A2922 about us, the origins of which go back for decades or centuries. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Fase Picture of UNITED STATES ABROAD HELD to ANTEDATE Rep ErForts—TRUMAN DIs~ PUTED BY OBSERVERS IN EUROPE WHO SAY HATRED oF CaPiTaLism Is PROBLEM (By Harold Callender) Parts, April 23-—-Upon reading President Truman’s speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, now available textually, experienced observers here were surprised by the apparent disposition of the President and his advisers to assume that Communist propaganda was mainly responsible for the distorted views of the United States held abroad. Calling for a campaign of enlightenment to counteract this propaganda, the President emphasized its exploitation of the desires for peace and for social justice on the part of the masses of Europe and Asia and the false picture it gave of the United States. But it was pointed out that prejudices against the United States far antedate this propaganda, and that they derive in Europe from a long-standing hatred of what Buro- peans consider capitalism, from anti-Ameri- can sentiments that have become traditional, and from a lack of understanding of current American foreign policy. Communism did not create any of these rich resources that lie ready for use by its propaganda but it has adroitly utilized them, in the opinion of those who have given most attention to the question. APPEAL TO OLD PREJUDICES _ These observers consider that Moscow’s propaganda would lose much of its sting were it not for its ability to appeal to old and deep-seated prejudices against the United States that exist in circles extending far beyond the wage-earning groups and that are still propagated by some on both the left and the right. It is contended that in facing the problem of enlightening the world regarding the United States and its policies, full account must be taken not only of the picture of the United States drawn by Communist propa- ganda but of that which existed in European minds ‘before the Communists started to work.on them. In the Far East the United States faces not merely or mainly Communist propa- ganda but profound fear.and dislike of the west and its colonial encroachments, it is pointed out. This fear and dislike had spread over Asia long before Premier Stalin began to exploit them in favor of what he in- geniously calls popular democracy. This fact is painfully familiar to the State Department, which for this reason has been urging the French to promise full independ- ence to Indochina or eventual French with- drawal from that country. The Department realizes the handicap under which it labors in appearing to support a remnant of the former colonial rule of the west in Asia. TWO OUTSTANDING KINDS In much the same way the United States must contend in Europe not only with skill- ful Communist propaganda but with preju- dices that may be called indigenous non- Communists and pre-Communist. The two outstanding kinds are the following: First, a deeply rooted and long-cultivated anticapitalist sentiment among the wage earners. It reflects the low wages and bad housing long associated with capitalism as understood by these wage earners—that is, with European capitalism, a different species from the American. But European workers do not understand this distinction. To them the United States is the classic type of a capitalistic society of which they believe low pay is an indispensable attribute. Second, equally deeply rooted and long-~ cultivated prejudices against the United States in the more fortunate classes, notably among many intellectuals who look upon the United States as a culturally backward country that has not caught up with—or is rapidly departing from—the high and unique civilization of Europe. By playing upon these two types of preju- dice, the Communists appeal not only to those who work hard for an ill-paid liveli- hood but also to many who live well and have leisure for the intellectual enjoyments that often include expression of contempt for the United States. Those who read the Communist press of western Europe know hw skillfully this double appeal is made. IGNORANCE, MISTRUST OF UNITED STATES In France, where Communist propaganda has perhaps made the greatest headway any- where in western Europe except Italy, its principal assets are the anticapitalism in- stilled during a generation or two by both Socialists and Communists, and a wide- spread ignorance and distrust of the United States in other than the wage-earning classes. It does no harm to Communist propaganda when distinguished conservative writers, con- tributing to very conservative newspapers, take pot shots at the United States on other grounds—like the recent writer who pro- claimed that the United States and the Soviet Union were both menaces for Europe because they were killing individualism by their mass production. He did not take the next log- ical step and say that western Europe should be neutral as between the two. But other writers did. This was not Communist propaganda. But it was grist for the Communists’ mill since the spirit of neutrality in western Europe would suit their strategy and injure that of the United States. As for the economic assets of Communist propaganda, the Marshall plan has helped restore French production, and wages have risen to a level probably not far from that in 1938. The Communists have suffered as a result. But this wage level was not sat- isfactory in 1988 and is even less satisfac- tory today. So the Communists have plenty of ammunition left, as the French Govern~ ment knows to its sorrow. HAS ALIENATED WAGE EARNERS On the economic side it appears that United States propaganda must contrast the American way of life not only with that of Russia but with that of western Europe, which has alienated wage earners from what they think is American capitalism. -As for the anti-American intellectuals, any counterpropaganda must meet their argu- ment that the United States has abandoned European standards of culture based on in- dividualism and the Latin heritage, It must counteract the picture, drawn in scholarly books and pictures, of the United States as a@ kind of highly mechanized barbarism. Observers in Europe believe that United States policies need a lot of explaining too. Europeans are being asked to rearm in ac- cordance with the North Atlantic Treaty. But neither governments nor the public quite see how this treaty is to guarantee against an invasion of western Europe. The French want to know how far and how long the United States will help them defend Indo- china and how strong the United States intends that western Germany shall become. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD After 1952—West Europe Faces Up to a Dilemma EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GUY M. GILLETTE OF IOWA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a signifi- cant article by Harold Callender, ap- pearing in the New York Times, entitled “After 1952—-West Europe Faces Up To a Dilemma.” There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: AFTER 1952—Wrst EUROPE Faces UP Tro A DimLEeMMaA (By Harold Callender) Paris, April 22—-Georges Bidault, Premier of France, made this week a proposal that had in it far more than met the eye. It amounted to a suggestion for a reap- praisal of the entire field of strategic, eco- nomic and political relations among the na- tions of western Europe and North America— those relations having become obscure, con- tradictory and in some respects unreal. M. Bidault’s proposal implied a reexami- nation of United States foreign policy—the major factor in all those relations—as it has been expressed in the Marshall plan, in the North Atlantic Treaty and in the plan- ning, aspirations and slogans engendered by those two enterprises. The purpose was to reconcile the aims of the Marshall plan looking to the economic recovery of western Europe and the aims of the Atlantic Treaty, which seem to threaten this recovery by necessitating expenditures on armaments that the European nations cannot afford. To put it in another way, the urgency behind M. Bidault’s proposal was the need to insure that the North Atlantic group of nations could avoid in coming years both inflation and depression, either of which would appear to confirm the Moscow thesis that the capitalist world was doomed. BALANCE OF FORCES . The apparent confirmation of this thesis might frustrate the huge efforts now being made to maintain peace by a balance of forces and certainly would impair the ability of the western world to ‘“‘create strength” in areas where it. was necessary, as Secretary of State Acheson expressed it. The economy of the western world is con~ sidered as important in the cold war as its military equipment. The dilemma is to de- termine how to ration resources and effort between the two. The conviction in west- ern Europe is that this cannot be done on a national or even a continental scale, but it can be done only by North America and western Europe working together to an ex- tent not yet envisaged in accepted policies. Such was the meaning of the rather brief proposal of M. Bidault for creation of an Atlantic High Council to coordinate the de- fense, economic policies and politics of the Atlantic coalition. These three subjects have so far been carefully kept apart and confided to different authorities, as if they were unrelated or only tenuously or incidentally related. French
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD logic has now linked them together as form- ing a single task that the western world will ignore at its peril. The French have lost much of their former power and political prestige, but M. Bidault’s proposal shows they can still produce ideas. Washington apparently had already fore- seen at least some of these problems when President Truman appointed Gordon Gray to study what the United States could do after the end of the Marshall plan in 1952, to steady the trade and insure the solvency of western Europe. It was thus recognized that the economic viability of western Europe, which it was once thought would result from the Marshall plan, would still be dubious and that the surplus production of the United States would re- main a problem. It was widely believed that the Marshall plan would enable western Europe to stand on its feet economically by 1952 and cease to be either an economic or a strategic head- ache for the United States. This was dan- gerously exaggerated conception, like some of the other arguments used to sell the Marshall plan to Congress. One of these was that the plan would con- tribute to the unity of western Europe or its economic integration. Some United States officials have since regretted the use of these deceptive terms. For very little unity will result, and even if western Europe were fully unified, it would still face the balance of payments problem that Mr. Gray is to study. WEAPON IN COLD WAR While in Europe the emphasis was upon restoration of economic life with Marshall aid, in the United States the Marshall plan was seen increasingly as an instrument in the . cold war. Perhaps it was considered a suffi- - elent instrument in the beginning, since Soviet pressure was mainly exerted through the Communist parties within the European countries. . But soon the feeling developed that the economic arm of American foreign policy was not enough and that some military gesture by the United States was necessary. This feeling owed much to the Soviet plockade of Berlin in 1948: The North Atlantic Pact was the result. The usefulness of the pact lay first of- all in the fact that it involved or implied a United States commitment to go to war if, western Europe were invaded, and in the idea ; ’ that the United States alone appeared to have a stock of atomic bombs. The commitment remains, although some Europeans question it because it is implicit rather than explicit. The monopoly of the atomic bomb by the United States seems to have vanished. Consequently, even those Europeans who do not question the immediate and active military aid of the United States in an emer- gency are constrained to wonder just how prompt and effective this aid wouldbe. They see the Atlantic Pact as giving moral assur- ance but falling short of physical guaranties against invasion. Washington, too, believes there should be something more solid behind the pact, since it has urged creation of defense forces in western Europe. The character and the distribution of these forces have now been fully planned on paper. But the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Finance and Defense of Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg, who met in Brussels this week, apparently all agreed they could not possibly finance such forces, especially if at the same time they were to go on financing the economic recovery for which the Marshall plan had laid the foundation. CONTRADICTORY TASKS Thus the cold war has laid upon western Europe two contradictory tasks. Washing- ton has been telling Europe for more than 2 years that it must hurry and recover because there would be no more dollar aid after 1952. But in recent months Europe has been told it must divert a large part of its resources in money, materials, and labor from recovery to defense. It is still doubtful whether western Europe would be independent of United States eco-~ nomic aid by 1952 even if it had to pay for no armaments. Much would depend upon the trend of business activity in the United States in the next 2 years and upon Europe’s ability to develop new sources to replace dollar imports. But if, now, western Europe must finance defense production as well as normal pro- duction, no doubt remains. Western Europe will surely need American aid long after 1952. This is why European officials began several weeks ago to say privately that the elaborate plans and calculations made pursuant to the Marshall plan, and the assumption of peace- time needs only, might soon have to be scrapped unless there were to be another Marshall plan after 1952—a Marshall plan that would still be an instrument in the cold war, but this time not an economic but a military instrument. When the Marshall plan began, the great question was how much Europe could do, and should be obliged to do, for itself while re- ceiving American aid. The same issue of self-help must arise if strategic imperatives cause the Marshall plan gradually to merge into a defense plan entailing the same kind— and probably much the same amount—of American aid for Europe. Surveying this outlook, the French and other officials have suggested that, western Europe would be obliged again to appeal to the United States, being as unable to finance its defense under the Atlantic Pact as it was to finance its indispensable imports for which the Marshall plan provided. These were the culminating reasons for the conclusion that western Europe, being unable to live up to the slogans of the Marshall plan propaganda by attaining political or economic unity, much’ less defensive self- sufficiency, was justified in proposing that the common problems of Europe and the United States should be tackled on a wider - scale and by different methods. - ALLIANCE UNDER SINGLE PLAN The aim of the Marshall plan, in one sense, was to isolate Western Europe as an economic problem and +o induce it to cure itself by becoming financially independent of the United States. The logic of the Atlantic Pact, on the contrary, is to link western Eu- rope closely with the United States in one huge strategic region subject to a single plan. The recovery sought by the Marshall plan and the security sought by the Atlantic Pact must be balanced one against the other. They are almost as closely related economi- cally as mathematical coordinates, More- over, they represent merely two aspects of the _ single problem of stiffening western Europe against hostile pressure. Therefore, they should be recognized as fitting into the same context, Europeans con- tend. This context, they insist, must be that of the Atlantic Pact, not that of the Mar- shall plan. The smaller context of western Europe chosen by the Marshall plan is regarded as having lost reality in the light of recent de- velopments. The goals of western European unity are considered to have become both impossible and insufficient—impossible, be- cause western Germany cannot be integrated with the rest of western Europe while Brit- ain refuses to be; insufficient, because even if this integration were possible, western Europe would still be unable to recover and rearm herself at the same time. » sidered; A2923 Hells Canyon Project in Oregon EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WAYNE MORSE OF OREGON IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have published in. the Recorp 2 memorandum on the Hells Canyon project in Oregon, prepared by Mr. Albert C. Ullman, the very able president of the Hells Canyon Develop- ment Association. There being no objection, the memo- randum was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: HeLLs CaNyon DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION CoorpiInaTED PLAN Must BE ACTIVATED When the Senate on April 17 passed the omnibus rivers and harbors bill without the Interior amendment, a hard blow was dealt to the Pacific Northwest, but more particu- larly to the new coordinated development program in which the region has come to place so much faith. The implications of this action are so far-reaching and so serious in nature that it must gain the attention of everyone even remotely interested in basin development. : By carving the coordinated: agreement ver~ tically, projects in the area of Corps of En- gineer operations are authorized, including the John Day and The Dalles Dams of the lower Columbia, admittedly long-distance objectives, neither settled in agreement nor projected on power studies of this decade. Projects in the jurisdiction of BuRec are not authorized, leaving out the Key Hells Canyon Dam and certain irrigation projects. Under coordinated agreement both agencies were to-work.. Under the Senate action one agency and all-its projects in all its territory waits. Projects on the Bonneville Power Administration timetable are not authorized while projects not on that schedule have been approved. Needs have not been met; urgency has been ignored; areas have not been con- coordination, planning, resource conservation, and political considerations have not been satisfied; half a program re- mains to be activated. The Bonneville Power Administration schedule calls for the first generators of Hells Canyon to go into operation in 1956, There are many reasons for this high priority recommendation, among them: 1. Flood and river control in addition to power production are urgent, with Hells Canyon the major storage facility. 2. The power output of Bonneville and McNary will not reach maximum efficiency without Hells Canyon. Hells Canyon’s in~ stalled capacity is 800,000 kilowatts but through its storage releases it will actually produce 1,069,000 kilowatts of system firm power. 3. The moratorium on projects interfering with migratory fish runs downstream places priority on Hells Canyon which is above all the major spawning tributaries. It would be unfortunate to again ignore the inter- agency fishing moratorium agreement of 1947. 4, The upper Snake area is in urgent need of major power for the development of phos- phate and mineral potential; and the North- west is in need of a dispersal of strategic in- stallations, Hells Canyon being far interior and in néw load centers.
