A82 Reapportionment of Congress EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM T. BYRNE OF MEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. BYRNE of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing report of the Committee on Re- apportionment of Congress of the Amer- ican Political Science Association: The Constitution of the United States re- quires the seats in the House of Representa- tives to be redistributed after each decennial census. The American Political Science As- sociation's Committee on Reapportionment of Congress has been considering what may desirably be done !n consequence of the cen- sus of 1950. The members reached six con- elusions, as follows: First, the size of the House of Representa- tives, which hrs been 435 for 40 years and is fixed at that number by the present law, should not be changed except as the possible admission of Alaska or Hawall as States may require a few more seats for their Repre- sentatives, In order to prevent any States from losing Congressmen under the recent census, 74 new seats would have to be put in the Chamber. A House of 509 seems im- practicable. The personal relationships be- tween a Congressman and his constituents would be much the same, whether an aver- age district is 295,000 (with 509 seats) or 845,000 (with 435 seats). And any slight gain in human contacts would be vastly off- set by losses in effectiveness and Operation which would result from a considerably bigger House. Second, there is no reason for changing at this time from the mathematical formula in the present Apportionment Act of 1941, namely, the method of equal proportions. Mr, Willcox dissents from this conclusion be- cause he believes that the resulta of the method of equal proportions do not meet the requirements of the constitutional pro- vision according to their respective numbers as well as do the results of the method of major fractions. The other Members are satisfied that the present method of equal proportions is the best method of meeting the constitutional provision. Third, all Members of Congress to which any State is entitled should be elected by single-Member districts, rather than at large. At present, if we disregard the four smallest States which have only one Representative, six Congressmen are elected et large. New Mexico and North Dakota choose all their Members in this way (two each). And two States with large populations, Ohio and Con. necticut, have each one Congressman at ge. These are merely examples of a practice which has occurred in other States in the past and may be used more extensively in the redistricting just ahead, unless prohib- ited by Congress. Whatever the motives for it, the device of Congressmen at large is very objectionable. Sometimes it may enable a political party having a slight lead in the State as a whole to get more seats in Con- gress than it could obtain if all the Members were chosen by districts; this deprives the minority party of ite just amount of repre- sentation, In any event, there is the gravest sort of inequality when most Congressmen represent an average district of roughly 360,000, but a Congressman at large from a State like Ohio or Connecticut represents millions of people. In all the apportionment statutes from 1842 to 1911 inclusive, Congress required every State to divide itself into single-Mem- ber districts. This provision was omitted from the act of 1929 and subsequent legisia- tion. The committee recommends that Congress enact new legislation reincorporat- ing this desirable requirement Fourth, the committee is agreed that wide variations in the size of congressional dis- tricts inside any State are objectionable in principle and should be remedied in new legislation, The committee has noted with concern the great disparities in the 1960 pop- ulations of existing congressional districts. Take 350,000 as roughly the average in a dis- trict. In one State, there ts a district under 175,000; 6 others under 250,000; 3 between 500,000 and 700,000; and 1 exceeding 900,000. In many States, the spread between 1950 populations in the smallest and the largest existing district in the State is two or three hundred thousand. Such situations, if con- tinued, will seriously violate a basic prin- ciple of democracy, that every vote should have the same weight, as nearly as possible. Therefore, the committee earnestly sug- gests new legislation containing certain ex- press standards of equality and fairnets, as hereinafter described, which each State is to follow in its redistricting legislation. In many previous apportionments through that of 1911, Congress has imposed such stand- ards on the States by requiring the districts to be composed of compact and contiguous territory and containing as nearly as prac- ticable the same number of individuals. Such provisions about districting are author~ ized by the Constitution (art. I, sec. 4), which gives Congress a comprehensive power to “make or alter * * * regulations” of the “times, places, and manner of hoiding elec- tions for * * * Representatives,” and the Supreme Court has repeatedly dealt with these provisions without expressing the slightest doubt as to their validity. Unfortunately, these standards were omitted from the statutes which governed the apportionments after the censuses of 1930 and 1940. The committee concludes that it wouid be desirable to reinstate them, and to express the standard of approximate equality among the districts with greater definiteness than hitherto. The two concrete