AG? born of purposeful strength end not of weakness, dedicated to the service of all men in buitding economically healthy and mor- alty free societies, and committed to the peaceful solution of world problems through international cooperation under the United Nations. A THREE-PRONGED PEACE OFPENSIVE Our task is merely begun when we frame & sweeping statement of our moral obliga- tion, If the exposition of God's require- ment is to be really helpful, it must be char- acterized by far greater precision and def- niteness. At this point the Christian in- variably encounters serious difficulty. He seoks to remain faithful to his highest prin~ ciples and yet he knows that an evil situa- tion thwarts their full application. Shall he risk an accommodation of Christian ideal- ism to immediate problems in order to en- courage and support attainable steps to- ward the ultimate goal? While some are loath to do this, I am convinced that we have no tenable alternative. We must fight the battle for peace in the context of an imperfect and evil world. With this point of view, I propose for your consideration a balanced three-pronged peace offensive, where emphasis is laid on our moral obligations in relation to actually existing military, economic-social, and political con- ditions. In doing a0, I claim that while we cannot at this time hope to get sympathetic audience from Soviet-controlied areas, we can so govern our own actions by justice and good will as progressively to extend the ares of our influence and ultimately win a hearing from those who now oppose us. Be assured that my propositions grow out of an appreciation of the heavy burden which our governmental officials are carrying in our be- half and the desire of our churches to share that burden with them in any appropriate manner, il. Our military strength muat be sincerely and steadfastly devoted to the Oauss of peace We have to face facte unflinchingly. The United States and countries allied with it are bent upon building a military strength unparalleled in their history. With what attitude shall we as Christians view this effort? While there ate some who believe that force should never be used, the pre- ponderant majority reluctantly accepts the neceasity of military strength to serve as a deterrent to aggression and, wherever aggres- sion occurs, a8 & means Of Opposing it. In taking my stand with the preponderant majority, I inaist that we must clearly recog- nige the di in a situation where the world ts divided into two armed camps, and particularly the dangers for which we may be responsible. If Russta should start a third world war—whether for purposes of expansion or in fear of our strength—the decisions fs out of our hands. However, if Russia on strategic grounds ex- ercises restraint for a prolonged period of time, we may through lack of forethought become an actual threat to the peace. In this latter event, knowing that the danger of aggression lingers even though dormant, we would nevertheless have no clear justification for using the military strength we have built. In our impatience and with our so- clety geared to military action, we may then be tempted increasingly to risk or even to create situatiqns which would give rise to Under these circumstances, the churches have an important, perhaps a determining, part to play. They must cultivate in our people the moral restraints which will keep military strength under control and indi. eate the direction to be followed in order tat strength may contribute to peace. On moral grounds, participation in militery preparations ought to be measured by the sincerity with which the following six com- mitments are made and the fidelity with which they are honored in practice. 1, We must not be the instrumentality of starting war—now or in the future, openly or under the wicked pretense of self-righteous-- ness. If war should come, and God forbid that it may, it must be irrevocably thrust upon us by others than ourselves and every alternative recourse which our interpretation of God's will for man can entertain must first have been honestly explored. 2. We must keep military measures at every point to the absolute minimum which cir- cumstances will allow. Thoze who resist the decisions of the United Nations should be denied the comfort and assurance of a pledge not to resort to drastic measures if their actions leave no reasonable alternative. At the same time, the hysteria which calla for the use of atomic bombs without full ac- count of attending moral and political con- sequences must be curbed in season and out of season. All share in this responsibility to preserve calm determination—Government offictala, press and radio, aa well as people in every Walk of life. 3. We muat Invite and encourage the use of the United Nations Peace Observation Commission at every potential danger spot throughout the wortd to deter aggression or to identify the aggressor when it occurs, The United States bas expressed and muaet indicate readiness to expose its actions to impartial scrutiny. 