cf a Tallahassee bank, and a vocab- ulary spiced with sporting metaphors, he has indulged little in his 42 years. There have been other jobs to do. Boon after he moved to Florida from his native Tennessee, as @ young lawyer in 1925, his public service got under way. He fol- lowed the time-honored course from public prosecutor through the State legislature to the Congress, where he took his seat in 19338, Through four terms in the Hovse, Repre- sentative Caldwell rose in authority and in the estimation of his colleagues to positions of leadership on several committees. Then, one foggy February morning in 1939, his only son, 12-year-old Millard Caldwell III, was struck dead on Connecticut Avenue by a hit-and-run driver, A few months later, Representative Caldwell announced his re- tirement from Congress. He told friends he was leaving Washington for good, taking his wife and two daughters back to Tallahassee, Hie retirement was brief. By 1945, small- town lawyer Caldwell was back in public life—running for State governor, He won, and in the course of his ‘~-year term attained the stature as an administrator that made President Truman pick him for the job he holds today. No less important, he won a high standing among his fellow governors, with whom he must deal directly as Federal chief of the decentralized civil-defense ma- chinery. Returning to Washington to take over his new assignment, Mr, Caldwell brought with him only one member of his Florida reti- nue—a private secretary, Lucy Gilbert. He explains that “Miss Lucy has been handling my personel affairs for a right amart time.” The rest of the fledgling agency was already on hand, established in temporary head- quarters on the seventh floor of a Connecti- cut Avenue office building. The staff soon learned a few things about their rangy, tousle-headed boss. They found out that he likes to be called “the Gov- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ernor” and that he believes in handling his business with little waste motion and smaller ‘waste of words. They also discovered that a relaxed manner does not in every case add up to an easygoing office routine. They learned how a rule can be literally applied: “when the day comes that I have any spare time on this job, that’s the day that a new man better take over.” Administrator Caldwell's day begins at 7 a. m,, in the Wardman Park Hotel, where he is making his temporary home. If there 1s no breakfast appointment, he takes the opportunity then and while riding down Connecticut Avenue itn a taxi to brush up on the news of the day. Before 9 o’clock he is Installed behind the large mahogany desk in his office, dictating One-paragraph letters to Miss Lucy and go- ing over the stacks of applications from people offering their services and their wares in the name of civil defense. In handling these, he follows an inflexible maxim: To get the best people for the jobs that need doing, he is willing to beg, borrow, or steal. The others, no matter who recommends them, are out. “Before I’m through,” he tells you, “I'll have the best organization in town.” Promptly at 9:15, division chiefs present themselves at the Governor’s office for the daily staff meeting. Then follows a solid day of appointments with Government offi- cials and military brass. They come to talk about the thousands of questions that will hav to be asked and answered before Ad- tainistrator Caldwell and the rest of the country can afford to relax. Problems of priorities in critical materials and personnel; of translating blueprinted plana into work- ing organizations; of keeping Congress im- pressed with the urgent need for money to get started on a national stockpile of food and medicine—all of them take time. That may be one of the reasons why Mr. Caldwell has so successfully evaded the pub- lic eye. He has not made a single speech since he took over, and he plans none. “Speeches,” says the Governor, “consume 4& world of time with precious little effect.” Of the fare served him in the course of a working day, the toughest bites are reserved for lunchtime or dinner. Discussions go on far into the night, By bedtime, the Gov- ernor and the 110 men and women who work under him know they’ve done a day's work. No one who appreciates the destructive power of the atom bomb will tell you that the progress made in civil defense up to this point is something to take comfort in. On both the local and national level we have a long way to go, and time may be desperately short. But those who know him seem to feel that onewtime track star Caldwell is a good man to set the pace. The Harvest EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 4, 1951 Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp, I wish to submit extracts from an article in the Washing- ton Times-Herald by Fulton Lewis, Jr., columnist, under date of December 31, 1950, as follows: The British since 1940 got €36,248,000,000, and are coming up for another $2,000,000,000 this year. France got #9,468,000,000; Netherlands, $1,168,000,000; Belgium, $668,000,000; Turkey,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD $204,000,000; Canada, 66,800,000; Greece, $1,217,000; Australia, $1,700,000; Sweden, 982,000,000; Norway, €224,000,000; Denmark, $178,000,000; Ethiopie, $1,000,000; Iceland, $20,000,000; and India, ¢200,000,000. This, of course, does not include the billions and billions spent in Europe, and also in Asia, for occupation costs, the multifarious programs such as UNRRA, ECA, Dumbarton Oaks, Export-Import Bank, and other programs, and now Mr. Lewis states in the article above referred At any rate, the United States ts going to spend a lot more, probably another $100,000,~ 000,000 to arm Western Europe. There are a lot of experts who think most of this should be spent in the United States of America in maintaining and equipping the biggest defense Army in history. How- ever, the decision has been made to spend most of it in Europe, and in the next 10 years we will know whether it ts right or wrong. Facts on Food Prices EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER OF IOWA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an edi- torial entitled “Facts on Food Prices,” written by Alfred D. Stedman, and pub. lished in the St. Paul Sunday Pioneer of January 21. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrc- ORD, a8 follows: Facts on Foop Prices {By Alfred D. Stedman) In the hubbub over rising food prices, millions of fingers are now being pointed tn accusation. A concert of voices names the alleged offender. The Washington store- keeper, selling dollar-a-dozen eggs to Sena- tor THyx put the bee on the popular cul- prit—the farmer, he said, and Government- supported egg prices. The baker, talking about higher bread prices, emphasized wheat and other ingredient costs. The housewife, buying apples at 10 cents @® pound; the soft-drink consumer laying Costs to sugar prices; even the cocktail “bound” soaking up highballs at 60 cents a drink while orating against milk prices at 18 cents a quart—all these lately have seemed agreed aa to where the blame belongs. That is on the farmer, on the huge Government stores of food bought in supporting farm prices, and on the allegedly fantastic Govern- ment losses on farm purchases and farm subsidies. But reasonable people will no doubt be interested in knowing the relevant facts, not on just one side, but on both sides of that story, As to eggs, it is true that farm prices did advance rather shatply (28 percent) above the unusually low price a year earlier, The price has been steadily moderating from the peak. But as @ farmer and producer of eggs on his farm near Northfield, Senator Ture talk~ ing to the Washington seller hal the facts first-hand about farm prices of eggs. Those prices On THv2'a farm had been nowhere near $1 a dozen, but about 42 cents. The Gov- ernment wasn't supporting them, but stopped that on December 31. 80 in blaming dollar a-dozen eggs on Government-supported farm prices, the Washington storekeeper was 100 percent wrong. As to bread, not over one-fifth of what the consumer pays for his loaf goes to the wheat farmer. On December 15, wheat prices were up just 6 percent from thetr level a year earlier. That rise wouldn't account for a rise of one-fifth of a cent for a loaf of bread, All the farm ingredients put together, in- cluding lard as weil as wheat, do not account for one-third of the consumer bread price. Almost two-thirds of the consumer price goes to the baker and retaliler. Recently one of Tsryn’s colleagues, Senator Marsanx, of South Carolina, made this state- ment: “In June 1948, the price of wheat was $2.81 a bushel; the price of a 1-pound loaf of bread, 18.8 cents. But in October 1950, the price of wheat had dropped to $1.91"a bushel, whereas the price of a 1- pound loaf of bread had risen to 14.7 cents.” Certainly, the labor costs of baking, slicing, wrapping, and offering other services now demanded by consumers have been going up. But centering the blame for rising bread prices on the wheat farmer isn’t in accord with the facts, As to apples, the western farmer last au- tumn got 90 cents per 50-pound box, field run, delivered at the packing platform. That was 1.8 cents a pound to cover all his costs of growing, spraying, irrigating, picking, and hauling. The charges added by washing, sorting, wrapping, crating, storing, transport. ing, wholesaling, and retailing are what push the consumer price up to 8, 10, or 11 cents a pound. As to suger, the cost was actually lower in late December than it was on Octo- ber 31, 1947, when sugar controls were re- moved. And the sugar price is eo tiny an item anyway in the cost of a soft drink that it would be hard to find the effect of a 1 cent a pound sugar increase on a bottled drink. The authentic facts about farm prices are available to all, They had, ox Decem- ber 15, risen 23 percent from the bottom & year earlier. Beef cattle and lamb prices were respectively 41 and 88 percent above their official parity or equality with gen- eral price levels. But milk, butterfat, grains, turkeys, and chickens were substantially below and potatoes, apples, sweet potatoes, and citrus fruits far below parity. The recovery of farm prices accompanies a national jump to $206,000,000,000 in dis~ posable personal income, after taxes. Have farmers shared unfairly in that income rise? They have not. Net farm income for 1950 was actually below that of 1949 and much below the 1947-48 peak. A higher disposable national income nor- mally raises food prices because people spend ® rather uniform share of such income for food. The $1.60 per day wage increase just won by John L. Lewis, for instance, will enable his coal miners to help in bidat: food prices up. But is that, or the fact thet greater coal costs of transporting or process. ing food will push in the same direction, the Yarmers’ fault? One hour's average labor will buy more food in this Nation than in others and many times more than in any regimented economy in the world. As Senator Turz told the Farm Bureau, the farmers’ share of each dol- Jar spent by the consumer for food was only $3 percent in 1946, and has slumped to 48 percent today. Folka with a real iking for facts on both aides may be shocked also to learn of the grosa inaccuracy of much of the recent so- called news of farm price supports, Last Monday afternoon a Washington dis- patch from & usually accurate news agency ‘was widely published which said that “there ‘was a net loss on price supports last year of $1,600,000,000." A397 People have been, stirred up by vivid de- soriptions of such vast losses of mountainous food purchases, of waste, and ‘of farm de- mans for subsidies, And farmers heve been told by nowspapers and newspapermen to throw overboard their price-support pro~ grams or put them in a standby status for the duration. An excellently informed and truthful agrt- cultural correspondent, Fred Balley, of Wash- ington, recently reported that the campaign to make the farmer the goat on rising food prices is now well under way in the big city press supported by some city Congressmen who want to roll prices all the way back to the farmer. Here are facta: The $1,600,000,000 referred to in last Monday's story as not lose, wasn't loss at all, but was the total amount loaned. The net realized loss of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the year ending last June was €249,2230,000. ‘The net realized loss in the current fiscal year through November was $100,281,000. Said John W. Haw, agricultural develop- ment director of the Northern Pacific, to the Farm Bureau convention: “In its report to Congress on June 30, 1960, the Corporation showed a cumulative net realized loss * * © in 17 years of 8636,040,401. The Corporation has turned over ita capital many times in this period; yet the net loss has been less than 5 cents on each dollar invested.” He said the job has been substantially accom- plished with economy to the taxpayer. The recent big losses and big waste have been on potatoes and eggs. Both of those purchase programs were forced by Congress over repeated protests of the executive branch and many farmers, And from both of them the Government now has withdrawn. As to subsidies, the farmers producing the perishables that the Government sought to subsidize are up in arms against them. As to the storable produots, the Government's holdings of these are now widely acknowl- edged ag being a vital protection of the Nation’s safety in the war emergency and a check on inflation. More stockpiling of this kind is considered absolutely essential, as a munition of war and as a safeguard against runaway prices, So there are facts bearing on both sides of the farm price story, Owen Lattimore EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH R. McCARTHY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp, a letter by Eugene Lyons re~ garding the attitude of the Soviet press toward Owen Lattimore, published in the New Leader, There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Evarne Lrons Crres Sovrer Press AcConape For LaTrisorE New Yore Ciry. Those who read my recent article on Owen Lattimore (the New Leader, September 3)_ will be interested, I think, in this postsoript. Though some of us don't approve of the. gentleman's activities, they will be glad to’ learn that the Kremlin does, decidedly. It has just published a very long and laudatory review of the situation in Asta, Lattimore’s next-to-last opus—belated, but neatly timed