suggestions are: 1, That the standard requiring districts to be compact and contiguous, found in the 1911 apportionment statute and omitted in the 1929 statute, should be included in a new law. 2. That the atatute should include a standard limiting to a certain percentage the deviation of any district within the State upward or downwerd from the average of all districts for the State; and that an effort should be made to keep the deviation of any district from the average of all districts for the State within a iimit of 10 percent; but in any event such deviation should not be per- mitted to exceed 15 percent. The practical effect of recommendation 3 would be to allow districts to vary over a range of about 100,000, This seems to make fair allowance for the practical difficulties which State legislators must face. The particular percentages suggested are, of course, not essential, but the committee believes that some such specification of the permissible variations from equality is very desirable. Fifth. The committee believes that the standards of approximate equality should be enforceable through an express sanction ad- ministered by Congress. We feel that the statement of standards in the law will usually cause them to be ob- served, Our confidence in the | and other appropriate authorities in the States leads to the expectation that they will, for the most part, faithfully obey the law of the Jand and establish districts for the next decade as Congress has directed them to do. Yet violations may occur, as APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD has sometimes been the case under previous apportionment statutes containing stand- ards. In these earlier statutes, Congress did not say what would happen to a State which divided itself in plainly unequal districts. Consequently, the unjust districting stood unchanged. Leaving any questions of gerry- mandering to our sixth conclusion, we believe that departures from the percentage tests of approximate equality which we have just stated ought to he corrected and can practicably be corrected. We rejected as undesirable several kinds of sanctions which have been proposed: (#) Any citizen might be given the right to question the districting inside his State, by a sult in a United States court. But the courts have shown great unwillingness to undertake the task of supervising congres- sional districts, and might deny any con- stitutional power to do so. Even if they consented to do the job, we do not think that judges are well suited to weigh the po- litical factors which inevitably affect dis- tricting. Finally, ltigation might ocasily drag out for some years, whereas the new districts ought to be settled before the spring primaries in 1952. (b) A State which vio- lated the standards of approximate equality laid down by Congress might be penalized by a refusal to seat its Representatives un- tll this State made its districting conform to those standards and held new congres- sional elections on that basia. This would probably make that State totally unrepre- sented in the House during one or more sessions of the Eighty-third Congress. Such a drastic punishment might be unconstitu- tional, and it was disapproved by the com- mittee. (c) The State might be required to elect all its Congressmen at Large until it redistricted itself in accordance with the statutory standards. But the very same peo- ple who were responsible for the unequal districting might rejoice in having their Congressmen elected at large, because their party would thus choose the entire repre- sentation from this State in the House. And in any event, the committee considered this sanction to be wholly inconsistent with our condemnation of Congressmen at Large (in the third conclusion). The only proper remedy for bad single- member districts is good single-member dis- tricts. The determination of approximately equal single-member districts 1s a political task, which ought to be performed by a leg- isiative body. If the legislature of the State refuses to do the job, the only suitable alternative is for Congress to do it. There- fore, the committee agreed that the task of supervising and correcting districting inside the State should be in the hands of Congress. This led to the formation of a detailed plan for the imposition of sanctions. Its main features are: First, the States should be required to do their own redistricting soon after Congress passes the Apportion- ment Act; this will glve Congress ample time to consider whether this action by the States complies with the statutory standards of approximate equality. Second, the Prest- dent should transmit the results of State redistricting to Congress and to all the States, with information showing how any particu- lar State has violated the statutory stand- ards of approximate equality. Since the President's statement will appear in the press, unequal districting will be subjected to the powerful sanction of publicity. Third, Congreas may then take such action as it deems proper. Congress may order the State to do the job over again. Or Congress may redistrict the State itself. In order to accomplish this plan, the committee recommends a sohedule of steps to be included in Federal law, as follows: 1, January 3, 1953, to January 10 (1 week): The President reports to Congress factual data furnished by the Bureat of the Census indicating the apportionment of Representa-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tives among the several States under the 1950 census and according to the formula of equal proportions, 2. January 10 to late January (15 calendar days) : Congress considers the President's re« port, and unless tt enacts a different appor- tionment within 15 calendar days, each Btate shall automatically be entitled to the number of Representatives indicated in the Presi- dent's report to Congress. The Clerk of the House shall so apprise the executive of each State; and the President will transmit to the States the data concerning populations sup~ plied by the Bureau of the Census. The members of the committee hope that, during the same period or very soon thereafter, Con~ gress will enact legislation regulating dis- tricting inside the several States, substan- tially in accordance with the recommenda- tions of this report. 