A306 that to be true nor can anyone else. Would not anyone have said, at any time before all the fuss was made, that there were no dis- loyal persons in our Government? ‘And how do we define loyalty? Let us try a simple definition: Any American whose relations, connec- tions, partisanships, or associations impels him, whether out of conviction or for base reasons, to serve the interests of another country, cught not to be regarded as loyal to the United States for purposes of holding public office. That yardstick could, with safety, be uni- versally applied. Repert on Program for Flocd Control and Related Work EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KENNETH S. WHERRY OF NEBRASKA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 28 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, re- cently our distinguished Chief of the Corps of Army Engineers, Maj. Gen, Lewis A. Pick, delivered an able report cn the program for flood control and related work of the Federal Government at the annual meeting of the National Rivers and Harbors Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Appendix of the ConcrEs- SIONAL RECORD. There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: RemMarRxS BY Mas. GEN Lewis A. Pick, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, BEForE THE NATIONAL RIVERS AND HARBORS CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, D. C., Marcr 24, 1950 One year ago I had the privilege of ad-~ dressing you. The occasion was one of my first public appearances after becoming Chief of Engineers. In the 12 months that have elapsed since that date, my duties have called for appearances and addresses before many groups in many different cities. On all these occasions, I have stressed the same basic theme: land and wairr. Where properly developed, conserved, and used, these essential resources form the basis for continuing and prosperous Civilizations, Where neglected, they lead inevitably to dis- aster, And if the neglect is persisted in, to inevitable extinction. Such has been the history of past civilizations. Today, my theme is the same; for the state of our national development and the times in which we live, make our land and water and their conservation and maximum utilization of far-reaching importance. They are important in the maintenance and progressive development of our economy, And they are important in assuring that our economy will be able to perform its vital share in the carrying out of America’s policy of seeking a lasting and untroubled world peace. This is a goal which the National Rivers and Harbors Congress has long advocated. It is a goal which I am pleased to know you are continuing to foster with undiminished vigor. It is a goal worthy of the best efforts of all of us. Before amplifying further on this favorite theme of mine—and yours—I should like to make just a few brief observations on the current operations of the Corps of Engi- neers. They are, of course, an integral part . project, on the Texas-Oklahoma line. of the over-all land and water program of the Nation. It is gratifying that the postwar resump- tion of Federal river and harbor improve- ments and flood-control work has been ex- panded year by year. The program is now the largest single Federal public works ac- tivity. Current appropriations for this program are the highest in our history. Congress voted $635,500,000 for civil works of the Corps of Engineers in fiscal year 1950. The larger share 1s for flood control. River and harbor improvements receive $198,000,000. As you will recall, there was considerable discussion in Congress last year concerning unobligated balances. I should like to report that we now have worked out a realistic program for fiscal year 1950—-a program that will require the obligation of all available funds by the end of this fiscal year. Eighty-one percent of the total 1950 ap- propriation is being devoted to construction work. These construction funds are for 258 projects, located in a majority of the States, the District of Columbia, and Alaska. The objectives we seek require investment of sizable public funds. Consequently a considerable part of our work is devoted to the preparation and furnishing of studies necessary under the procedure which leads to the appropriation of public funds. The appropriations are not regarded as ends within themselves, however, but as necessary means to achieve the desired end results. Our function is to translate these annual appropriations into completed, functioning projects, providing their benefits for the Nation. In this effort we are making progress. The river and harbor program—which was begun by Congress under the Corps of Engineers in 1824—has gradually expanded, until today there are more than 27,000 miles of im- proved channels, 400 locks and dams, and more than 200 harbors completed and ac~ tively maintained. ‘These completed proj- ects exceed similar improvements anywhere else in the world.. They are an important segment of the national transportation sys- tem. They have helped to make possible the current all-time high marks being re- corded in the Nation’s water-borne com- merce. They are an essential element in American security. Flood control is a more recent activity of the Federal Government. But here also we are making great progress. No major flood has blighted the lower Mississippi River Val- ley since the initiation in 1928 of the Federal project there. This project, now about 60 percent complete, has already yielded benefits aggregating nearly $5,000,000,000—or about eight times the project’s cost to date. In the general flood-control program, in- itiated in 1936, the Corps of Engineers has placed in operation approximrately 200 local protection projects and more than 60 reser- voir projects. In the short time these proj- ects have been completed, they have pre- vented flood damages far exceeding their total cost. And they will continue for many years to provide protection to property and prevent loss of human life. In accordance with national policy, Corps of Engineer dams and reservoirs are, wher-~ ever feasible, designed and constructed as multiple-purpose projects. At many of them hydroelectric power is being developed. In the current fiscal year power production has been initiated at the Allatoona project, Georgia, and existing facilities have been ex- panded at the Norfork project, on the Ar- kansas-Missourl line, and at the Denison Power production will be initiated shortly at the Narrows project, in Arkansas. These facili- ties, together with others scheduled to come into production, will help in meeting the Nation's pressing need of more electric power. Our reservoirs also provide other benefits which, although incicental, are none the ltcs . APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD real, The American people are making in- creasing use of our completed reservoirs for recreational purposes. Water also is being stored at many of them: for municipal and industrial purposes, to supplement existing inadequate normal supplies. Where feasible our reservoirs are storing water for use in irrigation projects. Fish and wildlife facih- ties are being promoted. Pollution abate- ment is being helped. Yes, these projects serve a wide range of beneficial purposes. They are steadily being supplemented by other projects, and there will be a much greater contribution to the national welfare when the presently author. ized program is completed. Of course, work of this type can never be completed fully, as long as America con- tinues to grow. To meet the continuing needs, we are constantly conducting investi-« gations of proposed hew improvements, and sending our recommendation to Congress, At the present time, the House has passed, and the Senate has before it, a new omnibus bill. This bill—in its present form—author- izes new flood-control and river and harbor projects which, in our studied opinion, are needed under any comprehensive program. Other Federal agencies have extensive studies and plans that are a part of the over-all Federal program to develop, con- serve and effectively use the Nation’s land and water resources. Together with the program of the Corps of Engineers, they represent a splendid start in our efforts to use America’s land and water resources to the very best advantage. But it is only a start. For this is an industrial Nation. It is a Nation in which we deal in big things. We haul increasingly large cargoes, and to meet the demand for increased transportation facilities, we have had to go back to the rivers. We have gone back to the water- ways, and their development to permit use of larger and larger tows which, under mod- ern engineering methods, have made signifi- cant changes in the whole economic struc- ture of the country. There are many chan- nels today reaching far into the country upon which deep-draft carriers move to ports where industrial processing of the cargocs takes place. In fact, with more and more development of our navigational struc- ture we will approach the most economical balance between all forms of transportation, and hence the most economical business structure possible. In the early history of our country the har- bors along our coast were adequate to meet the needs of the day. But our Nation progressed; and we progressed as a people, our demands and needs for improved equip- ment increased. Fortunately, the American people had vision. Fortunately, there were people who—as have you—had the vision to see a future that was possible through basic improvements of the country’s natural re- sources. They had the vision to appreciate the importance of a sound plan of major harbor improvements, and they had the sound business sense to know that the de- velopment of these harbors was a national responsibility. Consequently, for a century and a quarter the Corps of Engineers has been charged with the responsibility of pro- viding this country with a system of harbors adequate to the needs which spring from the progress of a growing nation. Today, the United States—and civic-mind- ed leaders such as your active group—can take justified pride in our harbors—more than 200 of the finest harbors in the world. Our system of harbors is, in my opinion, among the greatest assets that the people of the United States possess. And these harbors are here to stay. Yet, they are nec- essarily going through a continuous change. For example, when I was assigned to the New Orleans district in 1925, the average draft of the oceangoing vessels at that time was 25 feet. Yet, in the relatively short period
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of time since then, the average draft of ships that come into our harbors has increased to 28 feet. Think of the enormous amount of tonnage added to our shipping by the deeper draft. Today, we are improving channels at stra- tegic points throughout our coastline. To- day, we are talking in terms of 386, or 40, or 45 feet as required by traffic demands. In the future, I might predict, we will be re- quired to provide up to 50 feet. The thing to do—and the thing we are doing—is to make our navigation channels deep enough and wide enough, and to have them ready when we need them most. The United States has become known the world over as a great building nation. Yet we know that only the framework has been laid to date for the real building of Amer- ica. This great country of ours, the greatest agricultural and industrial country in the world, is only on the verge of the greatest building era ever known. But we must build solidly. We must build on two basic poten- tials—water and soil. With these two po- tentials protected, controlled, developed, and put to work for the benefit of all the peo- ple—and for the benefit of making—-we have a solid foundation for uninterrupted na- tional growth. If properly taken eare of, our soil and water will never be used up. There are areas in the world today where people have been farming land for more than a thousand years, and that land is still good because they have taken proper care of it. Yet there are other areas in this world—vast areas—-where the people once developed great nations and a great culture. But they forgot the soil and the water. And in these areas today there is nothing but sand and waste. Unfortunately, all of these areas are not in distant lands. For there are today areas “in the United States that have already been changed from agricultural areas into waste lands. Areas where she Innd once was fer- tile and good, but was badly treated. It gullied; it washed away; and once land washes away it is a difficult and costly joh— and sometimes an impossible one—to restore it. We must stop this needless, heedless waste. The other great natural resource on which we must build is water. Our water in the United States is limited. It is becoming daily more evident that in some areas there is too little. In other sec- tions, water has become a great destructive force because we have built our cities on the rivers, and our great farming industry is in the fertile valleys of our streams. An example in the great Missouri River basin which Thomas Jefferson, as President of the United States, had purchased for $15,000,000. Today along the Missouri River there is more than a billion dollars’ worth of industrial development scattered from St. Charles in Missouri through Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, the Dakotas, and on into Montana. And this billion-dollar develop- ment is right on the banks of the river be- cause the river afforded the early settlers and the later industrialists essential trans- portation and water power. To conserve our water resources and to safeguard great industrial developments, the . Congress of the United States in 1936 passed the first National Flood Control Act. This legislation can, in my opinion, go down in history as one of the most progressive steps in the building of this country. This act, together with subsequent legislation, pro- vided sufficient authority for us to do every- . thing necessary to control, to conserve, and to put our water resources to work for the American people. Today, as I have said, flood hazards are being eliminated and water is being put to its multiple uses in almost every river basin in the United States. Simultaneous with controlling floods, we are today increasing and making more effi- cient the American network of inland water- ways. No group knows better than do you that these waterways are essential to our transportation system and to our industrial and agricultural way of life. We must transport raw products, minerals, and other materials to the great processing centers which lie inland from the coast. And we must transport the finished products of these great industrial centers to our own markets and to the seacoast for transporta- tion to markets of the world. We urgently need all the transportation facilities possible to obtain. We need the railroads, the high-~ ways, the air lanes. And we urgently need, too, the slower-moving water-transportation routes which carry great bulk shipments at low cost. We also must have the proper facilities in this country to distribute our agricultural produce—as well as our industrial products— so that the people can maintain the highest possible standard of living. I have seen famine in India because there was no Means of distributing food. I have seen people die in India by the thousands from starvation, while in the adjoining provinces there was plenty of food. But it couldn’t be trans- ported. But here I should like to remind you of the additional benefits which can be—and are being—achieved through well-planned navigation and flo control work. In con- trolling water, we pound it in the areas where it can be economically captured and stored in great reservoirs—and put it to work. Our modern society requires a tremendous amount of water. There has been an amaz- ing increase in our per capita consumption. The new uses required by new industries take enormous amounts of water. Personally, I was amazed at how much water it takes to run an air-conditioning machine—and we have just begun to develop and use air-cool- ing devices. I am often asked, “What is the outlook for this country?”, and I always reply that the outlook for this country is just what we make it. If we have foresight; if we conserve and protect the land; if we develop and utilize our water resources, this Nation can go for- ward to a high destiny that I doubt any of us here today can envision. However, there will come a time when cer- tain minerals necessary to our industrial progress will be depleted and we will be forced to bring them in from other sources in the world. So long as we have our harbors; so long as we have our inland waterways for low-cost bulk transportation we can do this without detriment. But if the time ever comes when this Nation is called upon to import not only the raw materials for manu- facture, but also the food to supply our expanding population, then we will have become a decadent nation. Let us continue to build for the future— let us continue to build solidly and soundly by conserving and developing, and by the proper and wise utilization of our two great- est potentials—soil and water. Whitewash Incorporated? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA - IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 28 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recory an edi- ’ torial appearing in the Indianapolis Star A3097 on Thursday, April 27, 1950. It is en- titled “Whitewash Incorporated?” There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: WHITEWASH INCORPORATED? [From the Indianapolis Star of April 27, 1950] Two reporters who covered the Alger Hiss case have written a factual history of the affair entitled ‘Seeds of Treason.” It gives a graphic account of the tribulations of Whittaker Chambers, the accuser. Cham- bers first was ignored, then reviled and vir- tually subjected to trial himself before truth was established. The same sort of thing is going on now as Senator JoserH McCartiy seeks to prove his charges of Communist influences in the State Department. He has been refused any sort of cooperation from the administration. He has been personally abused by the Presi- dent in terms rarely used by Presidents. He has become the target of every Communist, pro-Communist, and parlor pink in America. He has been hamstrung at every turn by the very committee which is supposed to be investigating his charges. A new low was reached Tuesday when the Senate committee barred Mr. McCartry from hearing his own witness, Louis F. Budenz, testify in secret. What’s going on here any- hhow? Jozk McCartHy is 2a United States Senator, isn’t he? His charges are supposedly being checked by fellow United States Sen- ators, aren’t they? Why then should he he subjected to such high-handed treatment as this? Such tactics lend support to the fiery charges of Senator WiLtram E. JENNER, of In- diana, that the Red probe is being directed by “Whitewash Incorporated” and that Mr. McCartnry is being forced to do the job the committee should be doing. Jo— McCarTHy has made some seemingly wild-swinging charges. They should be easy to disprove—if they are untrue. But the Truman administration is not going to prove anything by pulling every dirty trick in the book to prevent the truth from emerging. That's the way they tried to shut up Whit- taker Chambers. Spiritual Aspects of Our Democratic Faith—Easter Message EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 28 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues the commentary of an illus- -trious radio commentator, Mr. Charles Collingwood of Columbia Broadcasting System. His Easter message served to inspire and challenge me. It set forth in clear and unequivocal terms the pzob- lem that faces cur Nation. The empha- sis upon the spiritual aspects of our democratic faith should evoke a re- newed declaration of our firm determi- nation to maintain at all costs the prin- ciples of liberty and the dignity of ma... E ask unanimous consent to have my renarks and the commentary of Mr. Collingwood printed in the Appendix of the ReEcorp.