A2924 This has been the first major test of the coordinated agreement development pro- gram and present action constitutes a defeat for that program. The interior projects were not argued on their merits but were rejected because of a jurisdictional dispute. Ia order to keep the spirit of the coordinated program alive the Bureau of Reclamation projects, especially the key Hells Canyon Dam, must be approved through separate legislation this session. Continued orderly development according to proven plan is the great need in the Northwest today. Power for existing indus- trial meeds and future industrial require- ments, power for critical defense purposes, flood control to prevent a recurrence of the Vanport disaster, are factors that cannot wait. Hells Canyon is the next step in the studied timetable of development. This Congress cannot allow that timetable which is the heart of the coordinated planning to be thrown out of gear. A separate bill in this session authorizing Hells Canyon and urgent Bureau projects will bring that pro- gram back into focus. ALBERT C, ULLMAN, Hells Canyon Development Association. The Hells Canvon Development Associa- tion is a nonprofit, ronsalaried organization composed of independent businessmen, farmers, and working people of Oregon and Idaho, financed through, dollar contributions from its membership. Continuation of United Nations Children’s Fund EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN OF NEW YORE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, in a bill, 8. 3420, recently introduced by the senior Senator from Ohio [Mr. Tarr] and other Senators, including myself, it is proposed that the work of the United Nations Chil- dren’s Fund goon. The New York Times of April 18 published an editorial in re- gard to this bill and this humane and worth-while activity. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Appendix of the Recorp this editorial describing the work of the Children’s Fund and urging sup- port of S. 3420. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: : CHILDREN’S Funp Saca The saga of the UN’s Children’s Fund since the end of the war is one of the’ proudest chapters of modern man’s devotion to help. ing his fellow man. While international poli- tics and partisanship have disrupted a score of the UN’s specialized agencies—not exclud- ing the fund, from which the Russian and Polish delegates recently took a walk—this group gets on with its planning, feeding, healing, with steadfastness and purpose. In the past several months the saga of the Children’s Fund has led it away from coun- tries that are recovering adequately to help their own to new areas that are—some always were-—in desperate need. Thus the emphasis is shifting to India and the Middle East, to the Far East, to underdeveloped areas in Latin America. Because of lack of govern- ment contributions, the Children’s Fund has only been able to touch the fringe of the problem. But the marvel is that it has been able to surmount financial obstacles, that it has doggedly held to its nonpartisan pro- gram, spread itself thin when necessary, kept the life-giving milk and cod-liver oil and food flowing to the needy. Perhaps never was the worth of its achievements more dramati- cally seen than among the Arab refugees, who would have died by the thousands except for Children’s Fund contributions. The fund’s vital work—at the individual level—must go on. This is the meaning of the excellent bipartisan bill just introduced by Senator Tarr to continue American par- ticipation in the fund for another year. The long-term programs and intelligence surveys that have been proposed are fine, but only if they are to be concurrent with active con- tinuation of the Children’s Fund work and are not intended to displace it. To continue that work the fund needs hard cash—from governments, from people with understand- ing hearts. The $25,000,000 appropriation still due the fund from this Nation should be made available without strings. Unemployment Caused by Imports EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 18, 1950 Mr. REED of New York, Mr. Speaker, the failure of the Truman administra- tion to take action to preserve the jobs of hundreds of thousands of employees caused by an ever-increasing volume of imports is tragic. Imports of oil are closing coal mines, thus throwing the men who work in the mines out of em- ployment. The railroad employees of the railroads thet haul the coal are losing their jobs. The employees in our domes- tic oil fields are being thrown out of em- ployment. All of this unemployment is spreading day by day, and it will con- tinue until imports are decisively checked. I feel that there is a direct responsibility of the United States Gov- ernment to take some action which will protect the oil industry of the United States from the threat which the Gov- ernment itself has helped to create. There is now a world surplus of oil. It is clamoring for outlet into our mar- kets. The imports of crude oil and prod- ucts have steadily increased. In 1949 the daily average of such imports was 642,000 barrels daily, which was 129,000 barrels daily more than in 1948. The increase was 25 percent. The average for the first 2 months of 1950 was 792,000 barrels per day. During the war the United States en- couraged the development. of foreign producing and refining. Some of the assistance was necessary. Some of it was the result of influence wielded by officials of companies which held large concessions and which were faced with the necessity of spending large amounts of money. A notable instance was re- vealed in the investigation of Middle East operations by the Brewster Committee in the Eightieth Congress. A former offi- cial of the group of companies interested in Saudi Arabia testified that he acted to have Arabia added to the list of re- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cipients of lend-lease, thus satisfying the demands for money which the King of Arabia was making on the companies. He sued his former associates and won a jury award of a million dollars for the use of his influence. The fact that a higher court set aside the verdict in no way disproved his claim that he had been instrumental in transferring a com- pany’s financial problem to the taxpayers of the United States. Manpower, materials—every possible assistance was given to the same com- panies which import oil into the United States to expand their operations in the Middle East and in Venezuela during the war. With the end of the war the as- sistance continued in the form of ap- proval of exports of scarce equipment and materials needed in the development of oil resources in the United States. In a long period of scarcity of such goods the flow of them for foreign use con- tinued. Then we entered the phase of the ECA. Assistance has been poured out lavishly to expand the oil producing and refining industry in Europe and the possessions, mandated territories, and countries un- der influence and control of European nations. The authorizations for the purchase of crude oil and products for the Marshall plan countries in the first 21 months of the plan’s operation—to December 31, 1949—totaled $75,200,000. As the money went to the companies which produce and refine oil and as the world surplus of oil outside the United States is controlled by seven companies— five of which are United States corpora- tions—it follows that there was, in effect, a subsidy of their operations by the peo- ple of the United States. The greater part of the oil supplied to Europe under the ECA operations was from the Middle East and Venezuela. The principal im- porters into the markets of the United States are the same companies which re- ceived the greater part of the ECA ex- penditures for petroleum and they have thus been aided in their plans for fur- ther expansion of foreign activities. A measure of the growth abroad is provided in the production statistics for 1949, compared with the figures for 1947. The production of Venezuela increased 10 percent; Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait), 66 percent; Far East (British, Dutch, and American in- terests in the East Indies), 209 percent. The production in the United States was 1 percent less in 1949 than in 1947. In addition to the ECA expenditures for petroleum products, grants have been made for refinery expansion within the participating countries. The ECA state- ment as of March 10, 1950 was that re- finery projects to the total of $160,850,000 in dollar and dollar equivalents had been approved; of this $23,782,500 were ECA dollars. In the 16 Marshall-plan coun- tries the refinery capacity at the end of 1948 was 485,000 barrels daily. At the end of fiscal 1953, according to ECA re- ports, the capacity will be 1,041,700 bar- rels a day—more than doubled, taking into account only the existing capacity plus the completion of projects now un- der construction. And if the ambitions of those countries are realized, as ex-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pressed by their Organization for Euro- pean Economic Cooperation are realized, the refinery capacity will be 1,315,000 barrels daily. ECA petroleum branch men have testified to the Small Business Committee of the House that they have attempted to prevent expansion to the figure desired by the recipients of ECA aid, but that they expected the final ca- pacity figure would be more than 1,010,- 000 and under 1,250,000 barrels daily. It was their opinion that the lower capacity could be used in meeting Furope’s needs. United States companies are fully keeping pace with the expansion. Their capacity in Europe at the end of 1948 was 116,000 barrels a day; present con- struction will bring it to 303,080 barrels and if the OEEC long-term program is realized, they will have a capacity of 401,900 barrels daily at the end of fiscal 1953. It is interesting to note that United States companies have heen getting ECA money for refinery expansion. Peculiar as it sounds, the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, one of the corpo- rate giants of the world, actually re- ceived from ECA $1,427,000 for the ex- pansion of a refinery in France in which minor interests are owned by two other giants, Gulf Oil and Atlantic Refining, with some French ownership. In an- other instance, Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. got $850,000 in ECA funds for refinery expansion in France. The oil industry abroad is heing pushed and rushed to a condition of. overexpansion. Already the effect is be- ing felt in numerous ways. The “ster- ling area’ countries—Great Britain’s eight commonwealth countries-——are re- ducing the allowed imports of “dollar” oil. Greater and greater portions of the European market are being taken by Middle East oil produced by British and Dutch companies and the American companies, confronted by their overex- panded and overstimulated producing and refining programs, look increasingly to the United States for market outlet. Building a Better America by Perpetuating the Ideals and Teachings of Booker T. Washington EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. COMPTON I. WHITE OF MAHO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 29, 1950 Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, approximately 344 years ago, the House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, of which I had the honor to be chairman, reported unanimously a bill for the minting of 5,000,000 Booker T. Washington memorial silver half-dollars to commemorate the birth and perpet- uate the ideals and teachings of that great Negro leader, who did so much for the people of his race and contributed so much to better racial understanding. XxCVI—App.——-185 These coins are being sold by the Booker T. Washington Birthplace Me- morial, a nonprofit organization, for $1; and the premium on these sales is being used to establish trade and industrial schools for the training of Negro youth, thereby not only improving the economic status of the Negro but contributing greatly to our entire national economy. The remarkable achievements of this organization in carrying out the objec- tives for which it was organized is fit- tingly described in the appended article by the noted Negro author, traveler, and public speaker, George S. Schuyler, which appeared in the Pittsburgh Courier, April 22, 1950. I recently had the privilege of visiting the Booker T. Washington birthplace and the Trade Schools of Roanoke and want to say the work that is being done 1s a real inspiration to carry on similar work in other parts of our country where there is a substantial Negro population. I trust that everyone reading Mr. Schuyler’s article will send $1 to the Booker T. Washington Birthplace Me- morial at Booker Washington Birthplace, Virginia, for one of these memorial coins and share the joy of helping those who are furtherest down in the economic scale to help themselves to climb the ladder to economic security. The article follows: VIEWS AND REVIEWS—-SCHUYLER Finps AMAZ- ING TRANSFORMATION aT Booker T. WAsH-~ INGTON’S BIRTHPLACE (By George S. Schuyler) S. J. Phillips, of Booker T. Washi.1,.0on Birthplace, Va., is a good-looking, dark, middle-aged Negro who not only believes in the great American educa‘or’s philosophy of skilled industrial and business schooling, and “letting down your bucket where you are,” but he is definitely doing something to put that philosophy into practice. Before I met Mr. Phillips early this month, I only knew him by name and newspaper reports, and I had only the haziest notion where Booker Washington’s birthplace was when I accepted his invitation to attend the memorial services there. I knew that he had promoted the Booker T. Washington memo- rial half dollar, but I was astounded to learn that this, the fifty-first special coin of its kind, had sold more than all of the other 50 authorized by Congress. Indeed, I learned 16 had sold twice as many, selling for $1 each, and it is still selling. I should think every Negro in the United States would want to own at least one of these coins, and obvi- ously hundreds of thousands do. It is not too easy to get to Booker T. Wash- ington’s birthplace. Going to Roanoke by airplane, train, or bus, it its necessary to motor some 20 miles over hill and dale through some mighty picturesque country before the isolated place near Rocky Mount, Va., is reached. It is a beautiful ride on a clear day, as Sunday, April 2, was. I expected to find the log cabin where the great man was born whose bust now stands in the hall of fame, but the avenue lined with American flags, the gleaming new build- ings, the scores of parked cars from all over the region and the hundreds of visitors in holiday mood were more than I had bar- gained for. Benches were arranged for the outdoor ceremonies and there was a loudspeaker sys- tem. A new two-story, modern brick build- ing, for dormitories and recreation draped with flags, was dedicated later that after- noon. There was the log cabin birthplace of the big man, draped with bunting and hung A2925 inside with mottos; and alongside it was the old well, now glorified with cement, stone work and a large tin bucket above which the well-known legend read: “Let down your bucket where you are.’ In the bottom of the bucket, covered by 2 inches of water, ‘were many coins tossed in by admiring visi- tors. I learned that during 1949, over $300 was contributed in that manner. It was evident soon that this memorial to a man who gave his country and the world a@ new concept of mass education was some- thing more than a refurbished log cabin and @ glorified well. This 600 acres of land had been bought from the white owners for $50,000. Planted acres number 250, while 80 acres are given over to orchards. In addi- tion there are two tractors, four trucks, two station wagons, 12 automobiles, a couple of cows, some three dozen hogs, over 2,000 chickens, two poultry houses of the most modern design, a residence cleverly converted from an old barn, six tobacco barns, two other barns, a large new residence, an office build- ing and the birthplace’s own post office with an attractive young brown postmistress. When I was there the place was stacked with bags of mail incoming and outgoing. I hadn’t known that there was a post office called Booker Washington Birthplace, Va. In addition to all this, there is a night school, teaching trades, operated for the bene- fit of ambitious students from the surround- countryside. Unlike many rural communities, this one boasts electric lights and hot and cold run- ning water. All this has been accomplished since World War II. Next day we drove into Roanoke to the Booker T. Washington Memorial Trades School which is located in four different buildings rented for the purpose. It was established by Mr. Phillips September 4, 1949, after the surmounting of various ob- stacles not the least of which was the oppo- sition of some fealous Negroes. This school, whose 222 students are largely ex-service men, teaches bricklaying, carpentry, radio and television, beauty culture, and business skills. It is significant that already seven- teen graduates in bricklaying and beauty culture have secured jobs. Whether teaching motor mechanics, typ- ing, or cabinet making, the young instruc- tors seem to know their business. The work- rooms were busy as beehives and yet every- thing was clean and orderly. I noted that the latest machinery and equipment was in ‘use. Well, it all adds up to something really inspiring, and it is a great credit to a dy- namic man like S. J. Phillips.and his devoted workers that all of this has been accom- plished during a period when many people were wagging their heads and viewing the future with alarm. Of course, there are some shallow pates who will say that Booker Washington’s phi- losophy was good at a certain period, but is now dead. However, artisans and farmers who are well trained will always be in de- mand and will never know privation. One reason why the Negro has been “last to be hired and first to be fired’ is because so few Negroes could do anything well that the economy wanted done. If there were a big group of highly skilled Negro craftsmen no one will argue that we would not be better off. Every person should be highly skilled in at least one craft. Our great difficulty today, as in the past, is that we have tens of thou- sands of Negro so-called workers, urban and rural, who really do not know how to do anything well, except moan for security and Government freebies. Many cannot even shine shoes or do domestic work properly. How the picture would change if we had a few hundred more consecrated men like far-sighted S. J. Phillips of Booker Washing-~ ‘ ton Birthplace, Va,
A2926 Alaska, Hawaii on Verge of Statehood EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, under Jeave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orD, I include the following article by Gould Lincoln from the Washington Sunday Star of April 23, 1950: ALASKA, Hawatr on VeRce or SraTEHOOoD— Hearincs Tomorrow IN Finan Drive To Win Goan (By Gould Lincoln) Hawaii and Alaska, knocking at the door for statehood, begin tomorrow a final drive to attain their ends during the present Con-~ gress, Hearings on the Alaska statehood bill open before the Senate Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs, and the com-~ mittee has set May 1 for its hearings on the Hawaiian bill, Both measures already have passed the House. It begins to look as though the last barriers to statehood for the two Territories will be surmounted. Although as chairman of the committee, Senator O’MaHoNEY, Democrat, of Wyoming, is withholding final judgment, it is known he is inclined to favor statehood. In the Hightieth Congress the House also passed an enabling bill for Hawaii and Alaska. The House Public Lands Committee re- ported one for Alaska. The determined op~ position then of Senator Butter, Republican, of Nebraska, chairman of the committee, effectually bottled up the Hawaiian bill and it died with the Congress. Mr. Burtier is now the ranking Republican member of the committee. The admission of the two Territories would make the United States an even 50—would bring the membership of the Senate up to 100, and would add two or three Members to the House. It is 38 years since the two youngest States were admitted—Arizona and ‘New Mexico. Five years earlier, in 1907, Okla- homa—the combined Oklahoma and Indian Territories—became a State. TERRITORIES FOR MANY YEARS The two proposed new States are non- contiguous territory of the United States. Both, however, have been Territories for many years. Hawaii was acquired by annexa-~ tion through treaties approved by the Sen- ate of the United States and by the Senate of the former Republic of Hawaii shortly be- fore the turn of the century. Alaska was pur- chased from Russia in 1867. How wise that purchase was has been demonstrated many times—but never more so than today when the relations of the United States and Soviet Russia have settled into a cold war which may become a hot war at any time. World War II has emphasized Alaska’s strategic value, and brought to memory Gen. Billy Mitchell’s statement that: “He who holds Alaska holds the world.” Indeed, argument is made for statehood, for both Hawaii and Alaska on the ground that each is an important outpost, and that under statehood, each would become stronger. Opposition to statehood for Hawaii, at least on the surface, has centered on reports of Communist infiltration and on the fact that the population has many large racial groups, particularly Japanese, which are for- eign to the United States. Senator Cornon, Republican, of Oregon, a member of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dur- ing the Hightieth Congress, made an exten-= sive investigation of Communist activity and influence in the islands and reported that it constituted no barrier to statehood. To- day, an inquiry into the same subject is being made by a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee, now in the Territory, and the findings of that com- mittee may have definite bearing on final action regarding Hawaii. HAWAIL TRIES SHORT CUT Hawaii recently has moved toward getting into the Union without the passage of an enabling act by Congress. It has elected delegates to a constitutional convention to write a constitution for the proposed State. When this constitution shall have been Grafted, it will be submitted to the people of the Territory for ratification, and if the people vote for it, the constitution will be forwarded to Congress for approval, with a petition that Hawaii be admitted as a State. This is the second string to Hawaii’s bow. Fifteen States have been admitted after such a procedure, when Congress failed to pass enabling acts in their cases. Two States, Kentucky and Vermont, as early as 1791, and two others, Idaho and Wyoming, as recently as 1890 acquired statehood through such congressional acts of admission, after draft- ing constitutions in the absence of congres- sional enabling acts. This does not mean, however, that Hawaii will cease its efforts to obtain passage of the pending enabling bill. Under the terms of the bill, Hawaii, in any case, would have to draft a State constitution, and obtain approval of that constitution before it could be admitted. ‘ The total land area of the Hawaiian Is- lands is approximately the size of Connec-~ ticut and Rhode Island combined. They are populated by more than half a million peo- ple. A report made by a subcommittee of the House Committee on Territories in 1946 showed that, ethnically, the population of the Territory in 1945 was 10,988 Hawaiians, or 2.2 percent of the total population; 61,422 part Hawaiians, or 12.2 percent; Puerto Ricans, 9,090, or 1.8 percent; 172,583 Cau- casians, or 34.4 percent; 30,005 Chinese, or 6 percent; 163,300 Japanese, or 32.5 percent; 7,042 Koreans, or 1.4 percent; 46,464 Fili- pinos, or 9.3 percent; all others, 1,228, or .02 percent. The Hawaiians declined from an estimated 300,000 in 1778, when a British Navy captain, James Cook, visited the islands, to a little more than 10,000 today. In 1820, 17 New England missionaries went to Hawaii and before many years, as the report of the House committee says, ‘the natives were converted to Christianity and made familiar with the ways of the west.” At any rate, the period cf American influ- ence set in that was eventually to bring about annexation of the islands by this coun- try. Hawaii previously had ceased to be a kangdom and become a republic. Texas is the only other example of annexation by the United States of an independent State. Texas, however, was immediately a State of the Union. There has been always an im- plication that Hawaii, also, was to become a State and many times in recent years the matter has been broached. MAC ARTHUR, NIMITZ IN FAVOR Gen. Douglas MacArthur has been quoved as favoring statehood for Hawaii on the promise that such a policy would definitely support his efforts in democratizing Japan. Admiral Nimitz, testifying as a private citi- zen, said he had great admiration for and appreciation of the complete and whole- hearted cooperation the people of Hawaii gave to the war effort and that from a mili- tary and naval standpoint he saw no objec- tion to the islands achieving statehood. It has been estimated that well over 85 percent of the population of Hawaii was born in the islands and that 90 percent are . American citizens. Not only did Hawaii have a commendable record during the Second World War, but also there was no sabotage a APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD or fifth-column activity committed there, ac- cording to the FBI. The people of Alaska, like those of Hawalil, have asked for statehood through plebiscite. And while the population of this vast Terri- tory is small—estimated to be from 95,000 to 105,000—it is larger than was the popu- lation of a dozen States when they were ad~ mitted. Missouri, Nevrdr, Ovc~or. Wroming, Minne- These States are Arkansas, Florida,’ sota, Iowa, CYanc., Vor iv, North Ba-| kota, and Nebraska. In 1940 the popula- tion of Alaska, according to the census, was; 72,524 persons. At that time 54 percent} of the population was white as distinguished from the native stocks. Nearly one-fourth | of these whites were born in Alaska. In the years since then the permanent popu-' lation of the Territory has steadily increased.’ It is confidently predicted, too, that with' statehood the population of Alaska will grow speedily—just as happened in other Terri- tories. : LAND OF RESOURCES The importance of Alaska to the United States does not rest alone on military con-=) siderations, although those are of great mo- ment. Its great resources are still only partially developed. Fish, forest products, ! minerals, all have great futures in develop-' ment of Alaska. ‘ Alaska, it has been pointed out, has served. a long tutelage in a territorial status. It! belonged to the United States for 17 years before even a temporary form of govern~| ment was provided. The first criminal code was not enacted until 1899, and the first | civil code in 1900. Since 1912 Alaska has had its own legislature. However, within the limits of the organic act passed by Con-| gress, Alaska has enacted progressive meas-| ures. It granted suffrage to women 6 years pefore the suffrage amendment to the Con-; stitution was adopted for the United States.! One of the principal objections raised to statehood for Alaska now is that Alaska! could not support the cost of statehood.’ Among the additional expenses the new State would have to bear are the salaries of the Governor and of the secretary of state; all,’ instead of part of, the costs of the legis- lature, the State court system, the fishery administration, and the care of the insane. As a State, Alaska would be permitted to borrow for State purposes, pledging the faith of the people of Alaska. This is a common | practice among the States now. History, | moreover, has shown that territories, when | becoming States, have been able to meet their financial responsibilities. HISTORIC CASES The history of admission of Territorics into the Union contains other hard-fought bat-~ tles. There was a bitter row in Congress at the time of the admission of Arizona and New Mexico, under a joint enabling act. The act directed the Territories to frame State constitutions and placed upon the President—then William Howard Taft—the duty of approving these constitutions. Ari- zona wrote into its constitution the initia- tive and referendum, for legislation, and the recall of judges and other officers. Presi-~ dent Taft could not stomach the recall of judges. So Congress was forced to put through another act, which in effect com- pelled Arizona to take the recall of judges out of its constitution in order to gain ad- mission. The recall of judges was removed from the constitution and Arizona has never revived it, although, when once a State, it could amend its own constitution in any way it saw fit. The debate in the Senate on the Arizona Constitution showed some of the Senators, in 1911, gravely concerned over the initia- tive, referendum, and recall. For example, Senator Heyburn, Republican, of Idaho sug- gested: “Under this recall system, or under the initiative and referendum, there would not
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD be time to put in any wheat. There would not be any time for anything but politics, Elections would be the order of the day and all the great economic questions that we have been discussing would become of minor importance because no one would have time for anything except holding elections—elec~ tions for the purpose of nominating some~ body for office, for the purpose of determin- ing whether they should be recalled, only a few days to elapse between and then elections to determine whether or not the successors should be recalled—and so with the laws. “Mr. President (of the Senate), men are going mad.” Awards for Fliers EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN W. McCORMACK OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the REcorD, I include the following editorial from the Boston Post of April 21, 1950: AWARDS FOR FLIERS The action of the United States Senate in voting unanimously for a resolution direct- ing the Secretary of the Navy to confer ap- propriate posthumous decorations on the crew of the American airplane which was shot down by Soviet fighter planes over the Baltic Sea may be little consdlation for the families of the lost men; but it at least indicates the high resentment in Congress and throughout the Nation over this incident. One would have to search through the blackest pages of the history of the least civilized and most vicious barbarians to bring to light an incident of such barefaced treachery and cruelty as this Baltic incident. In the first place, our airplane was unarmed and the crew had specific instructions to keep away from the Russian frontier to avoid just such an incident as occurred. Secondly, we knew nothing about the loss of the plane for 4 days after it was shot down, and thus lost the precious time in which we might have been able to find the missing men. During these precious days the Russians obviously made no attempt to rescue the plane which, they reported to us, was last seen out over an open ocean after having been riddled with gunfire. t We still don’t know, in fact, whether the Russians captured the crippled plane and are now holding our men as prisoners in @ con- centration camp. Certainly, in view of their whole attitude over the incident, this would not be beyond the bounds of possibility. ‘ An article in a Moscow paper calling upon the United States to punish our officials for the responsibility of the crime would make it evident that the Russian Government in- tends to reject the note of protest and re- quest for indemnity made by the United States Government. What move we shall make if this is done, remains to be seen. Officials at Washington, it is reported, believe that the whole matter will blow over after a series of sharp notes on both sides, with the only result being a deterioration in our relations with the Soviets. That may be. But the day must come when the American people, little as they desire another war, will not stand for any more pushing around by Russia. The day must come'when we shall have to say to Mr. Stalin, “One more move on your part will be the last. From there on the bombs will start dropping.” | , Perhaps we moderns are too softhearted, Some 2,000 years ago, when Rome was being estered by threats from Carthage, the omans declared that Carthage must be de~ stroyed”’; and they destroyed it so that it has never been heard from since. Address by Hon. Wayne Coy at National Association of Broadcasters’ Annual Convention EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON OF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, Wayne Coy, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, in a@ brilliant speech to the Twenty-eighth Annual Convention of the National As- sociation of Broadcasters, at Chicago, on April 18, 1950, spoke truths which are basic to freedom of speech. I ask unani- mous consent to insert that portion of his address in the CONGRESSIONAL REcORD, There being no objection, the ex~- cerpt was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: The key to sleeping on a windy night in- volves your preparation to serve the public interest. If you plan now to serve the real needs of your community, if you plan to make your station an indispensable part of your com- munity’s life, a source of leadership and aid in every civic project, a forum for the dis * cussion of local issues, an institution where local talent can be heard and encouraged, then you will have gone a long way toward conditioning yourself for sleeping on a windy night. Such preparation. will include new approaches, new formats, a renewed empha- sis on imaginative planning. Of course, some people profess not to know what the phrase, “public interest’? means, Some people call it vague and ambiguous, But this is a form of skepticism and scoffing which does those who cannot discern what is the public interest no credit. The Com- mission has in one of its opinions quite prop- erly pointed out the duty to operate in the public interest is no esoteric mystery, but is essentially a duty to operate a radio sta- tion with good judgment and good faith guided by a reasonable regard for the in~ terests of the community to be served. Of course, there is no Government agency or broadcaster who can in advance hammer out, down to the last detail, a blueprint which will give the sensible answer to all of the innumerable problems which arise in the day to day operations of a broadcast station, And Congress has wisely foreseen that this is the case. For the scheme created by the Communications Act is that the licensee shall have and éxercise the responsibility for devising a program service. The source from which that responsibility is to derive con- tent and meaning is the community in which the licensee operates and which he serves with his station. The needs and interests of that community can be readily gleaned by one whose eyes and ears are open; they can be learned by one who is in touch with pub- lic affairs and who knows the background and interests and aspirations of the. yarious groups which compose that community. The _ standard of the public interest is a require- ment that the licensee Keep his eyes and A2927 ears open to these needs and aspirations and interests. His ears must be attuned to the beating of hearts around him as well as the tinkle of the cash register. His eyes must be able to discern the genuine joys and sorrows of the people of his community. The type of judgment which will most readily reflect his awareness cannot readily be re- duced to a rule or a statute or a code. The Commission has also pointed out that to take the licensee by the hand and show him the way through every vicissitude of daily operation would serve to stifle the very re- sponsibility which the act is designed to fos- ter. Those who insist that they do not know what the public interest is may well be in earnest. But unless they show that they are able to find out what the public interest is, they are not fit to be entrusted with the responsibilities of a radio station license. And can the licensee surrender his re-' sponsibility to anyone else? To the net- works? Or to the advertising agencies? Or to time brokers? Of course not. In the eyes of the law, the licensee is the master of his station and he alone is accountable for what goes out from his station. He cannot by any means wash his hands of this re« sponsibility. The network rules were adopted and fought through the Supreme Court in order to free him from network domination and to help him become more of a master in his own house. In planning how he is going to weather the transition period ahead of us, the broad< caster will want to reexamine his program practices. For example, has he made a recent sur- vey to determine if he is truly serving local needs? Is he making an affirmative effort to find out what the community needs are and how he can best serve them? Judging from our renewal applications, some stations are operating in a paradise where there are no problems of education, racial understand-" ing, citizenship, health, housing, or recrea-' tion. But then if it were a paradise, they would at least have some local live talent.’ So it must be a desert they are operating in.‘ About all that some of them can chalk up as local live talent is the man who reads the news from the ticker. But now we are finding out that some of these new listings’ are open to question because the stations don’t even. subscribe for a news service. And “believe it or not” we have one applicant: who includes in his modest, nay, minute por- ' tion. of local live programing his “sign-on” and his “sign-off.” j It is praiseworthy for a .broadcaster to carry on elaborate network documentary on juvenile delinquency, or on housing, or on health, But what about the broadcaster’s own community? Is he indulging in es- capism by ignoring conditions right in his own. front yard? The recent Analysis of Station Operating Costs issued by the NAB declares: “One cannot emphasize too strongly that good programing, per se, will not continue to satisfy sponsors. Commercial radio is founded upon programs which appeal to the listening public and which sell merchandise.” My reaction to that is this: The American system of broadcasting—which is a com- mercial system—is not founded simply to appeal to listeners and sell merchandise. That concept completely brushes aside the valuable, the indispensable role in a station’s total programing structure of the program that may appeal only to listeners and of itself may not sell one penny’s worth of merchandise. . A forum discussion on a million-dollar bond issue for a new sewerage plant—an issue which is splitting the town wide open—might not attract a sponsor but it would have al- most everyone in town listening in—and would be a major contribution by the radio station,
A2928 The weekly religious hour presenting vari- ous churches, carried by many stations, is usually not sponsored and yet it is con- sidered one of the most appealing programs on the schedule. Do these programs have to sell merchan- dise to build up radio? Do a President’s messages in a national emergency have to sell merchandise to make them good radio? Of course not. They play a stellar role in keeping listeners in the habit of looking to their radio set for the most significant and most vital events of the day. Sponsored programs owe as much to them as they owe to sponsored programs. And that points up why a broadcaster cannot serve the public interest unless he has at his command a reasonable amount of sustaining time to allocate to such “reverse What is the 2c: 1-."~s responsibility to the public interests in regard to such matters as poor taste on the programs going out via his station into the homes of his community? And in regard to excessive and indiscriminate crime and horror program- ing? It is assumed that the average broadcaster knows what is right and proper, He knows what he would permit or resent in his own home and that he should treat his listener’s home as if it were his own. However, there is a erowir~ revulsion against lapses of good taste : e ins: excessive and indiscrimi- nate crime and horror programing. The complaint is that these crime programs, including the pious “crime does not pay” programs for children do not pay in terms of child welfare, do not pay in terms of what they do to promote juvenile delin- quency. If that is true, then they do not pay in terms of radio’s future as an insti- tution for community betterment. But if a broadcaster is in doubt about how his practices affect his community, how can he eppreach his problem in terms of the puvuic interest? No one expects the broadcaster to be all-wise, to be infallible. But it certainly is not unreasonable to ex-~ pect the broadcaster to exercise due dili- gence. When he is in doubt on such mat- ters as these, he can turn to outside help for advice. I suggest that he turn for advice to, of all people, his public. By doing so he will demonstrate a sensitivity to local needs and local conditions. It might be well to remember at this point that the public, as the feminine lead in a recent play said, “the public are getting better and better known all the time.” The broadcaster can turn readily to the parent groups, to the educational institu- tions, to the civic organizations, to the child welfare specialists, to the courts, the penal experts and recreational leaders of his own community. They will be glad to assist him in evaluating his handling of crime pro- grams from the child-welfare standpoint. 1 When we reflect what veneration we give the old principle that “a man’s house is his castle,” we can appreciate what a rare privilege is accorded the American broad- caster. William Pitt put it eloquently: “The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter— but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.” And yet today in almost every home in America one door—the radio door—is thrown open wide to admit the radio broadcaster and all his goodly company. Such open en« tree to the family fireside is enjoyed by no other medium. It carries with it a high re- sponsibility. Abuse that privilege, shirk your responsibility for supervising the programs and the talent you take into these homes and you endanger a unique and trusting hospi- tality. How is the public interest to be safeguarded in the handling of controversial issues? Ob- viously, a licensee employing a publicly owned radio frequency—a frequency belong- ing to all the people—must comport himself as a trustee. He is a trustee not for one faction of the public or the other-—he is a “trustee for all the people with many diver- gent viewpoints. So the standard must be fairness to all such viewpoints. The Commission has repeatedly held fair- ness to all viewpoints must be observed if the public interest is to be served. This was Treemphasized in the Commission’s de- cision of last June permitting licensees to editoriahze. In that report we spelled out the broad-~ caster’s affirmative duty to insure fairness in his editorializing policies. We said, in short, that the broadcaster who embarks on editorializing by presenting one side of an issue does not satisfy the public interest if he merely sits in his office and waits for someone to show up and demand time to present the other side. It is up to him to pick up the telephone or to put on his hat and coat and go out and make a conscien- tious effort to enlist some responsible repre- sentative of the other side. Clearly, then, the American broadcaster's responsibility to his Government is to serve with intelligence, impartiality, and a high sense of good taste and decorum as a trustee for the radio frequency which his Govern- ment licenses him to use. I am impressed by the theme of this convention—the re- sponsibility of the broadcasters in the many fields covered by your agenda. I cannot re- frain from saying that I would be more im- pressed if the agenda of this convention also included sessions which would permit open discussion of (1) the problems of network affiliates in relation to network programing; (2) the problem of whether or not the broad- casters have an effective code and what can be done to improve it in the hght of your responsibilities and how to implement it for the benefit of the industry and the public; (8) the problems involved in determining what constitutes the public interest and how to meet those needs. I think these are prob- lems which will become more and more serious in the transition period through which we are now passing. I realize that up to this point I have had very little to say about television except to give you the financial data based on the 1949 financial reports received by the Commission; to compare those statistics with the same ' statistics for 1948; and to give you their re- . lationship to the total broadcast revenue and income picture for those years. I know that many of you would like for me to talk about the television freeze. What you really want me to tell you is when, we will get out of the freeze and when you may be expected to re- ceive your construction permit for a tele- vision station. I suspect that there is a great deal more about television which you would like to know and which you would be glad to get from me or anyone else. Some of you have asked me whether or not you should get into television or when did I think television would become the dominant broadcasting medium of this country. I hate to disappoint you by not talking at great length about television today. I can only say this to you on the general subject; I have avoided a television discussion because, as you know by this time, I have tried to keep to the text given me by Judge Miller, and, because of the further reaSon that I do not want to disillusion you about my knowledge of television. However, I suppose you might as well know the truth now as any other time. A year has gone by since I last ad- Gressed this gathering. In that year I have learned a lot about television and I am even less certain of the answers to your questions than I was a year ago. I am even less cer~ tain about the time when we will get out of the freeze. I certainly hope—and let me repeat the word “hope”’—that we get out _ of the freeze before the end of the year, I APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pray that it will be earlier. I do not predict when. . I belueve that the statistics which I have given you today covering the operations of _ aural broadcasting and television reflect the interregnum in the growth of television flow- ing from the freeze. I cannot prove that to you by the figures I have given you nor do I urge upon you the thought that the figures for 1949 can be accepted as an index to what the future may bring. Frankly, I still beheve that television will become the dominant broadcasting medium in this country and that 1t will occupy that position rapidly once the Commission and the industry have reached and accepted a solution to the prob- lems which resulted in the current freeze on the processing of television applications. I know that the economics of network tele- ~c will change considerably when “cre > '; are available and more markets can be covered. I hope that when that time comes the networks will not be the only beneficiaries and that the individual stations will share in the improved economic position. I hope that it will result in con- tinuously improved programs. But if that happens, the competition between television and aural broadcasting for audience and for the advertiser’s dollar will become more and more severe. Ladies and gentlemen, this twenty-eighth annual convention of the NAB takes place at a time of an expanding economy and at a time of readjustment in our way of life. We are in a period of higher living standards. The American people generally’are demand- ing and, for the most part getting, better homes, better clothes, better education, bet- ter recreational opportunities. As a most important part of this pattern, this Nation will require the strongest, most flexible, and most effective system of broad-~ casting that we can devise. I am convinced that we will need not only a national system of television but that we will need an able system of aural broadcasting. To bring these two systems up to their highest mark of potential development will require all the ingenuity, the imagination, the vision, the courage, and the good will that both the broadcasters and the Government can muster. It will call for the maximum cooperation and understanding. Ig we meet that challenge, then we to- gether can build up this mighty instrument of broadcasting to meet the needs of our democracy. Looking to the international scene we must recognize that the nations of the world are living in a time of danger. Sus- picion, fear, and hatred threaten this un- easy peace. In this hazardous situation, American broadcasting has a great role to play. Na- tional security is not solely the job of the Department of Defense or the State Depart- ment. Our first line of defense is an in- formed people who will act instantly and unitedly in any crisis. This is particularly true in a democracy where the citizens are the source of all power and the ultimate Judges of our course of action. Who is better equipped than the broad- casters to bring directly to every citizen in his home with true vividness the leading personalities of our times and the presenta- tion of all viewpoints on the crucial issues of the day? Who is better equipped to pro- vide every citizen with all the significant facts so that he can make up his own mind and perform his duty as a responsible citi- zen in a free society? The service that broadcasting can render has a high survival value in these troubled times. As we face the latter half of the twentieth century, no group in our society has greater power or potentialities for building and eraring America than the American broad- casters,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD National Rice Week EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to the fact that the week beginning April 23 has been desig- nated as National Rice Week. My dis- trict is one of the largest rice produc- ing sections of the United States, and naturally, we are all interested in tak- ing note of this week being set aside to call to the attention of the world what a fine, cheap, nutritious and palatable food can be found in this wonderful pro- duct. However, our production is nearly 50 percent more than the consumption in the United States, and we are making an effort to inform the United States that they should use this food. While rice is used in cereals and breakfast foods by our leading food manufacturers, if the people would inform themselves as to how to prepare the tasty dishes made possible by rice, I am sure that the con- sumption would be doubled in this coun- try. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include the following editorials from the Ope- lousas Daily World and the Jennings Daily News, published in my district on the National Rice Week, as follows: [From the Opelousas (La.) Daily World] Dovsiy Goon The week beginning April 23 will be Na- tional Rice Week, a 7-day period which the rice industry devotes to a little special pro- motion in an effort to increase the use of its product. As we are sure all our readers know, rice is one of Louisiana’s most im- portant crops. Louisianans eat a great deal more rice per capita than is eaten in most other States, not out of patriotism but be- cause they know more about rice and how delicious it can be when served in many different ways. We dare say National Rice Week hardly will crowd the cold war off the front pages, but if the extra advertising helps increase the consumption of rice, then all Louisiana will benefit as well as those who learn more about a very fine food. Louisiana rice growers feel an urgent need to find a larger market in this country. They increased production, as did rice grow- ers in other States, to meet the heavy de- mand in World War II when the Japanese controlled the large rice-growing areas of southeast Asia. Now these Asiatic countries have gotten back into the export market. They produce rice so cheaply that they are threatening to win back markets in Europe and even in Latin America, in spite of hand- ling and shipping costs. So the Louisiana growers and other Ameri. can growers are hoping that Americans can be persuaded to give rice a fair try—that is all that will be necessary—and eat just a little more rice per capita. Let us all have an extra helping of rice in National Rice Week. [From the Jennings (La.) Daily News of April 20, 1950] Rrc—k WEEK Next Next week is Rice Week in Jennings, and, we trust, throughout the Nation. The Jennings Association of Commerce has set aside the week and is urging rice menus on tables here and elsewhere, especially rice menus on the railroad dining cars. It seems strange that we need to stress “Eat More Rice” in this rice bowl of America. Even in Jeff Davis Parish, which is second only to Vermillion Parish in rice acreage, we could eat more of our favorite grain, We have seen feasts and banquets served here without a spoonful of rice. But that is beside the point. We need and must sell rice to the American housewife. Our existence depends on it. The day is done when we could dispose of all our sur- plus rice to the poor nations of the world at big prices with Uncle Sam paying the bill. The poor nations which ate a lot of rice dur- ing the war, before and since, are growing their own needs and they have surplus also to sell. That being the case, our direct attack, is an advertising campaign to make rice more popular on the American dinner tables. If cooks in the North, East and West knew how deliciously rice can be served, our troubles would be over. But our first job is to teach Americans that rice is and can be a savory and a very de- licious dish. The rice week appeal is not so pressing here where we all eat the cereal. But it is necessary that we start these weeks annually in America to popularize our rice. They had an old saying if we could teach the Chinese to lengthen their cotten shirts an inch per person, there would be no longer a cotton surplus issue. If we could teach all Americans to eat as much as we do in Louisi- ana, there would be no longer any rice sur- plus problem. Veto of the Natural Gas Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT S. KERR OF OKLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “Political Veto,” published in the Chicago Daily News of April 18, 1950; an editorial en- titled “Kerr Bill Veto,” published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer of April 17, 1950, and a letter written by Paul G. Benedum, of Pittsburgh, to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, and published in the April 4, 1950, issue of that newspaper. There being no objection, the edito- rials and letter were ordered to be printed in the Recor», as follows: {From the Chicago Daily News of April 18, 1950] POLITICAL VETO President Truman’s veto of the Kerr nat- ural gas bill was politically smart. It may alienate powerful leaders of his party, but they have nowhere else to go. The voters, who had been sold on the belief that the bill meant higher gas rates, would have some- where else to go, and the Republicans clearly meant to point the way. It is significant of the misconceptions about the measure that most of the dis- cussion of the veto revolves around its politi- cal aspects. Any merits of the measure itself are quite generally ignored. . President Truman himself contributed to that misunderstanding in his veto message when. he referred to the “record of accom- plishment under the present law.” It was the present law that the Kerr bill was de- signed to- retain—with clarification. - Mr. Truman shrewdly left the impression, 80 Widely circulated elsewhere, that the Kerr A2929 pill was designed to free the independent gas producers from rate regulation to which they are already subject. That was not the case. Recent court decisions encouraged the Federal Power Commission to seek authority over the rates of interstate suppliers, but it had never been exercised. Hence, when Senator Doueias pulled the figure out of his hat that the Kerr bill would increase gas rates by $200,000,000 to $500,000,000 it was Dovucuas the politician, not Dove.as the economist, who was talking. Mr. Truman was doubtless influenced in his veto by the message urging him to do so signed by 18 large-city mayors. It is a safe guess that their information on the sub- ject was largely a repetition of the charge that 1t would boost gas rates. They are against higher gas rates, as who isn’t. It is one thing to regulate a monopoly (and gas rates from fields owned by the pipe-line companies are quite properly reg- ulated) but quite another to ride herd on the scores of independent producers who sell to the pipe lines. It is the old story of price control, which seems to be eminently in the interest of the consumer, until it develops that it is not generating the increased production, which is the surest way to lower prices. ‘We believe Mr. Truman has chosen the wrong way to insure cheap gas. If the OPA principle didn’t work on meat and clothing, there is no reason to suppose that it will on fuel. [From the Cleveland Plain Dealer of April 17, 1950] Kerr Birt Veto It was not surprising that President Tru~ man vetoed the Kerr bill, which was designed to prevent the Federal Power Commission from regulating the price of gas sold by inde« pendent producers to pipe-line and distrib- uting companies. The veto was expected because Truman Iong ago cast his lot with the CIO and the Socialist-Labor planners and spenders, who favor ever-increasing Government regulation. over business and the lives of individual citizens. This group had set up a howl that consum- ers would have to pay from $200,000,000 to $500,000,000 for gas annually if the Federal Power Commission were prevented from fix- ing the prices charged by the independent producers. This charge was denied by the sponsors of the bill, who contended that freedom from Federal regulation would stimulate produc- tion, thus making gas available for consum- ers, and that competition would result in lower prices. But Truman accepted the contrary view, which gave him an opportunity to pose as a friend of the consumers. This is an admira- ble point of view, if the veto of the Kerr bill actually will save the consumers up to half @ billion dollars a year in increased gas costs at some indefinte time in the future and if it does not result in a curtailment of produc- tion and an eventual shortage of natural gas. But if Truman really wanted to do some- thing for consumers generally, something that would help them now and not merely avert a threatened price increase which might never materialize, he could reduce Federal taxes. Repeal of the wartime excise taxes alone would result in consumers saving more than a $1,000,000,000 a year immedi- ately. These and other tax reductions, how~ ever, would require a reduction in Federal spending, to which the President is opposed. The tip-off that Truman would veto the Kerr bill came last year when, after the Sen- ate refused to confirm the reappointment of Leland Olds as chairman of the Federal Power Commission, the President appointed him to a higher-paying job which did not require Senate confirmation. Olds was one of the
A2939 leading advecates of extending the regulatory powers of the Commission, contrary to the Intention of Congress when the Commission was first established. . The veto of the Kerr bill will have wide political repercussions in the Southwest. Its packers included two of Truman’s most stal- wart lieutenants in Congress, Senator To2t ConwaLLy and Speaker of the House Sam RayrsurNn, both of Texas. Both of them as- sured Congress the bill would not result in increased gas rates. RaYBURN, in particular, came down on the floor to tell his colleagues the bill would not raise gas rates one red cent. Obviously the veto will not improve rela- tions between the White House and Capitol Hill. This factor, however. ~roten'> cid not enter into the President’s Gils 7. "-. since he has long since abandoned any hope, if he ever had one, of zettirg Is legislative pro- gram through the E+ co y-urs< Congress. —~ [From the Pitisburgh Post-Gazette of April 4, 1950] . Tur PEorLe SPEAK—Hirs Gas EprrontabL Enrror, THE Post~GaZETTE: . Your editorial appeal to President Truman to veto the Kerr gas bill (A Victory for Mo- nopoly, April 1) is based entirely upon a yivtcrt crepe ption ond 5 wholly unwarranted ame od tae » to basis of fact. In stating that the Kerr bill “exempts” inde~ pendent natural-gas producers from the price-fixing authority of the Federal Power Commission, you convey the distinct impres- sion that the bill strips the Commission of powers which it has been exercising. The fact is that the Commission never has exercised any authority, rate-fixing, or other- wise, over independent producers of natural gas. The situation insofar as exercise of governmental authority is concerned will be the same after the Kerr bill becomes law as it always has been. Your statement that the legislation will cost natural-gas consumers between $300,- 000,000 and $500,000,000 a year in increased rates borders upon the reckless and irrespon- sible. Actually, the annual gross return to in- dependent natural-gas producers of all their production in the United States is only $75,~ 000,000 annually. In the last 10 years, the average price of all commodities has in- creased about 66 percent, but in the same period the price of natural gas to the con- sumer has declined. And this decline came without any regulation whatever of inde- pendent gas preducers by the Federal Power Commission. While I do not feel called upon to defend Senator Kerr, who is perfectly capable of taking care of himself, I do feel that your statement that he has sponsored this legis- lation because of self-interest is a blow that lands below the belt. Your editorial writer should have known that Senator Kerr has publicly asserted time and again that all of the natural gas which he owns has al- ready been sold under a contract that runs for many years. Lest the same accusation be directed at the interests which I represent, let me say that four oil and gas companies with which I am identified in an executive capacity entered into contracts last year for the sale of their natural gas at prices that are fixed for the next 20 years, The reason for the Kerr legislation is to clarify the original Natural Gas Act of some 12 or 13 years ago, in which the Federal Power Commission was given price-fixing authority at the well-mouth on gas produced by integrated companies which have their own pipe lines to transport the gas to mar- ket. It was plainly the intent of Congress to exempt independent producers from this au- thority, and the members of the Federal ’ mia Fi ‘ ” mu, Power Commission, including the radical Mr. Leland Olds, so construed the act. Some 10 years later there was a decision of the Supreme Court which Mr. Olds and two of his four colleagues interpreted as giv- ing the Commission rate-fixing power over independent producers Since Mr. Olds’ in- voluntary retirement from the Commission that body has been divided by a 2-to-2 vote on this question. Consequently, it has never attempted to assert this authority. The Kerr pill merely reaffirms the original intent of Congress in language that is not subject to misinterpretation. There is also involved the broad principle of governmental control over everything and everybody with all of the attendant confu- sion and Gestens tectice that accompanied the latei*s atr 2.7 OPA. The chair- man of the National Petroleum Council, Mr. Walter S. Hallanan, phrased this most aptly last week when he observed that whenever the turning of a valve on a well in Texas or elsewhere has to await a directive from Wash- ington this Nation will be in its dotage. Paut G. BENEDUM. PrrTsBURGH. Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HARRY P. O’NEILL OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. O’NEILL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- ORD, I am concerned about the postal or- der reducing service in the postal de- partment. The House has just awarded an increase in rates to the postal depart.~ ment, and almost immediately a reduc~ tion in service resulted. I suppose all of my colleagues are re- ceiving mail in protest to that order—in volume comparable to my own mail. Such mail, in protest, comes from per- sons and firms in my district in all walks of life; from the employee who must be discharged to the business house that needs all the mail service that it can se- cure to enable it to keep going efficiently. My district, listing 22 percent unem- ployed, is on the President’s list for areas in distress by reason of unemployment, Those now to be discharged will but swell that list unfavorably. Most of those so affected will be veterans; many of them 10-point disabled veterans. My com- munity, therefore, needs the best of postal service to insure to it the maximum of employment, My community needs the best of serv- ice to make it possible to keep our busi- ness houses actively at work. The great International Correspond- ence Schools’ home office is in the very heart of the community and we all know that the whole of its business is by mail. Any adverse effect upon that business which might affect employment would be bitterly felt—and would seem to be il- . logical and contradictory. That busi- , hess was created and expanded upon full ~ reliance of the very best in postal serv- ice. Such postal service has been ex- panded throughout the years and the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD business and empleyment has corre- spondingly expanded. Now, upon almost no advance notice, that service is now curtailed and reduced. I am fully aware that the Commis- _ sion created, and acting to bring certain reorganizations and economies in the Government, has included the Post Office Department as an agency which should make certain reorganizations effective. That Commission, popularly called the Hoover Commission, in no report sug-~ gests reduction in service. If the econo- mies so suggested must result in reduced service, then it is my position that the Hoover Commission has made a grave mistake in its recommendations with re- gard to the postal service, and it should be quickly noted and immediately cor- rected. Tt appears that the personnel of that Commission has completely forgotten about the small business that most of us are trying our best to hold, protect, and advance. Our communication systems have made this a great country and the largest factor in that group of services is the postal Department. Without it and its keeping abreast of the expansion and progress of our country, we stand to lose, become dormant and even go back~ ward. Our reliance upon the mail, and its pri- vacy, speed, and accuracy, has in as large a@ measure as in any other agency made our country a working democracy. We can notify each other promptly of the material matters of our everyday life; relying upon its movement to guide us in the matter of important personal, busi- mess, and governmental decisions daily. No person should know this better than a Congressman who is guided daily by his volume of mail which is delivered many times each day. Without such service as we have heretofore enjoyed, all of us here in this session will suffer in the effi- ciency of our staffs and the respect and good will of constituents. I respectfully request the serious con- sideration of restoration of the former service to all of my colleagues by full cooperation to that end. Behind It All Is Moscow EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN W. McCORMACK OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks, I include an editorial appearing in the Washington Sunday Star of April 23, 1950, which, while carefully worded, clearly indicates, as I interpret it, that the time is rapidly approaching, if not already here, when, in our own national interest the United States should sever diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, ‘ 1 ‘
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The editorial follows: BEHIND Ir Ati Is Moscow The pattern of events in Czechoslovakia comes close to being a carbon copy of what finally led us last February to sever all dip- lomatic relations with Bulgaria. The Com- munist puppets at Prague have not yet de- manded that we recall our Ambassador, but im the words of one of our Embassy spokes- men, “they are really turning on the heat against us now.” In short, step by step, with obvious deliberateness, they are worsening their past bad behavior toward us in a man- ner that seems definitely calculated to drive us—as a self-respecting Nation—into a com-~ plete break with them, and not merely the retaliatory closing of their consular offices in Chicago. Thus, besides ordering the expulsion of the director of the United States Information Service, they have demanded that we put an immediate end to all our USIS activities, on the ground that both the director and the sorvice itself have been using Czech nationals for espionage purposes and as spreaders of propaganda hostile to the Prague regime. Simultaneously, our Embassy—as was the case last October, but to a lesser extent—has once again been accused of running a huge “spy ring,” and six citizens of Czechoslovakia have just been “tried” for being members, two of them receiving sentences of death. In addition, a 20-year-old American student is reported to have been sentenced to 18 years in prison after having been “tried,” along with 15 Czechs, on charges of spying. All this has been accompanied by a new outpouring of anti-American propaganda. Of course, such propaganda has been fairly common in Czechoslovakia ever since the Communist coup 2 years ago, but now it has become particularly virulent, with our , Embassy apparently the chief target. The situation is so reminiscent of events in Bul- garia that we may reasonably anticipate a series of additional acts directed against our representatives in flagrant violation of all the accepted standards of decent interna- tional intercourse. In the circumstances, no American should be surprised if one of these days there is a full break in our diplomatic relations with Prague. Nor should any one be surprised if much the same thing happens later on in such places as Hungary, Rumania, and Poland. For there is every reason to feel that in Czechoslovakia—as earlier in Bulgaria—a sys- tematic effort is being carried out to make it virtually impossible for us to maintain nor- mal relations. There is every reason to feel, too, that the same sort of thing is likely to develop in due course among the other satel- lite countries. Just why this is so, just why these puppet regimes are going out of their way to alienate themselves from us, is not clear. The only thing we can be sure of is that Moscow is behind the whole ugly busi-~ ness. After all, the policy involved is not really that of the Czechs or the Bulgars or their fellow vassals; it is a policy laid down by the men of the Kremlin for some dark purposes of their own, perhaps to cut off every bit of contact between the free world and the oppressed or to cover up whatever new aggressive moves they may be planning behind the iron curtain. | Whatever the reason for it, however, there can be little doubt that this policy, if it con- tinues, if it grows worse, will eventually force us to ask ourselves whether we can avoid a complete break with the Soviet Union it- self. Certainly, when one considers such things as events in Czechoslovakia and inci- ~ ~ dents like the inhumane attack on our Navy . plane in the Baltic, it is difficult not to sus- pect that the Kremlin, with malice afore- thought, is doing its best to make the gulf unbridgeable between itself and us. The outlook for friendship could hardly seem bleaker. American Society of Newspaper Editors EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. TOM CONNALLY OF TEXAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp two addresses delivered by Secretary of State Acheson before the American Society of Newspaper Editors last week. One was on the record. The other was off the record, but it has been released for publication. There being no objection, the addresses were ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: ADDRESS BY THE HONORABLE DEAN ACHESON, SECRETARY OF STATE, aT a DINNER MEETING oF THE AMERICAN SOcIETY OF NEWSPAPER Enpirors, WASHINGTON, D. C., APRIL 22, 1950 Tonight I would like to discuss with you the thing that is most important to all of us: The well-being