A398 for the larger Communist propaganda on the subject. The review took many pages in the November isaue of Novy Mir, over the signa- ture of B, Leontiev, and is being circulated in translations throughout the world by “Joint Press Reading Service, Moscow.” Mr. Lattimore is repeatedly identified as a “pourgeois” writer, since that gives added emphis to the miracle of his party-line judg- ments. But he is also described as one “who ts considered an outstanding specialist on questions of the Far East by the United States State Department,” as well as “a prominent figure of the United States State Department, one of the few collaborators of ‘Acheson actually acquainted with the situa- tion in the Far East.” Novy Mir seems un- aware of the formal findings of ex-Senator Tydings. ‘What Comrade Leontiev likes best about the Lattimore book is that, in explaining Asian trends, it puts in first place the great revolutionizing influence of the October So- cialist revolution in Russia, As against “the wild, raving howls of American reaction- aries,” the Moscow review poses Lattimore’s viewpoint: “Not Bolehevist propaganda, he says, but Soviet reality itself—the attain- ments of the Socialist revolution in‘Russis— this ts what has aroused and inspired the peoples of Asia to a fight against their im- jalist aggressors. * * “ Lattimore ac- nowledges that in the eyes of all the Asiatic people Soviet democracy is the only complete, yeal democracy.”’ In short, “the general con- clusions to which Lattimore arrives attest to his realistic understanding of the situation.” These orchids from Moscow must be added to those already awarded by the reviewers of Lattimore books carefully selected by the “wild, raving” howlers who run our capitalist press in America. Eucenge Lyons, The Changing Complexion of Medical Practice EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES P. KEM OF MIBBOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of : Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. KEM. Mr. President, on January 8, 1951, at the one hundred sixteenth annual meeting of the St. Louis Medical Society, Dr. L. R. Sante, the society's new president, gave a very pertinent address entitled “The Changing Complexion of Medical Practice During the Last Half Century.” I ask unanimous consent that excerpts chosen from Dr. Sante’s address be printed in the Appendix of the Rucorp. There being no objection, the ex- cerpts were ordered to be printed in the Rercoap, as follows: THE CHANGING COMPLEXION OF MEDICAL Practice DuRING THE Lasr HaLY CxnTURY (By L. R. Sante, M. D.) Tam mindful of the great honor which you have conferred upon me by electing me pres- ident of the St. Louis Medical Society. It 1s @ distinction which can be accorded to rela- tively few; many better qualified must be assed by without such recognition; I would ke to think of myself merely as their rep- resentative, The primary function of the medical so- ctety 1s actentific; it would seem that the first duty of tts president s:ould be to maintain this function. The medical society ts a meeting place for doctors, for the presenta- tion of scientific papers in order to keap in touch with scientific advances in the medi- cal field, and through discussion to evaluate new methods of procedure and new thera- peutic agents. The first half of the present century has wrought tremendous advances in the fleld of medicine, many epoch-making in charac- ter, which have virtually changed our con- ceptions of medical practice, At the beginning of the century infant mortality stood at an unbeilevably high rate. It is difficult for us to believe now that at that time one-fourth of all children did not survive to 6 years of age. Modern sanita- tion and improvements in infant feeding have done much to reduce the frightful in- fant mortality of yesteryear to the lowest point in the history of our Nation. The Second World War has given impetus to many important medical developments. Perhaps one of the most important of these was the discovery that bacterial infection could be eliminated by the administration of or antibiotics, such as the sulfa drugs or penicillin. The advent of these agents alone has done much to change the complexion of medical practice. They have been called wonder drugs and, indeed, their action may be nothing short of miraculous. The entire field of chest surgery has been so broadened that today exploration of the chest is undertaken almost as readily as exploration of the abdomen; cancerous growths or other affected areas may he ex- cised or even an entire lung removed. New methods of anesthesia, utilizing high- ly perfected anesthesia machines and nu- merous new synthetic drugs, have played no small part in the advances of surgical prac- tice in the last few years. In radiation treatment the developments have been remarkable. At the beginning of the century the effects of radiation on liv- ing tissue was known, but radiological prac- tice was still in the stage of a medical curios- ity. Today it has developed into one of the two most potent agents in the treatment of cancer. This is a record of accomplishment of which the physician may well be proud. Woudn't you think that the public would be anxious to preserve the system of free enter- prise, under which such progress was at- tained? By and large, the public is fair; by and large, the rank and file of labor is fair; I cannot believe that they will permit sad- Gling of the public with a compulsory s0- claliged scheme of medical practice by an avaricious political machine. It is my opin- fon that, with the possible exception of the clergy, doctors as a class are among the most honest, sincere, and eelf-sacrificing group of men in the country. True, there are char- latans here and there, but there are rene- gades even in the ministry, and we do not condemn the entire profession because of the acts of a few. One would think that the public would be anxious to retain the direc- tion of medical practice in the hands of the medical profession, which, under a system of free enterprise, has been able to accomplish such wonderful progress. One would think that the public would realize that no pro- fession could accomplish ite best work when hamstrung by the directives of lay workers, One would think that the public would rec- ognize the political implication attendant upon the addition of a large number of jobs to the Federal payroll, which is already tre- mendous. One would think that taxes are already so high and the national debt so great that the public would be seeking meth- ods of reduction of expenditure rather than means by which they will be materially in- creased. One would think that the public would think long and seriously before it at- tempts to add this additional burden on our poor, tired Uncle Sam when the country is in its present state of anxiety and confusion, APPENDIX TO THE CO1.GRESSIONAL RECORD In recent years these political repercus- sions have done much to change the com- plexion of medical practice. Time and effort which should be devoted to medical practice and investigation have been diverted to po-~ litical and economic considerations. Regu- lar meetings have, of necessity, been set aside for the consideration of the economic phases of medical practice. Committees had to be appointed to keep informed on medical leg- islative bills in order to safeguard the free- dom of medical practice, Constant vigil had to be maintained to prevent infringement of the laws against corporate practice of medicine. The public at large will be most severely affected by all of this; hence it should give it most serious consideration and notify its Congressmen of its conclusions. Recent elections in Florida indicate that the medical profession can become a potent political force when sufficiently aroused to the necessity of the situation, The trend of recent national elections also seem to indicate that perhaps the pub- lic ig doing some serious thinking and has begun to suspect that we cannot continue our orgy of extravagant public spending with consequent continuous pyramiding of our colossal national debt. Nothing speaks to a Congressman with greater power than the votes of an aroused people. It is clearly the right and the duty of the medical profession to arouse our peo- ple and to instruct them of the dire results which will surely follow the political shack- Ung of the American doctor. Inflation and the National Survival EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF TE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr, WILEY. Mr. President, last Wednesday evening, January 17, it was my privilege to address the New York Economics Club of New York. At that time, I shared the dais with two distin- guished leaders, Mr. Harry A. Bullis, chairman of General Mills, Inc., and Mr. George Harrison, president of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, affliated with the A. F. of LL. I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp the text of Mr. Bullis’ powerful address entitled ‘“Infla- tion and the National Survival.” I fur- ther ask that preceding Mr. Bullis’ ad- dress there be printed a list of the officers and board of directors of the Economic Club of New York, an outstanding or- ganization founded in 1907. There being no objection, the list and address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tue Economic Cius or New York, Founvep Officers: Juan T. Trippe, president; Eu- gene Holman, vice president’ W. Alton Jones, vice president; John M. Schiff, treas- urer; Iva Nichols, secretary. Board of directors: Ellsworth Bunker, J. Luther Cleveland, Gardner Cowles, Ralph 8. Damon, Virgil G. Damon, H. P. Davison, Eli Whitney Debevoise, Duncan W. Fraser, J. P. Grace, Jr. H. E. Humphreys, Jr., Devereux C. Josephs, Frank H. Lerch, Jr., Ralph T. Reed, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., Mark Woods, Dwight Eckerman, executive director.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INFLATION AND THE NATIONAL SURVIVAL (By Harry A. Bullis) In the year 1861, the first year of the Civil War, our National] Capital was threatened by the enemy. One dark night five men, among them the President of the United States, climbed the stairway leading to the tower of the Smithsonian Inatitution. Through the darkened windows they saw the low line of hills around the oity. The men flashed lanterns toward the hills. In the distance, lights filckered in reply. Thus was tested the means to signal an attack upon the olty. At stake was the very survival of our Government. In this year of 1951, exactly 90 years later, there is once again a lantern in the window. But this time ite flashing signal is no mere rehearsal of a possible crisis to come. Today it speaks of a growing menace from across the seas. More important, it warns of trends within our own country that ultimately could undermine our productivity and cre- ate hardship everywhere, NATION HAS TWO ALTERNATIVES Monetary inflation is a form of national self-hypnosis by which we turn our faces from reality, and look instead toward a never-never land of easy money. We know the consequences. An unsound currency gnaws at our security just as certainly as a defeat on the battlefield. I wonder if we realize that there are only two roads before us. We can heed the warning signals, em- brace the economics of sacrifice, and pay the price that must be paid if domocracy shall live. Or we can continue on the road we have been following, spending billions of un- earned and unreal dollars, This way leads to fiscal disaster. The free world looks to these United States for leadership—economic, social, and moral. For inflation already has swept most of Eu- rope, and the forces set in motion show little sign of slackening. Compared with 1939, Belgium’s increase has been 277 percent, and it is growing. In Greece, Uving costs have increased neatly 30,000 percent. Italy has marked a 5,000-percent increase. In France, food costs alone were 1,800 percent higher last fall than before the war. In Finland, the costs of living are some 850 percent higher. The average Finnish worker pays 10 times as much for clothing now as he paid in 1939. It is exactly