1946 the Congress amended the Trading With the Enemy Act to provide for the restoration of this class of enemy nationals of their property seized under the act. The amendment did not, however, make any provision for property owned by persons who have been victimized by the enemy and who had died leaving no heirs.

As a result of this situation, the United States is today the ultimate beneficiary of the property owned by persecutees, in those cases where the enemy succeeded in destroying every vestige of the former owners' family. The bill which my distinguished cosponsors and I have submitted deals with this problem. It provides for the disposition of property for which there are no claimants because the owners and their prospective heirs have died in concentration camps or elsewhere.

In the 80th, 81st, and 82d Congresses, bills were introduced regarding the disposition of such property, with particular respect to its utilization in the United States for relief and

rehabilitation purposes. In the 80th and 81st Congresses the bills passed the Senate on the Consent Calendar and the 81st Congress the bill which reached the floor of the House (S. 603) was approved with certain amendments by the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. It was objected to on the Consent Calendar and was never given a rule by the House Rules Committee and therefore died with the 81st Congress. In the 82d Congress, it was sponsored by Senators Herbert R. O'Conor and ROBERT A. TAFT. It was objected to on the Consent Calendar.

In essence, the bill is predicated on the principle that the property of those who had been persecuted should not be used for war claims against the governments that persecuted the owners of such properties.

As indicated earlier for more than 4 years an individual who was so persecuted has been able to obtain his property by establishing a proper claim. There is a large amount of property, however, for which there are no claimees and it is this so-called heirless property which under the bill we are submitting would be turned over to a successor organization, to be designated by the President and its proceeds to be used for relief and rehabilitation.

For different types of property different successor organizations could be designated under the bill, as for instance, a Catholic successor organization for Catholic persecutees; a Jewish successor organization for Jewish persecutees; and a Protestant organization for Protestant persecutees. The procedures outlined in the bill are quite simple and provide merely for a presumption of heirlessness where no claim has been filed for a period of 2 years after vested of the property. The bill provides a top limit of $3 million in the amount that may be made payable to successor organizations. According to all the information available at this time, the actual amount which could be claimed under the bill would be less than this amount of money.

Similar bills to this one have also been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives WOLVERTON and CROSSER. The principle incorporated in these bills have been endorsed by the Departments of State, Justice, and Treasury, by the United States War Claims Commission and by former Senator O'Conor and Senator TAFT as well as my cosponsors. This is an equitable and constructive piece of legislation which, insofar as I know, has no opposition and I trust it will be readily enacted by the Congress at this session.

AMENDMENT OF COTTON MARKETING QUOTA PROVISIONS OF AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED-AMENDMENT Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I submit for appropriate reference, amendments intended to be proposed by me to the bill (S. 2183) to amend the cotton marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, which was introduced by me on June 23, 1953.

It is a bill which would alter to some degree the cotton-acreage law. The amendments are designed to see if the cotton-producing States can reach some agreement. The previous law was passed after many discussions, which were participated in by the entire Cotton Belt, and represented a final agreement. Thus far it has not been possible to reach an agreement. The new amendments will eliminate part of the controversy by removing from the 1 percent national reserve those new farmers who have been established as farmers between 1947 and 1952. Another new section will provide that a popular referendum may be had either every 3 years or every year; in other words, that a choice may be made between 1 year or 3 years.

In order that the Members of the Senate may have as much opportunity as possible to consider this matter, I now ask unanimous consent that the amend

ments be printed at this point in the body of the RECORD. The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. amendments will be received, appropriately referred, and printed; and, without objection, will be printed in the RECORD.

The amendments submitted by Mr. ANDERSON were received, referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, ordered to be printed, and to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

On page 1, strike lines 3 through 11 and on page 2 strike lines 1 through 5, and insert the following:

"That section 342 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended as follows:

"1. The proviso at the end of the third sentence is changed to read as follows: 'Provided, That the national marketing quota for 1954 shall not be less than the number of bales required to provide a national acreage allotment of 21.5 million acres.'

