Federal Government, which they set up, certain powers and authorities and reserved to each of those sovereign States all of the powers that they did not so delegate. Therefore it follows, I think, that the division of powers between the Federal Government and the several States must be controlled by the contract that was entered into between the States and the power of the Federal Government limited to this extent.

Realizing that the United States is a federation of States, bound together under a constitutional contract that established a balance of powers between this Federal Government and the sovereign State governments, I think it therefore becomes evident that the concept of balance is essential to the preservation of the form of government that was established by our Founding Fathers. I think it becomes obvious that if we allowed too much of the power to remain in the respective State governments that the union that was formed by the constitutional contract would become ineffective and disintegrate. But on the other hand, if the central government should acquire too much power, then the States would lose their authority and eventually their identity, and the central government would be the controlling monolithic type of State that we have seen develop-come and go-throughout all history. The kind of government that has not long existed in our civilization without being overthrown or toppled from stresses and strains within or without.

I do not think that the balance is necessarily a static sort of a situation and obviously history would indicate to us that it has not been static at all because we know that the Federal Government grew in power and authority from its institution until about 1800. Then I think the pendulum rather swung and the power movement was back toward the States until the Civil War. However, since the Civil War, that is, the past 100 years, we have seen the pendulum of governmental power swing again toward Washington, and at a vastly accelerated rate since

about 1930.

As a consequence, we now have a Federal Government that is so big that it cannot be effectively managed, governed, or controlled by any one man, or group of men, regardless of their political astuteness; regardless of their knowledge; regardless of their ability; and regardless of their overall competence. Today, the size of the Federal Government, and the power that is exerted by the Federal Government, and the increasing power that is attempted to be exerted by the Federal Government threatens the very fundamental principles, the very fundamental nature of our Republic by undermining the sovereignty of the States-the sovereignty which existed prior, to the Constitution and which but for the relinquishment of some of this sovereignty and power, there would be no Federal Government. Second, the cost of this great mass in Washington, which I prefer to call the puzzle palace on the Potomac, has gotten to the point where it impedes the economic growth of our country by imposing an excessive burden of taxation on the economic resources that must support both the people and the Government and, third, the enforcement by the Federal Government of its policies which are now suggestive of the police state, violate both the spirit of the Constitution and the guarantees of personal freedom that we find

therein.

I happen to be one of those who believe that the whole picture of government could be more properly brought into focus and within the concept of the Constitution if we would bring closer to home-that is, to our local, State, and city and county governments, those governmental services and functions that should properly be performed by our local government, but which have already been swept into this great mass of

bureaucratic entanglements that we now see in Washington.

Let us consider for a few minutes, if we can, the perhaps major influences that have promoted the great growth of Federal power. I think that in the beginning the usurpation of the rights of the States by the Federal Government was in some areas that did not directly affect so many people, and, as a consequence, this rather slow movement toward Washington went unnoticed and unaided by the States. They were not so jealous of their sovereign right as perhaps they should have been-and, of course, the Civil War and the Reconstruction days damaged the States rights concept in the thinking of so many people. The trend toward a central government proceeded at a most moderate pace after the Civil War, but, of course, was stepped up immensely as a result of two World Wars and the necessary change that must be brought about under such great global conflicts-but I think there are probably some other more practical and ideological reasons for this great growth.

You know, there is an old story that says you cannot kill a frog by dropping him in boiling water-he reacts so quickly to the sudden heat that he jumps out before he is hurt. If you will take that same frog and put him in cold water, and warm it up gradually, he never decides to jump until it is too late. But then he is cooked. And this is what we have seen transpire during the years; men being just as foolish as the frog who is put into cold water-men who have had their fundamental freedoms taken away from them by the Central Government which, if you had attempted to take away all of these freedoms, all of these rights of the local government, if you please, overnight-you would have gotten into a violent revolution. But under the so-called liberal concept, we have seen these rights being taken away from the States gradually under the guise of security or peace or progress, and we may well be at the point where we could paralyze an entire generation.