what Lenin ordered—~— the debauch of the currency. Just as infla- tion damages our Nation and our allies, so does it aid our common enemy. In the United States, the cost of living has shot up over 75 percent compared with pre- war. The trend continues. In 1950, the cost of living rose about 6 percent; wholesale prices rose 16 percent; the price of farm products at wholesale, 23 percent; and the prices of 28 important commodities rose 48 peroent. The rise was fastest at the end of the year, In the second half of 1950, the rise in wholesale prices was at a yearly rate of 25 percent, a rate barely and briefly equalled only in 1919-20 and in 1946. If we are to save our own great white-collar middle classes from financial ruin, if we are to stay clear of the many other destructive forces of inflation, America will have to act promptly and desiaively. HOW INDUSTRY CAW LEAD Tndustry is equipped to supply both intelli- gent action and leadership in this crisis. The action should take the form of quick production for defense. Enormous produc- tion is needed right now. The world looks to us for the arms to halt Communist ag- gression. During the past 2 years the United Stqtes has expanded production and has greatly increased productivity when meas- ured in output per man. We can do the.same thing for defense The leadership is needed to control infla- tion. Business, 1h coopération with govern- ment, can take the case for 4 frm money policy direct to the people, who must ulti- mately decide the issue. As the President’s economic advisers pointed out recently, “To gain public suppurt for stern policies re. quires that the public understand the reason Ww y.” In this era of tension, any spark can start 8 conflagration. We are in limited war now. ‘We may well be on the threshold of total war. It is difficult to exaggerate the crisis. Only 5 years ago we ended the greatest war in history. We paid dearly for that victory, in tens of thousands of casualties on the fields of battle, and in tens of thousands of psychological victims within the borders of our country. We incurred a staggering na- tional debt. But we stepped up our indus- trial plant in the process. The amazing fact is that we did the job with no more than a 28 percent rise tn the price level during the actual war years. The controls of the war years suppressed inflation. But when direct controls were removed without bringing in the more general indirect controls, inflation burst into action. Today our economy is roaring along, full throttle. In the case of automobiles and trucks alone, we produced last year over 8,000,000 vehicles. We built over 1,400,000 new housing units. We have the capacity to produce 101,000,000 tons of steel a year, or half the world’s total. We are able to squeeze more agricultural production per acre out of our farm plunt than does the rest of the world. A good wheat farmer in the West can produce 6,500 bushels of wheat with about 2,000 hours of work a year. In south China it takes the entire family working ineffectively to produce one-twentieth as much, as 275 bushels, with two crops @ year. We have shipping in quantity, and war plants in stand-by condition. Our productive pldnt is fully engineered, and ready for the job of rearmament. We hope we can substantially increase our gross national product so as to maintain our liv- ing standard in the process. SITUATION DIFFERENT FROM 1941 But getting back again to that lantern in the widow—how about our economic spring- board for the tests that Ne ahead? Here the situation is far different. Ten years ago we were faced with the need for an enormous increase in output and we had large unused capacity to produce. Today we face a differ- ent set of conditions. We need to divert a part of our fully loaded productive machine from civilian goods to war goods, as well as to convert and expand our plants. We will recall that in 1940 our national output of goods and services was $100,000,- 000,000. Eight million of our people were unemployed. By taking advantage of this labor slack, and straining our economy, we pushed our total national output to nearly $200,000,000,000 a year by the end of the war. We spent 890,000,000,000 for war in 1 year. It was a gratifying process all around to put people to work. Today tt is an unpleasant task to throw them out of work in order to create labor available for war unemployment. Today we have no labor surplus. Our idle productive capacity is low, Hmited to war plants carried over from last time, and even reactivation of idle plants consumes valuable time, of which we have so little. Therefore, it is obvious that the only way we can pro- duce all that we need for war is by produc- ing less of other thinge—lowering our out- put of civilian goods. We cannot expect our national output of goods and services to be large enough to include as much civilian goods as we made in 1950 plus all the war matériel we shall need—war matériel for our own needs and to rearm and equip our allies, Let us be realistic in this crisis. For the present, ours ia a problem of diversion more than of expansion, To look at this from another angle, in World War IL we produced about 80 percent of war needs by expanding output. We pro- duced only 20 percent by conversion or by A399 cutting back selected industries to release thetr facilities and resources for war pro- duction. Today, with a comperable war effort, the figures might well be reversed. We should have to obtain about 80 percent of our military needs by converting existing industries and diverting factories, men, and raw materials to war production. Obviously, this means taking goods away from the consumer. There simply will not be as much goods available for civilians. But how about the money and credit sup- ply? Uniess courageous action is taken, there will be more money on hand than ever, and less consumer goods to spend it on. Here, in a nutshell, is today's stubborn prob- lem. We are now confronted with the meed to beat some plowshares into swords. If we do not limit the ability to buy the plow- shares that remain—in other words, auto- mobiles, new houses, appltances, and the liJ-e—thelr value will increase excessively. This brings us to the crux of our discus- sion. How can we attain stability in our currency in this periad of short-of-all-out- war economy and still provide for needs at home? How can we best protect our cur- rency and at the same time put it to work for us? FOUR RULES FOR SOUND FINANCE Here are four specific suggestions that may point the way to a maximum production in a stable economy: 1, Overhaul the Federal financial policy and formulate & program—e total, tied-to- gether program-—that will restore confidence in the national credit. 2. Reduce drastically Government spend- ing for all nonmilitary purposes. Ask the Government to save exactly as it asks us to save. 8. Continue and extend the use of indirect economic controls, and insist on flexibility in whatever direct controls are imposed. 4. Enlist the cooperation of industry to inform the people of the dangers of inflation and to explain the “economics of sacrifice.” STRENGTHEN FISCAL POLICIES The first objective should be a program which will provide for paying as we go up to the limit of what the economy can stand and still remain strong and healthy. In the President’s economic message to Congress on January 12, 1951, President Truman said, “We should make it the first principle of economic and fiscal policy in these times to maintain a balanced budget, and to finance the cost of national defense on a pay-as-we- go basis.” In my opinion, we should muster the courage and the fortitude to pay cur- rently for war costs up to one-quarter of our national production. In 1944 and 1945 Federal tax revenues averaged #45,000,000,- 000, or about 20 percent of the gross na- tional product, This is not enough at the present time. . In 1951, gross national product will prob- ably be about $300,000,000,000; 20 percent of this for Federal tax revenues would amount to 860,000,000,000. More exactly, the present system will produce about 655,- 000,000,000 in tax revenues at present tax rates. As the national product tncreases, we can get more tax revenue. If the costs of armament drive the total Federal budget up to $65,000,000,000 in fiacal 1952, we should get additional revenues by adding more ex- cise taxes and lowering personal exemp- tions. Much as we dislike sales taxes, we might even have to have a Federal sales tax. Any tax program should provide a reason- able and effective pattern for spreading the burden. Also there is a Mmit beyond which taxes should not go. And, if taxes exceed the critical point, they will take away the ability to expand production. There is a growing accoptance of the theory that the critical level of taxation, beyond which the forces of inflation are brought into play, is eround 25 percent of the national income. Inflation has already robbed every American
A400 of half of his savings, half of his insurance policies, and much of his earnings. How much more can we take away from the aver. age man? Of course, how far people will go in economic sacrifices depends upon their faith and belief in the value of the cause and the effectiveness of the program to fur- ther this cause. We all want to do everything that is nec- essary for the defense of the United States but we should be absolutely certain that what we are doing is necessary and that we are not building up excess military equip- ment which may become obsolete before ac- tual all-out war occurs, General Marshall has been a steadying influence in this re- spect. Ever since he assumed the office of Secretary of Defense, several months ago, he has said that, until we know what is going to happen to us, we do not want to build up surplus production for the mil- tary and have large supplies of excess equip- mont. He wants an enduring solid program which the American people will be willing to carry out for a Jong period. I am also confident that General Eisenhower, when he returns from Europe, will present an in- telligent and practical plan for the United States to follow in Burope. These military statesmen want Intelligent P'eparations for defense, but they also kno®¥ that we must not overburden our economy. In anything short of a full-scale war, it is highly desirable that the revenues of the Federal Government equal or exceed total Federal expenditures. In other words, dur- ing this period of limited war, we should do everything we can to balance the budget by increasing taxes and by cutting down less essential expenditures. Only in this way can we keep our Nation, to the greatest possible extent, in the free private-enterprise basis. If it happens that we get into a war that requires all-out effort, Federal expenditures will undoubtedly exceed our ability to pay as we go. In that case, the Government will have to borrow the additional money that it needs. The fiscal program should anticipate this contingency and should pro- vide that such financing will not be done through banks where the effect will be to increase the supply of money. The extra funds needed should be borrowed from the people’s savings on terms which will make Government bonds attractive to hold for income purposes over a long period of years, Bhort-term financing of war needs should be avoided. REDUCE NONMILITARY SPENDING The second objective should be sweeping economy in government—Federal, State, and local. With war on our doorstep, we should stop spending for public projects that can be postponed until the emergency has passed. National defense comes first—ahead of public butidings, housing projects, or sub- aidies to any segment of the population. If we try, we can reduce Federal expenditures for nonmilitary purposes by at least 86,000,- 000,000. The Government should set the example in the sacrifice of nonessential spending, and eliminate projects which re- quire materials and manpower which could better be used for war production, TMDIRECT CONTROLS ESSENTIAL We come to our third point. Assuming that we will have direct controls, we will still need indirect controls more than ever to curb the increase in buying power. We know that so-called direct controle—price and wage Axing, manpower controls, priorities, alloca tions, rationing, and so forth, will not alone do the job of stopping inflation. Wage and controls-and rationing hold prices down, ut they de not shrink purchasing power or increase the supply of goods. Therefore, they do not relfeve inflationary pressures but merely bottie thém up and suppress them. They may heal the leston on the surface, but the power to erupt builds up below and may be the more destructive when it does break out. Government wa and price fixing and ra- tioning mean reg....enting housewives, con~ sumers, workers, and businessmen. To en- force such direct controls will call for thou- sands of “OPA” and other Government of- ficials paid for by the taxpayer. Business- men will spend many precious hours learn- ing the new rules of the game, and adjusting their businesses. Prices made in a free market, by reflecting conditions of supply and demand, show where production should be stepped up and where it should be slowed down. Under price fixing, Government bureaus take over this function. During a long period of semiwar or even war, those bureaus cannot