,,,

Amendment No. II. Section 343 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended as follows:

"SEC. 343. Not later than December 15 following the issuance of the marketing quota proclamation provided for in section 342, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum, by secret ballot, of farmers engaged in the production of cotton in the calendar year in which the referendum is held, to determine whether such farmers are in favor of or opposed to the quota so proclaimed. If more than one-third of the farmers voting in the referendum oppose the national marketing quota, such quota shall become ineffective upon proclamation of the results of the referendum. In lieu of the question whether such farmers favor the national marketing quota so proclaimed, the Secretary may submit in the referendum the questions whether they (1) favor such quota for the one crop and also favor quotas for the three crops of cotton beginning with the crop for which such quota is proclaimed, (2) oppose quotas for such three crops of cotton but favor quotas for the crop for which such quota is proclaimed, or (3) oppose quotas for both the one crop and such three crops. If two-thirds or more of the farmers voting favor quotas for the three crops, no referendum shall be held for the second and third crops and a national marketing quota shall be in effect for each of such three crops for which a national marketing quota is proclaimed under section 342. If more than one-third of the farmers voting in the referendum oppose quotas, such result shall not affect or limit the proclamation and submission to a referendum during any calendar year, as otherwise provided in this section, of a national marketing quota for any subsequent crop. The Secretary shall proclaim the results of any referendum held hereunder within thirty days after the date of such referendum."

Amendment No. III. Section 344 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended as follows:

"1. Subsection (b) is amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a colon and adding the following: "Provided, That the Secretary may reserve not to exceed 1 percent of the national acreage allotment which shall be used by the State committee (1) for adjusting county acreage allotments for counties having farms for which allotments were established under subsection (h) of this section, during the base period used in apportioning the State allotment to counties, and (2) for increasing the acreage reserved by the State committee for new and small farms pursuant to subsection (e) of this section: And provided further, That notwithstanding the foregoing provisions,

no State acreage allotment for the 1954 crop shall be reduced below the acreage planted to cotton in the State in 1952 (1) by more than 27.5 percent for any State which otherwise would be reduced below 30 percent of such 1952 acreage, or (2) by more than 22.5 percent for any other State, and the additional acreage so required shall be in addition to the national acreage allotment and the production from such acreage shall be in addition to the national marketing quota. All or any part of such additional acreage may be added by the State committee to the acreage reserved pursuant to subsection (e) and used as provided therein."

Amendment No. IV. On page 2, line 8, after the word "years", insert: "and conditions (excluding conditions relating only to 1954)."

Amendment No. V. On page 2, line 14, after the word "which", insert: ", together with any acreage added pursuant to subsection (b)."

Amendment No. VI. On page 2, line 22, change "10" to "5."

Amendment No. VII. On page 3, line 10, before the word "acreage" insert "average."

Amendment No. VIII. On page 3, line 11, after the word "adjusted”, insert "as may be necessary."

Amendment No. IX. On page 3, line 12, change the period to a comma, and add the following: "and land, labor, and equipment available for the production of cotton and crop-rotation practices."

Amendment No. X. On page 3, line 24, after the word "and", insert "completely". Amendment No. XI. On page 4, line 13, change "15" to "10."

Amendment No. XII. On page 4, line 18, after the word "to", insert: "other farms in the community which are comparable with respect to."

Amendment No. XIII. On page 5, line 16, strike the period and add the following: "where 1950 is within the base period for such allotments."

port and Export Act so as to provide that certain drugs which are or may be chemically synthesized shall be included within the classification of narcotic drugs.

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REFERRED

The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 60) to provide chapel facilities for Members of Congress was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol is hereby authorized and directed to make available a room, with facilities for prayer and meditation, for the use of Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Architect shall maintain the prayer room for individual use rather than assemblies and he shall provide appropriate symbols of religious unity and freedom of worship.

Address entitled "The First Year of the McGuire Act," delivered by Maurice Mermey, director of the Bureau of Education on Fair Trade, at the 54th annual congress of the National Retail Hardware Association, July 14, 1953.

