Mr. Flood, I was also pleased to hear you. I am sorry I was detained and didn't get to hear all of your statement. The knowledge that we all have that we are building collective defense within the Latin Americas

Mr. FLOOD. I don't know what you mean by that, collective defense. We are giving them-we are tying in naval operations on both coasts for antisubmarine warfare.

Mr. McVICKER. I will tell you what I mean, Mr. Flood. I think one of the most important things that has come out of the Dominican Republic affair is a Latin American police force, and I think this is the direction we are going.

Mr. FLOOD. I agree with that.

Mr. McVICKER. If I were a Latin American individual, I would have a real sensitivity about what they call the colossus to the north, and it seems to me that it is extremly important that we all recognize that because in this world in which we are the major defense against communism, as you so eloquently stated, we cannot be just another imperialist power. We cannot just run over our friends and allies.

Mr. FLOOD. If nothing else comes out of Santo Domingo, the most important thing was that those machineguns the other night were fired by Paraguayans. Unbelievable. I never thought I would live to see the day.

Mr. McVICKER. But we have, and this may be the major plus that came out of the Santo Domingo situation, and, as you say, if the button was pushed then the game is up anyway.

Mr. FLOOD. No question about that.

Mr. McVICKER. And that is what we are trying to defend against happening.

Mr. FLOOD. This is right.

Mr. McVICKER. I think the fact that our expression of the use of the Monroe Doctrine is one that is accepted by the Latin American countries as well. I think this is the major fact in history that has happened and as you said, it is incredible as you look at history. As the chairman so pointed out, the Foreign Ministers of the OAS were here just a year ago and made a similar statement upon which we can build, not as a colossus, but as an equal partner in the defense of this, the whole hemisphere. This is the way we must do it.

Mr. FLOOD. As you know, privately the leaders of these governments and each opposition group in almost all of these countries of Central and South America, privately go much much further to agree with you and me, and for many reasons they cannot publicly.

Mr. McVICKER. I just make this one last comment, Mr. Flood. Your excellent statement has brought it to mind. Sitting through the long hearings this last winter and spring on foreign aid and those areas that relate to the Latin Americans, I am extremely impressed by the new turning of our aid into the Latin countries to try to bring into being a society there in which there is elevation from poverty; bringing into existence a middle class group standard so that they can live on their own. This is equally our own defense.

Mr. FLOOD. You remember the great Winston Churchill when we were planning invasion of Europe, he called southern Europe the Mediterranean "the soft underbelly" of Europe. Now the very sociological and economic and all of these conditions that you have just

spoken about that we all know exist in South and Latin America and they admit exist-this makes Latin America the soft underbelly for an attack upon the United States of America by infiltration and revolutionary subversion. It is our soft underbelly for these reasons, and it is an invitation to communism.

Mr. McVICKER. And, as a consequence of the statement you made, equally our defense is to assist these countries in blossoming into the sunlight as we have economically, socially, and politically. I think that mission is being well undertaken by this country. I just wanted to make that point as well. Your statement reminded me of it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Roybal?
Mr. ROYBAL. No questions.
Mr. GROSS. Could I?

Mr. SELDEN. Yes. Mr. Gross?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Flood, if a resolution is passed in some form or another and I know there are differences between the resolution proposed by the chairman of the subcommittee and your resolutionI hope that insofar as the administration is concerned it will meet with a better fate than did the resolution passed by the House of Representatives unanimously with respect to payment of dues to the United Nations.

Mr. FLOOD. And, I hasten to add, the resolution that you and I know so well, that I introduced, and which was amended by my friend Selden and passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 325, something, against 20 something, against the flag of Panama in the Canal Zone. I took the floor 5 minutes after the resolution passed by this overwhelming vote, when President Eisenhower was President, and I said, "I warn you we won't be out of this town 30 days until this will be an Executive order permitting the Panamanian flag to be flown in the Canal Zone." I was a liar by 2 weeks. We weren't out 2 weeks until an Executive order was issued.