and happiness and se- curity of the United States. I ask you to put aside, for the moment, all considerations that are less important, to forget all differences of opinion that are less than vital, and to consider with me this most important problem of the security and well- being of our country. We are faced with a threat—in all sober truth I say this—we are faced with a threat not only to our country but to the civiliza- tion in which we live and to the whole physi- cal environment in which that civilization can exist. This threat is the principal prob- lem that confronts the whole United States in the world today. To understand this threat to our country and our civilization, we have to go back 200 years and examine the ideas on which the United States was founded. We could go back more than 2,000 years, to the very be- ginning of western civilization. For more than. 2,000 years the ideas we inherited, and _ live by today, have been fought over, have been suppressed and have been reborn in the minds of men. The adventurous people who settled the eastern shores of North America in the sev- enteenth and eighteenth centuries brought with them certain ideas which had come down to them through the whole stormy history of civilization. The first of those ideas was freedom—freedom of the mind and spirit, the most dynamic and adventurous idea ever to seize the mind of man. It drove men—and it continues to drive men—to in- quire into the relation between man and God; to study the nature of the universe; to explore the purpose of human society. Every thought we have in our minds, every relationship we have in our private lives, every institution under which we live, all of modern science has been molded, and in many cases created, by the exercise of the freedom of the human mind. The second principle on which this country was built is the idea of diversity. If you have freedom of the mind, you are bound to have diversity, and you are bound to welcome it. We welcome people who think differently from ourselves. We welcome people with new ideas. We will not be chained to ideas of the past. We resist conformity. We refuse to be crammed into a single narrow pattern. , These ideas, freedom and diversity, have survived and flourished here in the United States because we accept and practice a third idea—and that is tolerance. We say and we believe “My freedom, my right to be different, -at home. A2931 depends on yours. I can be free only to the extent that you are free too.” The only limitation we put upon the exer- cise of freedom is that each of us must use it so that others can have the same right. I must exercise my freedom in such a way that it does not interfere with your freedom. So it is these great concepts that have underlain the whole. development of our civilization, not as mere abstract thoughts but as the very life blood, the dynamic push, which has created the civilization we know. The threat we are facing is to these great concepts. It comes from a system which de- nies every premise we hold valid. Soviet communism does not permit diver- sity of ideas. Freedom, this doctrine says, is an evil thing. It says that people who exercise freedom of thought, people who dare to depart from the doctrine laid down in the Kremlin in Moscow are criminals. It puts such people behind bars or it puts them to death. Now this threat of Soviet communism would be serious enough if it were just the old idea of tyranny that was challenging our idea of freedom. It is that, but it is in- finitely more than that. This fanatical doctrine dominates one of the great states in this world, a state which, with its satellites, controls the lives of hun- dreds of millions of people, and which today possesses the largest military establishment in existence. That would be serious enough. But it is even more serious than that, because those who hold and practice this doctrine pick out our country as the principal target of their attack, From their point of view they pick it out rightly. It is our country, with its belief in freedom and tolerance, its great productive power, its tremendous vitality, Which stands between the Kremlin and do- minion over the entire world. We must not forget that it 1s we, the American people, who have heen picked out as the principal target of the Soviet Communists. Added to all this is the fact that these people use the great resources of modern sci~ _ence, particularly those that have to do with an understanding of the human mind, to pervert the human mind. They resort to every trick, to every insidious and brutal de- vice to destroy what we think is essential— the self-respect of the individual, the in- tegrity of his mind and spirit. What do we mean when we say that our country is the principal target of Soviet com- munism? We mean that the Soviet authori- ties would use, and gladly use, any means at their command to weaken and to harm us. Although they have not thought it wise to use military force against us, they are trying other methods. One method is the attempt to confuse and divide the American people. If the United States can be confused and divided; if it can be made to doubt the de- sirability of helping other free nations; if it can be brought to doubt the desirability of maintaining its own defenses; if we cease to be rational and resolute; if we can be brought to doubt one another—then we will be softened up. Then we will be too weak to stand up to Communist thrusts in other parts of the world, and too divided and con- fused to stand up to Communist infiltration To create that situation is one of the main objectives of the people in the Kremlin. They have another objective, which is to pick off members of the free community of nations one by one. They do that partly to add to their power. But they have another important purpose and that is to build up the idea that communism is inevitable, that it is the wave of the future. They believe that that gives other coun- ‘tries a sense of fright and hopelessness. They think that if they can spread this idea of a Communist world closing in on us, then
A293 we will begin to get rattled, and some people will move in one direction and others will move in another direction, and the United APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ote up the difference out of the pockets of Amer- ican taxpayers. Nobody here or abroad wants that situation to continue indefinitely. As whole information provram dates from the action of this very acscciaticn just 3 years States will be torn apart. ot The men in the Kremlin have another clear objective, and that is to change the balance of productive power in the world. At pres- ent, that balance is very strongly against them, but that would not be so if they could get control in western Europe and in Japan. So I say to you, make no mistake about it: we are faced with a challenge and a threat to the very basis of our civilization and to the very safety of the free world, the only Kind of world in which that civilization can, exist. Now in this situation we have a great many suggestions and proposals put forward by leaders of American life, and by citi- zens who are concerned, and rightly con- cerned, about the uneasy and troubled state of our world. It is a good thing that people are thinking about these problems and sug- gesting ways to meet them. The only point I want to make about these proposals is that while some of them are practical and others are not, no single proposal is the whole an- swer to our problems. No one of them is the answer because there is no one answer. There is no one solution to the problems I have described to you. There is no quick or easy way to subdue an evil force. There is no miracle that will make it disappear from the earth. Having recognized this truth, we need not for a moment be discouraged or downhearted. We have open to us, and we are now pur- suing, many lines of action that will meet the challenge confronting us. May I mention six lines of action. Our first line of action, and this seems to me the basis of all the others I shall discuss, is to demonstrate that our own faith in free- dom is a burning and a fighting faith. We are children of freedom. We cannot be safe except in an environment of freedom. We believe in freedom as fundamentally as we believe anything in this world. We believe in it for everyone in our country. And we don’t restrict this belief to freedom for our- selves. We believe that all people in the world are entitled to as much freedom, to develop in their own way, as we want our- selves, If we are clear about this, if we are full of passion about this, then we have in our hearts and minds the most dynamic and revolutionary concept 1n human history, and one which properly strikes terror to every dictator, to every tyrant who would attempt to regiment and depress men anywhere. Why do I put a strong belief in freedom first in the order of an American program of action? Because it is fundamental, because the second line of action flows from it. As the President said to you so forcefully on Thursday, the United States must, with a tiousand voices and with all the resources of modern science, preach this doctrine throughout the world. The world must hear what America is about, what America be- jueves, what freedom is, what it has done for many, what it can do for all. We must use every means we know to com= municate the value of freedom to the four corners of the earth. Our message must go out through leaflets, through our free press, radio programs and films, through exchange of students and teachers with other coun ago. SThirdly, it is not enough that one should have a faith and should make that faith articulate. It is also essential that we, and those who think like us, should have the power to make safe the area in which we carry that faith into action. This means that we must look to our defenses. It means that we must organize our defenses wisely and nrudently with all the ingenuity and all the mevhcus in which we are best versed to make ourselves strong. Every element of promise is present in our situation. We have the ingenuity; we have the productive power; we have the determi~ nation; we have the resources. But this is not a subject on which I am competent to dwell at length. The President’s chief ad- visers in this field are our Secretary of De- fense and our service secretaries, in whom we can have complete faith and confidence. Fourthly, beyond faith and preachment and defense there lies the necessity of trans- lating all of these into terms of the daily lives of hundreds of millions of peoples who live in this free world of ours. I am talking about the effort we are now making to help create a better material life for ourselves and for other people in many parts of the world. . One part of this effort has to do with set- ting in operation again the great workshops of the free world. Since the end of the war we have worked steadily at this problem and we have had a vast measure of success. The chimneys of these factories are smoking again; raw materials are moving into them; finished goods are moving out. Hundreds of millions of people see the specter of inse- curity in their daily lives being pushed fur- part of the remedy we shall have to buy more from abroad, and that will demand a con- certed national effort. The fifth line of action is in the political field. In this political field we have so far only scratched the surface of what can ke done to bring the free world closer together, to make it stronger and more secure and more effective. There are many ways of organizing the free world for common action, and many different opinions on how it should be done. But I think it is important in this hour of danger to concentrate our minds and our energies on using the machinery we have at hand, on expanding it, and making it work. When you look over the field, you will see that we now have created a great deal of good ma- chinery. There is the whole machinery of the United Nations which we are continually learning to use more effectively. Within the framework of the United Nations we have other machinery, like the North Atlantic Treaty and the Organization of American States. The free nations of Europe have banded together in the Council of Europe, in the Marshall plan organization, and in a smaller group Known as Western Union. We can work with all of these organizations. We can use whichever is best suited to accom~ plish a particular purpose. to do is to expand the machinery we have, to improve it, to use it with boldness and imagination, and, where necessary, to sup- plement it with new machinery. Now our program of action would not be What we need ( | i} { | ‘ complete if I did not go on to a sixth field,' and that is the area of our relations with the Soviet Union and the countries that have fallen under Communist control. In this field, as.in our relations with the free na.' tions, we have the machinery of negotiation at hand. In the United Nations we have a dozen or more conference tables, at which our differences could be thrashed out, where’ unfortunately the Soviet chair stands empty, at the present time. We shall go on trying” to find a common ground for agreement, not perfect or eternal agreement, but at least a better arrangement for living together in greater safety. But one thing is clear. There can be no agreement, there can be no approach to’ agreement unless one idea is done away with,‘ and that is the idea of aggression. And that, word “aggression” includes not only military attack, but propaganda warfare and the se- cret undermining of free countries from within. ' We do not propose to subvert the Soviet Union. We shall not attempt to undermine must put a great effort behind this program.*: Soviet independence. And we are just as de- Now while we are helping to get workshops , termined that communism shall not by hook going—old and new—and to get people pro= . or crook or trickery undermine our country ther back. Another part of this effort to develop the economic conditions for freedom is to help create new workshops, new crops, new wealth in places where they have not existed before. That is the purpose of the President’s pro- gram of technical assistance for under-= developed areas, now before the Congress. As you know, there are great areas of the world where pecple are living in a state of extreme poverty that is almost impossible for us to imagine. Millions of these people are not content any more to accept these conditions of poverty for themselves or their children. They are looking for a way out. That is a good thing. The will to change is half the battle. But the question is whether these people will choose a way out that leads to freedom, The question is whether they will move ahead in the free world with us. If we want them to move in the direction of freedom, we must help them. It is as simple as that—but it is tre- mendously important to the United States, to our security and well-being. And so we tries, and through a hundred other ways. And this doctrine of freedom will carry con=* viction because it comes not out of the’ Government alone, but out of the hearts and , ducing in Europe and other parts of the world, we have to do still another thing. And’ that is to develop a sensible system of trade to exchange the goods which are being and will be produced. This free world of ours can’t operate if people are cooped up within narrow national limits, if they are not able to move about freely and exchange their goods, their services, and their ideas and knowledge. Building up an orderly and free system of exchange is what we mean when we talk about expanding world trade. To develop a sensible system of exchange, we must push ahead with such things as the - or any other free country that desires to maintain its freedom. That real and present threat of aggression stands in the way of every attempt at understanding with the Soviet Union. For it has been wisely said that there can be no greater disagreement than when someone wants to eliminate your existence altogether. If, as and when that idea of aggression, by one means or another, can be ruled out of our relations with the Soviet Union, then the greatest single obstacle to agreement will be out of the way. As the results of our actions become clear and the free world becomes souls of the people of the United States, International Trade Organization, and recip- * stronger, it wil e: — Because it is the authentic voice of America, %; Pre ee To et egreenente with the Bo freedom will ring around the world. expanded information program—a campaign of truth. I know we can count on your help in this, because the turning point in the '. much more than we are buying and making | Now you may be thinking, “well, that’s the Presi-47;~ We are going to have to make a great na« dent Truman has told you of his plans for an if tional effort, also, to get our own trade with rocal trade agreements. the rest of the world into balance, to get out of the situation where we are selling abroad -@ sively easier to get agreements with the So- #: viet Union. ' oS oh These men, are the main lines of action by " the Government and people of the United States in dealing with their present danger.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD story.” But that is only the beginning of the story. On several occasions lately, I have used the phrase “total diplomacy” to describe a method of dealing with our problems. Let me explain again what I mean by total diplomacy. I mean, first, that there is no longer any difference between foreign questions and domestic questions. They are all parts of the same questions. When we consider any matter, whether it is the size of the budget or the amount of taxes we pay, or the regu- lation of our commerce or the regulation of immigration or military policy or foreign aid, it is all part of the same thing. Every one of these things is a part of the problem of our national safety and every part of the problem is serious. All the problems of the United States are related to the problem of preserving its ex- istence as the kind of a country which we know and love. When we understand this fact of the wholeness of our problem, then we must go further and act on our understanding. In the last few years the President has developed methods by which all parts of the executive branch of the Government can be pulled together on all questions in the light of this total problem. Under the President’s leadership—the State Depart- ment, the Treasury Department, the De- fense Establishment, Agriculture, Labor, ‘and all the others—have been brought into focus on the great problem of our national security. There must also be a close working to- gether not only between the Congress and ‘the Executive but between both parties in the Congress and the Executive. That does not mean that a strong oppo- sition is not essential. It is. Our two-party system is inherent in our form of govern- ment. There is plenty of room for differ- ence of opinion as to how this or that should be done. There is room for views strongly held, and wisely debated. There is room for criticism. But there is also room for a final consensus of opinion. We must work toward consensus of opinion; we must proaden the area of agreement so that the Congress and the Executive—-both parties of the Congress and the Executive—will view every problem and deal with every problem as @ part of the total problem. What makes this possible is a common loyalty to our democratic institutions. We cannot use position or influence for the pur~ pose of getting some personal or some par- tisan advantage without being disloyal to the institution of democratic government. But more than the institution of demo- cratic government is at stake. The threat, as I have said, is to our civilization, and each of us is a bearer of that civilization. And therefore each of us has a part to play in this total diplomacy. Today the whole United States is acting pefore the world as its own representative. In the old days, relations between coun- tries were carried on by diplomats. In the old days 2 man who held my office used to write out in beautiful script instructions to a@ minister who represented the United States abroad in London or Paris or Brussels or Peking. And those instructions where put on a sailing ship and they took weeks to cross the ocean. And the American Min- ister who received them put on his black knee breeches and he walked to the palace or the foreign office and he read what his Secretary of State in Washington had writ- ten, and that was the United States speaking to some government in Europe or Asia. Now all that is changed. Today we all represent the United States. Everything that happens in this country can be flashed in a second to the uttermost reaches of the world. Today in a very real sense the United States represents itself to the world. The world hears speeches which are made in the Congress. The world hears what is said over our radio. The world reads what is said in our press. If there are acts or words of violence, discrimination and irresponsibility the world sees and hears them. If there are acts or words of justice, understanding and sober determination, the world sees and hears them also. America speaks with a thousand voices. All the views of our labor leaders, our busi- ness leaders, our church leaders, our educa- tional leaders, our leaders of women’s and men’s groups and clubs—all the things they do and say flash around the world. Every- thing that we do or say enters into the picture of America which is seen abroad. Foreign nations are continually watching to see whether the United States is cool, whether it is determined, whether it is strong, whether it will go through with its intentions. To make up their minds they Jook at everything which is happening in the whole country. What will the world see? The thought that I want to leave with you is that each of us bears a measure of responsibility for the answer. Each one of us can make our country seen as it truly is—determined to do its part to carry the free world forward to strength and security. EXTEMPORANEOUS REMARKS BY THE HONORABLE DEAN ACHESON, SECRETARY OF STATE, Fou- LOWING His RADIO ADDRESS aT A DINNER MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EpIToRS, WASHINGTON, D. C., APRIn 22, 1950 There are several things that I should like to talk with you about. Before I get on with the matters which I think have some substantive importance, I should like to clear away some trash which has gathered about the Department of State. Now, in doing this, I feel that I have a qualification which is so unique that it al- most amounts to a disqualification. That is, that I know what I am talking about. I have given 10 years of my life to the Department of State, and before that I served in two other departments of the Government. During the course of that time I served on two com~- missions appointed by the President to study the operations of the Government of the United States. I have served under four Secretaries of State and under two Presidents. So I think I am entitled to say that I know something about the Department of State. The first thing that I should like to say is in the nature of a categorical affirmation. I should like to say that never in its long and honorable history has the Department of State ever been in better shape than it is today. The Department is manned today, as it has been manned in the past, by able, by honor- able, by loyal, and by clean-living American men and women. It is also a representative Department. People who serve in the Department are drawn from all over the United States. There is no need for anyone to be defensive about the Department of State. What I want you to consider with me are facts.’ First of all, when we are talking about this Department, let us look at its top command; let us see who the people are who are con- trolling and operating and directing the Department of State. First of all, I don’t have to tell you about the Under Secretary of State, Jim Webb. You know he comes from North Carolina. You know his record in the Budget Bureaat and in the Treasury. You know what he did in organizing the Sperry Co. before the war, when it grew from a little place of 800 people to a great corporation of 30,000 employees. You know what he did in the Marine flying service. A2933 But the important point that I want to bring out tonight is that I do not know any man in the entire United States, in the Gov- ernment or out of the Government, who has @ greater genius for organization, a genius for understanding how to take a great mass of people and bring them together; so that he pulls out of them all the knowledge and all the competence that they have; so that each person is doing what he ought to be doing; so that the whole efforts of this vast group are pulled together to get a tremen- dously powerful result. And that is abso- lutely essential in the Department of State. When Thomas Jefferson started the State Department it had 6 employees, including himself. Today we have 19,000 employees all over the world, and all of those 19,000 are being pulled by Jim Webb into one great consolidated effort, through a top command. The third ranking officer in the Depart- ment is George Kennan. I don’t need to tell you about George Kennan. You have read what he has written. You know his record. He comes from Wisconsin. One of the things to which I have agreed, with deep regret, is that George Kennan should have a year off. He went to work for the State Department when he was 22 years ol@, and he has never had any time off since. What he wants to do is go to the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton and have time quietly to think about things and then come back to us. I have agreed to it, reluctantly, but we shall have him again. Then we go to another area of the top command, Assistant Secretary Jack 2euri- foy of South Carolina. I don’t need tu tell you about him, except one thing, perhaps, and that is that in all the years that I have been in the State Department he has been with me. When he came to the State De- partment after he had been in West Point and had to leave on account of disease of the lungs (which, unhappily, I have come to know only too much about from one who is close to me) he very soon became my assistant. He is now the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration. He is in charge of administration. I shall come back to him again in a little while. Then we have Jack Hickerson, of Texas, a Foreign Service officer of 25 years’ experience, whom we have taken out of European affairs and put into something which we want to stress, and that is the work of the United Nations. Then we have George McGhee, of Texas, a former oil man who worked with the Gov~ ernment through the war; who was in the economic part of the Government during the war, both in Washington and London, and back and forth a great deal of the time; who took charge of the administration of our Greek-Turkish aid; whom the President, at my recommendation, put in charge.of our Near East and African work; and who, with incredible energy has now visited every one of the areas under his control. He has visited and talked with leading men of every coun- try of the Middle East and has just returned from a long trip to Africa. It would be foolish for mé to tell you about Ed Barrett who came from Alabama. He belongs to your profession. You know him, You know the great job which he is doing in overseas information which the President has picked out for such vitally important concentration. We have put into the far-eastern work Dean Rusk, of Georgia. He was our Deputy Under Secretary for Political Affairs, and we thought that the whole far-eastern matter ‘was so critical that we would take our senior political officer and put him into that work. Walton Butterworth, of Louisiana, who had peen in that work, we put in charge particu- larly of working out some progress on a solu- tion of Japanese matters, one of the most essential things that we must do. In him we have picked out an officer who has the
A2934 confidence of General MacArthur, who has worked with the Military Establishment, who is a man of superb integrity and courage. In case you don’t know as much about Walton Butterworth as you do about some of these others, I will remind you that he is the man who had charge of our economic warfare activities during the war in Spain and Portugal. It was he who was in that plane that fell into the river and broke apart at Lisbon; it was Walton who was in the sinking part of the plane in which most of the passengers were trapped; who broke the window through; who pushed his fellow pas~ sengers out of the window while the plane was filling up; who then got himself out, kept those who could not swim very well afioat, and helped them onto a wing that was float- ing. Finally, when the boats came out and picked them up after a very long time and Walton was taken ashore, what do you sup- spose he had in his hand? It was his brief case containing his secret papers. That is the type of officer we have in the State De- partment. Then we have as our legal adviser, ranking with the Assistant Secretaries, Adrian Fisher, of Tennessee. And I note, as I go along here, that we seem to be loaded up with old- fashioned southern Communists—no doubt of the Cordell Hull, Walter George, Tom Connally type. Adrian Fisher was a bomber navigator during the war; later Solicitor with the De- partment of Commerce; legal adviser to the ‘Atomic Energy Commission, and now the legal adviser in the Department of State. T suggest to people, in the interest of their own security, not to fool with Adrian Fisher. Not only was he a former bomber navigator, ‘but he was a former captain of the Princeton football team. Charges lightly made about him might have serious personal conse- quences. Eddie Miller, of New York, was born in Puerto Rico, brought up in Cuba, and then in New York. He speaks Portuguese and Spanish as easily as he speaks English. He is a former partner of Mr. Dulles. He has just returned from two trips to South Amer- ica in which he has put our relations with the Southern Hemisphere on a basis on which I think they have never been before. They are on a sensible, sound basis of mutual ad- vantage, and both they and we know that we both really mean business when we talk, and when we talk we want to talk business. George Perkins of New York is a business- man of distinction, who had gone with Paul Hoffman and was working with him in Paris. Paul, with great generosity, let me take him to be in charge of our European affairs. Willard Thorp of New York is in charge of economic matters. He is an economic ex~ pert; a former director of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce in the De- partment of Commerce; a former partner of Dun & Bradstreet. Jack McFall of Colorado and Indiana has charge of our relations with Congress. He has spent 15 years as the assistant clerk of the Appropriations Committee of the House. If there is anybody who understands, and really understands deeply, the necessities of close relationships between the House and the Senate and the Department of State, it is Jack McFall, Then in charge of a very important branch of our work, dealing with the new govern- ment of Germany and German problems, we have a regular colonel from the United Staies Army, Colonel Henry Byroade, who was lent to us by the Army—and whom I wish I could steal permanently for the State Department. In charge of the planning staff is Paul Nitze of Massachusetts, former partner of Dillon, Read, a man who went all through the war and was awarded the Medal of Merit for his economic-warfare work. In charge of our press relations, we have that old friend of yours, Mike McDermott— and you know what sort of a “Communist” he is. In charge of intelligence work is Park Arm- strong of New Jersey, a man who all through the war was dealing with this incredibly im- portant business of the evaluation of intel- ligence. Don’t for a moment believe that the important thing to do is to send some- one out with rubbers, dark glasses, and a false mustache, to try to steal some paper or find out something. The important busi- ness is the evaluation of what you get, either by secret operations or, much more impor- tantly, the material which just pours in on you. Secret material is a dime a dozen. We had, not so long ago, a most interesting and exciting paper planted on us by one of our enthusiastic friends abroad, and it caused a little flurry. But it was Park Armstrong’s cool people who discovered in a short time that it was a phony from top to bottom and saved us from the obvious purposes of their planting it on us. In charge of the great military program for which we and the Defense Department are jointly responsible, we had in Jim Bruce of Maryland. Now that he has resigned, Jack Obly of New York is taking it over. . Now, we have also brought in Phil Jessup, Senator Dulles, of New York, and Senator Cooper, of Kentucky. You can imagine how helpful they would be in covering up all “subversive” activities. Here in this top command, I say to you, we have men as distinguished, as able, as powerful and as vigorous as any of my great predecessors, from John Marshall to George Marshall, ever had in the Department of State. Furthermore, we have carried out a reor- ganization which is based on these men be~- ing the operators of the State Department. They are not people who sit around and argue with one another. Each one of them is responsible for carrying out a job, and the policy under which he carries it out is worked out through the planning staff, with the cooperation of all of these men. The policy is laid down and they -are given their authority. . - I don’t sit behind them and pull their coat tails or look over their shoulders. I am kept informed, by the central -secretariat, of everything that happens. I am permitted to get in, if I wish to, before something is done, but I don’t wish to do that. These men are too good. They cannot hesitate. They cannot be saying, ‘‘What does the Secretary think?” They know what the policy is, and they go out and operate. Then we post-audit the operations; we change the policy if it is not working, but they are given responsibility and they are well able to carry it. So I say to you—this is something very, very important, and I suggest that you ask your correspondents in Washington whether what I say to you is true—that today, as rarely before in the State Department, there is no backbiting, there is no jealousy, there is no undercutting. You have an organiza- tion of people which is loyal to those within it, which is loyal to the President of the United States and which is loyal to the United States of America. : Let us turn for a moment to the career service. The career service, made up of the Foreign Service and the departmental offices, is equally in good shape. This is a service of men and women who are giving their entire lives to the United States, not for a few years, not even 10 years, as I have given, but their entire lives, from te time they are young men until they retire at the end of their service. They are giving their whole lives to the United States. They are com- petent, they are courageous, and they are devoted. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Only this past week, two of our missions were bombed. That is nota pleasant experi- ence. Have any of you ever had it? Have any of you ever had a bomb tossed in the window of your house and had it go off and injure people? Two of our missions have been through that this week. Fortunately, no one was killed, but many people were hurt. Do these people want to come home? Do they say, “This is too dangerous’? Not at all. This is in line of duty. They know their duty. They perform it. It is quite likely that they may be killed, but there is no squeak out of them. We have just had an officer home who had been held by the Chinese Communists for a year, many months of which he spent in jail, under conditions of incredible hard~ ship and torture. At the direction and re- quest of President Truman, he is going about the United States telling people of what was done to him. Does he ask to retire? Not at all. With great difficulty, we are keeping him in the United States doing this. He wants to go back to the most difficult area that we can find for him. He is not asking to quit. He is not asking for sympathy. This is his duty. He likes it. He wants to go into it again. We have scores of our people who are now in Chinese cities which are being bombed by the Chinese Nationalists. Are they whim- pering about it? Not in the least. They were ordered home because the President de- cided that was the wise policy. They were perfectly willing to stay there and take whatever came to them. . We have scores of people through south- east Asia who are in areas of hot war, Indo- china, the Philippines, Malaya, Indonesia. Bullets are flying all the time. It is not a cold war in those areas; it is a hot war. And these men and their wives and their children are there, and they are doing their duty. They don’t ask to be transferred. They know it is their duty, and they are performing it. And in other places, in Africa and other parts of the world, we have men with their wives and children who are in situations of the greatest danger, so far as their health is concerned. They are living under very un- healthful conditions. If they are ill, they take their chances under the most primitive medical conditions. There are no schools. There are no oculists to take care of the children’s eyes. There are no doctors to give them all the inoculations which your chil- dren. take. None of those things are avail- able. They don’t complain. This is their duty. This is their life. All they ask is that occasionally they be transferred to some sit- uation which is not quite so tough. . Then there are others who are behind the jron curtain, and there they are treated as criminals. They cannot have any associa- tion with anybody. They cannot have any of the ordinary pleasant relations that all of you have. Anyone who meets them or talks with them will be in jail the next day and possibly hang the day after that. They have to live in a little circle, seeing the same few people day after day after day. But that is their duty, and they are carrying it out. Here, again, there are no schools. And if you have a toothache and you want to go to a dentist, you don’t call up a dentist; you call up the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office calls up the secret police, and the se- cret policeman makes an engagement and comes and sits right beside you in the dentist chair to be absolutely sure that the dentist does not take a message out of your tooth and give it to somebody else. Those are the circumstances under which these people live. I don’t have to defend these people. There Js no reason in the world why they need any defense. I should like to suggest to you that you would find it a very interesting exercise” to
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD try, in your papers, an open letter to these Foreign Service officers of the United States, who are now your front line of defense, who are serving you in these dangerous and diffi- cult parts of the world. Explain to them the attacks which are being made upon them and upon the Service of which they are just as proud as you are proud of the profession to which you belong. Explain to them, if you can, what is happening to this country behind them. Explain to them why it was that during the war we had USO’s and letter. writing campaigns and everything in the world for the soldiers at the front to.show them that the country was behind them and recognized the sacrifice that they were mak. ing; and try to explain what is happening now when it comes to these soldiers, these people who are in the front line of the de- fense of their country. Explain that to them if you can. You will find it difficult to do. That is the Department of State as it exists today. It is not strange that efforts should be made to penetrate this Department. Efforts of that sort have been made throughout the history of the United States, and they are being made today. In the past, these efforts have beeen made by professionals. But with the spread of this fanatical doctrine of communism, the old profession of professional spies is under competition from amateurs. Now, this creates difficulty. We are fa- Miliar with the method of counterespio- nage and the security methods which we have used in the past to protect ourselves from, professional spies. In the last few years we have had a new problem to solve— and we have gone about solving it. There is a right way to solve that problem, and there is a wrong way to solve it. The right way to solve the problem is to go at it from the point of view of meeting the evil which confronts you and preserving the in- stitution which you are trying to protect. The wrong way is one in which you do not meet the evil that you are attempting to meet, but you destroy the institution that you are trying to protect. Not only do you destroy that, but you destroy the faith of the country in its Government and its in- stitutions. You destroy the faith of our allies in us and you delight our enemies. Those are the right and wrong ways. The right way was set up’ by General Mar- shall in 1947 in the State Department. It was set up under the directive of the Presi- dent setting up the whole loyalty program. I have never known a man I thought had a surer judgment about people than General Marshall has. And General Mashall picked out Jack Peurifoy to take charge of the loyalty pro- gram in the State Department. He took charge of it. He worked at it through Gen- eral Marshall’s administration. When I came, it seemed to me that there was abso- lutely nothing better than I could possibly think of to do than to confirm Jack Peurifoy in that particular job. I did, and I have never had occasion to doubt that I did the right thing. He is not trying to do all this by himself. He has a security staff under a former FBI agent, who is recognized as one of the ablest men ever trained in the service of the FBI. He has a staff of 74 investigators who carry on our investigation work. That is not the only staff that does it. Mr. Hoover’s FBI co- operates fully in the whole process. By one method or another, all people who come into the Department and all those who are in it have gone through a thorough screening process. This is a process which is not based on the idea that all these people are crooks. It is a process which is based, first, on pro- tecting the United States but, at the same time, protecting the individuals’ rights, pro- tecting their reputations, urging and per- mitting them to continue to serve the United States with enthusiasm. Searching examinations are made, so that if we find anything which causes trouble in our minds, we then put it into another level of screening. It goes to the Loyalty Board in the State Department. General Conrad Snow is the chairman of that board. He is an old-fashioned New Hampshire Republican “Communist,” a man who, incidentally, is vouched for by Senator Bridges. That board, and the people who work on it, have gone through every single case about which any doubt has arisen. When they get through with it, whatever recommendation is made—whether it is that the man be cleared or that he is not cleared— the whole matter goes on again to the Presi- dent’s Loyalty Board, headed by Seth Rich- ardson, a former Assistant Attorney General under President Hoover, with a group of as- sociates not one of whom works for the Government of the United States. All of these people are private citizens who are giving their time, their effort, and their devotion to the Government. That is the right way. The wrong way is to smear everybody’s reputation; to make charges on the basis that, if one is not right, you try to find another one you hope wiil stick; to try to destroy the confidence of people in their Foreign Office and in their Government in one of the most critical hours of this Nation’s history—to do all of those things, and to make it absolutely cer- tain, as a result, that under no circumstances could you ever possibly find a spy in the whole place. It is as though you said to yourself that the best way to find a fire is to ring every fire alarm in the city; not that you know of any fire, but if you get all the apparatus out and have it wheeling around through the city, you might find one. But I think what is going on is much madder and much more vicious than that. It reminds me more of that horrible episode in Camden, N. J., which happened not so long ago, when a madman came out on the street in the morning with his revolver. With no purpose and with no plan, as he walked down the street, he just shot people; one was @ woman coming out of a store; a man with his wife in an automobile. That automobile happened to stop because the light turned red. The car ahead of him went on. The car behind him was not where the madman was. So the madman just walked up and shot everybody in the car, without sense, without purpose, without direction. You remember, I am sure, that poem of Browning’s called Caliban Upon Setebas. Caliban is talking about this horrible amoral god of his. He says that his god operates in the way that Caliban himself does on the beach. Along comes, says Caliban, a proces- sion of crabs going down to the sea across the sand. And he says something like this: “I stand there and I let 20 go by. The twenty- first I pick up and tear off a flipper. I let three more go by. The next one I crush in order to watch it wiggle in agony on the sand,” and so on. It is that degree of vicious madness which has been going on here. Now, I don’t ask you for sympathy. I don’t ask you for help. You are in a worse situation than I am. I and my associates are only the intended victims of this mad and vicious operation. But you, unhappily—~ you by reason of your calling—are partici- pants. You are un participants, dis~ gusted participants, but, nevertheless, par- ticipants, and your position is far more se- rious than mine, As I leave this filthy business, and I hope never to speak of it again, I should like to leave in your minds the words of John Donne in his Meditations, in which he says: “Any man’s death diminishes me, because I . am involved in mankind. And therefore do not send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.” A2935 The American Way—How We May Improve It EXTENSION OF REMARES oF HON. WILLIAM M. McCULLOCH OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rrcorp, I am pleased to include an essay written by Louise Hinders, of Celina, Ohio, entitled “The American Way—How We May Improve It.” This essay: was one of 12 winners among more than 75,000 essays entered in the annual American Legion, Depart- ment of Ohio, contest for high school students of Ohio. The Legion, every contestant, and the winners in particular are to be congrat- ulated on the project for 1950. The essay follows: Trr AMERICAN WayY—How WE May Improve It (By Louise Hinders, Celina) The house we live in—the American way of life—has been built upon the Constitu- tion of the United States. Through all the storms of one of the most disturbed periods in human history, the free Government of the American people has rested secure on the foundation of our Constitution. However, it is also very important that we put the spirit of this document to work in our everyday lives. Democracy is many things. It is the things we do, the words we say, and the thoughts we think. It is also the way we act toward other people. Democracy touches every aspect of the life of our communities. A nation’s strength lies in the character of its people, in their willingness to sacrifice leisure, comfort, and a share of their talents for the welfare of the community. Why have we come to believe that the American way is a free ride, without the need for earn- ing our way? Probably the greatest single cause for poor citizenship can be traced to our declining sense of responsibility in the home, the school, and the community in which we live. Although many try to solve the problems on the national scene, few have the humility to start where citizenship counts—in our own. home town. Because the family is the basic unit of our society, it is there that responsibility begins. The state measures its true strength by the stability of family life among its families. No nation can be greater than its families, Good citizens must first be good persons. School courses in civics and political science, and inspirational studies of the lives and works of political leaders, meet a practical need. But these alone never make good citizens. Virtue is the basis of good citizen- ship. It is best developed in a good home and where God is held in reverence. .Modern living has put the emphasis on selfishness and suffocated the instincts of good citizenship at the very source. The youth of today look upon tnoeir home merely as a shelter and a meal ticket. Boys and girls in high school must realize their re- sponsibility to others than themselves. No one can begin too early to learn genuine friendliness, understanding and respect for all other members of a group, regardless of race, creed, or social opportunity. Our American way will be greatly Improyed when boys and girls are taking an active part in their town—in its community center, in