4. In dotermining when military action shall be taken, we must accept a moral jJudg- Ment to the extent that it 1s reflected by majority opinion in the United Nations. One hopeful factor in the United Nations decision to recommend military measures against ag- gression by North Korea was the emergency for the first time in history of international police action, imperfect though that recog- nizedly was. That new factor must he re- tained and improved. The day when any one country has the right by itself to declare war on another is past. &. We must sccept as a provisional goal a sufficient balance of military power-in-being to permit the peaceful competition of con- fiicting ideologies. Such a aituation would be obviously precarious. Nevertheless, as an intermediate objective of military prepara- tions, its preference to war fustifies the risk. 6. We must work toward the ultimate ob- jective—now and continuingly—of bringing all national armaments under international regulation and control. The United Nations has voted to merge its approaches to the in- ternational control of conventional and atomic weapons. It is not fantastic to hold that the futility of a progressively acceler- ated armamente race may st some point con- vince all parties that international jurisdic- tion ts the only solution. At all events the effort must be made. What does God require of us? If we ac- cept the necessity of military strength—and that decision I insist is ours as human be- inge—our actions will more nearly reflect Christian principles by accepting such re- strainte and directives as I have pro . Bhould they not be accepted, the ity of the American people in support of a military program will on grounds of conscience be aificult to achieve and to maintain. i. In opposing totalitarian communism we must willingly constitute ourselves a continuing servant of the world in help- tng to butld eoanomically healthy and morally free societies Military strength may give reassurance and time, but it will not in itself win the victory of social health and freedom. Over § years we employed the strategy of rein ting societies so that communism might not look attractive from within and thet infiltration and subjection from with- out would involve the likelihood of popular resistance, That strategy was measurably successful, perhaps so succesalu) as to prompt APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Russia's recourse to force. Ehall we now for- sake the very means which proved effective and put all our eggs In a military basket? What will we have gained if, in increased military strength in Western Europe, stand- ards of living over a period of time are 60 lowered that the prospect of communism again becomes inviting to the masses who do not reckon with ultimate coste? Or, if in giving air end naval protection to countries in the Far East, they continue to endure un- aided the devastations of famine and the irritating knowledge that soctal conditions remain unimproved? We must constantly be alert to the danger of preoceupatian with military measures to the exclusion or at least the neglect of afirmative measures which are right in themselves and, because of their inherent rightness, stand as a bulwark against Soviet communism. ‘ BCONOMIC HEALTH Insofar as economic health goes the prob- lem obviously its to find resources for build- ing the necessary military strength and, at the same time, to have availabl: the means for economic aid. I trust you will not con- sider me unrealistic when I suggest a specific illustration, alowing that the mode and tim- ing of ita application require further study. The Hebrews in Old Testament times prac- ticed tithing, and many Christians have with modifications followed in that tradition. Our Nation has a religious heritage. Ought we not now as a people, inextricably caught in the web of military necessity, designate over and beyond what we are currently do- ing one-tenth of our military approprit tion for specifically affirmative peace measu-es? This would mean that if we are willing to spend an extra §30,000,U00,000 for negative means to secure the peace we would also be ready to spend an extra 63,000,000,000 for positive measures. The proportion may be teo small, but the possibilities almost baffle the imagination. The United Nations tech- uical-assistance program could be consider- ably strengthened and expanded. United Nations Peace Observation Commissions, ade- quate tn manpower and literally scattered over the face of the earth, could be financed. Many other areas of useful expenditure could he cited, and, above all, we would be giving to the world at least a substantial indication as to our future intent, To finance such & venturo new or modi- fled patterns which appropriately correlate military and economic enterprises should be imaginatively explored. If these prove wn- feasible, I believe the American people would be ready to carry the added burden and may in fact be more prepared thereby to support mallitary preparations. MORAL FREEDOM Insofar as freedom and humen righte are concerned, we must steadfastly strengthen our domestic observance. In addition to long-standing problems, we encounter in the concentration of emergency powers the dan- ger of approaching the totalitarian practices which we condemn in Soviet countries. Our people should flock to their churches to de- rive inspiration and etrength from worship and study. They should freely but responsi- bly exercise their right of opinion and expres- ation. They should above all respect the rights and freedoms of their neighbors. Our Government, in a manner far more impres- sive than heretofore, should lead the way in establishing international furtediction for the protection of human rights. Recogniz- ing & common bond, be it of humanity or of faith, we should exhaust every means to get close to people behind the tron curtain, even giving consideration to a wholesale infiitra- tion of the next session of the People's Peace Congress no matter where it may be held. We should suppart and enlarge a truth cam- paign that really rings true. What does the Lord require of His people? One need have no qualm of conscience in
