Address at Republican National Committee Dinner in Honor of the Republican Members of Congress

[Broadcast over radio from the Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C.]

Chairman Alcorn, fellow Republicans, fellow Americans who are tuned in with us here tonight:

First, my cordial greetings to the distinguished Republican Members of Congress who are here tonight.

For all that you are doing, together with our Republican Administration, to help build a just peace and to keep America and the rest of the free world strong and secure--also, for your efforts to preserve our citizens' freedom and initiative by helping to hold our government to its proper role--you have my congratulations and my most deep appreciation.

To every American, regardless of party, I want to speak frankly of these efforts tonight.

Our two major political parties differ, of course, on many domestic policies. But beyond these are programs of grave importance to our country and to the peace of the world. They demand our attention as Americans, without regard to partisanship.

One reason I talk of such programs on this occasion is because they are on the very edge of action in the Congress. As Americans, as Republicans, as Members of Congress, we must shortly reach decisions of far-reaching significance to ourselves and to our children. first--a bit of background.

We must, every one of us, never forget that we have entered an era that is for our country entirely new. Inescapably we live in a time of great uneasiness, in a situation of balanced terror in the world.

Looming across the seas is the menace of communist imperialism. It rejects every human value of significance in our civilization. It is tyrannical, insensitive to the needs of its own people, contemptuous of religious faith and human dignity and worth, and obsessed with the goal. of dominating the world.

Preoccupied as we are with our dally pursuits, too easily we lose our awareness of this evil force. We know that, throughout all history, marauders have been at large in the world. But today modern science and technology have placed instruments of almost unlimited power at the disposal of an ideology implacably hostile to all who live in freedom.

In just over a decade the science of destruction has become transformed. Nuclear explosives, ocean-spanning missiles, aircraft of great range and speed, submarines launching nuclear-tipped weapons of tremendous range--such developments have vastly increased man's ability to destroy and to kill.

That, my friends, is the pivotal fact of our time. We simply cannot indulge in business-as-usual attitudes and self-serving practices of an era that is no more. Our national survival and human liberty are at stake in the way we form and sustain our national policies.

Of the many imperative needs these grave considerations impose, tonight I ask you to join me in considering three:

First is defense modernization, the plan which I sent to Congress a few weeks ago.

Here, in the missile-nuclear age, we ask ourselves:

Is it unity we shall have--unity in strategic planning--unity in military command--unity in our fighting forces? Shall we have the most efficient, least costly defensive system we can devise to counter the deadly menace to our country?

Or--are we willing to settle for less? Shall we cater to service prejudices at the expense of efficiency? Shall we divide rather than unify our military power? Shall we tolerate confusion, rivalries and inefficiencies in our Defense Department? Shall we tie the hands of our highest defense officials with restrictions adjusted to a military period that no longer exists?

Our choice is clear.

We must stand on the side of unity, efficiency, and flexibility--and this we must do in the interest of America's safety and solvency. And I believe that on this issue most Americans, regardless of party, stand with our plan.

Now let's look at the essentials of this proposed reorganization.

First, it unifies America's military planning.

Second, it makes sure that military orders move with the least possible delay.

Third, it integrates and therefore multiplies our battle power, no matter which services are involved.

Fourth, it gives our military leaders the professional assistance needed for unified planning and unified direction of our battle forces.

Fifth, defense research and development--amounting to more than $5 billion a year in the Defense Department is put under one responsible official empowered to stop unnecessary duplication and to cut out service rivalries.

Sixth, defense dollars are, in modest degree, made more flexibly available so emergencies and new technological developments can be handled at once, with maximum efficiency.

Seventh, confusion and needless restraints in present law are cleared away in the interest of efficiency, economy, and clear-cut civilian control over our armed forces.

Eighth--and this is one for which I particularly stand--the separate publicity activities of the various military services are put under central direction to discourage their abuse.

From these changes we can expect very specific results: a stronger, more efficient defense--a less costly, more tightly directed defense--and every Spring, come appropriation time, a more rational, less noisy defense.

These results I believe our citizens, regardless of party, are determined to achieve. I am going to keep on doing my best to get those results.

Now, as to the second imperative need, the simple fact is this: just as a military service can no longer win major battles by itself, no nation, not even the United States, can isolate itself from its friends and be secure.
In that statement is the whole case for mutual security.

