[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 23 (Monday, March 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      HONORING DR. WALTER H. JUDD

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 
passing of one of the greatest statesmen of the American century, my 
former Congressman and dear friend Dr. Walter H. Judd. Last month, 
Walter Judd died of cancer at the Collington Life Care Community in 
Mitchellville, MD.
  It was my great honor and privilege to know this truly historic 
Minnesotan. He represented the Fifth Congressional District of 
Minnesota in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1943 to 1963, and 
he performed very ably the daily tasks of a Member of Congress.
  But the importance of Walter Judd extends far beyond the boundaries 
of the Fifth Congressional District, indeed far beyond the borders of 
the United States. Because Walter Judd was a key voice for human 
liberty at a time when America was most in need of that kind of moral 
leadership.
  In the late 1930's, when a surprisingly large number of Americans 
chose to remain blind to the threat of Japanese militarism, Walter Judd 
made literally over a thousand speeches to wake up the American people. 
His alarm about that danger proved to be well-founded.
  Equally well-founded was his concern about the expansion of global 
communism in the post-World War II era. Because of the truly immoral 
excesses of some notorious anti-Communists of that era, it has become 
very common to dismiss 1950's anticommunism as a hysterical descent 
into national paranoia. But the anticommunism of Walter Judd was not 
the anticommunism of Joseph McCarthy.
  His anticommunism was not a partisan posture, or what our spin 
doctors of today would call a wedge issue. He did not attack communism 
as just another way to beat up Democrats. He attacked communism with 
every fiber of his being, because he saw that millions of people around 
the globe were being deprived of their chance for liberty by this 
seemingly unstoppable ideological force.
  He was against communism because he cared about people. Verne 
Johnson, his one-time administrative assistant, said that Walter was a 
``preacher--and his gospel was the menace of communism.'' He was a man 
of ``integrity * * * he never asked `what's in it for me?'''
  Indeed, his whole career is cut from the same cloth. He started out 
as a medical missionary in China in 1925--serving for roughly 10 years 
in that turbulent posting.
  He was a doctor because he cared about people. And that level of 
human concern never deserted him--whether he was in China, or at the 
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, or at his Minneapolis practice at the 
corner of Lake and Hennepin, or in the halls of the U.S. Congress.
  Walter was born and raised in Nebraska, 1 of 7 children of a 
lumberman. It was a tough place, and taught Walter about the need for 
self-reliance and the importance of family. Three of his brothers 
failed to reach the age of 20.
  In 1981, President Reagan conferred on Dr. Judd the highest civilian 
honor of the United States--the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Reagan 
pointed out that Judd was--and I quote Reagan's remarks at that 
ceremony:

       An articulate spokeman for all those who cherish liberty 
     and a model for all Americans who aspire to serve mankind as 
     physicians, spiritual leaders, and statesmen.

  That is the Walter Judd that so many of us back home in Minnesota 
knew, loved, and admired.
  Norm Carpenter, who married Walter's daughter Mary Lou, observed that 
while Walter was not a soundbite politician, his speeches succeeded 
nonetheless in inspiring generations of Americans. ``People used to say 
of Adlai Stevenson, `what a wonderful speech!' Of Hubert Humphrey, 
`Where do I sign up?' Walter Judd combined both. He moved people--
inspired them to action.''
  And the same Walter Judd was named by his congressional colleagues in 
1962 as one of the five most admired and influential Members of 
Congress. His voice on foreign policy issues was one of the most 
respected of his time--and his reputation was well-deserved.
  A statesman of the order of Minnesota Congressman Bill Frenzel 
referred to Walter as a truly ``senior mentor * * * you could always 
call him (for advice).''
  Walter Judd proves that if you care enough about people--and tell the 
truth about how human happiness can be protected and increased--you can 
make a huge difference for the better on this planet. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in mourning the passing of this great American, 
and in extending our sincerest condolences to his widow, Miriam, to 
whom he was married for 62 years--a remarkable woman who--in Verne 
Johnson's words--was the glue of the family when Walter was out leading 
his national crusade.
  We also send warmest condolences to Walter's daughters Mary Lou 
Carpenter of Minneapolis, Carolyn Judd of Los Angeles, and Eleanor 
Quinn in Hartford; seven grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.
