Obrázky stránek

House rollcalls through May 18 which tested support for the President's program and leadership. POLK is credited with 6 votes out of 11 as pro-Eisenhower. Second. Active support: Percentage of 11 Eisenhower issue rollcalls on which Representative voted pro-Eisenhower. POLK is credited with 55 percent of active support pro-Eisenhower.

which was granted by Congress, thus proving that those of us who were advocating a stronger Air Force were correct in our original stand on this question.

Third. Active-support percentage for all of 1953: POLK is credited with 50 percent active support for Eisenhower in 1953.

Fourth. Number of times Representative voted anti-Eisenhower on the 11 Eisenhower issue rollcalls of 1954: POLK is credited with 4 anti-Eisenhower votes.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The statement "POLK was 1 of 2 people in the whole Congress voting against defense appropriations" is utterly false. The last defense appropriation bill I opposed was on February 23, 1939, under the Roosevelt administration, when I was 1 of the 205 Members who voted against an appropriation to fortify the island of Guam. Later events proved that my vote on that question was probably wrong, and I have since then supported and voted for larger defense appropriations instead of smaller defense appropriations. For example, on July 22, 1953, I was 1 of the 161 Members who voted for sufficient appropriations to provide for 143 air wings for national defense. We were defeated in this effort but later the administration revised its policy on the Air Force and asked for more money,

Likewise, the statement that I "was opposed to barring salary of public employees who refuse to sign loyalty oath" is completely false. For many years, every appropriation bill providing for Federal salaries has contained the following provision:

No part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be used to pay the salary or wages of any person who advocates, or is a member of an organization that advocates, the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence.

Of course, anyone voting against a single one of the many appropriation bills passed in recent years can be charged falsely for voting against the bill because of the loyalty oath.

I am well aware that Mr. Kline Roberts' false statement on this issue contains the insinuation that I am in some way sympathetic with communism. To anyone who really knws me and knows my views and my voting record during nearly 16 years' service in Congress, such an insinuation is so ridiculous as to be unbelievable. but in the new parts of the Sixth District, in Fayette, Pickaway,and Ross Counties, such a statement might well raise a question concerning my fitness to hold a public office.

To those who are not familiar with my views on the subject of communism and on all phases of disloyalty to our great country, may I say that on the subject of communism I fully concur in the resolution adopted by the 54th National Encampment of the VFW at Milwaukee in 1953, which recommends "outlawing the Communist Party in the United States and to make it a felony to belong to the Communist Party, or any other group by any other name, which engages in subversive activities with the intent to overthrow the Constitution of the United States and the American Republic."

The following record votes during the 83d Congress show my official actions on this issue:

First. On August 17, 1954, on rollcall vote No. 144. I was one of the 208 Members of the House of Representative who voted for the Dies motion to completely outlaw the Communist Party. This was an amendment to the Communist control Bill, S. 3706. This motion carried by a vote of 208 yeas to 100 nays.

The administration opposed this amendment and consequently it was rewritten by the committee of conference between the House and Senate to conform to administration recommendations.

Second. On August 19, 1954, on rollcall vote No. 147, I voted for the conference committee version of the bill S. 3706 which was approved by the House.

Fourth. On July 23, 1954, on rollcall vote No. 113, and

Third. On August 16, 1954, on rollcall vote No. 142, I voted for the Communist Control Act as originally submitted to the House for consideration. This bill did not actually outlaw the Communist Party and did not go as far as I would go in providing protection against Communist activity.

Fifth. On May 11, 1954, on rollcall vote No. 68, I voted for contempt citations against various individuals as requested by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Sixth. On February 24, 1954, on rollcall vote No. 17, I voted for an appropriation of $275,000 for the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

Seventh. On July 21, 1953, on rollcall vote No. 95, I voted yea on the proposition that Communist China should not be admitted to the United Nations.

I mention these seven record votes during the 83d Congress, in support of important propositions relating to communism and its eradication and control, because I realize that many of my constituents do not have an opportunity to read the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and consequently may not be informed concerning my stand on this issue.