I of course know about the wide misunderstandings and the many misrepresentations concerning this program. But the truth is that military and economic assistance is just as much a part of our own security efforts as our outlay for our own military defenses.

Let's remind ourselves of a few facts.

In the first place, under this program we have military alliances with 42, nations. We have bilateral treaties with Korea, free China, Japan and the Philippines. We have multilateral agreements through NATO, SEATO, and the Rio Treaty, and ANZUS. No sensible American would want any of those arrangements weakened or breached.

Thus, through mutual security, we have forged a free world shield against communist force. Our partners abroad have, in seven years, put up $120 billion for their own and the common defense. To supplement that effort we have put up for them $20 billion.

This $140 billion means strength--and lots of it. It means air bases, naval bases, military installations of our own and our allies. It means soldiers, and ships and planes. In no other way can we Americans generate from each of our security dollars as much defense for ourselves and for those who are joined with us against communist imperialism.

Now in recognition of the soundness of the free world's military defenses, the Soviets have lately turned more and more from military to economic assaults on free world positions. So, while the need for military assistance remains--yet for all of us--the economic side of mutual security becomes day by day more essential to the common defense. That includes the security and freedom of every person listening tonight.

Since 1953 the communists have signed almost 100 trade agreements with the less developed nations. They have loaned those nations some $2 billion, at interest rates enticingly favorable.
Now these developments are very significant.

Throughout the Asian and African continents, vast reserves of human energy and natural resources are opening up in a way that has not happened for centuries. Knowing this--knowing also the Soviet maneuvers I just mentioned--we must make a fateful decision.

Either we idly stand by and watch this tremendous force funneled into violence, dissolution of orderly government and communist exploitation. Or--we help channel it into better education and improved living standards, and thereby strengthen peace and freedom everywhere in the world.

So far as I am concerned--and here again I believe I speak for the great majority of Americans--we have no alternative but to give that help. America's goal is peace and human liberty, not just a precarious truce based on force.

Twenty cents a day is the average income in most of the regions 1 have just mentioned. There the trained communist agent is always at work. I propose that we not strengthen his hand by holding back our own.

And parenthetically, I remind everyone that 80 cents out of every dollar that we spend for mutual aid does not go to foreign lands. It goes to work right here at home. That means hundreds of thousands of jobs for American workers. It means large outlets for American machinery, and iron and steel, farm goods, chemicals and motor vehicles.

And, to each of us, the cost of all this military and economic assistance is about one airmail stamp a day.

These programs augment our own security. They help in the economic development of the free world, so that each country may have a better economic base to help carry its own military costs. finally, they give to all these countries hope, they give them a sense of achievement, and a rising living standard that makes of them our sturdy partners in the defense of freedom.

Now, stating these same results, in a converse way, and in the form of a question:

What would it mean to us, aside from the loss of thousands of jobs, if this program were stopped or sharply reduced? Here is what it would mean:

--a disintegration of free world positions of strength;

--a loss of bases and consequent weakening of America's strategic air power, therefore a weakening of the major deterrent to war;

--a surge forward of communist influence throughout the world;

--a forcing back of the American defense perimeter ultimately to our shores;

--finally, our defenses compromised, our military requirements tremendously increased, our country drifting into a garrison state--which could, if long continued, mean the loss of American liberty without the firing of a shot.

These, then, are some of the reasons why I feel so strongly about this invaluable program. So I ask you, and I ask every American, in his own best interest and for his country, to give America's mutual security his own all-out support.

Our third imperative need concerns world trade.

May I remind you of Mr. Khrushchev's recent remark. "We declare war upon you," he said, "in the peaceful field of trade."

Now I remind you of something else. America is the greatest producer in the world. We are also the world's greatest market. Unavoidably, the leadership in world trade lies with us.

Last year free world exports amounted to about $ 100 billion. America's exports were $20 billion. This is more than all the consumer purchases of new automobiles, parts and accessories in our country. It is more than all the furniture and household equipment bought by everyone in America. farmers know something about world trade too. The products of one acre out of every five go overseas. Labor also understands this. World trade gives jobs to at least four and a half million Americans.

Now the other part of this question is imports. Last year imports were $ 13 billion. Ten billion dollars of this amount brought us foodstuffs, partially processed manufactures, and most of our tin, mica and asbestos, as well as platinum, nickel and newsprint. It helped to meet part of our needs for iron ore, petroleum, copper, raw wool, bauxite and burlap. These raw materials keep our factory wheels turning. They keep our assembly lines moving. America cannot prosper without them.

