APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In the face of continuously rising costs, the Metropolitan is getting less for what it offers the people than it did in 1941, The four hundred thousand-odd dollars added to the Government coffers, hardly compensates for the tragic circumstance that may result—death of a great cultural insti- tution, Mr. Chairman, I myself am an opera lover, and I have always been interested in fur- thering culture in this country. I might add that I am also very much interested in budgetary requirements of Government and have for some time advocated heavier taxes to meet the costs of defense mobilization. However, we are bleeding these cultural in- stitutions of their finances. True, in so do- ing by building formidable armed strength, we protect their existence, On the other hand it is a case of selling a boy's pet rabbit to insure that there will be money to buy it food. The leading cultural institutions of the country are being strangled to death by Federal taxes and ever-increasing costs of Operation, No one can deny the great meas- ure of pleasure and edifying relaxation they provide for the public. No one can deny that their suspension would be a loss to the coun- try and the cultura) world in general. Therefore, when your great committee con- siders a new tax bill, I respectfully urge that such great organizations as the Metro- politan Opera Association be classified as ex- empt from Federal admission taxes, so that they may continue to bring to the people those cultural pleasures which have so largely contributed to make this the greatest civilized Nation on earth. I respectfully request that your commit- tee invite one of my constituents, Mr. George A. Sloan, of Greenwich, Conn., to a hearing, that he may present the case of the Metro- politan Opera and its dire need for tax relief, Respectfully, ALBERT P. MoRANO, Member of Congress, Fourth District, Connecticut, {From Opera News of January 8, 1951] Tue Facts BEHIND THE DEFIcIr—ONCE More, METROPOLITAN OPERA FacEs a Crisis Today survival is our major concern, But it must also be recognized that along with economic, political, and physical survival is a matter of equal import, the continued exist- ence of our culture, The Metropolitan Opera, a national cul. tural institution, is today involved in a crisis of survival. Deprived of immediate relief from the Federal admissions tax, which was imposed as a war measure in 1941 (and now approximates the annual deficit) and bur- dened by the mounting costs of production, the Metropolitan must once more come to its public to state its case. Its future depends on the prompt and generous support of its friends, even to the point of personal sac- rifice. To understand the recurrent financial problem and its acute nature at this time, you are strongly urged to study the follow- ing statement and the financial report which follows. I. FACTS OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE In the 1949-50 season, 131 Metropolitan performances in New York were sold to an average of 90 percent of capacity in a season of 18 weeks. The seating capacity of the Metropolitan is limited to 3,417. There were 66 performances in a 7 weeks’ tour at which the average attendance was also at an ex- ceptionally high level. With over-all operat- ing receipts of approximately #3,000,000 (after deducting 6454,000 paid out for Federal ad- missions tax) and contributions from all sources of $52,000, the deficit for the season amounted to anproximately 6430,000. For the current season 1950-51, it is esti- mated that the operating deficit will amount to around ¢400,000. This estimate assumes that the percentage of attendance will be as high ag in the previous season and in- cludes the additional revenues from the combination of three first performances; also, the deficit will be reduced by approxi- mately $120,000, representing voluntary con- tributions of a considerable number of sub- scribers in a generous response to the appeal made to them to donate an amount equiva- lent to the admissions tax. The Assocla- tion is deeply grateful for this assistance and for donations from the Metropolitan Opera Gutid and others who have made our fine productions possible. The deficit for the past season and the pro- spective deficit for the current season will exhaust the cash resources unless replenished from other sources. IX, THE FEDERAL ADMISSIONS TAX At the present time the Federal admissions tax is a major factor in the annual oper~ ating deficit of the Metropolitan. Until 1941 the Metropolitan Opera Asso- ciation retained the full amount charged for its tickets. In that year, as a wartime meas- ure, the Federal admissions tax was imposed on the Association for the first time. Since then there have been no general increases above the ticket prices of 1941, but today 20 percent of the money paid through the box office window goes to the Govern- ment rather than to the Metropolitan. Thus, the Metropolitan Opera, in the face of sky- rocketing costs, is actually getting less for what it offers the public than it did in 1941, It is, therefore, the hope of the Metropoli- tan Opera Association that the Congress will restore to opera companies and symphonic orchestras the full exemption from the Fed- eral admissions tax which they formerly en- joyed, and so remedy a condition which threatens the very existence of the leading musical institutions of the country, These cultural institutions are operated for the Public benefit. They require philanthropic support to survive. Therefore, they should not be penalized by taxation, Restoration of exemption from the admis- sions tax is essential to enable the Metropoli+ tan to keep the annual deficits (which will be further adversely affected by the continuous inflationary trend of costs) within manage- able proportions. This of itself, however, will nat suffice to meet the present financial problem of the Metropolitan. Even if exemp- tion were to be granted tn the near future, it could afford only relatively little financial relief to the current 1950-51 season. Since the cash resources of the Association will be virtually exhausted by the deficits of the past and present season, !t will be necessary to replenish these funds trrespective of any tax exemption granted in order to assure a 1951-52 season of opera of the highest ar- tistic quality. III. RISING COSTS Production of opera of the highest artistic standards traditional with the Metropolitan, is at all times an expensive operation. The artistic policies of the Metropolitan as set forth by Rudolf Bing, our new general man- ager, are as follows: “The Metropolitan Opera is and must re- main predominantly an American institu- tion. It also is—and we hope will remain— the world’s leading opera house. As such, its public has the right to hear the greatest singers of our day—the greatest internation- ally as well as nationally. Under my man- agement the Metropolitan Opera will cone tinue its policy of furthering Amorican talent and importing the beat Europe and the world has to offer. It will continue to present to its audiences the masterpieces of the past, as well as those which living composers—Amer- feans included, we hope—will produce; it will attempt to adapt its scenic, dramatic and visual aspects to more contemporary lines, and in short will strive faithfully to serve its faithful public.” A407 . For the presentation of the 18 to 25 operas in a season's repertory of the Metropolitan, there is required an organization of some 600 persons, comprising about 100 artists, conductors, and stage directors, an orchestra of about 00, a large chorus, @ ballet, a stago crew of about 85, and about 200 staff per- sonnel, comprising scenery designers, vari~ ous supporting technicians, and the admin- istrative staff which directs the home season and the national tour, The services of many artists are obtained in competition with concert theaters and with other major opera houses of the world, practically all of which are government subsidized. Furthermore, in the United States there is a direct relationship between the scale of ticket prices and the basic wage scale of artists. All employees are union- ized. Accordingly, the basic wage scales paid by the Metropolitan are the highest pre- vailing anywhere in the operatic fleld, due to rising living costs and comparable wage scales in the United States. IV. WHAT I8 NEEDED Constant study of economy measures is carried on. During the past year a com~ mittee, appointed by the board of directors, has made an extensive study of the posat- bility of building a new, modern opera house of adequate seating capacity which would provide higher revenue and higher operat- ing economies and meet the increased public demand for opera. Another committee ap- pointed by the board has been studying the possibility of complete rehabilitation of the existing house with a view to effecting major improvements backstage and in the audi- torium and also looking to operating econo- mies and additional revenue. Continuing consideration is being given to both of these possibilities, although action must be de- ferred untill the present disturbing interna- tional situation becomes less ominous. Op- erating expenses are being kept to a mini- mum commensurate with the operating re- quirements of this great repertory company. Indeed, for assistance in the solution of its serious financial problems the associa- tion must not only look for eventual relief from the Federal admissions tax but for the sympathetic cooperation of its subscribers, of other opera goers, of music lovers, and of the many millions of its broadcast audi- ence—in sum, of all who recognize that the Metropolitan is a great institution, the con. tinuance of which is essential to the musical and cultural life of the Nation. Grorce A. BLoAN, Chairman, Metropelitan Opera Association. The FBI EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. MIKE MANSFIELD OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am in receipt of & letter from Mr. Robert W. Dick, president of the Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Inc., with which he enclosed an article in the December 1950 Reader's Digest entitled “Why I No Longer Fear the FBI" by Morris L. Ernst, Because of my high regard for the FBI and its Director, J. Edgar Hoover, under unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker,
A408 Y ask that this letter and article be in- corporated at this point in the Conorrs- gtonat Recoagp. In my opinion, the FBI and its Director are to be complimented for their outstanding achievements over the year—achievements to which many fine Montanans—personal friends of mine, have contributed greatly. Socrsry or Former SPScIAL AGENTS OF THE FrpeRAL Borzav or INVESTIGATION, INC., New York, N. Y., January 22, 1951. My Dear ConcressMAN MaNsrimeip: This organization, which has been in existence since 1087, represents approximately 2,000 former special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Recently, there was & ecur- rilous attack on the work of that Bureau in a book entitled ‘The Federal Bureau of Investigation.” We understand every Mem- ber of Congress was furnished with a free copy of this book by the publisher and/or the author. The members of this society consider the book not only an attack on the Federal Bu- reau of Investigation and its Director, Mr. Hoover, but also an attack on our entire membership, all of whom have formerly been associated with the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation. The allegations and inatnuations tn the book that ex-FBI agents are labor spies are unwarranted, unjust, and without any basis in fact. In fact, the vast majority of our membership are either practicing at~- torneys or certified public accountants. The remainder hold responsible positions in in- dustry and the Government. Several former agents are members of the judiciary and others are Members of Congress. All our members having been special agents of the ‘ederal Bureau of Investigation certainly have first-hand knowledge about the work of the Bureau, and we wish to record our objections to this book in the strongest pos- sible terms. Tae book was presented to the public as an objective work and in the interests of national security. We are sure if you have examined the book, you will have found that 1t ie neither. You have probably noted the author's tricky placement of material out of context and that he has compiled nothing but derogatory remarks. The author has failed to make any mention of the Bureau for the 14-year period between 1924 and 1938, and its outstanding achievements in that particular period. We could comment upon the book at length but realize that the charge of preju- dice could always be leveled at us because of our prior association with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is for that rea- son that we wish to bring forcibly to your attention the attached article appearing in the December 1950 fasue of Reader's Digest by Morris L. Ernst, counsel, American Civil Literties Onion. We have made no effort to determine when Mr Ernst prepared his article for the Reader's Digest but are confident that it was a mere eo'ncidence that it appeared in print about the time of the publication of the book, The Federal Bureau of Investigation. We are sure Mr. Ernst is free of prejudice and that his article ts a complete refutation of the attack made in the book upon the Bureau. You will note Mr. Ernst states he has been studying the Bureau since 1989. When one who has detiicated himself to the preserva- tion ‘of personal liberties to the extent that Mr. Ernst has, gives his approval to the oper- ation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you can be sure that such approbation was Not lightly given. Very truly yours, Rosgrt W. Dicer, President, Sootety af Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Inc, Wry I No Lonasn Freax raz FBI (By Morris L. Ernst, counsel for the Amert- can Civil Liberties Union; author of The First Freedom, America’s Primer, etc.) I still remember my start of surprise when Tread tn the paper one morning in 1039 that J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bue reau of Investigation, had esked the United States Attorney General not to endorse a law that would legalize a free use of wire-tap- ping. Why was Mr. Hoover opposing a law which would make his own work much easier? His own words, published scon afterward, gave me the answer: “I do not wish to be the head of an organization of potential blackmailers.” I had been hearing criticlams that the FBI was made up of “witch hunters” hounding loyal citizens out of their jobs on the film- siest sort of rumor; that they tapped tele- phone wires indiscriminately, learning every- body’s private business. Ever since I read that newspaper item I have been studying the FBI. I would like to record here what I have learned. As a iMberal with a long record of aggres- sive fighting for the preservation of personal Uoerties, I am inclined to view all law-en- forcement officers with a wary eye, and not without reason—-too many times they break the law in the performance of their duties, I grew up in New York where there was often a wanton disregard for the rights and dignity of human beings. Large numbers of newcomers to American freedom let the cops bulldoze them. In their native lands they had been used to police brutalities, and in their new home they did not know that the laws protected them. Such disregard of individual rights, ex- panded on a national scale, seemed to me a positive danger. for national police have al- most invariably abused thelr power. It was therefore utterly confounding to me to dis- cover that our Federal police agency was do- ing its work with a fervid insistence on re- specting the rights and privileges of indi- viduals. When a skeptical person like myself reads that of all the trials in which the FBI was involved last year 97 percent ended in con- viction, he is likely to have cynical reserva- tions. And when he learns that 94 percent of the convictions were based on pleas of guilty, he is bound to ask: “How were these confessions obtained?” Nazi and Communist courts have taught us that a plea of guilty may prove nothing more than that a man’s will can be broken. One rarely hears such charges against the FBI. In our courts of appeal—where accusations are heard of unfair treatment and violations of constitutional righte—the charge is al- most never raised against the FBI. However, I did not rely on this indication alone, nor even on my study of case reports. I wrote articles in which I asked readers to send me any evidence they might have that the FBI had violated a person’s con- atitutional rights. My scoreboard shows a remarkable absence of such accusations. On the contrary, all the evidence indicates that the FBI as a matter of unvarying policy has played fair with criminals and suspects. This record ts of profound importance be- cause events In recent years have brought the FBI into quasi-political problems, Here the danger to personal liberties could easily become acute. The necessity for inquiring into political activities and associations is & new thing in our country. We began this Nation with a great gamble in our hearte— the conviction that, if all opposing view- points were allowed free expression, truth ia the end would win out. The progress of our country has so fer justified our forefathers’ faith in the po- tency of truth. But in the last 20 years a new enemy—and a complex problem—has arisen to confuse us. New political move~- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD mente, by underhanded methods, seek to by- pass the honest competitian of ideas. We face an invisible underground where Fas- ciste and Communists work furtively and wealously against our freedom and our ideas of decency. ’ Something had to be done about that, and the FBI had to do it. What was its task? To bring the facts up from underground so that all the people can know what is being plotted. It is natural that loyalty investigations should give us qualms. We shudder to au- thorize wire-tapping and other forms of spy- ing. But they seem necessary {f we are to preserve our freedom. They have been forced upon us by the underground. Tam unwilling to ignore the danger of the Communist movement in the United States Just because the Reds seem few in number, I saw my friend Jan Masaryk, Czechoslova-« kia’s democratic Foreign Minister, in Prague not long before he came to his end. I know intimately the story of Quisling. I know how helpless democratic forces can be, if they do not protect their people against the secret discipline, the abominably careful scheming of totalitarian minorities, The Communists could never win an elec- tion in the United States. They do not ex- pect to do so. The Communist program, like the Ku Klux Klan, can grow only by stealth in dark cellars. J. Edgar Hoover was right when he stood firmly against a Plan to outlaw the Communist Party when the first public outcry was made against the Communists. Why drive more of them un- derground? All that such an act could ever oamew would be aname. The next day the revolutionists woul new title id turn up under a Until Congress is wise eno to pass la which force open operation of al mse move. ments, we shall have to protect ourselves against secretly organized attack. We can bring all subversive outfits into the open by requiring all mass movements to report to the Government the essential facts abkout themselves—the names of all their officials, the money they take in and from whom it comes, and how it 1s spent. I suggest that the McCarran bill recent! passed by Congress will not work because the Communists will either put their organi- gations underground or abandon them to start other organizations for the same pur- poses under other names. The requirement to disclose essential facts is no invasion of privacy. The President's Committee on Civil Rights unanimously rec- ommended that such laws be passed; repre- sented on the committee are members of the A. F. of L., the CIO, and various minority groups. No decent organization hesitates to identify iteelt; why should any other kind of crganisation be protected? en without such laws, the FBI has han- dled delicate problems well. On Pearl Har- bor Day the Bureau was able to advise the Attorney General of the basis for authoriz- ing the arrest of some 16,000 persons. A few of the 16,000 became my clients. I defended them before hearing boards and was able to help free some of them. In every case there were fair hearings, with every consideration being shown to the defense. And although I was the lawyer for certain acquitted suspects, I must admit that Mr. Hoover had a justification in picking up my clients; there was cause for suspicion, and no injustice was done. One Jewish refugee was picked up be- cause she had entertained one of Hitler's most potent underground spies. But it was easy for me to produce conclusive evidence that my client did not know her guest waa a Nazi. She was set free, hut the authorities had been right to bring ber in for ques- .
