A260 R. L, on April 21, 1950, before the Brown University chapter of Students for Democratic Action, on Foreign Rela- tions and Domestic Politics. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Forzicn RELATIONS AND DoMeEstic PoLirics Fellow Brown men and women, officers and members of the Brown University Chap- ter of Students for Democratic Action, I thank you for the opportunity you give me to address ycu. It is always a source of great satisfaction to me to have a part in any Brown function anywhere—but especially on the campus. This has been so ever since I came here as a callow freshman 67 years ago. It will be so till the end. You have kindly let me choose my subject and I am choosing “Foreign Relations and Domestic Politics.” This is a subject which has been forced on me during the last month and a half, because I am a member of a Senate committee of five appointed as a sub- committee of the Foreign Relations Commit- tee. This appointment was made in ac- cordance with a special resolution of the Senate. This resolution directed the com~ mittee “to conduct a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are or have been employed by the Department of State.” TIshall not discuss the charges made, nor the witnesses who have testified, nor draw any conclusions as to the final result of the Committee’s work, since its work is not completed. I may, however, with pro- priety draw your attention to some aspects of the investigation so far as it has gone. I hope I will be forgiven if I begin by some- thing so unpopular and so old-fashioned these days as an understatement. It is this: These are not ordinary times. The times are witnessing a struggle be- tween the free nations and peoples of the world and the forces of Communist totali- tarianism. That struggle touches almost every area of the globe and also every area of the human mind. Free nations, free in~ stitutions, and free minds are under attack by a Soviet imperialism which would subject them all to its control and regimentation. In that effort at domination, every weapon of subversion, exploitation, and coercion is used—on nations and on individuals. These weapons are used ruthlessly, flexibly, cyni- cally, and wih great skill. he free nations, whose ideology is based on their view of the individual as an end in himself, must oppose this assault. They must prevent the principles and values that make them free nations from being eroded by the inner frictions that this outside’strug- gle produces. This must be done because the strength of action and the strength of ideas on which our victory depends must come from our continuing dedication to the ideals of freedom. That dedication cannot in these times be limited to the form of oratorical Fourth of July affirmations. We must exercise that freedom—constructively and responsibly, as a member of the com- munity of free nations. As individuals we must endeavor to safeguard our liberties without impairing them. All this means that we in the United States today bear an enormous double responsi- bility. One aspect of that responsibility comes from the fact that our position of power and influence in the world today has conferred on us the leadership in the strug< gle against Soviet-led totalitarianism. The other aspect comes from the nature of that struggle—we must continue to preserve and to generate the values that will make for a victory of freedom. What we as people think and say, decide and do. has a new and profound importance in the world, and it has inescapable conse- quences. These consequences will affect the lives of human beings all over the globe— in the present and in the future. The is- sues we confront, and the decisions we must make, are very grave. And they are not simple. The issues of the day demand and merit great debate. They require cool and close attention. They require hard thought. They require a whole-hearted effort to inform one’s judgment before judging. They require honesty of mind and purpose. The last few weeks have produced a spec~ tacle strangely and frighteningly different from the orderly debate and responsible de- liberation which the times demand and which the American people have a right to expect. The Department of State and the Secretary of State—and, by innuendo, the President of the country—have been made the subject of a virulent campaign designed to cast doubt on their devotion to American and democratic principles, to question both their integrity and their capacity, and to suggest that they have a hidden affinity for a cause that is repugnant to the entire free world. Outbursts of name-calling, partly under the cloak of senatorial immunity, un- substantiated accusations, irresponsible and sensational charges have wrought untold harm to the international position of the United States and to the cause of demo- cratic freedom. We must have today a calm, serious-minded, and stable public opin-~ ion if foreign policy is to be responsibly for- mulated and firmly carried out. We have unfortunately seen the attempt to substi- tute in its stead government by hullabaloo. We must renew the attempt to create honest public understanding of what is at issue in foreign affairs today. Responsible elements in what is sometimes called the loyal opposition have recog~ nized that no narrow temporary advantage which might accrue to them from the dis- traction can outweigh the damage done, and have protested or stood uneasily apart from this performance. It would in itself be a sufficient alarming spectacle to see even a small element in the opposition party so little aware of the large responsibilities of the representatives of the people of a great democracy. How does all this look abroad? How does it look to our enemies? How does it look to our friends? It may suffice to read one quotation from the report to his paper by a British corre- spondent in the United States: “Thus we have the spectacle of a great Nation come to unique world power com- mendably telling itself that it must act with @ new maturity and responsibility but in fact regressing with shocking speed into the duplicity, the phony toughness, the tattle- taling, and the brutality of childhood with- out showing any of its compensating charm, directness, or naiveté,” Iam not suggesting that we conduct our domestic arguments in hushed, prim tones for fear of what the neighbors will think. I am not suggesting that we relax the unend- ing vigilance which the maintenance of our internal security demands. Serious charges must continue to be seriously and fully in- vestigated. I am suggesting, however, that the world which looks to us for leadership, ahd the American people, have a right to ex- pect that public concerns will not be ox~< ploited for private or partisan ends. : We all have a right to expect that the in< tegrity and good sense of our public servants will not be called deliberately into question by politicians who seek publicity on false issues at whatever cost to the general good. We have aright to expect that no destructive attempt to discredit and confuse the conduct of foreign affairs will be made deliberately by those whose own views on foreign affairs have been rejected by the people at large. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD These wanton efforts to besmirch, to con~ fuse, these deliberate efforts to sow doubt about our Nation’s leaders, make our world jeadership a far more difficult thing. It is not easy at best. Even when viewed sympa- thetically by our friends abroad, these charges make us seem silly. At worst, these charges, and the heat with which they are- pressed, the broad inferences with which they are coupled, suggest that our national leadership, and foreign policies do not com~- mand the confidence of the American people. They may suggest that our people are divided and confused; that our public understanding and public opinion is ill-informed, easily panicked, easily frightened. They may even suggest that democratic representative gov- ernment, at moments when it faces its highest tests, can be easily deflected from the important tasks at hand by irresponsible out- cries for purges and partisan causes. Those nations who have not yet definitely alined themselves with the west, but who have looked to us for aid and comfort in their struggle against Communist domination, will see us now through clouds of suspicion and mistrust. If our plans for world poace and stability are to be effective, we must have their trust and their confidence. If our sin- cerity and capacity are called into question, which way can they turn? The Communist world, we can be sure, will exploit the situation to the full. The Soviet radio and controlled press will dili- gently seek to create the impression that their system and philosophy is able to at- tract the loyalty of men in the high positions of their greatest antagonist—and that