possibly guide and direct production as well as would the free market through many thousands of transactions. We are making this effort to preserve a free enterprise system for the simple reason that it is the most efficient system. One of its requirements is a reason- ably freely operating price mechanism. We can alter or freeze that mechanism for the short run as we did in 1942, But to do so for the long run of this entire decade would be a mistake. If we do not wish prices to rise, then we should operate so as to have some prices fall. We should operate to have some prices go up and welcome the extra goods and manpower which we get in that industry as a result. Flexibility in price management should be our watchword. In spite of these weaknesses, We are ap- parently going to have direct wage and price controls. When they are imposed, let’s see that this time they are flexible. They should preserve enough leeway to permit induce- ments where neéded to support production Jags. There can be no rigid strait-jJacket to contain an economy as complex as the one we have in our land. Direct controls at best must allow for administrative Jjudg- ment that will get the job done in the best way in the shortest possibile time. Perhaps in a total all-out war, price con- trols might work. But in this “butter and guns” economy, if we are to have a long- pull, enduring program, we must depend on a tough fiscal and credit policy. Our strategy must be to curb inflation at the source. This we can achieve, to a large extent, with indirect controls, properly and vigorously administered. These controls in- clude, besides taxation, Federal debt manage- ment, interest rates, monetary and credit policies, and the controls of consumer credit and residential mortgage credit. We must curb private credit expansion in order to have individuals save more of their income and thus reduce market pressures. If we must finance part of the war through deficits, we need a policy that will se]l Government bonds to savings institu. tions and to the people instead of to the banks. We will thus syphon off surplus pur- chasing power and dry up super-charged re« serve-credit inflation such as we had during the last war. The facts are that the public is so distrustful of Government money policies that more savings bonds are being cashed to- day than are being sold. This is a practice which we must reverse. THE PUBLIC MUST BE INFORMED The fourth point is in many respects the most important. Combined with proper tax policies, with a sound money policy, and with proper indirect controls, it will limit inflation. I propose that industry, through the Ad-« yertising Council, the National Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and whatever other agencies are available, launch a Nation-wide com- paign to call attention to the present-day lantern in the window-—the danger signal warning of inflation. The Advertiaing Coun- oil Just last week approved an anti-inflation APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD campaign. This story must be retold time after time. The program must sell the eco- nomics of sacrifice. It must end the short- term money binge and expose the terrific monetary headache that lies ahead. It must show that by tightening our belts and adopt- ing some Spartan principles today, we can reap the rewards of a more bountiful soci- ety and productivity in the years ahead. And at the same time we can protect what we have, and stand up and fight for freedom. Government, industry, and labor can join together in this program, But we will have to move swiftly, There is no time to lose. Public opinion is in a state of uncertainty. Our enemies will employ every means to dis- tort the facts and confuse us. A recent survey by a leading research corporation emphasized the problem before us, People give strong backing to the war effort, but they do not yet believe that this means sacrifices—sacrifices now. The interviewers asked, Shall we have a longer workweek? Sixty-three percent said there is no need for it, even on defense work, Thirty-four percent said eventually, maybe. Higher taxes? Fifty-three percent said that increases would not be needed for some time. Fifty-nine percent turned thumbs down on a 5 percent increase in persona) in- come tax, The rest of the survey is in the same vein. People are not sold on the danger of infia- tion. But they can be sold. They will be sold if we set our minds to it. President Truman, in his economic mes- sage to Congress on January 12, 1951, said in effect that, to fight inflation, the great mid- dle working classes may have to pay 83 a week in extra taxes. This is because the middle classes will have to pay most of all future taxes. This workers’ group should welgh the ultimate ‘consequences of infla- tion as against taxation. Such inflation might mean that prices could easily rise to take $10 a week away from each worker. It comes, or rather 1a stolen, little by little. The facts are that having a higher tax bill 1s good business for the broad mass of the people—the great middle classes which to- day are mostly made up of workers’ families, PRODUCTION FOR SURVIVAL The need for leadership in our country was never greater than today. Charles E. ' Wilson has the ability and the courage to reach the production goals. His tasks will be Ughtened considerably if we accept real- ity—if we embrace the economics of sacri- fice and knuckle down to what I would call “production for survival.” In the coming months we might well use this term, “production for survival,” as the yardstick by which to guide our decisions, If a project qualifies as production for sur- vival, it should have A-1 priority. If it is anything else, it can walt, or serve as a stop gap until we can get to the main job. The task of Charlie Wilson and of our mili- tary strategists, however, will be directly re- lated to our success in building firm our money policies. Right now these policies are confused. The easy money policies of the past have proved to be easy politics. We have watered our fiscal resources, and we have taken succesaive deferments in meet- ing our obligations, The time will come, if we do not watch out, when we can no longer postpone meeting our debts. The final out- come would be either drastic inflation or a @Grastio capital levy. There is little choice between these two. Given the facts, the American people have never failed to live up to the American heritage. We can give them the facts on money, on inflation, and on. the economics of sacrifice, If they understand these facts, they will support the proper remedies. In the meantime let business, Govern. ment, and labor climb ‘the staircase together wif
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD end bang the warning lantern in the wins dow. We ean lead the Nation out of this wilderness of self-delusion and possible dis- aster to a broader vision of security and faith in our common destiny. We can do so with full confidence that the best is yet to come if we all keep working together, Newspaper Poll on Korean and Russian Questions eee a EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES P. KEM OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. KEM. Mr. President, an out- standing Missourl newspaper, the Rolla (Mo.) Daily News, has completed a poll of its readers on certain questions relat- ing to our foreign and domestic policies. Of particular interest are inquiries as to whether we should withdraw from Korea, and whether we and our allies should cut off trade with Russia. It is said to be the first newspaper in the Natior to poll its readers on these matters. Edward W. Sowers, publisher of the Rolla Daily News, summarised the results of his poll in an article that appeared in the January 23, 1951, edition of his news- aper. I ask unanimous consent that . Sowers’ article be printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Ger Our or Koaga, Kick Russia From UN, ROLLA OPINION (By Edward W. Sowers) The Nation’s first newspaper to poll its readers, designed to obtain a composite of community opinion on such questions as the Korean War, draft of 18-year-olds, foreign aid, Russia in the United Nations, price con- trol, and taxes was completed here today by the Rolla Dally News. Exactly 508 readers of the News filled out ballots, answering 18 of today’s vital ques- tions. With 477 ballots counted last night, the Rolla community citizens voted 250 to 202 “to withdraw from Koreas as quickly as possible.” The Rolla area people are sharply divided on the draft of 18-year-olds, the poll show- ing 289 favor drafting the ‘teen-agers, while 212 would not draft them. The earliest bal- lots received were from worried mothers, many favoring compulsory military training but few want their young sons in combat at such an early age. Later, with more soldiers from Fort Leonard Wood and students from the Missouri! School of Mines voting, the trend changed to a slight majority favoring Grafting the 18-year-olds. Price and wage controls were demanded by the Rolla ballot, 386 to 60. Asked if the honor system of price controla is working, 384 voted “no” and 62 “yes.” The Rolla voters are overwhelmingly sure that nondefense spending should be reduced, voting 340 to 69 for that. They are also equally gure that this Nation should prepare for all-out war and build its defenses. They voted 264 to 161 to prepare quickly for alle out wat, and 258 to 68 to gradually strength- en our defenses. They are willing to raise taxes for defense, 826 to 79, but think taxes can be lowered for nori-defense funds, voting 159 to 50 for less taxes except for defense. XCVII—App.———26 DIVIDED ON TRUMAN Seven of the straw voters strongly urged impeachment and removal of President Tru~ man, while 15 or 20 wrote in their comment urging everyone to get behind our President and other leaders. Rolla citizens would boot Russia from the United Nations, 282 favoring such drastic action, 216 opposing it. Two hundred and five would go so far as to break off diplo- matic relations with Russia, while 213 oppose this. If left up to Rolla, the Chinese Reds would never get into the United Nations, as 866 oppose it while only 72 favor it. Likewise, the United States and the UN should cut of all trade with Russia and her satellites, think 827 Rolla voters, while 108 would not impose such economic sanctions. URGED TO QUIT MEDDLING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES Chiang sand his Chinese Nationalists should get aid from the United States, be~- lieve 298 of those polled here, while 145 would have nothing to do with Chiang or any other foreigner. Many of the comments were caustic, strongly worded appeals for the United States to quit meddling in foreign squabbles. However, 292 voted to send troops to Europe, while 150 oppose sending any Americans to Europe or any foreign soil. We should expect foreign nations to sup- ply bulk of troops for any United Nations army, voted 859, while only 78 seemed to think the United States should bear the brunt of the international police force. BALLOTS SENT TO SENATORS The original ballots, including the com- ments, were sent to United States Senators Kem and Henninoes and Congressman Carna- HAN in Washington today from this news- paper. It was added several metropolitan Newspapers and national magazines had written expressing interest in the polling plan, and that some other newspapers have already started similar polls in their com- munities. Such a composite of public opin= jon on a Nation-wide basis should help Con- gress make decisions on the vital problems facing the Nation today. Taxation of Mutual Insurance Companies EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, an article entitled “Mutual Insurance Companies Angered by NTEA Attack,” published in the North Dakota Union Farmer of Jan- uary 8, 1951, There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Murua InsuRaANCcE ComPpaNizs ANGERED BY NTEA Arrack Cuicasco.—The so-called National Tax Equality Association’s new advertising cam- paign attempting to smear co-ops and all other nonprofit enterprises has stirred action by mutual ingurance companies. In a letter to insurance executives, Ameri- can Mutual Alliance explains that the “highly organized large-scale effort to under- mine the confidence of the American people in mutual fire and casualty insurance is gaining momentum.” Purpose of the drive, it said, is to degrade mutual ineurance “so + that stock insurance companies can compete Atél more effectively with mutual carriers. This involves stich devices as asserting that there is something unpatriotic about insuring in & mutual company.” The drive ie also designed “to high pressure Congress into rewriting the provisions of the Federal tax laws so that income taxes of mutual fire and casualty insurance com- panies will be increased in greater propor- tion than those of other businesses and so that the present exemption of the small mutual insurance companies will be wiped out.” The letter points out that mechanics of the campaign are being handled by the NTEA, “an exclusively propaganda organiza. tion, with offices in Washington and Chi- cago, which was set up in 1944 to fight the cooperatives. It is financed in part by stock insurance interests. Undoubtedly you are aware of the vigorous anticooperative cam~ paign this organization has heen waging since that date. But you may not realize that the campaign now is being directed against mutual fire and casualty insurance, a8 well as against cooperatives.” (Eprror'’s NoTe.