A3098 There being no objection, the message was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: (By Charles Collingwood, Columbia Broad- cating System commentator, April 9, 1950) Today is Haster, a day held by learned theologians to be the principal festival of the Christian year. The holiday of Easter goes back a long way. Its English name is a survival from dim Teutonic mythology. Its French name, Paques, comes from the He- brew word for Passover, and, indeed, the Christian festival is a continuation of the more ancient Jewish Passover, the celebra~ tion of the liberation of the Jews from the Egyptians; and that, if one cared to, could be traced still further back, for, as long as man has been able to distinguish the sea- scns, he has devoted special attention to the coming of spring and he has clothed that event with happy symbolism. When the winter has gone and the time of the singing of birds is come and the voice of the turtle is abroad in our land, men have always looked at the world with new eyes. Easter is a time when things are getting better. The earth gives visible evidence of that. It’s a time of hope. It’s a perpetually re- newed assurance that things will get better. The world has never stood more in need of that assurance than it does this Easter, or so it seems to us. The world is old, and there must have been many other Easters when it seemed that man was sore beset, and the wisest could not be sure how it would all end. But to any generation it usually appears that its own time is the climatic one, where all the forces of history have edénverged to enforce a special peril. Still, we who are living through this present pe- riod have unprecedented reasons for the con- viction that we face a more deadly challenge than those who came before us. We have perfected what the scientists tell us is an instrumentality quite capable of destroying humanity. Man, as a form of life, possesses the means of his own suicide. This has never been true before. It would have been a long, messy business to kill ourselves, all of us, by the means we used to command and men would soon have sickened of the attempt. But the thing about the atom bomb is its neatness and dispatch, with no particular trouble we could apparently turn the whole world into one great, relatively efficient gas chamber. And the frightening thing is that now we have this instrument of suicide, we are not at all sure that we are fit to be trusted with it. There is just a chance that we may be foolish enough or ignorant enough or rash enough to use it. That is the measure of the danger that faces us this Easter, and why we may be pardoned for thinking that our contemporary predica~ ment is more fearsome than any the world has ever faced. And so the old, old Easter message of hope, the promise that things will get better, has a@ special poignancy for us this year. But where is the hope, and how are things to get better. This Easter season I have been hear- ing and reading what the men of God have to say on this, for Easter is important to them, and they have meditated much on its meaning. They have said much, and much is well said. Cardinal Spellman broadcast a message to the people who live behind the iron curtain. He told them that the message of America is the same as the message of Easter: “With its triumph of life over death, equity over injustice, glory over shame— the spirit of Easter, with its promise of re-~ newed hope, renewed faith, and renewed life.’ The presiding bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Bishop Sherrill, said “re- membering the heroism and self-sacrifice of Calvary, Christians will view our distraught and fearful world with open eyes, and then strive to do something about it.” The columnist, Marquis Childs, has quoted a sermon by Bishop Angus Dun in Washington Cathedral. Bishop Dun said, ‘“‘We shall pray that America may be strong, strong in arm and strong in courage. Let us still more pray that America may enter into the blessedness of the peacemakers. That,” said Bishop Dun, “can only be if we are delivered from our infantile egotisms, our delusions of superiority, from the love of ease and soft- ness. We live in a dark time,’ he said, “but not as men without hope. ‘Earth might be fair,’ yes, even now, it might be fair.” I have quoted at such length from these three churchmen, because it seemed to me that they were all saying much the same thing, making a point that may well bear repeating this Easter day. And that is this: that dark as are these times, the message of Easter is still valid. There is hope. Things can get better, but not through an easy miracle. The hope of better things, say the churchmen, depends on us. We must view our distraught and fearful world with open eyes, says Bishop Sherrill, and then strive to do something about it. It is not going to be easy, says Bishop Dun, we must be de- livered from our infantile egotisms, from the love of ease and softness. It is up to us, it seems to me, these men of God are saying. There is hope today, as there has always been, but it depends on us whether that hope ~s to be realized, and it will take work and sacrifice and patience and understanding to realize it, It would Lave been easy for these religious leaders to have taken a different line and to have said: “Don’t worry, it’s all going to come oui all right; the hope of peace that is so much a part of Easter will be realized. All will be well.” But they didn’t. What they said, in effect, is that there will only be peace if we deserve it, and the peace we get is the peace we deserve. This, in a way, is the same message our secular leaders have been hammering home of late. Secretary of State Acheson has been trying to get his voice heard above the clamor of advice and denunciation to say that the end of the cold war isn’t just going to happen—it will have to be worked for, and it won’t be easy. That’s never a popu- jar thing to say, and maybe the churchmen have a better chance of getting heard than the politicians. People would always rather hear that there is some simple, cheap, and immediate solution to our problems. They would like to hear that we have nothing to worry about because we have the biggest and best atomic bombs to protect us, or that we'll always come out on top because we are so much more inventive, ingenious, and industrious than other people, or that everything will be solved if we get the Com- munists and fellow travelers out of the Government, or it would all fixed up if Harry Truman and Joe Stalin would only sit down together, or that Joe Stalin is get- ting old, and if we can get by until he dies then Russia will be so absorbed in the re- sultant struggle for power she won’t bother us any more, or any number of other com- forting propositions, people would rather hear, would rather hear than the grim and challenging doctrine that there aren’t going to be any miracles, or any simple solutions, and that if we get ourselves out of this mess it will only be by stripping away our delu- sions and working as hard as we can to bring about the kind of world that’s safe to live in. But there are voices raised this Easter for a return to that toughness of spirit and that militant and positive affirmation of our spir- itual beliefs that have always been a part of the Easter message. I say spiritual be- liefs, I don’t mean religious doctrine. I mean the belief in the triumph of life over death, equity over injustice, glory over shame, of which Cardinal Spellman spoke. Those are spiritual beliefs, They are the spiritual con- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tent of the way of life we are seeking to de- fend. They are the reason we want to win the cold war. Ultimately they are the reason we don’t think we could possibly live under the system we are fighting. Now we live in a time when the old values seem less certain than they did. We live in a time in which the dominant note is anx~ iety. The stakes are so much higher than they have ever been, the dangers so much greater, and we ourselves are so much less sure of ourselves and of the things we live by. Out of our uncertainty and fear has come dis- trust of each other. This McCarthy business, which I wasn’t going to talk about, is not an isolated nor an accidental phenomenon. It is a symptom of our distrust of each other. It is something else, too. It is a symptom of our instinctive desire to find an easy way. If we could only blame all our troubles on the Communists, then how simple the solu- tion—just get rid of the Communists. But, as Easter comes again, and the earth gets green with the promise that things will get better, and the birds sing and the churches fill, and the Federal Reserve Board statistics show that people bought as many new clothes as they did last Easter (which may also be taken as a sign of faith). There are voices raised in the churches as they have been raised outside to say that it still de- pends on us, as it always has. That we will not be delivered from our troubles by mir- acles, but by our own efforts. That there isn’t any easy way, and no point in kidding ourselves that there is. As Bishop Sherrill said, we must view our distraught and fear- ful world with open eyes, and strive to do something about it. And we must renew our belief—not in any particular religion—. put in the broad, underlying principles which sustain our way of life. As John Stuart Mill once said: “One person with a belief is a power equal to 99 others who have only in- terests.”” Easter, with all the layers of mean- ing with which we have invested it, 1s as good a time as any to take a look and see whether we are really approaching our problems in this spirit. France—A Case Study in Marshall-Plap Recovery EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BROOKS HAYS OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 28, 1950 Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to extend my remarks in the Recorpv, I include the following splendid address of Barry Bingham at the recent meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors: France—A Cass Srupy in MaArsHALL-PLAN RECOVERY (Address of Barry Bingham, Chief ECA Special Mission to France, before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D. C., April 22, 1950) The Marshall plan has been operating in Europe for 2 years. I want to give you some indication of the progress made in that period and the problems we now face. I am going to talk mostly about France for two reasons: it is the country whose record I know best after nearly a year as head of the ECA mission there; and it is easier, I believe, to report this tremendous story in terms of one nation. Practically everything I say about France can be ap- plied in a general sense to the 16 other Mar- shall-plan countries. They vary tremen~
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD dously, but they suffered from a common illness after the war’s end and they haye responded heartingly to one major form of treatment. To measure success, it is necessary to identify the exact purpose of our effort. Just what are we trying to accomplish in France? Many people give a simple answer: We are trying to stop communism. That answer to me is much too limited and much too negative. General Marshall, in his cel- ebrated Harvard address in 1947, did not call for a crusade against communism. What he proposed was this, in his own words: “It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.” This is the way I see our goal: to help make France once more a stable, prosper- ous, independent nation. This is no nega~ tive or limited objective. We are not aiding France’s recovery simply because we Ameri- cans want to limit the power of communism. We are helping French people to make their own country strong again, a campaign in which every loyal Frenchman can share. Of course, as everybody knows, a country where people have food and work and hope for the future is a country where communism loses its power. That is the inevitable result of French recovery. But the primary pur- pose is to make France strong. If we suc~ ceed, we will thereby make communism weaker, but the job of helping France get back on her feet would be well worth doing if communism did not exist or if Soviet Russia were a friendly state. After World War I, America willingly spent money to feed Belgian children, as an act of simple charity. The job we have tackled after World War IT starts from that point and spreads out to far wider horizons. We fed people in western Europe in the first year of the Marshall plan, because they had to eat and gain strength for their giant effort of recovery. But that stage is long past in the rapid drive in France. Now the ECA dollars are used to revive the agriculture and industry of the nation, so that Frenchmen can earn their own way once more in the world. Here is what we have spent in France: Nearly a billion dollars the first year of ECA; nearly seven hundred million the sec- ond year; for the third year we have asked Congress to appropriate five hundred mil- lions for France. Look at the downward rate of those figures: a billion, seven hun- dred million, five hundred million. . That tells the story of progress under the pro- gram in France. Each year the nation gains more strength and more ability to cover its own dollar needs. For the last Marshall- plan year we will probably ask about three hundred and fifty millions for France. Every dollar that America has given to France has been matched by the French people with an equivalent sum in francs. All these francs have been placed in the bank in a separate fund called the counter- part fund. That money can only be spent by the joint agreement of ECA and the French Government. Here we have two big piles of money, then, to expend for French recovery, a dollar pile and a franc pile. How have we spent them? Well, we did not go into France with a plan designed in America which might not have applied at all to French conditions. The French had @ basic program for reconstruc- tion and investment, designed by Frenchmen for the needs of their own country. The Monnet plan was devised back in 1946 by some of France’s ablest financial brains, as the most effective and economical way to buy recovery. It is the plan the French adopted and started to carry out after the war. They strained their resources to the utmost. They liquidated some $2,000,000,000 in foreign assets. The plan looked good, but the money began to run out. By the winter of 1947 French industry was gasp- ing for raw materials, unemployment was Spreading, misery and hopelessness gripped the nation. In such a situation liberty and free institutions are always marked for the first victims. Then the Marshall plan started in April 1948. American technicians began a search- ing study of France’s economy in all its as- pects, und that study continues every day as the program develops. Money was pumped into the economic bloodstream of France, just as plasma is pumped into the veins of a desperately ill patient. Pretty soon health and vigor began to return. The patient is now on his feet and working hard for his own recovery. We are not going to send France a bill for the cure. We are donat- ing our services, which no other nation in the world could have given. Our reward will be a strong and stable ally on the democratic side of the world. The dollar cure has been administered in this way: At first, large sums were spent for wheat, fats, and other food products, to re- store the energies of the French people. Dur- ing the past year, however, almost all the dollar funds have gone for these purchases: Machinery for French industry, to modernize production and lower costs; equipment for French agriculture, to mechanize the farms, to increase the crop yields and enable the nation to feed itself; raw materials, notably cotton, petroleum, and nonferrous metals, along with hundreds of other needed items. It is interesting to note that of all these Marshall-plan dollars spent, 75 percent have been spent directly in the United States and another 12 percent in Canada and other countries of North and South America. All the dollars spent under the Marshall plan flow back eventually to the United States. Any country which receives payment for its products in dollars turns around and spends those dollars here in the United States, for every nation in the world has dollar needs beyond its dollar resources. Along with the dollar cure has gone the franc cure, the careful use of the counterpart fund to buy a permanent recovery. The largest share of counterpart has gone to the production of electrical energy. Shortage of electric power had long been a serious bot- tleneck in French industry. Many plants closed down for portions of each year when power was short, throwing thousands of peo- ple out of work. The use of counterpart funds under the Marshall plan gave France an opportunity to tackle this problem on a really big scale. Giant dams on France’s waterways and thermal plants at the mouths of coal mines have already increased the nation’s supply of electrical energy by 50 percent. By 1952 it will show an increase of moore than 100 percent over the prewar level. Think what that means. When you more than double the electric power a nation has at its disposal, you add great new wealth for the whole future. A lot of counterpart has been used to restore the railroad system of France. Some very skillful pilots of our Eighth and Ninth Air Forces had made that system a primary target in the last year of the war. They did a thorough job. Practically every im- portant station, marshalling yard, Junction point, and railway trestle in France was knocked down by either the Germans in 1940 or by ourselves and the British in 1943 and 1944. A modern'country without a working system of communications cannot survive. The French have built nearly all of theirs back. In the process of bombing which France took in turn from both sides in the war, 1 building in every 22 was totally de- molished. That job of restoration is slower, A3999 but the French are spending the franc equivalent of $350,000,000 on housing this year, 22 percent of their investment budget. The coal mines have been restored and modernized by counterpart. This year French coal production beat every previous year except 1929. A nation’s financial affairs are not usually dramatic, There is real drama, however, in what has happened to the French franc in the last 2 years. The franc was desperately weak at the begining of the Maz:sh:l-plan period, and it continued to sink through the time of the Communist-dictated coal strikes in the fall of 1948. There was a time when the black-market rate on dollars in Paris was 70 percent above the legal rate. Then the franc began to strengthen. Today the currency black marketeers are out of a job, for they cannot offer a rate that beats the Official exchange. Only people who have lived in Europe can know the danger of a runaway inflation, They have seen currencies debased to the point where it takes a wheelbarrowload of money to buy a loaf of bread. Such a ruinous inflation threatened France at the start of ECA. Each year since the end of the war, wholesale prices have jumped 50 percent or more over the preceding year. Then the Marshall plan took hold. In 1949, wholesale prices in France rose only 1 percent over 1948, You should see that one on a graph. The line shoots upward as though it-were going through the roof. Then suddenly, about De- cember 1948, it levels off and does no more climbing. As conditions grew stable again in France, it was possible to end all rationing. The last ration tickets were torn up at the end of 1949. I was interested to note that the 2,000 people who were dismissed from the ration board offices as they closed their doors were transferred to the tax-collection system, to improve the collection record. I hate to use a lot of figures in a speech, They have a kind of soporific effect on audi- ences, the same effect lettuce leaves are said to have on rabbits. I'll risk only a very few mrore figures, and Il cut those off when I see people nodding in the back row. But here is one I must give you: Industrial production in France is now running 30 percent ahead of 1938. In agriculture, the French are al- most back to prewar production, which means that they are very nearly self-sustain- ing on food products. They increased their exports to other countries by 40 percent in the year 1949. In the same year they sold more to every trading area in the world than they bought, with the great exception of the dollar area. None of these accomplishments could have been achieved without the aid of America through ECA. But it takes more thun dol- lars to produce such a result, just as it takes more than medicine to cure a sick patient, We could have poured 10 times as much money as we have poured into France with- out buying an ounce of genuine recovery. The French could have used it to make tem- porary improvements in the standard of liv- ing, which would have been politically rapu~- lar with a lot of French people, but 1952 would have come and the bubble would have burst. Instead, the French have persisted in using their ECA resources to make permanent gains in the productive capacity of the Na- tion. No; this job has not been done the easy way. Recovery has heen bought for the full value of every dollar and franc. ECA has insisted on that kind of expenditure, but the French themselves have never deviated from such a purpose. Many Americans who come over to France ask me if the French are really working to help themselves. They see Paris night clubs, some expensive restaurants and hotels, and @ way of life that entails a certain amount of sitting In the sun at sidewalk-cafe tables. That is about all I had ever seen of France
A3100 until I went to work there last June. I had a good many notions shared by most Ameri- can tourists, and I have had to go through the painful process of divesting myself of some easy prejudices about France. The French Nation simply cannot be judged from the Ritz Bar in Paris. I find that French people do say “Ou-la-la,” as they always doin American novels and movies. But they also, as a Nation, pay rather heavy taxes, which comes as a shock and surprise to most Americans. The French put up 30 percent of their national income in taxes this year, as c~r ve* 23 percent in the United States. I... c.."< their tax structure is unjust pecause it falls too heavily on certain groups of people and too lightly on others, including farmers and small shopkeepers. But I can only argue now for a more equitable distribu- tion of the tax load and better collections in France—not for higher over-all taxes. Getting back to tourists, my advice to them is always to get out in the country and see what the French are doing for them~ selves. Almost every town and village is alive with activity, even the ones like St. Lo which were knocked flat during the war. About 120,000 tractors are at work in French fields, where only 25,000 could be found in 1945. The ports of France are dramatic exhibits of recovery. Harbor installations were 70 percent destroyed during World War II. Today the French ports are completely restored and handling 10 percent more traf- fic than they could take care of in 1938, That job has been done by the French with French francs. The dollar aid has amounted to less than half a million, all for some port equipment at Marseilles. I have painted an optimistic picture of France. I can’t paint it any other way when I know what I do of the results achieved in 2 years. However, there are some very dark spots on the canvas. One of the most serious is a continued political in- stability. No French Government these days has the solid support of the nation. Every Government move must be made cautiously, as an acrobat slides along a tightrope, when what is needed is bold and sweeping action. The fiscal policies of France need a major adjustment. French industry requires an entirely new approach, not an abandonment of self-interest, which is impossible, but a realization that enlightened self-interest de- mands these two basic changes: giving the workers a better share of profits, and expos- ing French industry to the healthy fresh air of competition, These problems I have mentioned will be terribly hard to solve. There will only be a chance of working them out in a climate of national confidence. We wrestled with fear in the first year of the Marshall plan in France, and we still know that fear is our strongest adversary—fear of another war, fear of unemployment and starvation, fear of American withdrawal from the ramparts of western Europe, where the fires of the Krem- lin camp can always be seen burning. So terribly much depends on us here in America. We have done a generous and a highly intelligent job in financing an un- precedented program of aid such as the Mar-~ shall plan. We can count many solid and satisfying results. Of course, we will never know exactly what evil events we avoided by making this effort. It is practically certain, however, that we forestalled a Communist political victory in Fialy and France. Think what that would have meant. Without the loss of a single Soviet soldier, without a dec- laration of war or the dropping of a bomb, Moscow would have spread its control to the Atlantic Ocean. Our military forces in Ger- many and Austria would have been totally surrounded. What a cheap victory that would have been for the Soviets. And what a costly one for us. In such an event, I am certain that we would now be spending far more billions of dollars for additional mili- tary preparation than we are spending today for the constructive purpose of recovery in Europe, Now, however, we must look to the period beyond i969, when ECA comes to an end. Once again we are faced with a set of mo- mentous decisions, affecting the future wel- fare of our country and the peace of the world. I will speak only of the economic de- cisiors today. They center around the tough problem of Europe’s continuing dollar needs. The Marshall plan has given the nations of western Europe a unique opportunity to set their houses in order. They are making good use of that chance. But the very suc; cess of the program, the upsurge of produc- tion .n industry and agriculture, has brought us suddenly face to face with a larger and deeper-rooted dilemma. The Economist, of London expressed the problem very effective- ly, as follows. “The change in the relation~ ship between the old industrial nations and the new industrial giant in the New World has been on the way for the last 30 years. The wars have accentuated but not caused the trend. It has been masked since the end of the conflict, in part by American generos- ity, in part by the world’s desire to buy any- thing it could at any price. Now the under-~ lying maladjustment between Europe and America is emerging like a reef hidden for a time under a spring tide.” That reef may wreck the ship of recovery, and its next victim may be the ship of peace. What is the nature of this jagged ob- struction? The easiest way to explain it is to look at the import and export figures of the United States. We are exporting this year about $6,000,090,0Cd more goods than ‘we are importing. That trend has been go- ing on for years. Since 1914 this country has sold to the rest of the world about $105,000,- 000,000 more than it has bought. And who has paid for those gigantic sales? To a large extent, it is we ourselves, the taxpayers of the United States. We have covered more than $80,000,000,000 of that $100,000,000,000 excess by loans and free gifts to foreign nations. For a long time we have boasted of what we have called our favorable balance of trade, whereby we sold more than we bought. It is no boasting matter now. It is high time we came to realize that the United States is no longer a debtor nation, strug- gling to establish its export markets. We are the overwhelming creditor nation of the world today. We dominate the markets of the earth. Every nation has an insistent