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Largely as @ result of the trials of Judith Copion and Valentin Gubitchev, there has been publicity and much argument about Ustening in, but both sides seem to over- look the real purpose of FBI wiretapping and its actual extent, Once of the greatest liberals said in 1941: “I do not believe it—wiretapping—should be used to prevent domestic crimes, with possi- bly one exception—Kkidnaping and extortion in the Federal sense. There is, however, one field in which, given the conditions in the world today, wire tapping is very much in the public interest. This Nation is arming for national defense, It is the duty of our people to take every step to protect them- selves. I have no compunction in saying that wire tapping should be used against those persons, not citiens of the United States, and those few citizens who are traitors to thelr country, who today are engaged in espionage or sabotage against the United States.” This statement was made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact he established the policy which has since been adhered to by the Attorneys General. Note, however, that FBI agents never undertake wire tap- ping on their own authority; permission must first be obtained from the Attorney General. Furthermore, wire tapping evi- dence cannot be used in Federal courts. Its only value to the FBI is in opening up leads tor inquiry. The loyalty investigation program has cre- ated a misconception about the FBI's func- tion. Every American should understand that the FBI does not try Government em- Ployees. It merely serves various Govern- ment bodies as a reporting agency. When a reporting agency has the power to edit, it can make anyone appear a devil or a hero. But the FBI does not edit. It gathers the facts about a Federal employee and turns over its findings to the head of the depart- ment. And that is all it does, or can do, except that it frequently 1s able to save a suspect in his job when rumor is doing its best to get him fired. J. Edgar Hoover can- not fire a single person. His reports do not even contain recommendations, The FBI turns in all the evidence it finds—including unverified tips, rumors, gossip—everything, It adds comments and evaluation of their accuracy, and there its responsibility ends. It is up to the heads of administrative agen- cies to act. It would be folly to ignore rumors, or even anonymous messages; an unsigned note was instrumental in sending the notorious Gen- eral Meyers? to prison. Ditto for thousands of less spectacular examples. To abandon that policy would be to assign to Hoover's assistants the duty, and the power, to screen the reports. I should be very much disturbed if police agents were permitted to withhold evidence on their Judgment of its value. Far better the present syatem—the complete re- ports go to the responsible official; everything is in the dossier, with a careful comment on each item, whether it is a fact, probability, or rumor. In my study of the FBI it soon became clear that lies were being spread against it. For example, it has been satd and printed repeatedly that agents in loyalty investiga- tions demand to know whether ao suspect Teads Certain Magazines of leftist tinge. This charge is a lie. Whenever he hears of the statement being made, Hoover calls for the facte—and invariably everybody backs down. They “heard it somewhere,” they “can't re- member where.” Directives to FBI agents specifically forbid such questions, unless the 1Maj. Gen. Bennett E. Meyers, former Air Force purchasing officer, convicted of induc- ing a former business associate to Me under oath about irregular war contracts in which Meyers was involved. reading matter fs published by the Commu- nist Party. Of course, some agents may blunder or offend. When that happens, write J. Edgar Hoover. He will see your complaint and it will be gone into thoroughly, I have per- sonally checked about 100 such complaints and I have yet to find one piece of evidence of improper questioning by agents. The real difficulty in loyalty investigations ie that there is almost no way of proving that ea person isa Communist, The suspect, if a party member, would deny it. Commu- nist doctrine holds that it is right and prop- er to Ne and cheat. This fact makes new techniques necessary. Yet in spite of alarms and outeries, noth-~ ing oppressive has been done. It surprised me to learn that, of 2,873,180 employees whose records were examined by the FSI, all but 12,825 were promptly cleared. This minority being further investigated, only 230 employees were finally dismissed, In 163 cases the employees appealed and were given their Jobs back. One significant factor must be noted—1,474 resigned before their cases came up. Actually the FBI is now be- ing criticized for not having found as many subversives as it should have. A real smear campaign has been carried on against Hoover's work. Those who feared the Bureau, as I once did, will be glad to know the facts. The FBI is unique in the history of national police, It has a mag- nificent record of respect for individual free- dom. It invites documented complaints against ite agents. It has zealously tried to prevent itself from violating the democratic process. Among lMberals I am by no means alone in this opinion. Awhile ago Roger Baldwin, formerly director of the American Civil Lib- erties Union, wrote to J. Edgar Hoover: “It seems to me that your bureau has ac- complished an exceedingly difficult task with rare judicial sense,” For me, that sums up the record. Proposed Withdrawal From Korea EXTENSION OF REMARKS 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 Recorp an article entitled “Henderson Plans Evacuate Korea Meeting Tonight,” which was published in the Evansville Courier, Evansville, Ind., of January 18, 1951. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Henperson Prans Evacuate Korea Megrina Tontort-—-Mayor Sava Petrrton To Dr- MAND UNITEp States Troops Bf RECALLED HENDERSON, KY., January 17.—Mayor Otis A. Benton said Wednesday morning that a mass meeting will be held at 7:30 p. m, Thureday at the Henderson courthouse for the purpose of drafting a resolution de- manding the withdrawal of American troops from Korea “where they are engaged in a useless battle.” Benton said that unless the policies of the Democrats in power are changed, the Demo- cratic Party will be destroyed. “The Demo. crats are on the verge of handing the Gov. A409 ernment over to the Republicans for the. next 60 years unless we alter Our course.” A6KS MOTHERS ATTEND Benton seid he jis urging mothers of all soldiers, and all other women, too, to attend the meating and speak for their rights. “Our young men are belng slaughtered in Korea in a battle. They know not for what they are fighting. Our own Leslie Powell has returned home and says the boys don't know why they are there.” WAS BKCOND CASUALTY Powell was Henderson’s second casualty in the Korea police action. He was wounded at Taegon, 17 days after landing at Pusan. He spent 5 montha in Army hospitals and then was granted a furlough home. The mayor declared that “Russia is in no condition to declare all-out war. They are short of a lot of things, one of the essen~ ttale being gasoline. They are out-smart- ing us by having us battle at a half dozen points in the world. They are weakening us by such tactics and find that we are first- class suckers.” The city’s chief executive said that when the resolution is completed, {t will be signed, and then sent to Washington, demanding that the American boys be removed from that troubled spot. “I hope that other cities will take such stands before it is too late,” At the meeting a civil-defense program also is to be established. Free Prices, the Only Source of Ample Production for War or Peace—4,000 Years of Failure of Price Control EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH W. GWINN Or NEW YoRK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. GWINN. Mr. Speaker, I want very briefiy to give you a little sketch of 4,000 years of uninterrupted failure of price controls as applied in the experience of nations from the beginning of civiliza- tion. We have heard from time to time that our experience with price controls dates from Leon Henderson, or from 1942, But our economic freedom has deep roots in our history and is supported by reason and experience. The president of Princeton, John Witherspoon, in a letter to George Washington, said: Fixing the prices of commodities has been attempted by law in several States among us, and it has increased the evil it was meant to remedy, as the same practice has done since the beginning of the world. Is that really true? What does the experience of mankind teach about this fundamental issue, which touches the life of every man, woman, and child? CONTROLS TRIED 4,000 YEARS AGO The temptation for people in power to tamper with prices and production seems to be a very ancient human game. Thus, in the Laws of Hammurabi, King of Babylon—2285-2242 B. C.-—we find wage controls for boatmen, reapers, threshers, shepherds, faborers, artisans, bricklayers, tillers, stone cutters, milk- men, and carpenters, Regulated also
A410 were builders’ fees and warehousing, as well as rental of cows tn milk, calves, oxen, wagons, and freight and passenger boats. On the basis of historical evi- dence, we know that ancient history, throughout the changing centuries, is characterized by a never-ending succes- sion of popular upheavals against tyran- nical rules and regulations imposed upon the people from above. This continued strife reveals one of the fundamental themes of human history—a struggle be- tween regimentation and freedom. We find later laws in ancient history, like, for example, the Hittite Code—1350 B. C.—which was discovered in Baghaz Koi in Asia Minor, that attempted to establish provision for wages and prices. The very fact that such laws had to be abolished or drastically revised under popular pressure indicates that even in ancient times rulers met with deep- seated resentment against their attempts to block the activities and trade of their citizens. ROME HAD FREEDOM History tells us that the Roman Re- public, under a constitution guarantee- ing freedom, became the envy of the “barbarians” of other countries. Its soldiers were increasingly victorious in their conflicts with the half-hearted mercenaries of neighboring nations that enjoyed little freedom. The glory that was Rome extended throughout what is now Western Europe and northern Africa because Rome was the center of freedom. ‘There were no planned econo- mies. As Gibbon tells us, freedom, honor, and justice were universally rec- ognized virtues. And the freedom of Rome extended to its colonics. The recurrent famines of earlier days were experienced with less and less fre- quency. Rome gave the civilized world the highest standard of living then known to mankind. But what hap- pened? The leaders reached out for power. The republic became an empire. At first the emperors were cautious. They talked freedom as they planned a police state. Gibbons says: Augustus was sensible that mankind ts governed by names; nor was he deceived in his expectation that the senate and the peo- ple would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still en~ joyed their ancient freedom. A feeble sen- ate and enervated people cheerfully acqui- esced in the pleasing illusion. And so the people were fooled by bread and circuses, They looked to the gov- ernment to supply more and more of their needs. Production declined every- where. Prices skyrocketed. ROMAN CONTROLS FAILED MISERABLY Emperor Diocletian decided to main- tain his popularity with promises to fix prices and reduce the cost of living. So in A, D. 301 he issued an imperial edict fixing the prices of commodities for the whole Roman Empire. His grandiose scheme was ushered in with a fanfare of benevolent propaganda. In fact, in the preface to the edict, the Roman Emperor shows an insight into the laws of psycho- logical propaganda technique which is as startling as it is up to date. He assures his people that the coming economical control system is built on the highest mo- tives of making the whole nation partic- ipate “in the blessings of that peace for which we have laboriously striven.’”’ He continues that in order to make this price-fixing system work, it is necessary for the rulers like “watchful parents of the whole human race” to help the peo- ple with remedies from above, and that such measures have become necessary, since humanity cannot achieve such good results by its own free action. The edict goes on to explain how the people have become greedy; how exorbi- tant profits were being made; how mo- nopoly was running wild, and the people, therefore, needed protection from foes within as well as foes without. The only cure was a complete over-all control of food, clothing, wages, and so forth. Reading the list of commodtities which the Emperor asked his Chester Bowles of that day, Maximtanus, to take control of, reads astonishingly like our own mod- ern OPA lists: Farm products, dyes, needles, feathers, filling for upholstery, seeds, wine, oil, meat, poultry, fats, sea food, building timber, wooden posts, finished wagons, agricultural imple- ments, and so on ad infinitum. In order to enforce his imperial law, Diocletian built up a huge bureaucracy to administer his universal price-control system. <A contemporary observer has characterized the situation in the follow- ing words: The number of ministers, of magistrates, of officers, and of servants who filled different departments of the state, multiplied beyond the example of former times. The price-control police forces of Diocletian had as their legal weapon, severe penalties against any breach of the law. Death was the punishment for those who dared sell above maximum prices. Death also for the buyer who aided and abetted him. Death, too, for those who bought and sold illegal stocks. However, human nature being what it is, these penalties did not affect the general picture, and no bureaucratic machinery or legal apparatus could prevent a com- plete break-down of the law of supply and demand with all the economic and social evils resulting from it. Economic historians of the Roman Empire find that a situation developed which was as tragic as it was prophetic. Because the scarcity of production was heightened by the interference from price-control] laws, prices on consumers’ goods in the actual market rose to catas- trophic heights. The control system which was put into operation to combat inflation, in this manner actually cre- ated inflationary trends which broke the backbone of the economic life of a great empire. Everywhere the results soon became visible: Building and construc- tion stopped entirely. The arts and sci- ences fell into decay to such an extent that modern historians can recognize immediately the crudity and puerility of the craftsmanship of this period. Artis- tic creativeness and inventive skill did no longer thrive in this new atmosphere of economic tyranny. History goes on to point out that while the economic waste was incredible the trades sank to ever lower levels. Poverty was created among the broad masses, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD while the merchants and small entre- preneurs were impoverished into bank- ruptey. Landowners and manufactur- ers, who were the hardest hit, lost inter- est in a system of ecanomic slave con- trol that took away the private inven- tiveness and enterprise of the human genius. In the realm of agriculture the situa- tion became so bad that the Emperor found it necessary to order the farmers and the farm laborers controlled by serf- dom under state supervision, That this measure could only Jead to a woreening of the agricultural situation is perfectly explainable by the well-known historical law, that soil tiled by slave labor never yields abundant fruits such as land culti- vated by free farmers. To meet this general extremity of na- tional economics, the Emperor, there- fore, naturally turned to the device which is a8 common as it is artificial, namely, of exorbitant taxation. Taxes and surtaxes multiplied in a hopeless effort to fill an ever-empty treasury. Thus ends the only total price-control system which the history of the Roman Empire records. Diocletian alone, of all the Roman emperors, was foolish enough to attempt it. If he had lstened to the history of his empire he might have ob- served how earlier attempts of partial price fixing under emperors like Tiberius, Commodus, and Alexander Severus all had broken down. However, like many panic-stricken tyrants in the history of mankind, Diocletian apparently fancied that, if the price-control.system only could be made totalitarian and fool- proof, it would work where partial at- tempts have broken down. He lived to see the tragic mistake of his economic tyrannr over a whole nation’s life, since his experiment ended with such a com- plete failure that the edict had to be re- pealed as useless and unenforceable, Soon after the poverty-stricken and in- dignant people forced his abdication, on May 1 A. D. 305. The more serious lesson of this Roman price-control experiment is grasped, however, only if one realizes that its long-range effect on the Roman Empire was directly connected with the economic destruction of the greatest empire of an- cient history. As the historian, Jules Toutain, has pointed out, the economic breakdown of the Roman Empire made it fall an easy prey to the attack of the barbarians who, a few generations later, poured in over the borders of the Empire south of the Danube and west of the Rhine. What had once been a proud and great nation had deteriorated into @ mass of people which had lost both the productive initiative and the national self-esteem which make a people strong and healthy. One of the fundamental laws of national defense is that only a nation in which freedom has been pre- served under law is able and willing to take up arms in defense of human rights and human dignity Upon the grave of the Roman Empire the well-known historian, Samuel Dili, of Oxford. has written the following eni- taph, which we may do well to remem- ir! The system of buréaucratic despotism, elaborated finally by Diocletian and Constan-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tine, produced a tragedy in the truest sense, such as history has seldom exhtbited: In which, by an inexorable fate the claims of fancied omnipotence ended in humiliating paralysis of administration; in which deter- mined effort to remedy social eviis only ag- gravated them until they became unen-~ durable; in which the best intentions of the central power were, generation after genera- tion, mocked and defeated alike by trresisti- ble laws of human nature and by hopeless perfidy and corruption in the servants of government, It is not surprising that kings, who were notorious for their excessive ego- tism, should be found in the lst of rulers bent upon price control. There is Philip IV of France who, in 1306, antedated Hitler’s Jewish pogroms by six centuries, and who created a dire scarcity of wheat, bread, and clothing throughout his na- tion by his price-control system. There are English kings, like Henry III and George II, who tampered with prices of grain and br2ad until Parlia- ment rose up in indignation and repealed these royal price-control attempts. There was Edward I, who, on an is- land like England, hit upon the ridculous scheme of safeguarding production level on sea food by a contro) system which was inaugurated as a benefit for the peo- ple, but actually turned out to be such an impossible flop that all fish disap- peared from the markets in the British Isles. FRENCH CONTROLS FAILED A complete survey of ancient, medi- eval, and modern price-control systems proves that they created scarity instead of production and ill-will instead of co- operation. One of the most illustrious and meaningful examples of this histori- cal law we find as we turn to the history of the French Revolution. When the leftists of that day—the Jacobins—decided to destroy French cul- ture and French enterprise, they made use of the old tyrannical medium of a violent price control. Being experts in revolutionary technique, they chose to place iron control upon 39 necessities of life under the agency called committee of public safety. The picture of what happened to the French revolutionary price-control sys- tem runs true to pattern. As one historian, Andrew Dickson White, wrote in 1876; The first result of the maximum was that every means was taken to evade the fixed price imposed, and the farmers brought in as little produce as they possibly could. This increased the scarcity, and the people of the large cities were put on an allowance. Tickets were issued authorizing the bearer to obtain at the official prices a certain amount of bread or sugar or soap or wood or coal to cover immediate necessities, As another historian reports this era: Prices were fixed. Any attempt to prof- iteer on necessities was made punishable by death. To break all opposition, the terror was established. The tribunal revolution- aire began sending scores of innocent people to the guillotine every day. Between March of 1798 and July of 1794 nearly 3,000 people were executed tn Paris and about 15,000 in the provinces. At Nantes three or four thou- sand prisoners were thrust into old boats that were sunk in the middle of the river; at Lyon they were shot down in groups of as many es 200 at @ time. The Civil War of the Vendee began in 1798. Insurrection against the revolution- ary government spread into Poitou, Anjou, and Brittany. Threat of famine compelled the rationing of food. There was much dis- content on that account. The Hébert group attempted to incite the famished people to an attack on the convention. Robespierre acted swiftly. Hébert and his chief Heu- tenants went to the guillotine. That was in March 1794, Robespierre, then 85, became the uncon- tested master of the situation. From April to July 1794, his authority was unchallenged, Ho moved rapidly toward his goal of com- plete social equality. It was ordered that the confiscated properties of ehemies of the republic should be given to deserving pa- triots, Saint-Just was charged with this distribution, and was authorized to revise the code of social institutions in the interest of pure democracy * * * trial by jury was denied to those suspected of conspiracy and the tribunal was authorized to make condemnations without the hearing of wit- nesses. Heads began to fall faster than ever. It was the Great Terror. In 45 days there were 1,285 executions. The Great Terror was an expression of Robespierre'’s impatience to realize his ideal state. He wished to destroy all opposition to the establishment of social and economic equality. “But he had overreached himself. The razor of the republic began to lose its popularity. The pitiless apostle of Hberty, fraternity, and equality began to lose pres- tige. The word “tyrant” was murmured, * * * On July 28, 1794, Robespierre and his brother, Saint-Just, and 19 others were executed. That ended the terror, and it all but ended the republic. Democracy had fol- lowed autocracy to the guillotine. The death of Robespierre ended the dream of pure democracy and equality. Noman dared to espouse the perilous cause that had brought death to its devotees. The Robes- pierre legislation in the interest of equality was either suppressed or ignored and, to the delight of the merchants, price control was abandoned, All price fixers do not meet so violent an end as that of Robespierre but the wrath of the hungry and disillusioned people always descends upon them. A sigh of relief and a new spirit of self-governed activities swept through France, The farmers plowed and planted, and during the month of July 1795 they could once again harvest their crops as free men after the disastrous and negative years of revolutionary price control. Liberty had .conquered once more. EARLY AMERICAN OPA'S Coming