we have not the wit or the techniques to detect them effectively or keep them out. The customary Soviet practice, when it plans an attack hot or cold on another gov- ernment, is in advance to break down confi- dence in the established government. No Soviet agent could do more along this Com-~ munist line than is being done by those who claim they are acting from patriotic motives in making charges directly against our State Department and indirectly against our President. The charges of disloyalty and the accom-~ panying campaign to discredit our foreign policy are best refuted by examining our con-~ duct of world affairs. What are the facts? What does the record tell us? Recently as a member of a Senate appro- priations subcommittee I revisited a number of countries in the Middle East and Far Hast to learn at first hand of conditions there— economic, social, and political. Let’s turn to the Middle East. Here is a strategic crossroads—here three continents join. The Soviet Union would control that vital area today if it had not been for the quick and vigorous action of the United States in giving economic and military assist- ance to Turkey and to Greece. The United States recognized the threat presented to all the free nations by the Communist drive to seize Greece. A plan of action was adopted based on the principle that has become known as the Truman doctrine. The State Department planned and carried out that program, in the early and uncertain days, when the outcome was dubious and the risks seemed very great. In many quarters that program was opposed not only because it was expensive, not only because it was a calcu- lated risk—but also because in those days it seemed too anti-Communist. The administration is responsible for the success of that program. And it has made a vast difference in the struggle between free- dom and totalitarian communism. If Greece _ had fallen, Soviet communism would now front on the Aegean Sea. An outflanked Turkey would have had to surrender to Soviet control that dearly sought prize, the Turkish Straits. How far beyond that, into Iran, into militarily weak countries of the Middle ‘ East, would Soviet power now extend? But
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the peoples of Greece and Turkey are still independent today; the eastern Mediter- ranean is open; the middle eastern coun- tries still control their own destinies. This hardly seems the work of an administration riddled and dominated by Communists, Some of us are worried now about Indo- china. But do not forget that 2 years ago we were equally worried that communism would take over France and Italy. In west- ern Europe, immediately following the war, there was chaos and depression of spirit. The Communist parties flourished in an at- mosphere of despair. They worked eagerly to carry out Moscow’s orders. We should not now be in any doubt about what those or- Gers were. They were aimed at Communist control of western Europe. Freedom and democracy were in acute danger of being wiped out in western Hurope—of being over~ thrown from within. Those who are en- trusted with the conduct of our foreign rela- tions saw the danger. And they saw what was required. The Marshall plan stands as a tribute to the foresight, the intelligence, and the devotion of the men who conduct our foreign relations. We are familiar with the results. The countries of western Eu- rope, with our aid, have taken great strides toward recovery, toward security, toward con- fidence. They not only survive as free peo- ples; the membership of Communist parties has dwindled, and the aims of Communist parties have been exposed as the clear aims of Moscow. This hardly seems the work of an administration riddled and dominated by Communists. When European economic recovery was threatened by fear of aggression, by the in~ security bred out of the sense that western Europe stood defenseless before Soviet Rus- sia’s military forces, we joined with 10 west= ern European nations and Canada in a com- pined, integrated defense system for democ- racy on both sides of the Atlantic. In this development of our foreign policy the State Department was again the leader. And again, I find it very difficult to see in this evidence that it was animated by Communist sympa- thies. And now let us turn to Chind—a subject which is closely related to the charges of disloyalty, and counter charges that the for- mer are partly instigated by a Nationalist China lobby. What is the record of the Department there? No one can deny that the Communist triumph in China represents a serious set- back for the forces of freedom. The critics of our China policy claim that the outcome would have been different if our policy had been different. But none of these critics have been able to suggest now, and none did - at the time, how we could have persuaded, or forced, the Chinese Nationalists to use wisely the large-scale assistance we gave them, or to accept the best advice we could proffer, or to institute the reforms that alone would have insured continued sup- port for the Nationalist Government by the Chinese people. General Marshall’s diag- nosis has been proved correct; the remedies the United States offered were not accepted; if the mainland of China today. is in the hands of Communists, it is because of the actions of Chinese Nationalists and of Chi- nese Communists and not of American Com- munists in our Government. Our foreign policy has a consistent record of support for freedom and democracy. It has strengthened free nations against aggres- sion and subversion. It has consistently sought to generate throughout the world the conditions in which communism cannot thrive. We have made continuing efforts to carry out constructive and creative poli- cies such as our programs to expand world trade, to share the world’s advanced tech= nology, and to ensure freedom of informa- tion, These are potent proofs that our for- 1 eign policy deserves the support of the Amer- ican people. In the tremendous expansion of our for- eign responsibilities since the Second World War began, those who conduct our foreign relations have had unprecedented demands laid upon them. We have needed as never in our history men of experience, men of intellect, men of imagination, men of cours age, integrity, and the broadest human sym- pathy. The American people have been for- tunate that men with these qualities have been forthcoming. We are especially for- tunate that a public servant who possesses these qualities has been since 1941 almost uninterruptedly in a position of responsi- bility in the conduct of our foreign affairs, and that he is now Secretary of State. In the development of our foreign policies in these crucial times Dean Acheson has been a fellow traveler with such men as Mr. Hull and Mr. Stettinius, Mr. Byrnes and General Marshall. He must be charged with the guilt of association with them. I think no man has brought to that posi- tion in recent years a richer background of training and experience in international af- fairs, He is a man who speaks his mind with conviction and clarity. He has shown that he understands in their widest scope the great issues of our day, and has the courage, the energy, and the wisdom to join in what must be the long, hard efforts of the Amer- ican people to create a free and peaceful in- ternational order. I feel sure that under his Jeadership the Department of State is not merely free of Communist penetration; it is strong and competent to fight it. There seems to be a@ general lack of ap- preciation of what has been done, and of what continues to be done, to insure loyalty on the part of the Department’s employees. There has been, and there continues to func- tion there a comprehensive, thorough-going machinery for discovering and eliminating security risks and disloyal employees, and to screen such persons from the ranks of applicants for positions. This procedure was instituted, under General Marshall, and has been vigorous and thorough, fair and just. When there is any doubt, that doubt is resolved in favor of the Government. Every employee is checked for security by the Department’s own highly trained Investiga- tion Branch, which has 20 regional offices throughout the country. Where a doubt of loyalty is involved, the case is referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, com- monly known as Hoover’s FBI for a full field investigation. The results of investiga- tion are reviewed and evaluated by the De- partmental Loyalty and Security Board (whose chairman by the way is a Republi- can). In accordance with the President’s loyalty program requirements, the cases war- ranting a field investigation are post-audited by the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board. Any citizen who suspects any officeholder of being disloyal should inform the FBI of that suspicion and the