  I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Judd's historic keynote address, 
delivered to the 1960 Republican National Convention on July 25, 1960, 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 We Must Develop a Strategy for Victory * * * To Save Freedom! Freedom 
                             Everywhere\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     \1\Keynote Address to the 1960 Republican National 
     Convention, July 25, 1960, Chicago, Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       As we meet tonight in this Republican National Convention 
     of 1960 I do not believe you want me to indulge in the 
     traditional keynote speech, blaming the other party for 
     everything that is bad, taking credit to ourselves for 
     everything that is good, and promising that if you voters 
     will just elect us to office this fall, we will solve every 
     problem, increase every benefit, expand every existing 
     program, start a whole flock of new ones, give everyone 
     everything he wants--and reduce the national debt at the same 
     time!
       The times in which we meet are too serious for that.
       The problems we face are too disturbing.
       Our country's safety--your safety and mine--are too gravely 
     endangered.
       What the American people want to know as they watch us here 
     tonight is: which party has the greatest capacity to keep 
     this country safe and sound!
       Which party is the most alert to and best understands the 
     powerful forces against us, abroad and at home?
       Which party has the ablest, the most experienced, the best 
     qualified and the finest men to lead our country through the 
     perilous months and years ahead?
       We do not pretend that our party is always right and the 
     Democratic Party is always wrong.
       We know, as do you who are listening, that both Democrats 
     and Republicans want a strong, free and prosperous America in 
     a peaceful and secure world. The difference between the 
     two parties is not over those good objectives, but over 
     the best way to achieve those good objectives--and keep 
     them.
       Some Democrats have regularly tried to make it appear that 
     Republicans are opposed to various good ends--such as 
     security for old age, adequate medical care, better 
     education, better housing, protection of the rights of labor, 
     aid to agriculture--just because we do not agree with the 
     solutions they advocate, believing they are not the right way 
     to get what we all want. But it is not because we are against 
     the good ends; it is precisely because we are for them that 
     we oppose measures we believe are unsound.
       It is the obligation of the Republican Party and its 
     members to show that loose fiscal policies, while temporarily 
     gratifying, in the end inhibit growth rather than expand it.
       Sometimes we are told that to win elections, we Republicans 
     should make more grandiose promises, like those the 
     opposition party made at its Convention. Maybe that is a way 
     to win elections; but we repudiate it, first because it would 
     not be shooting square with you, the voters; and second, it 
     would not succeed. For there is no chance of our out-
     promising the Democrats.
       Overshadowing everything else as we meet is the hard fact 
     that a powerful enemy threatens us on every front. If is the 
     most dangerous assault upon us in our history, in past 
     because it is so different from any previous threat.
       And without victory in this struggle, there will be no 
     survival of freedom for any of us--Democrats or Republicans.
       The Republican Party was born in a time of crisis. It was 
     brought into being by the strong free spirits of a century 
     ago, to deal with the gravest issue of the nineteenth 
     century--Human Slavery.
       In 1860 in this city the Republican Party nominated as its 
     candidate for the Presidency of the United States a man who 
     had risen from the humblest beginnings to become a leader in 
     the effort to end human slavery without destroying the Union.
       He led the party to victory, the nation to salvation, and 
     the people to a rededication to the sound principles on which 
     the country had been founded and had grown great.
       We want tonight, both to honor Abraham Lincoln and to learn 
     from him.
       Please God, we may do as well with our divided world as he 
     did with his divided nation.
       For the gravest issue of our century is also Human 
     Slavery--this time not men enslaved by other men; but far 
     more complex and dangerous, masses of men enslaved by 
     governments.
       More human beings are in bondage tonight than ever before 
     in human history.
       Nine hundred million abroad are denied by their government 
     the right to worship, to speak, to assemble, to join, to own; 
     the right of a man to choose or to change his work and to 
     live his own life with his family and friends--in freedom.
       In this total situation, the Republican Party stands today 
     as it has from the beginning--for freedom and against 
     slavery.
       You will judge both parties not by promises but by 
     performance. And it is on the basis of our record of solid 
     performance that we proudly present to you in this 
     convention, an honest accounting of our stewardship during 
     these eight years--and a look at the future.
       How well have we done what we said we would do when you 
     elected us?
       How do we propose to deal with the challenges we face now, 
     at home and abroad?
       Why do we believe our principles and proposals offer 
     greatest hope for accomplishing the greatest good and the 
     greatest growth for America in the next four years?
       Let us deal first with our international relations.
       We said in 1952 we believed we could get and maintain peace 
     with honor. We have done it.