Editorial entitled "Food for the Needy," published July 3, 1953, in the Minneapolis

RELIEF OF WIDOW AND CHILDREN
OF IRVIN SCRANTON ROSS Morning. Tribune.
CHANGE OF REFERENCE

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, yesterday, on behalf of my colleague, the junior Senator from Vermont [Mr. FLANDERS] and myself, I introduced the bill (S. 2416) for the relief of the widow and children of Irvin Scranton Ross. It is in the nature of a claim bill, although it might not have been completely clear from the wording of the bill. The bill was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Obviously it should have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare be discharged from the further consideration of the bill and that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

HOUSE BILLS REFERRED The following bills were each read twice by their titles and referred to the Committee on Finance:

H. R. 5257. An act to extend to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to narcotics; and

H. R. 5561. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code and the Narcotic Drugs Im

Article entitled "Vanderpoel Tells Why He Is Critical of Stock Options," written by Robert P. Vanderpoel and published in the Chicago Sun, April 3, 1953.

By Mr. KUCHEL:

Article entitled "The New Guard: Senator KNOWLAND, of California, Represents a Different GOP," written by John Chamberlain and published in Barron's magazine of July 6, 1953.

By Mr. SCHOEPPEL:

Editorial entitled "Some Words About TAFT," published in the Pittsburg (Kans.) Headlight.

By Mr. CLEMENTS:

Article regarding the recent trip of Adlai E. Stevenson through Asia, written by Barry Bingham and published in the Louisville Courier-Journal of May 3, 1953.

By Mr. THYE:

Editorial entitled "A Good Batting Average," published in the Christian Science Monitor of July 8, 1953.

By Mr. LANGER:

Resolution adopted by the Junior Order United American Mechanics, and accompanying letter.

By Mr. YOUNG:

Editorial entitled "A Lesson for Us," deal

ing with the economic situation of France. By Mr. MONRONEY:

Editorial entitled "It Is Time To Stop MCCARTHY," published in the Southeast Oklahoman, of Hugo, Okla.; editorial entitled "MCCARTHY Exposed," published in the Stillwater Daily News-Press, of Stillwater, Okla.; and an editorial entitled "Congress as Investigator," published in the New York Times.

By Mr. LEHMAN:

Article entitled "Treasury-Post Office Appropriation Bill," published in the July issue of the Customs Service News, dealing with the appropriation for the customs service.

URGENCY OF PASSAGE OF EMERGENCY IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION AT THIS SESSION

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, last

night I joined with my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee in approving a compromise version of the President's emergency immigration bill.

I have spoken on a number of occasions on the Senate floor on this issue, most recently on July 10, as recorded, beginning on page 8423 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

I shall not take time at present to comment in further detail on this issue, but I make this appeal: that when the bill is scheduled for debate in the Senate we act upon it expeditiously and favorably.

I ask unanimous consent that a brief memorandum I have prepared on this issue may be printed at this point in the body of the RECORD.

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

MEMORANDUM BY SENATOR WILEY ON PRESIDENT'S IMMIGRATION BILL

We will soon have before us a somewhat revised version of the President's immigration bill. Let there be full and fair debate on it, but let not the debate go to such lengths as to endanger either the bill as a whole, or the substance of the bill.

As we approach the end of the Senate session and a great many important bills come before us, it is quite clear that a particular responsibility falls on all of the Members of the Senate.

A small minority of Senators, by consuming excessive time, can kill entire bills or force complete and devastating changes in bills simply because time is running out.

If changes must be made, let them be made on the basis of the merits involved, but not on the basis of using the shortage of time to force through unmerited changes.

THREEFOLD ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THIS
LEGISLATION

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I feel a particular responsibility for this legislation.

Its passage will simultaneously achieve many purposes.

It will constitute

1. A sound, humanitarian step which conforms to America's noble tradition of providing a haven for worthy emigrants from tyranny.

2. A sound step in international relations which will be fully understood and appreciated by the many nations and peoples affected, both in front of and behind the Iron Curtain.

3. A sound answer to the domestic exponents of fear; the exponents of an America allegedly doomed to depression.

It is an answer to those of little faith who are so fearful as to our future as to try to slam the door against this relatively tiny number of individuals, tiny as compared to the million immigrants whom we welcomed year after year at the start of this century, tiny as compared to our 160 millions of people.

RESPONSIBILITY ON THE OPPONENTS

I can appreciate the deep feeling held by those who oppose this legislation. They number several of my dear and most esteemed colleagues.

But they have had their fair chance to hold hearings, to debate, to revise. They will have further opportunity on the Senate floor and still further opportunity when this bill goes to conference.