You see, because of the economic conditions which existed in the early 30's, a very practical development occurred which was the initiation on a large scale of Federal grants and aids or subsidies whereby the Federal Government took over and assumed full or partial responsibility for many services and activities, the performance and financing of which had been always within State and local administrative and fiscal capacity. Once we embarked upon this project, there were pressures from the various groups who were to profit or benefit from these various types of grants and aids to continue and increase such projects and, of course, this device was appealing to the large majority of people who began to believe that somebody else was providing the money and it certainly was most appealing to State and local officials who were able, through political manipulation, to acquire these various emoluments, benefits, improvements and so forth for their own communities, to their own credit, without the necessity of taking that very dangerous political step of raising taxes or going into debt.

In other words, the Federal Government has literally bought its way into the area where State and local governments should function and these acts of purchase, if you please, of vote buying, if you please, have seldom been questioned by the Supreme Court who has construed the term "general welfare" as broadly as they wanted to so as to include everything in the area of government-thereby leaving the Federal Government free to move into almost any area that they so desired to spend money and exercise control.

In passing, let me say this-regardless of how many people may say to you that there are certain areas where you can receive Fed

eral financing without Federal control-and regardless of how many people say it is written into the law, let me assure you that nobody in Washington really believes this. As a matter of fact, in the case of Wichard v. Filburn, decided in 1942, the Court said in effect that it was not only the right of the Federal Government to control those things which it finances, but that it was its duty. I agree with this very thoroughly, that it is utter fiscal irresponsibility for the Federal Government to spend your tax money and not control how it is to be spent. We only have to think back a few billion dollars to the time that the farmer was told that Federal subsidies to the farmer would not mean Federal control.

Then, too, there has been the ideological development throughout the past few years where it was popular to be considered a liberal-for I think so many people connote from the word "liberal"-liberty-when in truth and in fact the current application of this definition is a total distortion of our concept of liberty and reminds me so much of certain countries behind the Iron and

Bamboo Curtains who refer to a people's democracy.

The 19th century liberal advocated liberating individuals from restrictions and controls of government whereas the 20th century liberal, quite to the contrary, advocates more controls and more government-not less government-advocates more regimentation of the people and business-not less support of the people by the government.

The Constitution is very dear to me and I think very positively that it was drawn to combat the centralist theory and to create a reasonable working balance between Federal and State powers and responsibilities. The Constitution very specifically delegates certain of the powers of the States to the Federal Government and very specifically reserves all of those rights which are not delegated to the sovereign States. Basically the Constitution delegates to the Federal Government those truly national tasks which can be performed only by and at the Federal level of government, such as national defense and foreign affairs and, second, certain other functions which, though they could be performed by the States, it would be adverse to the interests of all of our citizens generally if they were so performed. Examples of this would be the establishment of a national system of weights and measures, a currency system, a postal system, rules and regulations dealing with the commerce between States and commerce with foreign nations, procedures in regard to bankruptcy and naturalization and immigration. matters were reserved to the Federal Government to the Congress-not because they could be dealt with only at the Federal level, but because of the chaotic condition that we would find ourselves in if they were left to the several States.

These

And as I have said, the Constitution specifically provides for reserving to the States, that is, to the people-all powers not delegated to the Congress nor prohibited to the States. Let me say that this makes more sense today and it appears to me to be more necessary today than it was in 1787.

As a result of our permitting the Central Government to assume jurisdiction over and responsibility for functions which should belong at the State and local levels and which in truth and fact have been reserved to the States under the Constitution, we have seen the Federal Government get entirely out of hand in regard to size, as I mentioned earlier. Today 1 out of every 6 workers in the United States is employed by some branch of Government, either Federal, State, or local, and 1 out of 22.1 is employed by the Federal Government or some instrumentality or agency thereof. Of all spending for goods and services in the

United States, Government accounts, Federal, State, and local, for $1 out of every $5. But Federal Government spending alone accounts for $1 out of every $8.59.

Workers on public payrolls number 12.3 million. Fifteen years ago there were 7.1 million. The Federal Government's employees account for 5.3 million of these and, as a matter of fact, under the present administration, we have seen employment in the Federal Government-civilian employeesincrease at the rate of 4,000 each and every month.

Taxes and other Government receipts amount to 35 percent of the total national income. The Federal Government is now collecting $107.1 billion a year in all of its various funds as opposed to all local and State governments' income of only $52.6 billion. One dollar out of every $4.50 of personal income in the United States is accounted for by direct Government payments, with $1 out of every $8.56 by direct payments by the Federal Government. Of the total outlays for construction in the United States, the Government accounts for $1 out of every $4-with $1 out of $9.37 being the Federal Government. Spending by public agencies, Federal, State, and local, total $165 billion a year, of which $104.9 billion again is Federal Government agencies spending.