facts on which it is based. I think that the Department of State's record, its security procedures, and its lead~ ership should convince us that the conduct of our foreign relations is not being sabo- taged or subverted. I think we can regain the public confidence and public clarity that has been lost in recent weeks through shrill and reckless attacks on the security of our Government and the integrity of our public servants: And I think we may even learn some useful lessons from recent events, be- cause similar tactics have been used in the past, and we should be on our guard against them in the future. We must learn that when someone cries “Smoke” we ought not necessarily to yell “Fire” and have a panic. It may be only a smoke screen, or even a fog. And we must learn that cold feet are less valuable than cool heads in fighting a cold war, A2961 Decline in American Shipping EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. HERBERT R. O’CONOR OF MARYLAND IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, one of the major industries of the great port of Baltimore is shipbuilding and ship re- pair, and one of the major concerns in this field is the Maryland Drydock Co., of which Mr. George H. French, an out- standing leader of the industry, is president. In view of the concern which I have frequently expressed here on the Senate floor and elsewhere regarding the low es- tate to which the United States mer- chant marine has fallen, it is worthy of note that in his annual report to the stockholders of the Maryland Drydock Co., Mr. French calls attention to the fact that the number of American ships actively in service was only 13 percent of the world total in June 1949. This was little more than one-third of the 36 per- cent of world shipping which had been represented by the United States mer- chant marine 3 years earlier. As a result of the decline in American shipping, Mr. French’s report further disclosed, there has been a sharp drop in volume of work done throughout the year. He noted the fact that the Federal Government “has no adequate policy concerning the merchant marine and its supporting industries,” and he advocated a long-range program to rehabilitate the country’s shipping and ship-construction industry. I ask unanimous consent that the arti- cle appearing in the Baltimore Sunday Sun of April 23, 1950, concerning the Maryland Drydock Co. report, be in- serted in the Appendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the article was ordered to -be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Notes DECLINE IN UNITED STATES SHIPs— FRENCH, DRYDOCK COMPANY HEAD, DEPLORES SHRINKAGE (By J. S. Armstrong) Steady shrinkage of the American mer- chant marine and its adverse effect on the domestic shipbuilding and ship-repairing in- dustry received the attention of George H. French, president of the Maryland Drydock Co., in his annual report to stockholders. Mr. French noted that the number of ac- tive American ships had declined to only 18 percent of the world’s total in June 1949 from 86 percent 8 years earlier. This continuous decline in the American merchant fleet, he said, means that there has .been insufficient shipbuilding and repairing to maintain the industry at anything like the level said by the President’s Advisory Committee on Merchant Marine to represent the minimum required for the national se- curity. — LITILE ON FOREIGN SHIPS Strict dollar controls imposed on foreign ship operators by their governments have re- sulted in relatively little business being available on foreign ships, Mr. French also _ Stated,
A2962 Devaludtion of foreign currencies has ag- gravated this condition by making it ad- vantageous for the operators of foreign ships to repair in foreign yards. Our National Government, he further as- serted, has no adequate policy concerning the merchant marine and its supporting in~ dustries. The most elementary appreciation of the logistics of medern warfare, including warfare in the atomic era, make it perfectly obvious that this Nation could not mount a successful offense against an agg essor industry, and a ship-repairing «. ‘s; WW" French said. He referred to legislation known as the long-range shipping program, introduced in Washington by Senators O’Conor, of Mary- land, and Macnvuson, of Washington. SAYS IT WOULD HELP Tf enacted into law, he said, this legisla- tion will do much to provide the country with an effective maritime policy that should go far to remedy what is now a deplorable and dangerous situation. As a result of the recently completed engi- neering survey, Mr. French expressed confi- dence that a long-range program would be put into effect designed to keep the port of Baliimore in a strong ec xmoctitive nosition. Attention was called 14 ile e.ve' zea ore- handling facilities which are either in the course of construction or definitely under contract. Increased ore imports from Liberia and Venezuela over the next several years should result in greater port activity and additional ship-repair work, Mr. French said. He said that Maryland Drydock, despite a sharp drop in business volume and sales last year, is in the best financial condition in its history. The company’s balance sheet showed current assets on December 31 of $8,636,661, including $1,102,119 in cash and $2,500,000 in Treasury notes. This com-~- pared with current liabilities of $1,168,891. Address by Hon. Herbert H. Lehman, of New York, at Democratic State Com- mittee Dinner EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN OF NEW YORE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, last Wednesday, April 19, at a dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria, sponsored by the New York State Democratic Committee, I made some brief remarks concerning the function and role of the Democratic Party. I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to insert those remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp: There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: I am delighted to be at this gathering of the faithful. I hail all my fellow veterans of political battles, past and present. I greet also my distinguished colleagues from Congress. They honor us by their pres ence tonight, just as they have honored their party and their country by their consistent efforts in behalf of liberalism and democracy all these years. But I address myself chiefly to the Demo- cratic Party leaders and workers assembled here tonight. My message is mainly for you. You men and women have helped make it possible for this Nation to be governed by and for the people during the past 20 years. You helped elect Al Smith as Governor of this State. You helped send Bob Wagner to the United States Senate. You helped give Franklin Roosevelt to his State, to the Nation, and to history. Iam happy to see among us many who were too young to vote for Al Smith and some who were even too young to vote for Franklin D, Roosevelt, either as governor or President. A recent poll showed that of all voters com- ing of age since 1948, twice as many be- came Democrais as became Republicans. Of course, I will not vouch for the accuracy of any poll. But I think that this one refiects a significant truth. Let the day never come . When this trend ishalted. Whercur~ev*r - the Democratic Prrt~--:top5 :. youth of this *v Wrier, when the Democratic Party ceases to have the spirit of boldness and adventure which has characterized it for the past three-quarters of a century, then we will have reason to doubt ourselves and our party. We claim to be, and we are, the party of the people. We are the party that represents the will of the people. We are the party which tries to translate the will of the people into the law of the land. We can never fulfill our political mission by being reactionary. We can never fulfill our political mission by being timid and fearful. We will not fulfill our mission if we lose touch with the people—the plain people of the shops, offices, farms, factories, and small businesses who comprise the great majority of the body politic. We represent labor. We represent inde- pendent business. We represent the farm- ers. But we are not a party of these inter~ ests alone. We are a party of all the people who desire progress in America, who want this country, and the whole world, to move forward, in an orderly manner, under God, to bring the greatest good to the greatest number of men and women, regardless of social position, of race, of religion, of color, or of creed. We are a party of performance and of service. We do not merely run on our plat- form. We stand on it. The Democratic Party must continue to serve the people, on the national, State, and local levels, or our party will not survive the test of the polls. The Democratic Party 1s not an end in it- self. It is the means by which the public will is translated