State by three newspapers of widely divergent political philosophy; the St. Petersburg Times, the Tampa Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel Star.

I would like to read to you, Mr. Chairman, some brief excerpts from editorials which have been in the press endorsing this legislation. From the New York Daily News of March 9, 1959, I quote:

A much sounder cold war strategy, we believe, is embodied in this legislation. We trust that Congress will give some of its best attention to this bill. From here, a Freedom Academy sounds like a college which we could well use.

From the Citizens News in Hollywood, Calif., March 10, 1959:

In the struggle for control of Iraq, the issue is whether this oil rich, strategically located middle eastern country will come under the domination of the Soviet Union.

For many years, the Communist agents have been busy there. We do not know how active the free world has been there, but the situation gives support to a law like the one proposed by Congressmen Herlong, of Florida, and Judd, of Minnesota.

From the Parkersburg News of West Virginia, Monday, March 16, 1959:

Never before has any action or any political movement employed the weapon of infiltration as extensively as the Communists now are employing it.

Never before have we faced so serious a threat to our way of life. Ideological armament has become as necessary as physical armament.

The Freedom Academy might provide the rallying point for a new, to us, and immensely important type of warfare.

From the Fairbanks, Alaska, Daily News-Miner, an editorial of March 25, 1959:

In the minds of many, the Herlong-Judd bill will enable us to close the political warfare gap in many areas of the world which is, in the long run, as serious as the missile gap.

The Lewiston, Idaho, Morning Tribune of February 19, 1959, said editorially:

This bill should be supported by all who take the Communist threat as seriously as the Communists intend it.

The Tulsa Tribune of March 7, 1959, editorialized:

A full-time devil can beat a part-time angel any day. We need some full-time angels.

To this end, a bill has been introduced in Congress by Representatives Herlong of Florida and Judd of Minnesota which would set up a Freedom Academy not only for the training of U.S. diplomats, but for citizens of other nations who seek better methods of combating subversion, confusion, and the big lie.

It would, in short, develop a technique for the big truth. It is a good idea.

The Lewiston, Maine, Daily Sun, on March 7, 1959, had this to say:

So that the West can battle the Reds on their chosen battlefield, Representative Judd and Representative Herlong proposed establishment of what they call a Freedom Academy, which Life magazine calls a West Point of political war. A successful institution of this sort would be more significant than a victory over West Berlin.

We urge Congress to debate the bill fully, endorse it, and finance it.

Now Mr. Chairman, I have given you excerpts from a few of the editorials that have been written endorsing this proposal.

I have taken them from every section of the country purposely so that you can see that the support for the bill isn't just sectional.

We don't know that what we have proposed is exactly what should be done, but we do know, as I said a few moments ago, that there is a vacuum in the area of counteraction against communism; that we are not doing the job in fighting the cold war that we are capable of doing if we had trained people to help in this battle.

I would like very much to see this committee go into this matter thoroughly. If the legislation that we have proposed isn't what is proper, we hope that you will come up with something that will do the job and let us get on our way, because the Communists have a headstart of some 50 years on us in this type of ideological warfare and we have to catch up.

Just yesterday, the committee of which I am a member reported a bill to the House again raising the national debt limit. The temporary debt limit is up to $295 billion. This is something, of course, that we have to do because of the tremendous expenditures which we have had to make and a great portion of it is brought about by the military and defense costs.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that a program of the type, suggested in this bill, properly handled, will greatly reduce the necessity for such large defense expenditures when we get to the point where we can fight the cold war on even terms with the Communists. Until we reach that point, we are going to have to continue these enormous defense expenditures.

I submit further that we have here an opportunity, by spending just a little money, to save billions of dollars and also assure, or to come more nearly assuring, the preservation of the freedoms of the countries of the free world.

Senator DODD. Well, Congressman Herlong, we are very grateful to you.

It is a most serious matter and we expect to hear from a great number of witnesses.

Senator Hruska, do you have any questions?

Senator HRUSKA. No questions, except to repeat your appreciation for the appearance here of Congressman Herlong.

He has been very helpful and has laid a good foundation for the testimony we will hear later and I know both the chairman and the Senator from Nebraska will be interested in learning how later witnesses implement the objectives you set forth so well.