demand for American goods. There is only one limit to our sales—the dollars these countries have with which to buy our prod- ucts. For years we have followed a course of passing the dollars along to foreign nations from the pockets of cur own taxpayers, so that those nations can finance their pur- chases from us. Do we want to go on doing that? Or isn’t it time to take a good, hard look at the situation and chart a new course? Again I will take France as an example, to illustrate a much more widespread condi- tion. We have exhorted the French without ceasing to increase their dollar earnings, so that they can pay for their dollar needs after 1952. There are two major ways for them to earn dollars—by selling us their exports, or by earning dollars from tourists. We are pushing the French toward a maximum ef- fort by 1952. The plans call for doubling the amount they made from dollar tourists in 1949, and almost doubling their dollar sales of exports. Both goals require a tre- mendous effort, but I personally think the French can achieve them,. Yet even with that sort of effort, France will still have a dollar gap of about $150,000,000 in 1952, to the best of our calculations. In other words, France will spend every dollar she can earn to buy American products, but she will still APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD run short of her dollar_ requirements by $150,000,000. “How shall we Americans deal with that situation? We have three alternatives as I see them. We can keep on supplying France with the needed dollars from the pockets of our own taxpayers. Nobody likes that al- ternative. We Americans don’t want to keep on giving away money, and the French don’t want to go on receiving it as a gift. They would much prefer to earn 1t. The second alternative 1s for us to sit tight and let France go without her $150,000,000 of dollar needs. That policy would have two immediate effects. American producers of machinery, cotton, petroleum, copper, and hundreds of other products would lose a sub- stantial market. France at the same time - would suffer a crippling blow to the economy we have worked so hard to help rebuild. For example, the “extile industry is the biggest employer of labor in France. The cotton textile factories of France have operated with 70 percent of their raw cotton paid for by Marshall-plan dollars. Reduce that sup- ply to any large extent and the textile mills would begin to shut down, thousands of Frenchmen would be thrown out of work, and the cycle of recovery would begin to re- verse itself. Who would stand to gain? Only the Communists. The third alternative for the years beyond 1952 is for us to let France earn her dollar needs by our buying more French export products. That is not an easy solution. Nothing as important as that is easy in the world we live in today. Many of France’s leading exports do not compete directly with anything produced in America, yet we handicap them with high tariff rates. It is true, of course, that we have reduced the general level of our Amer~ ican tariffs in recent years. However, let’s take a look at our present tariff rates on some of the leading items which France exports to us. Nobody in the United States is produc- ing hand-made lace. Yet the United States tariff on lace runs from 30 percent up to 75 percent of the original value. The high- quality kid gloves of France, which again are not produced in America, pay a mini- mum of 40-percent duty. Women’s evening bags of the special types American women like to buy in Paris must hurdle a tariff of 30 to 60 percent to get into the American market. Just who are we protecting in the United States by these particular high tariff rates, and why? Some French products would compete di- rectly with American goods if we lowered our tariffs and let them in. Yet how small that competition would actually be. If we al~ lowed France to earn the additional $150,000,~ 000 she needs from increased exports after 1952, the amount would represent only about one-tenth of 1 percent of the wholesale value of America’s own production, which is run~- ning at about $150,000,000,000 a year. That is a@ very small drop in a very big bucket. An increase in our foreign purchases by about $1,500,000,000 a year would close the dollar gap for all of western Europe. I cannot help but see this problem in terms of France and of my own native Kentucky. The tobacco growers of my State have long had a prosperous export market in France. The sale of that tobacco is important to every business enterprise in Kentucky, in- cluding the Louisville Courier-Journal and Times. The French have a strong prefer- ence for American tobacco, Their purchases of American tobacco are limited by only one factor: the limit on the dollars they have to spend. Right now the French are trying to cut down on their buying of American tobacco, much against their will, and are seeking to substitute Turkish and Egyptian tobaccos, which French smokers do not like nearly so well. This change is regarded as
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a grim necessity in view of that dollar gap of $150,000,0C0 that is looming up in 1952. The whole situation seems to me to point an obvious moral. It would be so sensible for Kentucky people to buy more French products, so that the French will have dollars to buy more Kentucky tobacco. It is a sim- ple equation. It sums up, in my mind, the whole point of western Europe’s need and America’s best interest. These are the three alternatives for 1952: We can support the French with American tax money; or we can abandon the French, risking a Communist victcry and loss of an important market for our farms and fac- tories; or we can lower our tariff barriers to a reasonable degree and buy from France, so that she in turn can buy what she wants and desperately needs from us. When I say France, I might just as well say western Europe. That is the shap2 and size of the preblem. r have been very happy to see the concern which this great and difficult problem is be- ginning to arouse in America. President Truman, as you all know, recently appointed Gordon Gray to study the vast imbalance of America’s imports and exports. “fr. Gray will come up with a report which may weil become a historic document. He will give it all the force of his high reputation and prestige. If he and his associates get into a detailed study of our tariff structure, I am convinced they will find many strange anomalies. They will discover that in many instances we are protecting industries that no longer need or desire protection, and even industries that no longer operate in this country today. But how much consideration will the Gray report and the problem it attacks receive from the great American public? The answer to that question will depend very largely on you people in this room today. The average citizen does not like to wrestle with material that contains such foggy phrases as balance of payments and that sort of thing. Yet this dilemma which faces America and the world affects every one of our citizens, and it can be explained to the great majority of Ameri- cans if it is broken down into simple terms. We should not wait for the Gray report. The time to start this vital campaign of informa- tion and understanding is now. That is a job for American journalists. I believe a great many of you will agree that our country has a thorny decision to make, and not much time to make it. We all know that Congress can never make such a hard choice on its own. Action in Congress gan only come when the American public under- stands the ,problem and dictates its choice. We are always proud to talk at these meet- ings of our freedom of the press in America. This organization has never balked at the idea that freedom entails responsibility in journalism. It seems to me that our free press has a powerful responsibility to bring the facts of life about foreign trade to their readers, with all the simplicity and force we are able to command. If we ignore this problem or try to shove it under the rug, I foresee a dangerously bad period in international relations in 1952. The nations of western Europe will be forced to discard the Marshall plan crutch with- out yet being able to walk by themselves. Their people will suffer a sudden return of discouragement. Since human nature works as we all know it does, the people of western Europe will feel let down by the United States. Gratitude may quickly turn to re- sentment as hope dissolves in despair. What a glorious opportunity for the Communists! At the same time, we must foresee a vio- lent reaction on the part of the American people if they are not fully informed of this 1952 crisis and given a chance to deal with it in advance. We, too, will feel a surge of resentment. The American public, tragi- XACVI— App. 196 eally lacking a full understanding of the situation, will complain that the Marshall- plan countries have spent billions of our dol- lars without managing to achieve recovery. Recriminations will fly on both sides. Such @ situation would divide the democratic world. We must not and cannot risk such a division in the face of auunited enemy. I firmly believe that the long-term recov- ery of western Europe depends on the deci- sion the American public will make on the issue of foreign trade. Recovery spells a real chance for peace. Failure to recover spells misery, chaos, and the triumph of communism in Europe. Who can fail to see that the next step might well be war, and a war which the United States would not be certain to win? The free press of America can give the American people the vital knowledge néc- essary for them to make a free choice on this vital subject. Whether you agree with my conclusions or not, I plead with you to give your readers the basic facts and let them make an informed decision. Veto of Natural-Gas Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 28 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp an editorial from the April 24 issue of Trainman News, the official publication of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. This editorial commends President Truman for his recent veto of the Kerr bill to amend the Natural Gas Act. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THanks, Mr. PRESIDENT President Truman came through admirably for the people when he vetoed the Kerr bill to exempt independent natural-gas pro- ducers from Federal regulation. Although the gas interests protested wildly that the measure would not increase the bill to consumers, we felt they did “protest too much.” Too much money was spent for its passage and too much lobby pressure was exerted for it to be a matter of principle only. Somewhere down the line the gas in- terests expected to strike pay dirt. That somewhere was probably a rate hike after the congressional elections, so that the “wrong” votes on the Kerr bill could not hurt the Congressmen’s getting back into office. The newspapers are now saying that labor dictated to the President and that he fol- lowed its wishes for political reasons. The fact is Mr. Truman followed the wishes of a majority of Americans (including countless mayors, Many governors, and thousands of public-spirited people in no way connected with labor) who didn’t want to be bilked by the gas producers. If this is playing politics, it’s the brand that we approve of, for its pro~ tecting the interests of all. If the gas companies planned no rate rise, then they’re not out a sou—and the public is safe from an unwarranted gouging. We say, thanks, Mr. President. We pre- dicted you would not forget the people—and you didn’t. A3101 Valedictory Address of Eugene F,. McGarvey EXTENSION OF REMARES OF HON. JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 28, 1950 Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted me to extend my remarks in the Rrcorp and include an address, I am very glad to call to the attenticn of my colleagues a really ex- traordinarily able valedictory address given by Eugene F, McGarvey. Mr. McGarvey is graduating from the Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey in the class of 1950 and it is most refreshing to learn his point of view to-~ ward the great questions of the day. He is warning his fellow graduates to break away from the idea of expecting their Government’s aid during their lives and urges his classmates not to think too much of economic security but to strike out on their own with faith in the future and determination to take a chance in the world. His address is full of good advice and I hope it will be widely read. (Valedictory address by Eugene F. McGarvey, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N. J.) A recent article in a well-known magazine has a point of interest which should be read by every college graduate this year. It is based on an account taken from Governor Bradford’s history of the Plymouth Bay Colony. When the Pilgrim Fathers landed in Mas- sachusetts, it seems they first established a collective system of proguction and distribu- tion. The common produce of the settle- ment was pooled in one storehouse and then later rationed to the individual settlers. From the very start, this system proved to be a complete failure. The Pilgrims’ collec- tive effort, far from providing security for all, produced no more than a starvation diet for any individual. Soon faced with a bitter famine which threatened to follow a con- tinuation of this plan,Governor Bradford was forced to take a new tack. As he relates in his history, he decreed “that they should set corne, every man for his own perticular, and in that regard trust to themselves. * * * And so assigned to every family a parcell of land.” The results, of course, were highly grati- fying. Now that each one had to provide for himself, the entire settlement took an added incentive to its work, and shortly thereafter Governor Bradford was able to write, “the effect of their perticuler planting was Well seene, for all had one way and other pretty well to bring the year aboute,and some of the abler sorte and more industrious had to spare and sell to others, so as any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” The moral of this story would seem to need no elaboration. This year the colleges throughout the country are graduating a class of 1950, which, together with its predecessor of last June, has been stigmatized probably as none other before. The class of 1950 is the group that wants security with a broad, bold, capital S. Several prominent magazines have printed surveys proclaiming this fact to its readers; personnel directors have already taken the fact as granted. And these people base their
A3102 claims both on personal observation and on the statistical results of college campus polls. “Gone,” they will tell you, “is that classic seeking of a chance to take a chance.” The youth of 1950 has turned his back on the free enterpriser and on what at one time was considered the great American dream. As one manufacturer put it, “I never saw a bunch that so wanted to make the free enter- prise system work, but they are interested in the system rather than the individual en- terprise. They will be technicians—not owners.” Now there are several obvious reasons why this charge is being made against the 1950 group. The college senior of today still av- erages 2 or 8 years older than his prewar counterpart. Close to 70 percent of the grad-~ uates are veterans, many of whom feel they have had sufficient adventure for any one life. There are 30 percent married, who of neces~ sity must limit their risks. The 1950 graduates as a Nation-wide group are also said to be overspecialized and hence not equipped to take a chance. And mixed in as a leaven is the current fad for an ever- and-ever-increasing amount of public se- curity. Whatever the reasons, the truth is that the current graduate is none too anxious to strike out on his own eventually, but is looking for a snug job that will pay divi- dends in safety and lifelong tenure. He will bé perfectly content to work for someone else—preferably a very large concern. He desires a vast amount of training, but not as a jumping-off point to his own enterprise. In short, he lacks faith in the future and wants, above all things, economic security. This is the picture painted of us on the eve of graduation. Whether for the most part the members of the class of ’50 will actu- ally live their lives along these lines remains to be seen. It is not too late, though, to sound a note of warning against this indi- cated trend. ‘When the businessman claims that the ncw generation does not care to take a chance, he is thinking in terms of economic risk- taking solely. The danger, however, strikes much deeper than fhat. This security men- tality—that feeling that “Well, I don’t have to do it myself; it will be done for me’—can, if given the chance to grow, pervert our en- tire approach to life. No, it is not only that the class of ’50 may not take risks in the realm of business— but that in our everyday lives, in our engi- neering work, and in the social life of our community, we may become sterile of all originality. The real threat is not just the passing of enterprise from the economic field—it is the possible loss of incentive in our whole fleld of living. Economic security is surely a strong drive in a person's life. But if we are to allow a fear of the future to completely order our lives, to limit the growth of our personali- ties, and rob our every opportunity, then se- curity on these terms is indeed a hollow tri- umph,. For in the end we shall have secured nothing of lasting value and lost much that is worth while in life. First of all, complete security is an illu- sion. In this respect it might be likened to the idea of perpetual motion. Both of these concepts would be wonderful, if they worked. But in practice neither does. More often than not as a result of his Maginot-line mentality, the most insecure person is the one who is forever playing safe. An unfailingly increased security is pur- chased only at the loss of some basic human freedom—which is too high a price to pay for a mirage. Second, a generation that is security-con- scious is in some serious degree refusing to make the act of falth without which effec- tive living is impossible. In its members there can be little of that lust for life and experience of the joy of living, little of a sense of wide horizons or worlds to conquer. And, finally, a generation that has been raised on security is in a poor psychological position to survive the inevitable shocks of life, no matter what 1s done to insure every- body against all conceivable contingencies. A crutch is well-suited to a lame person, but if he persists in its use once he is healed, he remains in a sensé always lame. Security is just such a crutch. In the final analysis, the only safe guide to security—security of integrity—lies in the determination to pursue what seems to be a right course of action, regardless of the haz- ards involved, being fully aware that you may fail, but that the only real failure is the refusal to venture. At the other extreme it would be very fool- ish to think that we can all hop into a snug spot aboard the free-enterprise caravan and just free-wheel to security. Like any vehicle, the American system needs a motive force— and we are all, everyone of us, counted on for the drive to make it go. The Pilgrims found out before it was too late. Will we? Germany: Time Bomb of Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARLEY M. KILGORE OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 28 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorn the leading article in the May issue of the American Mercury, “Germany: Time Bomb of Eu- rope,” by Henry C. Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe, author of The German Octopus, Human Dynamite, and The Imperial Soviets, got his first close-up of the U. S. S. R. in 1922 as a member of the Hoover Com- mission. He has made several notable forecasts. In the American Mercury for July 1939, he predicted flatly that Hitler was going to war, and told why. In other magazine articles, he forecast the Nazi- Soviet deal and the German attack on Russia. This article should awaken the Ameri- can people to the frightening possibility that Stalin’s time bomb in Germany may go off, resulting in a new unholy alliance between the Soviets and the Germans. As Mr. Wolfe points out in the opening of his article, “We have been losing the battle for Germany.” I feel the time has come for the Con- gress to establish a bipartisan commis- sion of inquiry to go to Germany and ascertain the true facts about the situa- tion. A resolution calling for such a commission was presented in the Senate on April 17 by the Senator from Iowa (Mr, GILLETTE], several other Senators, and myself, There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: GERMANY: Timez Boms or Europe (By Henry C. Wolfe) 1 We have been losing the battle for Ger~ many. If we lose Germany to the Kremlin it will be a defeat even more catastrophic than the loss of China. The situation in Germany today, in relation to the East-West struggle, is about where the situation was APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in China in 1947. Time is running out on us and running out fast. If we lose Germany w- stand to lose Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. We shall be forced back on the Western Hemisphere with the global balance of power heavily weighted against us. We shall find by that time that we have few allies left who can give us politi- cal and material support. Having lost the cold war, we shall then be locked into a defensive position that will be inordinately expensive, yet can give us no security. Few Americans realize what is at stake in Germany, but the men in the Kremlin, masters of “Realpolitik” do. Since they seized power in 1917, the Soviet leaders have under- stood the important role that Germany plays in their drive for world domination. They have looked hungrily at German industry, especially in the Ruhr. They have realized that if they had use of the Reich’s advanced technology, central strategic position, and organizing genius, they could quickly domi- nate Europe and strike out at other conti- nents. Moreover, the Russians fear German military power, unless it is teamed up with their own. These were some of Stalin’s rea- sons fo®making a deal with Hitler in 1939. As for the Germans, there has been strong pro-Russian sentiment in certain circles since the days of Bismarck. It is sentiment based on stark self-interest—based, in other words, on the premise that when Germans and Rus- sians work together, the Germans prosper and wax powerful. According to pro-Russian Germans, when the Germans have fought the Russians catastrophe has been the pay= off, and they have two World Wars to prove it. They point to the first Rapallo Treaty (1922), when the pariah Germans and Rus- sians, meeting on the outskirts of the Allied Conference in Genoa, circumvented Allied diplomacy by making a deal between them- selves. This move was immensely popular in both Germany and Russia. After the Nazis came to power, the eastern orientation was interrupted. But there were still powerful influences at work in Ger- many, especially in the Reichswehr hierarchy, to promote close relations with the U.S.S. R. Dr. Karl Haushofer, the geopolitical expert, and his followers constantly advocated a policy of alliance with the Soviets, Even among the Nazi leaders there were enthus- lasts for the eastern orientation. Such an enthusiast was Erich Koch, gauleiter of Hast Prussia. In Koenigsberg 14 years ago, he explained to me his reasons for advocating a Russo-German alliance: “The Reich and the Soviet complement ef’ch other. A combination of Russian man- power, land mass, and raw materials, with German industry, technological skill, and organizing ability, would constitute the world’s greatest power center. The rulers of this combination could dominate the world. It would be economically advan- tageous for both partners. From the mili- tary angle, the alliance could bring over- whelming force to bear at any point on its long periphery. No other coalition could cope with such military-economic dynamism.” Hitler’s stupid attack on the Soviets wrecked the pact of 1939, but left the motiva-~ tions for the pact intact. Throughout the Reich-Soviet war Stalin carefully concen- trated his propaganda offensive against the Nazi leadership. He took pains to point out that he believed Germany should endure. He did not associate himself with the West’s extreme plans for the permanent destruction of German power. In outwitting the West at Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam it was his’ aim to cut Germany in two, the better to get control of the whole. With reference to Europe, his aim was to.separate the indus- trial west from the food and raw materials of the east. The over-all strategy was for- mulated to make the west’s economic recov- ery extremely difficult, if not impossible. Since the end of the war, Stalin has con- tinued his courtship of the German people.