3. Late January to late April (90 days): A period of 90 days will then be allowed for the necessary redistricting in State legisla- tures. In most States the legislatures will be regularly in session, and experience indi- cates that 90 days are a sufficient time for the enactment of the necessary redistricting laws. 4. Late April to late May (30 days): The President, on the basis of objective data furnished by the Bureau of the Census about the populations of the congressional districts newly established by the State legislatures, will report to Congress and to the States as to conformity to or violation of the stand- ards regulating the size of a district. 6. After late May: Congress will take such action as it deems proper to correct unequal districting wherever it is shown by the President's report to exist. The committee anticipates that it will seldom be necessary for Congress to redis- trict a State. The possibility of such redis- tricting by Congress and the publicity given to grossly unequal State action will, we hope, be powerful incentives to make the States comply with the statutory standards, Sixth, the committee discussed the prob- lem of gerrymandering. It recognized that some gerrymandering is a serious evil, but decided against the recommendation of fur- ther sanctions at this time. The members of the committee share the hope that the reestablishment of the statu- tory standards of compactness and conti- guity, and the publicity of the report to Congress on the action taken by State legis- Jatures, will restrain those legislatures from seriously abusing the power to redistrict for purely partisan purposes. Zechariah Chafee; Bertram M. Gross; John W. Lederle; Robert 8 Rankin; Laurence F. Schmeckebter; Walter F. Willcox; Arthur N. Holcombe, Chair- man; James K. Pollock, President, Ex officio; Edward H, Litchfield, Executive Director, Ex officio. In addition to President Pollock (chair- man, department of political science, Uni- versity of Michigan, former member Hoover Commission, and tormer adviser to United States military governor and high commis- sioner in Germany) and Chairman Hol- combe (professor of government at Harvard University, former chairman of Appeals Board of the War Production Board, and author of numerous well-known volumes on American political life), the committee con- sisted of: Zechariah Chafee (Langdell pro- fessor of la * at Harvard University, and long-time contributor to reapportionment literature), Bertram M. Gross (executive secretary, President's Council of Economic Advisers), John W. Lederle (director, Insti- tute of Public Administration, University of M.chigan), Edward H. Litchfield (executive director of the American Political Science Association, professor at Cornell University, and former United States director of civil affairs in Germany), Robert 8. Rankin (pro- fessor of political acience, Duke University), Laurence F. Schmeckebier (former chaire man, Institute for Government Research, Brookings Institution, and author of stand- ard reference works on reapportionment questions), Walter F. Willcox (professor emeritus, Cornell University, former presi- dent, American Economic Association and American Statistical Association, and long- ume contributor to reapportionment litera- ure). False Rumors EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLARK W. THOMPSON OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. THOMPSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Christmas Day I was very much impressed with an editorial in the Galveston News. It read as follows: The public man’s most useful possession is a thick skin, which will keep him imper- turbable amid attacks just and unjust. For the private citizen in these days a most val- uable attribute is skepticism about rumors, Plenty of rumors are flying about, and there will be more. Ta:es will be told that the losses in Korea are several times greater than those revealed, or that persons high up in our military organization are Communist tools. These are rumors of the kind which in 1940 helped fill the roads of France and Hol- land with refugees, blocking the armies which would have defended them. Rumors were then the weapons of Hitler, as now they are of Stalin. Rumors and their cousin, slander, baselessly alleging treason in the in- nermost Government circles, have weakened national unity in a time of crisis, have dis- couraged our friends, and encouraged our enemies. If you hear a rumor, pin the speaker down, “Where did you hear that? From whom? It you read it, just where did you read it? Are you sure exactly what the radio man or the magazine writer suid?” If your inform- ant cannot answer these questions posi- tively, assume that the story is not true. Whether {t is a willful