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD calling for the fullest possible use of our resources, commensurate with other needs, in building economically healthy and morally free societies. Ul, We must steadfastly seek such avenues of negottation as will command the confil- dence of our allies and give to those who oppose us every opportunity for the just settlement of outstanding issues Recent experiences show that negotiation tends to be successful, as in the case of the Berlin blockade, when a8 de facto settlement has already been achieved or is fairly certain of achievement. As we grow stronger, we must be careful to increase rather than to diminish our readiness to negotiate. If we are to be diplomatically effective, domestic unity 1s an urgent requirement. The democratic right of criticism and dis- sent must be preserved, but opinion must be formed on the basis of merit. Our people want ea bipartisan foreign policy, where rep- resentation characterizes both the formation and the administration of that policy. They have too much at stake to permit interna- tional issues to become the football] of party politics and welcome the growing restraint which is sensitive to a condition of emér- gency. Pride and face-saving tendencies must be rejected if negotiation is to produce results. We are grateful for the exercise of restraint and dignity in the administration of our foreign affairs. We must be constantly ready, on our own part and on our own initiative, to revise policies and decisions if sound reason therefor is at hand. Observation of international deliberations reveals how im- portant are the tact and delicacy of method whereby a reversal of policy is publicly spon- sored, Beyond the domestic scene, the process of taking political and military decisions requires an alertness to the interests and self-respect of those who honestly support the United Nations. For example, without minimizing the responsibilities which ought to be met by western European countries, we must see the respects wherein their prob- lems differ from ours. Is it not sensible to seek to heal the social sores in West Ger- many and to win friendship as a prereq- uisite to their cooperation in opposing com- munism? Have we reckoned fully enough with the implications of a divided Germany— as a replica of Korea and in face of what five more years of Soviet indoctrination will mean to its youth—and have we given sufficient thought to ways whereby as a mini- mum lines of communication could be opened between East and West Germany? Countries of the Far and Middle East, many of which have recently gained political stature, merit increasing responsibility for decisions, sub- ject to their heeding our points of view as we show willingness to heed their points of view. In my references to political negotiation, I have intentionally avoided the suggestion of technical solutions and have stressed fac- tors of dignified human relations. Recon- ciliation is a fundamental principle of Chris- tianity and reconciliation must become oper- ative at the international political level through negotiations which are prompted by justice, mercy, and good will. PRAYER FOR PEACE It is my conviction that Christian testt- mony to the world of nations can move only in the arena where the issues are fought. Catastrophe not of our making may break upon us at any time and for that we must be prepared. Nevertheless, so long as there remains even a marginal possibility of avert- ing total global war, we must wage an inclu- sive peace offensive where our spiritual as well as our material strength is devoted to the promotion of peace, ded'cated to service in building economically healthy and morally free societies, and committed to ine ternational cooperation through the United Nations. ’ We must remain steadfast, unmovabie, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as we know that our labor in the Lord is not in vain. In our churches and in our homes, Jet supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. At this time, let us pray together the prayer for peace which the World Council of Churches has enjoined upon churches and Christians throughout the world: Almighty God our heavenly father guide we beseech Thee the nations of the world into the way of justice and truth and estab- lish among them that peace which 1s the frult of righteousness. Amen, A Momentous Speech EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLIFF CLEVENGER OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RecorD, I include the following editorial from the Chicago Sunday Tribune of January 7, 1961: A Momentous SPremtcH Mr. Tarr's great speech in the Senate on Friday may have momentous consequences. Most political speeches are quickly forgot- ten, but once or twice in a century a public man gets on his feet to say something which has a profound influence on the course of events. That happened, we know, when Lin- coln in 1858 applied the momentous phrase from the Bible about the house divided against itself to the current political contro- versy. That text destroyed old parties and created new ones. There is no paraliel phrase in Mr. Tart’s speech. Taken as a whole, however, the speech may well shake men from their tradi- tional party loyalties and shake the parties themselves to their foundations. The great question dividing Americans to- day is concerned with the role of America in the world. There are those who hold tt to be America’s duty to devote all its resources and men and wealth to the task of world sal- vation. In pursuit of that idea we have fought two fruitiess wars and are now en- gaged in another in Korea. There are others, fom whom Mr. Tarr speaks, who hoid that the primary duty of the American Government is to employ our men and resources for the safety of our own people and the preservation of their lb- erties. There are men of both views in both our political parties. The Dewey and VANDEN- Bero Republicans properly belong