Theirs is a heavy responsibility. I hope that they will exercise it wisely-in a manner worthy of their own fine record of service here in the Senate.

The President of the United States has requested this bill. There is every reason why we should honor that request. I wish indeed that his request substantially in its original form, might have been fully honored.

I need hardly point out that this issue has been discussed in the public print a good

deal.

POISON AND HATE FROM A BIGOTED OUTSIDE MINORITY

But included in the opposition is a relatively small minority of outside individuals and groups who have poured forth an unending stream of vicious, hateful, slanderous abuse-principally against the 18 Republican Senators including myself who joined in cosponsoring S. 1917 and against the President for suggesting it in the first place.

That abuse, as I have once before indicated, is based on a poisoned well of antiCatholicism and anti-Semitism.

The anti-Semitism is particularly vile in connection with this bill, because so tiny a percentage of individuals of the Jewish faith is involved in any way at all among the potential immigrants.

I know that these worthy members of the opposition would disassociate themselves completely from the slanderous attacks by the bigoted, hate-filled, discriminationscreaming outside minority.

END INDULGENCE IN PERSONALITIES

Now, it is being only frank to point out that, during the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee discussions, some rather harsh words were uttered.

I personally have not participated in such harsh comment, so I have nothing personally to regret.

But I am sure that all the members of the committee do feel that it would have been better all the way around had we been able to proceed on this issue without the occasional indulgence in personalities which, unfortunately, occurred, because of the deep feelings.

However, what is past is past.

Let not the bitterness of that committee discussion pour over onto the Senate floor. Let us have a fair, prompt discussion on the

issues in a manner worthy of the Senate's finest traditions.

TRIBUTE TO SENATORS WATKINS AND DIRKSEN I feel I would be somewhat remiss in completing this brief statement if I did not pay particular tribute to two of my colleagues who, I feel, rendered special service of leadership in the course of the prolonged committee debate.

I refer to the senior Senator from Utah,

Mr. WATKINS, and the junior Senator from Illinois, Mr. DIRKSEN.

With understanding, with patience, with skill, they sought to be and were worthy of their heavy responsibility. And, without in any way detracting from the contributions of others, I do want to convey this commendation of them.

And I want to express a word of commendation to the White House as well, in operation with the Hill in working out a its helpful, factual, respectful efforts in comutually acceptable version.

On Monday it is proposed to take up the small defense plants bill, S. 1523, which has been ordered reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency; then Calendar No. 579, Senate bill 2047, providing for the sale of Government-owned rubber-producing facilities. We may also consider Calendar No. 320, Senate bill 1461, the so-called time-lag bill. It is not certain that we shall reach that bill at that time, but I wish Senators to be advised that it may come up.

It is planned that there shall be a night session on Monday, and I assume it will be a fairly late session.

I wish to call the attention of the mi

nority leader to the possibility of taking up on Tuesday Calendar No. 595, Senate bill 498, and Calendar No. 582, Senate bill 2399, the atomic energy bill, which we previously had under consideration and laid aside. I think the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] will probably be prepared to take it up at that time.

On Wednesday it is expected that we shall take up Calendar No. 600, House bill 5969, which is the Department of Defense appropriation bill.

On Wednesday morning the Senate will meet at 10 o'clock, so that we can get off to an early start on the Defense Department appropriation bill.

I hope to be able to announce late Monday afternoon the further legislative program, after consultation with the policy committee and with the minority leader. I thought Senators might like to be advised as to what we have in mind for next week.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Is it the intention of the distinguished acting majority leader to take up the time-lag bill before the small defense plants bill and the bill disposing of the Government rubber plants, or following those bills? Mr. KNOWLAND. I think it will be following those bills. It may be that the time-lag bill will go over until Tuesday, depending upon the general legislative situation. Several Senators have asked whether we proposed to follow through with the unfinished business today. I gave assurances to the Senate and to the Senator from Texas that we would not take up the time-lag bill today, but that it would go over until next week.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. As I under

stand, it is the plan of the acting majority leader to put the small defense plants bill and the so-called rubber bill ahead of the time-lag bill.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Yes. It is my intention to take up the other two bills ahead of it.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield.

