A202 In World War I the Russians had an army of 600,000 horsemen and made astonishingly good use of it, Right now for that matter, the Chinese Reds in Korea are going into battle on Mongol ponies. Of course, like the Germans, the Russians were not fully mechanized, and the Chinese aren't either. Our Army is, so the horse might not mesh quite so well, put it would have its uses. ZI remember in the early days of the last war standing on 4 hilltop with the com- mander of @ mechanized reconnaissance troop. We were watching his men and ve- hicles run off a maneuver in the broken brushy country below. The troop commander kept moaning for horses, and pointing out the limitation of his jeeps and armored cars in such terrain. Even to the untutored eye it was plain that horsemen could scout that particular piece of landscape much more adequately. It would have been smart to have kept a regiment of horse cavalry around some- where, or at least a squadron, A cadte with equine management and combat know-how would be available to lend a hand jn such situation as the request from Korea has presented. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had better get an ear to the ground. They might hear hoof beats, Also, it may come about that one of these days Congress will demand to know who was so premature about turning the horses out to pasture. Bill Ogan Went Through Hell in the Hungnam Retreat in Korea EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. NORRIS POULSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. POULSON. Mr. Speaker, while we know the news from Korea is cen- sored, I think this letter written by Bill Ogan to his father, Carl Ogan, in North Powder, Oreg., tells the story clearly and graphically. The above-mentioned letter follows: Turspay, DecemBrr 12. I probably don't have to tell you that we have just come through hell during the last 2 weeks. That I am alive is nothing but @ miracle or the good Lord was surely with me. I received 11 letters yesterday, one had a map asking me if that was the sector I was in. Yes, it was and there were two regiments of us, the Seventh and Fifth. We were sure rounded by seven Chinese divisions, We were cut off entirely except by air. They made drops for us every day: food, gasoline, ammunition, etc. One week ago we started fighting our way out. There is no need telling we had many casualties. We hear now that there are ap- proximately 1,000,000 Chinese troops trying to annihilate us. Our platoon, originally 48 men, came through with 13. ONLY SEVEN LEFT The weather was always below zero. Prozen feet and hands were not uncommon at all. My finger tips are still numb. My feet, well I don’t know, I’m still walking. Our last lap yesterday we walked over the pass to a small town which had a4 railroad. We walked 16 miles. The staff sergeant and I were the only ones who made it all the ‘way on foot, the rest of them fell out and vode on trucks. . threw & grenade. NIGHT IN FOX HOLE Three nights ago we were on a defense perimeter of the First Marines. About 3:80 a. m. I went on watch. We were standing one hour on and one off. I noticed the bullets were getting pretty close and was sitting behind the fox hole so I raised up to try to see. It was awfully dark and the wind was blowing right through me, There about 15 feet from the fox hole were five gooks. As soon as they saw me they It hit in the fox hole but luckily it was a concussion grenade and not fragmentation. At the same time I opened fire. They fired a Thompson sub. I hit two and luckily again the bullets from the sub didn’t get any of us. I picked up the sub the next morning about 2 feet in front of my fox hole. They were trying to go through our position but they failed. We had several casualties but nothing like they had. It was estimated the next day that there were about two divisions on the attack. The next morning there were five dead Chi- nese in front of my position. Later on dur- ing the night they moved me to another foxhole that the men in had been hit and there were seven deae “gooks” around there so I know I got my share of the “blankety- blanks.” FOUGHT WAY THROUGH We pulled out the next day. We had to fight our way through road block after road block. Never have I seen as much Marine gear lying on the side of the road. Trucks along the side, all kinds of gear. It was surely different than anything I have ever seen or probably ever will see again. Anyway, we made it. We are now back at Hungnam and are sup- posed to go aboard ship either today or to- morrow. Where we don't know for sure but some think we are going to Pusan. I hope not, but I am happy to just be alive and it will be a rest. Our gunnery sergeant was killed. Sure ‘was a good man. A mortar shell got him. Out of the original brigade there are seven left in our platoon. FEW DAYS OF REST We are sitting in tents today getting our back mail, getting some gear issued to us. Most of us lost most of our gear. It was either burned or lost in our withdrewal. There is some talk of our old original brigade going back to the States, but I doubt it. All my film was burned up back where we were cut off but I saved my camera and I have about eight pictures left to take. Iam saving them for special occasions. We go aboard am tracks today to board ships. I hear we are to take our tents and stoves so that probably means we will set up in Pusan or some place else for awhile. About all for now. I made it through this so guess I can make it through most anything now. I feel pretty good but have lost a little weight. Will write again as soon as I know more. Brut Oaan, Hope: An American Export EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN J. SPARKMAN OF ALABAMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, January 17 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, on November 16, 1950, Secretary of Agricul- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ture Brannan delivered an excellent and thought*provoking address to the Asso- elation of Land Grant Colleges and Uni- versities at its annual meeting in Wash- ington. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Appendix of the RECORD. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Horr: AN AMERICAN EXPORT (By Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan) It is a privilege for me to take part in another of your annual meetings and to discuss some of the matters that are of mu- tual concern to us in our joint effort to serve agriculture, the Nation, and the cause of world peace. A great deal of the work in which we have mutual interest has been long established and continues through the years to merit all the care and attention we can give to ft. From time to time we also enter jointly into new undertakings to improve upon the work that is already under way or to meet the challenge of changing conditions. In accordance with a recommendation of the joint committee on extension programs, policies, and goals, annual meetings are now being held between the Secretary of Agriculture and the executive committee of this association. From my standpoint, at least, this is an important development. I am also glad that your committee on exten- sion organization and policy is continuing to meet regularly with the director of ex- tension work in the Department and with our Department committee on extension relations. Iam particularly happy with the progress that has been made by committees of State extension and experiment station directors and representatives of the Department in developing plans for an intensified and joint effort to strengthen the Nation through grasslands improvement. Grassland im- provement holds great potentialities for im- proving the diets of our people, improving our soil, increasing the economic opportunt- ties in agriculture, and strengthening our national defense. I assure you that we of the Department will be glad to cooperate with you of the land-grant colleges and universities to the extent of our ability in the proposed undertaking. At your meeting a year ago, I discussed with you some of the promise and some of the problems of the point-4 program which President Truman hed proposed. The beginning of such a program, as you know, has since been authorized by Con- gress, and the first appropriation has been provided. Fortunately, we have all had con- aiderable experience with the problems in- volved in technical assistance to other coun- tries. It is vital that we pool our experience and resources in meeting the larger prob- Jems that are now before us. Our joint committee on argricultural services to for- eign areas has made a good start. I am sure we can all look to it for real leadership and guidance. All of us, necessarily, have been devoting a great deal of thought to this relatively new work, espectally to the real objectives we seek. Obviously, point 4 is not an end in itself but fs a part of the over-all effort of the American people to help build world peace. When I accepted your invitation to speak here, I thought that I might contribute best by discussing agriculture in relation to the building of our national strength. How- ever, as I thought more about it, my mind kept turning to the more fundamental ques- tion that is constantly in all of our minds: What can we do to achieve world peace?
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD So, with your leave, I should like to go beyond my scheduled subject and discuss agriculture’s part in implementing our de- sire and determination to bulld a just and lasting peace, Let us get into the subject by considering two questions: (1) What are the obstacles to world peace? and (2) What do we have to work with? The first obstacle we think of ts aggres- sive totalitarianism of the Communist va- riety. Korea has proved beyond all doubt that international communism its aggres- sive—and not just in the ideological sense but aggressive in the use of raw military power, Against military aggression there is only one immediate defense and that is mili- tary power. The United Nations, including the United States, have recognized the ne- cessity for military power, have acted effec- tively, and are determined to exercise effece tive force as long as necessary. That may be a long time, but force is only @ temporary expedient—not the ultimate answer. The world has seen many great mil- itary powers rise and fall. True peace has not yet come. If force can be balanced with force without achieving peace, then logic demands that we look deeper for the real obstacle between us and peace. So we come to this question: Is commu- nism the basic trouble, or is communism the current symptom of an older, deeper disease? It seems to me that communism is the symptom. Its leaders are capitalizing upon the misery, the wants, the unrest that have long existed. Propaganda-wise, they pre- tend they are not merely against something but for something better. They have con- vinced millions of people that this is so, That is the meaning of postwar Commu- nist gains in Europe. It is the meaning of the Communist success in China, the nearly successful aggression in Korea, and the con- tinuing Comunist pressure in many other parts of Asia. We know that the Communist leaders are misleading their followers with false prom- ises and lies. But many of the world's peo- ple do not have access to this fact until it is too late. They follow false hopes to their doom. Hope