The battle against communism is a struggle for men's minds, and in this struggle we shall not win by the mounting confusion of words that surround great issues. It has been argued that if the loyalty oath is to be included in a security measure then it should also be included in a farm subsidy law. This is, in effect, to say that a farmer raising corn is in the same position as a man working in the field of molding men's minds. Let us recognize that teachers and intellectuals occupy an exalted place in our society. They are the ones to whom we look for leadership and for light in this complex world. In short it may be said that they are the ones upon whom we ordinary people must ultimately depend. Are we asking more than they are willing to give in requiring this simple affirmation of loyalty to our country? Surely, no one in his right mind interprets this as a slander or a reflection upon them as a practical proposition. Teachers operating under the New York school system have been taking such an oath for years. No one has thought less of them for taking it. Now the subject of this discourse has been in defense of the loyalty affidavit and opposed to the reasoning used in an effort to defeat it. I would give the opponents of the loyalty oath a large measure of credit if they would base their case on the fact that the oath has little practical use in protecting the Nation against subversion instead of trailing off into vaporish, thinskinned expressions of injured pride. Perhaps it is nothing more than a symbol of loyalty. Is symbolism bad? When a man tips his hat to a lady, he uses a symbol of respect; his head bowed in prayer is a symbol of his reverence. His use of the term "his excellency," to a Governor, is a symbol of his submission to the authority of the law. Are these bad? Do we think more of a man if he fails to observe them? The loyalty oath is probably nothing but an expression of devotion to one's country in this day of its darkest peril. But even if this is all that it is. who can deny that such an expression does some good? I have said to you that the battle of communism is one for the minds of men. It must be fought in the classroom. But the battle against communism must also be fought on the level of faith, not only across the plains of economic and scientific achievements. Communism proposes that life is material and a man is a product of nature with no purpose, no will, and no soul. This is a harsh doctrine but because they have succeeded in dressing it up with appeals to ideals and equality, they have succeeded in winning, in many instances, the battle for the heart and the minds of men. Ours is a society and a system based upon ideals. Our job as Legionnaires is to keep the eyes of all Americans focused on the ideals of our country and our job as Americans is constantly to translate the image of America abroad in terms of its ideals. We, as members of the American Legion, must keep alive the spirit of patriotism, love of country. This is our challenge. To those who have grown listless in their appreciation of individual freedom and a great gift of citizenship in this country, let us constantly recount their blessings. They are neatly summed up in a passage written by a refugee-one who came to these shores from Herr Hitler's concentration camps and eventually became a citizen of these United States. He wrote: "I am an American citizen * * * a member of the greatest fraternity on earth. The brotherhood of freemen because a million American citizens have died and millions have suffered in the wars of our Republic. I have greater freedom than any other citizen of any other nation in any other period of mankind. I have greater freedom to work, to worship, to love, to learn, and to play. Mine is the freedom to compete, to invent, to save, to invest, to create, to promote, to own. I have freedom to choose, to join, to vote, to speak, to travel, and to walk erect with head high. I am free to be my own self as an individual human soul. I am free to glorify God." Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Case, my name is Miles D. Kennedy. I am the national director of the American Legion. I have a statement, Mr. Chairman, which I respectfully request to be incorporated in the record in full, and our statement Senator YARBOROUGH. The statement will be incorporated in full in the record. Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, sir. Our statement is addressed mainly to the provisions of section 9(c) on page 20 of S. 1726, and the same also carries over to the bills S. 1228 and S. 1411. On that point, Mr. Chairman, it has to do with the so-called disclaimer affidavit. Now, I appreciate the fact that many highly important and high Government officials have testified and are in support of knocking out the so-called disclaimer affidavit which now appears in the law. However, with your permission, I would like to recite just a few of our objections to the exclusion of the disclaimer affidavit in the new bill. I have one attachment to my statement, Mr. Chairman. It is a very fine statement, made by Mr. Martin B. McKneally, who is the immediate past national commander of the American Legion and who has made an extensive study of this subject. That is attached in printed form and I respectfully request that that also be incorporated in the printed matter. Senator YARBOROUGH. It will be incorporated in the record. Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, sir. In addition to the statements contained in Mr. McKneally's statement, we submit the following objections to the bill S. 1726 and the others I have just referred to: 1. The American taxpayer has a moral and ethical right to this protection of his money. The minority of educators have no right to force their opinions upon their students. Let the individual beneficiaries make the choice. 2. No patriotic American should object to swearing his allegiance to his country under any circumstances. 