May I suggest to Mr. Roberts and to all others who may make accusations without foundation, the reading of some remarks on this subject by Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln said:

I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him. This maxim ought to be particularly held in view when we contemplate an attack upon the reputation of our neighbors. (Letter to Illinois Gazette, August 1846.)

Persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true is simple malicious slander. (Cooper Institute, New York, 1860.)

A man cannot prove the negative, but he has a right to claim that when one makes affirmaive charge he must offer some proof to show the truth of what he says. (Ottawa, Ill., 1858.)


It used to be a fashion amongst men that when a charge was made, some sort of proof was brought forward to establish it, and if no proof was found to exist, the charge was dropped. (Jonesboro, Ill., September 15, 1858.)

Management Problems of Government Dwarf Those of Our Biggest Corporations






Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include a statement in the RECORD on the management problems of Government.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Mr. President, even if we consider only those activities which every one of us would agree must be done by Government, the management problems dwarf those of our biggest corporations.

The direction in these times of such dlverse areas as foreign policy, national de

fense, fiscal affairs, agricultural policy, and many more comparable management problems demands great numbers of able and experienced top executives, backed up by a large group of capable career people.

inherent ability, but also from a background
of real knowledge of government environ-

The problem of how to recruit and retain this body of management skill is one of the most difficult challenges to the success of democratic government.

The problem becomes diminished in time of actual shooting war, because it is relatively easy to persuade men from outside Government to serve as a patriotic act.

Since World War II, I have heard innumerable people say: "I'd be glad to serve-if we got into a war."

[blocks in formation]

There has recently been published two significant analyses of the record of this administration in manning direction of its responsibilities through calling upon business executives to accept management jobs in government.

The first of these is a report by Fortune magazine.

The second is an editorial which recently appeared in one of the world's great newspapers, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The conclusions of those carefully written analyses are pessimistic.

The Fortune report concluded that "the administration from now on will find it harder to locate businessmen who are willing to serve."

Not only are businessmen hard to get for Government posts, but the Fortune report, and the Post-Dispatch editorial, conclude that even if businessmen are successful in making the change from industry to government, they are in general inclined to consider their government service as an interlude, to be made as brief as decently possible. Apparently, the problem of getting, and keeping, good men is to remain acute.

Apparently it is becoming steadily more difficult for this administration to get good men into government.

When they do come in, it is equally dimcult to persuade them to stay long enough to learn what it is all about, so that they may contribute not only on the basis of their

With that unusual training, Mr. Zuckert Experience is fully as important in gov- then became a member of the bar in both ernment as it is in business. Connecticut and New York; and practiced law in both States.

Most of his professional career, however, has been devoted to the public service.

From 1937 to 1940, Mr. Zuckert had his first experience in Government when he became an attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Let us imagine the consternation in General Motors if a new president was to be appointed from outside the company; one who knew very little about the company's problems; and one who, it was understood, planned to remain only a little over a year.

This would not be businesslike in business, but it is apparently accepted as standard procedure in the management of our Government.


The Post-Dispatch editorial said: "Secre-
tary of the Interior McKay, himself a busi-
is quoted by Fortune
believing that for top jobs in the Govern-
ment, the Government will have to depend
in the long run mainly on men willing to
stay in political life."

That is the only way we can obtain the experience so vital for good government.

Despite this need, no real effort has been made to retain such public services. In fact, since January 1953, we have lost the services of many devoted and able men for whom the government service was a career.

Their loss was far worse than the highly touted industry men who came down for a "12 month or so fling."

My colleagues who serve on the Civil
Service Committee know much better than
I what has happened to the group of people
just beneath the top policy levels.

Concerning them, the Post-Dispatch said:
"Or as Cabell Phillips, a Washington corre-
spondent of the Sunday New York Times,
wrote in Harper's magazine: 'When the busi-
nessmen came to Washington some of them
had a pretty definite conviction that the
$10,000 and $12,000 career people they found
in their departments couldn't be much good;
otherwise they would have left long ago to
make more money elsewhere.'"