—Mutual insurance com- panies now pay in taxes 1 percent of their premium income or thelr additions to cap- ital, whichever is greater, with an exemption for the very small companies of 675,000 of premium income. Mutuals say that if their premiums were as high as those of their competitors they would right now in many cases be actually paying more taxes than stock companies on the same volume.) Why Not Talk Peace for a Change? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BRIEN McCMAHON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. MCMAHON. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, an editorial entitled “Why Not Talk Peace for ao Change?” which appeared in the Hart- ford Courant of January 24, 1951, There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rzc- orp, as follows: Way Nor TALK Pract ror a CHANGE? In America we hear and read such a con- stant torrent of words that we tend to dis- miss most of them as futile. But words, and the ideas to which they give expression, have & vitality we must never underestimate. Conditioned as we are to thinking almost exclusively in terms of divisions of men and tons of war production, a lot of us are likely to scoff when Brren McManon rises in the Senate to propose a resolution of friend- ship for the Russian people. Many Amer- icans would denounce any such gesture with today’s swear word, appeasement. Others would consider it a new high in uselessness. ‘We can all admit that no Senate resolution of friendship is going to change the course of world events. Not by itself. But we don't know what the effect of an intensive, per- sistent, well-organized campaign to reach the Russian people by every means of com- munication would be. We haven't tried it. The Voice of America ts attempting that job, still on @ relatively minor scale. But how many Americans, let alone Russians, know just what it 1s doing, in what ways, and with what success? The point is that 99 percent of our talk 1s about the prospects of war with Russia. That
A402 subject fills our conversations, our newspa« pers, our magawines; it pours out of our loud. speakers; it occupies most of the time of Congress. We aren't warmongers, surely. But is it any wonder that we give even our friends abroad some anxious moments by our constant hammering at warlike themes? ‘We know we must make a great national ef- fort to build up our military preparedness. But shouldn't we at the same time redouble our efforts to make our underlying hopes for peace clear to the whole world? Moreover, let us remember that propa- ganda does not consist of words alone. Here as elsewhere actions speak louder than Words. What we do or do not do at Lake Success, for example, will go ® lot further toward convincing the rest of the world of our peaceful intentions, or lack of them, than what we say in resolutions or through the Voice of America. We ought to think over why it is that we seem so alone in the UN— as witness not only Indta and the Arab na- tions, but Prime Minister Attlee's official cab- inet statement in London yesterday, on sanc- tions against China. Senator McMaHon argues that the Com- munists, well aware of the universal desire for peace, scored a notable propaganda vic- tory with their so-called Stockholm petition. He thinks we ought to answer it with some- thing more conducive to peace than pic- tures of the best A-bomb targets in Russia, and talk of letting the Communists feel the lash. If we really want to satisfy our own consciences, and put at rest the misgivings of our friends, we’ll follow Senator McMa-~- HON’S advice. We can surpass the Soviet's battery of mouthpieces in one vitally im- portant aspect: We can afford to tell the truth. Let usa make sure that the truth is worth telling. Declaration on Manpower EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF .NDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr.CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a letter I have received from Rev. John J. Cava- naugh, president of Notre Dame Uni- versity, enclosing a declaration on man- powcr adopted at the meeting of the Association of American Colleges at At- lantic City, N. J., on January 10,1951. I am informed that the declaration on manpower has already been ordered printed in the Rrcorp. There being no objection, the letter | was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: UNIVERSITY oF NotRE DaMx, Notre Dame, Ind., January 16, 1951, The Honorable Homzr E. Carexart, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Capenart: The enclosed pro- posala give, I believe, a practical and work- able answer to the problem of manpower as it affects the world today. We wouki cer- tainly appreciate your considered judgment in this matter, as well as whatever steps you might take to see that the declaration is brought to the attention of those responsible for formulating the forthcoming legislation. This declaration of manpower was drafted at the meeting of the Association of Ameri- can Colleges, held at Atlantic City on Janu- ary 10, 1951. The following men are mem- bers of the special committee, mentioned in proposal IX: President James P. Baxter III, ‘Williams College, Williamstown, Mass.; Pres- ident Leonard Carmichael, Tufts College, Tufts College, Mass.; President John J. Cav- anaugh, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Ind.; President Arthur 5. Fleming, Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio; President Goodrich ©. White, Emory Unt- versity, Emory University, Ohio; Mr, Guy E. Snavely, executive director of the Associa- tion of American Colleges. With renewed assurances of my gratitude for your cooperation and of a continued re- membrance in my prayers, I am, Very sincerely yours, (Rev.) Joun J, Cavanavag, C.8.C., President. A Foreign Policy: What’s the Answer? EXTENSION OF REMARES oF HON. JOHN J. SPARKMAN OF ALABAMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a tran- script of the radio debate between the senior Senator from Ilinois (Mr. Dovc- Las] and the junior Senator from Tllinois IMr. DirKSEN] on the subject, A Foreign Policy: What’s the Answer? broadcast on the American Forum of the Air on January 14, 1961. There being no objection, the debate was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: ‘A ForeIGn PoLicy: WHAT'S THE ANSWER?’ (Radio debate between Senator Pau, H. Dovceuas, Democrat, of Minois, and Senator Everett M. Dirksen, Republican, of Ili- nois) Chariman Granix. Former President Hoover has Jaunched the great debate. He has proposed a foreign policy quite different from the Truman doctrine. He wants the United States to pull out of Europe and Asia; to preserve this Wostern Hemisphere Gibraltar. He would cut off all aid to West- ern Europe until it showed spirit and strength in defending itself against Red Russia. Administration leaders have called this isolationism, a wave of defest and frustra- tion, an act of appeasement. Mr, Hoover announced yesterday that newspaper reaction showed nearly 3-1 sup- port of his program, With leaders in Congress and in your com- munity divided in their views, with every American vitally concerned, the American Forum of the Air presents the first of a series of discussions on A Foreign Policy: What’s the Answer? We are highly honored and privileged to- day to pose this vital question to two dis- tinguished United States Senators, both from the great State of Ilitnois but on oppo- site sides of the political fence: Senator Pau, H. Dowaras, one of the independent Demo~ crats’ epokesmen in the Senate; and Sen- ator Evenerr M. Diexssn, the new Senator from Diinots, who distinguished himself for many years as a Republican leader in the House of Representatives, Now, Senator Diakssw, do you agree with Mr. Hoover's policy? APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Senator Dmxern. First, Theodore, indulge me a moment while I throw a little salute to my colleague, Paun DouGias. Probably nobody campaigned any harder for my defeat then Paut Dovatas, but he did so honorably and he did ¢o fairly, and so, while we have differences of opinion, I do salute him as a great statesman and as a forthright American citizen. And s0 now to your question: I agree very substantially with President Hoover, and even more so if I put my own interpretation on what I think he tried to say. I think that he has been misinterpreted, and the com- mentators and the columnists have taken @ great many liberties with the Hoover speech; but if I can boil it down in 30 sec- onds, I think first of all, he assumed the worst possible condition, so that if freedom ig going to have a beachhead, we have to make this hemisphere strong. Secondly, I do not agree with the second sentence in your opening remarks, to the effect that he wants to pull out of Europe or Asia necessarily. I think he stated the whole case in two words when he said defense over in Europe is the “prime obligation” of those folks first, and thereafter we come into the picture. And with respect to Asia, of course, there he believes that we have followed a policy of appeasement; that the United Nations has failed very signally; that its dis- cussions have been rather pious and rather foggy; and that we have to hew to a rather consistent and firm line of action. And so, in the interpretation that I place upon Mr. Hoover's very significant and epochal speech, I agree very substantially with the former President of the United States. Chairman Granix. And your distinguished colleague, Senator Dove.as? Senator Douatas, First, may I say it is a happy indication of the fundamental decency of American politics that, while Mr. DimxksEn and I are representatives of opposing political parties, we are nevertheless close friends; and that while I did not exactly dance in the streets with joy when he was elected, now that he is a Senator I am very glad, indeed, to welcome him, and I am sure that he will have the same distinguished career here that he had in the House. Now, my good friend, Everett DIRKSEN, has put a gloss on the Hoover position. Mr. Hoover's phrase was that we should not give “another man or another dollar” to Europe until after the European countries had erected “a sure dam against the red flood.” Let us note that his phrase was until after “a sure dam” had been erected, when ald, therefore, from us would be no longer needed. The practical effect of Mr. Hoover’s proposal would be to withdraw all our forces from the Continent of Europe and from Asia, and therefore to leave a vacuum. And since the struggle against world communism is a world struggle, that would mean -that the other countries would not have strength enough with which to resist it. Communism would take over all of Asia and of Europe, and then all of Africa; and we would be left alone, with the exception of perhaps the northern part of South America. Chairman Granix. Senator Digksen? Senator Dirxsen. I think Senator Dovaras falls into the same pitfall that has beset so much of the thinking about the Hoover speech. If I can summarize the first part of it, and of course, that would be the first part of our thinking on foreign policy, it would pe that foreign policy, ike charity, begins at ome. First of all, we have got to have e sense of mission; and what is the sense of mission of America? Well, after all, the ancient land- mark is freedom, and I would devote myself to it, and I think Prestdent Hoover does, likewise, Secondly, he assumes the worst possible condition, What assurance is there that we