3. What about the young men at Annapolis and West Point—they gladly execute all affidavits required of them. 4. It is not the students who must sign who are waging this active cold war of anti-Americanism, but rather the college presidents, the professors, and their followers. On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that many students have formed organizations to support retention of the disclaimer affidavit. 5. It is hard to find justification in the argument that the affidavit requirement interferes with freedom of belief. Applicants for assistance under the act are free to choose between pledging their support to the Government, or doing without that aid; it forces nothing upon them. It is as simple as that. 6. From the point of view of those students who do wish to sign the affidavit, it would appear to be arbitrary and dogmatic for their colleges to withdraw from the program, thereby preventing the students from obtaining needed loans. 7. The purpose of the disclaimer affidavit is not to expose Communist infiltration into our intellectual circles (which is not impossible), but to ascertain that the beneficiary of a national defense educational grant is either a loyal citizen of the United States, or-if he swears falsely-a perjurer subject to criminal prosecution. The balance of the statement is devoted to statements made by Members of the U.S. Senate when the bill S. 2929 came up on the floor for consideration around June 15 or 16, 1960, and there was considerable debate on it on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the question. And I have excepted some of these statements, which were made by prominent Senators at that time. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. For those reasons, we would like to see the provisions of section 9(c) omitted from the bill S. 1726 and any others that may come up for your consideration during these hearings. And I am grateful to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in behalf of the American Legion, and I desire to express to you my sincere thanks and appreciation for the privilege of appearing before you. I also wish you well in your efforts to solve this serious problem which confronts you and the other Members of Congress in connection with this controversial provision of the proposed legislation. Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement? Senator YARBOROUGH. Yes. Senator CLARK. First, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by attempting to question the witness or to get into an argument on this matter, because the lines are pretty well drawn, either for or against it. My own view is well known. I supported the President of the United States when he was a Member of the Senate in his early efforts to repeal the disclaimer affidavit. I know he feels the same way now as he did then. I do not think anybody is questioning his loyalty. I assume nobody is questioning mine. The witness has given very succinctly and quite ably the arguments in support of maintaining the affidavit. I, like Voltaire, disagree with everything he has had to say, but will defend to the death his right to say it. Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Senator Clark. Senator YARBOROUGH. Any questions, Senator Case? Senator CASE. No questions. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you. Is there any other witness present this morning whose name is on the list? (There was no response.) Senator YARBOROUGH. The hearing is recessed until 2 o'clock this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. on the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Present: Senators Morse (presiding), Yarborough, and Randolph. Senator MORSE. The hearing will come to order. The chairman will insert in the record at this point a letter received by the chairman from Senator Hubert Humphrey, in which he asks permission to file a statement in support of his bill S. 1271, which would insert sections in the National Defense Act of 1958. The statement of Senator Humphrey will be inserted at this point in the record. (The letter and statement of Senator Humphrey follow:) U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, May 12, 1961. The Honorable WAYNE MORSE, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is a statement I have prepared on my bill, S. 1271, to amend certain sections of the National Defense Education Act of 1958. It would be appreciated if this statement would be made a part of the printed record of the hearings being held this week by your subcommittee on various proposals to amend the National Defense Education Act. Sincerely, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY. PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being afforded this opportunity to testify in support of amendments I have offered, S. 1271, to the National Defense Education Act of 1958 which is being considered by this subcommittee. The purpose of my suggested amendments is to make the inducements and benefits which are presently available under the act to those who teach or plan to teach in public schools also available to those who teach or plan to teach in our private schools. Title II of the act provides Federal loans for students at institutions of higher education. Section 205 (b)3 provides that up to one-half of any such loan will be canceled at the rate of 10 percent a year if the loan recipient becomes a fulltime teacher in a public elementary or secondary school. There is no loan forgiveness for teaching in a private school. In title V the act authorizes payment of $75 a week plus $15 a week for each dependent to men and women who are engaged in public secondary school guidance and counseling or who are preparing guidance and counseling work in public schools. People engaged in guidance or counseling at private schools may attend these guidance and counseling institutes, but they are not eligible to receive the weekly stipends available to public school teachers. The National Defense Education Act, in title VI, authorizes similar