The Post-Dispatch concludes that the Government has "lost some unusually experienced people whose counterparts it will be virtually impossible to recruit from the business world, replacing them in large measure with lawyers and business executives on loan, who have no intention of making government a career."

But the loss of top-level civil-service career men and women has not been the full measure of the loss of the experience so vitally needed to manage the executive agencies.

The policy of replacing experienced peoPresidential appointees who rose from the ple already in Government now affects even career ranks and had little or no partisan political background.

What happened to the widely endorsed Hoover Commission idea of career Assistant Secretaries who were to furnish the continuity so necessary to the orderly operation of large Government departments?

Let us look at what happened recently in the Atomic Energy Commission.

This agency, charged with so much of the responsibility for the future of each one of us, was treated in the last administration so nonpolitically that the first Commission was composed of 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat. On June 30 the term of Atomic Energy Commissioner Eugene M. Zuckert expired.

In my judgment, Mr. Zuckert was one of the most competent, most respected, and most patriotically constructive men who ever devoted his energies to the public service. And his is a remarkable record.

completing a combined law and business course at Harvard and Yale.

After obtaining a public-school education in New York, Mr. Zuckert enrolled at Yale University, from where he received a B. A. degree in 1933.

Four years later he received a bachelor of law degree from Yale, and certification for

Later, at the age of 29, he became a member of the faculty of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.

Mr. Zuckert advanced in rank in this profession, becoming assistant dean of the school and serving as administrative head of the first advanced management course ever given at the Harvard Graduate School.

During this same period, Mr. Zuckert served as a special consultant to the commanding general of the Air Force, assisted in the training of thousands of Air Force officers, and carried out a number of special assignments for the Air Force's commanding general.

In 1944 and 1945, Mr. Zuckert served in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations. He was released from the Navy in September 1945, to become my executive assistant when I was Administrator of the Surplus Property Administration.

When I moved from Surplus Property to become Assistant Secretary of War for Air, Mr. Zuckert went with me as special assistant.

In September 1947 the Air Force became coequal with the Army and Navy in the National Defense Establishment. As Secretary of the Air Force, I was fortunate to have Mr. Zuckert as Assistant Secretary. His contributions to efficient management of this new Department were invaluable.

In January 1952, Mr. Zuckert was nominated for appointment as a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. This appointment was confirmed by the Senate on February 4, and he served in this responsible position until June 30, 1954.

The above recital of some of the major responsibilities of Gene Zuckert in no way gives adequate measure of the great worth of this able man. His industry, his integrity, his sense of perspective, his analytical ability, and his practical efficiency combine to make him a most valuable public servant.

It is incredible to me that this great American patriot was not only thrown out of the Government by the administration apparently for no other reason than the fact he was a Democrat, but was not even thanked by his chief when he left after such an outstanding job.

The Trip-Lease Bill





Friday, August 20, 1954

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD a statement prepared by me on the trip-lease bill.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Mr. President, one of the great disappointments of this 83d Congress has been our failure to act and secure final passage of H. R. 3203. This bill, which deals primarily with transportation of agricultural commodities

from farm to market, was passed by the House on June 24, 1953.

It was exhaustively studied by two committees of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce-but due to some unknown obstruction in the committee it was never sent to the floor for consideration. I feel certain that many members, if not most members of the Senate committee, favored its passage.

Lengthy hearings were held both in the House and Senate on this trip-leasing bill. A total of 702 printed pages of testimony was taken by the subcommittee under the late Senator DWIGHT GRISWOLD, of Nebraska, and later by the full Interstate Commerce Committee. Hearings requiring 520 pages of testimony were also held by the House Committee on Foreign and Interstate Commerce before its overwhelming passage of the bill through that body more than a year ago.

Rarely has any measure had the unanimous support from all farm organizations that this bill enjoyed. Recent testimony from farm groups included the American Bureau Farm Federation, the Farmers Union, the National Grange, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, and many others. They all expressed to both the House and Senate committees the urgent need of agricultural interests for its passage.