Mr. MCCARRAN. I am reliably informed that an agreement has been reached with respect to Calendar No. 293, Senate bill 1857, which is the socalled O'Mahoney bill for condemnation of water rights. I do not believe that consideration of the bill would require more than a few minutes. I wonder if it could not be wedged in somewhere, either on Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I will say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada that I will be very glad to discuss it with the Policy Committee, which will meet on Monday morning, and also with the minority leader, to see if we can provide for it on Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Could we have the bill called up on the call of the calendar today? It might go through by unanimous consent.

Mr. KNOWLAND. May I ask the Senator from Nevada a question? He said an agreement has been reached. Are there additional amendments?

Mr. MCCARRAN. No; there are no additional amendments, excepting the amendment which comes is to be offered pursuant to the agreement and which I have in my hand.

Mr. KNOWLAND. If the Senator will permit me to take it up with the majority and minority calendar committees I will try to find out if we can dispose of it on the call of the calendar.

Mr. SMATHERS. Does the Senator from Nevada know whether the senior

Mr. LANGER. Could we not have some indication as to when we might

withdrawn his objection to Calendar No. 293, Senate bill 1857, to amend certain statutes providing expeditious judicial

proceedings for the condemnation of lands for public purposes?

Mr. MCCARRAN. I have no information on that point.

Mr. SMATHERS. We have a standing request to interpose an objection to that from the senior Senator from Oklahoma. Until he withdraws the objection we feel constrained to object.

Mr. KNOWLAND. If an agreement regarding the bill can be brought about, and if the Senator will advise me, I will see if we can include it in the program for the early part of next week.

Mr. MCCARRAN subsequently said: Mr. President, referring again to Calendar No. 293, Senate bill 1857, it was reported by the Judiciary Committee May 18, 1953, and placed on the calendar. Since that time there have been amendments offered by me in order to clarify the intent of this legislation. Those amendments also were suggested by the minority Policy Committee.

This bill is based upon the provisions of what is commonly known as the Millikin-O'Mahoney amendment to the act of December 26, 1944. The staff of the Judiciary Committee, together with the office of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN], have worked out further amendments which I understand meet with the approval of the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

In view of the amendments which have been offered, I have drafted an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the

bill which incorporates all the amend ments heretofore suggested. I submit this amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1857 to the Senate for its consideration in lieu of S. 1857. I ask that the amendment be printed and lie on the table, so that Senators may have access to it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HENDRICKSON in the chair). The amendment will be received, printed, and lie on the table.

REPORT TO THE NATION BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, last night a joint report to the Nation was made by the Honorable John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, and the Honorable Walter S. Robertson, Assistant Secretary of State, which was carried on national radio networks throughout the country. In my opinion the address is of such importance, in the light of the present world situation, that I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in full in the body of the RECORD. There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

This has been an important week for us in the State Department. Last Tuesday night we finished a 5-day meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Britain, France, and the United States. On Wednesday, Mr. Walter Robertson, Assistant Secretary of State, returned from Korea. He had gone there at the President's and at my request to work out with President Rhee the conditions which would make an armistice possible, if the Communists want one. A little later I am going to ask Mr. Robertson some questions about his mission, but first I shall speak about the Foreign Ministers' meeting.

It was a good meeting. It developed ways for us to work together for peace and justice in many parts of the world. President Eisenhower's great speech of April 16, which he called The Chance for Peace, was heard around the world. Leaders in other free countries joined in the same refrain. Now we have gone ahead to put these ideals into practice.

GERMANY

Of our many agreements, perhaps the most significant was our invitation to the Soviet Union to talk with us about unity and freedom for Germany and Austria. That invitation was delivered the day before yesterday. If the Soviet accepts, we shall have a Four Power meeting. So far, we have no clue as to what the response will be.

Germany remains divided because the Soviet Union has continuously blocked our efforts to end the occupation and to unite Germany. The German people in the Russian zone are suffering cruelly. Their sufferings are not only material but moral. They are desperately short of food, and the Soviet Union will not let them take it from us. I wonder why. Ever since the end of the war, these East Germans have been living under a reign of terror. But even 8 years of this has not crushed their spirit, and their mood is becoming more and more rebellious. Since last month there have been serious outbreaks. The Russians had to call in their tanks and impose martial law. The situation is explosive. The Soviets admit that their regime there has been a failure.