Another consequence of permitting the Federal Government to assume jurisdiction over the proper functions of the State governments is the fact that the Federal Government has its attention diverted from the truly national tasks. During the 1st session of the 88th Congress, we have seen so many examples of both the President and the Congress devoting their time to relatively small matters. We have bills that take up days of debate that involve strictly local and sectional issues; such as feed grains legislation, bills to control the raising of peanuts that are used for boiling, urban renewal matters, so-called depressed areas bills, mass transit bills, juvenile delinquency, and waste treatment. We pay a terrifically large price for the administrative and congressional time that is devoted to these matters which should be handled by local governments to the neglect of truly national matters which should take 100 percent of the time of the Federal Government. After spending over a $100 billion to combat and contain communism around the world, we have allowed the Communists to take over Cuba. We have seen our relations get bad with Canada, France, England, Latin America. We have seen the situation deteriorate in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, the Congo. We have had some unpleasant experiences with Sukarno in Indonesia.

Everyone admits that defense costs are excessive, that there is waste because of insignificant matters such as the three branches of the Government failing to get together on the size of the belt loops. There is a sharp difference between the experts over the best defense and the debate continues today over missiles, manned bombers, and other matters-but we are making these truly national tasks a part-time job when they should be important enough as to require the full attention and energy of the Congress, the administration and all of those at the Federal level of Government. In the United States we have the abilities, the talents, the capabilities for competent national leadershipand our attention at the Federal level should be directed to these types of matters and not wasted on matters which are not really Federal business.

Under the big central government theory, it is necessary to retain punitive tax rates or go bankrupt. Under the big central government theory, the doctrine is advocated that government must support the people and this required an ever-widening array of benefits that these political theorists are

saying that the Federal Government should provide. In effect they say that the people are too stupid to buy for themselves. It is obvious that the only income of the Federal Government is the resources of the Nation and the resources of its people, but somehow or other, it seems politically advantageous to foster the illusion that somebody else is paying. As a matter of fact, it has even gotten to the point that certain of our political theorists in high positions no longer feel that taxes are for the purpose of raising revenue, but rather are for the purpose of redistributing the wealth.

And while I am touching upon taxes, I want to commend the Junior Chamber of Commerce for the position which it has taken at its national conventions in recent years in support of the Herlong-Baker-type tax reduction which definitely ties the tax reduction to a balanced budget. This approach is the approach of sound and sensible people.

There is another consequence of the permission of big central government. It is the technique of promoting centralism by asserting the imminence of crisis which requires Federal intervention. It has been a very useful tool in the hands of those who advocate big central government for a good many years now. Many times the crisis is not real and apparently one that is fiction serves just as well to support the theory that the Federal Government knows what to do, is ready to do it, and able to act in the alleged emergency-and further supports the theory that the States are unwilling or financially unable to act. In recent weeks we have seen the House and Senate pass the aid to higher education bill. If you read the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, you will find the debate on this issue-which involves subsidies for the construction of buildings on college campuses-to center basically around the very urgent need for assistance in this area. You would think from reading and hearing this debate that the institutions of higher education across this country are paupers and unable to construct a single building over and beyond a simple toolshed. However, if you will examine the debate in the House of Representatives, you may notice that during the colloquy between myself and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. [Mr. GIAIMO], I very specifically asked the gentleman if he could point out to me any structure built on a college campus within the last 10 years that gives the appearance of having been built under an austerity budget. As I explained then, I am sure that there are some but I know they must be in the minority for every building that I have seen that has been erected on a college campus in the past few years, at least since the Second World War, does not give the appearance of an austerity budget and my request that some of these be named still remains unanswered.

The inaction on the part of local people is usually due to their realization that there is no emergency. We recently had testimony before the Select Subcommittee on Labor of the House Education and Labor Committee of which I am a member, in regard to the Manpower Development and Training Act. As this bill was originally enacted, it provided for the Federal Government to pay the full financial load for the first 2 years and thereafter for the program to be handled on a 50-50 matching basis with the States. Only about five States considered it of sufficient priority to enact the necessary legislation in their State legislatures to participate in the program after it became a 50-50 program. A witness from the State of California indicated in direct response to some of my questions that it was necessary for the Federal Government to continue 100 percent financing of this program because we in the Federal Government knew what

was better for the people of California than the local legislature did-and further that it would be impossible or virtually impossible to get any appropriation out of the California Legislature for such a program because as he stated it, "in California you have to support your request for appropriations with facts." An obvious reference to the fact that so many people feel that you do not have to support the request for an appropriation with facts when you are dealing at the Federal level.