On May 6, 1954, Secretary of Agriculture Ezra T. Benson testified before the Senate committee. The following excerpt from his testimony is particularly convincing and in point:

"A great deal of confusion over a long period of time has resulted in growing uncertainties and conflicting opinions with respect to the matter of trip leasing. In order that all parties may be properly guided by the intent of Congress, it is our hope that H. R. 3203 will be enacted into law, thus

removing the multiple uncertainties concerning the activities of vehicles embraced within the provisions of section 203 (b) (4a), (5), and (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act.

"We believe, however, that the Commission's amended order does not restore the flexibility which Congress intended should accompany the exemptions set forth in section 203 (b) (4a), (5), and (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act. We wish, therefore, to express our continuing interest in, and support of, the legislation proposed by H. R. 3203.

load the highways with empty returning trucks, and throw many truck owners, smallbusiness men out of business. It should be remembered also that during World War II the Defense Transportation Administration specifically ordered the utilization of our trucking facilities on an oll-out trip-leasing basis as the most economical and efficient operation of our national truck fleet-a principle which still holds good today.

The practice of leasing trucks, particularly those of farmers on a single-trip basis or for short periods, has been the custom in the trucking business since time immemorial. Under such a practice the most economical and efficient use is made of the farmer's truck and the small-business man's truck, subject to all the safety regulations prescribed by the Commission and at approved rates under the full supervision of duly authorized carriers. If the practice is discontinued by administration regulation, as is threatened, untold damage will be done to our system of marketing farm products. The passage of this bill will prevent such a disaster.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]



Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, most of the people of the United States and many peoples in free and enslaved lands over the world held high hopes for the success of the Republican administration when it assumed the solemn responsibility of guiding this great and powerful Nation on January 20, 1953.

President Eisenhower and the Republican Party were looked to for vigorous and creative leadership. What a disappointment we all have suffered.

If there is one word in the English language that would properly describe this Republican administration, it is the word "inept." For, my colleagues, this administration has bungled our foreign relations through an ineptness that astounds those of us who, even though in the minority in Congress, want to protect this great Government; want it to occupy the same eminence it should occupy in world affairs, and want it to survive, above all else.

But the sad fact before us is this: Since the Eisenhower administration took over, this Government has not won a battle on a foreign diplomatic front.

As we look around us at the end of the 83d Congress, we see that the grand hopes of our people and of friendly peoples in foreign lands have been crushed on the bitter walls of disillusionment. We witness confusion instead of confidence. We see dismay and uncertainty, instead of pride and courage.

In the 20 months since the Eisenhower administration and the Republican Party took over, we have seen our country undergo an amazing transition; we have seen our Government lose prestige and power throughout the world; we have seen our influence as a leading Nation diminish, and here at home we have seen great segments of our economy struck down.

On domestic issues, the Eisenhower administration has exhibited an ineptness in considering what is best for all the people, an ineptness magnified by its desire and programs to benefit selected groups; groups of tremendous wealth and privilege; groups that ignore the increased power of the masses of working men and women and the millions of farmers, who provide the food and fiber which create the basic wealth of this Nation.

If I were addicted to making predictions, I would say that if the Eisenhower administration and the Republican Party continue on the course they have adopted, the reaction of the people of this country will be dangerous.

This so-called Eisenhower business administration and Republican Congress have proved by their programs and actions that they are strictly for big business.

The measures they have espoused and enacted which could be classified as of benefit to the people are merely extensions, or modifications and expansions, of policies and laws which originated in previous Democratic administrations. I refer to housing, reciprocal trade, social security, mutual aid—all of which were initiated by Democrats and all of which were once denounced and fought by Republicans.

The voters of this country cannot be fooled forever. They know the Republicans realized that they would have to have something to use in their political campaigns, that they would have to have some bait to try to attract voters, so they can stay in power.

The people also know by now, however, that the Eisenhower administration and the Republican Congress have done a big job-a big job on the farmer, the consumer, the laborer, and the family with a small income.

The administration and the Republican Congress have driven down prices for farm products and have driven up prices for the consumer. They gave bigmoneyed people handsome tax advantages over the people who earn their income by toil. And all this, my friends, is what our Republican colleagues hail as stabilized economy.