Chancellor Adenauer, the head of the Federal Republic of West Germany, thinks that now, at last, it might be possible to unite Germany. So, in consultation with him, we are trying again to achieve that goal.

they really want peace they ought to allow the Germans to unite and, by free elections, to establish their own all-German Government. That is our proposal.

Soviet rulers keep talking about peace. If

AUSTRIA

At the foreign ministers' meeting we decided to try again to bring to Austria an end of the military occupation. As long ago as 1947 a treaty giving independence had been almost totally agreed upon between the Soviet Union and the three Western Powers. However, the Soviet Union always refused to complete the treaty. It has gone on occupying eastern Austria and gone on exploiting its economy. Here again the occupied people are reaching a stage of exasperation. It is another situation where the Soviet rulers, if they really want the peace of which they talk so much, will now at long last agree to a treaty which will give freedom and independence to Austria.

SATELLITE STATES

We did not forget the other peoples of Eastern Europe who at one time formed free and independent nations but who are now in bondage to Soviet Russia. Such countries as Rumania, and the Baltic States ought to reCzechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria,

cover the real independence of which their people were so justly proud. They are entitled to institutions which reflect their belief in God, their love of country, and their desire for human dignity. The foreign ministers of Britain and France agreed with us to express our desire to see true liberty restored in the countries of Eastern Europe.

The mounting resentment of the oppressed peoples is a danger to Russia and a danger to peace. Here again is an area within which the Soviet Union can, if it wishes, act to assure the peace of which it talks so much.

ΝΑΤΟ

We thought much about the Atlantic Community. The North Atlantic Treaty binds 14 nations to work together to safeguard the freedom, the common heritage, and the civilization of their peoples. Under that treaty there has been created the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization, commonly known as NATO. It has a military force to which the members contribute and which safeguards the vital interests of them all.

Our Congress is at the point of appropriating funds which will represent our next year's contributions to this NATO force. Some talk as though this were a giveaway program. It is no more of a giveaway of United States money than it is a giveaway when you and I pay to provide for a municipal police force or fire department to protect us. We pay for collective security, because by joining together we get the most protection at the least cost. The NATO force is a police force for the Atlantic Community. The other members, together, contribute to it much more than we do. The resultant military force, which General Eisenhower first commanded, and which General Gruenther now commands, gives protection which is vital to the United States. To illustrate, let us suppose that the coal and iron and the tremendous industrial capacity of Western Europe were to fall into hostile hands. That would be a disaster which would cost us far more than our contribution to NATO. So, to get insurance against such risks, we affirmed that NATO must go on.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

At the heart of this NATO organization there lie six continental countries of Western Europe. They are developing organic unity. Already they have created a coal and steel community. They have signed a Defense Community Treaty to create a common defence force. A treaty for political unity is being worked on. The three Ministers agreed that these developments were of the utmost importance and that the creation of the European Defense Community was a necessary step.

tary delays in taking this step. Some seem There have been disappointing parliamen

to think that this European Defense Community has no purpose except to meet the threat from the Soviet Union, so that if that treat were to diminish then the community would be unnecessary. That is not the true case at all. The basic reason for European unity is that disunity has, for 150 years, been a source of wars which have disastrously weakened the western European countries themselves, and have involved others in grievous trouble. The United States is among the sufferers.

President Eisenhower, on the basis of his experience in Europe, both as supreme commander during the Second World War and also as head of the NATO forces, is convinced of the necessity of unity between the nations of continental Europe. If that unity does not come about, if the old structure of national rivalry is rebuilt as the world's greatest fire hazard, that will mark the bankruptcy of statesmanship.

This point of view was shared by all at our Foreign Ministers meeting. We particularly emphasized that the unity of Europe was necessary in itself and that its consummation should in no way be dependent upon the existence of tension with the Soviet Union. If there were no Soviet tension at all, the uniting of Europe would still be essential for lasting peace.

That unification is not directed against Eastern Europe or Russia, as the three Ministers pointed out. The European Community is open to others, provided only that they are free. If, for example, true liberty were restored to Czechoslovakia, it could become a member of the European Community and enjoy the vast economic and security benefits which are available to the community members.