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD He has cast himself in the role of champion of German unity, protector of the Germans against rapacious western imceriatism. Con- stantly stressing the trna:tion ot Russo- German friendshin and common interests, he has told <9 cs.izers of the eastern and west- ern zones that Germans and Russians to- gether have “the largest potentialities in Europe to complete great actions of world significance.” A Russo-German alliance—a ad Rapallo—would certainly be an act of wor! significance. Consequently, every postwar Russian policy in Germany has been part of the plan to win Ja. nue as an ally, either as a Communist satellite or as a nationalist state. The Kremlin’s maneuvers have sometimes wavered between the crea- tion of one or the other form of government, but the original goal has never changed. rm The West, on the other hand, has lacked a German policy. The three western part- ners—Britain, France, the United States of America—have not only failed to pull to- gether, but have opposed one another on various issues relating to Germany. But their greatest stumbling block has heen complete failure to understand the German problem. As for the American attitude to- ward Germany, it has shifted from the early treat~’em-rough tactics to the current theory that if we shovel enough dollars into Ger- many everything will come out all right. Paired with this pleasant delusion is the assumption that the Germans hate the Rus- sians; therefore, they are our allies anc will, if need be, fight for us. A corollary to this wishful thinking is the argument that we should build up a new German army. Washington’s failure to formulate a long- range policy has been a heavy drag on the men trying to govern our zone in Germany. Not only that, but, with some notable excep- tions, we have been handicapped by poor administrators, by the bad conduct of Amer- idan personnel, and by the black-market activities of the personnel and their depend- ents. Above all, Americans in Germany have been notorious for their indifference toward German history, culture, economics, and politics. Many Germans regard us as cultural inferiors. None of this has helped American prestige. And the prestige counts heavily in the east-west struggle. In contrast to America’s bungling, the Rus- sians have skillfully made use of two main forces: the German Communist Party and certain extreme right-wing circles. Hither of these forces may win Germany for the Kremlin; at any rate, they complement each other. Since World II, the Soviets have worked to build a strong Communist Party in Germany. At present, they control the government of the eastern zone, and have organized a Communist-controlled German militia and a regular Communist Party. Al- though a Communist fifth column is always a convenient instrument for the Eremlin, there are at least two reasons why the ex- treme left may not be Stalin’s most effective instrument in Germany. One is the limited appeal that communism has among Ger- mans. The other is the potential danger of Titoism in German communism. The German extreme right may therefore serve the Kremlin’s plans more effectively than does the extreme left. The reactionary rightist group is made up of big industrial- ists, militarists, neo-Nazis, journalists, and refugees. These men see Germany once more a world power, as Russia’s ally. They are the political heirs of Bismarck, von Seeckt and Haushofer. Most of them work behind the scenes, but two of them—Count Rudolph von Nadolny and Dr. Andreas Hermes—are playing a more open part in the campaign for a third Rapallo. Von Nadolny, an aristocrat, a professional diplomat who was once ambassador to Mos- cow, has spent much of his life working for a Russo-German coalition. Although he is undoubtedly personally opposed to commu- nism, he believes that Germans and Russians, regardless of their politics, should cooperate. Like the late Dr. Haushofer, he believes that Russia is the great heartland essential to world empire. The Germans and Russians, he believes, are the “dynamic peoples” des- tined to destroy the effete western nations and rule the world. His supporters in Ger- many have various backgrounds, but all of them—the jobless professors, the refugee junkers from East Prussia, the former Nazi SS officers and Ruhr industrialists—are dazzled ty the grandiose prospects inherent in a Russz0-German coalition. Von Nadolny’s home in Berlin is the cen- ter of this movement. He commutes back and forth between the Soviet and western zones, meeting with small groups, usually in private homes, and promoting the idea of a Russian alliance that will gain world power for Germany. One of Nadolny’s agencies im the western zones 1s the notorious Nauheim circle. More and more of the Nazis and na- tionalists are coming over to the movement. Von Nadolny and his collaborators are work- ing to discredit the moderate Adenauer ad- ministration, to stir up hostibty against the western nations, and to prepare for der tag. A factor that contributes to the success of the von Nadolny movement is the eco- nomic compulsion in the western zones. it is true that there has been considerable re- covery during the past 5 years. But the housing situation is very bad, there are some 2,000,000 unemployed, and the western zones are unable to cope with the 8,000,000 to 10,- 000,000 German refugees from Eastern Ger- many, Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries. Many of these unfortunate peo- ple live in misery. Their bitterness against the Russians who drove them out of their homes is matched only by their bitterness against the Western Powers. As with most other Germans, the refugees’ fear of the Russians has not made them like the Western Nations. Moreover, they are deeply stirred by Soviet propaganda to the efiect that a Russo-German alliance, with its promise of territorial changes, will give them back their homes. The leaders of the von Nadolny movement now view the millions of refugees as a vast reservoir for recruits. In dealing with the Germans Stalin holds two aces. One is the potential restoration of the Reich’s lost provinces, i. e., all of East Prussia and Upper Silesia, most of Lower Silesia and Pomerania, and a big part of Brandenburg. Germans of all classes, except the most fanatical Communists, are determined to regain these eastern lands. In this matter, the Western Powers can do little to help them. But Stalin can—when- ever it suits his purpose. The installation of Marshal Rakossovsky as the real ruler of Poland looks like a move to keep the Poles in line when the Kremlin wants to shift frontiers again. ‘True, the Poles and Czechs would resent a move to restore land to the Germans. But neither the Poles nor Czechs could now offer any effective resist- ance. In any case, Stalin would sell them out for the grand prize of Germany. The Saar question, too, is grist for the Soviet propaganda mill. The Kremlin ex- ploits it to poison relations between the French and the Germans. Neues Deutsch- land, the Soviet~zone Red newspaper, tells the Germans that friendship with the U. S. S. R. is “the only way to regain the Saar.” Stalin’s other ace is the mirage of prosper- ity. Through his German allies in both rightist and leftist camps, he is promising the Germans a great economic boom if they will sign up with him. He holds out the bait of enormous markets for manufactured goods in the satellite states, in the Soviet Union itself, and now in Red China. The Germans are told that there is an unlimited market for their heavy machinery, chemicals, A3103 artificial rubber, railway equipment, and electrical goods in the East, but no markets at all in the West. In this connection the Kremlin harps on that most sensitive of themes, the Western poiev ef cismantling. This Allied program, ithe Surie's charge, illustrates the West’s vindictiveness, indicates its intention to keep Germany from competing in world markets, proves its determination to destroy the Ger- man people. Such propaganda finds ready ears among the refugees, unemployed work- men, the middle class—in fact, among Ger- mans in all walks of life. The West is offering little to counteract it. rr Another high card in the Sceviet hand is the cause of a unified Germany. Here again the appeal sweeps right across the political arena from extreme left to extreme right, Pastor Niemoeller probably spoke for a good many Germans last December when he de- eclared thas his compatriots would rather take the ‘risk of living under a Communist dictatorship than continue to have their nation cut in two by the East-West war. From the beginning the Kremlin has care~ fully fostered the legend that the U.S. S. R. alone champions a unified Germany. To giye the legend substance, the Kremlin has set up in its zone a stooge regime, the Ger~ man democratic-government. This outfit, with a so-called foreign minister, professes to speak for all Germany. In the same breath with the question of unity comes the problem of Berlin. To most Germans, after all, this city is the capital of their fatherland. No other city begins to have Berlin’s sentimental hold as the center of government. Thanks to western naiveté, the former German capital lies deep in the Soviet zone. The 2,250,000 Germans in the three western sectors of the city are cut off from the western zones, but their resistance to Soviet pressure has been admirable. Led by their fearless mayor, Ernst Reuter, they have consistently stood by the west against the east. In the city elections of December 1948, they voted anti-Communist by almost 87 percent. Moreover, their German officials nave had to contend witn kidnapings by the Soviet-controlled east zone police and with constant threats to their own safety. Stand- ing on the boundary of the western sectors, Gerhart Eisler recently warned them: “We are keeping a diary that contains notes on everything you are doing over there.” For our part, to be sure, we carried out the heroic and expensive airlift to keep Berlin’s western sectors supplied despite the Soviet blockade. Western prestige zoomed in Ger- many und throughout Europe. But since the blockade we have been making what ap- pears to be at least a partial withdrawal. Many American officials and their families have left Berlin for the western zones. In the western sectors of the former capital, unemployment is growing at an alarming rate. As Soviet pressure and threats of vio- lence are stepped up, many Berliners wonder if the west is preparing to pull out entirely. If we stay, we do so under increasingly dif- ficult conditions. If we leave Berlin, Ger- mans will consider it a signal that we are beginning a wholesale retreat from Germany and Europe. The consequences would cer= tainly be disastrous. When the situation in China was speeding toward a crisis, we sat back and waited for the dust to settle. If we wait much longer in Germany, the dust will settle on a Soviet empire extending from the Rhine to Hong Kong. As Drew Middleton wrote in the New York Times: “If the Russians get Germany— and with her the Ruhr—the United States can forget about the Atlantic Pact and mili- tary aid and look to the radar defenses of Detroit, New York, and Pittsburgh.” At this late hour what can we do? The minimum is a threefold program that should get under way at once: (1)
A3104 Strengthen the middle parties in Germany; (2) launch an efficient propaganda offensive to enlighten the Germans about American democracy and Soviet imperialism; (3) start the job of integrating Germany’s west- ern zones into western Europe. That is a large order, which cannot be filled just by appropriating a few billion dollars and ap- pointing a few new committees and adminis- trators. It calls for the best brains we have and for the wholehearted support of Con- gress and American public opinion. Noth- ing less can save a rapidly deteriorating sit- uation. The first of these projects got off to a start last December at the London meeting which organized the International Confed- eration of Free Trade Unions. American labor leaders participated. The ICFTU could be an effective arm of the west in sup- porting the German middle parties against the extremes of right and left. Furthermore, the British, French, and American Govern~ ments could strengthen the German moder- ates by making it clear that the west is de- termined to stay in Germany until the whole problem is solved. Let it be known that there is no future in western Germany for those who are ready to jump on what they think is a totalitarian bandwagon. Make it plain that we are going to stand by our friends in Germany against any power that tries to enslave them. That line would help stiffen the spines of the moderates. A far stronger propaganda offensive is in- dispensable to counteract the steady stream of Soviet falsehood against the west, espe- cially against the United States. We must drive it home that the Soviets are not go- ing to raise the German standard of living higher than the low Russian standard. We should expose the Soviet looting of their own zone. We have to show that democracy has dynamism, that the west is a realm of opportunity. Contrast the declining scale of living in the Soviet satellite states with that of the western world. Play up democ-~ racy by means of billboards, moving pic- ures, trade fairs, and pageants. In other words, dramatize our story effectively. Unless western Europe draws together, it is doomed. Unless a united western Europe integrates Western Germany into its sys- tem, the German problem can never be solved. The answer probably rests mainly with Britain, for if Britain stands aloof from European integration, France will naturally fear that Germany would dominate any ‘western European federation. All western statesmen can at least be sure of one thing: if Germany is not brought into the western fold, she will be drawn into the eastern em- pire. For the states of western Europe there is only one choice—integrate, or go down one by one, like the nations of eastern Europe, We lost China, but we do not need to lose Germany and Europe. No effective course of action will be cheap or safe. But lack of action will inevitably bring about the col- lapse of our entire European defense perim- eter. Are we to sit back and let Stalin’s time bomb in Germany go off? Bureaucracy, the Overshadowing Menace EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. B. W. (PAT) KEARNEY OF NEW YORK IN TH? HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 28, 1950 Mr. KEARNEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include the following article by Mr. Charles W. Noonan, of Schenectady, N. Y., entitled, ‘““Bureauc- racy, the Overshadowing Menace”: BUREAUCRACY, THE OVERSHADOWING MENACE (By Charles W. Noonan) If the conduct of the human race, since the earliest recordings of it, has been any~ thing near like the historians have pictured, the civilizations of the past, each in their turn, decayed and collapsed solely because of their building up of bureaucracies—tax fi- nanced job holders—who held for them- selves the power to tax, and taxed and in- creased taxes till their peoples found it did not pay them to produce or own anything, and acted accordingly. The aftermath of those collapses has al- ways been a period of barbarism: with man~ kind obliged to begin his upward struggle all over again from scratch. Those periods of barbarism are generally known as “the dark ages.” Both the capitalist and the Communist civilizations—the two predominating civili- zations of our time—are, and for sometime past have been, building up bureaucracies at a tremendous speed. If those civilizations are permitted to continue in this regard, the outcome, if history is any criterion to go by, is bound to be their eventual downfall, fol- lowed by the usual age of darkness with its many and varying discomforts of succorless infantile growth. To educate the people to heed this situa- tion—to recognize the danger it is ever laden ' with—is not as easy a matter as one might suspect, especially in view of their feeling that they may at any time be exposed to the other great forces of destruction that are now being built so rapidly all around them, With things as they are today, the unleashing of those other great forces—the atom bomb, and the hydrogen bomb (if that bomb is per- fected)—the possible reduction of the race and the lessening of its ability to move for~ ward and upward as a consequence, should not, by any means be minimized. The un- leashing of those bombs, however, like the unleasing of poisonous gas, is a restrainable matter: their use can, and by mutual agree~ ment will, sooner or later, be outlawed as weapons of war. The people’s fear and hor- ror of retaliation will force such an agree- ment and keep it in force. Even the TNT bombing of noncombatants, cities and other properties outside of the fields of battle, is not an unforeseeable content of such an agreement, The restraining, prevention, or reversion of the trend to bureaucracy is, on the other hand, not so easily accomplished. Bureau- crats, as @ class, have never yet been known to voluntarily or involuntarily give up their easy mode of life and retire to the less invit- ing but natural means of making their living by production of life’s necessities. Associat- ing, as a rule, with their own Kind, and never heeding the admonitions of others, they pur- sue their usurped prerogatives without any sympathy or solicitude. They insist that the safety and welfare of the people require more and still more tax financed activities; they see to it that those activities are realized; they hold for themselves the power to tax, which, says an old proverb, is “the power to destroy”; they increase their own salaries and accommodations to higher and still higher levels as time goes on; they keep con~ tinuously adding to their personnel for the power it gives them to do so; they add to the tax load year after year to meet their ever growing expenditures, without any qualms or abatement, regardless of how it destroys the people’s incentive to work and harvest and own; they see nor hear nor recognize no signals of danger to their civilization as a result of their existence, their power, and their covetousness; they just stick to their fort till their fort and the civilization they . live in collapses. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Is there anything that can be done to pre. vent this impending catastrophe? There ig But there are obstacles in the path which are not easily surmounted. There are no great undertakings, however, that do not have obstacles of some kind to surmount. In this case the first and probably the most diffi. cult one will be the educating of the masses of the people to see the existing deadly dan- ger to the security of their offspring; also to see the power that is theirs to eliminate this danger. To accomplish this would seem to be the task of the press, the radio, the writers and distributors of pamphlets, and the masses themselves as they become awakened to the situation. This, obviously, would not be an easy task; but, when considering the greatness of the ultimate aim to be realized, as well as the danger to the security of future generations including the offspring of the controllers of those forces of education them- selves, the task, sooner or later, will be undertaken and judged by those forces as worthy of great effort, and, if necessary, no little sacrifice. Once awakened and the masses will rise to the situation: They will see to it that all the local, State, and National tax-financed nonessential public activities are eliminated; they will see to it that the power to tax will be taken out of the hands of the bureaucrats and placed in the hands of independent lo- cal, State, and National tax assessors, collec- tors and budget assigners whom they—the maasses themselves—shall make provision for; they will see to it that the essential public activities are not overcrowded, or padded with friends and wheelhorses of politicians and legislators; they will see to it that the bureaucrats are confined to administrative functions only; and all to the end that civili- zation and the security of their offspring shall be saved and that there shall be “gov~ ernment of the people, by the people, for the people.” m Right Way To Oust the Disloyal EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the RecorpD, I include the following editorial rom the Milwaukee Journal of April 25, 50: Ricut Way To Ovsr tHe Distovan There is, as President Truman told the Federal Bar Association, a great deal of ig- norance and misunderstanding about the Nation’s loyalty program. Nothing else could explain the confusion and dissension that has trailed Senator McCartny’s cam- paign against the State Department. The President told, in detail, about the loyalty program and how it operates to clear Communists out of Government without headlines or hysteria and within the frame- work of the democratic liberties we cherish. If Americans will note. the President’s words, they will understand how unnecessary, how unfair, and how out of line with Amer- ican principle is the kind of campaign that McCartHy has conducted. The loyalty program was set up 3 years ago. It is carried out by three groups, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, loyalty boards in each governmental agency, and the over-all nonpartisan Loyalty Review Board. Each Federal employee must pass the scru- tiny of the loyalty boards. Every applicant for Federal employment is checked. There
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD is constant screening and checking. If an individual changes jobs, advances to a higher position, is seen in company of questionable outsiders, is charged with suspicious be- havior, the machinery of investigation goes into mction again. A Federal employee, par- ticularly in such a department as that of the Secretary of State, is under constant (and necessary) surveillance today such as few free Americans would tolerate. President Truman said the loyalty program has been an outstanding success and no one has yet offered evidence to the contrary. He sald there does not remain in Government employ today one person adjudged to he disloyal. He admitted it was possible that there could be individuals who have escaped the net, 1n an operation as large as that of the Federal Government. He urged citizens, if they know of a single Communist or other disloyal person in any Federal job, to notify the FBI or the Attorney General immediately, so that the charge may be properly investi- gated. It would seem to us that the American peo- ple. with their fierce devotion to justice and fair play, would agree with Mr. Truman, members of the loyalty boards, and the Mem- bers of Congress who approved the loyalty program, that this kind of careful and objec- tive approach is the right one for this Na- tion. It is one that eliminates the disloyal and, at the time, protects the loyal Govern- ment employee from false, malicious or ill- founded accusations. It is the democratic way to deal with subversion, rather than the Russian way. As President Truman said, in words that should be applauded by the American people: “We are not wir~ to turn the United States into a viex..-4.: 2 totalitarian country in order to deal with a left-wing totalitarian threat.” Awarding Posthumous Decorations to Crew of United States Navy Pri- vateer EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. ANGIER L. GOODWIN OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Speaker, I can- not lay aside the opportunity to follow the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Vinson, in sec- onding the resolution presented by him authorizing appropriate posthumous dec- oration of the officers and crew of the American plane deliberately destroyed on April 8, 1950, by the Soviet Union. His remarks in presenting the resolution elo- quently and feelingly reflect the senti- ments of every Member of Congress in extending to the families of these 10 splendid young Americans the condolence of the people of the United States. It is a shock to the sensibilities of all peace-loving people to realize that such an outrage could be perpetrated. Per- haps it is, after all, a part of the in- scrutible plan of the God of Nations to cause the hearts of this people to be saddened by such a dastardly event and allow these young heroes to be sacrificed in order that the incident may become a turning point in the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, We have known for a long time that in this cold war we are dealing with a nation which recognizes only one lan- guage, and that is the language of force. These young men of the United States Navy privateer gave their lives in the performance of duty over the waters of the Baltic. In recognition thereof, let us gravely recollect that we too have a duty to perform. I shall vote to pass the Vinson resolu- tion in the hope that it will cause us all to face the uncertain future with an even firmer determination that there is no higher purpose challenging us today than to make sure that whatever we do we keep America strong. Honorable Americans EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 28, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, as part of my remarks, I am includ- ing an editorial from the Washington Times-Herald as of this date: HONORABLE AMERICANS: II As we noted on Wednesday, Secretary Acheson's vitt‘peration of Senator McCartHy because of the Senator’s efforts to expose Communist influence in the State Depart- ment deserves inspection in the framework of his actions in the Hiss case. The Secretary calls his flock honorable, loyal, and clean living. He and a host of other New Dealers and internationalists said all this, and more, in behalf of Alger Hiss, now under sentence of 5 years. The procession of New Dealers in the Hiss affair got under way on August 3, 1948, when Whittaker Chambers told the House Com- mittee on Un-American Activities that Hiss was part of a Communist cell in the admin- istration and had stolen Government doc-~ uments for Soviet spies. In the same cell Chambers listed Lee Press- man, who had gone on from the New Deal to become general counsel of the CIO; Na- than Witt, former Secretary of the National Labor Relations Board; John Abt, a former attorney for the Labor Department; Henry Collins, a State Department official, and Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the supposed author of the Mor- genthau plan for a harsh peace in Germany and architect of the Bretton Woods world bank and monetary fund. NEW DEAL PARADE When brought before the House commit- tee, all but White refused to answer ques- tions on the ground that they might incrim- inate themselves. White denied he had ever worked with the Communists, then went home and was found dead 3 days later, re- portedly of a self-administered dose of a heart stimulant. Later, at the second Hiss trial, Chambers testified that White had been a source of information for the Soviet espionage ring and identified one paper in evidence as hay= ing been received by him from White. After Hiss’ conviction last January, Repre- sentative RicHarp M. Nixon of the House committee stated that he had had in his pos- session since December 1948, numerous papers in White’s handwriting which Cham- A315 bers had received from White. These, incon- trovertibly, betrayed cfficial secrets. While Hiss and other New Dealers squirmed to evade the accusations that they had served Russia, one former State Department odicer came forward at both of the Hiss trials and blandly confessed from the witness stand that he had stolen decuments for Soviet espionage. This was Henry Julian Wadieigh, educated at Oxford, the University of Londcn, and the University of Chicago. The statute of limi- tations had run on any charge of espionage; so he could not be prosecuted. Still another New Deal figure, after being drawn into the inquiry, made an even more mysterious exit than White. Laurence Dug- gan, who had gone from the State Depart- ment to the post of director of the Institute of International Education, a Carnegie agency, had been listed by Whittaker Cham~ bers in 1939 to Assistant Secretary of State A. A, Berl- as in a special category of the Communist apparatus—not a party member but maintaming a special liaison with the Communist underground through Mrs. Hede Massing, ex-wife of Gerhard Eisler, former No. 1 Communist agent in the United States. In December 1948, shortly after being sought out by the FBI, Duggan was found dead beneath the window of his sixteenth floor New York office. At the first trial of Hiss, two Justices of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter and Stanley Reed, appeared in the role, unprec- edented for men :2 tncir positions, of char- acter witnesses for Hiss. The trial judge, Samuel H. Kaufman, who had been elevated to the bench after par- ticipating in the Pearl Harbor whitewash as cocounsel of the investigating committee, sprang down from the bench and welcomed them to the stand with a fervent handclasp. Among other character witnesses for Hiss were Philip Jessup, a ranking adviser to Sec< retary Acheson, named by Senator McCar- tTHy as having a peculiar affinity for Commu- nist fronts; the Governor of Illinois, Adiai Stevenson; Judge Charles E. Wyzanski, of Federal district court, Boston; Judge Calvert Magruder, of the circuit court of appeals, Boston, and Francis B. Sayre, former Assist- ant Secretary of State and Commissioner to the Philippines. BACKERS FOR HISS Cthers from the State department who rallied around as character witneSses were Dr. Stanley K. Hornbeck, G. Howland Shaw, Dr. Harry ©. Hawkins, Frank E. Duvall, Joseph C. Green, and Charles F. Darlington. John W. Davis, Wall street lawyer and Dem- ocratic nominee for President in 1924; Charles Faby, former New Deal solicitor general; Dr. James T. Shotwell, Hiss’ suc- cessor as president of the Carnegie Endow- ment for International Peace and an inde- fatigable promoter of the internationalist cause for more than 30 years; Clark M. Fichelberger, director of the American As- sociation for the United Nations, and Gerard Swope Jr., counsel for International Gen- eral Electric Co., testified to Hiss’ character at one or both trials. Mrs. Roosevelt put in at least two court- room appearances during the first trial and published accounts clearly intended to sway sympathy toward Hiss, whom she had al- ready characterized in print as one of the “good people.” John Foster Dulles, Governor Dewey’s ad- viser on foreign affairs, who had been per- mitted to sit in since 1944 as a Republican observer in the workings of the “bipartisan” foreign policy, was a witness at both Hiss trials. He was one of the trustees of the Carnegie endowment who had decided Hiss was just the man for the president of that interna- tionalist outfit and plucked him out of the State department in 1947.