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD are not going to be driven out of the Orient? What assurance is there that there ts going to be that spiritual and moral strength that he talks abowt, which is necessary if the European countries are going to defend themselves? And 80, he comes to the con- clusion that freedom must have a beach- head, and that beachhead is the American Continent. That, to me, looks like sound and logical thinking, because you have to think all of the way down the road and en- compass the eventualities that confront us at the present time. That, then, is the first part of a foreign pole icy: It begins here at home with the think- ing of our people, and he must assume the worst possible condition and prepare our- selves for it accordingly. Senator Dougtas. Well, we are all agreed, Republicans and Democrats alike, that we should defend freedom. We are all agreed that we should make America strong. But the question 1s, at what point should we begin to defend freedom. Mr. Hoover would say that we should not defend freedom on the continents of either Europe or of Asia; we would only begin to defend freedom when America itself was di- rectly attacked. And the island bases of which he speaks are to be used as merely screens, protective screens around the United States. Now, my position is this: That this policy would be ultimately fatal to this Nation. It would mean that when the Communists had control of Asia, Europe, and Africa, they would have 2,000,000,000 of the 2,800,000,000 population of the world, and therefore, from & population standpoint, would outnumber us nearly 7 to 1. They would have 100,000,000 tons of steel capacity in Russia and Western Europe, as compared to our equal figure, so that on an industrial basis they would be on a parity. They would have virtually all of the rub- ber of the world, and they would have two- thirds of the tin, and they would have the major portion of the manganese, and they would have the vital sources of uranium. And therefore, when the ultimate struggle came, we would be alone, our backs to the wall, and the struggle would be very hard and the odds very difficult. Therefore, we who believe in the opposite doctrine think that it is in the interest of America to help those nations which are willing to defend themselves, to defend themselves; provided, first, that they make an adequate contribution to their defense, and provided, second, that the places are accessible to our forces. Chairman Granix. John Foster Dulles, Re~ publican adviser to the State Department, says to abandon our European allies would be ruinous. Senator Dirksen. Let us relate that to the Hoover speech. In the first place, President Hoover didn’t say we should get out of Europe. If you go back and examine that speech, he says we shouldn't be blind to or unmindful of western culture on the conti- nent of Europe; and secondly, of course, he believes in a frontier on the British Islands and in the British Commonwealth; and thirdly, if you go back and examine those words that he used, he says, first of all, the foundation of our policy should be the Wesat~ ern Hemisphere; and secondly, he says the prime obligation is upon them. He rests his case mainly, of course, upon the fact that the spiritual and moral strength and the willing- ness to defend themselves has not been manifest. Look at the votes in the French Chamber of Deputies; look at the recent vote in Italy; look at the uncertainty and the fear and the drawing away over in Europe at the present time. They are tn the line of fire over there, go to speak, and as a consequence, the first obligation is theirs. If they refuse to defend theinselves, we could pour in all of the troops, all of the money, all of the munitions, but it would be like pouring it In a rat hole. And so there ought to he a manifestation as to whether those people are willing to stand up and be counted, for if they are not, then, of course, it gives point to the fact that more and more we should emphasize the strength of the American Hemisphere in time of test and great eventuality. Chairman Granix. Is it pouring it into a rat hole, Senator Dovatas? Senator Dovatas. No; and I think there is & great misunderstanding as to the degree to which Europe has rearmed and is willing to rearm. We compare our Armed Forces, for example, with the numbers in the armed forces in Great Britain, about three times as much, and we say that the British are not doing their job. But it 1s not a question of the absolute numbers under arms; it is a question of the relative proportions who are under arms. And I have worked out some figures on this which I think are very in- teresting. Last year, out of every 1,000 in the popu- lation, we had 14 men under arms, Great Britain had 16 men under arms, and France had 16 men under arms. As of March of this year all three of these nations will be on an equality—18 men per 1,000 population. So that on a relative basis, up to now, these countries have done sub- stantially as much as we. And tn terms of amounts spent, namely, proportions of national income, at the pres- ent rate we are qpending 8.7 percent of our national tncome for defense, the United Kingdom is spending 64, and France is spending 7.3. But Great Britain and France, in the budgets which they have just passed, have raised their proportions to 8 and to 0.7, respectively. Under the so-called Brussels agreement, it {s understood from press reports that all of the nations go up together, and when we finally reach the maximum of about 55 divi- sions, the United States will not be bearing more than about 20 percent of the total burden. Senator DirKsEN. Well, Theodore, getting back just a moment to your earlier question as to what John Foster Dulles said, it just occurs to me that whenever we make & cone fession that we can’t make it alone in this world tf we have to, then we are on the high~ way to decay. I am not one of those who will ever make that confession, believe me, al- though it has been made in some high places, because there may come a day when we are out of Asia, and there may come a day when we are out of Europe, and then do we pro- pose, in high places and elsewhere, to make the confession that because we have no peo- ple at our elbow that we are going to fail? My motion is that when we make ourselves atrong, we get allies in our corner, and they are willing to stay in our corner. Now, with respect to this question of men under arma, I think it begs the point. The important thing is: What is the heart and the will of the soldier after you have put him in uniform and given him a rifle? You can give him the best weapons in the world, but if he follows a strange ideology, and there is no real spirit and no resolve and no de- termination, then he ts only a 50- or 25-per« cent soldier. And what Mr. Hoover sought to emphasize was that will, that indispen- sable will, Js the prime obligation of armies in Europe, and it is not alone a question of size. Chairman GRanix. Yesterday there was an announcement that Senator Wattrr F. Grorcr joined Republican Senator Rosgar A, Tart, of Ohio, in demanding President Tru- man submit to Congress the issue of send» ing more American troops to Europe. What is your thought on the issues, Senator? Senator Dovanas. I agree with it. I think the President has the constitutional power to send troops abroad in his role as Commander in Chief, but I aleo.believe that there is aaufi- cfent division of opinion in the country, and since Seoretary Acheson made a contrary pledge to the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions so that the President should not exer- cise this constitutional right without ap- proval at least by the Senate and possibly also by the House as well. But I should like to have this resolution submitted in an affirmative fashion, namely, that the Congress or the Senate approve of the gist of Brussels agreement rather than in the negative form which has been pro- posed by Senator WHxrry and Representative Coupert, namely, that we should not send troops until congressional permission had been given. I think it is better to put the question in the affirmative rather than in the negative. Senator Dinxsen. I agree with that posi- tion, very substantially, and I would like to amplify it to this extent. Everybody I think who is familiar with our Constitution knows that it confers ypon the President powers as the Commander in Chief, and those powers have never been delimited by the Supreme Court of the United States, and we don’t know how far they can go, but we know that that power was conferred at the time when this country was a country of 8,000,000 peo- ple and !t wasn't ranging far afield, and so the question is: Shall the President, because that power was conferred a long time ago, have authority to put us into an undeclared war and dispatch endless unlimited troops to all corners of the earth? I think, in the interest of common sense, if for no other reason, there must be a full participation by the people's representatives in the Congress. Now, that ought to com- mend itself, I think, to good thinking and to common sense in this day and age, and we shouldn't be unmindful of the fact that when, as in the case of Senator ConNALLy, they recite 100 instances over the years when the President has used that power, I went back to take a look. Look at the casualties that were connected with those instances. Virtually none. Usually there were a hand- ful of marines into Nicarauga, or some simple example. But today we are playing for keeps, and it involves the lives of thousands and hun- dreds of thousands of young Americans, and the President shouldn't exercise that power lightly. I believe the time has come for full, fair, and, as Senator Dovoras has said, affirmative consultation, Senator Doveras. Well, I would lke to. make one qualification to this. I believe that the President should submit the issue to Congress, but I think that we of Congress have a reciprocal obligation to decide that matter quickly, and not prevent a decision by prolonged hearings before the committees or by a fAlibuster on the floor. Chairman Granix. I will take a question from our studio audience. Do you have a question there, sir? Question. I am Roger Hack, a student from the University of Dlinois. This ques- tion is for Senator Dimxsen. If we were to lose Western Europe through Soviet invasion, would it be possible to have enough strength on our part to check Communist power after such a great loss to the United States? Senator Dimxsen. Well, the answer is sim- ply this: What asaurance is there that we might not lose Western Europe? And if that ia designed, of course, as a comment upon what President Hoover said, I reaffirm, of course, that he said he wasn't unmindful of the need of saving western culture in Eu- rope, but he believes that it requires a mant- festation of will power over there, Will they do it? I don't know. We are engaged in a great guessing con- test today from President Truman and Dean Acheson on down, and they are trying to
guess as to whether the Soviet will move— wilt there be a war? ‘They don't Know. I don't know at the moment. But I do know ‘we could come to the end of the road, and we would have to depend upon ourselves, and so I want this hemisphere to be strong against that eventuality on land, in the alr, and on the sea. Chairman Granrs. Senator Doveras. Senator Dovaias. We are all agreed on that, but the question is at what points will we throw our strength to prevent facing the world alone? Now, Mr. Hoover's position ts that he will not give any men or any mate- rials to Europe until after Europe has al- ready made itself so strong that it can resist Russia, and until after it has occurred— those are his very words. Now, the Euro- peans say, “If we have to wait for American aid until we have bullt up armies of millions of men, we don’t think that we can bear this burden. We want some Amertcan aid.” Then Hoover says, “You can't have it until after you have made yourself secure.” And the result is that we virtually cut ourselves Adrift from Europe and tell them that we are not going to defend them. Now, as I understand the press reports from the Brussels Agreement, the text of which, of course, has not been published, it provides for an ultimate European force at the end of 3 years in which there will be approximately 10 American divisions and a European force of approximately 5 times this amount. We go up together, and that is the immediate issue before the American people, namely, whether or not we will agree to the Brussels Agreement. If we do not, I think we can be perfectly certain that the Communists will take West- ern Europe, and take it fairly quickly, and when that happens, while our defense is not impossible, I want to make that clear, it is not impossible, it will nevertheless be ex- tremely difficult. Senator Dirxsen, I am not unmindful of all of the words in the Hoover speech, but I would like to read every word and every Phrase in terms of context and the over-all purpose and spirit of that speech. And so there isn't any case of pulling out of Europe. It ta a case of them manifesting some inter- est in their own defense, and then, of course, America will not be found wanting if that will is manifest. Senator Dovatas. Well, I think this is a very happy interpretation that Mr. DIRKSEN has put on Mr. Hoover's epeech. And I only hope that Mr. Hoover and his followers will subscribe to it, because if they do, then we will be extremely close to an agreement. We, on the other aide, do not want to de- fend Europe alone. We will not defend Eu- rope alone. We simply say that if the other nations put up adequate forces, five-sixths of the forces, or four-fifths of the forces, we will join them and we will also help with our air forces and our sea forces. Now, that is what the Brussels Agreement, as I understand it, provides, Now, the effect of the Hoover speech and the cffect indeed of the Tarr speech hag been to discourage and to oppose our taking part in the Brussels Agreement, That has been the effect. Now, if Mr. Dinxsmw wishes to indulge in some characteristically able interpretation of the Hoover speech which permits him to pay homage to President Hoover and at the same time adopt the foreign policy of President Truman, why we are very glad indeed to welcome that. Chairman Grant. I would take another question but I know everyone wante Senator Dirksen to answer that. Senator Dmxszn. When ali is said and Gone, let nobody forget that President Hoover ‘was the first great American to stand behind the League of Nations long ago, and let it not be forgotten that he was for the League of Nations until it began to show signs of fogginess and failure. If they put up five- sixths, I am confident that Prestdent Hoover would go along, but wants ‘something more than what he called lip service, decla- rations, paper policies, consultations, and let us see the color of the money, and let us see the kind of troops they put up, and then we shall know what to do. Chairman Gran. Talking about the United Nations, some of your colleagues feel the United States acceptance of a proposed cease-fire plan for Korea is a mistake, and that it is complete appeasement, Would you prefer a withdrawal from Korea and to keep our hands free in Formosa? Benator Diexsen. As I examined the text this morning, I was frankly astonished about the language that was used, because I am of the opinion that 1t does constitute appease- ment. And so there is the question, Do we go out or clo we stay in? We haven't found out yet whether we are running a war there or whether it is a glorified police action. I have been waiting for the White House to say something about it finally. But first let us make up our minds what we are doing there. Secondly, let us determine whether it is pride or official stubbornness or a matter of long-range policy that keeps us there, and if we can't find out, in Heaven's name, let us not slaughter any more youngsters over there when it looks as if they are going to run us out of the place anyway. [Applause.]