Mr. HERLONG. Thank you very much.1

1 Senator Karl E. Mundt, cosponsor of the bill, appeared before the subcommittee in earlier hearings on antisubversion legislation to ask for favorable action on the Freedom Commission Act. Two other witnesses in those hearings commented on the bill.

Roger Fisher, of the faculty of Harvard University Law School, said: "We, today, are fighting on many fronts and I submit that one of the most critical ones is the battle for men's minds. The battle can be won on the kind of issues that S. 1689 *** deals with, affirmative furthering of the ideas of freedom, convincing the world what this country is all about. We must make the image of the United States so clear that no one in Europe or Asia or Africa could fail to understand the difference between our system and the Soviet system."

Loyd Wright, former Chairman of the Commission on Government Security, said: "I cannot too strongly support the obvious desirability of the proposed Freedom Commission. Whether it is possible to indoctrinate peoples who have an entirely different philosophy of government is something that the Congress must determine. At first blush it appears to me, however, that some difficulties might arise in those foreign countries where the control of government vacillates so frequently."

Written statements also were submitted by other witnesses, and were included in the earlier hearing record.

Attorney General Louis Wyman, of New Hampshire, said that the basic purpose of S. 1689 "appears to me to be sound, but I am not sure whether this is something that is best done by Government or from private sources." Mr. Wyman said that, generally speaking, he opposes the creation of additional agencies. But, he said, if the Department

lates the membership, the meaning of Communist terminology, and something of the Soviet espionage apparatus; finally, in group V a survey of Communist strength on both sides of the Iron Curtain and a summation of the total challenge to our society and the special obligations of U.S. citizenship in the years ahead.

In preparation the committee gave each speaker a lengthy reading assignment, including at least 1 book in each of the 5 group areas, and from 5 to 20 in his assigned area.

The program was, of course, inadequate. But we like to think it gave the small number of students who were able to hear the entire series an insight into the survival problems and a sense of urgency and challenge. More important was the education of the speakers themselves.

This school program demonstrated several points which I believe will help this committee better understand the Freedom Commission Act and some of the things it can accomplish.

First, it is possible for a broadly representative group of private citizens to work together harmoniously on an important anti-Communist project. It has been a heartening sight to watch liberals and conservatives drop their other differences and pull together to meet the Soviet challenge, once they have completed their reading assignments and acquired a common fund of knowledge. At the community level at least, we have been able to demonstrate that in relation to the Soviet conspiracy our pluralistic society can work together as a team. The key to this training is the common fund of knowledge acquired through an extensive reading and discussion program which gave the committee a common framework of reference and a mutual insight into the survival problems and a sense of urgency which subordinated differences that might have otherwise fractured the group. There is a remarkably broad consensus of opinion among Americans who have done their homework in this area.

Second, a project like the Orlando program is only possible when there are one or more persons in the community who have been intensively trained in the broader aspects of communism and the Soviet challenge and are willing to submerge their other interests in order to meet this primary threat. This condition existed in Orlando, but under present circumstances it is a rare phenomenon. Other communities tried to copy the Orlando program, but not one succeeded, be cause they lacked the trained leaders and the sense of urgency necessary to put in the thousands of man-hours.

Third, once you have a trained, representative leadership group at the community level, then the community can make its weight felt in the cold war. Our community has been fascinated by the number and variety of important cold-war projects that become possible once you have trained community leaders Without such trained leaders, community participation in the cold war is severely limited. Our committee is convinced there is a huge, untapped, and almost unexplored reservoir of anti-Communist organizational strength in our private citizens and institutions which can support and supplement the activities of our cold-war agencies. This can be tapped by properly trained leaders. Whether we train these leaders in time can have a decisive effect on the cold war.

This challenge placed a unique burden on our citizens, for they would be required to make unusual sacrifices over long periods without the unifying stimulus of a general hot war. This was something the American public had not been called on to do before. If our people faltered, if they became apathetic under the diminishing impact of repeated crises, if they began to concentrate more and more on the material joys of an abundant society and less and less on the survival problems, then the free world would be in grave peril.

The long-term challenge was above all a challenge to the American educational system which must produce citizens willing to make the sustained sacrifice necessary to meet the total challenge.