It is really amazing that the Soviet rulers are trying so hard to prevent this unification of Europe. Russia was one of the principal victims of the two world wars which began in Western Europe. If the Soviet rulers really want the peace about which

they talk so much, they will stop the fanatical and senseless Communist opposition to European unity and instead endorse it.

INDOCHINA

We turned to the Far East and exchanged views about Indochina. In the past there has been some criticism of the French Republic for failing to promise liberty and independence to the three associated states of Indochina-Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. It was felt that the peoples of these countries needed something of their own for which to fight. The basis for that criticism should now be removed. The French Government has given assurance that it stands ready to grant complete sovereignty and independence to the three associated states. Negotiations on this matter will start in the near future.

Last Monday Mr. Bidault, the French Foreign Minister, and I invited the representatives of these three states to meet with us. We found that they looked forward eagerly to working out arrangements with the French Government to complete their sovereignty and independence. It seemed that they do not want to be wholly divorced from France. They have, with France, strong bonds of a cultural, economic, and military nature. These can be preserved, consistent with full independence, within the French Union, which, like the British Commonwealth, offers a possibility of free association of wholly independent and sovereign nations.

This action of the French Government makes clear the distinction between those who would grant independence and those who would destroy it. It should make it easier to stop Communist aggression in that part of the world.

We discussed plans for military operations in Indochina. These are being developed by the French General Navarre who has re

cently gone there. Our Government sent.

General O'Daniel to confer with him. We believe that the new French plans are vigorous and deserve to be implemented in that spirit. The United States has a large interest in the matters because our position in the western Pacific could be put in jeopardy if Communists were allowed to overrun the southeast Asian peninsula of which Indochina forms a major part. We are already helping there with material aid. This involves the second largest cost item of our mutual security program, participation in the NATO army being first. I believe we should help effective resistance to Communist aggressors everywhere, and in Indochina it may save us from having to spend much more money to protect our vital interests in the Pacific.

KOREA

Of course, our Foreign Ministers meeting gave much consideration to Korea. We endorsed the efforts of the United Nations Command to conclude an early armistice on the honorable terms which the command has proposed. But we are not suppliants. We are ready for honorable peace. But if the Communists want war, we must be ready for that, too.

The Communists have been pretending that there cannot be an armistice because the U. N. Command does not guarantee the future conduct of the Republic of Korea. That is absurd. The proposed armistice does not guarantee the future conduct of any government. I wish that someone would guarantee the future good conduct of the Communist regime of China. But President Rhee has given explicit assurance that he will not obstruct in any manner the implementation of the proposed armistice.

At the Foreign Ministers' meeting, France and Great Britain joined with us in some important commitments about Korea. We agreed that if there is an armistice and political conference, we shall try our best to bring about Korean unity by peaceful means. Furthermore, we agreed that if the Communists should violate the armistice, we

As President Eisenhower said in his April 16 address, an armistice in Korea that merely released aggressive armies to attack elsewhere would be a fraud. We are on our guard against that.

gression, a spirit unexcelled in any other country of the world. The Korean Army, equipped by us, holding two-thirds of the battlefront, is the largest, best-trained antiCommunist army in Asia. Such an indomitable spirit and such an army are powerful assets to be preserved not destroyed.

"Secretary DULLES. What was the final attitude of President Rhee toward an armistice when you said good-bye to him in Seoul last Sunday?

"Assistant Secretary ROBERTSON. We were both very pleased that we had been able to reach a wide area of agreement. The agreement was such that the United Nations command was satisfied that it could in good faith proceed with an armistice confident, as you said earlier, Mr. Secretary, that President Rhee would offer no obstruction to its im

Now let me ask a few questions of Mr. plementation. Robertson:

"Secretary DULLES. Won't you tell us why you went to Korea?

"Assistant Secretary ROBERTSON. I went, Mr. Secretary, because you and President Eisenhower sent me. My mission, as you know, was to clear up misunderstandings which were threatening to wreck allied unity at a time when we needed most to be unified. I carried messages from President Eisenhower and from you to President Rhee assuring him of America's good will and friendship for the people of Korea, of America's admiration for the magnificent and enduring fortitude shown by the South Korean people in defense of their liberties and of your personal sympathetic understanding of President Rhee's concern for the future of his country.