       We brought to an end the fighting in the Korean War which 
     the Truman Administration would not win and could not stop.
       It did not make sense to continue to enlist American youth 
     and exhort them to fight well in the noblest tradition of 
     America's greatest heroes--but not to fight too well because 
     then they might win, and that might provoke the enemy. They 
     should give all they had, their lives--and over 33,000 did--
     but they must not win! It was the first war ever fought--so 
     far as I am aware--in terms of trying to please the enemy! To 
     continue that war was madness.
       Then President Eisenhower took charge. It took time and 
     patience and skill, but within nine months, the fighting was 
     brought to a close--without dishonor, without sacrificing the 
     interests of any ally, or weakening our security position in 
     the Pacific. We Republicans are proud of that accomplishment.
       In addition, this Administration has prevented a half dozen 
     other threats from developing into war--Trieste, the 
     Mossadegh uprising in Iran, Guatemala, Formosa, Suez, 
     Lebanon, Quemoy, West Berlin.
       How was it done? Not by sacrificing our principles in 
     secret deals under the table; but by steady, patient firmness 
     and strength in support of principles.
       What principles? First, our own historic principles; human 
     freedom; keeping our word; steadfast support of friends and 
     allies. And, second, wholehearted support of the United 
     Nations.
       In short, our efforts everywhere have been to help build 
     free nations up; the efforts of the Communists everywhere are 
     to pull free governments down.
       It does not avail, however, to be firm in support of 
     principles unless we have the strength to back it up. This 
     Administration has built up gigantic strength in our own 
     armed forces and given vital assistance in building up the 
     strength of other nations standing with us against the common 
     threat.
       Ours is a balanced power, not all our eggs in one basket, 
     whether it be a bomber basket, missile, submarine, or any 
     other basket.
       President Eisenhower will perhaps have something to say on 
     this subject tomorrow night. I hope those who have thought 
     they knew more about our armed strength than he and our Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, will listen in too.
       But I am compelled to take notice here of certain charges 
     made by the opposition party.
       It is claimed that this Administration allowed a missile 
     gap to develop. No, it found a missile gap and has managed to 
     get it almost closed.
       When President Eisenhower took office in 1953, the 
     preceding administration had actually retarded work in this 
     field, even though it knew that the Soviet Union was making 
     tremendous efforts.
       The Truman Administration in eight years had spent 
     seventeen times more for price supports for peanuts than for 
     long range missiles.
       The Eisenhower Administration is today putting forty times 
     as much into such missiles each month as the previous 
     Administration did in eight years.
       It took the Soviet Union twelve years to develop its long 
     range missiles. It took the Administration six years to get 
     ours operational. Anything wrong with that?
       Senator Kennedy was reported by the Press to have said on 
     February 21st of this year, ``We have the greatest deterrent 
     force in history and thank God for that.'' He was right!
       But it is not enough to have such vast overall power. Our 
     primary desire in building such striking force is not to 
     fight a war, but to deter one.
       It is not just the strength that we have, it is the 
     strength that our enemies, our allies and our own people know 
     that we have, which is our hope of deterring war.
       What kind of reckless and irresponsible action is it for 
     anyone to misrepresent the United States as a second-class 
     power, as was done in the Democratic Convention, and thereby 
     encourage the very attacks which all Americans profoundly 
     hope and pray can be prevented?
       Did you see the movie shown at the Democratic National 
     Convention two weeks ago, dredging up scenes of hunger, 
     squalor, and misery in the United States as if they were 
     typical of America? What kind of salesmanship for their 
     country is that?
       Can our nation's prestige be raised by tearing it down?
       It is devoutly to be hoped--because it offers our best 
     chance of avoiding war--that Mr. Khrushchev, in making up his 
     mind about our actual military, economic, and moral strength, 
     will depend a lot more on the reports of his own agents than 
     on the shameful misstatements made in the heat of the Los 
     Angeles convention.
       It is claimed that this Administration has not taken the 
     initiative in the cold war, that we have allowed things to 
     drift. Yet the orators condemn the Republican Administration 
     for brilliant examples of successful initiative. For example, 
     the U-2 flights. If we had not developed U-2 and had not been 
     using it to keep up to date on military preparations within 
     the Soviet Union, we could properly have been charged with 
     inviting another Pearl Harbor. The fact that our U-2 
     operations were so outstandingly successful for four years 
     should be a source of intense pride to all Americans. The U-
     2's were not provoking war, they were helping to prevent war.