into programs and into action. Should we ever forget this simple truth, we will cease to know the sweet taste of victory at election time. We will have forfeited our right to leadership. In the sometimes artificial atmosphere of Washington these simple facts are some- times forgotten. As I recall, this happens in Albany, too. But the people do not for- get. The people know. They may be fooled for a time. But their judgment is sure in the long run. This is my faith and my creed. It is the faith and creed of the Dem- ocratic Party. I hope it will always be so. The reactionaries and enemies of progress somtimes win temporary victories. But no party which loses its integrity, which for- gets its responsibilities and which fails to recognize that the welfare of the people, and thus of the country, is its first concern, stays long in power, or deserves to. ‘ The Democratic Party, under the leader- ship of that indomitable figure, Harry Ss. Truman, is in power in Washington today because of certain pledges made to the American voters 2 years ago. There was a question of interpretation of some of those pledges, in regard to something called the . APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD welfare state. Only 6 months ago the people of New York returned their verdict on this subject, too. Today we are fighting for the laws and programs which we promised to the people. We are finding obstacles and difficulties in our way. On some fronts our progress is less than spectacular. But the obstacles, however great, will not be able to stay the surging tide of the popu- lar will. Neither the hysterical cries of the witch hunters at home nor the intrigues and designs of the Communists here or abroad will succeed in turning the American people and the American Nation from the course of progress, peace, and justice. Our objectives are really simple. We seek to have our Government function in behalf of the people, to protect the weak against the tyranny of the strcng, but to encourage the strong to utilize their strength in the public interest. We seek to give every man equal opportunity, but to leave the field open for each to have free play for his talents, and his thoughts. This is my understanding of the welfare state. It is also the people’s understanding, They will not willingly turn back to that state to which our Republican friends would like to return—the jungle state—that state in which the only law is -that of the tooth and the fang, where the primitive code of the strong and the powerful prevails. ' Just as surely as the sun sets over the Hudson, we will gain the goals we have set.’ We will carry out our pledges. We will pro- vide those services which are needed and which the people cannot provide for them-, Selves. We will provide expanded health services. We will provide adequate housing for persons of middle income. We will repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. We will assure the equality of rights of all American citizens, re= gardless of race, creed, or color. We will da that and much more too. We may not wholly succeed this year. But in a few months the people will have a chance tospeak again. If the Democratic Party con~ tinues to play its historic role—and I have every confidence that it will—the Highty- second Congress will be a better Congress than the Lighty-first. And there will be changes in Albany, too. We must have faith and patience. But above all we must have vision and courage, Holding fast to those qualities, we cannot fail, Multiple-Purpose Project Data EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. NORRIS POULSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. POULSON. Mr. Speaker, in the Public Lands Committee we have before us an authorization bill for a fantastic program in central Arizona. While this bill calls for approximately $'700,000,000 and all reports state that this will not be a completed project but will need additional reservoirs above to prevent Bridge Canyon Dam from silting up, it is estimated that the costs will be still greater. The figures which I am submitting are merely to show that on the basis of record the final costs on projects greatly exceed the original estimates made by the Bureau of Reclamation.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD A2963 U. S. Bureau of Reclamation—Multiple-purpose project data Project and State a) Boulder Canyon, Ariz.-Nev.2_... Davis Dam, Ariz.-Nev.2 Central Valley, Calif. Colorado-Big Thomp: Fort Peck, Mont.?__..-.. Hungry Horse, Mont.?_ Columbia Basin, Wash. Kendrick, Wyo--.--- 7 Riverton, Wyo-. Shoshone, WY0....--~-------0-= io Missouri River Basin—various...-...---------e-------< Date of first Original esti Present esti. ;goustrac- abet tiled mated cos mated cos jon appro- ° priation (kilowatts) Q) (3) (4) (5) $126, 500, 000 $178, 900, 000 1930 1, 382, 300 200, 114, 488, 000 1942 225, 000 170, 000, 000 581, 886, 000 1936 815, 000 44, 000, 0 150, 503, 000 1935 177, 400 5, 732, 554 16, 250, 000 1943 36, 648, 000 108, 800, 000 1946 285, 000 393, 000, 000 773, 339, 000 1934 1, 974, 000 20, 000, 000 25, 000, 000 1934 32, 400 9, 500, 000 21, 813, 403 1921 1, 600 8, 851, 3 1A, 8E1, 795 190. 10, 600 529, 152,800 | 2.584. 127 845 1946 1, 180, 200 1, 886, 584,714 | 4, 817, 208, 956 |..-.--..-~.- 5, 988, 500 Date power available Prozeet com- Jection date First Final presen ©) @) (8) October 1986........ May 1954_....2-.2-. June 1955. November 1950. April 1951... -| June 1954, June 1944 After 1956_. After 1956. May 1943 April 1953 June 1953.3 April 1942. After 1956. August 1939_ August 1939__ -| June 1955. Tune 1925__.. November 1925__....| June 1954, April 1922. -| December 1948_ -| Tune 1956. May 1950__........- After 1956_.....--.-- After 1956, 1 Differences between original and present estimated costs are due to the approved changes in project programs and changes in price levels. 2 Projects for which irrigation is not directly involved. 3 Project to be complete except for additional transmission facilities at present in a deferred status. From p. 662 pt. 4 bearings before House Subcommittee, Interior Department Appropriations for 1951. Licensing of Motion-Picture Industry EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON OF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Appendix of the Recorp a newspaper article éntitled “How Now, Senator?” written by Oscar Davis, and published in the Washington Daily News on Monday, April 24, 1950, in which a question is asked of me. In that connec- tion I also ask unanimous consent to insert in the Appendix of the Recorp my reply to the question in the form of a letter to my colleague, the senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. WrteEy]. There being no objection, the article and the letter were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Washington Daily News of April 24, 1950] How Now, SENATOR? (By Oscar Davis) I note with considerable glee that Senator ALEXANDER WILEY, Republican, of Wisconsin, had at Senator Epwin C, Jounson, Democrat, of Colorado, last Thursday concerning the Colorado Senator’s proposal to license the motion-picture industry. Senator Wry, ranking Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee, minced no words in describing the brain storm of his Democratic colleague. He warned that the proposed legislation was completely unconstitutional and could properly be described as a police-state mon-= ster. He emphasized his speech with the charge that JoHnson’s plan is a gestapo idea. This isn’t the first time that Senator JoHN= son has been smote in his own bailiwick. The two-time Governor of Colorado has come up with some statements that first amazed, then ired his fellow members. In March of 1944 he denounced the fourth-term cam- paign of President Roosevelt, saying, “His tory will name the fourth term, if it ever tmaterializes, as the term of defeat and frus- tration.” In 1945, the Senator took a dim view of the Navy due to' the development of the atom bomb. Every surface ship in the Navy be- rE  — came obsolete with the advent of the atomic bomb, he reportedly gloomily. Late in the same year he proposed that a loan to Britain be financed by a special bond issue which would pay off only if Britain repaid its obli- gation. FAMILIAR PATTERN Such bumbling has repeatedly marked the career of the Colorado ex-railroad section hand, whose personal background belies his political fumbles. His life story has a trace of the Horatio Alger myth. Born in Kansas in 1884, Senator JOHNSON roamed across the Midwest—living for a time in Nebraska—eventually settling in Colorado when he was victimized by tuberculosis. Always a scrapper—right or wrong—the Senator whipped this illness with the tenac- ity he had previously exhibited in performing such chores as baggage handler, telegrapher, train dispatcher, cowpuncher, school teacher, and manager of