A3106 Assisting Dulles in the selection as mem- bers of the executive committee of the Car- negie organization were Arthur A. Ballan- tine, Wall Street lawyer; Francis P. Gaines, president of Washington and Lee University; Earl G. Harrison, Philadelphia lawyer; David Rockefeller; Eliot Wadsworth, Boston capi- talist; and W. W. Waymack, Des Moines edi- tor and former member of the Atomic Energy Commission The late Nicholas Murray Butler, former president of Columbia University and of the Carnegie endowment, also had a hand in picking Hiss. In his own recital, Hiss, in effect, sum- moned as character witnesses Mr. Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, General Marshall, Admiral Leahy, Senator Vandenberg, the lead ele- phant in the GOP bipartisan foreign-policy procession, and Harold Stassen, the always- available candidate for the Republican Presi- dential nomination. Hiss, in fact, could have got just as good a@ character from just as many people as any of Mr. Acheson’s honorable, loyal, and clean- living State Denartment stable of the mo- ment. The Ney Deuiers never peach on a pal, nor, to use Mr. Acheson’s phrase, turn their backs on him even after he has been sentenced for betraying his country. Wards of the Government EXTENSION OF REMARKS F HON. CARL T. CURTIS OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 25, 1950 Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include an article entitled “Wards of the Government” delivered by Dean Rus- sell, of Billings, Mont., on January 20, 1950: WarDS OF THE GOVERNMENT The constitutions of former American slave states generally specified that the masters must provide their slaves with ade- quate housing, food, medical care, and old~ age benefits. The Mississippi Constitution contained this additional sentence: “The legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves * * * [except] where the slave shall have rendered the State some distinguished service.” The highest honor that Mississippi could offer a man for distinguished service to his country was personal responsibility for his own welfare His reward was freedom to find his own job and to have his own earnings, freedom to be responsible for his own hous- ing, freedom to arrange for his own medical care, freedom to save for his own old age. In short, his reward was the individual op- portunities—and the personal responsibili- ties—that have always distinguished a free man from a dependent. What higher honor can any government offer? THE RIGHTS OF A SLAVE But many present-day Americans are try- ing to avoid this personal responsibility that is freedom, They are voting for men who promise to install a system of compulsory, government-guaranteed security—a partial return to the old slave laws of Georgia that guaranteed to all slaves the right to food and raiment, to kind atention when sick, to maintenance in old age. * * * And the arguments used to defend this present-day trend toward the bondage of a welfare state are essentially the same arguments that were formerly used to defend the bondage of out- right slavery. For example, many of the slave holders claimed that they knew what was best for the slaves. After all, hadn’t the masters rescued the slaves from a hfe of savagery? The ad- vocates of government-guaranteed security also claim that they know what is best for the people. Many of them argue in this fashion: “After all, haven’t the American people conclusively shown that they are in- capable of handling the responsibility for their own welfare?” Many of the slave holders sincerely be- lieved that the dumb, ignorant slaves would starve to death unless their welfare was guaranteed by the masters. And the advo- cates of compulsory security frequently say: “Are you in favor of letting people starve?” MOST PRECIOUS OF ALL But as proof of the fact that personal re- sponsibility for one’s own welfare brings in- creased material well-being, consider the emancipated slaves. Among them, there were old and crippled and sick people. They had no homes, no jobs, and little education. But—-most precious of all—the former slaves were responsible for their own welfare. They were free. They had the privilege of finding their own security. Now compare the remarkable progress of those former slaves to the lack of progress of the American Indians who were made wards of the Government; who were given state-guaranteed “security” instead of free- dom with responsibility. In 1862, most American Negroes were slaves. Today they are about as self-supporting and responsible as other American citizens. Meanwhile the Indians as a group have become less self- supporting and more dependent on Govern. ment aid. It has been claimed that many thousands of Indians will actually die of starvation unless the Government feeds them. If this is true, why is it so? CARETAKERS There seems to be no scientific basis for calling the Indians an innately inferior race. As has been proved by the success of many individual Indians, they have just as much capacity for understanding and advance- ment as the Negroes and the so-called Nordics. But today there are more than 12,000 Federal employees directly ‘taking care” of the 233,000 reservation Indians, who are still classified as wards of the Govern~ ment. The number of Government caretak- ers for the Indians has been steadily increas- ing over the years. As a result, the reserva- tion Indian is becoming less self-sufficient and more dependent upon what he calls the great white father in Washington. Instead of freedom, the Indian has Gov- ernment-guaranteed security. Instead of individual responsibility, he has a Govern« ment bureau to handle his personal affairs. There are special laws governing his right to own land and to spend tribal money. Under that system of bondage it should sur- prise no one to find that many thousands of indians have remained uneducated, hungry, diseased, and mismanaged. THE ONLY SOLUTION The only lasting solution is for the Indians themselves to handle their own affairs on the basis of Individual freedom and personal responsibility. If this is not true, then the blessings of freedom would appear to be fanciful myths. But for some queer rea- son, we Americans seem to believe that just because our pioneer fathers once subjugated the Indians, we in turn are obligated to keep them in the bondage of Government security. As @ result, the Indian has the status of a ward instead of a citizen. Instead of being @ responsible person, he is a dependent. And in a like manner, if we free Americans continue to turn to government for our se~« curity, we too will surely become dependent APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD wards instead of responsible citizens. There will be a Commissioner to control our per- sonal affairs and our individual responsi- pilities. Instead of calico and blankets, we may be promised a hundred dollars every month. But since the principle is the same in both cases, the results will also eventually be the same. A RETURN TO BONDAGE The advocates of this compulsory security honestly seem to believe that most Ameri- cans——including the Indians—are too 1gnor- ant, or lazy, or worthless to be trusted with their oWn destiny; that they will literally starve in the streets unless their welfare is guaranteed by a benevolent government. However good their intentions may be, these disciples of a relief state are demanding that they be given the power to force mankind to follow their plans. In the name of liberty they advocate bondage. This is true because the persons who re- ceive support from the state are thereby led to expect—and then to demand—more sup- port from the state. They become depena- ents. Thus they enter into a form of bond- age. They lose their individual freedom of choice to whatever extent the state assumes responsibility for their personal welfare. In time, as is now the case in the welfare state of Russia, the people become completely sub- servient to the state. In effect, they become slaves of the benevolent government that has promised to solve all of their personal prob- lems for them Admittedly, this is not the intent of the planners. Apparently, most of the advo-« cates of Government paternalism really be- lieve that they are able to know and to do what is best for all of the people. Most of them may honestly desire to help the peo- ple. But their efforts always result in some form of bondage. For example, the leaders of the Labor government in Britain probably never even dreamed of bringing compulsory labor to its supporters Yet that is what they did. In England today the democrati- cally elected leaders can—and do~—force per- sons to work where the government decrees they are most needed. And if the person objects to his government’s decision, force is used to make him confornn. THE ROAD TO HELL In Russia we find another example of the fact that good intentions are no guaranty of freedom. For instance, in the beginning Lenin and Stalin probably had no desire whatever to bring slavery to Russia. Their announced plan was to free the Russian peo- ple from the slavery of an all-powerful gov- ernment. But look what happened. We Americans of today are following this same path toward the bondage of a welfare or slave state. Just as the law once guaran- teed adequate medical care for American slaves, 80 a law to guarantee adequate medi- cal care for all Americans is being demanded today. And who will determine what is adequate medical care fora person? Not the person, but the Government official who has the authority, And jobs? Of course the Government can guarantee every man a job—Just as every slave was guaranteed a job; just as every Rus- sian is guaraiteed a job. But it is impos- sible, of course, for the Government to guar- antee everyone a job of his own choosing. Some persons must be guaranteed the scaven- ger jobs. They may not like it, but depend- ents have little choice. THE ONLY HOPE It is true that many citizens in this coun- try are old and crippled and sick and home- less. Possibly some of them are jobless through no fault of their own. The same conditions existed during our Revolutionary War. But our ancestors knew that their only hope for permanent security lay in their own individual efforts. They knew that the main purpose of Government should be to
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD protect whatever security the people were able to attain individually or in voluntary cooperation. They knew that electing or ap~ pointing a man to public office cannot endow him with wisdom; it can endow him only with power. Thus they took no chances on this power of Government being used to en- croach upon their individual liberties and their personal responsibilities. In advance, they put positive restrictions on all office- holders. And as a final guaranty of freedom, they specified that any powers not expressly given to the Federal officials were to remain with the individual citizens and their local governments. THE USE OF FORCE The Américan Constitution naturally did not list virtues—such as compassion, charity, and respect for one’s fellow man—as func- tions of Government. The statesmen who founded our Government knew that all vir~ tues are purely personal and voluntary. It is utter nonsense to imagine that a person can be forced to be good. Government can and should use force to punish a person who commits a crime. But this same force can- not be used to create kindness and com- passion within the mind and heart of any person, Thus the authors of our Constitution left compassion and charity—aid to the unfor- tunate—on a strictly voluntary basis. They designed a form of government based on individual freedom, personal responsibility, and equality before the law for all citizens. Wisely, they made no attempt whatever to separate freedom of choice from the resulting reward or punishment, success or failure. Since they recognized the absurdity of pass- ing laws to protect a person from himself, they left all citizens free to make their own decisions concerning their own personal wel- fare. From all viewpoints, including that of material security for the so-called common man, those decisions concerning the proper functions of government proved to be the most effective that the world has ever known in this field. BREAD AND CIRCUS If this state-guaranteed security idea were new, it might help explain why so many peo- ple insist on trying it. But it is not new. It was written into the code of Hammurabi over 4,000 years ago. In one form or an- other, it has been tried time and again throughout history—always with the same result. In the Roman Empire it was called bread and circus. More recently, Karl Marx called it socialism. He believed that the state should take from each according to his abilities and give to each according to his needs. Marx said that it was the duty of govern- ment to provide all people with adequate housing, medical care, jobs, and social se- curity. Word for word, the advocates of Government security in this country are say- ing the same thing today. And just as the Russians are enslaved to a welfare state, so this country is being car~ ried into bondage by accepting the same false principle. Just as force is used in Russia to make the people conform to the security laws Cesigned for their own good, so we also are now forced to submit to Ameri- can security laws designed for our own good. And just as the Russian state punishes any objector, so the American state will now imprison us if we refuse to conform. ENEMY OF THE STATE If you doubt that compulsory socialism has gone to the extreme in this country, just test it, for instance, by refusing to pay the social-security tax that is taken from your salary. The Government will do the same thing to you that it did to the owner of a- small battery shop in Pennsylvania who balked at the idea of compulsory social se-, curity. First, the state confiscated his prop< erty. Still he refused to obey. Then the state preferred criminal charges against him. And in January of 1948, the Government gave him the choice of conforming or going to prison as a criminal—an enemy of the state because he refused to pay social se- curity. He paid. And his 6 months prison sentence was suspended. Next may come total Government hous.« ing—for our own good, of course. Then the state will assign us so many square feet of adequate living space. This is true because, under complete state ownership of housing, there is no other way that Government can doit. We may ask for more space, a different location, better service, or a choice of neigh- bors. But we already know the Govern- ment’s answer. Even today, a person has no real choice when he lives in Government housing. Next may come full employment with Gov- ernment-guaranteed jobs for everyone. A person will say, “I don’t want this job.’ And as happened under England’s program of government-guaranteed full employment, the American welfare state will also answer: “We will put you in jail as a criminal unless you work at your assigned task.” Along about then, the advocates of Govern- ment-guaranteed security may begin to un- derstand the inevitable results of their ideas. They may realize that it is power that makes a dictator, and not what he’s called or how he’s elected. When that fact has become obvious to everyone, the advocates of com- pulsory security will then exclaim: “But we didn’t mean this!” It will be too late to turn back at that point. Just as the night fol- lows the day, so; ‘ernment aid to the indi- vidual is followel ky government control of the individual, which recessarily means gov- ernment force against the individual. NO EASY WAY Fortunately, it is not yet too late for Amer= ica to turn away from the evil that is a welfare state; a slave state. But, unfor- tunately, there is no simple or easy way to do it. Both major political parties—along with the smaller ones—seem to be trying to outbid each other by promising more Govern- ment housing, more social security, more free medical care, more Government wel- fare projects, and more special privileges to various groups and interests. Most of our movies, magazines, newspapers, and radio programs generally endorse—di- rectly or indirectly—the idea of some form of Government-guaranteed security. Even the few objections seem to be aimed mostly at poor administration instead of a recogni- tion that the theory is wrong in principle. And, whether we like it or not, many of the instructors in our schools and colleges are teaching the desirability of the relief state, the planned economy, and Government ownership in general. GOLDEN RULE REJECTED Finally, even some of our church leaders are teaching that the force of government should be used to make people charitable and good. Some of these Christian leaders seem to have forgotten that the principles of the Good Samaritan and each individual doing unto others as he would have others do unto him are voluntary principles. In many cases, these principles have now been discarded for this evil slogan: “It is the duty of government to care for the sick, to feed the hungry, to aid the unfortunate, and to build houses for those who need. them.” Probably one of the main reasons for the declining influence of the church is that the church is defaulting on many of its own responsibilities by turning them over to government. Many of our church leaders are rendering unto Caesar that which does not belong to Caesar. But the politicians,” periodicals, schools, . and churches generally reflect the opinions A3107 of the persons who support them. Thus the final decision rests on the attitude of each individual American. If enough of us accept the degrading idea of a welfare state—a relief state, a slave state—the process will soon be completed. But if enough individ- tual Americans desire to return to the per- sonal responsibility that is freedom, we can have that too. THE CHOICE IS OURS Before choosing, however, consider this: When one chooses freedom—that is, per- sonal responsibility—he should understand that his decision will not meet with popular approval. It is almost certain that he will be called vile names when he tries to explain that compulsory government security—jobs, medicine, housing, and all the rest—is bad in principle and in its total effect; it saps character and strength by encouraging greed. and weakness; it destroys the individual’s God-given responsibility for self-help, re- spect, compassion, and charity; in some degree, it automatically turns all who accept it into wards of the government; it will eventually turn a proud and responsible People into cringing dependence upon the whims of an all-powerful state; it is the primrose path to serfdom. No, the choice is not an easy one. But then, the choice of freedom never has been easy. It never will be easy. Since this capacity for personal responsibility—free- dom—is God’s most precicus gift to man- kind, it requires the highest form of under- standing and courage. Surrendering Our State Sovereignty EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, just how the American people are surrendering the sovereignty of the States through the medium of international agreements having the force and effect of treaties, was well illustrated last Tuesday by a decision in the Federal district court of appeals in Los Angeles. The issue of sovereignty was raised in a case under California’s alien land law in which a lower court had ruled that a Japanese could not keep property pur- chased more than 40 years ago, because he was ineligible for citizenship under the Jaws of California. The court of ap- peals held that the United Nations Char- ter is a treaty between the United States and other United Nations members. Now, the Constitution of the United States, article VI, provides: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pur- suance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The decision of the Court of Appeals of California said, in part: The (United Nations) Charter guarantees universal respect for human rights and fun- damental freedoms for all, without regard for race, color, or religion. Because the alien