} Senator Dovatas, I would like to answer Senator Dizksen's exhortation. [Continued applause.} Thank you very much. I should like to answer Senator Dirxsen's question that we should make up our minds what we ar- doing there. We went into Korea at the’ request of the United Nations that the coun- tries should come to the ald of a people who had been attacked. We went in there to resist aggression, and that is what we are doing now. I do not want to see us pull out of Korea under any negotiated agreement. I wish the other countries had given us the aid which they should have given, and to which we were entitled, but I want to say this, that if we throw up our hands and abandon the effort in Korea and tf we in the United States do that, and if the British do that as they have been doing, then it is good~-by to the United Nations, and good-by to collective security, and I think the issue is sufficiently important that we shouldn't throw in the sponge. If we leave, let us Jeave honorably and under gunfire. Senator Dmxsen. Let me make one brief comment to that, and that ts this: Is the moral effect over there worse when we take a sustained and continuous licking, or whether we do the sensible thing and get out and reform and reframe our lines the better to do a defensive job in the Orient? Senator Dovatas. I am not a military ex- pert and I don't believe my good friend Evesrrr Dinksrew is a military expert either and I am willing to be guided by the milt- tary experts in this matter, but I simply say that you never can be certain when you are taking a licking. Things may go against you for a time, but then there may always be a turn of events which enable you to come out on top. When the military situation becomes hope- less, if 1t were to become hopeless, and tf our generals thought that we should leave there, I would agree, but I do not want to have us leave prematurely, to leave in order to buy off the Communists, that is appease- ment of the worst type, and I want to see us stick as long as we have a chance of continuing to fight for law and order. Senator Diaxsrw. That simply presupposes this question: Do we stay on because Mac- Arthur, 8 great soldier, wants us to stay on, or do we stay on because Dean Acheson and present Truman want us to stay on? That all. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Senator Dovaias. IT am not in the con- fidence of the General Staff, nor I think is Senator Dmxszn, unlesa he has tap tines into the Pentegon which I certainly do not have, but I belteve that General Bradley ts the Chief of Staff of our Armed Forces, and General Bradley with the President fur- nishes our military leadership. Now, I don't know what General Mac- Arthur has been urging. If a military dect- sion comes to that point, let !t be made, but I should say it should be a military decision, and it should not be withdrawn because of moral weakness. Chairman Granix. Senator DmxsEn. Senator Dmxsen. I have no further com- ment to make except this: Is it a military policy they are pursuing, or is it a military policy in response to political and diplomatic policy over there? If it 1s the latter, then we had better think very seriously about getting those boys out of there. Chairman Grantx. Will you continue on, Senator Dirksen, with your summary? Senator Dimxsen. Well, Mr. Granix, in summary, just let me say this: I subscribe very substantially to what I think President Hoover said in that very epoch pronounce- ment that he made to the country recently. I think as never before we are going to have to find out whether the people in Europe are going to stand up and be counted and make that one of the conditions of ald. We sald so in the Republican policy for the cam- paign in Illinois in 1950, and I consider it to be a covenant with the people, and I mean to keep it, In Asia I am jn general sympathy with some of the things that Senator Douaias has already said over the radio on other occasions, and that is that we use our natural allies, let us reweapon and reequip Japan, and let us do what are the realistic things over there, and then keep ourselves strong. Chairman Granix. Thank you. Your sum- mary, Senator DoveLas. Senator Dovatas. It is very hard for me to find out precisely where my good friend, Evergtr Diaxsen, stands, because he seems to agree to a double interpretation of Mr. Hoover’s speech. If Mr. Hoover and Mr. Dirxsx:; believe ulong with President Tru- man that they should give aid to Europe, if Zurope will help adequately to arm liself and to defend itself, then I say that the great debate on foreign policy is moving to a very happy synthesis and agreement, and the discussion will have justified itself. I hope very much that this actually is the case, because tf Europe goes, if Asia goes, we lost seven~eighths of the world’s population, and we lose a half of the world's steel, and aggression will be closing itself in around us, We will have to become a garrison state and the ultimate chances will not be as good as they might be. Chairman Grant. Thank you. You have been listening to a discussion on foreign policy between Senator Pavuti Dovaias, Democrat, of Illinois, and Senator Evakerr Dmxsen, Republican, of Illinois. Thank you very much, gentlemen. The Christian Hope of the New Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON, JAMES P. KEM OY MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a timely
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sermon delivered January 14, 1951, by Dr. Earle B. Jewell, rector, St, Andrews Episcopal Church, Kansas City, Mo. There being no objection, the sermon was ordered to be printed in the Recor», as follows: Sermon sy Dr. Earte B. Jewe.xi, Rector, St. Anprew’s Errscopa, Cuurcn, Kansas Crry, Mo., January 14, 1951 Thirteen men stocd in @ valley at the base of a mountain, They were young men. They faced a world of terrible conflict. The race they belonged to was in slavery. The poli- ticlans had taken over the economic, the cultural, the educational program, and the religious rights of the whole empire. Men were in slavery. So much so that a soldier or an agent of the government could demand the personal service of any man to carry his bundles. A man had no freedom. There was no economic future. Men were discour- aged, hopeless, and living a life of futility. But not these thirteen men. These young men stood at the base of the mountain. They had caught the vision of a better way of living. They had been taught, through a@ personality, the wonderful freedom and liberty of individual human personality. As they stood at the base of the mountain they were united in one conviction, They he- lieved that men had a better day ahead. Out of that group of 18 men, 4 men went up the mountain, Jesus, Peter, James, and John. On the mountain they had a tre- mendous and wonderful experience. They witnessed the transfiguration of Jesus. Peter said, “Master, it 1s good for us to be here.” The young men of our generation are in the valley of confusion and bewilderment and chaos. They too are facing a world that is soon to go into slavery, the slavery of the expediency of an economic and military dic- tatorship. The hands of the military dic- tatorship will rap on every cottage door in the land of America where there is a boy 18 years old. That young man will have no choice. His parents will have no choice. We are in the valley of economic dictator- ship. The long ruthless spendthrift arm of the Government will reach into the pocket- book of every home and cottage and into every business and into every organization. These past few weeks I have heard the heartbreaking cry from the homes of my peo- ple telling of the futile feeling their sons have about the future. I have been told that in 1 college over 200 college boys did not return to school this semester because of the uncertainty of the chaotic draft law. I have been told that there are certain young men who went back to finish their semester and yet came back home after they had been in college a week. I have a letter that tells me that young men in a certain college do not even get up in the morning to go to classes, they stay in bed and sleep, and their answer is “What’s the use.” Surely we are in a terrible state of inertia, We are in a terrible state of demoralization. We are in a terrible state of our lack of fatth in the future. We are in a terrible state in the lack of our faith in the purpose of God in the world. We are in a terrible state in the lack of purpose for human personality where we in America are allowing the fine young men of our homes to draw unto them~ selves a sense of futility about the prepara- tion for the future of their lives, What happened to Americans? What has happened to Christians that we can stay here in our peace and tranquillity and in- ertia without raising our own voice against the loss of the freedom of our American way of life? What happened to Americans in their sense of honesty and common decency when we do not add our voice of demand that our suffering and sacrificing boys be brought home from the futile war in Korea. Many military experts tell us we are going to be whipped and pushed out of Korea. Why should we leave our boys there to die? r can see why young men are full of futll- ty. You and I as Americans have forgotten the Mount of Transfiguration. We have for- gotten the hopeful view of the future. When our young men see that we don't care and there is inertia on our part and we are indifferent to the suffering of other young men, they can’t help but feel that we shall be so with them. My heart bleeds for the young men of this generation. You and I got them into this situation. We got them into this position, year by year, by carelessly voting away our constitutional rights, until now the Consti- tution in America is nothing but a piece of paper framed in the halls of Congress. We definitely sold out our birthright as individ- uals and it is no wonder our young people have a sense of futility. As Christians we have a different Job to do. We must say “It is good for us to be here” for we know what freedom is, we know what liberty is, we know what courage is. All these things are born not in a heart of fear, not in a heart of discouragement, not in a heart that is full of demoralization; but in a heart that is full of faith, a heart that is full of courage, a heart that has great faith in the future, a heart that believes that this is God’s world, a heart that believes that Jesus Christ is loving mankind and that his way of life is the absolute way of life. Un- less we are willing to accept this gift of God we will never have the life of transfigura- tion. We shall be doomed all the days of our life. We become a defeated people We dare ask the question of the three men in Washington who are responsible for our boys being in Korea, and who have the authority to bring our boys home from ° Korea: “How many sons of yours are in Ko- rea?” I refer to the President of the United States. I refer to the Secretary of Defense, and I refer to the Secretary of State. As we sit here this morning American boys are being killed. We indignantly ask “Why does God allow these things to happen?” Our young men have a sense of futility about returning to college. Our young men are discouraged about the future. We witness ambitious young men giving up their estab- lished new business because of the uncer- tainty of their status as a potential soldter. Surely the American voice should be raised against these prophets of doom and chuos. Let us encourage men as Christians to drown out the hysterical voice of the fearful and confused politician, We as Christians have hope. We do not believe in an attitude of futility. We believe that life is made for courage, for strength, for hope, and for a conquering faith in the future. We have been on the Mount of Transfiguration and say with @ great voice "It is good for us to be here for we have heard the Master's voice.” Young men, to you I would speak this morning in these words: Go back to your school, stick to your job, do everything you can to develop your personality, do every- thing you can and take every opportunity you can grasp to develop your intellect and your minds and your sense of the beauty and