a mulling cooperative. He broke into politics in 1922 when he was elected to the Colorado statehouse. Never defeated, he served successively as lieuten- ant-governor, governor, and finally Senator. However, in tangling with Senator Winey and Hollywood the Senator from the Rocky Mountain State may have grabbed the tail of a tiger too unmanageable even for a husky Coloradan who is tall, raw-boned and as rugged as the mountains of his home State. COMMON GROUND Strangely enough the two senatorial com- pbatants have a common background, both are of Scandinavian extraction, both are of Lutheran faith, both attend the generally unpublicized Wednesday morning breakfasts which are held in the Senate’s private dining room, breakfasts which are devoted to a spiritual consideration of the problems of the day. Their main difference, apparently, is the definition of the word, morality. For reasons best known to himself, Senator Jounson has decided that Hollywood is im- moral. His bill is scheduled for a hearing May 20. I’m willing to stick out this vulner- able neck and prophesy that even though the bill gets a committee hearing (and I doubt that) it will never come to a vote in Senate or House. The more I attack this Colorado Senator, the better I like him. And I wish sincerely that he’d turn his apparently inexhaustible energy to problems which would better bene-~ fit this brave new land. Hollywood is an easy and provocative tar= ‘get, a sitting duck, if you please. Senator JOHNSON’s background indicates that he is ‘not one to sling a load of buckshot at a crip- ple. Let us hope that he holds his fire herein. APRIL 24, 1950. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. My Drak SENATOR WitEy: I have read with mingled curiosity and surprise your state- ment in the Appendix of the CoNcRESSIONAL Recorpd on April 20, 1950, with respect to S. 3237, a bill introduced by me dealing with the misconduct of performers in the motion- picture industry. Previously I had noted your insertion on March 15 on this same sub- ject. Also I have studied your memorandum and legal analysis of the bill. These data clearly indicate your great concern lest the motion-picture industry be confronted by Congress with any question involving their transgressions. Since apparently you have elected yourself to be their defender our com- mittee will welcome your appearance as a witness when the hearings open on May 15. Please consider this a formal invitation to be our initial witness. You ask, with righteous indignation, “Why use a 100-barrel shotgun where a flit gun would do?” Since I have never hunted tigers with a fy swatter I cannot answer that primary inquiry. You go on to say, “If there was anything objectionable to it (Stromboli) the reel could never have entered our coun~- , try, because the United States Treasury De-~ & partment through its customs offices pos- sesses powers to ban admission of morally objectionable items.” Obviously, you miss entirely the dangers to American youth in- herent in this film. No film can be wholesome if the artists appearing therein have rotten and notorious private lives which have become public scandals. Read the display ads exploiting Stromboli. Nothing is said about the piot but everything emphasizes the leading lady and her director. All the advertising is built around them. They ate the heroes and the { pin-up idols for the youth of America and they are the models which shape the lives of America. This is the pattern used in mo- tion-picture advertising. I have before me an actual photograph of the billing of a motion-picture house in Colorado coaxing in customers to see Strom- boli with huge banners reading: “Raging passion,” “The star Bergman,” “The inspired Rossellini,” “The great lover,” “Senators say it is red-hot lurid sex,” “Rossellini says it’s wonderful.” This same type of inciting ad- ‘vertising appeared in nationally circulated magazines which go into millions of Ameri- can homes. That sort of misrepresentation and repulsive exploitation by the motion- picture industry of the misconduct of its performers sounds like the come-on ballyhoo
A2S64 of a cheap burlesque house. Has the motion- picture industry, second only to our churches and schools as educational influences, sunk to this low level with your warm approval? No church would permit such inspired hopheads as Rossellini and Mitchum to oc- cupy its pulpit; parents would be outraged if Lila Leeds and Ingrid Bergman were em- ployed as teachers 1n our schools. But the motion-picture industry gives these derelicts the opportunity to teach and preach to mil- lions. Glamorizing immorality cannot be defended. Bergman, thanks to the motion- picture industry, influences millions of lives where the ordinary teacher or preacher is limited to hundreds. . You say with great feeling, “Let there pea spontaneous moral crusade among our people led by our great churches, assisted by all devout people in the cinema them- selves, and let this voluntary crusade be the answer to the problem of immorality in Hol- lywocd or anywhere else.” Such 2 crusade would be just dandy, but I don’t hear the rumblings of one getting under way. Society would need no laws or regulations if cru- sades could save us. Your noble solution would evoke only sneers from the cocaine sniffer Rossellini, the brazen Bergman, the marihuana jail- bird Mitchum, and the extortionist Lila Leeds, all of whom *-e w7*F47-ietyé> in- dustry extols and «soc. +. UE: 4 castry has made it possible 27-c.+-. .72 “y cons tribute to American juvenile delinquency. I am amazed that a statesman of your wide exnerierce wholesome attitude toward spir- iku:i reluer. and great legislative capacity has no remedy against the exploitation of these notorious characters other than a “Ait gun.” Words alone will cure nothing. Fur- thermore, freedom of the box office to cor- rupt highly impressionable youth does not appeal to me. I do agree with you, however, that Federal censorship is not the most desirable answer. No one in this Senate is more opposed to regimentation than I. However, the virtue of S. 3237 is that it presents the most drastic solution of the problem and permits full ex- ploration of the legal and public interest questions involved. That is the underlying purpose of the Senate hearing set for May 15. Frankly, I have under consideration two cthas exnresehes which I am assured by able ert cou itel “awyers are not only sound legally but may prove more effective and would avoid obnoxious Federal censorship which is so repugnant to Americans. It would be so much better if the industry itself would recognize its own tremendous responsi- pilities to the people of America and do its own policing. - You suggest the motion-picture industry be given the opportunity to work out its own solution to this problem on a voluntary basis. I am all for that and the hearing which Iam planning will make that its primary objec- tive. Why, then, are you demanding that this hearing shall not take place? I cannot understand why a legislator should seek to cover up this stench. I am curious to learn why you are so worried and concerned over a Senate hearing on this subject. What dis- closures do you fear? I have always believed that by bringing public welfare problems out into the sunlight of sober analysis a solution may be found. ! Comforting as it might be to Rossellini, Hayworth, Bergman, Mitchum, Lila Leeds, et al., and their defenders, a learned disser- tation on the constitutionality of Federal censorship will not be pertinent to the issue.’ Other legislative approaches not involving the constitutional questions you raise will be before us. We hope, therefore, you will de- vote your great talents to the problem of the exploitation of the immorality of private lives by the motion-picture industry for cash on the barrel head. This aspect of the prob- lem is the root of the evil and should be faced squarely. % With great respect for your rvo*2v~ 3 zrasp of legalistic procedures, your. i2-(.. .. Op- position to sin, and with gratitude for your interest and concern over the future of the motion-picture industry, I ask to remain Faithfully yours, Ep C, JOHNSON. Advertising of Liquor, Beer, and Wine EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a letter from Mrs. R. H. Sorensen, of Palo Alto, Calif., regarding ban on advertising of liquor, beer, and wine, together with an article on the same subject. There being no objection, the letter and article were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Senator LANGER, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. Drak SEnaTOR Lancer: I recently read about your measure to ban advertising of liquor, beer, and wine. I think it is a very timely measure and should be given all the support possible to enable it going through Congress. I, for one, am so tired of hearing the liquor shorts on the radio. These