A2936 the work of its Red Cross, and in its Boy and Girl Scouts, Ry so doing they learn to real- ize the importance of the ballot. They learn to choose their own leaders, they become interested in local government. Thus they gradually learn to realize the importance of their State and Federal Governments, Vot- ing becomes not only a privilege but a sol- emn duty. In this way they can learn to couple duty with vision, courage with stead- fastness, and practice with principle. Faith in our form of government, strengthened by practical experience, will set aside doubts and fears, and will guide the youth of today most surely toward the reali- zation of their dreams for a finer America of tomorrow. Return of the Pony Express or Horse-and- Buggy Days, With Emphasis on “Buggy” EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER E. BREHM OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. BREHM. Mr. Speaker, each mail coming to my office brings from 3 to 10 letters from constituents in my district stating their violent opposition to the administration’s program of curtailing postal service. The record will clearly demonstrate that I am in favor of economy and that I have so voted on each and every occa- sion. However, in my opinion, there are many false economy moves, and the present administrative directive wherein postal service is diminished does, in my opinion, furnish a perfect example of false economy. In keeping with my stated intention during debate on this measure, I am in- cluding herewith the remarks referred to which in my opinion clearly demon- strate that if the present administration would accept and put into operation the recommendations of the Hoover Com- mission report, that this present drastic reduction in postal service would be un- necessary: Reaction to the dramatic announcement, a few days ago, of “economy moves” or- dered by the Post Office Department has been about as expected. The public is properly indignant at the reduction of residential mail deliveries from two a day to one, at the curtailment of post-office business hours, at the elimination of directory serv- ice in first-class mail and the other steps which will make the postal service less effl- cient. Reports from Washington say that the slash is likely to result in an increase of, perhaps, $30,000,000 in the appropriations. for the Department. The fact is that the Post Office Depart- ment’s “economy move” does not remotely approach the real trouble or its causes. It chooses to attack the problem primarily through a program of inconveniences to the public which uses the mail service—and pays for it—and with the hope of doing no more than recoup some $30,000,000 of an esti- mated $500,000,000 deficit. In this connection, it is informative to take a look at the findings and recommen- dations of the Hoover Commission with re-~ spect to the Post Office Department. report says: “(a) The administrative structure is ob- solete and overcentralized. The “(b) A maze of outmoded laws, regula- tions and traditions freeze progress and stifles proper administration. “(c) Although the Post Office is a busi- ness-type establishment, it lacks the free~ dom and flexibility essential to good business administration. “(d) Rates have not kept pace with wages and other costs, and rate-making machinery is inadequate. “(e) The service 1s used to hide sub-~ sidies. “(£) Political appointments of first, sec~- ond and third-class postmasters and certain other officials produces inefficiency and muli- tates against the incentives of promotion. “(g) Accounts are kept by the General Accounting Office outside the Department and are available to the Post Office for man~ agement purposes only after months of delay. Methods of budgeting and appro- priation are entirely unsuited to a business of the size and character of the Post Office. “(h) In recent times, except for a few years, the Post Office has operated at a loss * * * only the first-class mails, certain categories of foreign mails and the Post Office Savings System more than met their own expenses.” Some of the specific criticisms of the Post Office Department’s inefficiencies (covered generally in this summary) are: (1) At this moment the Department has in service more than 10,000 vehicles the average age of which exceeds 15 years. (2) While 80 percent of the mail sorting could be done mechani- cally, according to the Hoover Report, this is still largely a hand operation. (3) Some of the rules governing accounting procedure go back to 1842 and others are 1840-style “modernizations’ of methods set up by Alex- ander Hamilton in the days when men wore satin knee breeches and powdered wigs. The clear implication of both the general and specific criticisms is that the Post Office Department is hopelessly out of date by pres- ent-day methods that could be made avail- able under a thorough~-going, nonpolitical re- organization; that the postal service could break even—or come a lot closer to doing so than at present—if the Hoover recommenda- tions were put into effect. As just one instance showing that the cur- tailment of service is not only an inadequate but also an unfair approach to the Post Office Department’s problem, consider one item in the summary above—that first-class mail is the principal category which is now paying its own way at current rates. Yet it is the users of first-class mail service who will suffer the most—by slower and less frequent pick-ups and deliveries, by less con- venient office hours, by the elimination of directory service on letters which may have minor errors in address. In New York City alone 50,000 letters every day will be re- turned to senders or go to the dead-letter office under this ruling. The protests from the public at the postal- service slash are justified. They ought to be bolstered by demands for a streamlining of the Post Office Department from top to bot- tom, in line with the Hoover Commission’s findings. If this is to be done, there will be no need either to curtail postal services or to increase rates unreasonably. A Fable About Potato Prices EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALT HORAN OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. HORAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks in the Ap- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pendix of the Recorp, I am pleased to include another Dave Kirk editorial from the Spokane Chronicle. I think this editorial points out briefly and graphically the dangers in the so- called Brannan farm plan. At a time when tax reductions are be- coming mandatory, it is well for all of us to consider what the cost of any given legislative proposal might be. The worst feature of those presently advocating the Brannan plan is the complete vagueness of either the cost to the Treasury or the increase in the presently overloaded Fed- eral pay roll. The editorial follows: A FasLe Apout Potato Prices Once upon a time there was a farmer who raised too many potatoes. People just couldn’t use all of them, so, naturally, they didn’t buy. “What'll I do?” cried the farmer. “I can’t get as much for my potatoes as I used to get. A lot of them will ride over to next year and the surplus will Hold the price down then, too. What’ll I do?” “Oh, that’s all right,” quoth a Government price-fixing agent. “We’ll let the price fall naturally through the operation of the law of supply and demand. That way the consumer will get a break.” “But what about me?” asked the farmer. “Oh, the Government will pay you the difference between the low prices and what you should have,” came the answer. “But where will you get the money?” queried the farmer. “Ah, that’s easy,” said the Government price-fixing agent. “I’ll just make a quick change into the make-up of a tax collector and go back to the consumer for the money. He’ll never realize that he’s paying for potatoes!” Veterans’ Hospitals EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 _Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, this bill providing for the construction of cer- tain veterans’ hospitals, and enlarge- ment of others, is meritorious and-de- serves the support of the membership of this House. : The report of the Committee on Vet- erans’ Affairs makes plain in its report that this bill restores to the Veterans’ Administration hospital construction program the approximately 16,000 beds which were cancelled last December at the direction of the President. All of the projects specified in this bill have previously been approved and a need has been demonstrated for the con- struction of these hospitals at the places indicated and for restoration of beds in the hospitals sought to be reduced in size. The entire matter has been thorough- ly considered by the Appropriations Committee of both House and Senate. The independent offices appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1950 continues the authorization of the necessary amount for the projects enumerated in this bill. The authority, however, is purely dis- crevionary, and with the experience of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the past, there is created a doubt as to whether any action will be taken to re- store these projects, unless legislation of this kind is enacted. This bill requires that the construction program shall proceed. The need for the hospitals has been so well established that further delay is unjustified. The American Way—How We May Improve It EXTENSION OF REMARKS o HON. CLIFF CLEVENGER OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the REcorp, I include the following winning essay of Robert Scheidt, of Van Wert, Ohio, in the American Legion contest: THE AMERICAN Way—How WE May Improve It (By Robert Scheidt Van Wert) This is the time for serious thinking— straight thinking. Great decisions must be made. Two contradictory forces are strug- gling for the minds and hearts of men. The same forces that ruined European civiliza- tion are mobilizing to repeat their work of destruction upon us. We can no longer re- fuse to recognize them. We must meet them. and solve them in the traditionally Ameri- can way. . The meaning and application we give the American way will determine our future sur- vival and destiny among the nations of the world. The American way of living is the democratic way. It is because our Gov- ernment is a democracy that we have free- dom. Our freedom is largely responsible for our prosperity, and our prosperity has pro- duced our high standard of living. We must do our share in maintaining this democracy which is the very foundation of our hap- piness and security. The citizen of a democ- racy can never rest if he wishes his country to remain free. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” is an old saying which has proved itself throughout the ages. We must dismantle the powers of those who would destroy us and set about re- building our own system of Government. This is necessary if we are to save the Ameri- can way of life. We must remain free to denounce and cor- rect the present imperfections of our Goy- ernment. This kind of freedom is increas- ingly precious in the world of today. If liberty is to be preserved in this country, we must not become overly dependent upon the Federal Government. Such an attitude is degenerative in the moral sense, tends to destroy incentive in the economic, and is socialistic in the political. It is utterly opposed to the traditional American principles of initiative, self-reli- ance, and ambition. ‘We must progressively reduce those taxes which hinder saving and the expansion of business. We must conserve our national resources, raise our productivity, and distrib- ute our goods for the benefit of all. But this must not be done at the expense of our liberties. Freedom must have first place in our loyalties—then economic security. There can be no lasting security in a nation with- out freedom. Each of us must be active in public service. We must get a clear understanding of pdoli- tical issues and elect leaders who are states- men, not rulers. For service to others is the true essence of liberty. Our reponsibility to the future is the cor- rect education of our children. They must be taught the true meaning of democracy and how to make it work. Our whole philosophy of government is based on the fundamental principle of Christianity that the individual is supreme. Our Founding Fathers had faith to believe that a government whose constitution was based on the Ten Commandments and the principles of Christ could not fail. That faith has been justified. History has con- firmed that belief. At the time our forefathers were declar= ing that the Creator had endowed all man- kind with rights of freedom as the children of God, there was being proclaimed in Europe a philosophy of agnosticism asserting that the rights of man came from the State. The greatness of America today comes from one philosophy, the distress of Europe from the other. Let us not forget the original ideals that made America great. They were bought at a high price. Deep reverence for the democratic way needs to be kept alive in the American people. We shall survive and history will judge us on how well we continue to fulfill this great way of life—the American way. Conduits for Electric Voting Machines Should Be Installed This Year EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GLENN R. DAVIS OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks, I include hereunder a copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Philadel- phia branch of the American Association of University Women. This organiza- tion has gone on record in support of the effort to prepare for the installation of an electric voting machine in the House of Representatives Chamber. Regardless of what individual Mem- bers may think of the proposal to install such an automatic voting and recording device, the sensibleness of the proposal to install proper conduits while the Chamber is being extensively remodeled should appeal to everyone. The text of the resolution follows: Whereas, it is the right and obligation of each American citizen to know how each Representative has voted on vital issues; and Whereas standing and voice voting systems used to save time required by record or roll- call votes prevent an accurate record of how legislators have voted; and Whereas the present extensive remodeling of the Senate and House Chambers would permit easy installation of conduits for elec- trical vote recording apparatus; and Whereas the extensive number of impor- tant issues before Congress necessitates the wisest use of valuable time by our legisla- tors; and Whereas 16 foresighted States and 2 foreign countries use electrical voting sys- tems successfully: Be it therefore Resolved, That the American Association of University Women, Philadelphia branch, support the bills (Senate Committee Resolu- tion 50 and House Resolution 261) for the installation of conduits for electrical A2937 vote recording apparatus and the system of electrical voting by sending letters to the distinguished Senators from Pennsylvania, the distinguished Congressmen from the Philadelphia area, and to the sponsors of bills, Senators Estes Kerauver and ALEx- ANDER Winey and Congressmen Caries E, BenNErr and GLENN Davis, Tennessee Sunday Observed at Historic Valley Forge EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. PERCY PRIEST OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, on Sun- day the annual Tennessee Sunday was observed at Valley Forge in the George Washington Memorial chapel. On that occasion, my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Evrns] delivered a very excellent and timely address. Under leave granted to extend my re- marks, I desire to include that address in the REcorp. The full text of the address follows: Ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed a de< light and a privilege to be with you here to- day. I have enjoyed immensely the beauty of this memorial service. I consider it a distinct honor to represent my State—the great State of Tennessee—on this occasion. I accepted with pleasure the invitation of the distinguished Governor of Tennessee, the Honorable Gordon Browning, to appear here as his representative and to participate in this service which marks the Twenty-sixth Annual Tennessee State Sunday at Valley Forge. I am sure that Governor Browning joins with me in extending greetings to all Tennesseans and friends of Tennessee here today. The Tennessee State Society of the Colonial Dames of America and the Daughters of the American Revolution of Tennessee, under whose auspices Tennessee State Sunday is sponsored, are to be commended for their patriotic endeavors and their sponsorship of this annual and beautiful memorial service. I must admit that coupled with my pleas- ure at being present on this occasion, there exists, on my part—situated as We are among these historic hills and in the shadow o* this magnificant memorial to our fallen fore- fathers—a deep sense of humility. This is @ spot where all rightly should feel humble— for here we are reminded of the valor and courage and steadfastness which made our Nation. All men should feel humility in the presence of greatness and manifesta- tions of greatness. This is indeed a sacred spot and hallowed ground—it has become thus because of the great men and unswerv- ing patriots who struggled here and gained for us our freedom anc independence and set in motion our cherished American way of life. ' This magnificent memorial—the Washing- ton Memorial—is a thing of beauty and mag- nificence. It is a touching memorial and— so far as it is possible—it re-creates the at- mosphere of Valley Forge—an atmosphere in which we may revere and honor the past— honor our great patriot leader, George Wash- ington, and those patriot soldiers of the Continental Army of Valley Forge. Valley Forge—and the trials and suffering here of General Washington and his Army— will ever be the symbol of darkness and
‘A2938 despondency and crisis through which our country has passed. Valley Forge is, in addition, the symbol of a crisis overcome and a glorious victory at- tained. It 1s such a symbol because of the suffering at Valley Forge here experienced— and because of the courage and devotion to duty which this suffering called forth and which have never been surpassed in our his- tory. Valley Forge was first and foremost a mili- tary crisis, the like of which we have never since experienced—valient men were crying from hunger and despair. They suffered from the deadly cold that benumbed their limbs and dulled the will and spirit to battle of all but the most noble and ardent. Here men wept in despair for the suffering of their families who needed them sorely—men who had only their own inner fire of zeal and patriotism to tell them that their cause was just and righteous and that their duty and allegiance to this ideal overshadowed all else. For doing battle and offering resistance to the enemy, this band at Valley Forge had naught. They had no fit weapons of war- fare—save only the extreme cruelty of the unmerciful winter which, fortuitously, re- stricted also the opposing force. There were no reinforcements, no relief, no arms, no sup- plies—nothing. Yet these men survived and rose to great- ness and to victory. They overcame the crisis and made possible our Nation and its greatness. Valley Forge was also a great spiritual and mental trial—a testing, so to speak, and in the cruelest form, of the will to freedom and liberty of the men who fought here. It was the depth of despondency for General Wash- ington who was tortured alike by the suf- fering of his men, the lack of weapons—and the indifference of many of his fellow coun- trymen who little cared—or so it seemed— of what transpired at Valley Forge—or, in- deed, of what happened to the brave and struggling cause of liberty for the Colonies. It was a bitter cup for General Washing~ ton—a cup compounded of the basest and most destructive of all human instincts— treason, lack of faith, the will to give up the fight. Yet these men overcame the mental and spiritual trial. They survived and rose to greatness and to liberty for us all. Victory evolved at Valley Forge over the forces of military might from across the sea and over the forces of discontent, suspicion, weakness, and discouragement from within. Victory came under the inspired leadership of Gen. George Washington—a victory which gave to the sons and daughters of the men of the Valley Forge army the greatest, most magnificent concept of human liberty that the world has ever known. It is not pdsible to dwell upon the life of General Washington without the realization that the nobiliity and high qualities which he possessed in such great measure are the same qualities which, it seems to me, are needed at the present critical stage of our history. Tolerance, foresightedness, honor, profound and unswerving patriotism, and belief in the ideal of democracy—all of the qualities which were the lifeblood of our first struggles as a country are needed today perhaps more than ever. They are needed lest we permit the weakening of the priceless heritage of freedom which was initially gained at Valley Forge and which has come down to us and which we today enjoy. We are here today free men, and proof that the dark hour of Valley Forge was turned by George Washington into a brilliant vic- tory for freedom and democracy. We are the living proof of the strength of our way of life. We are the living proof that our coun- try can survive and has survived the greatest misfortunes that may be possible. We look upon past events—this display of heroism, steadfastness, patriotism—to gain courage to face the day and the future. This is true not only of nations but of individ- uals. ‘The sure knowledge that we, either as individuals or as a nation, have come through the worst that can be thrown at us should give us confidence and faith in the future and our ability to meet other crises. Following the victory at Valley Forge, and even before that date, my own great State, the territory that was destined to become Tennessee, was the scene of conflict and strife, the inevitable consequence of the westward march of civilization and progress. The establishment of the colonies into an effective free government set the example and pattern for development in the West. The descendants of Valley Forge participated in that great march of progress. They came by horseback to my State, carrying, in many instances, all their worldly possessions in a kit sack. They walked, trudged through un- chartered wilderness or along meager paths toward the new land of opportunity which was Tennessee. They arrived by crude flat- boats to establish homes upon the beautiful bluffs and amid the rolling and magnificent hills and valleys of my State. They brought with them the highest of virtues—courage, determination, independence, spiritual stead- fastness, and adventure—and set about mak-~ ing new homes. They brought to Tennessee the rich heritage of Valley Forge—and Ten- nessee nurtured and has continued to nur- ture through the generations this sacred heritage. The descendants of many of these brave men at Valley Forge and others with the spirit to venture and to conquer gave to Tennessee the name of the Volunteer State— meaning that the sons of Tennessee have ever stood ready and eager to take up arms in the defense of their country and the cause of freedom and liberty. The State of Tennessee, whose day we ob-= serve and celebrate today, has produced its quota of courageous leaders and soldiers. If it can be said that any man of our