payments to foreign-language teachers from public schools who are attending foreignlanguage institutes. Foreign-language teachers at private schools face the same discrimination at these institutes that face their colleagues in the guidance and counseling field. They are eligible to attend the institutes, but they are not eligible to receive stipends. In fact, they are urged to participate, but no monetary allowance is made for their participation. Mr. Chairman, these discriminations against private school teachers are unfair, and Congress should amend the National Defense Education Act to give teachers in private, nonprofit schools the same benefits that are available to teachers in public schools. The purpose of the National Defense Education Act in these areas which are mentioned is to improve the quality of teachers and also to improve the techniques of teaching. The loan-forgiveness provision was included in this act to encourage college students to enter the teaching profession. It is only fair and reasonable that the loan-cancellation privilege should be extended to those who teach in private schools as well as to those who teach in public schools. In the same spirit, we should make available to private school teachers the same weekly stipend payments which are now available to public school teachers attending guidance and counseling institutes or foreign-language institutes. Private schools and private school teachers are performing a vitally important public service, and they are relieving our public education system of a tremendous burden. We certainly should not discriminate against those who teach in our private, nonprofit, elementary and secondary schools. We should be encouraging outstanding young people in college to enter the teaching profession in even greater numbers than are now doing so. No matter how many classrooms we have no matter how well equipped our libraries and laboratories-our educational system simply cannot get along without able, dedicated, well-paid teachers in our elementary and secondary schools. I respectfully urge this subcommittee in its consideration of amendments to the National Defense Education Act to remove the discriminatory features of the present act which I have discussed here today. The amendments I have suggested would contribute to our country's efforts in the crucial area of education and they would eliminate a patent injustice in the present act. Senator MORSE. The Chair asks that there be inserted in the record at this point an article in the Evening Star for Thursday, May 11, entitled "Teller Links Future to Best Scientists," remarks of Dr. Edward Teller, pointing out the need for more training of scientists in this country. (The article referred to follows:) TELLER LINKS FUTURE TO BEST SCIENTISTS Dr. Edward Teller, the atomic scientist, told the Nation's broadcasters yesterday that, unless the American people are better educated in scientific matters, the democratic way of life may not survive. "The future will belong to the country with the best technicians and scientists," Dr. Teller said. "Our people are not being prepared well enough." He spoke at the closing luncheon session of the 15th Annual Broadcasting Engineering Conference which is being held simultaneously with the National Association of Broadcasters' 39th annual convention at the Shoreham and Sheraton-Park Hotels. Dr. Teller said he spoke not as a scientist but as a customer, and he asked the broadcasting industry if it was doing its share in educating the public. "Your whole industry is based on technical accomplishments, but what does it give back to technical education? You know the answer as well as I-very little," he said. HITS EDUCATION VACUUM He decried the fact that the industry was not trying to produce more programs of an educational-especially scientific-nature. All that is necessary, he said, is a person, a blackboard, an experiment-and you can transmit simply to a mass audience. But you are not doing it, he said. "We live in a technological age," Dr. Teller said, "where decade by decade our way of life, our safety and comfort is closely connected with technological change." He told the broadcasters he thought they could make an enormous contribution to the future of the country by devoting more air time to the magnificent, interesting subject of science. Dr. Teller said people would not like science programs at first, but after constant exposure, within 3 years, everyone would watch. Jean Felker, assistant chief engineer of the American Telephone & Telegraph Co., said that one of the big advances in the 1960's would be the use of space satellites for handling global television. Mr. Felker said eventually a worldwide television broadcasting system would be created in which 30 to 50 satellites would be placed in orbit around the equator. By placing them in this position at a height of 22,000 miles, they would circle the glode at the same relative speed as the earth's rotation, and provide an illusion of hanging motionless. A string of such satellites could encompass the earth's surface. From this could develop a complete system of intercontinental television, he said. Mr. MORSE. Mr. Paul H. Robbins, executive director, National Society of Professional Engineers. you Mr. Robbins, we are delighted to have with us. Will you come to the witness chair, and proceed in your own way, within the time limitation? STATEMENT OF PAUL H. ROBBINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Mr. ROBBINS. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, my name is Paul H. Robbins. I am executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers, a nonprofit, membership organization composed of professional engineers in virtually every specialized branch of engineering practice and type of employment. All of the society's 56,000 members are registered under applicable State engineering registration laws, and are affiliated through 53 State societies and approximately 400 local community chapters. |