stations of the San Francisco Bay area seem to put the shorts between programs that the children are going to listen to and I resent that very much. Children shouldn’t have liquor plasted to them every day over the radio. What is the country thinking of when they permit such a thing to be? I also resent all the billboards along the roads the liquor companies place there. I don’t drink anything along that subject, however, I will grant the people that do, the privilege if they won’t blast it at me and criticize me for not so doing, I am tired of the worry every time we go out on the highway on the chance a drunken driver will run into us. I sincerely hope that your measure will be adopted, especially where the radio is con- cerned. Sincerely, Mrs. R. H. SorENSEN. Liquor Cannep Bie Facror In Most CrasHzs Liquor or intoxicants were contributing factors in 11,336 motor vehicle accidents— 518 of them fatal—in California last year, according to a statistical summary disclosed today by the California highway patrol. The summary was broken down further to show that drivers obviously drunk were in- volved in 161 fatal accidents and 3,709 non- fatal mishaps. The classification, “had been drinking,” revealed 352 fatal accidents and 7,114 nonfatal accidents charged against those drivers. In the general classification, “condition of driver contributing to accident,” intoxicants were far ahead. Runners-up—but far to the Tear—were drivers apparently asleep. They were involved in 67 fatal accidents and 1,004 nonfatal ones. Drivers fatigued or sleepy ac< counted for 37 fatal and 820 nonfatal acci- dents. The figures are part of an over-all report of motor vehicle accidents in California in preparation by the statistical section of the ., highway patrol. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Problems of Social Legislation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT H. LERMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, on April 15, I was present at the forty-fifth anniversary luncheon of the League for Industrial Democracy in New York City. One of the speakers on that fine occasion was Federal Security Administrator Oscar R. Ewing, wh) delivered a very powerful and stimulating address on problems of social legislation. I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to in- sert Mr. Ewing’s speech into the Appen- dix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Iam glad to join with you in celebrating the forty-fifth anniversary of the League for I:.dustrial Democracy. I am here, not only in my own behalf, but as the representative of the President of the United States. Presi- dent Truman has asked me to bring you his personal greetings and good wishes, and to express his congratulations on your forty- fifth birthday. The President was especially happy to know that Senator LEHMAN is recelving your citation for his public services in behalf of democracy here and abroad. No one could deserve it more. HERBERT LEHMAN is a great statesman and you honor yourselves in hon- oring him. The people of New York know and honor him—as Mr. Dewey found out back in 1938, and as one of Mr. Dewey's friends discovered only last fall. And the secret of Hrrsert LEHMAN’s states- manship is not that he her heow aostti*isien but that he has been @ Jerr tr, — et eT with a large D and democrat with a small d. I have known Senator Lehman for a long time. I remember him back in the days of the First World War. I had gone into the Army and wound up as a junior officer in our infant Air Force. Not *verybody, of course, was glamorous in the Air Force. Some were. They went over to France and piloted those little crates that were held together with baling wire. But there were less exciting assignments, too, and I found myself in Washington working on contracts for the Air Force. During those hectic months, I met a young man who had already made a healthy reputation as a businessman. He was a captain or a major, I believe, when I first met him, and he was on the General Staff as assistant director of purchase, stor- age, and traffic in the War Department, winding up as a full colonel. I don’t know how well Colonel LEmMaNn remembers cap- tain Ewing, but I can assure you that Cap- tain Ewing remembers Colonel LeHMAN very well. I remember his resonant voice, his unfailing courtesy, his ability to combine attention to detail with a rounded view of major problems, the strength that was con- cealed under his tact, his good humor, and his simple human grace. Colonel LzHman received the Distinguished Service Medal for his services in World War I, and it was as well deserved as the citation you have awarded Senator Lruman today for his out- standing achievements in the broad ficld of public service. You have heard much about the public career of this great American. I think it may be useful to put this career in its proper perspective—as the historians will see it, During the past 30 years, four leaders | ad
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD were primarily responsible for liberal leg- islation in New York State. You know the four men I mean—Alfred E. Smith, Robert F, Wagner, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Her- bert H. Lehman. They transformed the politics of the Empire State. They brought democracy to life and made it work—the demccracy of both the small and the large D. We in New York are not so self-conscious about native sons as people in some other States, but I think every New Yorker is proud of that foursome—Smith, Wagner, Roosevelt, and Lehman. Today, HeRBert LetMman, alone of the four, earries on their tradition. He is bringing to Washington the sum of his wisdom, his judgment, and his statesmanship. God knows we have needed him in Washington. When I look at the sorry Senators of the irresponsible right-—-the McCarthys, the Wherrys, the Hickenloopers, and their ilk— I say, thank God for Senator Leaman. We need him. We need him today for the short term in the Senate—and we need bim even more tomorrow for the long term. We need him because he is a man who is able to drive to the heart of the problems that confront our country. He is not terri- fied by the shrieks and slogans of the ir- responsible right. When he was accused of favoring the welfare state, he acknowledged it with pride. Back in the days of the Revolution, the British had a term of contempt for the colonial Americans who presumed to set up their own independent Nation. But the colonial Americans took the name to them- selves. Sure they were Yankee Doodles, and they were dandy. I can remember, not so many months ago, when the Republicans were flinging the phrase “welfare state” at us as though it were an epithet of re- proach. It has backfired in the same way that Yankee Doodle backfired on the British. Sure, we Democrats are for the welfare state—if by welfare state you mean better health for the American people, more edu- cation, greater social security, good jobs at good wages, protection against the hazards of unemployment and depression, civil rights, good housing at reasonable cost, and the whole broad program of President Tru- man’s Fair Deal. If that is the welfare state, then we are for it, and proud of it. The American people are for it, and proud of it. And the Republicans have dropped the subject, so that today it becomes the theme, not of a Republican box lunch wake, but of a serious, dignified, important gathering such as ours today. So the Republicans have now gone back to worrying about socialism. A few weeks ago they told that liberty versus socialism was the No. 1 issue before the country. Since nobody paid much attention, they have dropped its popularity to No. 10 on their latest list of abbreviated slogans. If it goes down any further, it will fall out of their 10-point platform entirely. The cry of socialism is always a sign of the bankruptcy of conservatism in the United States. I am sorry the Republicans have sunk so low, because in our political system we must always preserve a strong two-party system—and that means we should encourage a healthy conservative minority. But a conservative party is not healthy when it yells “socialism.” It is very sick— made sick, perhaps, by the logic of history. A hundred years ago, those who opposed es- tablishment of free public schools called them socialism. That was not conserva- tism; it was stupidity. In 1887, when Con- gress set up the Interstate Commerce Com- mission, the railroads all shouted “social- ism.” That was no conservatism; it was selfish stupidity. In 1913 the Nation’s bank- ers let out the same cry when the Federal Reserve Act became law. And remember how the Wall Street brokers bemoaned the end of free government when the Securities Act of 1983 was passed, and how insurance com- panies howled “socialism” when the Social Security Act was passed. They were not being conservative; they