lays hold on men’s minds and stirs them to desperate action. Our first task is to understand this thoroughly because man’s hope must be directed toward peace—not capitalized by aggressors as an obstacle to peace. Americans above all others should realize what hope can mean in terms of construc- tive action toward freedom, Our national life began with a revolution, and it was not merely a military revolution but one based on ideas and ideals. It was a revolution that laid hold on the minds of men—in America and throughout the world. ‘The American revolutionists were not merely in- sisting that Americans should be free and independent of Great Britain. They were ingisting that all men are born to be free, that the rights of man are inherent, God- given, not subject to either pestowal or de- nial by temporal powers. T have spoken of the American Revolution in the past tense, but it can be and should be thought of in the present tense. It is alive today, and the satanic appeal of com- munism need not prevail over the good and the true that is democracy expressing the God-given rights of man. The two opposing ways of life are com- peting for the minds and hearts of men. This, I believe, is the basic struggle. For us who are now. living there is no escape from this reality. What we do—and what we fail to do—both will affect the lives of our children and our children’s children. Our record clearly indicates we will not shrink back. Our leaders have made clear to the world that we seek no national aggrandizement. Qur occupation of former enemy countries has been firm but not vindicative. We have provided foreign relief that saved millions of lives; strengthened Iran, Greece, and Ture key against Communist aggression; helped to establish Philippine independence; pro~ vided billions of dollars worth of aid to China, Korea, and certain other Asiatic countries; promoted European recovery through the Marshall plan; joined a pro- gram of mutual defense for the North At- lantic area; helped to organize and staunch- ly support the United Nations Organization and its specialized agencies; started the point 4 program, and promptly responded to the United Nations call for the military de- fense of Korea. In all history, there is nothing remotely approaching either the high moral principle or the scope of this record. Yet the peace is far from won. In the struggle for the minds of men, total- itarlan Communist dictatorship is drawing support from millions who by nature should be joined with us in developing a democratic way of life—a way or life based on inherent human rights, individual dignity, and brotherhood of the human family. Man was born to be free. There can be no peace until mankind has won its freedom. As we know from recent experience, the struggle between freedom and totalitarian- ism is at @ critical point in Asia, and the outcome in Asia is of critical Importance to the entire world. Half the people of the world live in Asia. Eight persons out of 10 in Asia are peas- ants. Most of those peasants live in abject pov- erty. Few of them farm as much as four acres. Their tools are primitive. Their farms are 80 small that they would have no use for modern machines if they had them. They have little part in world trade, either as suppliers or buyers. Few Asian peasants own the land on which they toil, and few have had any hope of owning the land. Unlike United States ten- ants, they are completely dependent upon their landlords—politically, socially, eco- nomically. Most peasants must turn over to their landlords most of what they produce—50 to 75 percent is common, and in certain parts of China it runs as high as 90 percent. Many have no security of tenure whatsoever. Some areas have laws to protect the pensant’s tenure, but in many areas the laws are not enforced. Too often the landlord may turn the peasant off the land whenever he wishes. The ylelds on much of the land are low, put the peasant is not much interested in improving it. He is not greatly impressed by irrigation projects and other improvements when It is not his land that will be improved. He has little hope of gaining; there are plenty of peasants who will work the land in re- turn for enough food to keep their families alive. Therefore, how can one peasant hope to be given more than he is now getting from his landlord. He has no incentive. This is a major problem in the point 4 program. Our technical assistance will do little good unless the family on the land welcomes and uses the knowledge. That, I believe, is a fundamental point recognised by all of you in extension work. You will find some exceptions to the dark picture I have painted. But for the most part, the Asian peasant is landless, hungry and about as nearly without hope as tt is humanly possible to become. That ts, he has been without hope; today, it may be a little different, All over Asta, Communists are spreading the word that the land is to be divided up. “Join with us,” they say, “and the land you farm will be yours. Help us overthrow the present authorities, and you will immediate- ly be a landowner. This is the only way you can ever hope to have your own farm.” A203 There's more to it than that. The Come munist propaganda uses words about free- dom, dignity of the individual, and prob- ably all of the other principles of democracy. The Communist claims are inflated like bal- loons, and are just as empty. But how can the peasant know that communism has never brought democracy but only dictator- ship? How can he know that the so-called land reform of communism consists of trans~ ferring land from feudal landlords to a feudal government? Hence, among at least half of the world's people the misery of the