A3108 land law discriminates against Japanese concerning ownership of land, its restric- tions are untenable and indefensible. This decision should be a warning to the people of the United States that not only State but Federal sovereignty may be surrendered if our Government joins in the many international organizations now being set up under the United Na- tions, or to be taken into relationship with the United Nations under article 57 of the Charter. This California decision should warn the American people and their legisla- tive representatives to look well before they leap into any new schemes for world-wide control of trade and similar proposals. Our sovereignty 1s too sacred to be lightly tossed away for a mess of international pottage. Charles Hamilton Houston EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 28 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, on April 22 a great American, Charles Ham-~ ilton Houston, died at the age of 54 years. Mr. Houston, a prominent attorney in the District of Columbia, was one of the strongest champions of civil rights in America. A native of Washington, he was a graduate of Amherst College and of the Harvard Law School. He was the first Negro to be an editor of the Har- vard Law Review and the first Negro te be awarded the degree of doctor of ju- ridical science by the Harvard Law School. Mr. Houston, as a public servant and as an outstanding representative of his people and of all Americans, achieved his greatest distinction as an advocate of equal rights for all Americans regardless of their race, color, or creed. From 1929 until 1935 he was vice dean of the School of Law at Howard University. He was special counsel for the National Associa- tion for the Advancement of Colored People, a vice president of the American Council on Race Relations, and in 1944 he was appointed by President Roosevelt as a member of the President’s Commit- tee on Fair Employment Practices. Mr. Houston was a distinguished son of a distinguished father who himself has had a notable career in the law and as a servant and a leader of his people, I ask unanimous consent to have print- ed in the Appendix of the Recorp an edi-~ torial published in the Washington Post for Tuesday, April 25, 1950, paying tribute to Mr. Houston and his career. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: CHARLES H. Housron Within the professional lifetime of Charles H. Houston, a profound and significant change took place in the emancipation of American Negroes, He was one of the prin- cipal architects of this change. His great gifts as a lawyer were devoted from the be- ginning of his career to an unremitting bat- tle to win for Nezva77 roniT2 cavality be- fore the law. Fo cr.c.2 us. “ios barriers of discrimination on grounds of race crumbled under the skill and stubbornness of his onslaught. It is a tragedy that he could not have lived to see the final victory of the cause he championed and did so much to win. An outstanding student at the Harvard Law School—he was the first Negro editor of the Harvard Law Review—and later vice dean of the School of Law at Howard University, he served as special counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He led the successful appeal to the courts un the restrictive covenants cases cul- minating in a decision by the Supreme Court 2 years ago that such covenants are unen- forceable by either State or Federal courts. And he was in the forefront of the effort to secure equal educational opportunities for Negroes in State universities. Whites no less than Negroes must mourn the death of this crusader for a principle that lies at the heart of American democracy. Visitation From Filipino Veterans of World War II EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BARRATT O’HARA OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 28, 1950 Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, from a letter received from ‘Terry Magtangol Adevoso, national command- er of the Philippine Veterans’ Legion, I learn that Quring the present session of the Congress a delegation of the Filipino veterans of World War II is to come from the islands to visit with us here in the Capital at Washington. I bespeak for them the most cordial of welcomes. For these veterans who stood loyally and valiantly in perilous and uncertain days side by side with Americans from many States of the Union there ever will be deep in our hearts a warm affection. For many years prior to World War ITI I was closely associated with the fine young men and women who constituted the Philippine colony in the city of Chi- cago. There at that time were some 5,000 in the group, and I felt that from their association with us in the routine of the daily living of our lives together in a democratic atmosphere would come a bond of closer understanding which would serve the common interest of both the Filipinos and the people of the: United States when troubles in the Orient should involve us. I need not say that no one was more thrilled and grati- fied than was I by the manner in which the Filipinos did prove their under- standing of and their friendship for us when trouble did come and Pearl Harbor had left us with our backs to the wall. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that when a boy of 16, returning from the siege of Santiago in Cuba, I was prevented from reenlisting for sérvice in the Philippines APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by an illness which seized me in the fever-plagued camp in Cuba after the surrender and from which the remnant of the American invasion army was saved only by the famous “round robin’ of “Teddy” Roosevelt and in which Col, James Hamilton Lewis, later to serve with such brilliance as a United States Senator from Illinois, joined at risk of military discipline and court martial. But my tentmate and buddy, another boy of 16, did go to the Philippines and shortly thereafter fell in action. For move than half a century his body has reposed in Philippine soil. My life- long interest in the people of the islands I have wished to be something in the nature of a small memorial to this boy soldier of America with whom I served in the storming of Santiago. With my colleagues who served in World War I and World War <i, I shall give warm welcome to the veterans from the islands when they come to Wash- ington. The letter of Commander Adevoso fol~ lows: PHILIPPINE VETERANS’ LEGION, Manila, Philippines, March 9, 1950. Hon. Barratr O’Hara, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Sm: The Philippine Veterans’ Legion, a national organization of Filipino veterans of World War II is, with the blessings of our people, sending in the very near future a mission to Washington, D. C., to seek the passage of the Kearney bill. The Kearney hill, as we have been in- formed, provides for educational benefits and mustering-out pay to Filipino veterans and burial expenses to war widows and de- pendent parents of Filipino deceased soldiers, The passage of the Kearney bill would be a great relief to Filipino ex-servicemen, war widows, orphans, and indigent parents. We Filipino veterans feel that we can count on your support, knowing as we do that you are also a veteran. Perhaps, it is needless to say, deeming it to be a common knowledge that on this side of the Pacific we are very much left out. Our men, during the fighting, were promised equal postwar treatment with their Ameri- can brother in the same foxhole, only for them to find out after the war was over that they are out as far as readjustment benefits are concerned. We all feel, therefore, that we should let you know that as fellow defend- ers of the ideals of democracy and the demo- cratic way of life who fought under an Amer- ican commander, on American’soil, for the American flag, and against a common enemy, we have not been treated justly. We also feel that the enjoyment of benefits that the Kearney bill would make possible for us in a@ certain measure, would be only an act of justice on the part of the American people and Government. We believe that we are not fighting for anything unreasonable, but that which is rightly due our veteran. We trust, that not only do you see the Justness of our claim, but that you sufficient- ly appreciate it to want to help us. We hope that the members of the mission after their arrival at Washington, D. C., will benefit from whatever help you may be able to extend to them. Allow us to extend to you the warmest re- gards and best wishes of 380,186 Usaffes and recognized guerrillas and 106,502 war widows and indigent parents. Very sincerely yours, Terry “MaGTANGOL” ADEVOSO, National Commander.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Donaldson Order a Fraud EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, Many Congressmen are in agreement that the spectacular order of Postmaster General Jesse Donaldson to fire thousands of postal workers and to lay off other thou- sands in an apparent economy move was nothing but a cleverly-designed nolitical tactic to make it seem that the adminis- tration is trying to promote efficiency in Government. ‘The order proves just the opposite. If Mr. Donaldson and the Trur_anites want te promote efficiency in the Post Office Department—a highly worthy purpose, most every one agrees—they sho-zld fol- low the careful recommendations of the Hoover Commission. Instead, Mr. Don- aldson and his advisers have sniffed dis- dainfully at the Hoover reforms and steadfastly have refused even to endorse them. It is a matter of cold fact, provable by figures, that the Post Office could save from one-fourth to one-half bilien dol- lars by putting the Hoover reforms into effect. Instead, Mr. Donaldson hastily pulls some reforms out of his own hat and wants citizens to believe that these reforms are to promote efficiency. The Donaldson order will promote in- efficiency. It will promote a more dis- gruntied postal service. It will promote amore disgruntled citizenry. It will save very little, compared to what could be saved. The postal workers have fcught and won increases in pay, fairly and legitimately. Now, many of them will be robbed of any pay, through Mr. Don- aldson’s shenanigans. Voice of America EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JACOB K. JAVITS OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, May 1 marks the first anniversary of the use by the Voice of America of Martin Block’s international make-believe ball- room program. The use of this program by the Voice of America was in response to numerous requests from overseas lis- teners for broadcasts featuring popular American music. The anniversary will be signalized on the Voice of America by a special 1-hour program. There is ap- pended a statement obtained from the Department of State describing this pro- gram: Mr. Block volunteers his services, record- ings, and facilities for the International Make-Believe Ballrcom, which is beamed by short-wave to Europe, Latin America, and the Far East, and :s sent in the form of tran- scriptions to numerous USIS outposts for use by local radio stations in those areas. The program is designed to popularize not only America’s music, but also the American Way of life and the freedom with which American singers, composers, and artists live and work. Itis also designed to complement and balance the talks, commentaries, analy- ses, features, and news with which the Voice of America schedule is weighted. The International Make-Believe Ballroom has been « popular one from the start and has attracted thousands of letters from all parts of the world, including some trem be- hind the iron curtain. It has become cne of the most popular Eng- lish language programs broadcast by the Voice of Americn, The program is 80 minutes weekly, and is divided into two parts. In the first, Mr. Block plays the latest music releases and, in the second, he plays requests from overseas listeners, mentioning their names. The format of the show is similar to the domestic version of “Make-Believe Ballroom,” except that more attention is given to backgrounc material about the music, com- posers, and musicians. Since the International Make-Believe Ball- room started, Mr. Block has never failed to produce the weekly ‘show, despite illnesses and the pressure of his own career. The first anniversary will be characterized on the Voice of America by a special 1-hour program, whicl will include congratulations and greetings from some of America’s leading performers. What Alaska Needs EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. COMPTON I. WHITE OF IDAHO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 26, 1950 Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, many years ago, I read a report of the Department of Agriculture that Alaska ‘was capable of supporting a population comparable with the combined popula- tion of the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, and Finland. I believe that was before gold was discovered in the Klondike and at Nome. Since then, Alaska has come in for considerable attention by the Federal departments with the result that little in the way of real development has been accomplished. Gold miners never do much in devel- oping any country. Their motive, in the past, has been to get into a country, get the gold, and get out. One of Alaska’s most valuable re- sources is its timber. Withdrawing Alaskan timberlands from scttlement to put them in forest reserves has greatly retarded the development of the Terri- tory. If there is any resource that has sustained the settlers that went up on the public land in this country and built up the communities of our Nation, it was our stands of timber on public land. If there is anything that sustains the Finnish people today, it is the utilization of Finland’s timber resources, Alaska needs transportation. It needs roads and settlers. It needs a liberal policy by the Federal Government in assisting the settlers to go upon and own their lands and homes, and encourage- A3109 ment to use Alaska’s natural resources, including Alaska’s stands of timber. Let us remove the blocks holding Alaska back and let the great common- wealth roll forward in its development as the forty-ninth State in the Union. There is inserted herewith for the consideration of my colleagues an ap- peal to the President by the people of Hot Springs, Alaska, for the continua- tion and protection of their indispen- sable air transportation by the so-called bush pilots: Mz. PRESIDENT, WE ARE LosinG FarrH For decades, we who live in Alaska have been doing our best to develop the resources of our great Territory and to expand the economy of our northland. We have been doing all in our power to build a good Amer- ican civilization up here in these northern latitudes. WE WERE INSPIRED .We were tremendously inspired when you sent special messages to Congress urging a great program of development in Alaska. We were very happy when you pointed out the opportunities for permanent settlement in the Territory. We knew we had a friend in the White House when you urged imme- diate statehood for Alaska—equal rights under the American flag for us living up here. We knew that you had an accurate picture of Alaska’s strategic importance when you championed an impregnable over- the-top defense. With your sponsorship, we had high hopes for the rapid growth of our Territory. But one agency of our Federal Government is completely nullifying your program for Alaska. This agency is hamstringing, sti- fling, and thwarting progress and growth in the Territory. This agency is the Civil Aeronautics Board. As far as Alaska is concerned, the CAB is doing exactly the opposite of what was in- tended in the act of 1988 under which the CAB was sworn. THE CAB DESTROYS In Alaska, the CAB is killing off the bush flyer so vital to the economy of our hinter- land. In Alaska, the CAB is doing a miserable job of dealing with the problems of the intra- Alaskan air carriers. The CAB has publicly announced that it is determined that the nonscheduled, low- cost air carriers between the States and Alaska—upon whom we depend for more than two-thirds of our food, supplies, and merchandise—shall be wiped from the skies. Though we have been trying, for years, to get more scheduled air lines between the States and Alaska, the CAB says, in sub- stance, that this is not necessary, that addi- tional service would not be in the public interest. It is this type of unrealistic thinking on the part of the CAB that clearly shows the Board’s lack of understanding of the prob- lems of the Territory. Is it any wonder, Mr. President, that we in the Territory call the CAB “the low man on the totem pole”? The Alaska Territorial Legislature sent a memorial to the CAB stating that this agency was working 100 percent against the best in~ terests of Alaska. Where did it get us? Nowhere. Chambers of commerce from one end of Alaska to the other have expressed their dis- approval of CAB policies. The Alaska De- velopment Board, merchants’ associations, community clubs, government agencies, the clergy, countless individuals, the persecuted pilots themselves and even native tribes have all protested to the CAB—but without avail. In our own case, Mr. President, in our own village of Hot Springs, Alaska, the CAB arbi- trarily, and without adequate hearing, de- nied our local air line the right to carry
A3110 United States mail. The CAB gave the cer- tificate to a large company which had never served our town. It meant nothing to the CAB that Lon Brennan and Bob Byers had served us faithfully and honestly for more than 10 years, that they had helped us build up our hinterland economy so that all of us were making a pretty good living. It meant nothing to the CAB that this bush com- pany would not be able to survive the com- petition of an air line guaranteed a profit and receiving a subsidy from the United States Treasury. Never had a member of the CAB, while in office, ever come to Alas:.a to find out first hand, our needs in air transportation. Never had even an Alaskan employee of the Board been to our area to see how much we de- pended on Lon Brennan and Bob Byers for our basic economic needs. Yet the CAB, sit- ting in Washington, handed down a deci- sion which, if allowed to stand, will kill the economy of our area. We have lost all confidence in the CAB, Mr President. Our last hope was dashed last November when a member of the Board made a swift 10-day trip to three cities of the Territory. We had high hopes that he would make an effort to understand our air needs. But he came to tell us, and not to listen. He refused to talk with two-thirds of the persons who asked to talk with him. From our standpoint, his trip was a dismal failure. FACT-FINDING COMMISSION Mr. President, we Alaskans petition you to appoint a Presidential fact-finding commis- sion of at least five impartial and unbiased minds. We ask that this commission come to Alaska to hold hearings on the air needs of Alaska, to talk formally and informally with our citizens on what kind of air policy will best serve the needs of a growing coun- try, what kind of policy will help—not hin- der—the over-the-top defense program. This fact-finding commission should rep- resent the Federal Government and the pub- lic in the broadest sense. The commission members should have a hearty sympathy for the problems of the frontier. They should be willing to listen to the little man—the American pioneer in Alaska who stakes his bank roll on a chance to pull himself up by his bootstraps. Mr. President, we want a fair deal in Alaska. We want a fair deal for Lon Bren- nan and Bob Byers in our own backyard. We want a fair deal for all other bush pilots in the Territory. We want a fair deal for the nonscheduled air carriers between the States and Alaska. We want a fair deal for the intra-Alaskan carriers. And we believe we are entitled to more scheduled service between Alaska and all parts of the States. Mr. President, the citizens of Alaska ask your cooperation. Give us, for the economy of the Territory, an air industry free from the paralysis of the CAB, and we shall for- ever be grateful. CitrzENs oF Hor SrriIncs, ALASKA. UU nInspam sen emneeneeemeemmmmeed Invocation at Jackson-Jefferson Day Banquet EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON OF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 28 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Appendix of the Recorp the invocation delivered at the Jackson-Jef- ferson Day banquet at Denver, Colo., by the Rt. Rev. Msgr. John R. Mulroy on April 20, 1950. Many who heard it re- joiced in its excellence. Therefore, I wish to give others the opportunity of profiting from it. There being no objection, the invoca- tion was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: INVOCATION O God, Our Father, behold this assembly of Thy children who invoke Thy Name and ask for Thy blessing. Tonight they deign to begin this rally by calling on Thee, in adoration, love, and thanksgiving. You have bestowed many blessings upon them in the years just passed. They have been instru- ments 1n the sharing of those blessings by many citizens and many nations. There~ fore, they say with the psalmist, “Non nobis, Domine, non nobis sed nomins tuo da glo- yiam’? “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to Thy Name give glory.” Tonight we thank Thee for Thy many gifts, that we may be worthy of their continuation in the future. We ask Thy benediction for all here assembled, not only upon the food they eat, but upon all the thoughts, desires, and resolves that they here*make. We are aware of our shortcomings. We know that as with some of Columbus’ men, false lights appeared on a shadowy shore, as gleaming cities of the mirage allure the weary travelers with visions that cannot endure, so the false philosophy of heaven on earth has led some of us astray. Disillusion them tonight, O good God, by words of wisdom from their leaders, bring them the blessings of harmony in speech and honesty in action. May the sense of accountability to Thee, O kind, but just God, return to those who have forgotten it. May all of us realize that suc- cess and honor bring duties and responsi- pilities and that in our fair land, steward- ship is weighed in the balance of our fellow citizens Ultimately, honesty and unselfish- ness tip the scales. Bless in particular, tonight, our honored speaker and his distinguished confreres in national and State affairs. May they have courage, confidence, and good health to con- tinue their good deeds so many of which go unrecognized and unrewarded. May they keep our ship of state as a true vessel of Thy election, O good God, to bring justice, mercy, and charity to all mankind. Be with us now and always that we may not lose the keys of Thy kingdom on earth and in Heaven. Amen! Time for Defense EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. OVERTON BROOKS OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 28, 1950 Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend and revise my remarks, I include a radio interview on the Time for Defense program between Gen. J. Lawton Collins, Chief of Staff, United States Army, and Mr. Lyle C. Wilson, chief of the Washington Bureau, United Press, on April 25. In this interview, General Collins deals with national de- fense from the Army viewpoint; and his APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD timely and very informative remarks follow: General Conitins. It is a pleasure to be back on the Time for Defense program, which is performing a great service In giving the American people facts about their national defense. It 1s even more of a pleasure to introduce our guests for this evening, Mr. Lyle Wilson, chief of the United Press Wash- ington Bureau for the past 16 years and a keen student of our many and complex prob- lems of security. We are happy to have you with us tonight, Lyle. Mr. Wiuson. Thank you, General Collins, I have some questions, the first of which concerns the state of readiness of our armed forces, and about which there has been much discussion recently in the press. Could you tell us, just how ready is the Army today? General CoLuins. Mr. Wilson, we have a small Army but a good one. During the war, we had 90 combat divisions, all but one of which saw action. Today, we have only 10 divisions at reduced strength. Our units are equipped principally with World War II equipment, most of which is about 7 years old. However, we do have some units—the Highty-second Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N. C., for example—which are ready right now to move to any spot in the world in case of emergency. For the entire Army, however, I can summarize by saying that with due consideration for strength restric. tions add certain deficiencies in equipment, our units, if attacked, would give an ex. cellent account of themselves. Mr. Witson. Well, thank you, you answered up on that one. Now, let me ask you this question. What, in your opinion, have been the Army’s most noteworthy postwar weapon developments? General Cotntins. Some of our most note- worthy postwar weapon developments have been in the field of defense against air at- tack. Because new developments in aircraft are rapidly making our conventional antiair- craft guns obsolete, our problem has been to develop new weapons to combat the high- flying, fast bombers that may be used to at- tack the United States. I am happy to tell you that the Army is making genuine prog- ress in this fleld. Naturally, the details of these ~weanc-3 will have to remain secret, but I .hink this the American people ought to know as much as possible about what they can expect from the Army as far as protection from air attack is concerned. For example, the Army has in the advanced stages of de- velopment new antiaircraft rockets, which will be relatively inexpensive, and which we are confident will be able to destroy planes at altitudes above 60,000 feet. Mr. WILson. Pretty high. General CoLLins. Yes, indeed. That’s far in excess of the capabilities of present-day bombers, We also have an antiaircraft guided mis- sile which gives promise of destroying at~- tacking planes at even greater ranges and with even greater accuracy. Another problem which plagued us dur- ing the war, and which has been intensified since, is how to defeat potential aggressor armies that have vast numbers of tanks. We now feel that we are well on the way to- ward producing a weapon of radical design that can fill this need, and which may, in Zack, change the whole concept of tank war- are. Of course, the principal limitation in the development of all of these new weapons is the availability of funds, because we can never get as much money as we feel We need. But I can assure you that the Army is get- ting the utmost out of every dollar it spends for research and development. In its ef- forts to provide these new weapons, the Army has engaged outstanding civilian