Another very serious consequence of permitting the Federal Government to assume the responsibility for local projects and allowing the Federal Government to grow so large is the fact that the Federal Government begins to extend its operations far beyond the scope of public functions into the field of private business. The Government competes on very unequal terms with its taxpaying citizens who are in private business. Private business must supply the capital and sustain the losses of its ventures whereas in the Government operation, there is no incentive of making a profit and as a consequence, losses are inconsequential. The Treasury supplies ban funds at interest rates below its own cost of borrowing in many instances. REA_borrows money at 2 percent less than the Federal Government pays for borrowing this same money.

The framers of our Constitution thought that we could handle our own affairs but we have been constantly granting to big Federal Government more and more authority. It is obvious that the Government is a lousy businessman. It is obvious that the Government is an incompetent manager. It is obvious that Americans are good businessmen and excellent managers. Where we get the idea that Government can do it betterbig government-the Federal Governmentbaffles me. All evidence is to the contrary. In this area of Government encroaching upon private enterprise, we find political theorists today that say that the public sector is destitute and the private sector is filthy rich. The public sector means government-and the private sector means individual enterprise. A high Government official says: "The choice our Government must make is a choice between the public interest and private comfort."

Another Government planner says: "We have not provided the public sector with enough money to keep up with the private sector. People are spending their money on pleasures and gadgets and automobiles that they do not need." In other words, the Government must take from the people the money they are unwisely spending and spend it for them, wisely. Senator HARRY BYRD, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, says the combined debt of all Federal Government agencies and instrumentalities is $1,242,000,000,000-6,642 for every man, woman, and child—or 27,500 for every family of four. Is the public sector which has incurred that much debt underprivileged? Consumer debt in the private sector is only $56 billion or a little less than $3,000 per capita or less than $12,000 for each family of four. The Federal Government's income has increased by about 20 times since I was born. The private sector's income only about four times. Whatever is or is not wrong with public services, it cannot be said that they have been deprived of money.

The big difference is that businesses operating in the private sector have two important incentives: one, they must compete and, two, they must have a profit. Take away these two necessities and you have a listless organism. The Government need not make a profit and it need not compete.

I would like to commend to your attention an article appearing in the September 9 issue of U.S. News & World Report entitled "Big Government In United States Getting

Too Big?" This article very aptly points out that with increased spending goes a rise in the power over business and over the lives of our individual citizens. It points out how the present administration is asking that the vast spending power of Government be used to coerce communities and corporations into doing what the Government demands and the increasing demands on the part of bureaucrats is for still more power to be lodged in the Federal Government involving new programs, calling for new spending and new tasks for the Federal police to carry out. Today the Federal Government is seeking the power to police all race relations, the power to investigate and hail into court all businessmen whose customers complain of discrimination, the power to grant or deny billions of dollars annually to projects and communities depending upon how they accept or fail to accept the rules laid down in Washington, the power to take away deposit insurance of banks or mortgage guarantees if Federal wishes are not complied with, the power to use the FBI in policing activities once considered local, the added power to regulate the stock market, the power to set up a youth corps to work in cities, the power to set up a conservation corps to work in the countryside, the power to aid mass transit plans in cities-all of this is in addition to the existing powers that include, among others, the power that goes with cash spending of $120 billion every year; the power to enforce minimum wages and maximum hours of work; the power to police labor relations; the power to support farm prices and restrict output; the power to grant or deny subsidies in a wide range of fields; the power to grant or deny loans for many purposes; the power to condemn private property for an increasing range of Federal projects; the power to police private business practices in

many areas; the power to regulate transporta

tion and communications.

Today the Government, under the Area Redevelopment Act, has the money and the power to help local communities. This power can be used to help some communities while overlooking the plight of others-and so it is with these other projects that I have mentioned-Domestic Peace Corps, Youth Conservation Corps, mass transit, and all of these other various projects that they are looking for.