Now, I have urged every President from President Roosevelt down to President Johnson, as I said before you walked in, to reaffirm and reissue this as an Executive fiat and I haven't been able to do it.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman will recall that the House was good enough to accept an amendment that I offered to the appropriation bill.

Mr. FLOOD. I accepted it. You handed it to me; it was my subcommittee.

Mr. GROSS. Yes, it was the House of Representatives that told President Eisenhower he was not to use any of the funds for the purpose of erecting flagpoles in the Panama Canal Zone.

Mr. FLOOD. And, the Department of the Army, by a subterfuge and fraud, circumvented the views of the House and used other funds to erect the flagpoles, to erect the flag on your right.

Mr. GROSS. That is exactly right, and I commend the gentleman for his excellent work on that issue. Unfortunately the Eisenhower administration paid no attention to the very clear position of the Congress.

Mr. FLOOD. None of the administrations have on this point.

Mr. GROSS. I thank you again for the great defense you have made in behalf of U.S. rights in the Canal Zone.

Mr. SELDEN. Are there any further questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Flood, for your statement and appearance before the subcommittee.

Our second witness this morning, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, Congressman Richard H. Ichord.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. ICHORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. ICHORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate greatly the opportunity to be invited here to testify on House Resolution 552 which I sponsor and which is identical to the resolution introduced by the very able gentleman now in the chair. I favor all of the resolutions and I am speaking for the principals involved here, without regard to the authorship or minor differences.

I believe, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee that there are no more serious or urgent problems than those of repealing the swelling tide of Communist domination, and in so doing preserve and extend the principles and ideals for which this Nation stands. The subcommittee, I believe, has performed a great service to the Nation by bringing to the attention of the Congress the imminent danger of communism in Latin America and the need for action on the part of all freemen to combat this marching form of hideous tyranny. I am in total agreement with the findings and recommendations contained in the very enlightening report which has been authorized by this subcommittee.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not pretend to be an expert on Communist subversion in Latin America, but I think that my service on the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities would permit me to speak with some authority. I recently traveled to South Vietnam and had the opportunity there to take a first-hand look at a situation which I submit is the end result of trained Communist subversion. There are, of course, other factors involved, but the primary cause is Communist subversion. Last year I had the honor of chairing a committee investigation of student travel to Cuba, an inquiry which produced facts relevant to this hearing and to the resolution introduced by myself following the lead of the gentleman in the chair.

The Committee on Un-American Activities also held hearings on a number of bills proposing to establish an institution where Communist nonmilitary warfare would be dealt with on a full-time basis. And, during the course of these hearings the committee heard 51 very well versed people on the subject of communism and how to combat the threat which communism poses. In light of the foregoing I think that I can speak with just a little authority. There is no doubt in my mind that Communist advances represent one of the most serious problems ever faced by three men and that this Congress has no greater responsibility than that of devising ways and means to effectively block our self-avowed enemies who threaten to swallow the rest of the world.

A poet once said, "I have looked everywhere and there is no one else to do the job." And, I submit his words apply very forcefully

to this Nation. There is no one else who can do the job. There is indeed, a pressing and urgent need for the Congress to express its sense on this issue and the resolutions that are now pending provide one means of an expression.

Because the resolutions refer to the Monroe Doctrine, I would like to briefly discuss what could be called the paradox of the Monroe Doctrine. When President Monroe established his now-famous doctrine, the terms "domination" and "aggression" were much easier to define, for at that time the world had only known overt aggression, which, of course, was illustrated by marching armies. Man had not yet devised the ways of accomplishing domination by internal subversion or what we so commonly call today, covert aggression. Therefore, it was entirely logical for President Monroe to forbid foreign domination in this hemisphere and also declare that American states would refrain from being involved in each others political situation. But, the coming of psychopolitical warfare has created a paradox where the United States cannot prevent foreign domination of Latin America without assisting those nations in repelling the Communist nonmilitary advances. We have tried to refrain from such assistance only to find that the leaders of the Latin American nations are so bogged down with domestic problems of poverty and population that they are unable to turn back the subversives.