peasant is a basic obstacle to peace because it provides the “soll” in which communism or some other form of totalitarianism breeds. An attack upon this problem is the most direct: way by which democracy can win over communism in the struggle for the minds of men, That is the real hope for peace. In meeting any problem, understanding it 4g the first step. The next is to take stock of what we have to work with. Fortunately, we have many tools, and we have been using some of them. But we can never make it too clear to the people of the world that the princtples of the American Revolution guide American de- mocracy and commit us to the cause of human tmprovement everywhere. The world must be led to understand that when Ameri. cans tax themselves to send aid abroad they do so because they want to help the everyday folks. We must continually make known the fact that we believe in freedom and dignity for all people. It is terribly dificult to make these things clear in a period of chaos. Sometimes any kind of stabillty seems preferable to com- pounded chaos, and our efforta to gain time are misunderstood. But we must make our position clear. We should, by all means, make clear that our country has had experience in dealing with such problems as are faced by the farm people of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America—problems of land tenure. Those looking toward Russia for a tenure pattern are looking in the wrong direction if they want progress and independence for their farm people. We must help them compare democracy and communism from the standpoint of both philosophy and per- formance. As to philosophy, communism from the beginning has opposed the private ownership of property. How can anyone hope that communism will suddenly adopt the freehold principle? Logic and experi- ence require anyone tu expect that the Com- munist pattern for agriculture will continue to be the government collective. On the other hand, let our friends study Jefferson, who believed that a democratic nation should be a nation of freeholders. Some of his ideas about agriculture may seem rather extreme, in view of the indus~ trial development of modern society, but those ideas are a part of our national back- ground. It was Jefferson who said: ‘“‘Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for sub- stantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth. Corruption of morals in the masse of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example.” (Jefferson would be shocked to see how communism today is corrupting the people on the land by exploiting their natural desire to own the bit of earth on which they toil.) In 1820, Daniel Webster, who was to be- come a Senator and laver Secretary of State, made this perceptive statement: “A repub- lican form of government reste not more on political constitutions than on those laws which regulate the descent and transmission of property. Governments like ours could
A204 not have been maintained where property was holden according to the principles of the feudal system, nor, on the other hand, could the feudal constitution possibly exist with us. * * *” He further declared that “a great subdivision of the soil and a great equality of condition” are “the true basis, most certainly, of a popular government.” Our friends in agricultural countries of the world should also be aware that there was in the time of Jackson a Senator named Thomas Hart Benton, who did perhaps more than any other man to shape the land policy of the United States. Listen to his phi- losophy: “Tenantry is unfavorable to freedom. It lays the foundation for separate orders in society, annihilates the love of country, and weakens the spirit of independence. The farming tenant has, in fact, no country, no hearth, no domestic altar, no household god. The freeholder, on the contrary, is the nat- ural supporter of a free government; and it should be the policy of republics to multiply their freeholders, as it is the policies of mon- archies to multiply tenants. We are a ro- public, and we wish to continue so. Then multiply the class of freeholders; sell for a reasonable price to those who are able to pay, and give without price to those who are not.” Later the Nation did give land freely to those who would farm it. I shall not attempt to trace the entire his- tory of United States land policy. However, the facts show that the public made land available to farmers either freely or at low prices during our early development period, and that the public has intervened in many ways to keep the farmland in the hands of the operators. This is still the policy of our democracy. It is a policy which we commend to all nations in the interest of freedom and peace. If you will pardon a personal reference, my own entry into the public service was connected with a national effort to preserve the American family farming system. I was employed by the Government to buy land on which farm people were unable to make a living due to a long period of low prices and a drought. The Government was helping some of the distressed people move to other locations where they would have a better chance, helping others improve the land and form economic farming or ranching units which they could pay for out of yearly earn- ings, and finding desirable uses for land on which people had no chance to make a living. I, of course, had no part in planning this program. I mention it because it has always seemed significant that such problems—prob~ lems of land and people—are regarded as public problems in a democracy. Knowing how farm people feel about the land, it is no surprise to me that the Com- munists have made gains by promising land to the