were being stupid. As you know very well, socialism means nationalization of production. Neither I nor anyone else in President Truman’s Ad~ ministration has the remotest desire to na- tionalize anything. On that, I can agree with the most reactionary member of the National Association of Manufacturers or of the American Medical Association. I believe with all my heart that our American sys- tem is the best that man has so far de- vised. But that does not mean it is per- fect. That does not mean it has no defects which we are seeking to correct. And we want to correct them with the least possible disturbance to our society and our economy, The conservatives may yell socialism at any suggestion for improvement. They may feel the hot breath of revolution with every proposal for change. But the most danger- ous enemies we have to our American way of life are those very people whose emblem is not the eagle but the ostrich who refuse to recognize the defects that exist and who re- sist all efforts to take up these defects one by one and try to cure them. The surest way I know to encourage forms of govern- ment we do not like is to refuse to recognize and cure the imperfections in what we have. What does this mean if practiced? For one thing, it means that we have the obli- gation to ourselves to expand our social- . Security program so that it covers the greater portion of our population, and to increase the benefits so that they are more in line with the cost of living in this year 1950. I am confident that the Congress will make such amendments in the Social Security Act during the present session, and I think this will mark a great step forward. I do not have to explain the philosophy of social in- surance to this audience. You understand the principle as well as I do, and you recog-~ nize it as the only way in which our complex society can manage to build a floor on which people can stand when old age or death comes. We have as a nation accepted this prin- ciple of social insurance in one field. We have yet to accept it in another—the criti- cal field of insuring ourselves against the costs of medical and hospital care. Too many Americans are compelled to worry about the costs of such care when illness strikes. Too many Americans cannot afford to pay for the care they need. The only way to remove such worries is by adopting Presi- dent Truman’s program for a Nation-wide insurance system in which employers and employees would contribute to a fund out of which doctors and hospitals would be paid for the service they render. We have as a nation accepted the princi- ple that education should be free, universal, and supported out of tax funds. Since we have, as we should have, a decentralized educational system, operated by the State, this has thrown a heavy burden on the poorer parts of the country; and we must somehow work out a way of mobilizing the resources of the Nation to build and mod- ernize schoolhouses, to increase the number of teachers as well as increase the salaries of teachers and to raise the level of our ed~ ucational standards. In every field—housing, labor legislation, conservation, utilization of great new sources of energy—we must build strongly for the future. We must have the positive approach. It is good to see that a valiant champion of this positive approach, a man without venom but with a full heart and a coura- geous mind, is recognized for his public serv- ice. Senator LrHMaAN, and all of you who are here today, agree on the goal that lies before us—the goal of a better, a safer, a happier A2965 America in a better, a safer, a happier world—a well-faring world, if you want to eall it so. Our paths toward that goal may vary. But all who seek it are joined in the common cause and it is the cause that counts. Orr Oil Well EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD MARTIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr, MARTIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial from the Wood County Democrat, of Quitman, Tex., dated April 20, 1950, which has to do with an oil well in that area. I call it to the attention of my fellow Senators. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Orr WELL FLOWS 223 Barres DaIny; YEar’s Most IMPoRTANT STRIKE (By Jacob E. Shoaf) Uniess the attitude of Washington poli- ticians and officials change—the wildcatting spirit that caused affable Buster Orr to drill the new Pine Mills discovery well might well be broken. Washington big wigs, who not only fail to condemn, but ofttimes go out of their way to encourage the importation of foreign oil, are slowly but surely breaking the back of the small independent operator. The independ- ent operators are the ones that do the ma- jority of the wildcatting. Not only is Wash- ington failing to stop the encroachment of foreign oil into the domestic market—they are trying to take away the last incentive of the wildcatter—his depletion allowance. This little item is what many independent producers operate on—it allows them 27% percent exemption on their income from oil and gas. When you take away the incentives of an athletic team to win there’s hardly any use for them to play the game—likewise, when you take away the incentive of the wildcatter to spend his money on wildcat tests—you have to a large extent destroyed the independent oil operator. Unless the incentive had been there it stands to reason that Mr. Orr would not have ventured into an area that had been condemned by most geologists. He was alone in the venture. Oil companies with acreage in the area refused to lend any assist- ance. He was wildcatting in the purest sense of the word. Wood County friends of the Longview op- erator are preparing to urge the railroad commission to name the new discovery field “Orr Field” in honor of the wildcatter who risked money in the face of such tremendous odds. The fact that he won is encouraging— and all of Wood County is happy—but what is more important is the fact that this im- portant development should be a signal for ‘us to protect the things that made him have the incentive to go into the venture—that was the fact that he felt he could market the oil in a domestic market if it should produce and he stood a chance to make enough money out of it to search for bigger and better flelds in the days that lie ahead—this is the dream and goal of every true wildcatter. ‘
A2966 Communists in Government Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN OF NEW YORE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, last Sunday’s edition of the Washington Post carried in its editorial section a very in- teresting article by a very fine writer and reporter named Alfred Friendly. This article discussed an individual who has been very much in the public eye recently, Mr. Alfred Kohlberg, whose ac- tivities are said to have had a powerful bearing on the present controversy in Congress concerning American policy to- ward China. Mr. Friendly’s article pre- sents a series of arresting facts concern- ing Mr. Kohlberg’s activities, although the article, itself, is a very objective one. I ask the unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Appendix of the REcORD. There baing no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recor», as follows: MAN BEHIND THE Man WHo Is ACCUSING (By Alfred Fricndly) One man’s campaign—rejected and lan- guishing—obtains a new lease on life and gets front-page play in the Nation’s news- papets for 6 weeks running. One man’s accusations—thrown out 3 years ago by a jury of experts as irresponsible and not to be proved—becomes a central political issue in a national election cam~ paign. One man’s views on foreign policy in the Far East—utterly at variance with those of four successive Secretaries of State—becomes the canon cf o**7c5x~7 for a large segment of a major yer seb Party. One man—a private citizen, relatively ob- scure, and by his own admission without pre- tensions to being a scholar or (until re- cently) a statesman—finds Senators fighting his battles and a prestige-laden Senate sub- committee devoting most of its time for a month or more delving into his imputations, the most grevious political charges one man can make against another. M’CARTHY’S KEY CASE How come? How does it happen that Al- fred Kohlberg, a successful New York mer- chant, but by no means an industrial giant or tycoon, could build up his charges to make them form almost the entirety of Senator McCartHy’s key case against Owen Latti- more? Except for the testimony last Thursday of former Communist Louis F. Budenz, alleging that Lattimore was a Communist, the evi- dence presented by McCartHy was almost fully laid out years earlher by Kohlberg. How did Kohlberg push his other charges, similarly rejected by the authorities in the field concerned, until they came to consti- tute a large part of the rest of McCantHy’s