Of course, we must be concerned about imports of certain kinds of manufactured goods. Last year we imported a total of $3½ billion worth of these goods. But we exported $ 10 ½ billion worth.

Now, certainly we must protect manufacturing industries from being crippled by imports. But those who for that purpose would resort to rigid quota systems or excessive tariffs had better give serious thought to our 3 to 1 interest in exporting these very same goods.

And we must remember this: America has no monopoly on trade problems. Our friends have problems too. Nor do we have a monopoly on the double-edged game of trade restrictions.

And so in trade too our choice is clear: we will have reciprocity, or we will have retaliation. And I wholeheartedly choose the former. In passing, may I remind you that fifty years ago reciprocity was eloquently supported by a great Republican President--William McKinley. Now, how does all this relate to the Soviet menace?

This way: if in their new economic offensive the Soviets, by using trade and aid, can bring free nations one by one into their orbit, they will as surely have paved the way for communist control of the world as if they had conquered those nations by force.

And if friendly nations are denied the chance to trade with the free world, they will be driven to trade with the communist world. To live they must trade. It's as simple as that.

So we are back to the same imperative need I advanced in regard to defense reorganization and mutual security. I have, therefore, asked the Congress to carry forward our reciprocal trade program for an additional five years. Here again I ask all Americans, regardless of party--I would like to make a personal request of each individual in this room--to give their needed support.

Now, fellow Americans and fellow Republicans, these programs we have discussed tonight challenge us to place the Nation's imperative needs above partisan goals. Of course, we salute those members of the opposite party who have supported these programs with a zeal equal to that of many ardent Republican supporters in this audience tonight.

But now, speaking for our own party, I hold that the more nearly unanimous our Republican support for these programs, the stronger will be our country, the more effective the Republican Party in its leadership, and the greater our pride in our Party's service.

We Republicans can also feel a similar pride in our handling of the many other public issues that in recent months and years have been directly touching our citizens' lives here at home.

I am convinced that by now the American people know that Republicanism is simply another way of saying "responsible government"-that it means constitutional government--that it means honest, dependable government.

Americans know also that Republicanism means responsive government. Responsive government is one which will use and has used available resources as needed to counteract economic troubles, while taking care that, not some federal bureaucracy, but rather private initiative and vigor, will be preserved as the mainspring of America's free economy.

Events of only the past six months are proof enough of this.

We have seen it in housing, where to accelerate construction we have, entirely aside from federal Reserve Board activities, provided easier terms and increased funds for credit. We have also expanded the purchase, insurance and guarantee of mortgages, and stepped up activities in urban renewal and college and public housing.

We have seen that proof also in public construction.

We have seen it in accelerated governmental procurement.

We have also seen it in our proposal to extend the unemployment insurance benefits of all workers who use up their regular benefits.

This sampling of actions evidences not only our Party's positive response to economic needs; it also demonstrates responsibility, proportion and adherence to principle--the hallmarks of Republicanism during all its years.

And now, my friends, let us not too easily forget that for the past five years there has been no war--that in early 1953 we removed stifling controls from our nation's economy--that we initiated the greatest tax cut in history--that we have increased social security coverage--that we have managed the nation's finances conservatively, to guard the value of the consumer's dollar--that we have reduced the number of government employees by some two hundred thousand and--that we have set in motion a truly historic venture, returning to the States of responsibilities assumed too long and too often by the federal government in previous years.

Such are the concrete evidences of progress in the right direction. There are many, many more examples which should enlist support not only of our own Party members but also the support of Americans everywhere who value such gains for themselves and for their country.

So it is responsive, responsible government at home--plus effective support for programs essential to America's peace and security. These, in a nutshell, are the Republican case before America.

With the able and dedicated leadership of our party's organizational machinery by my respected and close friend, Chairman Meade Alcorn-with concerted action by our Republican Members of the Congress--and with the enthusiastic effort of our party members throughout the land-and with the continuing help of independent voters and discerning Democrats--I am convinced that Republican prospects this year are indeed bright.

If we will but try--if we never forget the value of good, hard work-we are certain, with this record, to win next November. This is the sure road to a Republican 86th Congress.

For myself--you will find me standing beside you and with you. I shall do my best for every member of our Grand Old Party and for all others who with them are carrying forward the never-ending fight for peace, for security, for sound, sane and progressive government in America.

Thank You. Goodnight.