now to the United States, we find the resistance to Government tam- pering with the laws of supply and de- mand greatest of all. A limited price control was attempted during the Ameri- can Revolutionary War, but the alert and freedom-loving citizens, taught by experience, soon totally rejected this Government interference with the eco- nomic life of the States. Led by Connecticut and Massachu- setts, the New England States went in for regulating prices early in the Revolu- tionary War. This emergency measure was motivated quite as much by the fact that the Continental currency lost its monetary value as by the self-evident fact that British blockade created a severe shortage of consumers’ goods. The inevitable result was that the 1774 price level soon broke down, and as early Adil { as the spring of 1777 Connecticut, Rhode, Island, and New Hampshire were forced to raise the level for maximum prices,' In Rhode Island, however, the town ‘of Providence objected strenuously. It di- rected its representatives in the legisla~ ture to fight such measures, as they cre- ated scarcity and produced animosity. In Connecticut, Governor Trumbull warned in a public statement: If we affix a low price to provisions and articles of importation we shall find that the farmer will cease to till the ground for more than is necessary for his own subsistence, and the merchant will not risk his fortune on a small and precarious prospect of gain. The good Governor was really advo- eating what later generations prefer to call controlled inflation, even though he must be excused for not knowing the modern devices of economic deception called farm subsidies and cost-plus con- tracts. Soon the States, including New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, began to labor under keen misgivings, however, that the price control as such was a de- ceptive technique. This discovery led to an interstate convention being called jn New Haven in January 1778. The war was still raging and the longed~for victory for independence still did seem far away. In a stampede of economic panic, the delegates voted, therefore, to adopt a price advance of 75 percent above the 1774 price level. What was meant to be a radical cure threatened to become a disaster, since a run-away inflation soon began to encom- pass the national economic life. The Continental Congress very quickly re- alized that it had to reverse its policy in order to avert sure economic doom. In its meeting of April 8, 1778, it declared, therefore, to the sorely tried war-torn Nation: It hath been found by experience that limitation on the prices of commodities is not only ineffective for the purpose proposed, but likewise productive of very evil conse- quences to the great detriment of the public service and grievous oppression of indl- viduals. The courageous anc wise pronounce- ment by the Continental Congress had a reassuring effect upon the States. In fact, so much so that price fixing was permitted to lapse for about a year, During this period, the American people discovered that price fixing could not serve as a Safeguard against the heavy inflation which their just War of Inde- pendence gave them to carry as an addi. tional price for freedom. They recog- nized this as an economic fact which proved that, measured in money values, they all were becoming poorer as to- gether they were winning their freedom, In 1779, the last brief attempt was made at price fixing as a remedy to con- trol a deeply wounded war economy. On May 25, 1779, the town of Boston adopted @ price schedule for 15 articles on a month-to-month basis. And in July of the same year, a State convention at Concord adopted a general price level, stipulating that “violators were to have their names published in the newspapers as enemies of the country.” The back-~ ground for this threat against violators,
AAI2 was, of course, thefact that the very out- come of the whole war hung in the bal- ance. ‘Yet, even so, history records that pen- alties were rarely imposed. Indeed, the Jaws were, for the most part, not en- forced. They remained, as Prof. Al- lan Nevins has pointed out, on the stat- ute books. And as soon as the fortunes of war turned, the States rid themselves of the fruitless and scarcity-producing price- control system, which they had grasped ina moment of panic. It is to the undy- ing glory of the men and women of the Revolutionary period that a whole year before Cornwallis surrendered at York- town, all the States had already repealed their price-control laws. . Such was the depth of their belief in freedota as a producer of goods and serv- ices, Price control in America was over—not again to be revived for 160 years, They fought not merely for independ- ence, They fought for freedom and learned right in the middie of war itself that freedam produces more food and clothing and shelter than controls can produce. They emancipated freedom from Europe and European controls. During the postwar period, under the Articles of Confederation, our colonial ancestors lived in an era of high prices. The unsecured revolutionary currency was issued in such quantities that “not worth a continental” became a popular phrase. The monetary situation inter- fered seriously with trade and tended to foment discord, distrust, and disunity. It was in this atmosphere that the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, It is worthy of note that no delegate to this convention seriously proposed that our Gevernment should have the power to fix prices. Their generation had learned that Government price fixing would not work and so this power was not listed among those delegated powers which the peopie gave their Federal Gov- ernment. To exercise such power now is sheer usurpation. It was the adoption of our Constitution with its limitation on con- trol thet brought the new era of food and shelter. We need to remind our- selves that this era started right here in America. Our example spread around the world until the world rejected free- dom for many forms of collectivism. With that has come again the ghastly prospects of starvation and famine. That has been the rule of fe through- out history except where for brief pe- riods of time freedom of the people has been maintained. This has always existed whenever land has been used in common and regulated by some ceritral authority. The planned economies of lords, kings, and dictators have always resulted in famine and want, Freedom, which is synonymous with ample food and shelter, is the first great achievement of modern times. Under the Constitution, Americans were free to own thelr lands, work out their own Plans, and enjoy the frults of their labor without regulations by authority or op- presstve taxation. With this freedom has oome agricultural science and inven- | tion of machinery, increased supplies of food, intellectual advance, improved means of communication, steam, elec- tricity, and all the wonders that only the imaginative and creative minds and spirits of free men and women may comprehend for the future blessings of mankind, Mr. Sperker, this debate has clarified one fundame.ital thing; namely, the fact that we are today witnessins the old, old fight between two contradictory political systems of government. On the one hand we have the advocates of govern- ment control over national life and na- tional production. They willingly aban- don freedom. ‘To adopt price controls in peacetime would be clear proof that the European idea of government control and government domination and com- pulsion has moved permanently into the political philosophy and political life of this great Republic, Those who do not believe that freedom will solve our economic problems should stop fooling themselves. They continue to talk about freedom, but they do not really believe in it. They give lip service to liberty, but the moment tne test comes they call for continued and increased power for public officials. Mr. Speaker, the test is here. The test has been long overdue. Are we going to give our people, and the rest of the world true statesmanship, built on first prin- ciples? I am reminded of the words of a free American from the debate on price reg- ulations of February 14, 1777, in the Con- tinental Congress, where Mr. Benjamin .Rush stated: The salvation of this continent depends upon the authority of this Congress being held as sacred as the cause of liberty itself, It becomes us, therefore, to be careful of the remains of our authority and character. We know that what this Nation and other na.ions expect from the United States at this crucial moment in history is production and more ~roduction of vital materials of war, foods and clothing and shelter for consumption at home, and especially food for people abroad. The managed, controlled, and forced spirit of man will neither produce nor work nor fight nor make -sacrifices necessary to win a war and rebuild a world civiliza- tion which was wrecked by an evil domi- nation system which was built on abso- lute government control. It is deplorable that 17 years of false indoctrination has dulled our sense of liberty, our passion for its products. Having won a complete victory over gov- ernment-controlled systems in Germany and Japan, we too are in danger of con- tinuing to follow the false philosophy of good coming from government interfer~ ence, the Hegelian doctrine of the om- nipotent state. The Members of this House are the representatives of a free people against these prophets of doom and gleom and their fundamental philosophy of life and Government so completely out of line with truth and fact, I agree with Mr. Chester Bowles that “what is at stake is our entire economic future,” only I believe that our future, as our glorious APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD past, should be dedicated to freedom and faith and not to price control and fear. We have had corruption and we have had our black markets because we have had man-made control instead of ad- herence to that fundamental law called the law of supply and demand, A natura] law which is as inevitable and basic as the law of gravity cannot be set aside by any law even of Congress. Free- men meeting in a free market doing their free selling and buying proves to he far more honest in the long run than people who have Government officials looking over their shoulders every time they turn or every time they finish a product. Freedom is more hanest than government and so much more pro- ductive. Everything that is happening now points to the fact that if we now con- tinue to substitute expediency for faith in freedom we are on the road to weak- ening more and more the central idea upon which the Republic was founded. We are on the way to corruption and disintegration. To guarantee that this catastrophe shall not happen to the last bastion of free enterprise or free eccn- omy in the whole world we must keep free from price controls and hold fast to our free country. If we cannot read history so well or act s0 courageously as our forefathers in dealing with price controls, we can imitate them. Let us take a leap of faith in freedom if we would win the war, have food, clothing, shelter, and the good life. Surely Democrats can remember back as far as 1946 when the evils of OPA elected a Republican Congress. The mistakes of history ought not be repeated within four short years, Let’s Call It War or Quit ee EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. H. R. GROSS oF Iowa IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr.GROSS, Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks ia the Recoro, I submit an editorial from a recent edi- tion of the Waterloo (lowa) Daily Courier, To my mind the writer of this edi- torial hits a high point of reason and logic when he says: . Korea has no strategic defense value for the United States. The only reason for fight- ing there is to establish the principle of col- lective action against aggression. If the other nations of the UN are unwilling to supply sufficient troops to afd in estabiish- ing that principle, then it has falled and we should admit it. Then we can concen- trate on our own defense, knowing that col- jective security is a myth, Here is the full text of the editorial: ‘ Lar’s Can Ir Wak on Quit The American public is deeply dissatisfied with the attitude of the Government tn Washington toward the Koroan War.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Seven American divisions are fighting Chi- nese Communists in Korea, yet Washington says we are not at war with Communist China. Although the United Nations did not hest- tate to call it aggression when North Koreans attacked, the UN has so far failed to brand the Chinese aggressors for doing exactly the same thing. Although Washington says it cannot afford to reinforce our Korean armies because that would leave Europe open to attack, it refuses to utilize the 400,000 trained Chinese Na- tionalist troops on Formosa. And remem. ber, the Nationalists are members of the United Nations, Although billions of dollars are being spent to create atomic bombs, Washington says we cannot use them in Korea or against Com- munist China because this ts only a police action. To the men in Korea and their families back home, however, a casualty in a police action is the same as a casualty in @ war, Although Washington does not have any plans for the eventual liberation of Korea, it proposes to fight this costly, bitter retreat, apparently in the bellef that it enhances our prestige to be driven off the peninsula rather than retire voluntarily from a war that we choose not to fight. Apparently, however, not only the public at home is dissatisfied. Maj. Gen. Emmet O'Donnell, returning from command of Far East bombing, demanded that authorization be given for use of the atomic bomb. “If we're going to fight,” he says, “let's not hit ’em light, for heaven’s sakes, * * *“ I be- lieve we should have cracked the Chinese Communists hard and smacked the hell out of them as soon as we had them identified.” The American people have no desire to get bogged down in @ senseless war on the Asiatic continent against Chinese masses. But it is time to fight it or not fight it. It is time either to use the Chinese National- ists and the atomic bomb 1n Korea or get out. It is time to establish military objectives that are worth fighting for. Korea has no strategic defense value for the United States. The only reason for fighting there is to establish the principle of collective action against aggression. If the other nations of the UN are unwilling to supply sufficient troops to aid in estab- lishing that principle, then it has failed and we should admit it. Then we can concen- trate on our own defense, knowing that collective security is a myth. If there is anything wrong with that analysis of the situation, then nobody in Washington has yet pointed it out. Fuzzy, inept leadership 1s defeating us as rapidly as the enemy. United States May Expand Use of Philippines as Defense Base EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL HINSHAW OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 24, 1951 Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Speaker, the American Aviation Daily of January 23, 1951, carries a very important article en- titled “United States May Expand Use of Philippines as Defense Base.” The article follows: Unrrep Stares May Expanp Usr or PHInip- pInrs as DEFENSE BASE MANILA, PHYLIPPINES.—It is generally ex- pected here that the Philippine Islands will begin playing an ever-increasing role in far- eastern defense, although to date only Clark Air Force Base and the naval station at Cavite, under long-term lease, are the only evidences of United States military might in the islands. Vast majority of the 20,000,000 population is pro-American, some fiercely 80, comprising the largest and almost the only group of friends the United States has in the Far East. There are many skilled workers in the islands suitable to man maintenance and Overhaul bases, Ever since the independent Republic was founded, July 4, 1946, the United States has kept hands off of the Philippine Islands Gov- ernment, which currently is under severe criticism for being both inefficient and cor- rupt. But the arrival of additional United States forces, even though these will have nothing to do with internal affairs, will tend to stabilize unsettled conditions. The Huk guerrilla activity has been on the increase but is not strong enough to be more than a continual nuisance. It is serious but not critical. It is bad enough in the island of Luzon, on which Manila is located, to curtail civilian travel, especially at night, except in the city and large populated areas. But outside of Luzon everything is calm and peaceful. The southern islands might ac- tually be called prosperous, and only some localized tribal activity by the Moros (Mos- jJems) in the far south disturbs the peace, There are apparently well-authenticated indications that several Red submarines have been operating in the Philippine Archipelago and are presumed to be landing some arms and leaders for the Huks. Also, some aid has been coming by sea, HUK GUERRILLA TROUBLE The Huk guerrilla trouble has its origin in internal social and economic conditions, and the Government has done very little to eradi- cate the source of the troubles. The Com- munists, very few in number, have capital- ized on the social unrest and are beginning to make headway. It is not believed that the use of force by an oppressive government is golng to make much real headway against the guerrillas. The only rea) solution is eco- nomic betterment, Ironically enough, the Huks have ample United States arms. Some of this equip- ment came as the result of generous and indiscriminate distribution of arms to Full- pinos in 1944, when the United States in- yaded the islands and needed local help to oust the Japs. But GI's have apparently been selling United States equipment ever since. One Huk band seen recently had some very recent United States equipment. Filipino military men have not been beyond selling arms to the guerrillas. So, all in all, primarily through the United States, the Huks have large suppiies of guns, ammuni- tion, carbines, and machine guns. Some ex- GI's have been mixed up directly with the Huks. United States Army and Navy officers have never exercised sufficient control over sup- plies and personnel, both here and in other areas, and the leakages are considerable. All such dealings have helped demoralize the Filipinos themselves and have lowered the United States prestige. Generally speaking, Huk activity will not interfere with the greater use of the Philip- pines as an important “unsinkable aircraft carrier." Only a few wartime air bases are fit for use, but there ts ample land available throughout the islands for new ones. Local aviation people hope the United States will install: an aircraft overhaul base in the islands. But the first job of the United States is to give economic assistance to the islands to stabilize the country, without offering sup- port to a weak Government. Only by eco- nomic effort can the Huk situation be brought firmly under control. A413 Food Price Ceilings and Controls EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JACOB K. JAVITS OFr NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, I have within the last week introduced a bill (H, R. 1778) to amend the Defense Pro- duction Act of 1950 in order to eliminate the arbitrarily high ceiling price require- ments for agricultural commodities, in- cluding food. The imposition of price ceilings and the likelihood that certain agricultural commodities may have to be exempted gives additional urgency to the need for action on this legislation. The existing law requires the ceilings to be the higher of, first, 100 percent of parity; or, second, the highest market price in the base period May 24 to June 24, 1950. If the act is amended as I propose the ceiling price will be the ac- tual support price—instead of the higher parity price, as now required--or the highest market price received by pro- ducers of any agricultural commodity during the base period. My bill would make it possible to establish immediate price controls on food and other agri- cultural commodities. The Defense Production Act fixes ceil- ings at not less than 100 percent of the parity price used by the Government as a basis for price supports while the price supports themselves are only 90 percent of such parity or less. Wheat, corn, pea- nuts, butter, and milk are today selling at 10 percent or more below parity prices but as the law stands now price ceilings would mean a 10 percent or more in- crease in price on these major commodi- ties. The ceiling price is made manda- tory at a higher figure than the price at which the Government actually supports the commodity and regardless of the market price. Yet, under the present Jaw, if the market price is higher—which is the case in beef cattle, lambs, wool, and cotton—then the higher price is the basis for the price ceiling. I introduced a resolution on the open- ing day of the session—House Concur. rent Resolution 4—requesting the Presi- dent to exercise his power to impose price controls on cost-of-living items now. Price controls are essential and while we wait the cost of living is going to make new highs. This is already in- dicated by the fact that the cost-of-liv- ing index last recorded for the period ended December 31 registered a new all- time high. ‘The confidence of the peo- ple of the country for the period of emer- gency and mobilization must be fortified by these controls protecting the stand- ard of living and the integrity of their earnings, Clerical and office workers, Government employees and those receiv- ing fixed incomes from annuities, estates, and retirement allowances, and so forth, are feeling the pressure very badly, In addition the confidence of city con- sumers must be restored. The produc- tion of food must be encouraged and no