Under the conditions which we live today, every individual, every businessman, every corporation runs into the long arm of the Federal Government at nearly every turn. The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are constantly on the alert to detect evidence of mergers or pricing practices that the Government might think is illegal. The Federal Trade Commission polices advertising, labeling of products, and other activities of business. There is a proposal now before the Congress to create more power in supervising the design of packages. The National Labor Relations Board supervises union elections for bargaining power, keeps an eye on union contracts with employers. There is another agency to enforce the payment of minimum wages that I made reference to and to see that prevailing wages are paid in various regions by Government contractors. There is now legislation pending before the Congress to amend the Davis-Bacon Act to include certain fringe benefits in figuring prevailing wages. Rates of numerous kinds are regulated by the Federal Government-railroads, electric power companies, pipelines, interstate truckers, bargelines-you name it-and the Government is telling us where the airplanes can fly and they can pay or withhold the subsidy to the airline companies as they see fit. Radio and television stations operate under Government license and cannot turn a cold shoulder to a power-hungry Federal Government. Shipping lines and shipbuild

CIX-1365

ers quite often operate under Federal subsidy. About a third of the country's agriculture operates under Government controls in one form or another with price supports for an equal share of the farm community. Production controls are applied to many of the crops that are price supported.

The Government is involved in banking, with over a third of the home mortgages guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans' Administration. The bank deposits are guaranteed and supervised by the Government and building and loan associations are supervised by a different agency. We have the Export-Import Bank that makes direct loans to finance exports and various sorts of insurance guarantees for exports made by American firms.

Some of these are obviously proper Government functions-but many of them are not. If we stop and think for a few minutes, we will find that there are very few areas of our daily lives that are not now within the scope of the all-powerful Federal Government. Programs are piled on top of programs. Workers are retrained under the

Manpower Development and Training Act. They are retrained under the Area Redevelopment Act. There are provisions under the Trade Expansion Act for the retraining of workers. Vocational education is given under the Vocational Education Act, under Smith-Hughes, under George-Barden and I was told by a Member of Congress the other

day, who has done some research into this area, that he has already found over 13 different programs under which a worker can be retrained and he believes that there are about 10 more. Obviously the answer is not the retraining of workers. The answer is jobs. So you retrain a worker under all 13 of these programs and without jobs, you have only trained him so that he knows what

kind of work he is out of. But this gets us away from the point that I have tried to make in this discussion with you. I know that I have talked too long and perhaps rambled on away from the subject to some extent and for this I apologize.

I am one of those who believes we are destroying the people we are trying to help in turning so many of our freedoms and liberties over to the Federal Government. I mean

that when a farmer is paid for not farming,

encouraging idleness, indigence, apathy, and decay. I mean that when any American gets sick and counts on the Government to pay, that there is no inducement for him to work and save for the rainy day. I believe that when shipbuilders and airline operators can always rely on a Federal subsidy that there is no reason for them to try for efficiency and improvement. This list could be expanded on and on and on-but I say that Washington's deepening intrusion into our daily lives is nobody's fault but our

We keep asking the Federal Government to take over and do for us those things which traditionally we have been doing for ourselves. We make a lot of Fourth of July speeches but we still vote for Santa Claus. We seem to forget that government to perform increasing services has to get bigger and bigger and bigger-and we spoon fed, overtaxed and overweight get weaker and weaker and weaker.

The road that we are traveling with a big Central Government, with a welfare state, is the road of a dependent people. This great country is going in the direction of having so many of its people become dependent upon it.

The average age of the world's great civilizations is 200 years. The nations progressed through this sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to

apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back again into bondage.

In 13 years our United States will be 200 years old. This cycle is not inevitable-but I say that it depends upon our determination to keep a proper balance between the rights of our local governments and the rights of our Federal Government-and to keep the maximum amount of authority on a local level where it can be dealt with more efficiently, more economically, and nearer the people whose future it controls. I thank you.

INTERNATIONAL MACHINERY FOR THE SUPERVISION OF DISARMAMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from New York [Mr. HALPERN] is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of the House the resolution introduced by a number of our colleagues and myself-my resolution being House Concurrent Resolution 219-requesting the President to explore the development of an effective international machinery for the supervision of disarmament and the maintenance of peace. An identical resolution has been introduced by Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK and a number of his colleagues in the other body.