He or a mistaken tdea is not the issue. Don’t believe it until it is proved. I used the foregoing in a radio pro- gram of my own and have subsequently mentioned it briefly on another program. How timely the admonition of the editor has proven is demonstrated in the fol- lowing article which appeared in the same paper on January 3: Rumor oF 3cRAP IRON FOR RED CHINA EXCITES IsLAND (By Larry Deister) “There’s a Ohinese Communist vessel in Galveston loading scrap iron for China.” That rumor wae widely circulated here Tues- day. But little of it proved to be true. There was a Chinese ship docked in Gal- veston, but it did not fly the Communist flag. The Haitee was at pler 16-18, displaying the Nationalist Chinese flag. The vessel was loading big white bales of cotton with not a sign of scrap in sight. As for its destination, it is going to the Far East, but its port was Kobe, Japan. Officials on the water front checked the rumor, but found no traces of scrap iron in any of the warehouses or doockaide piers. Not even an expected shipment to Galveston of scrap iron could be located, A83 The last scrap iron shipped out of the Galveston area wae loaded in Texas City, and that mainland city no longer has facilities to handle scrap iron. The local manager of a shipping agency sald that instead of exporting scrap tron, most steel companies and the Government are carrying on @ concentrated program of importation of scrap iron for making steel. Montgomery County, Md. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. GLENN BEALL OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. BEALL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I want to include an editorial published in the Washington (D. C,) Star on Sun- day, December 31, 1950. I also wish to include an editorial in the Washington Post of the same date. Both of these articles are relative to the honor come to Montgomery County which was se- lected as 1 of 11 all-American commu- nities that are well governed. The editorials are as follows: [From the Washington (D. C.) Sunday Star of December 31, 1950] MONTGOMERY EARNED THE HONOR Montgomery County well deserves the honor which has come to it with its selection as 1 of 11 all-American communities that are well governed. There is good reason to include this thriving Maryland neighbor of Washington among outstanding cities com- posing the 1950 good-government team picked by the National Municipal League. (The annual award idea was suggested a year ago by the Minneapolis Tribune.) Mary- land's first and only county to adopt a char- ter form of self-government stands out as an example of what can be accomplished when the aroused citizens of a community decide to throw off outmoded governmental methods and reorganize along modern buasi- ness lnes, Governmental reform is not easy to achieve, and Montgomery County was no ex- ception, Resistance to change is to be ex- pected from an entrenched regime. But the enlightened citizens of Montgomery County persisted in their fight, despite obstacles and disappointments, and victory finally was theirs at the polls, thanks to a fine display of civic consciousness and nonpartisanship. Today the county has an elected council that ts responsive to the people who elected it and that is giving the city-like county a type of efficient government that other com- munities would do well to emulate. The business affairs of the growing county are administered by a county manager whose re- sponsibilities and duties are similar to those of a city manager. The citation accom- panying the award points out that Mont- gomery has readjusted the tax load, estab- shed a 5-year capital improvement program and a $20,000,000 school building program, improved the road system, raised teachers’ pay and established citizens’ advisory com- mittees for various departments. Still fur- ther improvements are planned. The progress already made has made the dire predictions of opponents of the charter movement look exceedingly asllly. Fortu- nately, there is an increasing spirit of unity in the county behind the new government that is an augury of still further progress along the home-rule path. Montgomery's
A84 neighbors share in the pleasure which the award brings to the county's citizens. — [From the Washington (D. C.) Post of December $1, 1950} Mowrcomeny aw Ati-American CouNnTY Montgomery County, Md., and Richmond, Va., today were placed on a team of All- American cities for 1960. The “team” was named by a jury of veteran municipal experts at a national conference on government of the National Municipal League held recently at Buffalo. The selections will be announced in the Minneapolia Tribune today in a copyrighted story by Rolf Felstad. Felstad writes: “The fight for good city government ts like a war. If you quit, the other side wins. “Bleven communities whose citizens re- fused to quit, in some cases after years of failure, have been named to a team of All- American sities for 1950. “The stories of the 11 are stories of rich men, poor men, housew!ves, lawyers, and pick-swingers, who got mad enough to stand up and fight for government by the peo- ple. “All are proof that the American people can have good, honest, efficient government if they're willing to raise their fists instead of sitting on their hands. “Tt's no coincidence, according to such league officials as Charles Edison, president; Alfred Willoughby, executive secretary; and John E. Bebout, assistant secretary, that more than half of the All-American cities have a city council-manager form of gov- ernment. “A particular ‘baby’ of the league, the city manager system now governs more than 1,000 cities, towns and counties. “But even good city fathers can't prevent a city from becoming a political orphan, many experts pointed out. It also takes city uncles and city aunte—businessmen, house- wives, lawyers, doctors, laborere—to keep government and the people heading in the same direction. “Gaid Edison, ‘Honest and patriotic citi- zens must be elccted to minor political of- fices.' Unless these men, who form the back- bone of local political organizations, are tn power, properly qualified statesmen will not be elected to top national government positions. “‘Too many of our leaders,’ he said, ‘are nothing more than third-ward boys blown up to look like statesmen.’ “Edison said he feared that the tradition of public responsibility has become rusty with disuse. “Too many cities, the experts declared, still are paying a heavy toll for inefficiency, or winked-at booty to racketeers. But 11 cities, and many more which deserve honorable mention, are living proof that a citizens’ army can win any war it wants to.” MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD. For the first time, a county makes the all-American team, Montgomery County, Md., in many respects is like no other place in the country. For one thing, the county government rules both urban and rural areas, The two most heavily populated places, Silver Spring and Bethesda-Chevy Chase, are not incorpo- rated and don't want to be. For another thing, Montgomery County ts a dormitory for Washington, D. 0. If you work in Washington, it’s quite possible you sleep in Montgomery County. At one time, many of the residents weren't sleeping well. For many, the partisan ruling machine had failed to pay off its bonds as they came due. meena, it borrowed new money to pay old lebts. In 1938, aroused citizens, led by the League of Women Voters and the Civic Federation, got Brookings Institution to make a study. The institution recommended a home-rule charter, A charter reform board was named in the early 1940's and got a new charter on the ballot in 1944. The voters rejected it. The board tried again in 1048, put the charter over and sent both Republican and Democratic parties into such a state of shock that they didn‘t even put up a slate in the 1949 elections. The charter board’s alate of seven swept into office and became Mont- gomery County’s celebrated Cadillac council. As county manager, the council named Irving G. McNayr, a tall, friendly southern drawler who looks like a former football player, and is. The county's credit, McNayr found, was shot. MeNayr and the council: Raised taxes and balanced the budget; set up 4 5-year building program and a $20,000,000 school-building ; built 26 miles of new roads in 1950 where the top of any previous year was 8 miles; raised teacher pay; established citizens’ advisory commit- tees for various departments; put 6,000 off- street parking spaces in Silver Spring and planned 4,000 for Bethesda-Chevy Chase in 1951. Two years ago, businessmen in Silver Spring started a move to to as & city. The Untversity of Maryland studied the proposal and asked in effect: “Are you crazy?" The voters like their county government. They elected another Cadillac council. Abandon Europe to Conquest Is Taft’s Policy Once More EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL D. PERKINS OF KENTUCKY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. PERXINS. Mr. Speaker, under Jeave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following editorial from the Louisville (Ky.) Courier- Journal of Janurry 7, 1951: Asawpon Evrore To Conqurst Is Tart’s Poxicy Once Mors Senator Tarr has only added more confu- sion to the debate on American foreign pol- icy. He scorns the title of isolationist. He declares that “our battle against communism ig in fact a world-wide battle, and must be fought on the world stage.” Yet in the next breath he refuses to face any situation that might require any extensive use of American land forces. He opposes our butting in by sending any troops to Europe. Recently he asserted that kzeping the peace by holding three and a half million Amertcan men under arms for 10 years would cost as much as a Boviet victory. Tart speaks with an air of calm reason, but through his speech runs a torrent of con- tradictions. He finds no evidence that the Russians plan a military conquest in West- ern Europe, yet he admits the possibility of Communist infiltration or attack by Soviet satellites. His mind epparently makes no connection between this sort of conquest and direct Russian aggression. He proposes an aliiance with Brttain, France, Holland, Australia, and Caneda to Gevelop an all-powerful sea-air weapon. He overlooks the fact that we already have an alliance with those countries, under the North Atlantic Pact, to do whatever is neces- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to prepare against aggression. There are seven other members of that alliance. Tarz would evidently dump them out of the boat, ‘The Ohio Senator insists that we must honor our pledges, including the one to go to war if any Atlantic Pact nation 1s at- tacked. In other words, he fs willing for us to come to the aid of Western Burope after it has been overrun, but not before. That is not good news for our Kuropean allies. It is not good sense. It gives Stalin the oppor- tunity Hitler always sought, to divide and conquer, Tarr expresses doubt that the projected army