       Again, it has been suggested that the president should have 
     done something different or better about Mr. Khrushchev's 
     breakup of the Paris conference. Will they please tell you 
     what they think the American people wanted their president to 
     do? Apologize, and hand over West Berlin? Blow up and start a 
     war? Of course not!
       The facts are that it has been the president himself and 
     secretaries of state Dulles and Herter who on innumerable 
     occasions have warned the American people against optimism 
     regarding any conference with Communists at the summit in the 
     absence of any evidence of change in their objectives and 
     methods.
       Just as Prime Minister Macmillan said a year ago that he 
     thought he ought to go to Moscow to find out if possible just 
     what the Soviets had in mind, so the president invited Mr. 
     Khrushchev to this country, and agreed to go to the Soviet 
     Union; and the Big Three agreed to meet with Khrushchev in 
     Paris--all in the hope of finding ways to get a settlement 
     that might end the cold war without betrayal of our 
     principles, our commitments, or our allies.
       At the Paris conference, everybody hoped that the miracle 
     might take place and Mr. Khrushchev would abandon his avowed 
     purpose to bring bury us--one way or another. Tragically, 
     there was no miracle. Mr. Khrushchev killed the hope.
       But his ruthless torpedoing of the Paris meeting was 
     evidence of the failure of his foreign policy, not ours. His 
     strategy for at least two years had been the old one of 
     trying to conquer the West by dividing it. He tried his best 
     to set our allies against each other and against us. He came 
     to our country and talked about peace and friendship, trying 
     to whittle down our resolution and soothe us into relaxed 
     slumber. He did not succeed.
       When Mr. Khrushchev knew before the Paris conference 
     convened that he had failed to divide, deceive or soften up 
     the free powers, he had no choice but to break up the 
     conference. Otherwise, he would either have had back down on 
     West Berlin, or actually start a war. Either would have been 
     fatal to him. His scuttling of the Paris conference and his 
     grotesque efforts to pin the blame on us were proof positive, 
     not of our weakness, but of our strength.
       With the bold deception of Khrushchev's false peace posture 
     exposed at Paris by himself, he had to change his tactics and 
     make a different effort to divide and conquer. He is now 
     moving heaven and earth to achieve by subversion among the 
     newer or more vulnerable nations of the free world coalition 
     what he could not achieve by division of the western powers. 
     He is trying to upset free governments, one by one, by 
     ordering into action the apparatus the Communists have been 
     systematically building and training in other countries for 
     decades, for the very purpose now revealed so plainly in 
     Japan and Cuba.
       Why did the Communists have to cancel President 
     Eisenhower's visit to Russia and resort to such violent 
     measures in Japan to prevent his visit there? Not because of 
     the ineffectiveness of the President's visits abroad, but 
     because of their demonstrated effectiveness. The Red leaders 
     saw the vast difference between Eisenhower's reception in 
     India, for example, and the receptions given Khrushchev and 
     Chou En-Lai. They didn't dare let Ike chalk up still another 
     tremendous triumph with millions of people in Mother Russia 
     itself, and in a key country like Japan.
       It has been charged that no previous presidents or vice 
     presidents ever suffered such insults abroad--as if somehow 
     that is their fault. There are two inescapable answers. One 
     is that as long as two previous American Presidents were 
     willing to give in to Soviet leaders, they got along famously 
     with them. Why should the Communists insult them as long as 
     they were getting what they wanted?
       Naturally Khrushchev would prefer not to negotiate with a 
     Republican president who he has learned will not be taken in 
     or intimidated or tricked into any concessions, no matter how 
     innocent looking, that would weaken the free world.
       The second answer is that no previous president has faced a 
     Communist conspiracy that was strong and arrogant enough to 
     take such action as Mr. Khrushchev took.
       And how did the Communist conspiracy get so strong and 
     arrogant? That cannot be laid at the door of the Republicans. 
     Look again at the record.
       I would rather not go over the mistakes of the past; 
     there's more than enough to talk about regarding the future. 
     But if Republicans are to be charged with inability to deal 
     with the focus of aggression which those who make the charges 
     helped to build up, then we owe it to the truth to set the 
     record straight.
       The trouble we are in with the Communists is exactly the 
     trouble that Republicans warned for years before 1952 would 
     develop if we followed the courses that were followed.
       Was it Republicans who recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 
     and gave it acceptance into our country and world society as 
     if it were a respectable and dependable member thereof?