An old proverb tells us that a journey of a thousand miles is started with a single step. Our Nation has taken the important first step by supporting the test ban treaty. The treaty alone cannot insure a just and lasting peace but if the leaders of the major nations of the world press for such a peace with honesty and diligence we can achieve the goal of a warless world.

Recognizing that the potential for destruction has attained frightening proportions, the United Nations General Assembly at its 14th session unanimously adopted "the goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control."

President Eisenhower stated to the 15th General Assembly:

Thus, we see as our goal, not a superstate above nations, but a world community embracing them all, rooted in law and justice and enhancing the potentialities and common purposes of all peoples.

Subsequently, President Kennedy has affirmed:

Our primary long-range interest is general and complete disarmament-designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.

Mr. Speaker, we must wage peace as diligently as we once waged war. We must explore every avenue, and direct our energies along those paths which promise a reduction of world tensions and mutual distrust. We must take the leadership in creating a climate for peace.

To implement our avowed goal of a permanent peace, we are requesting the President to consider whether the development of effective international machinery for the supervision of disarmament and the maintenance of peace may

best be achieved by revision of the Charter of the United Nations, by a new treaty, or by a combination of the two. Such machinery might include, first, an International Disarmament Organization; second, a permanent World Peace Force; and, third, world tribunals for the peaceful settlement of settlement of international disputes, or such other international institutions as might be necessary for the enforcement of world peace under the rule of law.

This is not a "peace at any price" proposal. Rather, it is a logical and calculated step. Constant attention must be given to effective and adequate inspection and controls, and aggression in any form must be contained and eradicated.

traders returned to the American shores with silks from Japan, jade from China, and tea from Formosa. In spite of growing commerce, the Pacific was a long distance away. It was a strange and unfamiliar region where the languages and religions and characteristics of the people were completely different.

The road to a peaceful world has indeed been a rocky one, and its pitfalls have frequently trapped the unwary. The mistakes made by gullible European leaders in the 1930's-sins committed in the name of peace-led not to peace, but to war.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that this body take the leadership in the quest for a lasting and effective peace. A long step in that direction would be the adoption of the resolution I discuss here today. I fervently trust it will win committee and floor approval before this session of the 88th Congress adjourns.

U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN THE PACIFIC AND SOUTHEAST ASIA AREAS

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. McDOWELL] is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. MCDOWELL. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we have a great deal at stake in countries such as South Vietnam, Laos, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Many Americans share this view today.

Our interest in the Pacific is of rather recent origin. It is always hazardous to point to a single event as a special turning point in history. But I will take the risk and point a finger at Pearl Harbor. The surprise bombing of our naval installation there did more than catapult us into the Second World War. It seems to me that it marked the beginning of a new era of American involvement and responsibility in the Pacific. It was not that we had had no prior contact with that part of the world. Rather it was that before the Second World War our interest in the Pacific had been somewhat casual and sporadic.

The limited contact we had with the countries of the Pacific was mostly cultural and economic. These were more important than our political activities. Other countries such as Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands established colonies. The United States, with the exception of the Philippines, was not inclined to build up a large oversea empire. Instead, as one writer has aptly described it, we introduced Christianity, Concord grapes, and cash registers. Our

The foreign policy of the United States in the Pacific during pre-World War II years was somewhat vague and, at its best, fragmentary in its application. We were primarily concerned with trade opportunities. It was an outlook that was reflected in the diplomatic efforts of the time. The very first contacts of this country with the Pacific were the trading voyages to Canton in the earliest years of our history. In 1853 Commodore Perry paid his famous visit to Japan and opened the islands to the commerce of the world. The United States long maintained an interest in China, and we tried to keep the door open to that vast land. We took possession of the Philippines in 1898, but assumed the responsibility with some misgivings. At the time of the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 we sent a small military force to rescue and protect Americans in China. President Theodore Roosevelt played an important role in the Japanese-Russian peace in 1905. He aroused the enmity of the Japanese because they felt the provisions of the treaty favored Russia. We were hosts in 1922 to Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan at the Washington Conference which set up a formula on the limitation of navies. However, it really was not until the late 1930's that the Pacific began to assume a position of major importance in American foreign policy. It was then that we became concerned over the expansion of Japanese power in the Pacific.