his- tory has been the measure of Gen. George Washington, that man would be Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, a great general and military leader and a patriot of still another crisis in another generation. He led the American forces of his day to many great vic- tories and to new heights in the cause of liberty, freedom, and democracy. During the period of growth and develop- ment of the great Southwest, it was under the administration of James K. Polk, of Ten- nessee, President of the United States, that a great western territory—Texas—was made a part of the United States and taken in as a sister State in the Union. In still another period of conflict and strife, when brother fought against brother and State against State, it was Andrew Johnson, Tennessean and a southerner, who remained loyal to the Union and was chosen by Presi- dent Lincoln to be his aide and assistant in cementing the severed ties of union. It was under Andrew Jackson that we began to emerge from a period described in history as the tragic era. We emerged into building and making of our country a more solid and a more perfect union, based upon the prin- ciples of freedom, liberty, and democracy. We have had many crises since George Washington at Valley Forge, but always we have survived and become stronger as a people and as a Nation. Today America stands at the height of its power and greatness—preeminent among the nations of the world. But today, more than ever before, it seems to me, that we must remember the inscription which is embla- zoned over the portals of our Archives Build= ing in Washington: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The poor band of patriots at Valley Forge was vigilant as their leader was vigilant. They withstood not only the great might of the enemy, but they withstood the destruc- tive forces operating from within which would have divided them and defeated their cause. I believe that the greatest of all tempta- tions in time of trial is the temptation to give up the fight, to surrender the cause— to become complacent and unwatchful—and this is the most damaging and harmful force which can operate from within a nation such as ours—a Nation where liberty and personal freedom are so inherent and basic that they may be taken for granted and abused. Liberty and freedom were bought at the price of hardship and sacrifice. They must pe maintained by our citizens of today—each assuming his own responsibility. Freedom without responsibility degenerates—and may easily be lost. America has arisen from a struggling im- perfect Nation to the position of world lead- ership and responsibility and the test of today is whether we shall—and are willing— to arise and assume our rightful place of world leadership—to preserve our own way of life and hold out a light and a torch— an example of democracy to the peoples of other lands. Standing here on this hallowed ground, fired with new inspiration for the future which we can properly gain from contempla- tion of past achievements—we may dedi- cate and rededicate ourselves to perfecting our future as a Nation in the family of nations, to maintaining our priceless heri- tage of freedom and democracy, and of in- suring @ continuing peace in the world based upon justice and honor. We may remember that this great man— George Washington, and these men, his sol- diers at Valley Forge—conquered because they had in them the spirit and determina- tion for survival. They possessed the spirit that made them steadfast, not merely on an occasional great day, but day after day in the daily endeavor to do duty well. How greatly needed today—and how neces- sary that we hold to the spirit of Valley Forge. And how truly wonderful that we can feel that in this new age—this age of atomic weapons—that we are still holding true to the spirit of the men of Valley Forge—men whose hands were frozen to the muskets raised in defense of their country and our national liberty. Yet, we must ever be mindful: “That only men can make A nation great and strong. Men who stand for truth and honor’s sake, Stand fast and suffer long.” May the guilding hand of divine provi- dence give to America such men in all future generations—such men as those who stood and fought at Valley Forge. Public Purchase of the Brannan Plan EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. GLENN R. DAVIS OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, on at least two separate occasions, mention has been made on the floor of the House, of the meeting in St. Paul held early this month under the auspi-~
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD _ cies of the Production and Marketing Administration. The story was revealed in the Senate by Senator Arxen of Ver- mont. It seems clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that section 201 of title 18 of the United States Code has been openly and flag- rantly violated. Even though that be not true, no one can deny that cheap, shabby politics has been resorted to by persons in responsible Federal office. The editor of my home town daily newspaper, K. H. Koenig, of the Wau- kesha Freeman has written a pointed editorial entitled “Public Funds Used to Buy Brannan Plan.” The Washington Star contained an editorial on the same theme entitled “Mr. Brannan’s Hired Audience.” I hope the Members of the House will take time to read both of these searching editorials on this shock- ing, brazen demonstration of lack of public trustworthiness. The editorials follow: [From the Waukesha (Wis.) Freeman] Pustic Funps Usep To Buy Brannan PLan Dispatches from Washington this week, which told of two Senators charging that the United States Department of Agriculture is using funds to hire an audience for a politi- cal speech, are evidence of the extent to which the administration is going to force the Brannan farm plan on the country. It was brought to the attention of Senators Homer Frercuson and Grorce D. AIKEN that on April 3 and 4 county committeemen of the production and marketing administra- tion for Minnesota met in St. Paul. This was an annual meeting and a perfectly proper one, called for the purpose of developing an agricultural conservation program for 1951. These programs have been generally bene- ficial in all of the 48 States and to the na- tional agricultural economy. But the inci- dent to which the Senators object and the one that casts doubt upon the activities of Secretary Charles F. Brannan in his zeal to adopt his own pet farm program is a notice which was sent to the 5,000 community com- mitteemen. Dated March 16, at St. Paul, it read, in part: “The decline in farm prices has placed even greater emphasis on the price-support program which we in PMA are administer- ing. We know you realize how controversial this subject has become. We feel it is ex- tremely important for you community com- mitteemen who represent agriculture at the grass roots, to have this chance to hear your Secretary who is making a terrific fight to maintain some measure of economic stabil- ity for farmers. “Our production picture has changed since the war as it pertains to basic crops such as wheat and corn. With acreage allotments come diverted acres and we want to be sure that land taken out of wheat and corn this year will be put to the best possible conser- vation use as far as practical. We feel sure that giving you an opportunity to hear your administrator on this subject will give you renewed enthusiasm and a broader under- standing of the problems which now con- front us. “, .. travel allowance is being authorized for community committeemen who attend this meeting. I suggest that you bring others with you.” We see here the offer of the payment of mileage to 5,000 community committeemen so long as they brought a carload of neigh- bors with them. This was intended to make sure of a large attendance, since the meet- ing was not restricted to committeemen abone. The question might logically be asked, what right has the Department of Agriculture to pay $8 a day and expenses to 5,000 people to listen to the Secretary of Agriculture speak on any subject? The cost of the meeting must have been some- where between $50,000 and $100,000. It is not quite clear where this money was to come from although it is logical to suppose that it would be taken from the funds allocated to the State of Minnesota for soil-improvement work. It would, of course, be easier to con- done the expenditure of such vast funds if Secretary Brannan spoke on uses for lime, superphosphate, terracing, forestry work or other soil-conservation practices in that State. But Secretary Brannan sp “e of none of these things, if we are to believe the news story next day carried by the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The Press reported that Brannan spoke to a record-breaking crowd of 8,000 persons on the Truman administration’s campaign for the Brannan farm plan in the national elections of 1950 and 1952. To quote further, the Press reported: “Battling shoulder to shoulder for the plan of free farm prices and production payments to maintain farm income were Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan, daddy of the plan, and United States Senator Husrrr H. HUMPHREY, Of Minnesota, its all-out sup- porter. Senator Enpwarp J. Tuyx could not come and sent his greetings to the crowd. ~ “First Brannan and then HumruHrey as- sailed the present law’s system, particularly as applied to perishable products like pota- toes, eggs, meat, and milk, of backing up farm prices with a system of flexible supports that are made effective through Government buying. Both also assailed President Allan B. Kline of the American Farm Bureau Fed-~ eration, as defender of the present system. The flexible system is so named because as supplies pile up, price support levels are lowered.” A full-scale political address and not a treatise on soil conservation is what the record crowd of 8,000 received for the thou- sands of dollars in Federal funds paid out that April day to assure an audience for the Secretary of Agriculture. That brings up an interesting question for the farmers Wisconsin. Mr. Brannan in recent weeks made two appearances in this State—one at Juneau and another in Mil- waukee. At both he plugged his pet farm plan. At both he was applauded by Demo- cratic candidates who are seeking posts in Congress next fall so that they can help adopt the Brannan farm plan. Were these two meetings also bought and paid for with soil-conservation funds? The farmers of Wisconsin and of America had better awaken to the threat they face of being socialized and nationalized along with other key American industries. [From the Washington Evening Star] Mr. BRANNAN’S HIRED AUDIENCE Senator AIKEN, backed by Senator Frr- GUSON, seems to have a sound factual basis for his charge that the Department of Agri- culture has spent money illegally on a cheap form of politicking. The charge relates to a 2-day meeting held early this month in St. Paul by the 269 county committeemen of the Production and Marketing Administration for Minnesota. In itself, the meeting was altogether useful and proper as a get-together designed to discuss conservation problems. Apparently, how- ever, its closing session went far beyond that. According to Mr. ArxEn, it was broadened into a kind of Democratic political rally, with the Department of Agriculture undertaking to make an unauthorized expenditure in order to recruit a big attendance. A2939 To support his point, Mr. ArKEN has pro- duced a letter which one of the Depart- ment’s PMA officials sent to all of Minne- sota’s 5,000 community committeemen (as distinct from county committeemen) urging them to go to St. Paul to hear a speech by Secretary Brannan. To make the trip par- ticularly attractive the letter declared that anybody attending would be reimbursed for travel expenses and receive per diem pay. Since a large percentage of the people invited showed up at the meeting, the cost to the Department of Agriculture, according to Mr. AIKEN’s estimate, must have been somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000. Conceivably, if the gathering had been wholly nonpoliti- cal in character, such an expenditure would have been justified, but the evidence strongly indicates that the only thing that took place was a show in which Mr. Brannan and Senator Humpurey ridiculed the Repub- licans and whooped it up for Democratic farm naa particularly the proposed Brannan plan. In other words, the Department’s outlay of money seems to have served no other func- tion than to insure the presence of a large hired audience before which the Secretary and Mr. Humpurey. played politics of a sort calculated to send the committeemen back home as missionaries likely to be helpful to the Democrats in the congressional elections. If there were no Federal cash or pressure involved, this sort of thing probably would be tolerable, but the truth of the matter is, as Mr, Arwen has said, that there appears to be no authority (certainly, there should be none) which permits the expenditure of PMA funds for the purpose of which they were used at St.Paul. If the practice which was applied in Minnesota of spending public money to pay the expenses and per diem of farmers to listen to political speeches is fol- lowed in the other States the expense can be many millions of dollars, all of which must come out of appropriations which Con- gress made for legitimate farm programs. On the point of legality, Mr. Fercuson has expressed himself even more emphatically than his Vermont colleague. He has de- clared flatly that the expenditure on the St. Paul meeting should be acted upon by the Attorney General as a clear violation of a Federal statute (sec. 201 of title 18 of the United States Code) forbidding the use of appropriated money to influence legisla- tion. His view is that the Secretary of Ag- riculture in effect hired an audience to listen to political speeches aimed at building up pressure to make Congress enact the Brannan plan for farm production payments. It may be, as far as the law’s technicalities are concerned, that Mr. Brannan can defend himself satisfactorily. Even if he can, how- ever, the whole business will still smack of shabby politics. Freedom and the Welfare State EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 18, 1950 Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, George Meany, the secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of Labor, laid sev- eral ghosts at the recent meeting of the League for Industrial Democracy in New York.
A2940 He dismissed reports that labor unions were no longer interested in the national health program by declaring that doc- tors as well as patients would be better off under the administration’s proposed health program. He stressed the need for a human welfare state as a bulwark of free society and denounced those who refuse to ad- mut that both the New Deal and Fair Deal have helped to preserve free enter- prise in this country. And he pointed to social security and rural electrification programs as the kind of human welfare measures which will broaden, rather than limit, our indi- vidual and national freedoms. With permission to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I attach Mr. Meany’s speech: Permit me to preface my remarks on free- dom and the welfare state by admitting that I believe in both. More than that, I believe that both freedom and a state of welfare can and should be enjoyed by the American people at the same time. So, Iam sure, does our special guest—Sen- ator LeamMan—because his whole public career has been aimed at the achievement of those goals. That is one of the chief reasons why the labor movement has always regarded him so highly. Of course, there is no such thing as a wel- fare state, neither here in America nor any- where else in the world. To liberals, the welfare state is an ideal worth working for and fighting for. To the reactionary poli- ticians who pounced upon the phrase for propaganda purposes, the welfare state was merely something to frighten people into vot- ing against their own interests. Fortunately, the great majority of the American people do not get panicked that easily. When an acorn pops down on the head of Chicken-Little Tarr and he starts crying, “The sky is falling,” he may get some of the Byrds and the worrying Wherrys to run with him to tell the king, but the Ameri- can people generally will not follow. They have more common sense. A free government, like ours, was estab- lished in the first place not to rule the peo- ple, but to serve them. The Government does not deprive us of any liberties by such services as workmen’s com- pensation, bank deposit insurance, crop in- surance and social security. The only com- pulsion in any of these programs is the pay- ment of taxes for the insurance provided, and taxes always have been and always will be with us. I am convinced that the American people are willing to pay still higher taxes for more adequate protection against economic dis- asters and for new programs, such as health insurance. : When the welfare state slogan fell flat, the reactionaries hunted around for a new phrase and came up with the “hand-out State.” All of us who pay taxes for the extremely meager economic and social insur- ance which our Government, as yet, affords us realize quite clearly that we are not getting any hand-outs but are paying our own way. But, speaking of hand-outs, it is somewhat surprising to me that our reactionary friends never do refer to the very considerable hand- outs which our Government has generously awarded to big business in the past and the heavy subsidies which it is still pouring out. Was it a “hand-out State” when the Gov- ernment spent millions to help the railroads build transcontinental transportation net- works? Was it a “hand-out State’ when the Gov- ernment paid heavy subsidies to American shipping so that an adequate merchant . nation.. Simply stated, marine could be maintained against foreign competition? Is it a “hand-out State’ when the Gov- ernment subsidizes the air lines through higher air-mail payments than are economi- cally justified? Is it a “hand-out State’ when the Gov- ernment deliberately takes a loss on second~ class mail in order to help publications cir- culate more widely? Do you ever hear the newspapers and their friends in Congress complain about Government largesse when big business is the direct beneficiary? The American Federation of Labor is, and has consistently been, a firm defender of our free-enterprise system. As a general policy, we do not believe it wise or prudent for the Government to invade the field of private business, wherever private enterprise is serv- ing the public well. If any of the social- justice programs undertaken by the New Deal or the Fair Deal were actually damaging to private business, we would be among the first to object. But, has private business really suffered under the New Deal and the Fair Deal? I am sure we can all remember back as far as 1933 when Franklin Roosevelt took office. Our financial structure on the brink of com- plete disaster; agriculture prostrate and the buying power of our people at the lowest point in 40 years; small business failures at an all-time high. We didn’t hear any arguments about stat- ism or socialism from the great leaders of industry in those days. No; on the con- trary, they flocked to Washington by the thousands with all sorts of proposals by which they hoped the new administration would save them from disaster. That they were saved by the prompt actions of that administration is a matter of history. And how have the great captains of in- dustry, who were the architects of our ruin pack in the twenties, made out under the Fair Deal which they now so viciously con- demn through their spokesmen—the Tafts, the Martins, and the Hallecks—in Congress? I am not going to bore you with any long- winded analysis of the present position of big business. Let me simply quote from a re- port, just out, by the United States News, which is edited by David @Mawrence. This special report appeared in the March 24 issue of that publication. Here is the quotation: “American corporations, as a group, are rolling in money. In four postwar years they have invested '$60,000,000,000 in new plant and equipment; they have increased other assets by $11,000,000,000; they have added $21,000,000,000 to reserves for deprecia- tion, and they still have $40,000,000,000 in cash and Government bonds on hand. “Never before was the financial position of the United States business so strong.” I think those figures tell the story. Today, the insurance companies, who so bitterly fought us every step of the way to prevent workmen’s compensation and social security are making more money than they know what todowith. Today, the utility interests which tried every fair and foul means of blocking’ the rural electrification program are silently splitting up huge dividends from increased sales of electric power and electric appliances. In the same way, I venture to predict, the American Medical Association, which is so frantically campaigning against health in- surance, will be forced to admit, after it is enacted, that it was the best break the doc- tors of this country ever got, to say nothing of their patients. This controversy over the policies of the New Deal and the Fair Deal is nothing new. It goes back to our very beginning as a it is: Shall our political and economic policy be what the people want? Or shall it be what some su , APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD perior guiding group may think is best for the people? The present-day Bourbons of our country talk about statism, socialism, and the welfare state. To me, labels, with the exception of the union label, are more or less without meaning. I am for the greater welfare and security of all the people of this Nation. I believe that it is a proper function of a demo- cratic government to strive for a better life for all its people, including those who work for wages. Put any label you desire on this effort for a better day—statism, New Deal, socialism, Fair Deal, or welfare state—I am still for it. ‘ In your time and in mine, I am confident that the American people, by their own de- cision in free elections, will be able to achieve a greater degree of human welfare and security and will discover that their freedoms have been broadened, rather than curtailed. in the process. Reduction in Mail Service Opposed by Congressman McDonough EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GORDON L. McDONOUGH OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. McDONOUGH. proposal to reduce the postal service to one delivery a day in residential areas and proportionately in business districts will be strongly resented by the people of my district and the Nation as a whole. The delivery of mail by the postman is one of the most intimate and dependable contacts the public has with the Govern-~ ment. It is one of the few most appre- ciated and valued services which the heavy-burdened taxpayer receives for the high income tax he must pay. ' Reduction in mail delivery will not only be a great inconvenience to the public; it will also create more unemployment, which is growing at an alarming rate. | The public has learned to appreciate the efficient and dependable postal serv-' ice of more than one delivery each day, and they should not be made the vic- tims of a reduction in this essential serv-| ice while they are willing to pay for it. " Since the war excise tax of 25 percent on telegrams has not been repealed, the public has come to depend upon the fre-' quent and efficient delivery of mail to serve their needs for speedy communi- cation. q The unemployment that will result from this plan will be a severe shock to the morale of postal employees as well as to the public. Many World War II veterans will lose their jobs adding to the alarming increase in the unemploy~' ment ranks throughout the Nation. q Mr. Speaker, I resent and oppose this attempt to make the public and the postal employees the victims of this plan,' when at the same time we are spending billions of the taxpayers hard-earned money to rehabilitate and maintain for-' eign governments throughout the world where economy could be applied without reducing the essential and necessary mail delivery at home. . } Mr. Speaker, the