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD scientists and industrialists who are doing a splendid Job in helping us. Mr. Witson. That’s encouraging. Now I would like to discuss with you one of the basic concepts of the Army system. ‘The other day I read a fine compliment to your organization, in Mr. Alfred P. Sloan’s auto- biography, in which he stated that when he became President of General Motors he de- veloped a General Staff similar to the one used in the Army, organized, you know, on a functional basis. That is certainly a trib- ute to the Army when you consider that management efficiency and economy have always been vital to American business. General Collins, just what is the Army’s General Staff Corps? Is it comnesed entirely of generals, for 2} ...."% I .. an elite corps? Just what is it? General CoLLiIns. No, Lyle. It’s not com- posed, fortunately, just of generals. The General Staff is not an elite corps. Officers serve on the General Staff for several years and then leave it to go back to duty with troops. We have them do this because we feel that our officers must have broad ex- perience in both staff and command duties. As a matter of fact, command of troops, in my mind, gives more real sats acuon to officers than any staf duty would. But to get back to your question, however, the Army General Staff had its origin in the Army’s own unification controversy about 50 years ago. In the early nineteen hundreds there was a tremendous amount of duplica- tion and conflict in the Army, all at the ex- pense of the taxpayer. This was caused by independent ard separate acts of various chiefs of Army bureaus who were frequently in opposition to one another. Mr. Elihu Root, the then Secretary of War, decided that we had to put a stop to it. So he es- tablished a General Staff in 1908. It was to be a group of men serving the Secretary of the Army and having general cognizance of and coordination responsibility over, broad fields of Army activity. The members of the General Staff do not make decisions or exercise command; they merely recommend to the Secretary and assist him to perform his many complicated duties. Mr. Witson. Well, that’s what they do, all right. But where is it, and does this General Staff exist only in Washington? General CoLuINS. No. This system begins in the Army, as a matter of fact, down in our battalions, and as you know, the battalion is the basic combat unit of the Army. The battalion commander has a small staff, con- sisting of a personnel officer, the S-1, who assists in all personnel matiers; an intelli- gence officer, the S-2, who correlates all the information about the enemy that is coming in from various sources; the S-3, who assists the battalion commander in issuing tactical orders, and in planning and training; and, finally, he has an S-4, who coordinates all iciistiecl mrvter> such as supply, transporta- LO ord evecus.cen of the wounded. This small battalion staff is really a miniature version of the General Staff. Mr. Wriuson. May I interrupt, General? Are you using the word “general” as a generic term or as a military term? General CoLLINS. Well, if I remember what generic means—— Mr. Witson. I’m not sure I do. wonderful word. General CoLLINs. Well, as I understand it, the term means truly general in character. In other words, the simplest meaning of the word “general.” It has no particular sig- nificance in relationship to generals of the Army. Mr. Witson. No stars? General ConuiIns. No stars involved in it at all. It really applies, then, to a staff which has general fields—broad fields—of activity. For example, a step above the battalion commander is the regimental It’s a commander, who has a broader responsi- bility since he commands three battalions. The regimental commander needs a staff with the same basic functions as the bat- talion staff. Similarly, the larger units— divisions, corps, and armies—-need consider- able staffs. And, finally, when you get to the Department of the Army here in Wash- ington, you find exactly the same system which we have paralleled in our units in the field. However, above the regiment, the staff officers are no longer called S-1, 2, 3, and 4, but rather G-1, 2, 3, and 4, although they have simular duties. Mr. Winson. What about these sensational charges, General, that we have seen made from time to time against the Army General Staff and how it was going to take over the country? General Coniins. Frankly, we don’t think anybody is greatly concerned about such a charge. Actually such charges are ridiculous. The General S-aff does nct h-ve any power of its own, even inside the Army, let alone in any other organization of Government. It can only make recommendations to the Secretary of the Army or the subordinate commanders in the field. It never has had any command function and never should have. The Army has always been—and we in the Army feel it always should be—defi- nitely subordinate to civilian authority. Mr. WinLson. It seems that this similarity existing betwen the staffs of your smaller and larger units would have outstanding advantages both in peace and war. General Comins. Well, it definitely has Lyle. It is a perfectly magnificent system, productive of great economy of effort, mini- mum duplicat‘on, and maximum. of eficien- ey. The fucz thar we have it as a uniform system throughout our Army permits our young officers to gain experience in using it as they move along in the chain of com- mand. So when they move from the battal~ ion to the regiment, they do not have to learn a new staff system. It is the same one they are already familiar with. It’s uni- form throughout the Army. It is valuable also when units pass back and forth between various commands in time of war. When a new division joins a corps, for example, the corps commander does not need to explain what his system is to the division com- mander. During the war, for example, I had 22 divisions pass through my seventh corps. They went in and out without caus- ing a ripple. We all talked the same lan- guage, we all followed the same system. This uniformity of procedure is tremendous- ly important in peace, and is even more important in war. Mr. Winson. Sounds good, so let me ask you this, General: Once selected, do officers always stay on the General Staff? General Cortums. No, Lyle, they do exactly the opposite. Because we feel that they should spend most of their time out in the field, broadening their experience by gaining first-hand knowledge of troop problems, we detail them for a tour of only 3 years on the General Staff, and then send them back to the field to some other type of duty. In this way, we get well-rounded officers with bal- anced staff and field experience. This prac- tice is a part of Army career planning for officers. Mr. Witson. Well, General, I must say that your explanation has certainly cleared up 2 lot of things. Now I hope we have time for this one last question: I have often heard it said that one of the first Communist ob-~ * jectives in case of war would be the industries of western Europe. If this were true, how would it affect the character of a war tha we might have to fight? General CoLLins. Well, I certainly agree that western Europe is one of the great in- dustrial areas of the world. And, undoubi-~ edly, it would be a great prize for any aggres= sor and would be a very important consider- A3111 ation in the plans for defense that we are formulating with our friends in western Eu- rope. The campaigns that might have to be fought to defend this area are certain to be greatly influenced by the geography of the area and the capahilities of potential aggres- sors. We know that the police states have the greatest land armies in the world and are extremely strong in armored divisions, which are capable of fast, offensive thrusts across the land. Undoubtedly any campaign that they would launch would result in a great land and air battle in northern Europe. In my judgment it would require land torces—armies—supported by tactical air forces to stop them. It is our fervent hope, of course, that with our Marshall plan, the North Atlantic Treaty, and the military-assistance pro- gram—backed up by our own military pre- paredness—we can prevent this battle from ever taking place. Notable Radio Broadcast by Rear Admiral Swanson, Surgeon General of the Navy EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. BARRATT O’HARA OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 28, 1950 Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as supplementing the informative, illu- minating, and valuable remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WoL- VERTON] in this Chamber on Wednesday, April 26, 1950, and appearing on pages 5818-5819 of the ConGRESSIONAL RECORD of that day, I wish to call to the atten- tion of the House and of the country the outstanding contribution of the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Md., to the health of the members of the armed services and their families, and also, to an extent not generally known, through extensive and fruitful research, to the health of the entire country. In this connection I am inserting by leave unanimously granted the full text of a radio broadcast prepared for Quorum Call, the weekly radio program of the Dlinois Congressman, which is broadcast over WCFL in Chicago and other stations in the Middle West. Iam sure that the Membership of the House will find most interesting the remarks of Rear Adm. Clifford A. Swanson, Med- ical Corps, United States Navy, the great Surgeon General of the Navy. The text of the broadcast follows: Representative O’Hars. Admiral Swanson, visiting at the National Naval Medical Cen- ter at Bethesda, Md., I have been greatly impressed by the high-level efficiency of Navy hospital management. I appreciate that civilian hospitals have many problems and that as a whole they are doing a mag- nificent job. However, I am informed that sometimes the cost of hospitalization is greater than the average American family can afford, without serious inroads into sav- ings. For this reason many patients may not be hospitalized, and many others may go to the hospital tardily and leave before it is quite prudent. I would say that it is a subject in which all the American people, including certainly the doctors, are keenly interested. We all are concerned with in- suring adequate medical services and with
A3112 advancing the health and welfare of the people. Of course, there are differences of opinion on matters of procedure to achieve these worthy objectives. I would like to get from you, and I know our hsteners would be tremendously interested, a general idea of how the naval medical and hospital serv- ice works. That, it seems to me, would be an intimate, close-to-home contribution to the modern concept of the progress of health administration and improved wel- fare through the miracles of modern medi- cine. In a way, Admiral Swanson, what we Have in the armed services, and have en- joyed since the earliest days of the Repub- lic, is a highly organized, efficient practice of medicine. There has always been the warmest cooperation between the civilian physicians and the Medical Corps of the armed services with mutual benefits. In- deed, I have heard it said that the one clear victory we won in World War I, and that was a victory in which all the world shared, was the victory over disease. That is, that medical science, both preventative and cura- tive, under the spurs of the necessities and emergencies of the great war, and under the direction of men like yourself who had de- voted your lives to the field of military med- icine, and with the unselfish and invaluable cooperation of the civilian medical profes- sion, made 1n a space of 4 or 5 years a prog- ress never before in all the history of the world even approached in its extent and magnitude. I wonder, Admiral Swanson, if you would care to comment on that accom- plishment? Is it true that because of this constructive progress of medical science during the trial and stress of a devastating war the life expectancy of human beings the world over, human beings born after the war was over, will be materially ex- tended? Admiral Swanson. Yes, Congressman O'Hara, war is always a stimulus to advances in the field of medicine and surgery. Mili- tary surgeons achieved results in World War II never before equaled in military or civilian medicine. For example, out of every 100 men wounded, 97 survived, a mortality rate of 8 percent as compared with a mortality rate of 11.1 percent in World WarI. Although in previous wars deaths from disease always outnumbered deaths from enemy action, in World War II, for the first time in history, that ratio was reversed. In the First World War, one out of three patients with menin- gitis died, while in the late war only one out of 22 died. The mortality rate for lobar pneumonia in World War I was 12 percent, while in World War II less than 1 percent died; deaths from measles were reduced from 8 per 1,000 to five-tenths per 1,000, and deaths from erysipelas were reduced from 20 per 1,000 to seven-tenths per 1,000. In all wars previous to World War I typhoid and typhus killed thousands, but during the entire period of the late war there were only 8 deaths from typhoid fever and 19 from typhus fever among the 5,000,000 men in the Navy and Marine Corps. I remember this statement by Sir Thomas Albutt of England made in the past century: “I would remind you again how large and various was the experience of the battlefield and how fertile the blood of warriors in rear- ing good doctors.” Of course, our World War II record was not achieved by military doctors alone, but by the combined efforts of the regular mem- bers of the Medical Department, along with thousands of civilians in uniform, hospital corpsmen, nurses and dentists, and civilians not in uniform. Both the combatant and medical units of the Navy wage war against enemies. How- ever, the enemies against which the medical profession wages war are ever present in the form of the host of diseases as well as the many pitfalls and hazards which are ever in- creasing as the result of civilization’s prog- ress. The combatant units march under the . themselves out. banner of Mars and must have as their cardinal mission the dubious glory of slaying human beings. The medical forces march under the banner of Aesculapius and have as their cardinal mission the solemn duty of salvaging and saving. War does indeed promote medical progress, but of course this is not an argument in favor of war as a means of solving the prob- lems of medicine, such as finding the cure for heart disease or cancer or the other dis- eases we do not now understand. Representative O’HaRA. Thank you, Ad- mural Swanson, for that heartening con- tribution. I think this is something that our American people should know a little better than they do. While the primary benefits of the medical services and hospitals of the armed services go to service personnel and their dependents, indirectly all of us everywhere benefit to the extent of having materially increased our life expectancy. Before we leave that phase it might help our listeners to a better understanding of how this work in the interest of all of us is still a vital part of the medical program of the armed services by telling them some- thing about the National Naval’ Medical Center and the activities of Rear Adm. M. D. Willeutts, his administrative assistant, Lt. Comdr. C. L. Crawford, and the other mem- bers of the staff. Admiral Swanson. The National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda is one of the greatest institutions of its kind in the world. Commissioned and dedicated in 1942 by President Roosevelt, it has grown into a powerful institution devoted to care and treatment of naval personnel, their depend- ents, Members of Congress, veterans, and others. It includes a naval hospital; a med- jeal school and a dental school for post- graduate training of Medical Department personnel; a school of hospital administra- tion for training of officers and corpsmen; and a medical research institute. We are proud of the prestige attached to the Bethesda professional staff in all its spe- cialized aspects. We are proud of the ad- vanced training in atomic medicine we are giving here to Regular and Reserve officers. We are particularly emphasizing our research program under the counsel of a distinguished Civilian scientist, Dr. Kenneth Cole. The professional competence of our physicians and dentists will increase as research adds to our professional knowledge. At the same time we are keeping abreast of the medical aspects of warfare in order to give the maximum support to naval combatant units in case of another emergency. Representative O’Hara. Now, this leads, of course, to another subject. You mentioned it the other day when we were chatting, and it made a deep impression on me that one as busy as yourself as the Surgeon General of the Navy, the executive and responsible head of a great system of medical services, studies, and research and of some of the best hospitals in the world nevertheless found time to participate actively in world discus- sions of the subject of the effect of popula- tion concentrations. That is not exactly a related subject in a strictly medical sense, but certainly there is a cause-and-effect re- lationship. That is, as your profession of medicine more and :nore solves its problem of combating disease the greater and greater becomes the problem of the econo- mist—population concentration. Sometimes we hear it said that in this complex civiliza- tion of ours there is too much planning, that we ought to go back to the simple primitive formula of just letting things work That’s what the Indians in North America did—let things work them- selves out—with the result that when a hard winter came they weren’t prepared and died off so rapidly that there certainly wasn't any population concentration problem among them. So unless we had planning now and APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD coordination among the keen brains in all activities we would only get rid of one head- ache by taking on another. That’s why I think it is so luminating to stress your in- terest in the problem of population concen- trations. What you ave doing, with civilian doctors and scientists in the service of the people, is to increase the population of the world by removing the causes of plagues and finding new cures for diseases. I suppose, Admiral Swanson, that while your work pri- marily is in the field of physical ailments you feel that you do have an interest, and a re- lated interest, in the field of economic ail. ments, inasmuch as you do not wish to ‘see your work in increasing population undone by a growing spread of malnutrition and starvation. I know our listeners, Admural Swanson, would ap»reciate hearing from you your views on this proviem of population concentrations and how you as Surgeon Gen- eral of the Navy have accepted it as your duty to the American people to participate in its study. Admiral Swanson. Congressman O’HaRa, you have raised a question of great interest to me. I believe that doctors must collabo- rate with economists, political scientists, diplomats, psychologists, and religious lead- ers in solving world problems and domestic problems. I believe that by making additional areas of the world available for settlement by use of medical science and industrial technology we can help solve political problems which are too difficult for dinlomacy alone. Some of the conflicts and discon.e in Europe, the Middle Hast, and Asia can be resolved if a part of the population migrates to new fron~- tiers where century-old prejudices and con- flicts can be forgotten. We can use science to solve at least some political problems by providing the means to make new areas livable. There are now sparsely settled areas in South America, Africa, Australia, Siberia, In- donesia, Arabia, and Canada To make them livable science must help supply the tech- nical know-how for irrigation, sanitary en- gineering, scientific agriculture, and protec~- tion against certain diseases, along with gen- eral medical knowledge. We can contribute especially in the fleld of tropical medicine to make some torrid zone areas available for utilization. I visualize considerable move- ments of population from politically conten- tious and relatively overpopulated areas to presently underdeveloped parts of the world, with the help of science and particularly of medical science. The latter scientific ald can be given under both private and gov- ernmental auspices. ‘We do not need to be concerned now with increased populations and the increased power of some nations which will result from medicine’s reduction of mortality rates. Po~ litically we shall create hosts of friends for the United States by sharing our medical knowledge. The balance of power will re- main on our side. We shall of course also advance our own interests in health by re- ducing disease abroad. In an alr age we shall become able to travel with relative health safety everywhere, and make less likely the spread of communicable disease to our own people. Moreover, we shall improve the economic status of other people by increasing their capacity to produce and thus enhance their ability to buy the products of American in- dustry. As to your specific question regarding pop~ ulation concentrations—Thomas Malthus wrote early in the last century that popu- lation increases geometrically while food supply increases only arithmetically. He therefore predicted evertual starvation for millions. His predictions have not mate- rialized as yet. However, if we look to the future, his fears as to an inadequate food supply and insufficient living space would appear to be genuinely warranted. Medical