       Was it Republicans who, at Tehran, against the urgent 
     advice of Mr. Churchill, agreed to give the Russians a free 
     hand in the Balkans?
       Was it Republicans who secretly divided Poland and gave 
     half of it to the Soviet Union?
       Was it Republicans who agreed to the Communist takeover of 
     a hundred million people in East Europe who are not Russian?
       Was it a Republican Administration which at Potsdam gave 
     the Soviet Union East Germany and left West Berlin cut off 
     from the rest of the free world?
       Was it a Republican Administration that publicly promised 
     that Manchuria would go back to its rightful owners, the 
     Chinese, and then secretly at Yalta gave control of Manchuria 
     to the Russians?
       Was it a Republican Administration that divided Korea and 
     gave control of North Korea to the Communists?
       Was it a Republican Administration that gave to the Soviet 
     Union the Kurile Islands which had never been anybody's 
     except Japan's, thereby endangering both Japan's and our own 
     security in the North Pacific?
       Was it a Republican Administration that rightly put its 
     hand to the plow in Korea, and then when victory was in sight 
     turned back, allowing the Reds to recover so they can make 
     still more trouble in the future?
       Was it a Republican Administration that fell for the 
     Communist offer of a truce in Korea without requiring that 
     the North Korean aggressors lay down their arms and the 
     Chinese Communists get out of Korea where they had no 
     business to be? You know it wasn't.
       In summary, it wasn't under Republicans that 600,000,000 
     human beings disappeared behind the Iron Curtain in the first 
     five years after World War II.
       In fact, the record will show that Republicans opposed 
     these steps every time they were taken.
       What our Republican Administration has done in these eight 
     years is, with initiative and imagination, to stop the 
     process of retreat before the Frankenstein monster that its 
     predecessors did so much to build up.
       We have resolutely opposed anything anywhere that would 
     make Communist regimes stronger and we shall continue to do 
     so.
       That is why, for example, we have opposed and must oppose 
     official recognition of Communist China or its admission into 
     the United Nations, unless or until it will give up in a 
     dependable way its aggressive acts and threats against other 
     countries; that is, give up Communism! Recognition and 
     admission would needlessly present it with smashing 
     victories. Does it make sense to build up an avowed enemy?
       But our refusal to give Red China the tremendous boost of 
     official recognition does not mean--as has been asserted by 
     people who ought to know better--that this Administration has 
     been hiding its head in the sand, or pretending Red China 
     does not exist, or trying to ignore 600 million Chinese. The 
     exact reverse is the truth. This Administration is acutely 
     aware of Red China's existence and the threat it constitutes 
     to freedom, not only in Asia, but everywhere. It was not this 
     Administration which indulged in the illusion that Communists 
     in China are democratic agrarian reformers!
       We are not ignoring Red China. We have been negotiating 
     with its official representatives for five years. The ninety-
     ninth such negotiation, unfortunately still fruitless, took 
     place just last week.
       Surely it is now plain to all that since the Communist 
     world conspiracy remains the same, and since America does not 
     intend to surrender, and since nobody wants a hot war, there 
     is only one alternative left. We must win this cold war.
       To do this we must have leaders who understand this enemy 
     and its tactics, and will mobilize all our resources for the 
     struggle.
       We must use more effectively our strongest weapons, the 
     values and virtues of a system of government which has given 
     freedom and dignity and better living standards to human 
     beings than any other system ever has.
       How many of us understand our own system well enough to 
     sell it to others with contagious enthusiasm, as the 
     Communists are so well trained to sell theirs?
       We must let loose in the world the dynamic forces of 
     freedom in our day as our forefathers did in theirs, causing 
     people everywhere to look toward the American dream.
       Men have always found ways to bring down tyrants in the 
     past; men will find ways to bring down today's tyrants, if 
     only we don't build up the tyrants!
       In short, we have a good strategy for holding. But we 
     cannot hope it win in the end just by holding. We must 
     develop a strategy for victory!
       A new chapter has now been opened by Khrushchev. The Soviet 
     Union stands naked before the world today, self-exposed, its 
     objectives and its unchanging methods of deception and 
     trickery revealed by its own acts.
       It is going to require stronger approaches, different 
     strategies, new tactics by someone who has proved he 
     understands Communism.
       America has the brains, she has the wealth, she has the 
     weapons. Who can best harden into rocklike firmness her will?