the worthwhileness of life. I would say to you, stick to your school, stick to your jobs and develop the finest character you can, because if you do have to go to war then you will be better prepared to face what comes because you have had that much more de- velopment. And remember, your personali- ty is eternal. With a view like that you accept every day as a conquering experience. No person in this church this morning is sure that ere the night time comes that we will be in this world. There is not a parent in this church ‘whose young people may go out in a car to- night, that can be sure this young person will get home again, because it is possible that A405 somewhere along the line some adult may give Mquor to teen age hoys and girls. We have no assurance that tomorrow is going to come to us. Do we live today, therefore, in the sense that this day is futile? Do we live this hour as though it is foolish to try to develop or grow or have hope or courage or faith? Do we do that? No; you and I are living this hour to the full capacity of our potential because we do have hope in the future, we do have a secret belief that to- morrow will be better, 30 much so that we are willing to go through this day with all the courage we can, To you young men I would say let’s rise above the shadows, let’s get out of the val- ley at the base of the mountain of futility, let's get up high on the mountain and say with all our faith, “Yea, I see a new day, ft have a new vision, I believe there is a pur- pose in the world—God’s purpose.” Man 4s doing all he can to destroy it, but I be- lieve there is God's purpose in the world, and because of that I say “It’s good for us to be here.” I personally do not believe we are going to have a war with Ruasia. I don’t know enough about it, I am in no position to speak, but I have faith in the future. I have far more faith in the future than I have faith in some of the neurotic, hysterical men who are trying to lead us down the road of destruction. And I have faith that you Christian Americans are going to rise up and revolt against the destruction of our consti- tutional rights, for they are fast being taken away from us and we are fast being intimi- dated to lose them. My vestry can tell you that 2 weeks ago last Tuesday I was warned that if I did not keep still publicly and in my writings about world affairs that this church would be bombed. I point this out to you for one purpose—you can see how rapidly we are losing our democratic constitutional rights when the only free voice left in America, the only courageous voice left in America its the voice of the pulpit, and now they are begin- ning to take preacher by preacher to in- timidate him into silence. Ah, but I have been on the Mount of Transfiguration. I have said to my Lord time and time again, “It is great for me to be here.” For I believe in God and His purpose for the universe. I believe in the future of the fine young men of our generation. I believe in the ultimate victory of right. And I believe, too, that there has to be a costly struggle in the heart and soul of every in- dividual before that ideal will be realized. Ah, yes, get on the Mount of Transfiguration and hear the voice of God Himself as He says, “This is My beloved Son; hear ye him.” And we can say, “Master, it is good for us to be here.” We will not be intimidated. We will not run away from our responsibilities as Christians. We will help our sons get a sense of purpose. It’s an awful and terrible responsibility to stand here this morning and tell you people, some of you with broken hearts, you young people with a sense of futility, that there can be a better world, that there can be a new hope, and that there is assured victory of the right. However, there ts a necessity of struggle and conflict for any individual or any group to grow and develop and be worthy of the name of Christian. That responsi- bility is resting now upon each and every one of us. “O Lord, !t is good for us to he here, where from the mountaintop of our faith we have captured a new vision, we sce ®@ new world and a new day, we see the com- ing of Thy Kingdom upon earth because Thy Kingdom has been born in the hearts of suffering humanity.” Humanity is holding out their hands of faith and saying, “Lord, fill us with Thy spirit that we might be conscious of Thy presence, for a glorious new day lies ahead, the days upon the earth when we live in
A406 faith and hope and courage, knowing that when the dey is done and the curtain falls upon our time we still go on in the sense of victory because Gord has given to us the ful- filiment of his promise of living forever tn the land of his own Spirit.” Every experience we have, every develop~ ment we can gét for ourselves; our charac- ter, our personality, our strength, our hope, our faith, yea, young men, these things are eternal. Stick to your schools. Stick to your jobs, Stick to your faith in the wonderfulness of the life in America, We are a free people, and by the grace of God, because we have been on the Mount of Transfiguration, we as individuals are going to keep that spirit of freedom and liberty aglow in our hearts, until some day united we will set the world aflame with the Christian hope of the new day. “Master, it is good for us to be here.” Military Policy in Korea and Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS ) iv HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, January 25 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorn an article entitled “Rolla, Mo., Says Quit Korea but Stay in Europe,” which was pub- lished in the Chicago Daily Tribune on Thursday, January 18, 1951. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: Rotta, Mo., Says Quir Korea sur Stay iw Potn Favors Tax Boost ¥For Uniren STATES DEFENSE Rota, Mo., January 17.—-The people of Rolla want the United States to get its troops out of Korea, but not out of Europe. They favor aid to Nationalist Ohina and other for- eign countries, but think foreign nations should supply the bulk of troops for any United Nations army. They want American Gefense preparation, and are willing to pay higher taxes for it, but not for nonessential Government spending. They want price and wage controls. These are some of the early returns in a poll being conducted by the Rolla Daily News to determine what its 6,700 readera think of American foreign policy, Publisher Edward W. Sowers said today. DO NOT MAVE TO SIGN Last Friday the News began printing a bal- lot giving space for “yes” or “no” answers on 18 foreign policy questions. Readers were asked to fill out the ballots, sign them or not, as they wished, and send them to the News for forwarding to Missouri Congreas- men and Senators. The ballot also includes & space for write ing comments, and this prompted at least three readers to demand the ouster of Pres- ident Truman, although the ballota were presented on a strictly nonpartisan basis and Mr. Truman’s name was not mentioned in the material relating to them. SIX HUNDRED BALLOTS ARE INT As of today an estimated 600 ballots had been returned, mostly from the 2,000 readers who live in Rolla itself. The bulk of the News’ circulation ts in the nearby rural area. Following are the questions and the num- ber of yes-and-no answers; the totals vary somewhat because a number of voters quali- fied some of their answers and such votes were not counted. 1. Do you think we should withdraw from Kores as quickly as possible. Yes, 157; no, 117. 2. Do you think we should aid Chinese Nationaliste (Chiang) fight Chinese Reds? Yes, 186; no, 108. 8. Should Russia be excluded from the United Nations? Yes, 171; no, 123. 4. Should we admit Chinese Reds to United Nations? Yes, 54; no, 287. 5. Should we break off diplomatic relations with Russia? Yea, 141; no, 147. 6. Should we [and the UN) cut off all trade with Russia? Yes, 219; no, 60. 1, Bhould we send American troops to Eu- rope? Yes, 171; no, 117. 8. Should we draft 18-year-olds? ‘Yes, 126; no, 165. 9. Should we continue to send substantial aid to foreign countries? Yes, 162; no, 126. 10. Should we expect foreign nations to supply bulk of troops for any United Nations army? Yes, 243; no, 48, 11, Should we simply defend our sea bases with our air and sea power, and keep our armies out of foreign countries? Yes, 126; no, 171. 12, Should we hastily prepare for all-out war? Yes, 188; no, 105. 13. Bhould we gradually strengthen our defenses? Yes, 252; no, 27. 14. Bhould we raise taxes? Yes, 222; no, 15, Should we substantially reduce non- defense spending? ‘Yes, 173; no, 24. 16. Should we have price controls? Yee, 249; no, 38, 17. Should we have wage controls? Yes, 249: no, 38. 18. Is the honor system of price controls working? Yes, 18; no, 261. Some of the majority opinions are some- what contradictory. For example, questions 12 and 18 both drew “Yes” majorities, though adoption of either proposal would automat- ically exclude the other. However, the trend of the response indi- cates that Rolla citizens favor some aid to foreign countries, but think America’s com- mitment in Korea is foolhardy and that for- eigners are not contributing their share to the UN forces there. The Truman ouster demands were some- what surprising in this city of 9,800, which has a predominantly Democratic population with Old South traditions, and a large cos- mopolitan element drawn by the State School of Mines, two Federal agencies, and nearby Fort Leanard Wood. The comment written by E. B. Aaron, a farmer, was terse and to the point: “Fire Acheson, impeach Truman. Reason: Incom- petency. It might save our country. Two more years of this kind of leadership and our country will be Communistic.” PUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FIRST Another, who signed his Dallot, “A Farmer,” wrote: “Replace the President with a man who puts the United States of America before y or self.” “The President should be replaced with a man with less ego and more Americanism,” wrote “Taxpayer,” who added, “We don't want a socialistic government in the United Btates.” Former Representative W. P. Elmer, Re- publican, of Salem, Mo., who long ago pre- dicted that the UN would be merely a de- bating society, had this comment: “Quit meddling in other nations’ affairs. Enforce the Monroe Doctrine. Look after the United States of America. Quit the United Nations; it is dead, a worse failure than the League of Nationa. Quit picking a quare APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD rel with Russia, Just get ready to Aight if neoessary.” Elmer signed his ballot, “William P, Eimer, isolationist.” To question No. 1, William B. Breuer, com~- bat veteran and businessman, replied with an emphatic, “Hell, yes.” His comment: “Let's stop sticking our nose where it don’t belong and daring someone to hit it.” Exemption of Cultural Institutions From Admissions Tax EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALBERT P. MORANO OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. MORANO. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following letter and article: January 24, 1961. Mr. Roszrt L. DovaHton, Chairman, House Ways and Means Com- mittee, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuamman: While we muster our resources and our physical energies to meet the threat of aggression which endangers our security as a Nation, we must not lose sight of the fact that in so doing we are apt to neglect many of the things which have Made America the great Nation it fs today. In our young history we have made great strides in civilization. We are proud of the fact that we are a cultured people, and as such we have become the leaders of the free world. Rightfully we are now arming to strengthen ourselves against the barbarism of war-bent states. In order that our exten- sive arms program may be financed, we must tap all practicable sources of revenue. However, we must not, in the procesa of building strength to protect our cherished way of Hfe, destroy those very cultural heritages we hold dear to us. It is unfortunate but factual, that many of our cultural institutions—art museums, symphonic organizations, and opera com- panies, many the world’s greatest—are suf. fering from financial troubles. For many companies—the great Metropoli« tan Opera for one—there is a definite strug- gle for survival. The Metropolitan Opera, one of our great national cultural institutions, has found Jt necessary to appeal to the public for funds to keep it operating. Paced with higher pro- duction costs and no possible means of in- creased revenue, one of the foremost cul- tural organizations of the world finds itself beaten at the box office. For the current season, 1980-51, officials of the Metropolitan Opera estimate that its deficit will amount to approximately 8400, Immediate relief and assurance of contin- uance would be obtained by removal of the Federal admissions tax, imposed in 1041 as & War measure and which now approximates the annual deficit of the company. Up until 1941, the Metropolitan Opera As- sociation retained the full amount charged for its admission tickets. In 1941 the Fed- eral admission tax was imposed. There have been no general increases above the 1041 ticket prices, but today more than 20 percent of all money taken in at the box office is ohanneled to the Government rather than to the Metropolitan. » ,