The Second World War had profound consequences. In the Pacific the positions of the former colonial powers, Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands were seriously weakened. They never regained the influence they enjoyed before the war. On the other hand, the United States found itself involved more completely than ever in this

We had shouldered the greatest part of the war effort in the Pacific and, when victory came, American influence was predominant. We were in China

helping to sustain the tottering Nationalist Government of Chiang Kai-shek; we had regained possession of the Philippine Islands; and after the Japanese surrender we became the occupying power in Japan. The United States suddenly found itself in a position of unrivaled leadership in the Pacific.

There were those who believed that the efforts of the Second World War should prove to have been only a temporary involvement in the affairs of the Pacific. These people were hopeful that at the end of the war we might return to our preoccupation with America and the West. But it was not to be the case. Not only had modern means of transportation invalidated the idea that the Pacific was the Far East and far away. More important, the new global responsibilities of the United States made it impossible to disregard this key area of the world. Today, it is safe to say, Pacific affairs rate equally with European affairs in the attention it receives by our Government.

It seems to me that there are at least four basic reasons why the Pacific is important to us. In the first place, almost 60 percent of the people of the world live in the area of the Pacific, and we cannot afford to ignore such a large proportion of the world's population. Second, the Pacific is an area of turmoil and unrest, a fertile breeding ground for communism. It is worth while to remember that people are fighting small wars in the Pacific. Third, the Sino-Soviet split and rivalry has intensified the brash aggressiveness of the Communist Chinese, and they pose a serious threat to the independent countries in the Pacific. And, fourth, the development potential of the Pacific is tremendous. Japan has the world's fastest growing economy, and even the so-called backward countries are beginning to stir. These countries have a rich potential in human and material resources that we cannot risk losing to the forces of communism.

We

In this context, the tasks of U.S. foreign policy in the Pacific have been two. First, we have been helping to deter aggression and to maintain peace. have worked to prevent threats to the independence of free countries in the Pacific. Pacific. The United States has been willing and ready to respond to crises that may require our military power. Second, we have been assisting the peoples of the Pacific in their process of nation building. The military might of the United States has been a means and not an end. Its power has been used to protect the right of the countries of the Pacific to develop freely. And in this struggle for national development we have contributed generously in funds and material.

This, then, is the substance of the U.S. policy in the Pacific. The chief source of danger to our efforts on this front is communism, in particular Communist China. Compared to any of the other countries of the Pacific, Communist China is a strong military power. It has a very large army. The leaders seem to care little for human life. They have

shown a tendency to embark on reckless and even desperate ventures. They preach a doctrine that appeals to the disillusioned and downtrodden. Though the Communist camp has suffered a serious split, we cannot rule out the possibility that at some future time Peiping and Moscow will draw together again.

Turning to the other Communist countries in the Pacific, we find North Korea and North Vietnam driven dangerously by the same aggressive forces. They are small countries and not nearly so powerful as Communist China. Yet we see that North Vietnam has been able to mount campaigns of subversion and terrorism in Laos and South Vietnam. These attempts to undermine and destroy the independence of Laos and South Vietnam are a direct threat to the free world. The United The United States is firmly committed to oppose this threat and it has taken steps to see that aggression will not succeed in the Pacific.

We have been greatly concerned with the situation in South Vietnam. I recently spent a few days there. The United States is undergoing one of its severest tests in this small country. South Vietnam has been the major recipient of our assistance in the Pacific. The recent events there make it fitting that we examine the American policy toward South Vietnam. In order to put South Vietnam in the proper perspective, I think it is important to look back on its recent past. Vietnam was divided in 1954, after 8 years of terrible civil war. At the time there were very few who thought that South Vietnam had much chance of survival. It was beset by It was beset by many problems. There were the armies of the rival religious sects; the economy was in complete ruin; and a flood of almost 800,000 destitute refugees had descended from the north. But South Vietnam was able to survive, and, in many ways, its recovery was miraculous. South Vietnam, led by its President, Ngo Dinh Diem, effectively integrated the vast influx of refugees into its society; the armies of the rival religious groups were overpowered; major agrarian and educational reform plans were carried out; food production was increased impressively; and in general South Vietnam was making progress at a rate that would have been respectable even for a country enjoying peace. It was probably this very progress that brought on a sudden intensification of the guerrilla war directed from North Vietnam. In 1960 this campaign to reduce South Vietnam to ruin was openly announced from Hanoi. The response of the United States to the Communist challenge was immediate. We substantially increased military and economic assistance to South Vietnam. Throughout we have stressed the equal importance of political and social measures if victory was to be achieved. There were no illusions. It was understood that a quick and spectacular victory could not be expected and that it would take persistent effort by the Vietnamese and ourselves over a long period of time. Here I might make

the very observation that we have not been disappointed in the expectation.