       I am confident that the nearer our people come to Election 
     Day next November, the more they will become convinced that 
     the course of wisdom and sureness for America is to continue 
     to entrust the destiny of our Nation to steady, competent, 
     experienced, principled Republican hands.
       The man who will be nominated in this convention as our 
     candidate will be incomparably the best qualified to deal 
     with the relentless cold war which we have tried our best to 
     avoid, but which we now have no choice except to win.
       It has been said by Mr. Kennedy that the most important 
     issue in his campaign is foreign policy. We agree and welcome 
     the test.
       Now let us take a our record on the domestic front. 
     Undeniably this has been overall the best seven-year period 
     in the history of the United States.
       What did we say in 1952 that we would do? First, we said we 
     would be a middle-of-the-road government. We believe that 
     middle-of-the-road government is, in the long run, the best 
     kind of government for everyone. For when anybody or any 
     group, whether at one extreme or the other, gets all it 
     wants, it is at the expense of the people as a whole.
       We promised we would clean out the corruption that was a 
     scandal under the previous Administration and led to more 
     than twenty convictions of high officials. I am proud of the 
     fact that there has not been a single conviction for 
     malfeasance in office of any high official in this 
     Administration. That does not mean everything has been 
     perfect. It does mean that whenever and wherever there was 
     any slightest suspicion of impropriety, this Republican 
     Administration has not tried to cover up; it has cleaned up. 
     That is what you wanted it to do.
       We said we were convinced we could bring prosperity without 
     war--something our predecessors had never been able to do in 
     this century. We succeeded.
       The first requirement was to stabilize our economy and slow 
     down the inflation. It was stealing the people's substance--
     and was especially cruel in its eating away of the value of 
     the pensions and social security benefits which millions of 
     older persons were counting on for the security and serenity 
     they so richly deserve in their years of retirement.
       How could inflation best be checked?
       The Democrats clamored for more controls.
       President Eisenhower announced he would take off the 
     controls.
       You will recall how some screamed that the Republicans were 
     yielding to the profiteers, big business, money interests; 
     prices for common people would now go sky high, and so on.
       But did they? No. The prices which had been rising 
     alarmingly--48 percent in the seven Truman years--promptly 
     leveled off and stayed practically stable for four years. 
     The total rise in prices in these eight Republican years 
     is less than 10%.
       We achieved this stability not by changing our free system, 
     but by using it. It works better than those of little faith 
     in the American people give it credit for.
       We said in 1952 that if the Federal Government would stick 
     to its proper function of running the business of the nation, 
     and get out of trying to manage the affairs of our people, 
     the creative energies of the American people and their 
     millions of individual enterprises would create a vaster 
     expansion of production and trade, with correspondingly 
     greater expansion of jobs than the Government itself could 
     do. We were right or wrong? Well, there were sixty-one 
     million jobs when we took over in 1953. There are sixty-eight 
     million jobs tonight.
       And jobs at higher wages. Wages up 39 percent in these 
     seven years! Do you recall the seven consecutive cost-of-
     living increases that labor had to fight for, just to keep up 
     with inflation under Truman? In contrast, real wages, actual 
     purchasing power, have gone up 20 percent under this 
     Administration.
       To buy a standard market basket of groceries in 1945 under 
     the Roosevelt Administration cost the average worker thirteen 
     hours of labor. To buy the same market basket in 1952 under 
     the Truman Administration too 13.7 hours of labor. To buy it 
     in 1959 under the Eisenhower Administration cost ten hours.
       This is the measure of how much better off rank and file 
     people are today. Does this sound like a party of big 
     business?
       Our workers have better food and clothing for themselves 
     and their families, more homes, more automobiles, more 
     refrigerators, more TVs, more free time for study, for 
     recreation, for sports for travel, for whatever. The record 
     is clear that labor has done better under this Republican 
     Administration than in all its previous history.
       Personal income, the money that goes into your pockets, has 
     gone up a whopping 33 percent--from $301 billion in 1952 to 
     $420 billion in 1960--and in constant dollars.
       Furthermore, a larger share of that higher income than ever 
     before, more than 4 percent larger, goes now into the pay 
     envelopes of workers. Anything wrong with workers getting a 
     bigger share of the national income under the Republicans 
     than they ever got under the Democrats?
       Isn't it plain horse sense to trust for the next four years 
     the leadership which has enabled you to do so well for 
     yourself in the last eight years?