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD science has indeed contributed to the great increase of population; but it can also con- ribute indirectly to increasing the focd sup- ply to care for a larger population. The world now tills about 2,509,600 square miles. Agricultural economists say this can be at least doubled to feed more people who live longer. But a great effort by engineers and doctors will be needed. Increased world pro- ductivity, especially in the sparsely settled areas, depends on improving the agricultural methods and the health of reople who are to produce what is needed. In this con- nection I might note that the Navy dis- tributed vaccines in the Middle East to stop the cholera epidemic there several years ago, and thus helped the population back to some degree of stability and economic progress. It has been said that when the British took up the white man’s burden and built their empire they brought the native colonial peo. ples trousers and Bibles. If the United States should contemplate a free United Na~ tions empire, it might instead bring to the imperial citizens inoculations, vaccines, and medical books. Certainly these gifts will be better received than the OCPU’s and the Communist loyally forms which the Kremlin is trying to distribute in Prague, Warsaw, and elsewhere. An American abroad as a governmental or private doctor will not be received as an imperialist. The Navy Medi- cal Department sees any local medical emer- gency abroad, where naval ships may happen to visit, as an opportunity to offer such mec.cal aid to the population as is feasible and thereby immeasurable good will may be inculcated. The record of American medicine under General MacArthur’s administration in Ja- pan is impressively illustrative of the tre. mendous benefits which can accrue from the employment of basic health measures. Dur- ing the first year of American occupation, that is in 1945 and 1946, there occurred in the Japanese Empire 21,000 cases of smallpox. Under the direction of the Surgeon General of the Army, General Bliss, the most colossal mass vaccination of a people ever under- taken was consummated when 78,000,000 Japanese were vaccinated against smallpox in a single year. Following this vaccination the incidence of smallpox in 1 year dropped from 21,000 cases to 20 cases. Under the public-health program imple- mented by the United States Army in Japan, diarrheal diseases have been reduced from 450 per thousand to 40 per thousand. Typhus fever and other communicable diseases have been correspondingly reduced and as a result of our conquest of disease there, during the past few years the average life expectancy among the Japanese has been increased from 37 to"39 years. Thus does it appear obvious that Japan is on its way to a realization of a higher state of health than it has ever known. Another illustration of the effectiveness of the know-how of American medicine was that demonstrated in Egypt several years ago in connecton with the epidemic of cholera which broke out there. Hospital Corpsmen of the United States Navy went into the cholera infested areas and by spraying DDT and killing myriads of flies, a major vector in the transmission of cholera was eradi- cated. The American contingent in Arabia connected with ARAMCO, or the American Arabian Oil Co., has carried inestimable good will to Arabia by providing medical coverage for natives and Americans alike in the areas occupied by that company. Representative O’Hara. Admiral Swanson, I think from what you have said our listeners will get the impression which I have so strongly of the broad scope of what we are accomplishing in the field of public health medicine which we have in the United States, on a limited scale, in the Medical Corps of the armed services. The doctors are medical career men. I have seen them at the hos-: pital at Bethesda, which wouldn’t have its reputation as one of the best hospitals in the world unless the surgeons and physicians Were, aS everyone recognizes, men who would command the most iucrative practices in civilian Jife in any community. Com- pared with what they could earn in Civilian practice their salaries are meager even to the point of being niggardly. Yet I have never seen in any of them, or heard of, any complaint. To the contrary, there is a definite professional dignity and pride, a rare enthusiasm as though relief from the necessity of keeping books running an of- fice and the administrative chores of the commercial end of private practice, which served to concentrate their interests in the field of pure medicine. Now, this is interest- ing to me because I have never believed that man needed the spur of monetary reward to do his best work provided he did have op- portunity for professional growth and a rea- sonable degree of individual and family se- curity. It may he an old-fashioned idea, but I am sure it is sound and that you in the Medical Corps of the armed services prove its soundness in a modern world, that in the professions a practitioner may do excellent work and achieve professional contentment even without a monetary incentive. What from your position of preeminence in this field is your view, Admiral Swanson? How many surgeons, physicians, dentists, and other professionals do you have under your jurisdiction, and in this time of doctor short- age do you have any difficulty in providing replacements? Admiral Swanson. I agree, Congressman O’Hara, that the major attraction to any gocd doctor is the privilege of practicing his profession. I believe especially that mili- tary medical practice, which involves the saving of life while others are endeavoring to destroy it, is the noblest profession of man. Of course, we need to stimulate many of the professions, not merely the medical, toward achievement by supplying rewards over and beyond the monetary ones. As for our Navy doctors, they are soundly motivated by professional pride and the opportunity for public service, as well as their military pay, retirement benefits, and security of family. The majority of civilian doctors, I am sure, are equally motivated by nonmate- rial rewards. We now have in the Medical Department 8,081 medical officers, 971 dental officers, 618 Medical Service Corps officers, 2,009 nurses, 194 warrant officers, and 17,239 hospital corps- men. The Navy Medical Department also in- cludes thousands of civilians without whose loyal and invaluable support the Depart- ment could not function. They are, in fact, working for their own Navy the same as we are working for their and our Navy. We have had difficulties in securing enough doctors to meet our needs, incident no doubt to a natural antipathy for the armed serv- ices which follows all wars but today our situation is relatively satisfactory. The in- creasing rate of application for appointment to the Medical Corps of the Navy is definitely encouraging. We believe we are today offer- ing opportunities to young doctors in Navy medicine that are unsurpassed. Representative O’Hara. As a midwesterner, Admiral Swanson, I hope I’ll be excused for a bit of sectional pride in the fact that you, the Surgeon General of the Navy, come from Michigan, Rear Admiral Willcutts, the com- manding officer of the National Naval Med- ical Center, comes from Indiana, and Rear Adm. F. C. Greaves, the commanding of- ficer of the United States Naval Hospital at Bethesda, until promoted and transferred, comes from Iowa. But I guess Rear Admiral Willcutts, veteran of a hundred historic sea combats, expressed it for all of us, no matter what State we come from, for the Army, Navy, the marines, and all of us when looking A3i113 out of the window here at the Stars and Stripes floating on the flagpcle in front of the National Naval Medical Center said with the rapture of one seeing it for the first time: “It’s the most beautiful sight in the world, our Stars and Stripes.” And in the spirit of unity symbolized in that flag the country may be sure the Army, the Navy, the marines, aid the Air Force will continue to go on as a great team devoted to the sacred task of securing from all its enemies these United States of America and the way of life of a free people. Admiral Swanson, how are the postwar programs of the medical corps of the armed services progressing? Admiral Swanson. The Navy has collabo- rated, coordinated, and consolidated in a significant measure with the Army and Air Force. However, in accordance with both the letter and intent of the National Se- curity Act, we have retained the identity and integrity of the individual services. The Navy has a director of medical serv- ices in the Office of the Secretary of Defense who 1s charged with general policy, direction, and coordination of medical services for the three military departments. We are developing experience with joint Army, Navy, and Air Force staffing in a num- ber of medical institutions. At the Tripler (Army) hospital in Hawaii there are Army, Navy, and Air Force doctors, nurses, and corpsmen, or other technicians, and patients of all three services. We have joint staffing of military hospitals at St. Albans, Norfolk, and Panama. At present we have 426 Navy patients in Army hospitals and 617 Army patients in Navy hospitals. I should like to point out that the three services were founded on different concepts and have divergent specialized missions. We must, for example, give specialized medical support to submarine and amphibious war-~ fare, many aspects of which have no counter- part in our sister services. We cannot log- ically merge the three medical services un- less, as is unlikely, the operating forces of the three services are combined. We should like to have a uniform proma- tion system so that when we conduct joint hospitalization, our Navy medical officers wiil have the same or equal promotional oppor- tunities as the Army and Air Force officers who serve with them. I believe the Navy has one peacetime mis-= sion which the Army, except when it assumes the role of an cccupying force, does not par-~ ticularly share; this is to sell democracy to the rest of the world. It is essential for those engaged as agents of their government in foreign countries and in the ports of those countries, to know the foreign policy of their home government. The mission of acting as ambassadors of goodwill and purveyors of democracy to the rest of the world, is an espe- cially compelling reason for the maintenance of a peacetime Navy. The medical forces of the Navy can disseminate more goodwill in the form of the dispensation of health aids to needy nations abroad than can ever be realized from all the shot and shell that was ever manufactured. The people, the lawmakers, and shapers of our destiny, should not lose sight of the fact that the Nation’s Army, Navy, and Air Force, in peace as well as in war, have important missions to fulfill; and that the dictates of logic and clear reasoning bespeak the indi- cation for their individuality in time of peace as clearly as for their unity in time of war. Representative O’Hara. Admiral Swanson, there is one more service the Medical Corps of the armed services is rendering the Na- tion which I think has never been fully un- derstood by the American people. There are over 500 Members of the Congress, the great majority being in the House of Representa- tives, where if a vacancy occurs there must he a primary and a general election to fill
A314 the vacant seat, which takes considerable time, and meanwhile the people of that dis- trict have no representation. It is, there- fore, not primarily for the personal advan- tage of the Members of the Congress, but to assure equal representation in the Congress, as intended by our Constitution, and to pre- vent long absences from illness or vacancies because of deaths, that the armed services are providing certain health services and hospital facilities to the Members of Con- gress. As it is, the average number of deaths at each Congress is slightly over 13, an unusually high rate of mortality due to the fact that during the sessions the de- mands in time and strength upon the aver- age Member are back-breaking and the temp- tation is, of course, to overwork excessively. I am told, Admiral Swanson, by those in po- sition to know that the number of congres- sional deaths would certainly have been doubled and serious prolonged illnesses many times multiplied but for the magnificent work of a preventive nature and of medical consultation done by the Surgeon General of the Navy through Admiral Calver, for 20 years the physician to the Congress. Ad- miral Calver and the Navy deserve the thanks of the Nation for keeping the Mem- bers of the Congress on their feet under tremendous strain and thus effecting great savings to the American taxpayers in the way of the large expenditures which would be necessary for special primary and gen- eral elections as well as protecting our con- stitutional concept of equal representation by Keeping all Members on their best feet physically and at the maximum of their strength. When Members of the Congress require hospital treatment, usually for very brief periods, they are sent to naval or Army hospitals, but the point I would wish to get over is that for this service the Members of Congress pay from their own pockets. What Price Safe Harbors? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT HALE OF MAINE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 28, 1950 Mr. HALE. Myr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I in- clude the following editorial from the Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Wauat Priczt Sarz HARBORS? Maine people who can boast about Port- land’s admittedly superior harbor have cause to be concerned about a little side show being staged in Washington over $4,100,000, a small amount these days. It’s money the Coast Guard wants, and we find ourselves partial to their argument. In mobilization plans the Coast Guard, which in wartime becomes an administra- tive part of the Navy, is charged with in- ternal-port security. It’s the Navy’s job to decide who should get in, the Army’s to keep out undesirables, and the Coast Guard’s to see that what goes inside a vital wartime harbor is not contrary to war aims, The Coast Guard leaves that kind of work up to its Reserve, and right now the Reserve consists of a lot of papers in Washington with names written on them in neat columns. That’s where the $4,100,000 comes in. The Coast Guard wants to make a stab at train- ing the Reserve it may sometime need to send to Portland and other harbors to insure the kind of security we’re talking about. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines have stout Reserve programs. And there is the National Guard. After that, in a very vital service, there is that stack of papers in Washington. The Secretary of Defense wants it; the Secretary of the Navy wants it; so does the Secretary of the Treasury, who is the peacetime Coast Guard boss. The appropriation was knocked out earlier by a House subcommittee action. Reason given: economy. ‘There’s a good chance an amendment to replace it will be offered this week. This is to suggest Congressmen consider what kind of economy they'll get if a pile of papers is turned loose to establish port security. Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 28, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, un- der unanimous consent, I include in the Recorp the fourth article by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop on the infiltration of com- munism in our country: Biccest STORY (By Frank C. Waldrop) Secretary of State Acheson talks a fero- cious war against communism, these days, now that any fool can see what goes on, poth abroad and in Washington, D. C. Suddenly, now, it is popular with all his kind to rip and roar against Stalin with ex- actly the same language and ineptitude the same exact gang used against Hitler. A long time ago, W. Shakespeare noted the weakness of giddy minds for foreign quar- rels which serve so well to divert attention from ills at home. Acheson and friends are full of furious ob- jection to the spectacle of communism in Czechoslovakia, China, Rumania, and other such far-away places. But what have they ever done to under- stand and put logs in the way of commu- nism here? Americans who have done their home- work on the case of communism can under~ stand, for example, the difference between testimony sworn under oath to the Senate committee by Louis F. Budenz, and testi- mony by Dr. Bella Dodd or Earl Browder. Budenz is a former managing editor of the New York Daily Worker, the leading newspaper of the conspiracy against civiliza- tion on these shores. To have held such a position, Budenz had to be an important figure in the Communist cause, But today Budenz is a church-going citi- zen and professor at Fordham University, one of the most sedate and dignifled of all American schools. Fordham does not hire ex-Communists on speculation, in the mere hope of their re- form, More than that, Budenz has been the chief witness of the United States Government in its most important court actions against communism. Such are the things to consider in judging how much to believe him as a witness. On the other hand, Dr. Bella Dodd is an exmember of the national committee of the Communist organization who did not re- sign or repent, but was fired by her superiors. Why? She says she is the victim of char- acter assassins, Who? Well, certainly any- body who has done his homework knows that means character assassins from within com- munism, not from without. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Communists regard the rest of all the world as enemies with whom they are at war and who must be conquered. They do not listen to the outside world for advice or usage of their own membership, So Dr. Dodd is not one who has quit com- munism. She is complaining because com- munism quit her. She has not renounced the Communist doctrine, to conquer by any means, legal or illegal, but to conquer. In her class falls also Earl Browder, once secretary and spokesman of the Communist conspiracy in this country. A switch in Kremlin tactics in 1945 resulted in his down- fall. Has Browder repented? This writer once asked Browder point- plank how he would like to be a Communist again. He answered: “Tam a Communist.” That, after he had been ridiculed, de- nounced, and expelled from the conspiracy, and all Communists who had a good word to say for him, expelled along with him. Remember, Communists hold our laws do not bind them in any way. What good is the word of a Communist, therefore, or the word of one who thinks himself a Communist? As indicated earlier in these articles, this reporter began to learn about that 20 years ago, aS an eyewitness to a massave Commu- nist propaganda exercise in New York. The incident was the funeral of a Com- munist killed in a street riot. The com- manders of the propaganda exercise were then whipping up excitement in the streets because: . 1. They believed then, as they do today, that human behavior can be predicted with scientific accuracy, through understanding of what they call scientific Marxism. 2. Their analysis of the times.in 1930 was that the hour for open revolution in the Western World had struck. So they were building up a series of shock stages to bring down authority and literally selze the people and property of the United States of America, by force. Thus, in New York City 20 years ago, I saw how ruthless are the mind and will of com- munism, just as the years following showed evidence that the Communist mind is igno< rant of good judgment. The incredible but very real parallel is the misjudgment of communism by people like Secretary Acheson. Or is it that? To evaluate, you have to look somewhat into the political seduction of our age, called scientific Marxism. Resolution Calls for Report on Pine Ridge Land Taking EXTENSION OF REMARES or HON. FRANCIS CASE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 28, 1950 Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I have long been interested in the activities of a group which called it- self the Pine Ridge Bombing Area Group. It was composed of former Indian own- ers of land condemned by the War De- partment for use as an aerial gunnery range in time of war. The area con- demned comprised a good part of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Here was a group of Indians, wards of the Government, who had their lands taken from them without benefit of an