in Mr. Tru- man’s camp. The Kewnepy Democrats prop- erly belong in Mr, Tart’s camp. The ques- tion is how long members of the old parties can allow their traditional partisanship to bind them to the transcendent political issue of our times, the issue, as we said before, of determining America s role in the world. The Republicans and the Democrats, alike, will have to make their choices, In Lin- coln'’s day, the Democrats tried to be on both sides of the question and thereby lost the North and the country. Just such a situation ts developing again today. The people all over the country are aroused, as they have not been in many years, | A63 over the Korean flasco and they see that it ig the direct consequence of the Truman- Acheson-Dewey line of policy. They see, also, that unless the policy is altered, a much bigger and much more destructive war lies ahead. Political parties, once established, sre sturdy and it would be foolish, indeed, to suppose that they can be pulverized by a speech. It would be equally foolish to sup- pose that parties can survive which do not take a position on the transcendent issue of their times. On the decision which must soon be reached, everything we are and everything we have are at stake; and every- body who is of military age, everybody who has a son, and all of us who pay taxes know it. Parties which hide from this issue are certain to be discredited and must expect to disintegrate. Mr, Tart’s speech will satisfy all Republi- cans except the more extreme world savers who follow Dewey. It went a little further in the direction of interventionism than some of us would go, but his doctrine is, if not wholly satisfactory, then so nearly so and so immensely preferable to Mr. Tru- man’s that the choice is an easy and obvious one. All in both parties who now recognize the folly of the Roosevelt-Truman line can and, indeed must, if they are honest, rally around Mr. Tarr. For the others, there is Truman. Red Iron Curtain, U. S. A. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRED L. CRAWFORD OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, Com- munists who have been parading under the guise of being an American political party having any justifiable claim to such title have forfeited any such stand- ing through the iron-curtain conduct of their fifteenth annual convention just completed in New York City. In striking contrast to the open and public manner in which the two present- day major political parties carry on their conventions, the American Red conspira~ tors have just concluded a conclave under supersecret conditions. Circumstances under which the con- vention was held should convince some of our gullible Americans who tend to shed crocodile tears of sympathy when our authorities seek to crack down on the Red party, that this Red organization is a plot and not a party. At the recent Republican and Demo- crat national conventions the press, ra- dio, and television were able to give full coverage and place the sessions under the public eye. But not so with this Red convention, The New York Times reports that it ‘was not until the end of the first-day sessions that newspapermen were even advised as to the location of the secret convention but they were not permitted to attend. Their only source of news was from such press releases as the Com- munist Party chiefs had prepared by their henchmen. The convention moved on with utmost secrecy. 5d goés the con- spiracy. ‘
AG4 Reporters for the New York Mirror learned that the 206 delegates were dis- patched to small secret meetings the night before the convention aud given directions as to their security conduct during the sessions. They were not to use names in making notations about the convention deliberations. They were never to tear up and discard their notes in the vicinity of the convention hall. They were not to use telephones in the convention hall. Luggage could not be carried into the hall by delegates. Obvi- ously, the Reds feared hidden micro- phones or concealed recording apparatus. All of the Red officers who have been indicted and convicted in our Federal courts of conspiracy to advocate the vio- Jent overthrow of our Government were highly praised by the convention, act- cording to the Red press releases. Fur- thermore, they were unanimously re- elected. Special recognition was given the national secretary of the party, who has not only been convicted of the con- spiracy but could not attend the con- vention because he is in jail for con- tempt of Congress. Communists have long since lost any claim as an American political party, and we will do well to take a warning from this recent tron-curtain conven- tion and recognize the organization for the conspiracy that it is. Our Military Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. W. J. BRYAN DORN OF BOUTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. DORN. Mr, Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Racozn, I include the following letter: Gaxenwoon, 8. C., January 4, 1951. Hon. Bryan Dorn, United States Congress, Washington, D.C. Dear Ooncressman: We are deeply con- cernéd over present world conditions, and particularly the role that the United States is now called to take. We realize that the United States must have friends, and we are proud of the friends that we have. Wo deeply feel, however, that our Representa- tives In Congress and our United States Sen- ate should be most careful in their votes and actions so as not to commit the Armed Forces of this Nation piecemeal through- out the world. Unless we are careful such a policy will dissipate our strength and might possibly render us impotent when and if we as ® people are attacked. We would re- ly pre it that