       While the Republican 83rd Congress was in power to 
     cooperate with the Eisenhower Administration during its first 
     two years, we gave this American people the biggest single 
     tax cut in their history--and at the same time expanded 
     the benefits to people; more social security benefits, 
     more for highways, hospitals, health, housing.
       And you still have that tax cut. If I may borrow a phrase 
     that you perhaps remember: Don't let them take it away!
       The Republican record in the area of meeting human needs 
     has been one of remarkable action and progress on all fronts. 
     Contrary to the image promoted by the opposition that they 
     alone are the party of the people.
       Under Social Security 7\1/2\ million more persons are now 
     covered than before. The number of receiving benefits has 
     increased from five to more than fourteen million persons.
       Under the Vocational Rehabilitation program as strengthened 
     by Republicans in 1954, some 400,000 disabled men and women 
     have been returned to active, self-respecting employment and 
     have earned almost $2 billion. This is the true American 
     system of enabling people to do things for themselves.
       Deeply concerned with the increasing complexity of the 
     problems of senior citizens, this Administration has 
     established a staff for research into their problems and how 
     to use their valuable experience and talents. It has called 
     the first White House Conference on the Aging in our nation's 
     history for next January.
       Bold and dramatic steps have been taken to expand medical 
     research in cancer, heart disease, mental illnesses, and 
     other crippling and killing maladies.
       In the seven years prior to 1953, the value of surplus 
     agricultural products distributed in the school lunch program 
     and to needy persons, institutions, schools and Indian 
     reservations totalled $263 million. In the seven years since 
     1953 the total distributed is $960 million worth--3\1/2\ 
     times as much. Anything wrong with that record?
       In short, we have moved vigorously whenever and wherever 
     action by the Federal Government is the proper and best way 
     to deal with any problem affecting public safety and the 
     people's welfare.
       When before did any government ever take less from the 
     people in taxes and give them more in return?
       How was it done? Not by government orders, edicts or 
     controls; and not by government handouts.
       It was done not by changing our principles of freedom of 
     enterprise, but by sticking to them.
       It was done by good Republican management of the 
     government, not management of the people.
       Obviously I cannot try here to outline our detailed 
     proposals for the years ahead. I have not even mentioned 
     vitally important areas like education, health, agriculture, 
     conservation, taxation, and a dozen other issues which 
     would require almost a separate speech each. They will be 
     covered, however, before this Convention is over.
       I want to turn, finally, to some basic principles, tested 
     principles of freedom--which we believe it is necessary for 
     us to understand and follow, if we are to meet successfully 
     the challenges of the future.
       Many Americans have come to think that our two major 
     parties are, after all, just about the same. But it is not 
     so. The main difference between them, as I said in the 
     beginning, is not over good ends. The difference, and it is a 
     profound one, is over means. Which are the right ways to get 
     the good ends?
       We Republicans deeply believe that the first function of a 
     good government is to protect the liberty of the individual 
     citizen, not to take it away.
       There have never been but two basic philosophies of 
     government--government from the bottom up, and government 
     from the top down. Our fathers believed, and so do we 
     Republicans, that most problems can best be solved by the 
     people themselves.
       One philosophy puts its primary faith in government 
     officials. The other puts its primary faith in the good sense 
     and the capabilities of our people.
       One group begins with the assumption that the more complex 
     and complicated a society becomes, the more its control and 
     management must be centralized in an increasingly powerful 
     government.
       We Republicans begin with the same premises and come to 
     exactly the opposite conclusion; namely, that the more 
     complex and complicated a society, the more impossible it is 
     for any centrally located group of men--no matter how able or 
     devoted or sincere--even to grasp all the details of the 
     complicated problems to say nothing of handling those details 
     from Washington.
       We are not against adequate Federal Government. There must 
     be such government to prevent abuses of power. We merely want 
     to keep it limited to its proper fields, so that the liberty 
     of individuals will be protected. The Republican Party stands 
     for liberty.
       In the Democratic Convention you heard a lot about Woodrow 
     Wilson. What did he, a real student of government, think on 
     this issue? In a speech in New York in 1912 he said, 
     ``Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has 
     always come from the subjects of the government. The history 
     of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of Liberty 
     is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the 
     increase of it.''
       Nobody has said it better than that. Yet we now see those 
     who claim to be the followers of Wilson insisting that the 
     way to expand liberty is to increase the powers of 
     government.