landless, But it is surprising that the whole world doesn't know and appreciate the great record that democracy has made in keeping the land in the hands of the people. The American public has provided capital funds for cooperative farm credit associations and has legislated low interest rates and long terms for repayment of farm purchase loans. (Incidentally the Government capital in the Federal land banks has been completely re- turned and the banks are entirely farmer- owned.) The Government in recent years, through Farmers Home Administration and its prede- cessor agencies, has supplied credit directly or insured private loans to nearly 2,000,000 American farm families who did not have adequate sources of credit. Many thousands of these loans made or insured by the Gov- ernment have been made to tenants so that they could become farm owners. The same type of credit is being made available to farm families who want to improve their farms and to others who want to start new farms in areas opened up by Government reclama- tion programs, The same type of credit is being made available to improve farm housing. Nearly every farm service offered by the United States Government is based on the public policy of promoting the welfare of the family-type farm. You of the land-grant colleges and we of the Department carry on scientific research and education so that the individual] farmer may farm well and #0 that his family may live well. The public shares with the individual farmer the cost of conserving the soil. The public finances administration of a crop in- surance program through which the farmer may protect himself against ruinous crop failures. The public recognizes that the small individual farmer has no control over commodity prices, and therefore provides protection against ruinous prices. The public encourages marketing and purchasing cooperatives through which the individual farmer may gain the economic strength of many. The public supplies credit and other assistance to cooperative groups of farmers so that they can provide for themselves the modern services of electricity and telephones. Anyoné reading the history of agricultural legislation in this country will be impressed by the consistency of the philosophy behind that legislation. Probably without excep- tion, the legislators advocated each act as a -means of aiding and encouraging the indi- vidual farmer so that he could own his land, attain greater security, and enjoy a better life. Another point should be noted: Our coun- try recognizes no class barrier between land owners and land tenants, Every year many tenants become owners. Because tenants generally share equitably in production, they have a foundation of econamic opportunity on which to build toward farm ownership. In 1900 tenants operated about a third of our farms. By 1930, as a result of war- inflated land prices followed by a prolonged depression, the number of farms operated by tenants was up to 42 per 100. In 1948, how- ever, the proportion was down to less than 28 per 100. Our tenure system is far from perfect. I can, and frequently do, point out problems that need to be corrected. But, relatively, it is good, and our history indicates we will continue to make progress. I am convinced that the increasing pro- ductivity of our agriculture and the growth of our industry alongside agriculture are due not only to our resources and science but also to the tenure system which provides an incentive for profitable production. Not so Many years ago, 80 percent of our people lived on farms, as is true in Asia today. Now we have reversed the figures, and fewer than 20 percent of our people are farm people. Early in our history, one farm worker could supply food for himself and only about three other persons. Today one worker can supply 14 other persons. Without this change, our modern industry would be imposible, and without such a change modern industry is impossible in other lands. Without such &@ change, world trade is severely restricted, Certainly there is no market for modern tools and machinery where the farmers have neither land nor incentive. I have dwelt upon our record in some de- tail because the details are more convincing than any general statement I could make. Many more details could be added, and I think it is our job to see to it that the leaders of a) political factions in every coun- try of the world know this record. There are some in every country who are eager for this sort of p.ogress, and they should have the facts that strengthen their determina- tion. The worst error that could be made by such leaders would be to look to American democracy as merely the center of productive genius and to Russian communism as the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD spiritual center in the field of social organ- ization. The Communist pattern offers only degradation. The democratic pattern con- forms with the most deeply felt desires of mankind. It is probably hard for people who have never been to the United States to appreciate the character of our agriculture and our agri- cultural philosophy. For that reason, I be- lieve we must work harder at taking the story to the people of other countries in terms that they can understand. This is not merely the story of what democracy has done. ‘We need not boast. The importance of these facts is that they tell what democracy is. Every representative of the United States Government in other countries should be- come expert in this task. We can also em- phasize the truth about agriculture in our democracy, in our radio, visual and other foreign information programs—not with the idea that our pattern can be duplicated in detail but with the idea that