money, munitions, or armament might be replaced, but man- power cannot be replaced. We do not mean that friendty countries should not be hel for they constitute real defenses for this Nation. We do feel, however, that such aid should be given for the most part to those nations who seek along with our help to do that we are for country always, We Forces at such strength as to be able to defend this Nation at all times. We do feel, however, that we should be most careful in the cam- mitment of our Armed Forces piecemeal 6n the field of battle in places throughout the world for such a policy might dissipate the Armed Forces of this Nation and leave ts with inadequate forces to protect ourselves in time of need. Yours very truly, Gaemnwoon Country Gaanp Jury, By H.W. Murorn, Foreman. Articles by Arthar Krock EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FREDERIC R. COUDERT, JR. oy NEW TORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr, COUDERT. Mr. Speaker, under Jeave to extend my remarks in the Record, I include the following articles by Mr, Arthur Krock, distinguished re- porter, which appeared in the New York Times of January 4 and 5, 1951: In THE Nation—A WInpwarp ANCHOR FOR A PossIsLz STORM (By Arthur Krock) Wasurnaton, January $.—The anxiety in Congress over the constitutional issue which is presented by the Executive's conditional promise to help garrison Western Europe in advance of aggression found its first expres- sion today in a resolution offered by Repre- sentative CoupreT, of New York City. The obvious objective, by asserting the consti- tutional view that Congress has the power to forbid the dispatch of American troops abroad, is to prevent a solely Executive deci- sion with respect to Western Burope. The simple and direct means invoked in the Coudert resolution to require the prior approval of Congress flowa from the power of the purse. This is granted to Oongress ex- clusively in section 8, article I, of the Con- stitution, that also empowers Congress to raise and maintain the Armed Forces, Mr. Covunxar proposes that no military appropria- tion, existing or hereafter made, shall be used to send additional troops abroad without the prior and specific approval of the national legislature. A respeoted line of Jegal opinions supports the thesis that “Congress can forbid troops being sent out of the country’—the words of Elibu Root in a Senate debate on August 14, 1912. ut Root also contended that, if Congress did not forbi’, full authority for such an action was lodged in the President. Any action by Congress to forbid sending additional troops to Western Europe for its land defense (which, if the Preaident had al- ready ordered this, would create @ constitu- tional crisis and j-reyocably destroy the anti- Communist front) would be forestalled by approval of the real point of the Coudert resolution. It also has the merit of provid- ing a method for the two coordinate branches of the Government concerned—the executive and the legisiative—to act as one in the matter, and hence make affirmative action truly that of the United States Government. "ME PROSPECT OF JOINT ACTION Joint affirmation is the extreme Likell- hood if General Kisenhower advises the Preaident that Western EBurope has met the condition of his commitment—that it must fully cooperate {1 ite own defense—and that the project is feasible and essential to our own defense. Few think the President would agrees to send the in any other cir- eumatance, and few that would diepute a decision thus reached. But “APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD if the President sent troops for the land defense of Western Europe in advance of aggression without asking Congress for its approval, 8 growing number fear a violent and destructive dispute over juriediotion. The President has given no Indication that he would take this step unilaterally; also, none that be would not. However, since the project was not even mentioned in the debates on the North Atlantic treaty and the firet arms assistance bill, and yet Mr. Truman has made the conditional commit- ment, many in Congress are disturbed lest he might find the order within his concept of the powers of the Commander in Chief and the implied obligations of the treaty. That is certainly possibie, in view of the fact that the national pert! is so much more plain than it was when the treaty and the arms pact were debated in Congreas. And, if the President should conclude that the garrlsoning of Western Europe in advance of aggression is necessary under hig Oath-bound Mability for national security, and within his constitutional authority, history has made it very clear to Congress that its post facto challenge could be fssued only in terms of Tefusing to maintain the additional troops, or by process of impeachment, or both. And surely there are few if any Members who would urge either move or count on the sup- port, of the Nation if they did. WHEN LEGAL BANCTION I8 WANTED The jurisdictional conflict reflected in Mr. Covprnt’s proposal is embedded in the Con- stitution. Lawyers can and have argued it both ways. But Presidents who have asserted implied powers as Commanders in Chief have prevailed by making their interpretations faits acoomplis. And most Presidents have expected Government lawyers to find the cover of the law for them and rarely have been disappointed. When, in 1940, President Roosevelt decided to transfer 50 over-age destroyers to Great Britain in exchange for air and n&éval bases his power to do so was plainly Itmited by a law which required prior certification from armed service authorities that such mate- rial is not essential to the defense of the United States. But four prominent law- yere—C. C. Burlingham, T. D. Thacher, George