Aald one wants to see a repetition of the col- lapse in farm values and agricultural prices of the 1930's. But in a time of maximum demand at high prices it would appear to be only just to the city consumer to adapt the farm parity price program and ceiling prices to the exist- ing situation. Representatives of city districts can well favor fundamental as- surances to agricultural producers pro- vided that a fair balance is held between their needs and those of city consumers. Korea Has Awakened America EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH W. GWINN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. GWINN. My. Speaker, on De- cember 20 I wired the Secretary of State to find ou who committed our forces to Korea without the consent of Congress— never, in my 6 years in Congress, have I had such a flood of mail, 98 percent approving my questions and demanding the answers for themselves. On January 3 he replied, in part, as follows: The Fresident, acting upon the unanimous advice of the Secretary of State, the Secre- tary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the decision to commit the United States Armed Forces in Korea, in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolution to stop Communist aggression there. Now, the President, again disregard- ing Congress, insists he has the power and proposes to order our 18-year-olds to Europe, or other parts of the world. Floods of letters coming to every Con- gressman ask how we can fight Russia if we are trapped in Korea, or Burma, or Iran, or other parts of the world. It seems like utter madness. They remem- ber that Germany, the best organized for war, lost 5,000,000 men. Russia lost 10,000,000 and still won World War II. Machines could not win against masses of men. They smothered the guns and tanks until they wilted in the heat of their own futile firing. Masses of dead bodies make bridges over barbed-wire entanglements. The United States and Europe together might lose 10,000,000 men in casualties in a land war; and Red China could Jose 25,000,000 in casualties, and still win a land war. Obviously, world war IIT cannot be fought and won lixe Wars I and II were fought and won. Besides, the people know this is a war between two dominant ideas: commu- nism against freedom. They see these conflicting ideas in every country. They question how we can persuade allies of Communist sympathies to fight along- aide of our masses of men against the Russian masses on land, Before we join forces, our people want to look squarely into the faces of our proposed allies for confidence. Without that our people cannot march their boys beside them in battle. They know that France has 200 Communists in her Chamber of Deputies, or one-third of the whole Chamber; an- other third are Socialists. So, this ally, if General Eisenhower can persuade her to fight at all, will send an army alongside composed of one- third Communists, sworn to support Russia and world communism. Another third will be Socialists. What a choice. What a prospect is Italy? Look at Eng- Jand. She wants to make Red China respectable to sit at the table of the family of nations. She grows rich trad- ing with Red China in the materials that spill the blood of our men and hers, too. That is the horrible picture of the in- filtration that has taken place in dear old England since World War IT. This is not Churchill's England we propose to fight with now. England is now a weak Socialist government, the weakest form known in warfare. She lacks capacity to act at once, like a dictatorship. And she lacks the creative and productive power of freemen. No European army can be raised now for world war III which would not in- clude a large proportion of Communists and Socialists. That means that every American boy, every American officer in a combined United States-European army such as proposed now, would be at the mercy of or greatly frustrated by Communists and Socialists. The soldier next to our boy, the messenger carrying important secrets, the sentry outside the general’s door—all may be Communists. They have proved their ability to in- filtrate everywhere. They destroyed Chiang Kai-shek’s mainiand army and smashed the duly elected republican government of China with the help of the United States Government, itself deeply infiltrated. The Asia desk in our State Depart- ment so manipulated our military and fiscal aid since 1944 to China as to de- feat her. She was one of the Big Four powers, one most honorably recognized by all for holding Japan in World War II. It was our own variety of Communist in- filtration that helped to put the Red Communists in control of the mainland of China. ‘This was contrary to the United States treaty obligations and our historic policy toward China. It opened the way for Russia to go through China to Burma for food—where she has waned to go fora century. Only Japan stopped her, And now we have so com- pletely destroyed Japan and Nationalist Free China that there is no organized resistance except, strangely enough, on Korea. We have reason for suspecting that our own infiltration manipulated that, too. But it has boomeranged. It woke up the American people. They now persist, in increasing numbers, to ask— First. Why the administration does not clean out the Communists in our midst so they cannot continue to In- fluence military and political decisions Second. Why do we not help with arms and planes and ships and know-how and with psychological warfare the free forces in China? “Why do not we help Chiang?” is asked a million times. No- body answers. Third, Why do we not help the free elements in Europe willing to fight like Chiang, in the same way? Fourth. Since Europe has 250,000,000 population and greater productive ca- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pacity than she had before World War TI, why does the President, in his mes- sage, now propose that the United States taxpayers pay 90 percent of the total ‘Western World defense costs? Fifth. Why do we not organize all the free elements in all countries in spite of all the infiltrated governments to strike the Bzar by air and sea power, so as to destroy or greatly cripple him where he is? Why not strike his vital bridges and dams and railroads? There are only a few ofthem. His oil field? There is but one. And his factories for mass armed aggression? There are not too many of them and we know where they are. Sixth. And why do we not send private and military and religious groups with ideas of freedom and means of liberation behind the tron curtain? Then the op- pressed people themselves will help to overcome our common oppressors. We must unite the free people for action. They alone will throw off communism In their midst, in each country, in a kind of united action. Communist-infiltrated governments in each nation will never win again a mass action war against each other. Instead they will destroy each other, Reducing the Federal Wasteline EXTENSION OF REMARKS ¥ HON. JOHN F. KENNEDY OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to tn- clude in the Recorp, an address which was given by the Most Reverend John J. Wright, D. D., bishop of Worcester, Mass., on November 3, 1950, over station WEEI, in Boston, Mass. This address, entitled “Reducing the Federal Wasteline,” endorses the recom- mendations of the Hoover Commission, which I wholeheartedly approve, and I believe that Bishop Wright’s message should be brought to the attention of all our citizens: Repvcra tan PeDeraL WASTELINE (By Rev. John J. Wright, D, D.) Colonel SHzzaan. When the bipartisan Hoover Report was completed and submitted to Congress, Mr. Hoover said: “The burden now shifts from the shoulders of the Com- mission to the citizens themselves who must undertake a real and continuing responsi- bility.” Under our form of government this transmission of responsibility from the Com- miasion that made this monumental study of our Federal Government, to the shoulders of the cittrens themselves—under our form of government—this was a very appropriate charge or challenge and all over the land this challenge has been met and the responsi- bility is being accepted by thousands of Americans who are interested in a more re- sponsive and responsible Government. One of the best-loved citizens of our Common- wealth has greciously consented to help us by giving us a few words of encouragement on this subject of responsibility. I am honored to introduce to you folks his excel- lency, John J. Wright, bishop of Worcester,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Bishop Wrrext. Thank you, Colonel Sher- man, The Massachusetts Committee for the Hoover Report comprises a group of public- spirited citizens who are anxious to alert themselves and their neighbors to the need for regulating government tf government is not to regulate us. They have suggested that you would welcome a radio talk on the moral philosophy behind this important report, a report prepared under the leader- ship of a distinguished American, ex-Presi- dent Herbert Hoover. The Committee is in an excellent moral position to ask the co- operation of us all in behalf of their effort, First of all, they represent every segment of the community—they are non-partisan, Like the Hoover report itself, the local com- mittee has been endorsed by members of every responsible American party. Speakers of every poHtical persuasion have already appeared on this program. Their intent is in the public interest. Their principal desire is that citizens read, study and understand this authoritative survey of the growth of govern- ment administration in America, and of the possibility of curtailing the staggering costs of civil administration. Behind the Hoover report there is a well-defined philosophy, and that philosophy lies also behind the ap- peal of the Massachusetts Committee to our citizens. This philosophy 1s what some of us like to call “the philosophy of responsibility.” In terms of the problem of increasingly cost- ly and increasingly complex government, that philosophy takes the form of the con- tention that in a republic every citizen, how- ever humble or obscure, bears his share of responsibility for government—for what government is empowered to do; for what government actually does; for what govern- ment costs; what government fails to accom- plish. The philosophy of responsibility, whether as applied to individual citizens or as applied to government itself, 1s beginning to emerge from a period of eclipse. For a generation or 80, the philosophy of responsibility had lost something of its force, certainly in social thinking and, to a great extent, in political theory. There had always been a temptation among men to shuffle off accountability for failure or for incompetency in the face of complicated problems. Shakespeare describ- ed and refuted it when he said: “This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune, often the surfeit of our own behavior, we make guilty of our dis- asters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as if we were villians by necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers, by spherical predominance; drunk- ards, liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary influence.” But “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” (Lear and Julius Caesar.) The philosophy of responsibility, in mod- ern times, has further suffered from the im- personal collectivist theortes of society and of the state which have found favor during and since the last century, chiefly, of course, in the completely totalitarian regimes, but in some measure in every modern state, These linked human action more often to material forces, to group controls, rather than to spiritual personality, to individual responsibility, moral or civic. An earlier generation of devout and God-fearing people had recognized, for example, that there is a challenge in some environments and that there are limitations imposed by some hered- ities, but they still acknowledged that the generality of men remain free despite their environment, despite their heredity—free to change their environment and to improve the results of their heredity. But, more re- cently, social theory has followed new lines along which it has attempted to lead legal theory end political application. As against the old philosophy of responsibility, there has grown up.the theory that misconduct is always abnormal, that what the law calls crime and what conacience calls sin are to be explained largely in terms of causes beyond the control of the sinner or the criminal. In political life, in the collective life of the civil community, this has taken the form of the frequent assertion that problems of expense, bureaucracy, and complication of govern- ment are beyond the understanding, let alone the control, of individual citizens, and that we are hopelessly engulfed in circum- stances we cannot change. The philosophy of responsibility, then, has been replaced by the philosophy of excuse, the philosophy of “what can we do about it” or “let George do it,” which is the theory of ultimate irresponsibility. This loose philos- ophy has played particular havoc in the wildfire spread of government bureaus and the decline of individual responsibility on the part of private citizens. For more than a generation it has undermined the moral and legal and individual social responsibilities, upon which the stability of society must re- pose. Now, at any rate, it seems at long last to be coming out of ite eclipse. It is certainly good for civilization that the philosophy of responsibility should be re- affirmed and that the philosophy of excuse should be subordinated to it, cut down to size. Civilization was not achieved by any such philosophy as that of excuse, by any vagueness about accountability or about debts and how to meet them. Mankind did not emerge from recurring periods of social decline and even savagery by any such formula. Social progress has not been ace complished by swinging along with tmper- sonal destinies, by riding the wave of the future, or by the blind operation of uncon. trolled, biological, economic, or political forces. It has been achieved by the vision and determination, by the self-knowledge, self-discipline, and responsible action of single individuals and of individuals in groups who had not become cogs in the ma- chinery of any group, including the state, but who retained a sense of the central im- portance under God of individual responsi- bility, individual personality—people who have been prepared to say, “I know what I am doing, I will change what needs to be changed, I am now beginning to do it.” This was the spirit of men like Lincoln. Lincoln did not call upon the state or any undefined political set-up to advance the American vision; he called upon the Ameri- can people to do so, by individual self-dedi- cation, “It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have,thus far go nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us: that from these honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; and that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (Gettys- burg Address, Lincoln.) It was in this spirit that a great archbishop of my own church spoke in a generation which was more conscious of individual re~ sponsibility and of how even poverty, 80 long as we are free, is to be preferred to the riches of golden prisons. Archbishop Spaulding said: “Poverty is the north wind that lashes men into vikings. * * * What we call evils, as poverty, neglect, and suffering, are, if we are wise, opportunities for good. * * * IfIam left alone, yet God and all the heroic dead are with me still. If a great city is my dwelling place, super- ficial life of noise and haste shall teach me how blessed a thing it is to live within the company of true thought and high resolves. Whatever can help me to think and love, whatever can give me strength and patience, whatever can make me humble and service- able, though it be a trifie as light as air, is A415 opportunity, whose whim it is to hide in un-. considered things, in chance acquaintances and casual speech, the falling of an apple, in floating weeds, or the accidental explo- sion in a chemist's mortar.” (Opportunity, John Lancaster Spaulding.) It is very easy for our generation, which has so many things done for it, to laugh at these valiant concepts of an age which had to do more things for itself, an age which was therofore more resourceful, more self- reliant, more imbued with the philosophy of responsibility, contemptuous of the philoso- phy of excuse. The whole history of human achievement gives meaning to the rhetoric of thet generation and a test to the worth of those who indulged it, who taught their children and told their fellow citizens and trained themselves to recognize that they need not tolerate evil, that they can change things when these things become burden- some or become productive of evil. And so in our legislation, in our courts, in our social and political theory, we must recognise and make allowance for inadequacies, for unfor- tunate circumstances, but we must not place emphasis on excuse. We must always seek the affirmation of responsibility, of account- ability. We must state the rules, rather than constantly find reasons why they do not apply. We must recognize that the philosophy of responsibility enabled boys with withered legs to become useful citizens, leaders of their communities and masters of them- selves—while the philosophy of excuse al- lows real intelligence and potential leader- ship to become instruments of society’s con- fusion and our complete loss. Woodrow Wilson once said some wise things about the relationship of self-government to the kind of character produced by the philosophy of responaibility. He sald: "“Self-government is not a mere form of institution, to be had when desired. * * * It is a form of char- acter that follows on the long discipline which gives a people self-possession, self-mastery, a habit of order and common counsel, a rev- erence for law which will not fail when they themselves become the makers of the law.” The Hoover report is in the spirit of that philosophy. Colonel Suerman. I think you folks will agree that we have just recelved a splendid and inspiring message which should en- courage us all to discard the philosophy of excuse which is so certain to breed indiffer- ence and apathy and accept in its place, a positive and militant participation in gov- ernment on all levels, for we are bound to have as bad government as we will tolerate or as good goverment as we demand. Our Skyrocketing Budget EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. H. R. GROSS OF IOWA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 25, 1951 Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, the edi- torial which I have caused to be reprinted here, from the Mason City (Iowa) Gilobe- Gazette, sums quite well the thinking of the people of Iowa on the subject of spending and taxes. I would like to comment on one para- graph of this editorial in which Mr. W. Earl Hall, the writer, says this: So far as our armed services are concerned, Representatives and Senators will be dis- posed to go along with those charged with this if military) responsibility. They won't quibl ie.
A4l6. There is no question but what Con- gress will deal liberally with the military in the matter of appropriations for building the armed strength of this country. But I am one of those in Con- gress who insists that spending for de- fense is no more sacred than for items of nondefense; that the taxpayers are entitled to a dollar’s worth of value for every dollar expended on the military. I have not forgotten that in four fiscal years immediately following World War II approximately $50,000,000,000 was ap- propriated supposedly to build and main- tain the Military Establishment of this Nation. But when war broke in Korea, Members of Congress and the citizens of this country were appalled to learn that only about $8,500,000,000 of the $50,000,- 000,000 actually went into the develop- ment of a fighting machine. In the light of this most recent ex- perience Congress has the responsibility to keep a close check on all expenditures by the military. Following is the editorial from the Mason City (Iowa) Globe-Gazette: No Hrremmnceas, PLeasp--On HIGHWAYS OR IN Buparr While the remotest precincts of public opinion haven't been heard from as yet, there has been a reaction to the President’s budget message that augurs some close scrutiny of the fiscal program in the weeks and months ahead, Expenditures amounting to $71,000,000,000 a@ year were proposed, with the bulk going for military services and foreign programs designed to add to the military strength of our allies. So far as our own armed services are concerned, Representatives and Senators will be @ to go along with those charged with this responsibility. They won't quib- ble. On the question of aid to our allies, and what form it shall take, there will be some sharp debate based on some marked differ- ences of viewpoint. But in the end, we won't be penurious. It's on the domestic proposals calling for astronomical spending that Congress is go- ing to bow its back. While not stressed, they're still recognizable as Fair Deal meas- ures, Our reference is to such things as the Brannan plan, the ghost of which supposedly was laid last November. Likewise to public housing for so-called low-income groups, which can mean any- thing the bureaucrats want it to mean. Likewise to Federal aid to education, Fed- eral medical insurance—or socialized medi-« cine to those more meticulous in thelr lan- guage. These are not emergency measures, They're not a part of national defense. They were ‘siipped into the President’s budget message as camouflaged hitchhikers. Highway thumb-twitchers are extremely unpopular at this moment, We've had tragic evidence that they are dangerous. Hitch- hikers in a Federal budget need to be just @s suspected and just as much scrutinized. The budget called for a tax increase of $16,456,000,000, That's more than twice as much as the two last tax boosts and if adopted will send the Federal tax load to 27 percent of the national income. And that’s all right with us, and with the average American, we believe if there's assurance that spending for everything other than national defense in a perilous time has been cut to the bone. Frankly, Congress doesn't think it has, And neither do we. Roosevelt Day Dinner Address  cememmenenmead EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES E. MURRAY OF MONTANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, a dis- tinguished American scholar, Archibald MacLeish, delivered a very important and inspiring address at the Roosevelt Day dinner held in Washington under the auspices of Americans for Demo- cratic Action, last Friday, January 26, 1951. Mr. MacLeish pointed to the failure of the American people and their leaders to grasp the true implications of the great social and economic upheaval which is gripping the world today. He noted the great strength of America which only a few years ago, under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt, enabled our country to meet the most serious economic col- lapse and depression in our history. He told how we in America had met the threat of communism in the thirties by correcting the evils and pitfalls which had developed in our economy, and how we had proved that the alternative to economic slavery need not be political slavery. He said that merely to be against communism fs not offensive, and pointed to the true course our country should pursue to meet the threat of com- munism and Soviet imperialism in the world today. IT ask unanimous consent that this able and inspiring address of Mr. MacLeish may be printed in the Appendix of the RecorD. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rec- orp, a8 follows: This day and the name that goes with it carry the mind back. They put the past bestde the present. They ask hard ques- tions of us. There cannot be many here who do not remember what this country and this ctty were like 6 years ago today, when the name was atill the name of a living man. Cer- tainly there can be very few, here or else- where, who do not in their minds compare this city and this country as they are with what they were when Franklin Roosevelt was alive. Six years ago, in the month of January, the United States was the greatest power in the world; materially speaking, the great- est power the world had ever seen. Ite Armed Forces and the armed forces of its allies were fighting two wars on opposite aides of the earth against the two principal military nations of the age and were on the point of victory in one and within months of ultimate triumph in the other. In both these wars this Republic had provided far the greater part of the arms and munitions. It had provided the decisive manpower, the strategic plen, and the overriding purpose. It had demonstrated a productivity, an ine ventiveneas, a force of will, a mastery of its situation and itself without precedent in the history of self-governing peoples or, indeed, of any people whatever. Six years ago, in this city and throughout the United States, whatever the fortunes of the war on either front, men were joined in ® common determination which they recog- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD nized and which expressed itself in action. They were allied with peoples elsewhere in acommon cause which hed not only military victory but lseting peace as end and aim. They believed in themeelves and in the future. Today they believe, it seems, in neither. Today, their victory scarcely won, the Ameri- can people are being told by officials in Washington and journalists everywhere that they face a new world war—not, this time, for the achievement of a purpose of their own, but for the naked right to go on Iving— to survive. They are being told this, and they are listening. Bewildered and angry though they may be, they are listening. And, listening, they are coming to believe, The question this day asks us—this day and the name that goes with it—the ques- tion this day asks is: Why? Why are we listening? Why are we coming to believe this? What hes happened to us? Well—what has? The answer, if you read the run of the American press, is Russia. A nation which was our ally in the war, a nation which our productivity and the intervention of our arms saved from disaster, has, since the war’s end, turned upon us, violated her commit~ ments to us, poisoned the minds of nations and of continents against us, and openly confessed a p to destroy us if she can, It is true that Russia has done all this. One would have to go back to the history of the petty princelings of the Quattrocento to find & parallel to the duplicity, the cynicism, the brutality, the pompous arrogance of the rulers of the Russian people. But all this, much 4s it is, is still no answer to the ques- tion. Russia was a Communist country in 1945 committed to the Communist dogma of the inevitability of the collapse of such an economy as ours. She was also a popu- lous country with enormous armies in the field. And yet we did not fear her then. We did not think that tf it came to war with Ruasia our struggle would be a struggle to survive. We knew the Marxist dogmas: They did not frighten us. Like Keates, who had the axioms of philosophy in mind, we thought the axioms of history are not true until they are proved upon the pulses, and our pulses did not prove the truth of Marx and Engels. No freeman's pulses ever will. Russia has changed, of course, in these 6 years. Russia has grown impatient with the timetable of Professor Marx’s domeati- cated Fate and has expedited it where she could by conspiracy and fraud and murder and the intervention of the political police, But she has not changed to something other than she was. She is still the nation we Knew 6 years ago. And she is no more our potential master now than she was when the productivity of our people and the skill of our technicians kept her armies in the fleid and her planes in the air. What then has changed if it is not Russia? Communism? Is it the capture of the Chinese government by Communists and the pressure of Communist propaganda and armed bands upon the peoples of southeast Asis which persuades us that we have now no choice but to stand with our backs against the wall? It ts true that the Government of China is Communist: That the most populous coun- try in the world, having thrown off @ cor- rupt, reactionary and brutal regime, has turned, not to self-government and indi- vidual freedom, but to Government by prop- eganda and the state police. But tragic as that development is for all! who value ciy- ilization and freedom, it does not mean that the experience of the 6 years just past has demonstrated the truth of the Marxist dia- lectic or proved the inevitability of Com- munist domination of the earth. - On the contrary, the experience of the past 6 years has proved the opposite. It has