of a million men in Western Burope could defeat Russia, citing the failure of Napoleon and Hitler to turn the trick with larger forces. This is the same straw man Herbert Hoover set up and demolished in his recent speech. Hitler and Napoleon invaded Russia and tried to capture Moscow with vast land armies. Nobody at any time has auggested that the western allies should in- vade Ruesia with land troops. The army planned for Western Kurope is entirely 4 defense force, as everybody seems to under- stand except Tart, Hoover, and the Kremlin leaders. The main flaw in Tari’s thinking arises from his willful ignorance on the subject of Europe. He has no understanding of the state of mind of the Western Europeans, who need confidence above all else. Noth- ing breeds confidence there like the presence of American troops. The people of Western Europe have no heart for forming great armies to fight off Russia if all America offers is a hail of atom bombs on their cities after they are occupied by the enemy. They want the assurance that American troops will be in there fighting by their sides to prevent a Soviet occupation. Mr. Tarr goes always on the assumption that Europe is something we can take or leave. He “does not see any conclusive evidence that the Soviets expect to start a war with the United States.” He fails to see that Western Europe is the one area of the world we cannot afford to let fall into the hands of the Soviets. With that great arsenal of production and skilled manpower at their disposal, the Soviets would soon be ready to start thelr war against the United States, and ready to win ft. It 1s well to remember what Mr. Tarr said about Europe on July 15, 1041: “I believe in the end that we could have a negotiated peace, but probably with a Hitler dominant on the Continent. Europe must work out its own salvation, and we have no power, even if we have the will, to be its savior.” Today Tarr is ready to deliver the European Continent to Stalin as he was ready to de- liver it to Hitler, with the false hope that we could hold bases in Britain under the fire of Russian guided missiles 20 miles across the English Channel. Senator Martin Seaced Red Peril Early EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD M. SIMPSON OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. SIMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, it is 2 pleasure to include the following editorial which appeared in the Washington Observer, Washington, Pa., entitled “Senator Mar- zm Sensed Red Peri! Early.” The
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD article shows clearly the discerning fore- sight of the Honorable Epwarp Martin, of Pennsylvania, in recognizing and tak- ing action against communistic activi- ties and infiltration in our Government many years ago. SENATOR MARTIN SENSED Rep Pert EARLY United States Senator Epwarp Martin, of Washington, deserves a place on the scroll bearing the names of those Americans who early sensed the peril of communism and entered the lists to fight against its insidi- ous growth in our homeland. Always an ardent ch npion of those prin- ciples and traditions upon which our Na- tion was built, Senator Marri has fought to the utmost against the efforts to weaken the foundation stones of our Government. The Senator has stated that his real awak- ening to the aims of the Reds dates back to the years immediately following the recogni- tion of the Soviet regime in Russia by the United States. He was brought face to face with the stern realities of the scope of the Sovict aims through the discovery that Communists were infiltrating into the armed services of the United States, including the Pennayl- vania National Guard. Then, as now, the advocates of communism in uniform were using peace as the cloak to hide thelr real purpose—destruction of our American form of government. Loyal Americans in the armed services of America tried to their utmost to offset the propaganda of the agents of Moscow but the task was difficult due to the fact commu- nism had just been recognized and its ad- vocates were being popularly received in many circles at Washington. As a result of his support of 100 percent Americanism, Senator MARTIN was among those dubbed by the Reds, pinks, and their friends as reactionaries. In the Aesopian language of t-e Commu. nist cult, a reactionary is one who opposes the ideology of statism. Statism, in final analysis, is a return to Dark Ages, the era in which despotic kings and their followers used peasants to provide them with wealth and power. In that era people were pawns of the rulers as they are today of the ruling clique in Soviet Russia. A descendant of pioneer settlers of Amer!