We Democrats do not want a stabilized economy for this country. We Democrats want a thriving and growing economy for this country.

A stabilized economy is easily recognized as the old Republican squeeze play-squeeze the little fellow and make the big fellow bigger. It is a vise-a

vise to get the last dollar from the consumer and to pay the least dollar to the farmer and worker.

The Republicans hailed their legislative program as "dynamic" and "forward-looking."

It was as "dynamic" as the dodo, as "forward-looking" as yesterday.

It was not conceived for the benefit of the best interests of all the people, but for big business and the privileged people.

If the Republican Congress and the Eisenhower administration had paid as much attention to the problems confronting the Nation's future security as they have paid to their program to reduce the American farmer to the state of Hoover-advocated peasantry and to their program to reduce labor to the impotent state of Hoover poverty, we would feel safer in our position in world affairs.

Yes, my friends, it is a sad fact that many good people voted for a change in 1952, and it is a sadder fact that many of them have gotten a change with

a vengeance.

When the Republican candidate for President and Republican orators went all over the country in the fall of 1952 they denounced the Truman-Acheson foreign policy. They ate up the agreements of Yalta, Potsdam, and Teheran blood raw every morning for breakfast.

Since coming into power, I presume somebody in the State Department read the provisions of these agreements and understood them. I have heard nothing about them since-not even a suggestion of a change in them. Neither do I hear the Republicans repeating their campaign calls for a change in the Truman-Acheson policy. The fact is that since this Republican administration came into power no attempt has been made to change the TrumanAcheson policy. But they did make one change. They administer it in a sorry fashion. I am sad to say the Republicans have administered it in such a blundering way that we now have fewer friends in the world than we ever had in the history of the United States.

Yes, we have witnessed a new aggressive power rise in Communist countries due to Republican faltering steps in our foreign relations. We are now witnessing failure upon failure in Asia and Europe through ineptness. We can see a drift away from American leadership abroad, a drift of once friendly nations to the powers on the plains of Asia.

Neither the people of America nor the peoples of friendly or unfriendly nations know, from the welter of conflicting statements by Republicans in the executive branch and Republicans in the legislative branch, who is speaking for this Nation on international affairs. But the unfriendly nations do see clearly that in this confusion the Republican leaders do not know what they are doing or where they are going. And, my friends, the Reds are taking full advantage of it.

This 83d Republican Congress ended its deliberations with a smidgen of positive legislation and with a mass of problems unsolved through ineptness and the lack of constructive ideas on what to do. Unfortunately for the people of this great country in a perilous period yet unequaled in our history, this 83d Congress will blot our record with the repu- . tation of having worked harder and produced less original legislation than any of its predecessors.

Of all the major legislation enacted, only five bills would fall into the category of positive law. In the first session, the tidelands oil and emergency refugee bills became law. In the second session, the St. Lawrence Waterway, the revision of the tax structure, and the Democratic anti-Communist bills were enacted. It was in the maze of so-called minor legislation that the Republican Party and the Republican administration did most of the work for the privileged people and big business, excepting, of course, the vast advantages granted them in the Revenue Revision Act.

What about the remainder of the President's program that became law? Again I say, it was either extension, revision, or modification of basic laws enacted in previous Democratic administrations. Without the help of the Democrats who voted in the interest of the people, much of this part of President Eisenhower's program would have gone the way the rest of his program did-the bills he proposed which were either defeated, sidetracked, or ignored by the Republican leaders in the position of responsibility. The record shows that the Republicancontrolled Congress repudiated certain proposals of the party's elected leader, scorned many of their and President Eisenhower's bright campaign promises, abandoned pronounced principles, and handed their chief bitter morsels of compromises. Yet the Republican administration and the Republican press have the audacity to hail these compromises as "victories."

The Republican Party, entrusted with the reins of Government at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue for the first time in 20 years, has demonstrated in 20 months its complete inability to govern. It has revealed an ineptitude that is shocking to those of us who have devoted our lives to the service of our people.