In the late summer of 1950, a small group of Orlando citizens organized themselves into a committee called the Know Your Enemy Speakers. This committee believed that as an absolute minimum our high school seniors should be given a broad survey course on world communism (in addition to courses in American history and civic courses to show the advantages of an open society) so they could understand something of the frightful challenge-political, scientific, economic, and military-facing their Nation, and as a result would better understand the unique obligations of American citizenship. Our committee soon learned our high school teachers were not prepared to give such a course, and it was up to us if anything was to be done.

To avoid controversy, our committee was quietly organized on a broad bipartisan basis to include management and labor, the major religions, and both political parties. Our object was to create a committee on which there would be at least one person in whom each member of the community would have confidence, and a committee. of which the community as a whole could say, if these representative people can agree that this is the correct method to teach the facts about communism and the Soviet challenge, then it must be the right method, or at least an acceptable one.

During the 5 months from the formation of the committee to the beginning of the lecture series, we were careful to explain the program to the many organized groups in the Orlando area, and the Sunday before the kickoff the local newspaper ran a full page story explaining how the subject matter would be handled. Thanks to this careful public relations no opposition developed even though we were "bringing communism into the classrooms."

The program ran 3 years. The first year we had seven lectures. By the third year the subject matter was broken down into 5 group. areas and ran a total of 17 hours. This included 2 hours in group I on the historical development of communism from Marx to Stalin; 4 hours in group II on Soviet Russia covering such matters as the NEP, the 5-year plans, forced collectivization, slave labor, the secret police, the position of the party, and the arts and sciences under communism; 2 hours in group III on the satellites and particularly Poland from 1939 to the present; seven lectures in group IV on the organization, strategy and tactics of the Communist conspiracy in which we described the open and secret structure of the party, the methods by which an idealist is recruited into the party and then converted into a hardened conspirator, how the party sets up a front organization or penetrates an existing institution and then manipu

lates the membership, the meaning of Communist terminology, and something of the Soviet espionage apparatus; finally, in group V a survey of Communist strength on both sides of the Iron Curtain and a summation of the total challenge to our society and the special obligations of U.S. citizenship in the years ahead.

In preparation the committee gave each speaker a lengthy reading assignment, including at least 1 book in each of the 5 group areas, and from 5 to 20 in his assigned area.

The program was, of course, inadequate. But we like to think it gave the small number of students who were able to hear the entire series an insight into the survival problems and a sense of urgency and challenge. More important was the education of the speakers themselves.

This school program demonstrated several points which I believe will help this committee better understand the Freedom Commission Act and some of the things it can accomplish.

First, it is possible for a broadly representative group of private citizens to work together harmoniously on an important anti-Communist project. It has been a heartening sight to watch liberals and conservatives drop their other differences and pull together to meet the Soviet challenge, once they have completed their reading assignments and acquired a common fund of knowledge. At the community level at least, we have been able to demonstrate that in relation to the Soviet conspiracy our pluralistic society can work together as a team. The key to this training is the common fund of knowledge acquired through an extensive reading and discussion program which gave the committee a common framework of reference and a mutual insight into the survival problems and a sense of urgency which subordinated differences that might have otherwise fractured the group. There is a remarkably broad consensus of opinion among Americans who have done their homework in this area.

Second, a project like the Orlando program is only possible when there are one or more persons in the community who have been intensively trained in the broader aspects of communism and the Soviet challenge and are willing to submerge their other interests in order to meet this primary threat. This condition existed in Orlando, but under present circumstances it is a rare phenomenon. Other communities tried to copy the Orlando program, but not one succeeded, be cause they lacked the trained leaders and the sense of urgency necessary to put in the thousands of man-hours.

Third, once you have a trained, representative leadership group at the community level, then the community can make its weight felt in the cold war. Our community has been fascinated by the number and variety of important cold-war projects that become possible once you have trained community leaders Without such trained leaders, community participation in the cold war is severely limited. Our committee is convinced there is a huge, untapped, and almost unexplored reservoir of anti-Communist organizational strength in our private citizens and institutions which can support and supplement the activities of our cold-war agencies. This can be tapped by properly trained leaders. Whether we train these leaders in time can have a decisive effect on the cold war.