To be frank, the war in South Vietnam was being lost in 1961 when we decided to begin our aid buildup. The attacks of the Vietcong guerrillas were increasing in frequency and intensity. increasing in frequency and intensity. Government officials were being assassinated in the countryside at the appalling rate of eight each day. And there And there was considerable fear that the Communists would soon be able to gain firm control of some of the more remote areas and set up a seat of government which the Communist bloc could recognize and aid.

The U.S. decision to intensify its support of South Vietnam quickly led to an improvement in the situation. We proimprovement in the situation. We provided additional military equipment, technical advisers, and substantial financial help. By 1962 attacks by the Vietcong guerrillas declined steadily. Roads and rail lines were once again opened to traffic. Officials were no longer so vulnerable to attempts on their lives. And perhaps most important there were no areas where the Vietcong were immune to government penetration. There were many indications of progress, and there seemed to be reason for optimism.

Then suddenly the situation in South Vietnam took a sharp turn for the worse. Vietnam took a sharp turn for the worse. I am speaking, of course, of the Buddhist crisis. The conflict between the government of President Ngo Dinh Diem and the Buddhists and their sympathizers placed a tremendous stress on a country that was already involved in a critical war with the Communist enemy. It was a very serious matter, and yet President Diem did not take the proper steps to eliminate the problem. He thought he could stamp it out. We made ourselves abundantly clear about our view of the situation. In its official statements the United States stood firmly for religious freedom in its foreign policy as well as in its domestic life. It expressed its deep concern about the Buddhist issue in South Vietnam, not only because of our belief in the ideal of freedom but also because the dispute could only help the Communist Vietcong guerrillas.

We hoped that this issue could be promptly and justly resolved. President Diem, however, did not take the necessary measures to defuse the highly explosive situation. The result was that on November 1 a sudden coup d'etat swept President Diem from power. A new provisional government was set up, headed by a military junta under Gen. Duong Van Minh. During the rebellion President Diem met with a violent and ignominious death. There is something tragic about that because, at one time, he had been a national hero who fought with courage against great odds.

liberty and more vigorous prosecution of the war against the Communists. It is of course too early to be absolutely certain, but the new government seems extremely conscious of the failures of the preceding regime of President Diem and is taking steps to correct them. The new government has vowed to guarantee fundamental liberties, in particular, freedom of religion and freedom of opinion. It has also promised to rewrite the constitution and pave the way for free elections within the next year. We have been encouraged by such expressions of intent.

We also recognize, however, that South Vietnam remains a country with few democratic traditions. There is the risk that the new leaders will drift toward dictatorial rule. The experiences in other countries where the military have taken over the reins of power should make us view the ruling junta in South Vietnam with caution. And aside from this uncertainty the problem of the Vietcong guerrillas still exists. These dedicated Communists remain very strong and very determined. It appears, in fact, that they have stepped up their attacks in recent days. There is no sign that the Communist bloc is faltering in its support of the Vietcong. We are dealing with an enemy that is patient and that is willing to suffer adversity. There still is going to be a long, hard struggle ahead in South Vietnam before we achieve a final victory.

There are good reasons to be optimistic but cautious about the future. The Vietnamese have demonstrated their capacity for sacrifice and their determination to survive as a free people. In South Vietnam the Communist attempt to dominate the Pacific area has been halted. To appropriate a phrase that President Kennedy used in his state of the Union message, the spearpoint of Communist aggression has been blunted in South Vietnam. It is a statement with an optimistic ring to it, and I think we are justified in feeling hopeful about the situation there. We enjoy an advantage which the Communists have not

been able to match. In South Vietnam and in the Pacific area as a whole we are working in free association with free peoples.

There is no stronger basis of relationship between countries. It seems to me that the American commitment in the Pacific is essentially a wise one, and

it deserves our continuing support.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin (at the re

quest of Mr. BURLESON), for the balance of the week, on account of official business.

Mr. ROOSEVELT, for November 14 and 15, 1963, on account of official business in Los Angeles.