The Communists realized this historical paradox many years ago and they have used it to their great advantage for the past 20 years. The resolutions would help make it clear that we will assist our neighbors in the repulsion of any would-be foreign conquerer in every way that we can. I do not mean to say, Mr. Chairman, that we should become directly involved in internal politics. Rather I mean that we should extend our existing programs and new programs on a much larger scale. For instance, the Agency for International Development has recently instituted a program for Latin America where our people help train Latins in the art of security maintenance and counterinsurgency. I believe these programs are the proper approach and should be extended and enlarged so that they may represent one means of repelling the insurgents. Thus far these programs have been anemic and like a single wave in a sea of possibilities.

This 89th Congress needs to provide the directive and the funds so that the executive agencies can spend more time concentrating on this long overlooked field of nonmilitary conflict. Such a directive would proclaim to the world that the United States will not endure the dissection of the Western Hemisphere by Communists.

I would like to turn now, Mr. Chairman, to an examination of committee report entitled, "Communist Activity in Latin America,” and to a discussion of some of the points that are brought out in this report which I feel apply directly to these resolutions. In the interest of time I will confine these discussions to the points I feel are most vital. I quote from your report:

Communist propaganda strategy for Latin America is directed toward the destruction of democratic institutions and influences in the area and ultimately to the imposition of Marxist-Leninist regimes throughout the hemisphere.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, the vast importance of this fact cannot be overstated. This statement, combined with the sense of the resolutions, removes all doubt as to our realizations that covert aggression is

just as dangerous as overt aggression and demands the same type of swift and effective reaction. No one would deny that death by cancerous infection is just as final as death at the hands of an assassin. If we are to survive, we must take steps to first remove the cancer. Again from the report:

We must face the fact that we are up against full-time Communist professionals and, to a large extent, we have part-time amateurs combating their efforts.

This statement, Mr. Chairman, indicates the burning need to equip free nations with professionals who are able to effectively cope with the Communist professional. We actually do a disservice to our heritage and ideals by allowing the Communists to present a one-sided story to the people of South America. If we are to be able to live by the words of these resolutions, then we must begin an intensive training program which will produce professions for the free world. The report's first finding states:

The United States has yet to develop an adequate ideological offensive as convincing evidence to all Latin Americans that our way of life is worthy of emulation.

This point logically follows the professional versus the amateur discussion and serves as the major reason why the Communists have been so successful in their drive for world conquest. This country has two problems in this area. First, we must learn to stop assuming that everyone knows what freedom and democracy are. We tend too often to look at the problems of a given country as if they were our own problems. We must learn to respect the history and the culture of a given people and start looking at their problems from their own viewpoint.

The report further declares several major deficiencies continue to limit Latin American counterinsurgency capabilities. The means of combating the subversive tactics of the Communist professional require considerable improvement.

Gentlemen, this is a very important point. We do not have these improved means ourselves and cannot hope to transmit them to the people of Latin America if we do not first take the time to develop them. It is really that simple. The deficiencies in Latin American counterinsurgency capabilities merely reflect our own inadequacies in this vital area. If the leader is helpless then so are the people he attempts to lead.

Finding No. 7 declares:

The Soviet Union, rather than Communist China, still supports Cuba-economically, politically, and militarily.

Possibly this finding will serve to shake some people out of the lethargy regarding the Soviet Union. There are large numbers of people in this country who sincerely believe that the cold war between the United States and Russia does not exist. Further, they believe, Mr. Chairman, that communism as a danger has shifted entirely from the Soviet Union to Red China. No one can deny that our guard against the Soviets has been relaxing steadily over the past few years, and I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, to this committee that the Soviet Union is the leader of the great majority of world Communists and that that nation-the Soviet Union-represents the primary threat to the continued existence of freedom and self-government.