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD proved in France and throughout Western Europe that if communiam is opposed by the ‘weapons appropriate to the struggle against communiam—hby economic and social oppor tunity rather than by the bombs and bayo- nets the Republican adolescents would apply to the ills of Asia—communism cannot score its victories of desperation. If the last 6 years have demonstrated anything, they have demonstrated that the Marxist destiny, untike the destiny the Greeks knew, is not inescapable when men of courage and re- source make up their minds to fight it. Only those who continue obstinately and childishly to regard the crisis in which we live ab a military crisis to be won or lost by military weapons can fall to read the vast significance of that victory to which we give the wholly deceptive title of economic aid to Europe. When the history of our time js written, £ we keep our courage long enough to leave a history, the battle fought in Western Europe with food and credits and materials, under the name of George Marshall and on lines laid down by the present Secretary of State, may well prove to have been one of the decisive battles of mankind. No, it is not the irresistible spread of communism over the earth, or some Phoenix change in Russia, which has altered us in 6 years’ time from a people who believed the future was our future to a people who talk of fighting for survival. And neither is it the shock of the Korean War and the dis- covery that Asiatic soldiers are men like any others, Only the ol China hands of the Shanghai bars and the Senate lobbies ever doubted that they were. The real change as always is neither in our stars nor in our enemies but in ourselves. It is not that Russia is all at once ten times more dangerous but that we see her so. It is not that the Marxist dialectic has proved ‘the inevitability of ite triumph, but that we do not believe, as we once did, in the in- evitable triumph of the dialectic of freedom, If we really wish to understand the dif. ference between the Republic of this day and year and the Republic of the same day 6 years back, it is that alteration, the altera- ‘tion in ourselves, we will examine. It is not, I think, a difficult alteration to measure. The difference is not Joe MoCarthy or Her- bert Hoover or Robert Taft or any of the rest of the timid or calculating men who have succumbed to fear in themselves or exploited fear in others for their partisan or personal advantage. Timidity is not an American characteristio—as those who at- tempt to live by it politically will learn. We are not afraid of Russia. We are not afraid of communism. We are not even afraid of those gastric and imaginary terrors which frighten the Senator from Wisconsin until every face he sees beneath the bed of his political ambition is Communist. McCartuy bas done incalculable damage to the tradition of decency and truthfulness and mutual respect upon which a free and self-governing society must rest—upon which this- society had rested for 160 years before his time—but McCarty is not the author of the decay in American confidence. On the contrary, it is the decay in American con- fidence which made McCarry possible. Only a people who found themselves, 6 years after their greatest triumph, contemplating the poralbility of disaster, and unable to account for the deterioration of their for- tunes, would give a moment’s thought to reckless and irresponsible accusations made without evidence and offered without proof. The real reason for the change in the American situation is something consider- ably more fundamental even than the decay of a political morality. The difference be- tween the United States in 1951 and the United States tn 1945 is a difference in the Nation itself, in the inward being of the XOVu—App.——-27 Nation, In the sense of purpose and diren- tion which gives vi and confidence to @ life whether it be the life of a single hu- man being or a nation. Six years ago, and for decade and more before that, the people of the United States had a common and a creative purpose. In the years of the war that purpose, made ar- tioulate and comprehensible by Franklin Roosevelt, was a purpose not merely to frus- trate the designs of the dictators but to establish a new order of peace and freedom throughout the world—freedom to think, freedom to worship, freedom from want, free- dom from fear. Prior to the war, in the decade of the thirties, the national purpose— the purpose at least of a great majority of the people of the country—was a purpose not merely to pull ourselves out of the last and worst of our business depressions but to create a society in which men could con- tinue to live as men in dignity and free- dom without paying the recurrent price of unemployment and the ultimate price of unemployability; a society which would dem- onstrate to mankind that free institutions and the practice of self-government are not impotent to deal with the problems of an industrialized world; a society which would prove that the alternative to economic slavery need not be political slavery, and that a free and responsible human being, think- ing and acting for himself, is still a wiser governor of a nation than all the bureaus of the state police, No one who was alive in this city 6 years ago or 16 years ago—no one who was con- scious of the Republic in the months before the San Francisco Conference or the months of the emergence of the concept of the New Deal—can doubt, however cynical and sick he may be now, that these purposes were then alive and vigorous in the country, and that the confidence of the country in itself and in its future rested directly upon the universal recognition of the will to act. No one who is conscious of this city and this country today can doubt, either, that these purposes no longer shape our minds, and that our loss of confidence in our future and in ourselves, our desperate talk of struggle for survival, reflect that hollow emptiness at the heart. Certainly our foreign polloy reflects it. We Uberals have harsh and often just things to say of that policy. We condemn its defen- siveness, its dependence upon the Russian iuitiative, its reliance upon the concept of containment. Who, we say, can imagine the word “containment” in Roosevelt's mouth? But for all our scorn we know, or ought to know, that the defensiveness of our foreign policy is dictated not by the mentality of the Department of State but by the mentality of the country. The basic orlentation of a for- eign policy is inevitably determined by the orlentation of domestic opinion. If a peo- ple thinks defensively about its life at home its foreign policy will necessarily be defen- sive. If the people of the United States fix their minds upon the preservation of some- thing called their way of life, meaning the way they imagine they now live, or the way they like to think they lived before, their foreign policy will be directed to the preser- vation of the status quo elsewhere in the world or even to the restoration of some earlier and vanished status. By the same sign and for the same reason, if the people of the United States should again fix their minds upon the realization of a new and richer life for themselves and for the world, their foreign policy would inevitably beoome positive and vigorous as the policies of cre- ative and purposeful countries always are. The truth is that the place to remedy an unsatisfactory foreign policy 1s not in For- mosa or Western Germany but at home. Un- til the country recovers a sense of national purpose within itself, until it shapes again A417 its national will, it foreign policy must continue to be defensive and Russia must be left the initiative she has held sinos the war’s end. Those who contend the oppo- site, those who argue that any consisiera- tion of American ends, American aims, must wait upon the realization of our aims abroad, and, above all, upon the arming of this coun- try for defense, delude themselves. Their assumption is unsound and the argument they derive from it is inoonclustve. The assumption supposes that the con- tinuing crisis which afflicts our world is pri- marily a military crisis and the argument insists that in time of military crisis the unity of parties and opinions is the first ob- jective of policy which must be secured at any cost. A national program within the United States aimed at the realimation of American ends—freedom, economic as well as political: equality of opportunity and equality before the law—would, it is argued, divide the country, alienate powerful groups and leave us hetpless before our enemies. The assumption, however, supposes what is not true. The struggle in which we are engaged is not primarily a military struggle. It is primarily a political struggle, a social atruggie, which the Russians are waging on their aide by conducting a social and po- litical offensive egainst our institutions and ourselves in every quarter of the world. To trust solely to military means to defend our- selves against auch an attack is to lose the war before the battles can be fought—and, it may well be, to expedite the very disaster we seek to prevent. Until we can mount a social and political offensive of our own we cannot successfully defend ourselves, let alone prevail. But an American social and political offensive cannot be mounted to in- fluence the rest of mankind until the Amere ican people have committed themselves to its realization in their own country. Merely to be against communism is not an offensive. It ts not even @ policy. It ts a confession of political bankruptcy and intellectual col- lapse. As for the argument deriving from that assumption—the argument that unity te the first requirement in such # time as this, and that no price is too high to pay for it, the answer is simple. The answer is that there is a price too high to pay for unity, and a unity too dubious to purchase at any price. The price too high to pay is the price we are now paying in the United States—the price of spiritual impotence. The unity too du- bious to purchase is the unity we have ace quired in return-—the unity of the reace tionaries of both parties in a common in- tention to paralyze the great creative Amer- fean tradition of liberalism leaving the Re- public without or direction—leaving the Republic without anything but the bare- bone determination to survive which these blind men tell us we must now accept in place of all our hopes, our pride, our con- fidence, our courage. No; it is time and past time to face the realities of our situation in this Republic. Everything—our determination abroad, our courage and stamina in the face of the ter- rible trial which lies before us, our eventual victory in that trial—everything depends upon our the achievement, not in the millenium but now, not after the struggle is over but in order that the strug- gle may be wou—everything depends upon our undertaking again the achievement of the American dream of a truly free, a truly democratic society; a society in which men shall be equal in opportunity, equal before the law, not in word only but in fact; 9 60- ciety in which all men may share the secus rity which is now the privilege of some men only; a society in -vhich the inexhaustible, human resources of a great and intelligent, people may be released for the creative la-, bor which is the cign.ty of human IHfe,’
Adl8 Until we undertake that task we shell not regain the sense of national purpose which ts our present and fatal lack, Until we ‘have accomplished some part at least of what we propose, we cannot recapture from the Communists the political and social initiative which we must have te win the struggle for the future. People like ourselves, Hberals in politics and iffe, have one common professional deformation. We are reluctant to act. We tanderatand very well-—far better than the dogmatists of the two extremes—the real nature of a given political situation, In- deed it ts our ic quality 80 to understand, for a Uberel is by nature a dis- interested man, a man who ts more con- cerned with the human truth than with the partisan advantage of some précon- celved opinian. But precisely because: we eee more clearly what must be done we are . more reluctant, or so it seems, to do if. In the present critical situation of cur country that weakness becomes something more than weakness. It becomes ‘a kind of trea- son to our country and ourselves. On this day and in this:place we will do well, all of us, to remember that there was one Iitberal, the greatest of them all, who could not only understand what needed to be done but do it. There was one liberal ‘who could act. “The responsible man, death's hand upon his shoulder, Knowing well the liars may prevail And calumny bring all his days to nothing: Knowing truth has often been betraysd By time that keeps it, as the crock taints water; Knowing nothing suffered or endured Win change by one word what the worst will say, What those who listen to the worst be- leve-— The responsible man: teeth bad: sleep DiMfoult: tired, tired, tired, to the heart: Carries the day to the next day to the next: Does what must be done: dies in his chair Fagged out, worn down, sick With the weight of his own bones, the task finished, The war won, the victory assured, The glory left behind him for the others. (And the wheels roll up through the night in the sweet Jand In the cool air in the spring between the lanterns,)" Address by Hon. Robert A. Taft, of Ohio, Before Executives Club of Chicago —ee EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT A. TAFT oF ofIO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rscoxp an address I delivered to the Executives Club of chicago in Chicago, Ill, on January 26, There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, a8 follows: tt is a great pleasure to come here again to speak to the Exectttives Club and to this magnificent audience. I still feel apologetic - ism. ‘for the time that I had to cancel a speech bere, but I remember that Joan Barwam - was kind siiough to come and make a bet- ter speech than I could have made, I shall always be grateful to your members and to many other citizens of Mliinois who gave me such enthusiastic support in my recent campaign in Ohio. Sometimes I thought that the people of Illinois were almost more interested in my success than the people of Ohio, but the final results in Ohio certainly Question the wisdom of that judgment. The victory of Senator Diexsew, tn Ilinols, and my own victory in Ohjo showed that the people of this country still believe in sound, conservative, Amertcan principles of govern~ ment; that they are willing to put the public interest ahead of any supposed class interest; and that they will listen to the arguments presented for a ve program within princtples of liberty and fustice-on their mer- its if they are clearly and forcibly presented. We can beat Santa Claus. The people in the great Middle West do not beiteve in social- Whiie they respeet the value of labor unions, they do not propose to let the bosses of labor urtone dictate to the people as to whom. they shall choose as their represent- atives in Congress. But perhaps more than anything else these elections showed that the people had come to a complete lack of confidence in the for- eign policy of the administration. I pointed out tn every county in the State of Ohio the reason for the present dangerous situation in which we find ourselves. The leaders of our Nation were blind to the possible threat of communism to this country after the war was over. Hopkins and Harriman st Yalta seemed to feel that communism after all was & pretty good ‘thing, even tf we did not want tt exactly in the form in which Russeta had tt. Nevertheless they accepted the idea that Russian communism was in fact de- mocracy, when it actually denied every prin- ciple of American government. How far this ‘was the result of the deliberate Communist inQltration into our Government, of which we are now aware, it is dificult to say, but its influence was evident. Our leaders blind- ly aceepted the promises of Soviet Russia when Stalin had never kept a promise. They set Russia up in central] Europe, in Berlin and Prague and Vienna, when asa matter of fact our troops could heve captured both Prague and Berlin long before the Russians ever got there, We let them write the ticket for the Russtan zone in Germany, whitch stretches half way from the Elbe to the Rhine, and gives them a predominating mil- itary position in central Germany. We did not even reserve & right-of-way to our zone in Berlin. We gave them a dominating posi- tion in Manchuria contrary to every honor- able obligation to Chiang Kai-shek, who had fought the Japanese for years, and contrary to every principle of American policy since John Hay ingugurated the program of the open door in China. We gave Russia Japan's position in Manchuria, though we had gone to war because of Japan's aggression in China. For some years after the war this administration promoted the theory that the Chinese Communists were only agrarian reformers, and sent General Marshall to Ohina to force Chiang Kai-shek to take them into his cabinet. When Chiang re- fused we cut off his supplies and ammuni- tion at the most crucial moment and cer- tainly were partially responsible for the de- feat which he suffered at the hands of the Communists. Our policy invited the attack in Korea while we failed to arm the South Koreans. It is not strange that the people, seeing the fatal results of the foreign pol- icy of this administration, have no longer any faith or confidence in its judgment or ability. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD At the present time, because of that policy, we face the most serious externsl threat to {tg security and peace which this country has ever faced. I ses now no alternative ex~ cept to build up sufficiently large military forces #0 that we may be secure against any military aggreasion that the Russians may have under consideration. All the problems of this Eighty-second Congress depend very largely upon the decision which we make ss to the size and character of the military forces that must be built up to meet the Communist threat which this administra- tion itself has so largely created, On January 15 I reviewed the foreign sit- uation on the floor of the Senate and stated afirmattvely the policy which I thought this country ought to adopt. It seems to me that we should develop the greatest and most powerful air force in the world so that we may dominate the air over this cauntry, over . the oceans that surround this country, and over as much of the rest of the world as we can. We should have air bases at strategic points in the. world where they cannot be ‘e@astly attacked. We have the largest navy in the world and we should be certain that we have complete control of both sea and alr. These are the fields in which we can be supreme without unduly burdening the whole economy of the United States. My proposal is no withdrawal to the American Continent, It is the establishment of a bastion throughout the world within a reasonable distance by alr of every country in the world. Such a control gives us com- munication to all lands. It gives us access to all raw materials. It makes it possibile for us to make bombing raids to all parts of the world against any nation which chooses to begin a war. It should enable us to defend everything in the way of islands or teland nations that desire our ald. It should enable us to put land troops ashore in many places where we can successfully aid in protecting a strategie position euch as the Isthmus of Suez or the Malayan Peninsula. It enables us to furnish arms assistance and even land troops if at any tlme such assist. ance seems to promise success to any coun- try trying to defend iteelf against an unlaw- Tul aggressor and if at that time we consider such ald in our national interest. Today we have a superiority in the alr and on the sea, but it is not at all clear that that superiority 1s complete. There should be no doubt about our ability to defend Japan, for instance, or Formosa, from an attack across a hundred miles of open water, but unless we give unremitting attention to the Job it is not at all clear that we are able to achieve even such a defense of friendly island nations. I think it is clear that we cannot hope in time of peace to dominate the entire world on land as well as on the sea. Of course, we have to have a land army for many purposes. We have to have a land army to protect the United States, Alaska, and our air bases, and for use in many special situations, but I do not believe we can hope to build up an army, certainly in time of peace, which can over- whelm the millions that Soviet Russia and Soviet China may be able to bring against ‘us. No one will accuse Walter Lippmann of being an isolationist, but he says in the Atlantic Monthly, out today: “We and our neighbors in North America are outnumbered. We must take this truth to heart. We must write it on the walls of our council chambers, We musi never for- get it, The Communist coalition can raise more soldiers than we or our allies can ever have. These soldiers have weapons which on any battlefield in Eurasia are quite deadly enough to kill. Any policy which compels us to fight them, as we are fighting them in Korea now—across an ocean, within walking