Rublee, and Dean Acheson—removed the obstacle of the language. If, they said, the armed services authorities should certify that national defense would be served rather than hurt by the transfer it would be legal. Though Admiral Stark, then Chief of Naval Operations, had previously said that defense requirements would not permit the Navy to eurrender even a rowboat, the President got the certificate the lawyers suggested and acted without prior reference to Congress. Mr. Roosevelt used to complain—like many of his predecessora—of Government attor- neya who told him why he couldn't do things instead of how he could——a grievance he asserted in 1983 by dismissing Mr. Ache- son, then Under Secretary of the Treasury, for holding illegal the gold purchase plan. And once, when the War Shipping Admin- istration declined a British request for ships on the ground that the law forbade it, the President asked, “If the Attorney General aays it ts legal, will you agree?” The desired opinion came next morning. In rez Yar1on—tae Parsinognr’s Virw or His Powrs (By Arthur Krock} ‘Wasninaton, January 4.—It is one thing to aay, ae the President did at his press con- ference today, that he dogs not need the specific approval of Congress to send addi. tional to Europe. It is quite another t assume this broad to & general Question that Mr. Truman will assign such troops for the land defense of Western Burope, in advance of Russian aggression, without seeking this prior approval. ‘
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD He may act unilaterally, if or when the project of a Western European army with American units is approved by General Bisen- hower on the basis of the surveys the General ‘s about to make abroad as supreme com. mander of what as yet ts a paper force. Or, because the project was not forecast in the Senate debates on the North Atlantic Treaty or in congressional consideration of the first arms assistance appropriation, and because there are evidences that Congress believes its prior approval is a legal requirement, the President may ask for it. A resolution sub- mitted yesterday by Representive Covonrrr, of New York City, requiring that no part of the current or future military budget be used for the dispatch or maintenance of addi- tional American troops abroad, presupposes wide support of this position in the Eighty- second Congress. If that shall prove true, and the test may be hastened by the casual appraisal of his constitutional powers which the President made today, it would seem to be the part of wisdom for Mr. Truman to associate Con- gress specifically with the land defense of Western Europe, in advance of aggression, as projected. If he goes to the Capitol on this erranc with the backing of General Eisenhower, and few think he would execute the project otherwise, as few see any possi- bility that his program would be rejected. THE DIFFERENT APPROACH That is for the President to decide. World events, the response of our North Aticntic allies to General Eisenhower's notice today that they must make equal sacritices with the United Statcs, and the mood displ: yed mean. while by Capitol committees which after all, control military expenditures will undoubt- edly influence this decision. Wisely han- dled, the constitutional argument raised at the Capitol can be dissipated. Less wisely handled, it can be rejected by ti.e President in the knowledge that Executives can and have often presented Congress with faits accompiis which have sc deeply involved the Nation that Congress perforce has accepted them. Badly mishandled, the eventual pro- cedure could evoke a constitutional crisis which would add to the national peril. The form of the question asked the Presi- dent left all this in doubt. Additional troops to Europe could b replacement in the Army of Occupation, supervising cadres of arms aid distribution and other units on similarly restricted errands. No tenable doubt exists that the President can do these things, and they are not covered in the Cou- dert resolution by any reasonable construc- tion. Mr. Truman may have viewed the question in these terms On the other hand, he may have accepted as a fact that his questioner was referring to the precise issue raised by Mr. Coupgert and others and in- tended his answer to be both general and specific, and a dental of Elihu Root’s con- struction of the Constitution when he said, on August 14, 1912, that “Congress could by law forbid” sending troops out of the coun- try. The future will resolve this opaqueness. A press conference, doomed to loosely phrase questions and off-the-cuff answers, is not the forum for ultimate clarification, OTHER OBSCURITIES Like everything connected with the twi- light area of the Constitution which the current dispute once again discloses, even Root's confident declaration is subject to res- ervations, When the eminent New York lawyer said this in the Senate he could not have foreseen the day when the United States would enter by treaty into a peacetime mili- tary aliiance with nations of Europe, as it did when the Senate in 1949 approved the North Atlantic compact. Also, no Senate in his day had bound the nation by treaty to such an instrument eas the Charter of the United Nations, which requires each member if called on to furnish armed forces for serv- XCVII—App.