the basio prin- ciples are universal and appeal to human nature everywhere. We can also well afford to show repre- sentatives of other countries what our agri- culture is like. We do have many such vis- itors from abroad every year. I should like to see the numbers increase. Think what it could mean tf a few hundred additional persons—representative citizens— from agricultural areas of India and Paki- stan, for example, could visit United States farm people next year, to learn something about our farming methods and also about our strong attachment to family-type farm- ing, individual liberty, and equality of oppor- tunity. They would be able to give the lie in very convincing fashion to Communist propaganda in their own countries. They would also, I hope, find economic use for production techniques demonstrated here. Furthermore, they would understand that we are friendly in the deepest sense and on their side in their struggle to maintain political independence and improve living standards, Let us also make it clear to all that the principles of American democracy are being applied in our foreign policy with respect to agriculture. In the Western Hemisphere we have long been engaged in a program of technical col- laboration with other American Republics. This type of work is being extended to other areas of the world under the point 4 program. We are participating wholeheartedly in the work of the Food and Agriculture Organi- zation of the United Nations, whose program is to assist the people of the world to produce enough food and to improve the lot of the agricultural producers. Giving economic aid to China, the United States in 1948 joined with the Chinese Gov- ernment in setting up the Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction to decide how United States money should be used to help rural Chinese. Two Americans and three Chinese comprised the Commission. On their recommendation, the Chinese Govern- ment began to put into effect rent reduction and, in a minor way, land-purchase programs which had been authorized by law for a long time but never before used. It is esti- mated that 2,000,000 tenants in one province alone were benefited directly, even though the total cost to the United States was only a little over 200,000, During our military occupation of that part of Korea which lies south of the thirty- eighth parallel, the United States sold to tenants at reasonable prices the lands which were formerly owned by Japanese landlords. This did not go far enough toward meeting the tenancy problem in Korea, but it was something, and it contrasted sharply with the much. advertised Communist program of 80-called land reform in North Korea. There the tenants got a lot of propaganda but did not get title to the farms.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In Japan, under United States military occupation, a land-reform program has en- abled more than three million farmers—well over half of all farmers in this country—to obtain land. About 90 percent of all culti- vators of land in Japan are now owners. It remains to be seen whether Japanese farm- erg can hold these gains that have been brought about largely by Government order. Much remains to be done before anyone can be sure that lasting land reform has been achieved. But even at this stage, we can see good results. Reports indicate that the Communists are now able to make no gains in rural Japan. Thus, practical democracy ia competing successfully for the minds of men in Japan, as it will everywhere it is given the chance. Evidently, a little bit of land, a little bit of opportunity, can do for world peace some- thing that great armies cannot possibly ac- complish. It is something that happens in- side a person. It is something that cannot be shot or chained. However, communism is still on the march, and millions upon millions of people are in its path, subject to its lure. There is much to be done. The United States alone does not hold the answer, but we occupy a position of leader- ship. This is not merely because of wealth and power but, more importantly, because our domestic and foreign policies represent the principles that can bring peace and well- being to the people of the earth. Beyond this, we have a record of unfaltering support to the United Nations and its specialized agencies, Let us use our influence in the United Nations to keep the eyes of the world on the basic requirements for world peace, while we meet our military commitments. Those countries that want to give oppor- tunity to the tenants to purchase the land on which they work should not lack for sup- port in the United Nations. The United Nations as an organization has credit facili- ties and the facilities for giving aid in tech- nological, social, and economic fields. It is clear that these facilities can be used to help member nations increase their production by such means as irrigation and flood-con- trol projects and livestock-disease eradica~ tion. It should be made just as clear that these facilities are available to help meet problems of social and economic organiza- tion. For exampie, » country planning an irrigation project may find that the benefit to the nation could be increased manyfoid by seeing to it that the lard to be irrigated is owned by many farmers rather than by @ few landlords. Other countries may find that the most pressing need is to assure the tenant a larger share of his production and gradually to pay for an adequate-sised farm. Such & country may want to draw upon the expe- rience of other countries for guidance. It may be surprising, but {t is true, that few countries have ever developed a system in which a tenant can buy Jand by making