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD @iatance of thelr own tnexhaustibie reserves, on terms of battle in which they are forever incalculably superior—cannot be anything but what it has turned out to be; a bloody entanglement.” T maztie my speech on January 5 partly be- cause it seemed to me that the administra- tion was tending more and more toward the theory that a third world war was finally @aing to be fought on the continent of Eu- rope, and that a huge land army must be the eoneern of our military policy. I have been encouraged tn recent weeks, how- ever, by the fact that the Joint Chiefs of support an unlimited army on land which, after all, is the most expensive of all forms . They have apparently re- jected Senator Dovaas’ proposal that we put 6,000,000 men under arms, and Gover- nor Dewey's proposal that we have a hun- ven the army that ts proposed seems to me somewhat too large and it will be a tre- mendous burden on the people of the United States. It will probably require 2 years’ mil- itary service from every boy in this country. It will require a burden of taxation which will mean a substantia] cut in the standard of living of practically every American. It means, at least for several years, price con- trol and wage control. Nevertheless, I think it is within our financial means if we are pre- pared to make the sacrifice; and I do not regard it as beyond reason. But surely if we are going to have to have an army of this sine for 5 to 10 years, the whole Military Establishment must be compelled to run on &® more economical basis than it does today. Furthermore, if the tax burden is to be sup- portable there must be a substantial cut in nondefense expenditures. There ig no ex- cuse for the budget submitted by the Presi- dent. Not only are the cuts negligible, but many Fair Deal ideas are added. The greatest military question which re- mains in dispute is the proposed committing of American troope to the continent of Eu- rope. I don't think most people understand the novel and radical nature of the proposal which has been made. Under the Atlantic Pact we undertook to join with 10 other nations to develop our individual and col- lective capacity to resist armed attack, pre- sumably from Russia, by means af continu- ous and effective self-help and mutual aid. We also agreed that if an armed attack ts made t any one of the parties to the pact, it shall be considered as an attack against them all, and that we will assist the party attackel by taking such action as we deem necessary including the use of armed force. I voted against the pact because I believed that it committed us to the giving of arms aid to European countries, and the bullding up of a coordinated European army. Bince we entered into the treaty we are performing our obligation to give arms gen- erously, though we were told, at the time the pact was passed, that this was to be merely a little assistance to enable them to complete their local defensive facilities, and the implementation bill only looked toward the expenditure of half a billion dollars # year. Now the total appropriations have amounted to more than five billion, and as mich more ‘ts contemplated at once tn the new outiget. But we were assured that the Atlantic Pact carried uo obligation whatever to send Amer- fcan soldiers ¢o Europe. Neyertheless, the President has proceeded without authority from Congress to make at least a conditional offer to provide such soldiers, and some kind of an agreement, perhaps conditional, may have been made at Brussels. The original pact required a definite plan of defense be- fore any aid was given, but it ts now much more than a year since that pact was passed and the European countries have never agreed upon a definite defensive pian. I think it !s perfectly clear that the Presi- dent hhs no right to enter into an agree- ment with foreign countries to set up an in- ternational army and commit American troops in time of peace to such an army on foreign soll. Many cases have been cited where the President has sent troops to for- eign countries to protect American lives or property, but in all our history there is nothing comparabie to the setting up of such an army and commitment of troops as is here . The President is Commander in Chief of the American Army, but he cer- tainly cannot delegate his powers as Com- mander in Chief tu « foreign officer. It hap- pens at the present time that General Elsen- hower is an American, but he dertves his authority not from the United States, but from 11 nations, and he could be replaced by them. The only comparable action with which I am familiar ie that of a military force under the United Nations’ Charter. In the Charter it is expressly provided that this force shall be determined by an agreement. In the Im- plementation Act !t ‘s required that the agreement specify the number and character of the troops to be supplied and the circum- stances of the contribution, and that that agreement shall be approved by Congress be- fore the President is authorized to furnish Ameérican troops to such an international army. No such agreement was ever made be- cause of Russian opposition, and so the Presi- dent acted wholly without authority in send- ing an American Army into Korea as I pointed out in the Senate 3 days later. In the case of the Atlantic Treaty under article XI, it is clearly contemplated that action to implement the treaty shall be taken in accordance with the constitutional processes of each government. The Foreign Relations Committee itself stated tn so many words that the treaty in no way affected the basic division of guthority between the President and the Congress as defined in the Constitution. It answered the argument that required action by Congress might de- lay actton by saying: “The expression of the will of a whole people offers far more cer- tainty than any commitment by a dicta- tor. The action of the democracies in the past great war is concrete evidence of their ability to act with the necessary speed in the event of an emergency.” I have been shocked by the vehemence with which those who are determined to send troops to Europe have rushed to the defense of the President's power in violation certainly of the spirit if not the words of the Constitution. Apparently they do not trust the people or the people's representatives, and they are afraid that if the decision is left to Congress it might possibly decide that they would rather keep our boys at home. But the issue ts now, at least partly academic since a number of Senators, Including Sena- tor Dovaxas, of Iilinols, stated that whether there is a legal restriction on action by the President or not, he has no moral right to act in view af the assurances given Congress to make a commitment to send troops abroad without submitting the question to Con- grees, Senator Dovetss sald in the Senate on January 16, “the national Interest requires that a clear decision on the Jssue be reached by Congress in some express way. The con- atitutional powers of the Government are A419 shared powers, and the tssue is too important and the dangers to our survival too great for the Executive to act without positive ap- proyal of Congress.” Therefore we are as- sured that a resolution wili be submitted on the question of sending troops to Europe, Senator Wuzeer submitted a resolution providing that the President should send no troops abroad for the purposes of the Atian- tic Pact until Congress had acted on the question. The Wherry resolution did not attempt to pass in any way on the merits of the proposal, but only to hold things in atatus quo until Congress could act. When the President assured the Congress that they would bave an opportunity to pass on the question, the Wherry resolution became of less importance because it had clearly accomplished its principal purpose. There- fore, Senator Waargr was willing to have it referred temporarily to the Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services jointly. But I do not feel confident th: t the ad- Ministration 1s really going to present a leg- islative resolution. I am very much con- cerned that they may only contemplate a Senate resolution expressing the views of the Senate that the President shall have the right to commit any number of troopa to this international army in Europe. In that case we would have to call up again the Wherry resolution. In my opinion, the kind of agreement that apparently is being contem- plated with these foreign countries regard- ing thts international army has all the dite- nity of a treaty. Strictly speaking, under the Constitution, it shou'd be approved as a treaty by two-thirds of the Senate. Yt can be argued, however, that since the Atlantio Pact is already adopted as a treaty, a supple- mental agreement made along the same gen- eral line, even though it extends to a field not provided for by the treaty iteelf could be approved by Congress by a majority of both Houses. I believe that we should in- sist at least on a joint resolution, which is an act of legislation. I believe further that any agreement which is made with the other pact countries should itself be submitted to Congress and that the Congress should say yes or no to that particular agreement. I believe further that Congresa should impose some limitation on the number of soldiers who can be stationed on European soil in time of peace. It is quite true that in time of war the Commander in Chief of the Army has the right to run the war, and Congress should not interfere, but I don't think the Commander in Chief has the right to commit the entire Nation in advance to exactly the xind of war which is going to be fought, and I don't think he has the right to tte his own hands or those of his successor by oblige- tions to station any particular number of troops abroad. The Constitution confers on Congress the right to raise and support armies and to declare war, and on the Senate the right to advise and consent to treaties with foreign nations. Uniess we are pre« pared to abdicate these constitutional pow- ers and make the President a complete dic- tator over fore'gn policy, Congress must in- sist on ite right to decide the questions in- voived in the so-called Brussels agreement. I have not reached a definite view as to the manner in which the limitation should be imposed, but roughly speaking it occurs to me that we might provide that there should not be stationed in Europe and in Great Britain more than some specified per- centage of our land Army and of our Air Force. This seems to me @ more reasonabie limitation than a particular number of di- visions or a particular number of men. it must be remembered that we already have nearly two divisions in Germany. I would myself prefer to make peace with Germany
A420 and withdraw all troops. That is the logical conclusion to the strategy which I have out- lined. But we are in Germany. We have signed the Atlantic Pact and, therefore, as rT stated in my speech on January 5, I will not object to committing a Hmited number of additional divisions, providing the Europeans really show an interest, agsume the initia- tive, and provide altogether an army which has some reasonable chance of success in defending Western Europe against the Rus- sians if and when it is completed. If the administration submits a resolu- tion tn completely general terms with unlim- ited power to the President, then there vvill be submitted a substitute resolution along the general and limited lines which I have outlined, Incidentally, I have not changed my position one tota from the position I took in my first speech, in spite of a lot of misrepresentation in the press. 1 have been opposed to sending an Ameri- can army to Europe, and I believe it is stra- tegically unsound. It is more likely to bring about war than it is to bring peace. The formation of a great international army in Germany on the border of the countries which Ruasia regards as buffer states is cer- tainly likely to alarm the Russians. They are @ suspicious people at best and no matter how defensive our intentions are, they will feel that such an army is a threat to the satellite countries, if not to Russia itself. It is all very well to say that it is to be - merely a defensive army, but today no army can be merely defensive, This is a day of mobile warfare, and apparently either you push your enemy back, or you are pushed back by your enemy. The defensive army cannot hope merely to defend a Maginot line of bazookas. It must have the weapons to » make affirmative movements into the Russian line. So the Russians may regard it as a threat, as they certainly do the arming of Germany. If the Russians do not intend a military attack, it seems to me that this program is very likely to change their intentions. If they do contemplate a military attack, why would they wait 2 years or 3 years until this army of 60 or more divisions is actually in being? I have asked that question of many generals and others, and I have yet to receive @ reasonable answer. I believe in that feature of the Atlantic Pact which notifies Russia that if they attack Western Europe they will find themselves at war with the United States. I think that is & real deterrent against their beginning a war in Western Europe. They know that we have airplanes with the atomic bomb. Myr. Churchill has stated that that fact is the only thing that has actually deterred them from war, but I do not think they will be deterred from war by the gradual building of a great land army in Germany. It ie said that we cannot abandon Europe. No one is proposing to abandon Europe. We have given them more than $20,000,000,000 of economic aid since the war ended. We have thereby enable them to build up their production to a point 40 percent better than it was before the war. We have given them, and are prepared to give them, unlimited arms aid to build up their own armies. Un- der the program which I have suggested, there would be several divisions of Ameri- can troops at the front in Europe at the t.ginning of any war to assure them of our real interest in their defense, and that would be doing a great deal more for them than they have done for us in Korea. In fact, in any war with Rusela we would be doing probably 50 percent or more of the entire job. But I object to getting in so heavily that before we get through we find ourselves doing 90 percent of the job, as we have had to do it in Korea. Furthermore, it is dangerous to our sur- vival to build our entire military policy on the success of a great land war tn Europe. Tt is a long way from the United States. The Russians can always outnumber us many times in manpower. If the Russians have the atomic bomb—and we are now spending 98,000,000,000 in this country to build air shelters on the theory that they have—then surely they could bomb 11 the European ports, could prevent the delivery of heavy supplies, and perhaps in the end might cut off our troops from any possible escape from Europe. , One of the arguments advanced by the Army is that it would be easier to get six divisions out of Europe than the two divi- sions that are there now. That certainly is @ defeatist policy. But when we consider what one atomic homb might have done to our Army at Hungnam, however, the com- mitment of a tremendous American Army to European soll under present conditions is & dangerous undertaking which might re- sult in the greatest military disaster this country has ever faced. Hitler and Musso- lini brought about the destruction of their countries by overestimating their strength and committing themselves to ventures which they were unable to carry out. We think of this country as having always won & War and being in fact impregnable, but a foolish for- eign policy can bring about the same kind of destruction for us as it has for many other nations throughout history. Certainly we should have learned in Korea that the commitment of armies to continental war- fare against nations with a tremendous ex- cess in manpower is at best a tragic error. Our casualties in Korea are closely approach- ing the casualties in the entire First World War. With this lesson before us, it seems almost inconceivable that we would lay any tremendous emphasis on a similar action on the continent of Europe. I do not say that if we should get into a war with Russia, we might not in the end Gecide to Aight a land war. I only object to our committing ourselves at this time, and to the manner in which a third world war shall be fought. If there is one thing that seems certain, it is that the third world war will not be fought like the Second World War, but the program of many of our military officers seemed to be based on the theory that it is going to be a kind of combination of the First and Second World Wars. With an impregnable sea and air bastion, with a tremendous striking power of air, no one can be absolutely certain that war cannot be won from the air. Certainly, Japan sur- rendered without our having to land a single soldier on the shores of Japan. We cannot he certain today, and we must not tie our hands. Aa far as Korea is concerned, if our allies have run out on us as apparently they have, it seems to me that we have no alternative except gradually to withdraw from Korea to o defensible position in Japan, Okinawa, and Formosa. I question the wisdom of beginning any kind of an all-out war with Communist China as long as our troops are in Korea in such a vulnerable position. Should Russia start a third world war tomor- row, we would indeed have a difficult time to extricate our troops from Korea. Once we have withdrawn those troops, we can release Chiang Kai-shek from the restraints we have imposed upon him, and it may be that he can create enough diversion to occupy the Chinese Communists in south China and perhaps prevent the threatened offensive against Indochina, Burma, and Siam. He has the power to impose at least a limited blockade on the shipment of supplies to Communist China. We need commit no American soldiers and should not. I doubt very much if under those circumstances Communist China would see fit to declare war with the Tinited States, and invite our bombing anc blockade. But certainly we APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD would be able to shut off the military sup- piies which have been reaching them in the past from the United States. In conclusion, I wish to impress upon you the import.nce of taking an active interest in foreign affairs and bringing to bear the views which you have upon the Members of the Congress of the United States. I believe this debate has already accomplished a tre- mendous change in the foreign and military policy of the administration. First, we have established the principle that constructive criticism is no longer trea- son, and that debate itself is meritorious. Heretofore, anyone who even questioned the wisdom of the administration’s foreign policy was denounced as one giving aid and comfort to the enemy, destroying the unity of the country and an isolationist. Cer~ tainly the editors of this country, and the people have come to realize that the only thing that really gives aid and comfort to the enemy is to adopt a foreign policy which plays into their hands as has our policy in the Far East. It is now respectable to pree sent one’s own views on foreign policy. Second, we have obtained at least qualified admission that Congress has the right to speak 6n a question as important as the commitment of an American army to the continent of Europe. This right is only grudgingly admitted, and it is not yet clear whether Congress is only to be allowed to talk and not to act. Public opinion spould be brought to bear for the principle of the Wherry resolution, and the Mmitation of the President’s power to send troops abroad. Third, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the administration have apparently accepted the theory that there should be a long-range limit placed upon the total of our Armed Forces, and that that limit should be within the reach of our power to support it over a period of years without serious damage to our economy. I think the limit is high, but I think that we can concelvably find the taxes to balance the budget, and therefore we can hope to avoid inflation and the further depreciation of the dollar. Fourth, the general policy of appeasing the Chinese Communists has apparently been re- versed, although I never fee] completely con- fident of our State Department. It seema, however, that the administration is now definitely committed against the recognition of Communist China, against its admission into the United Nations, and in favor of the denouncing of China as an aggressor. There still seems an unwillingness to criticise the British in spite of the fact that the British are really the leaders in the movement to appease a ruthless and unquestioned ag- gressor against the United Nations itself. Fifth, and last, there seems to be some hope that we may at long last achieve the purpose of acquiring a new Secretary of State. The Religion of Robert E. Lee EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN C. STENNIS OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr, STENNIS. Mr. President, on the 14th day of January 1951, Dr. Francis P. Gaines, president of Washington and Lee University, was the guest speaker at the Washington Cathedral here in the city of Washington, and delivered an eloquent and inspiring message on the subject The Religion of Robert E. Lee.