       How did our forefathers seek to limit government to its 
     essential functions? By putting the government under a 
     Constitution. Many regard that Constitution as the means by 
     which the government regulates the people. No, it is the 
     magnificent means our forefathers devised by which the 
     people can regulate their government.
       Why did they insist on having a bill of rights in that 
     Constitution? In order to be sure that their government would 
     take care of them? No, in order to be sure that their 
     government could not interfere in their taking care of 
     themselves.
       Rights are not what our government must do for us; rights 
     are what our government cannot do to us.
       We believe also that all men are created equal. In support 
     of this fundamental faith, Republicans work for government 
     that will provide equality under the law for all citizens, 
     and equality of opportunity for all citizens. We believe this 
     is the best way to get the fullest possible rewards for all 
     citizens.
       It is because of this Republican emphasis on equal 
     opportunity that the Republican Party is the party to which 
     youth will naturally gravitate, if we make our principles 
     clear to them. For what does youth want most of all? Youth 
     wants to get ahead. The Republican Party stands always for 
     maximum freedom and opportunity--for every man to improve his 
     condition.
       That is why it is possible in America for the son of a rich 
     man, like Jack Kennedy, to become President.
       That is why it is possible in America for the son of a poor 
     man, like Dick Nixon, to become President.
       Republicans believe that that government is best, not which 
     does most for its citizens directly, but which makes it 
     possible for most citizens to do most for themselves--and 
     then assists with those who, for whatever reason, cannot 
     provide the basic necessities for themselves.
       I do not say these things because I am a Republican; I am a 
     Republican because these are the things I believe.
       I think we can state it as a law, that whenever a 
     government does for its citizens that which they have the 
     capacity to do for themselves, individually and in groups, it 
     begins to destroy both their capacity and their incentive to 
     do for themselves. It begins to weaken rather than to 
     strengthen the foundations of freedom and the means of 
     progress.
       I can work my girl's arithmetic problem better for her than 
     she can work it for herself. I can get the right answer 
     almost every time. And she would like to have me do it for 
     her. She'd even vote for me if I would. But I don't. Not 
     because I don't love her or want her to succeed--but because 
     I do.
       Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg said, ``Now we are engaged in 
     a great civil war testing''--testing, among other things, 
     whether Government of the people, by the people, and for the 
     people can long endure.
       Lincoln and the Republican Party led our country through 
     that crisis of 100 years ago. Now we are engaged in a greater 
     conflict--the whole planet is in the throes of the mightiest 
     conflict in all history. It is a world civil war. What is it 
     about? It is about exactly the same thing as then: Is 
     Government of the people, by the people, and therefore, 
     for the people to perish, literally, from the earth?
       During the fiery trial of Lincoln's day he warned solemnly 
     that this nation could not exist half slave, half free. He 
     and his party succeeded in restoring unity and freedom to the 
     nation.
       Can this whole wide world of our day go on indefinitely 
     half slave, half free? Deep down in our hearts, we know the 
     answer, No.
       The reason why it has not proved possible to get any real 
     agreement with the Communist world all these years is because 
     the Communists are not pursuing the same objectives as we are 
     pursuing. And why are they not pursuing the same objectives? 
     Because they do not believe the same things we believe--about 
     man, about the universe, about God.
       If we in America, of whatever political opinion at the 
     moment, are to prove worthy of this most terrible testing in 
     our Nation's life, we too must resolve with Lincoln, ``that, 
     under God, this Nation shall have a new birth of freedom.''
       It was under God that our freedom was born. Only under God 
     can there be a rebirth.
       What then is our role to be? Listen again to Lincoln in his 
     message to the Congress in 1862, ``The dogmas of the quiet 
     past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is 
     piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the 
     occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act 
     anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save 
     our country.''
       There it is:
       Under God, a new birth of freedom;
       A new understanding of it;
       A new and deeper dedication to it.
       With such a rebirth within you and me, and within our 
     beloved Party, we shall deserve to be entrusted by the people 
     with the awful responsibilities of governing this great land. 
     And they will turn to us and our country will be saved.
       And now let us get to work!
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might 
proceed for 2 additional minutes, although I see the managers of 
another bill on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator from 
Minnesota that, under the unanimous consent agreement, the Senate is 
scheduled, at the hour of 1:30, to proceed to the consideration of S. 
4.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might 
proceed for 2 additional minutes, as though in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. It 
is so ordered.

                          ____________________