Excepting in its determination to advance big business over the interest of the mass of individuals, the Republican administration has disclosed a complete lack of unity, an utter division of aims and goals.

It has unveiled an unparalleled vacuum of leadership.

As an American, as leader of the Democratic minority in the House, I cannot take partisan comfort from this record, dismal as it is, distorted as it is, by Republican publicists and apologists, who brazenly hail defeats as victories and embarrassing compromises as achievements.

It is, to me, a solemn and tragic spectacle that portends ill for our country and for our people.

Mr. Speaker, I have now served longer in the Congress of the United States than any Member presently sitting in the House of Representatives. I do not contend that this endows me with any

special wisdom. It is an accident of fate which leaves me in this position of seniority after so many other of our colleagues have left this scene.

Out of that long experience of more than 40 years, however, has grown the deep conviction that the continued existence of our free political institutions rests upon two bulwarks:

First, the two-party system. Second, party responsibility.

It is with grave sense of sorrow that I say we have seen those foundations shaken and weakened, and the future of our Nation threatened.

It has uncovered a rash of conflicting elements and contentious views.

It has brought before the American people the spectacle of a Republican President pleading-and often pleading in vain-with a Republican Congress to support his proposals.

It could be that since the Republicans labored so long and so faithfully in the fields of the minority-hurling stones at constructive Democratic measurestheir power to function as a responsible majority has atrophied.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Under a system of two strong and unified political parties, this Nation has grown and prospered. We Democrats are alarmed over the growth of splinter parties under the Republican banner, over the desertion of principles of the founders of the party, and the failure to follow their elected chief. For we know the wisdom of the doctrine of two unified parties. It has been proved in the history of other countries where splinter parties have strangled parliamentary action, and their nations have been reduced to impotency as a result.

This is the most crucial of all times for the United States. Yet, we find ourselves with an elected leader who does not lead, because the men and women in his party's rank and file refuse to follow. Even though these people wear the Republican insignia, they ignore the discipline of party responsibility, wander off on tangents and desert their party standard.

How can the Republican leadership have the audacity to ask the voters of America to elect more irresponsibles to Congress in November? How can they ask the voters to compound an existing evil?

President Eisenhower voluntarily set the standard by which the American electorate is to decide on how to vote in November. On the recent date of August 4, the President announced at his press conference that the issue of the 1954 election was the enactment of a program based on the Republican platform.

The record shows that in contrast to the Republican pledges to the people in the 1952 National Convention, their platform is now in shambles.

cision and lack of determination or ideas
of how to meet the situation, the Secre-
tary of Defense takes a "new look" at the
latest defense New Look and pronounces
that it is all "political" and not a “mili-
tary" matter.

In the midst of this whirligig came the
fall of Dien Bien Phu; the surrender at
Geneva, the abandonment of 12 million
people-once free people-in Indochina
to Communist slavery; and an uneasy
truce dictated by the Reds, a truce as
shaky and as unsure as the truce the
Chinese wrung from us in Korea. After
all this, the brave and almost forgotten
words of the 1952 Republican platform
come to haunt us as an echo of a once
great party. That platform promised:

Our Nation will become again the dynamic
moral and spiritual force which was the
despair of the despots and the hope of the

I say again, if there is any one word
tion, it is the word “inept."
that can fully describe this administra-

administration, we have not only lost
By the most recent ineptness of this
face in Asia, but we probably have lost
all Asia. We have lost prestige in Eu-
confounded by the ever-shifting actions
rope, where our allies are confused and
and statements of the Republican ad-
ministration. Threats by the Secretary
of State to retaliate against friendly na-
friendship they held for us.
tions have alienated the once warm
These na-
tions have given evidence of wanting to
go their way on independent paths, and
enemies, potential and actual.
that has given aid and comfort to our

to that Republican platform pledge of
And, my friends, what has happened
ment of enslaved peoples in Communist-
"liberation"? Imagine the disillusion-
controlled countries, when they recognize
that the Republicans also have failed on
that one.