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD This notable address, and the inspiring manner in which it was delivered by Dr. Gaines, who is a worthy successor to the great Robert E. Lee as president of this outstanding university, made a profound impression on all the hearers, I think the address is of real value to all the Members of the Congress and to the American people, and therefore ask that it be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, a” follows: Tur Revision or Ronsrt E. Ler (By Dr. Franols P. Gaines) No one knows Robert E. Lee who does not know that his life was dominated by rell- gion and protected by it. The religion of General Lee, however, does not easily lend itself to analysis. It was never a matter of ostentatious parade and it did not in- volve the mouthing of many words. It was central in his soul but it was among the sacred intimacies of that soul. We may sur- mise, if we will, that his religion was 8 venture of pure faith. It was not the prod- uct of his speculation. He did not build his ereed from the painfully collected conclu- sions of his logic. He was not among those souls who grope for their belief. Rather, he might modestly have paraphrased the words of St. Paul in saying, casting away reasoning and all high things that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God, I bring every thought into captivity unto the obedience of Christ. And this matter of bringing every thought into captivity un- der Christ was the supreme business of Robert EB. Lee; and religion was closer to him than breathing ard nearer than hands and feet. Although we may not scrutinize too closely the motivations or the quality of his faith, we are permitted, since he belongs to his- , to observe some of the fruitage in the life of this religious man, fruitage for the summer's glory and fruitage for the au- tumn’s richness and fruitage which the win- ter cannot kill. It was religion, I am confident, for ex- ample, that made more sweet the hours of his tranquillity, that infused with a singular tenderness of joy all the domestic relations, all the circles of friendliness in his life. I remember one of the most beautiful let- ters to a yotmg daughter-in-law of whom he was particularly fond. He was far away from home and he wrote this lovely girl, who was to die young, a playful letter, a some- what lengthy, playful letter, but he closed with these words: “I send you some sweet violets which I have gathered; they are all I have for you; I hope they may retain some fragrance until they reach you. My eyes plead for relief this holy day but my heart stretches towards you with all ita strength and hushes in silence its yearning.” The words that caught my mind were those two words “holy day” because all of the human love, all of the warm reciprocity of affection of which General Lee was greatly capable, all of these things were as if en- veloped in the atmosphere of a holy day. They were religion to him. if I may swing the pendulum extremely to the other end of his emotions, I would call your attention to the fact that religion con- strained him in the flercest moment of his conflict. As far as I know, he was never as excited or as determined as when he made the invasion of the North; be knew that was a crisis, and he knew that if he could tri- umph there he would strike a mighty blow; but some of his men did not behave as he Wanted them to behave and he rebuked them in that famous General Ordar No. 78; and the basta for his rebuke was this noble phrase: “The claim of Christianity is as strong upon us when we are in hostile ter- ritory as when we are in our own.” Thus, says the Massachusetts historian, Mr. Brad- ford, Robert Lee could pour something of Christian charity even into that intolerable hell which 1s war. It was religion, too, I believe—his imita- tion of Christ, that set him free from hatred, the corroding poison of our human lives. You remember the story told by Baltimore's lovely citizen, Miss Bond. It was a great season at the White Sulphur Springs when the Southern element was predominant, and General Lee was there the lion of the hour, There came a Northern general. He hap- pened to be especially unpopular and there was an unspoken but unanimous movement to snub him; General Lee rose dramatically and conspicuously to welcome him and to extend to him the courtesy of his great soul. As he walked back from speaking to this man a Southern girl, rather, partisan and probably petulant, sald to him, “But General, don't you hate that man?” And General Lee said, “As in the sight of God I think I can say that I have never hated a human being.” Why didn’t he hate? Be- cause the Sermon on the Mount filled his heart so full he had no room for the un- worthy emotions. It was religion, too, that gave General Lee the one quality that all men everywhere con- cede to him. There may be debate as to his political wisdom, let us say, in making the decision that he had to nrake at the moment of his great dilemma, and I have even read comments, though not many, that raise the question as to his rights in the final lifting of military chieftains, but I have never seen one person who dented him one quality, and that was a forthrightness and a strength of character almost without parellel. It was re- ligion that gave him that character. May I ask you to remember that I am not talking about character in its narrow interpretation, in ite defensive aspects as a force merely to resist. I am speaking of character in the great affirmative reaches of its possibilities. The best definition I have ever heard of char- acter, I heard when I was a college boy— given to me by one of my professore—and this is character as Robert Lee personified it. “Character,” said my mentor, “is an inner force (please remember those two words) that enables one to carry out a worthy pur- pose after the mood in which that purpose was born has passed away.” All of us, I pre- sume, have the mood in which worthy pur- poses are born, A great Voice challenges us to higher endeavor; some loveliness of song such as we heard today penetrates unsus- pected depths of our hearts; the glory of a sunset or a quiet moment beside a grave which brings us eome superna! vision of holl- ness; or the pitiless remorse of our own con- tritions distresses us and disciplines us and we are in the mood for a great resolution Whether or not we sustain that resolution depends on whether or not we have char- acter; and in Lee's case he had character, perhaps to live more consistently in fulfill- mrent of the purposes of his best moment than any human being I have ever studied. Every moment was his best moment because the inner force to which I ventured to bring emphasis a moment ago, constantly unfall- ing, the inner force in his life was God. And now if I may approach the drama of his life, I remind you that it was religion that enabled him to triumph over the black and bitter circumstance. For as objectively as we might measure, Genera] Lee's profes- alonal career was 8 failure, and it was a failure of first magnitude. He surrendered an army in an open field; and surrendering an army he lost the nation which had vested A421 its hopes in the army and in him. = lost his poattion; he lost his profession; he had al- ready lost his property; he had known own, by the way, the heaviness of personal sorrow, his family; snd then he lowe his oltisensbip and was to die 5 years later, technically, at least, a paroled prisoner of war. And yet he rose, not in defeat, but, let us say, from de- feat and through defeat and because of de- teat, to perhaps our greatest example of tri- umph over disaster. There are many philos- ophies from the fatalistic to the pagan or- der, on how we might meet our bitter cir- cumstance. Many writers thinking of Gen- eral Lee recall Kipling’s four lines in his poem if, which someone pepe entitied the catalog of ideal impoasibili "If you can vnake a one heap of all your winnings And riak it on one turn of pitch-and-toas, And lose, and start again from the begin- nings And never say a word about your loss.” But Robert HE. Lee was no gambler with destiny, risking everything he had upon the whimsy of # chance. Horace, whom he loved, because he read him in the original, has a line that I frequently quote to my boys—“et res mihi, non mi rebus, sublungere conor,” which I might translate—“I try to get on top of circumstances and not let them get on top of me.” And that's good philosophy. Marcus Aurelius, whom General Lee greatly admired, made a statement which was one of the favorites of General Lee, “Misfortune nobly borne is good fortune.” Not that misfortune can be nobly borne nor that we can de- velop a callousness to fate or a stoical accept- ance, but that misfortume nobly borne is tranamuted into that which is good and en- riching for us; that through misfortune we become greater peaple. Those were the great philosophies for the mastery of defeat but none of those was the secret of General Lee's success. He could say, as his Master once said in a mo- ment of what seemed to be his defeat, “I have overcome the world.” And Lee could say that he had overcome this world because he walked ever in the radiance of another world. And if that were the drama of his life, this chapter is the lesson of his life, and again it is religion. It was religion that gave him a tremendous mandate for almple usefulness. If we stop to remember the life histories of his colleagues after the great defeat, we reoall that they followed many different courses. General Lee did not criti- cize that man who went with energy to recoup his shattered fortunes. General Lee did not criticize that man who gave his re- maining years to writing books that would justify his conduct and rationalize his ideas. He di.' not criticize any of them but no one of them had his way. General Lee wanted to work. Not to desert his people in that adveraity but to help them, he sought some privilege of service to his day and to his generation. He did not seek rest because he was tired; and he did not seek affluence be- cause he was poor; and he did not seek good companionship because he was lonely. He sought not ease and comfort and compensa~ tion; he was no King Arthur in quest of Avalon that there he might heal him of his grievous wounds. When one of his closest friends remonstrated with General Lee as he was working too hard and was overtaxing his energies, General Lee said, “We must work.” That was a brave, brisk, energetia remark, wasn't It? But it wasn't what Gen- eral Lee said. I posed an erroneous state- ment, hoping you might see the difference, General Lee looked at this man, a great man himself, and he said, “We m “t work the works of Him that sent us while it is day for the night cometh when no man can work.” And if you can discriminate between
A422 @ perfectly commendable statement, “We must work” and a divine statement on an- other plane, “We must work the works of Him that scent us * © *” you know some- thing of how religion was the motive and the compulsion of this man’s life; and he took a little struggling Virginia college, even as offer after offor poured in upon him, offers of immensely more money and immensely less labor, and there he influenced through bright boys that vomorrow he would not see. And there he loved his countrymen with never a word of unkindness, loved them into & kind of reconciliation. And there he died, unafraid, and went to his God. That is the lesson of hia life. If the great gray spirit could speak to those of us gath- ered in this holy church, he would say, this is no time, not when all human values are at atake, fr edom, justice, and the very concept that we are children of the Heavenly Father, this is no time to seek our fortune or our profits for our convenience. We must work the works of Him that sent us while it is yet day. I think the moat significant of the Lee stories is the one with which Dr, Freeman closes his long and brilliant study, It was very near the end of Lee's life and a young mother brought to him her baby boy and held him up in her hands as sometimes the great Jewish mothers held their babies before the high altar. And the young mother said eagerly to General Lee: “Tell him something; or tell me something to tell him that came from you.” It is the tableau of that moment that impresses my imagination. There was & little assemblage of three, almost sym- bolic persons. The old man, incomparable victor of life, now in the twilight shadows (and perhaps somewhere trumpets were be- ginning to sound for him on the other side); the little bab: boy unawakened, with the strange pilgrimage we call life entirely be- fore him; and the eternal mother, coveting the best for her own. The tired and thought- ful old man looked at the baby and answered six words, aad answered slowly. That reply would have no meaning to the cynic, or the materialist, or the opportunist who feels that the world owes him a living. But it is full of a radiant illumination for all of us who welcome opportunity and who are will- ing to bear the responsibility. Said the general to the young mother: “Tell him he must deny himself.” Allocation and Prices of Meat Prodacts and Other Related Subjects EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. MILTON R. YOUNG OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 29, 1951 Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a report pre- pared for the National Independent Meat Packers Association by Mr. Carl H. Wil- ken, economic analyst for the Raw Ma- terials National Council, Mr. President, the total estimated cost of printing this article will be $410, as estimated by the Public Printer. Not- withstanding the cost, I believe that be- cause of its unusual importance it should be printed in the Recorv, I therefore submit my request. There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ; Mr. Freveaick M. Tosry, Chairman, Spectal Steering Committee, National Independent Meat Packers Assoctation, Rochester, N. Y.: | Subject: Allocation and Prices of Meat Prod- ucts and Other Related Subjects, In preparing this analysis at the request of Mr. C. B. Heinemann, president of your organization and Mr. Wilbur LaRoe, your counsel, I have tried to be objectively an- alytical. I realize fully that the livestock industry processes more tonnage of raw ma- terials than all of our American factories added together and therefore is the most im- portant factor in our national income and economic welfare. My conclusions are based on facts available to all and even though they may not be in accord with some of the confused theories in regard to meat production, processing, dis- tribution and the price levels that prevail, I feel that an examination of the tabulations used in making this report will prove the accuracy of my analysis. I have at all times tried to be impartial to all the groups directly interested in the production and distribution of livestock and {ts products. In my report I have separated them into four groups—the farmer or pro- ducer, the packer as the processor, the whole- saler and retailer as middlemen, and the pub- lic as the consumer. CURRENT CONFUSION The passage of the bill to give the Pres- ident control of allocations and the power to establish price ceilings on meat and other products, reflects the confusion of the Amer- ican public. The demands for price ceilings are primarily the result of a failure to evalu- ate the effect of price changes in our economy in terms of the real cost of living or the relative earnings per hour as compared to the retail price of meat and other products, Most of the American public has very little knowledge of the facts relative to the transi- tion of hourly wages and price levels that have taken place. Therefore highly publicized and too often erroneous theories lead the public to demand congreasional action. Thus we find the pub- lic suddenly aroused and excited and every- body blaming everyone else though condi- tions are such that the producer, packer, retailer, and consumer are all getting an equivalent share of the income generated by livestock production. ARE MEAT PRICES HIGH? Whether meat prices are too high depends entirely how the question is analyzed. If compared to the wage and price level that prevailed in 1939, the answer is yes. But, if analysed in terms of supplies, current hourly wages and present national income, the an- swer is no. There is no reason to theorize about it because the record is available for a definite comparison. I will use a simple ilius- tration of a pound of round steak and the hourly wage and show the relative ability to buy in 10929 and 1949. Round Average | Pounds steak— hourly | of meat Yoar eat, w jor an 51 large lour o! citios wor Cents per pound 1929...... weveve eemwene 46 1,22 1049... nce neweewaewne 85.3 1, 64 1980 (June).........-- 3389 1,63 1 Estimate, This comparison shows that the average worker could buy more meat for an hour of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD work in 1949 and in June 1950 than he could in 1929. The meat consumption records bear this out on an annual basis. In 1929 the per capita consumption was 180.4 pounds, and in 1949 1t was 148.8 pounds. The fairness of this comparison is based on the fact that in 1929 and 1949 the public spent 5.5 percent of ita disposable income for meat. The question may be asked why I have used 1929 as ® comparison rather than 1939, One of the reasons for our confusion is a compari- son with 1935-19389 prices. During this period we averaged over 8,000,000 unemployed, and it is therefore not a normal period. To enlarge on this relative change in prices without any increase in the real cost of liv- ing, I will show the shift from 1939 to 1048. (Millions of dollars} sane Personal Trolls al erson: ig} Tolls a Year income all Retail sales lnbor Joss groups B social se- curity 1989.0 eee $72, 600 $42, 0) $45, 700 1948. woe $209, 500 $124, 000 $138, 000 Percent iner¢aso.. 190 198 195.3 A fair analysis of this tabulation leaves no doubt in regard to labor as a group receiv- ing its fair share of the increase in national income. It also proves the price of goods at retail was not excessive in ratio to in- come available for goods and that retail sales volume in dollars lagged behind the increase in wages and national income totals. NATURAL LAWS OF EXCHANGE Uniess the natural laws of exchange which exist in our economy regardless of legisla- tion are taken into consideration, price ceil- ings can very easily penalize some group in our economic cycle and prevent the very production which is needed to supply the dollar demand from other sources. The reason for these laws of exchange is entirely mathematical. The pay received by each group for goods or services is their ration of the national income and is the extent of their demand at the market place. In our economy as a whole, we have a total of about 60,000,000 civilian workers. About 50,000,000 are on the payroll and the other 10,000,000 are the operators of busi- ness units which direct the production of goods and services. Of this 10,000,000 busi- ness operations about 6,000,000 are the indl- vidually owned and operated farms which produce 70 percent of all the raw materials used in our production cycle. The wages paid out to the men on payroll represent a cost in the production of goods, but they also represent a market for goods in direct proportion. Thus we find the re- tail volume correlating in proportion to the payroll and the initial price for raw matertals. The same ratio holds true in expenditures for meat. In the 5-year period 1925-1929, the retatl value of meat was quite constant in percentage of disposable income, averaging 5.66 percent. In the following period 1930- 89, the retail value averaged 5.83 percent of the disposable income. During the first period 1925-29, we had prosperity and we had depression in 1930-39, yet the ratios were quite constant because of the laws of exchange which determine that the prices paid also total the demand for goods. There- fore with three times the national income in 1949 that we had in 1939, we could expect at least three times the expenditures for meat at retail. Using this positive expenditure for meats and the laws of exchange which determine the balance between wage income and retail expenditures we oan easily check the relative price of meate in 1939 and 1949. The index of disposable income in 1939 was 105 percent of 1935-39 as 100. In 1949 it
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD was 250 percent. Dividing the 105 into 250, we find that round steak could have sold for 288 percent of the 1989 price level. The average price in the United States in 51 lead- ing cities in 1989 was 36 cents. Multiplying by 238 the result is @0.857 as compared to the price of $0.853 which was the actual figure dn 1949. OTHER RATIOS The constant ratios extend to many other fields in the same manner. To properly un- derstand their operation and the reason for their existence it is necessary that we have a complete picture of our economy. The gross farm income, 60 percent of which is made up of livestock, dairy and poultry production, is the gear wheel of our economy. For 26 years each 61 of gross farm. income has generated $7 of national income. And whenever the gross farm income has falien off 61, it has set the stage for a re- duction of 87 of national income. The inflationary or deflationary spiral can be measured quite accurately with this seven times multiple of gross farm production. For example, as the value of the farm prod- ucts increases at the source, each handling process through our economic cyole, draws out more dollars through capital funds or bank credits. Rural territory, towns of 2,000 and under have 43 percent of our population. Their income or buying power is in direct propor- tion to the value of farm products and other raw materials. Economists as a rule underestimate the importance of this market. The population of New York State spends 50 percent of its personal income for goods, as compared to an expenditure of 70 percent for goods at retall by the citizens of Iowa. Because of this factor rural] territory is roughly the market for 50 percent of factory production. As a direct corollary, factory payrolis (production workers) and gross farm income rise and fall in direct pro- portion. For example, from 1929 to 1932 the gross farm income dropped about $7,000,000,000 and the national income dropped from @87,300,000,000 in 1929 to $39,600,000,000 in 1983, or a loss in national income of $47,700,- 000,000. What was the effect of lower farm prices on the consumer in the Nation as a whole? In 1929 the per capita consumption of meats was 180.4 pounds and in 1032 it was 180.2. The percentage of disposable income spent for meat was 6.5 percent in 1929 and 5.9 percent in 1982. The drop in livestock prices and the price of other farm products shut off the stream of national income and forced our buying power to drop in proportion. To the reader of this report this conclusion may seem unwarranted. There will be those who say that wages come first or capital ex- penditures come first. It really doesn't make any difference. The important thing is that our national income does follow the gross farm income up or down at an interval of about 6 months. This was clearly illustrated in the drop in farm prices from 1948 to 1949. Everybody hailed this drop {n prices with glee, not real-~ izing the effect on our national income. The gross farm income dropped approximately $3,000,000,000. In the President's economic report to Congress in January 1950 the re- port gives the national tncome level for the last quarter of 1948 as $235,300,000,000. The 1049 income in the President's economic re- port for midyear in July 1960 gives the na- tional income level for the last quarter of 1949 as $214,300,000,000, or $%20,000,000,000 leas than in 1948, or about seven times the drop in gross farm income. During this period the hourly wage for all industrial labor advanced from 61.35, the average for 1948, to $1.40 in 1949. There was no reduction in taxes, transportation rates, etc, Therefore we did lose the €20,000,000,000 of potential income because of the drop in farm prices. In like manner with the recovery of farm prices and other raw materials to the 1948 level, the national mcome level) in the last quarter of 1960 will be at least $235,000,- 000,000 or ahout 10 percent above the na- tional inoome level the last quarter of 1949. With the expenditures approximately an average of 5.7 percent of the disposable in- come for meat, this will mean over $1,000,- 000,000 more purchasing power for meats, With the current price level for raw ma- terials, the increase in hourly wages now being granted and an increase in physical Production, our national income by the second quarter of 1951 can easily rise to 8260,000,000,000 or roughly $2,500,000,000 more available for meats than the last quarter of 1948. Do we have the meat to satisfy this mar- ket? To thase who think of meat production as & push-button industry, we will have, through an edict from some bureau in Wash- ington. But livestock production is not a push-button industry. The supply of meat depends on feed and livestock numbers available to produce meat. It depends on a price which will pay for the increased pro- duction. This brings us to the first impor- tant segment of our livestock economy—the producer. THE FARMER OR PRODUCER Many of our theorists and social reformers think of agriculture as a way of life. This is also true of their thinking in regard to livestock production. Let's take a look at the record. We have a capital economy. Agriculture in the production of Iivestock and equipment required for production has @ much larger investment than all the steel industry and automobile industry combined. We expect to pay industry a fair price for all war materials or anything which it may produce in peacetime. Following the same principle in peace or war, the agriculture industry is entitled to a proper price for the Hvestock it produces and the products pro- duced therefrom. The parity equation for agricultural prices is in reality nothing more than an average cost of production plus a normal profit comparable to the price to which every industry !s entitled to and must receive if it is to operate and expand in ratio to the