- ca aud a veteran of three wars, Senator Mar- TIN is a real patriot. He has refused to yield on the issue of Americanism to gain popu- lar favor with racical groups. His loyalty and faithful service to his State and Nation has met with the approval of Pennsylvanians. He has received the high- est offices at their disposal, United States Senator and Governor. His record will bear compar’son with that of any other public offictal of his time. Dr. Nutt, Congressman Rich, War Heroes Get Grit Awards EXTENSION OF REMARKs HON. ALVIN R. BUSH OF FENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, I cannot re- frain from sharing with others the won- derful tribute that was paid to my friend and predecessor, Bob Rich, who recently received the Grit Publishing Co. award for meritorious community service, along with Dr. John B. Nutt, of Willlams- port, Pa., and 12 Lycoming County, Pa., young men who have given their lives for their country during the period of hostilities in Korea. Mr. Rich is the first person outside of Williamsport to receive one of the individual awards, Under leave to extend my remarks, I in- clude the following from Grit, one of America’s greatest family newspapers: Dr. Nutr, ConcressMAN Ricw, War HEROES Get Grit AWARDS Awards for meritorious community service which Grit Publishing Co. has presented annually since 1933 go this year to Dr. John B. Nutt, of 1102 Woodmont Avenue, Repre- sentative Robert F. Rich, of Woolrich, and 12 Lycoming County young men who have given their lives for their country during the period of hostilities in Korea. The certificate presented Dr. Nutt pays him thls tribute: “For your selfess concern for your fellow- men, inspiration to co-workers, unheralded deeds in your profession, and solicitude for draftees.” Representative Rich is the first person out- side of Williamsport to receive one of the individual awards. He is being honored be- cause of his untiring work in behalf of this community and county, as well as his district and the Nation generally, during his long and faithful service in Congress. The cita- tion on Mr. Rich’s award reads: “For 18 years of service to your fellow citi zens as a conscientious and courageous Member of the Congress of the United States.” Presentation of certificates to Lycoming County youths who made the supreme sacri- fice continues a policy which Grit adopted in the Second World War. Citations on the awards given to the nearest of kin read: “In recognition of your patriotism, valor, and supreme sacrifice in the war against the forces of evil and aggression.” Resolution of Mayor and Council of Hagerstown, Md. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. GLENN BEALL OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. BEALL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include the following telegram I received from the mayor and council of Hagerstown, Md.: HAGERSTOWN, Mb., January 4, 1951. Hon. J. GLEnn BEALL, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: ‘Whereas we are appalled and distressed at the conditions existing in Korea, and the maiming and killing of the members of the Armed Forces defending democracy against impossible odds; and Whereas we hold Dean Acheson responsible for the disastrous circumstances in which our Armed Forces and our Nation find them- selves; and Whereas it is our opinion that conditions will become progressively alarming and dis- astrous unless the said Dean Acheson be ree moved as Secretary of State: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the mayor and council of Hagerstown, Md., That it is vital for the pres- ervation of our democracy that the satd Dean Acheson be impeached as Secretary of State, and that Herman L. Mills, of Hagerstown, A85 Md., be, and he is hereby, authorized to con- vey the sentiments of the said mayor and counch to United States Senators O’Conor and BuTLer and Congressman BEaxy for im~ mediate action. HERMAN L, MILL, Mayor. Texas and the United States Foreign Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. 0. C. FISHER OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 9, 1951 Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, one or- ganization I came into frequent contact with on my trip abroad was the Foreign Service of the United States. In these days of international complications and foreign policy problems, it is a good or- ganization to know something about. The Foreign Service, of course, is the organization that staffs and runs our American embassies, legations, and con- sulates abroad. Whether you are in Tehran or Paris, in Belgrade or Stock- holm, in fact, almost any place in the world, and you see a building with an American flag sticking up over it, you can be pretty sure you are looking at a Foreign Service post. It is the State Department's overseas arm, and has rightly been called the eyes and ears abroad of the American people. One thing that surprised me about the Foreign Service was how many Texans there seemed to be in it, I have long known, of course, how Texans get around—though many of them give the impression that they would not live any- where but in Texas. As I made the rounds of the capitals in Europe and western Asia, and touched base at the local American Embassy or Legation, I kept running into Texans. Charlie Gid- ney, second secretary and consul in Tehran, introduced himself to me and said he came from Granger. Well, Granger is up near Wichita Falls, so I said he was practically an Oklahoman, but he said an inch was as good as a mile if it was in Texas, so we shook on it. When I got up to Copenhagen, there was a Third Secretary and Vice Consul who said he came from Brownwood. Ted Adams was his name. Said he gradu- ated from Howard Payne. In London is one of the few career Foreign Service Officers who are women. Miss Kathleen Molesworth from Montell. I am told there are only 24 women career officers in the Foreign Service out of more than a thousand. The number of unhealthy posts, the marriage risks, the fact that if a Foreign Service officer marries an alien, he or she has to hand in his or her resig- nation; these factors have contributed to making it difficult for women to pass the strict entrance requirements, Miss Molesworth is one of the few. I checked when I got back to Wash- ington and found that there are 214 Texans in the Foreign Service. Some of