In foreign policy the platform promised for America a "dynamic initiative"; a course of action "animated by courage, self-respect, steadfastness, vision, purpose, competence and faith." What have we had for the past 20 platform promise: months?


We have had indecision, instead of initiative; we have had timidity instead of courage; we have had absement instead of self-respect; retreat instead of steadfastness; blindness instead of vision; bungling instead of purpose; and incompetence instead of competence.

We have witnessed a startling exhibition of evasiveness, of alternate threats and withdrawals, of contradictory statements from immature voices high in Republican circles; voices that have not quit sounding off despite repudiation by their Chief Executive.

The Vice President of the United States announced one day that American ground troops were going to be sent to Indochina. Another day, the White House denied it. "Massive retaliation" was threatened against Red aggressors by the Secretary of State. Yet the Reds march on and prove his words empty.

The President asserts we can find a means of peaceful coordination with the Reds, even as they gain ground and our position in the world grows graver. Yet almost at the same time the Republican leader of the Senate calls for war against Red China. To cap the climax of inde

To be honest we must stamp the word
"failure" on that flowing Republican

We will come to enjoy the reality of peace.
To speak on Republican promises and
Republican performances is like shooting
fish in a barrel.

Take the field of foreign economic
policy, in which the Republican admin-
istration promised "trade, not aid."

President Eisenhower surely knows by now that we must encourage the free flow of international commerce; that we must buy from other countries if they are to get the dollars needed to pay for goods bought from us. He must know also, by this time, that international friendships are built upon trade and good will and not upon threats of reprisals.

President Eisenhower did embrace the reciprocal trade policy instituted a score of years ago by a Democratic administration. But his Republican Party, wedded to high protective tariffs, fought him down. In the first session, the Reciprocal Trade Act was extended for only 1 year with the aid of Democrats who furnished more votes for it than the Republican majority. The President was placed in the negative position of promising his Republican leaders that he would negotiate any new trade pacts and

that he would destroy the bipartisanship of the Federal Tariff Commission by surrendering to demands to put an additional Republican "protectionist” on the majority side.

did the President succeed in getting Only with the help of the Democrats another bare 1-year extension of this act in the second session. Again we Democrats provided more votes than did the Republicans. Amid much ballyhooing the Randall Commission was created, a group of businessmen and legislators, to moting trade abroad. He endorsed its bring forth recommendations for prorecommendations for a 3-year extension of the trade act, with additional power for the President to reduce tariffs, and for a reduction in taxes on American corporations doing business abroad.

On this, the Republican Congress handed the President one of his most severe rebuffs. It tossed the tax and tariff proposals out of the window.

On national defense the Republicans slogan makers promised a New Look and more "boom for a buck." Ignoring the tense international problems in the Eastern Hemisphere, the President and his economy-minded coworkers looked at national defense from a dollar angle safety. and not from the broad view of national

Since then, the Republicans have vacillated on national security as much as they have on foreign policy. The Secretary of Defense announced the Nation was going to have fewer war planes and better defense. He said he was going to economize by cutting the fighting forces, and that this would produce more safety for the Nation. How can you reconcile these statements?

The President went along on this program, which purported to prepare for any type of war with emphasis on retaliatory atomic attacks. Economy was the key, but safety was sidetracked. By last May, events in the Far East disclosed the weakness of the plan. The New Look, and since then they have administration took a new look at the been looking over old problems and new problems.

Manpower goals destined to go down, now are to go up.

Defense spending was to decline. Now it is to rise.

ing wings. Now it is to have more fight-
The Air Force was to have fewer fight-
ing wings, nearly as many as the Truman
administration said were needed.

day, in another day, and denied by the
Universal military training is out one
November elections.
White House, until at least after the

The Republican platform had pledged:
We will strip it-

Our preparedness program-
clear of lack of coordination.

platform said:
On national economy, the Republican

Our goal is a balanced budget, a reduced national debt.

The budget has not been balanced.

The national debt limit has been increased by $6 billion, to $281 billion. Large annual deficits continue.

« PředchozíPokračovat »