——5 ice anywhere against aggression, after the making of certain military agreements. These agreements ave never been made, but, if or when the American executive and legislative branches assent to them, Congress could not exercise as broad a power as Root conceded te it. Incidentally, {t is not generally understood that, in the absence of these military agree- ments, the United States was not legally ob- Ugated under the Charter to send anti-ag- + Sression forces to Korea or to send them any- where else hereafter. This is the reservation made plain in article 48, chapter VII. In reply to another question today the President said that in Korer. we are carrying out un obligation to the United Nations which we assumed when we signed (ratified) the Char- ter. But it is still a moral obligation, at the most. In June the Council was careful only to “recommend” the Korean action. All of these points seem certain to be vigor- ously debated in this Congress, the vigor ac- centuated by the Coudert resolution and the President’s off-the-cuff statements today. But they do not alter the historic fact that the Constitution has a twilight zone in which Presidents can unilaterally put the Nation irrevocably at war before Congress formally declares it. SST National Defense EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN E. RANKIN OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 8, 1951 Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, in re- sponse to President Truman’s message, I must say that there is one thing on which all Americans can agree, and that is that we had better build up our de- fenses at home and prepare to take care of the United States in case of a world conflict. We are told that Russia is speeding up the construction of the waterway linking the Don and the Volga Rivers, providing water connection between the Riack Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the White Sea. That development will be of tremendous value to Russia in case of a conflict. It will probably be constructed with some of the lend-~lease or Marshall plan money supplied by the United States. We have a similar and more important project in our own country, already authorized and partially constructed but which is being blocked by certain selfish interests. I refer to the slack water route from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes, usually referred to as the Tennessee-Tombigbee Inland Waterway. Leading Members of Congress, in both the House and the Senate, are urging the immediate and speedy construction of this waterway, on the ground that it is needed for national defense. There can be no doubt that this is true. This project will cut the water dis- tance between our atomic bomb plant at Oak Ridge, Tenn., and the Gulf of Mexico by more than 800 miles, and at the same time, provide an e::tra outlet to the sea, It will provide a slack water route from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes and all points on the Ohio, the upper Mississippi, the Tennessee, the Illinois, A65 and the Missouri Rivers, and at the same time, save the swift current of the Mis- sissippi for downstream traffic. Perhaps the main reason for building the Tennessee-Tombighbee inland water- way is in connection with the trans- portation of iron ore from Venezuela to the steel mills at Pittsburgh, Chicago, and other present centers of the steel industry. A little known fact is that the present supply of rich iron ore from the Mesabi range in Minnesota is rapidly nearing depletion. It is not expected that pres- ent grades will last as much as 10 years longer. Some say it will be gone in three more years. Hence a new source of sup- ply must be found. The American steel mills have feverishly searched for a new supply, expending millions of dollars in the quest. Only two sources have been found where the ore of the required richness can be obtained in large enough supply. They are: First. Newly discovered iron ore in Labrador. This supply is in the coldest, most bleak, uninhabited section of the North American Continent. An ex- pensive railroad 350 miles long will have to be built to exploit it, and in addition the St. Lawrence seaway will have to be built before presently operating steel mills can avail themselves of this supply. And, as everyone knows, the St. Law- rence waterway would be frozen up about 6 months of every year, while the Tennessee-Tombigbee inland waterway would not be frozen at all, but would be open for traffic the year around. Second. The other available new sup- ply, which is said to be a far larger sup- ply, and richer deposit, is in Venezuela. Both the Bethlehem Steel Co. and the United States Steel Corp. have staked out claims and purchased interests here. They have acquired large concessions. Experts state that known deposits of iron ore in Venezuela will supply American demands for a hundred years. The ore has already been carried to steel mills in Birmingham, Ala., and elsewhere, for smeltering and found to meet all require- ments. So we know the Venezuela de- posits will be used. Here is where the Tennessee-Tombig- bee inland waterway comes in. The United States Steel Corp., Bethlehem, Republic, Jones & Laughlin, and other similar concerns have billions of dollars invested in presently operating steel plants at Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Wheeling, Gary, Ind., Chicago, and other points which will be practically useless and obsolete unless a newer and cheaper method of transportation 1s found. They will have to get this foreign ore, if they continue to operate. Railway transportation is too expensive, even if the railways had the facilities to handle this tremendous new tonnage. Water- ways can haul bulk tonnage of this char- acter—iron ore—at approximately one- tenth the cost of railway transporta- tion. The Tennessee-Tombigbee is a natural for such transportation, The steel mills, most of them, are already alongside the Ohio River and other streams and lakes reached by this Ten- nessee-Tombigbee inland waterway. In addition, it is a slack-water route—no swift river currents to fight.