pay- ments similar to rent. Still other countries may be interested in developing agricultural cooperatives, which in some parts of the world have proved to be great aid to individual farm enterprise and « real weapon against communism. Some countries may wish to improve their agricultural credit system so es to relieve their farm people of dependence on usurers. ‘The Bell mission to the Philippines—of which Dr. A. L. Strand, of Oregon State Col- lege, was a member—found that the con- fused state of land-titie records is a severe handicap to land ownershtp. I understand somewhat the same problem existe in other countries. To such needs as those, as well as to help dnerease totel production, tt seems to me that the United Nations should give major attention, and that we, the United States, should continually streas such a policy. In our administration of point IV work in our related ms of economic aid, we should practice the same policy, making it clear that our purpose is to help the peoples of the world to help themselves, that we are thinking of the great body of citizens in any country to which we extend aid, and that those governments which want to develop agrarian improvements on an orderly and fair basie will find us both sympathetic and cooperative. A large part of our effort, of course, must be to carry the practical tech- niques of production and the techniques of extension education to those who want to Jearn what we have learned. But let us not mislead anyone in this matter—let us not fool ourselves either: Technical know-how will not go far toward solving the food prob- Jem. and buliding peace where a bad system of land tenure exists. We will do weil to concentrate our technical assistance in those places where it has a chance to benefit the common people. In the matin, the chance to benefit ts in- separable from the oppartunity to own the land. Ownership of the land by the culti- vator is the key to individual freedom and free government. To extend this principle is simply to extend a basic tenet of United States democracy. And I believe nobody has @ greater interest in this than the people of the land-grant colleges. I would not for an instant depreciate the value to the world of our techniques of production. But they are, of course, by no means all that our democracy has to offer the cause of world peace. The greatest thing we have to export fs hope—hope based on experience in democ- racy, hope based upon successful practice of the universal principles of the American revolution, hope that amounts to falth— mankind's faith in mankind. As a result of the American experiment, we know that man is capable of self-government, that hte in- herent rights are truly attainable, that the dignity of the individual can and must be respected. We have military power, and we are in- creasing it, for the cause of peace. It is an essential expedient. But the basic contribu- tion we are making is hope and faith in a future of freedom, justice, and peace. In making this contribution, we have rea- aon for both pride and humility. We can continue to be a source of hope and faith only so long as we continue to advance the principles which are the source of hope. If democracy is to be a continuing source of hope to others, democracy must continue to advance in America. And our system of tenure must be strengthened here if the principle of opera- tox-ownership of farms is to be the center of hope in the world-wide struggle for the minds of men. To put it another way, the peasant of Asia or the Middle East has grounds for a hope that far excels anything offered by a Communist collective as long aa there is proof that the democratic prin- ciples, including free enterprise, really work for the benefit of farm people. But without the proof that is furnished by a strong American syatem of family farming—that ts, farming by families who own the land they operate or can buy it if they wish—the well- spring of hope may go dry, with disastrous results throughout the world. I belleve that all farm tions and all public institutions concerned with agri- culture, including the land-grant colleges, can and will unite in a definite, vigorous pro- gram to family farming in America, I believe that the general public will support such an effort. Let us work to strengthen our democracy in all ite aspecta, This is a task that chal- lenges educators, Government, everyone, Let us live up to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded. Those ideals can win the world. They are humanity's tdeals—as different from communism as light is dif- ferent from, darkness. Right now the world is choosing between light and darkness, Let us make the light of hope shine brightly. Monthly Benefits Assuming Basic Pension Rate of $50 per Month EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HUGH BUTLER OF NERRABKA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, January 17 (legislative day of Monday, January 8), 1951 Mr, BUTLER of Nebraska. Mr. Presi- dent, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, & tabulation showing the monthly bene- fits which would be paid to those aged 65 or over under the proposal for a universal-eligibility social-security pro- gram I made last summer. There being no objection, the tabu- lation was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Monthly benefits, assuming basic pension rate of $50 per month—How to determine your cttizen’s pension Your annual citiren’s pension is— BSESRE2 SSREESZSESRTERESSE BERLIZE t = a J 8 7 6 8 4 8 2 1 C) obRS838H 1 At this level aged persons would not normally guin by applying for benofits, a8 logs of the $600 special exenip- tion for the aged would outweigh value of benefit, A265 .