Increase in population and tech- nological improvement. Too often our social reformers forget that it requires a profit to create the new capital to invest fn the expan- sion of a growing economy. This conclusion that the livestock indus- try Is a business is not a theory when we realize that today it requires about 86,000 of capital for a Corn Belt farmer to buy 25 head of yearling cattle and the corn and other feed which he requires to finish them for market. The farmer, of course, 15 in- terested in the welfare of the Nation, but he ts also interested in his own welfare and that of his family, He is not going to feed livestock uniess he is reasonably sure that he gets a proper return. Because of this factor the present confue sion as to price ceilings may tend to curtatl the movement of livestock to the Corn Belt for feeding purposes. Good feeders are sell- ing at $32 per hundredweight and the parity price for corn is 61.60 per bushel. The farmer cannot be blamed for hesitating with un- known threats of price cellings in the offing. One of the principal reasons for the meat shortage in the middie of 1946 was the sud- den increase of 80 cents per bushel in the ce price on corn without a correspond- ing increase in the price of livestock. YEED SUPPLIES The most important angle in Hvestock production is feed. As I pointed out earlier in my analysis, the livestock industry proc- esses more tonnage of raw materials than all our factories, Each animal is a factory, A423 consuming grasa, hay, corn, and many other feeds to sustain life and growth. The ques- tion that comes frst is: How much feed do we have? Again it is evident that the push-button operators in our Washington bureaus be- Neve that by pushing 9 button, they can increase the feed supplies overnight. ‘This doesn’t happen to be the case. It takes acreage, soll, water, and sunshine to produce crops. No governmental agency can, through legislation or edict, control either of them, Our supply of acres is no greater than it has been for the past 50 years. We have not, and cannot, add a single foot of land to the area covered by the United States. We have all told about 1,120,000,000 acres of improved and unimproved farm land. About one-half of this acreage ig available for crops and the other half js mostly grazing land in areas where lack of rainfall, rocky territory, or soil conditions preclude crop production. Of the 560,000,000 acres of cropland about 170,000,000 acres are used as permanent grassland or pasturage. We have available, after deducting orchards ahd other trees about 865,000,000 acres of cropland inter- changeable for rotation of pasvurage and tillable crops. ‘The acreage available for crops has been practically static ever since 1929. New acreage brought in by drainage and irrigation has been offset by acreage taken out of production for factory rites, roads, suburban development and other purposes. Our principal gain in acreage available for meat production has been in the shift from horsepower to tractors or mechanized power, About 50,000,000 acres have been made avail- able for utilization as feed for livestock in- stead of power. The greatest part of this acreage has been used for an increase in the number of datry cattle which indirectly, through veal, barren cows, aged cows, eit., furnish part of our meat supply. A factor that may have repercussions in our meat supply is the relatively Jow price of fats and oils. The removal) of the tax on colored oleomargarine hs increased the competitive price situation as between oleo- taargarine and butter. Butter is the production from surplus whole milk supplies. Memoval of price sup- ports on butter could curtail dairy produc- tion and in turn the meat production from that source. The low price of fats and oils is a com- plete dislocation of real values. A pound of fat contains about 4,080 calories as com- pared to 1,275 in a pound of lean meat. Yet @ pound of fat has been selling at 25 cents per pound as compared to 66 centa for round steak or lean meat. If the reverse were true, the consumer would he getting as many calories in buying fat as lean meat, The high caloric food value of fats and otls should be highly publicized. Low-in- come families could do much to provide a better diet for less money through a greater use of fate with their high food content, We have been able, through a combination of a good moisture supply and the utiliza- tion of chemical fertilizers, to increase the acreage yield of many of our crops. Whether we can continue the present yield per acre 1s a question that nature alone can answer. If we were to return to the average weather conditions that prevailed in 1925-29, our feed supplies could fall off 80 percent and this in turn would reduce our meat produc- tion 80 percent. ‘ There is no way in which we can regulate the rainfall or the sunshine and realism sbould force us to realize that our meat pro- duction Mes in the Jap of God. We can, how- ever, through ea prudent operation of our economy, take the first step which ls neces- sary for sufficient meat production, provide @ reserve of feed crops to Carry us over pe-~ tiods of low crop production,
A424 If we keep in mind the simple fact that each @1 of gross farm income means 87 of national income and that lvestock, dairy, and poultry products make up one-half of our gross farm income and in turn generate one-half of our national income, the cost of carrying such reserves becomes a minor cost in operating our economy. Good business judgment in providing for the physical vol- ume of goods we need to create national in- come should force us to recognize the sound principle of reserve feed supplies. LIVESTOCK NUMBERS ‘The next important factor is the number of factories we bave to process our feed sup- plies, The human race with all its inven- tive genius has not been able to produce artificial beefsteak. The numbers of cattle, hogs, sheep, and poultry over a period of years have kept pace with feed supplies and correspond quite closely to population growth. There has been some efficiency in feeding operations but not nearly as much as some people imag- ine. A definite picture of our ability to pro- duce meat can be obtained from a compari- son of the pounds of meat produced and the bushels of corn in relative periods. On January 1, 1980, we had 61,008,000 head of cattle. On January 1, 1960, we had an estimated 80,277,000 cattle. On January 1, 1980, we had 55,705,000 hogs as compared to 60,400,000 on January 1, 1950. Our numbers of sheep dropped from 48,381,000 on January 1, 1980, to 30,797,000 on January 1, 1950. At first glance to those who do not realize that our population has increased this seems like a surplus. In 1980 the census gave our population as 122,700,000 as compared to an estimated 151,000,000 at the present time. This represents an increase of 23 percent in population, There is an old saying that the “proof 1s in the pudding.” That also applies to our meat supplies. The actual pounds of meat produced when compared end all argument as to surplus, efficiency of feeding, etc. In 1930-81 our meat production was 16,- 276,000,000 pounds of beef, pork, mutton, and veal. In 1949, it was 21,710,000,000 pounds. This represents an increase of 33 percent. With an increase of 28 percent in the population this represents an increase of about 11 percent in actua)] pounds of meat. This increase of 11 percent is quite in line with the average increase in per capita con- sumption for all products produced in the United States in the transition from 1939 income 1-\ ls to the current income level. It represents roughly the net gain in our standard of living. It also approximates the increased per capita consumption of 130 pounds in 1930 to about 144 pounds in 1949. The public has been led to believe that there will be ample meat production. The record would indicate that it will require a continued effort on the part of the producer 4f meat supplies are to be kept in balance with our population increase and buying power. The end factor in meat production is corn and in the following table are the figures of corn production and meat supplies during the 1942-49 period.. . Corn produe- Meat produce tion, bushels ee tion, pounds 23, 150, 000, 000 On the basis of a 7-year average of corn production and its transition into meat sup- plies, we find that it will require roughly about 3,000,000,000 bushels of corn to pro- duce 23,000,000,000 pounds of meat. With full employment at current hourly wages, meat consumption can be expected to be about 155 pounds. With an estimated population of 161,000,000 this would require an output of 23,400,000,000 pounds. Stated in another way, we have the potential pro- duction required to satisfy the demand if we have and maintain a proper price struc- ture for the producer. The other question in meat production ts the number of factories or numbers of live- stock to process our feed supply. In the next table I have set out the numbers of hogs and cattle on farms January 1 each year in the 7-year period when we produced the meat as shown in the previous tabie. I have omitted sheep because of their small part in meat production. Cattle num- | Hog num- bers Year 76, 025, 000 81, 204, 000 Annual average. .... Jan, 1, 1950 (ostimated).... 81, 400, 000 80, 277, 000 This tabulation points out that we need to increase our cattle numbers about 1,000,- 000 and hog numbers about 4,000,000 to produce an average of 23,000,000,000 pounds of meat, Relative production in the first three-quar- ters of 1949 as compared to the estimated production in the first three-quarters of 1950 are given in the next tabulation. Production of meats-—Beef, pork, mutton, and veal {Muhons of pounds} Second | Third Year quarter | quarter | Total 1049... 4, 734 4, 813 15, 334 1960.........- 4, 936 4, 300 15, 666 Increase approximately 2 percent from 1949 to 1050, The record of meat production indicates that our current supplies 1949 and 1950 of about 21,700,000,000 are below the potential demand now existing with current payrolls and national income, This shortage plus the seasonal short supply are primarily re- sponsible for the current outcry aga/nst the high price of meat. In all fairness to the consumer it should be pointed out that cure! rent prices are higher than the prices which prevail for other commodities. It is, how- ever, not as great as the public has been led to believe. The price of all commoditios in August (Bureau of Labor Index 1926-100) was 166.3 as compared to 174.6 for foods. The differential is roughly 5 percent, a very minor differential with the short seasonal supply of meats in July-September, PACKER OR PROCESSOR The packer serves the public as a buyer and processor of Nvestock as it comes to market. Very often the industry gets the blame for a shift in prices for livestock paid to the farmer and, on the other hand, is blamed by the consumer for taking out too great a profit margin. One of the factors which confronta the packer is the dress-out from live weight to the dressed carcass. He has been unable to increasing the dressing percentage or the amount of steak per animal. The average dressing percentage of cattle and hogs for the period 1939-49 illustrates how constant this ratio is, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Cattle drers- | Hog dressing ing percent- | percentage In years of abundant feed the percentage increases slightly and falle off slightly in years when the feed supplies are low com- pared to livestock numbers. The change 1s very minor and as a result the effect of higher costs for livestock means an increase in dressed meat in almost the same ratio. This can be illustrated by a comparison of cattle prices and the price of round steak in 1942 and 1948. Average price Average price for Year cattle at Bhicago round steak 1042.02. eee $13.79 per hundred- | 43.5 cents per woight, pound, 1948. .nnnceennenonnn $30.88 per hundred- | 90.5 cents per weight, pound, Percentage increase.| 124......-....----6- 108, The increase in live weight cost from 1942 to 1948 was 124 percent. On the basis of live we'ght cost with the same relative mar- gin from packer to the retail counter the price of round steak in 1948 should have been 224 percent of 43.5 cents or 97.4 cents per pound. This proves that neither the packer nor the retailer was charging an ex- ceas margin of profit in 1948 as compared to 1842 with the average price at 90.5 cents per pound, UNFAIR CRITICISM In fact the record does not support the theory expressed by many, who have not taken 8 look at the facts, that the packer and the retailer are receiving an unfair mare gin between the farmer and the consumer. The tabulation below gives the percentage of the consumer's dollar received by farmers for all farm products over a period of years and also that of livestock as a special item, Farmers Farmers share of Year consumers comers dollar—all ] Testook products | products Centa Cents 40,8 46.0 40.0 47.0 52.0 66,0 54.0 73,0 63.0 63.0 52.0 64.0 51.0 63.0 With the farmer receiving 68 percent of the consumer's dollar in 1948, as compared to 1985-89 average of 47 percent, the charge that there {s an excessive margin for the packer and retailer is unwarranted. I have pointed out that the packer has not been able to change the dressing weight. Therefore the increased percentage of the consumer's dollar to the farmer 1s due al- most entirely to the increased efficiency in the operation of processing and distribution of meat. Better methods of cooling and storage of rieats have been an important factor in preventing spollage and deterioration in the quality of meat.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ‘The increase m canning of meats and 8 bet~ ter utilisation of meat in sausage and. ham- burger since the cariler period 1921-30 hae also helped to reduce the operating margia between the packer and the consumer. There is no question that the benefit of this ef- has been passed on to both the consumer and the farmer. An important factor that has not been ad- justed is that of capital investment. The increase tn the price level since 1939 has been from 77.1 percent of the 1926 level as 100 to 167.6 percent as of September 1950. This is an increase of 117 percent. This tn turn means that future capital investment in the packing industry and other bustnesses engaged in meat production will be relatively higher. When this adjustment is made the percentage of the consumer’s dollar going to the farmer will decline to that extent. The high percentage of the consumer’s dol- Jar received by the farmer during the war years would indicate that under price ceil- ings the margin between the farmer and the consumer was relatively low. A lower margin would tend to help create black markets in our system of processing and distribution. Individuals in charge of s business foe] that self-protection comes first and if black markets are to be prevented care muat he taken to allow proper margins in any pro- gram of price contro}. The agricultural industry ie carried on by about 10,000,000 workers, including unpaid family help. In the retail and wholesale trade, the 1949 employment waa a little over 11,000,C°0. This illustrates that if these men are to receive a relative wage in our system of distribution, a proper margin must be maintained to provide the income to pay the workers in wholesale and retail trades. BYPRODUCTS In addition to meats, the packing industry has many byproducts such as lard, tallow, hides, etc. The relative prices of these prod- ucts very often influence the price of choicer meats, such as steak, ham, bacon, pork chops, etc. For example, if lard prices are 10 cents per pound below the normal that should prevail in ratio to live costs, this loss must be recovered by increasing the price of other cuts. Py At timea the price of pork chops, for exam- ple, will be 10 cents per pound higher at retail because of a 10-cents-per-pound loss on the lard content in the dressed carcass, The retailer is also forced to make an adjust- mens in the price of salable meat to offset the loss from trimings of fat, bone, eto. The relatively low price of lard and tallow has been ap important factor in the last 18 months. Fats and oils have been selling at about 60 percent of the level for other prod- ucts and the price of pork chops, ham, etc., has been relatively higher than the price which ahould have prevailed on the basis of live costs with fats and oils prices at a parity level. UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION A very t factor which contributes materially to the public outcry against the price of meats the unequal distribution of pork products in the marketing season. Hogs produce roughly one-half of our meat sup- plies, The Corn Belt is the heaviest producer of hogs and because of climatic conditions moat of the pigs are farrowed in the spring thus having the advantage of warm weather and also summer pasturage. There is noth- ing the packer can do about it and he is con- fronted with 65 percent of the hog crop in the 7 months—October—April—and only 85 percent in the 5 monthe—May-Geptember. This percentage ratio is a natural one and has been approximately the same for 50 years, On the basis of 1£0,000,000,000 pounds of pork products this means an average supply of roughly 900,000,000 pounds per month in the period October to April and about 700,- 000,000 pounds per month in the period May— September. This is a natural problem and the only thing that can be done about it is to level off this supply differentia’ with a greater supply of meat going into storage in the seasons of heavy production. An interesting example of this factor oc- curred tn 1049. The swivel-chair producers in Washington told everyone of the tremen- dous increase in pork supplies svaiiable in the fall of 1949 when in reality there was no reason for it. Much of this was put out in regard to the need of a price-sup- ‘am. Even the packing industry was misled and the price of hogs dropped to an average of $15.05 at Chicago in December. In addition, it bronght about early marketings thus kill- ing off the very factories which we needed to produce more pounds of meat. The average weight of hogs in September dropped to 316 pounds, reflecting the scare thrown into the producers by the announcement of a support price a little over $14 per hundredweight in Midwest markets for December. There was no excuse for a 614 support price with the parity price at $19 per hundredweight. These premature marketings and the psy- chological factor of lower prices prevented some needed expansion in the production of hogs. We had the feed supplies to produce more weight on each animal and in turn more pounds of meat. The failed to level off this excess marketing through stor- age and on September 3, 1960, we find hogs selling on the Chicago market with a top af close to @25 per hundredweight or about $10 above last December. There wasn’t any reason for this extreme fiuctuation in prices and it is up to the pack- ing industry to work out ways and means to prevent such an occurrence in the future. The extreme change in prices confuses the farmer and the consumer. The retailer as & rule blames the farmer and the packer for the high cost of meat during the season of short suppites. By the simple process of paying a fair and higher price in the letter part of 1849 and storing some of this meat, everyone would have been more confident of future markets, feeding operations would have been more stable, and the consumer would have been paying relatively Jess for meata in August and September this year. It would have materially reduced the demand for price ceilings and controls. THE CONSUMER The consumer is a reader of the news that goes out and, in turn, is put out over the radio. He has no way of knowing what is a fair price for meat at the retail counter and therefore is subject to propaganda written up by somebody who knows even less. Be- cause of the psychological factor of lower and the rapid reduction in the quality of meat that isn't moved into consumption channels, a short buying strike on the part of the consumer or resistance to prices can be very detrimental to the producer, the packer, the retailer, and finally the consumer. In other words, we sll pay for the mistakes, There ts no reason why the consumer can- not be properly informed. Our Government has the finest record of production of farm products, their processing and transition into consumer goods of any nation tn the world. The records of dressing percentage and retail prices can easily be ascertained at any price level. ‘The consumer must be made to realize that it he wants 45-cent steak instead of 90 cents per pound, he will have to take a out of 80 percent in his current hourly wage. Thir conclusion is the result of the simple fact that about 60 percent of the nattonal Income as an average is the annual payroll in the United States and if current wages are to be paid, then the consumer must be pre- Al% pared to pay for consumer goods which have been with the payment of such ‘wages. For example, 50,000,000 workers With er annual wage of $3,000 means a payroll of $345,000,000,000. This payroll cannot be met unitess the price of creates ap- proximately $240,000,000,000 of national tn- come The consumer must de told that he can« Hot expect the farmer to produce the meat, to have the packer provess ft, and to have the retail trade handie it for bim, except at a price comparable to the wage he demands. The industry should take the lead in publicizing the facta as to the real cost of living, namely, that the consumer today is receiving more foods, per eaptta, than he did prior to World War IT. In 1989 round steak was selling for 8@ cents per pound. The average annual wage ‘was $1,260 and we had 8,000,000 unemployed Because cf too low a price level. Tm 1949 we had an annual wage of $2,860. If the consumer wants 1039 prices to come back then he must expect to take a cor responding cut in his wage or income level. Current price levels and production will gen- erate approximately $235,000,000,000. At 1089 prices levela, current production would generate approximately $108,000,000,000. We can't have high inoome and low prices. OUR NATIONAL POTENTIAL In arriving at any kind of program of sound economics, either in peace or War, we should know first of all what we can do and the resulta which we can expect. I have pointed out that with current livestock numbers and feed supplies that there is no reason why, under the normal operation of our economy, we cannot produce the needed supplies of meat and at a price level compar- ative to consumer income. In fact the next tabulation shows how the natural laws of exchange force a com- perative price as income aud price levels change. Comparative price changes [Index 1926 as 100—-BL8) Meats.2. 2... 2.-2-.-. Livestock and poultry. Meats, poultry, an en een * Note that. the increase in the price of meat frow June 3950 to August 1950 was the same as for all foods and that meat prices advanced less then live coats, A 1960, #0 years of the most “om heat in the Matory of our economy. Both tabulations are based on the . 22 release of the Bureau of Labor's whokeale Commodity Price lodex. Both comparisons prove that there has been no excessive mark-up in wholesale meat prices when compared with the live costs which are determined by competitive bid- ding. I have pointed out that our national-in- come level will run a minimum of €285,000,- 000,000 the last quarter of this year. As an illustration of the tncrease underway, I would like to quote from an item in the Wall Street Journal, page 1, September 20, 1960. “Pay envelopes of production workers in manufacturing industries swelled to a high average of 960.26 weekly during August. The average workweek was 41.2 hours.” . The hourly wage has risen from $1.40 per hour in 1049 to $1.484 in June 1950, Since then there have been some increases, In August 1949 the number of hours worked was 90.1 hours, as compared to the 41.2 hours as given in the item 1 have quoted from the Wall Street Journal.