"Secretary DULLES. What did you find the Korean attitude toward an armistice to be?

"Assistant Secretary ROBERTSON. The Korean people were not opposed to the armistice because they like to suffer and to die. They were opposed to it because of a deep

fear that the armistice is but a Communist trick and device to win by negotiation what they have failed to achieve on the battlefield-a deep fear that the United Nations were weary of the struggle and might sacrifice Korea as Koreans feel they have been sacrificed in the past to great power interests. My task was to convince President Rhee that the United Nations objective, the United States objective and the Republic of Korea's objective, namely, a free, independent and united Korea, were one and the same, that our differences lay not in objectives but in methods to be used for the achievement of a common objective. The bitterness ere and arong some of our United Nations allies caused by President Rhee's unilateral action in releasing some 27,000 anti-Communist prisoners is duplicated in Korea by a bitterness distilled of their fears. Whatever the cause of the bitterness on both sides, it needed to be removed.

"Secretary DULLES. Why is it so important for us to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Republic of Korea?

"Assistant Secretary ROBERTSON. Because the enemy we face in Korea is the same ruthless evil force which threatens free people along the perimeter of the globe. It seeks to destroy not only Korea but the entire free world as well. By no possible circumstance consistent with honor should we permit a situation to develop where we find ourselves fighting against our ally, the brave people of Korea, who are bearing the human brunt of the battle and who have suffered incredibly for their cause and ours.

"The devastation and suffering which has struck this little country adds up to a ghastly total. Approximately 1 million human lives have been lost. There are an estimated 22 million refugees, 5 million are destitute, approximately 600,000 houses have been destroyed, with war damages of approximately $1 billion. Despite this frightful toll, the crusading spirit of President Rhee has inspired the people with an amazing courage, fortitude, and will to fight Communist ag

"Secretary DULLES. I know that you had a great deal of discussion with President Rhee about the political conference which might follow an armistice. This was one of the things about which he has been worried. What was his final attitude on this matter?

"Assistant Secretary ROBERTSON. You are quite right, Mr. Secretary, that was one of the great worries of President Rhee. He was afraid that the political conference might be carried on indefinitely as a device to perpetuate uncertainty and as a cover behind which his country might be infiltrated and his people subjected to hostile propaganda. We agreed that if it should turn out that way—if it were obvious that the Communists were not negotiating in good faith, we would try to end the conference as a sham and a hostile trick.

"Secretary DULLES. Many here ask if we can trust President Rhee to carry out his assurances. What is your impression?

"Assistant Secretary ROBERTSON. It is natural that there should be doubts. I might say that there are many in Korea who ask whether the Republic of Korea can trust the United States to carry out its assurances. I have no doubt on either score. I feel confident of President Ree's sincerity and of his intention to carry out in good faith his assurances to me. This is no time for us to doubt each other. We need to work together in confidence as friends and allies. I hope that my mission helped to put our relationship on that basis.

"Secretary DULLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Robertson. You have done a fine job of diplomacy in accordance with our best American tradition.

"Assistant Secretary ROBERTSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I should have been completely helpless without the wise counsel and support of President Eisenhower, of yourself, and of the congressional leaders with whom I know you were in frequent consultation."

CONCLUSION

Now, I conclude with two points:

1. The policies we are now pursuing are showing their worth. Today it is the despots who are worried and seeking new leaders and new plans. The satellite countries are in a state of unrest, and within the Soviet Communist Party convulsions are occurring. The No. 2 man of the triumvirate which was supposedly to govern Russia, who was head of the secret police, is today a victim of his own system of terror. It is impossible to predict what may happen in Russia. What can be said with confidence is that, under such policies as President Eisenhower has proclaimed, the free world is getting stronger, while strain and stress rocks the Soviet and satellite world.

2. Our program for Europe and Asia is a program for peace and for the liberty and justice which are necessary if peace is to be durable. Repression can give the illusion of peace, but it is only illusion. For sooner or later the repression becomes unbearable and human emotions explode with violence. That is why we seek liberty for the satellite countries. That is why we seek unity and