case? How did the whole coms to win the support of the dominant Tarr-Brmcss- WHeERRY Wing of the Republican Party? Political historians of the future may pro- vide the answers, For the present, though, the most that can be done is to recount some f the facts. . It is well known that, with the exception of Budenz’s evidence just put on the record, Kohlberg provided McCartHy with the mate- rial for the case on which the Wisconsin Re- publican says he will stand or fall. Less well known is that that material is, almost in toto, old stuff, dating from 1944~ 47. And almost entirely overlooked is the fact that the Kohlberg material has been thoroughly investigated and found wanting in proof. The body that investigated and discredited those charges comprised more than 1,200 of the 1,800 members of America’s most esteemed and scholarly research organiza- tions on far-eastern affairs, the American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations. They voted, 1,163 to 66, that Kohlberg was talking through his hat. The precise words were that his charges were inaccurate and irresponsible. The investigators were singularly authori- tative. The IPR membership is in itself a roster cf most of the outstanding Americans with the greatest knowledge and direct con- cern in far-eastern matters. They are uni- versity scholars, editors, writers, merchants, attorneys, industrialists, and bankers with immediate interest and operations in the Orient. OTHER CASES COVERED A look at the documentation in the long fight of Kohlberg with the IPR shows that it covered almost the identical ground that McCartHy is now replowing. It included not merely the key case of Lattimore, but also almost all the informa- tion that McCarrHy and his group have used to attack Ambassador-at-Large Philip C. Jessup. Furthermore, in his fight in the IPR, through circular letters, pamphlets, and articles in magazines and papers, Kohlberg presented most of the data McCarruy has since used to attack State Department offi- cial, John S. Service. Finally, there are indications that Mc- CartHy’s attack against a fourth man on his list, State Department officer, Haldore HE. Hansen, also came originally from Kohlberg material, In the hight of all this, it becomes worth while to inquire into the activities of Kohl- berg and to look into the history and origin of the charges which, warmed over but un- changed in any essential, have become a new “topic A” in American conversation. Who is Kohlberg and why did he undertake a burning crusade into which he has poured enormous energy and substantial sums of money? And what is he doing now? Alfred Kohlberg, short, bald, and energetic, is a prosperous importer, much traveled in China. He deals in handkerchiefs, linens, and gloves. For many years he has con- ducted a large business—by his own figures, it grossed $1,500,000 a year—of farming out handkerchiefs and the like to cottage or home industry workers in China to be embroidered. In his travels he has been a guest of Generalissimo and Mme, Chiang Kai-shek. As early as 1943 he took up his cudgel against the IPR, of which he was a member. The fight became most intense in about 1945 and 1946 and reached its climax m April 1947, when his charges were overwhelmingly rejected. His complaint was that the IPR, through the publications of its international body and those of its American Council, was aid- ing and abetting the Communists in China and undercutting Chiang and his Nationalist Government. He held that the IPR staff was heavily weighted with Communist writers, that they became dominant, and that they used the IPR to peddle the party line. Budenz now says the same thing. Kohlberg fought this campaign ever harder, and is still fighting it. MAGAZINE WAS WEAPON He put out circular letters in enormous volume. He wrote extensively for the maga~ zine, China Monthly. He appears to have played a substantial part in organizing and APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD supporting different Chinese research and study and publicity groups in this country. He founded, in October 1946, the magazine, Plain Talk. It was primarily dedicated to an attack on communism in all its forms, but a heavy load of its articles was devoted to China policy. It served, in fact, as Kohlberg’s principal vehicle for his running fight in behalf of the Nationalist Government and in bitter denunciation of the State Department posi- tion on China. He fought the IPR through his articles, his magazine, his letters. Finally, he went to court, engaged in a proxy battle and pie- pared a monumental document to support his accusations. When he Icst his fight in the IPR, he founded a rival organization of his own, the American China Policy Association. By general report, right or wrong, he be- came a leading figure of the so-called China lobby. He had close association with promi- nent Nationalist figures in this country. Energetically, he brought his case to many Members of Congress. His pamphlets began to be circulated by William J. Gocdwin, until a few days ago the registered lobbyist for the Chinese Nation- alisis, and himself a man with unsavory past connections, especially with the Christian- front and pro-German movements. Kohlberg donated $1,000 on one occasion to the campaign of Senator Bringzs, Repub- lican, of New Hampshire. Bripars has been one of the loudest congressional drumbeaters in the cause of Chiang Kai-shek. In 1949, Bripces distrinuted from his office a report on China prepared at his request by Kohlberg. Other Members of Congress seem to have made a habit of inserting various Kohlberg articles into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Some, in speeches on the floor, made ad~ dresses remarkably reminiscent of the line that Kohlberg plugs in his articles and asso- ciations. Thus one finds former Representative Busbey, Republican, of Illinois, a great fellow for inserting Kohlberg and Plain Talk articles in the Recorp, making the first conzercssional attack on Haldore Hansen, in Maz il47. Tne material seems to have been drawn from, or at least first brought to light in, Kohlberg material in his fight with the IPR. Similarly, Representative LarHam, Repub- lican, of New York, started off an attack on Jessup in January 1948 with data that would point to Kohlberg as the source. In August 1949 Representative SmirH, Republican, of Wisconsin, inserted in the Recorp a Kohlberg letter bitterly attacking Jessup, and contain- ing much the same material McCartHy used 8 months later. Why Kohlberg’s burning passion and un- remitting fight? The New York importer declined to give this reporter an interview last week (his stated reason was that the Washington Post had unfairly and inaccurately attacked him editorially), so his own explanation is not available. To suggest that he is motivated by a desire to save his big business in China seems, to this reporter, to underestimate Kohlberg’s character. His crusade must have cost him immense time that he might have otherwise have given his business, and it has clearly cost him large amounts of money. Rather, it would seem that he has em- braced a cause from reasons of principle and that his dedication is sincere. ELEMENTARY LOGIC From the accounts of people who have watched him, and, more demonstrably, from @ reading of his articles, Kohlberg’s point of view about China is simple—oversimple. He seems to take the line that anyone who criticizes any aspect of Chiang Kai- shek’s operations 1s thereby giving aid and comfort to the Communisis. Anyone who
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD gives them aid and comfort must be follow- ing the party line. Anyone fc ied thes line is thereby an enemy of the U rei S.2 Also, he seems now to be acting on "the converse of that proposition: Anyone who fights the Communists must be, by that very act, a fine fellow. Kohlberg, like McCartTHY, who has parroted his charges, has been a vigorous practitioner of the theory of guilt by association. He and McCartHy insist a man can be judged by his associates. When that test is applied to Kohlberg himself, he does not fare very well. He is now in curious company. Last October, he was guest at a dinner sponsored by the National Economic Council, an organization run by Merwin K. Hart, pro- Frenco n-olevist in this country and known as on d-Seiutic. The guest list included many upstanding and a few outstanding Americans. But it also included, as might be expected, the elite of American Fascists, led of by Lawrence Dennis. Kohlberg appears again on a list that in- cluded Hart and the notorious Joseph P. Kamp, head of the Constitutional Educa- tional League, and who was convicted of con= tempt of Congress. His publications were recommended and sold by at least 10 of the defendants in the wartime sedition trial. Kohlberg’s association was in connection with an affair for Theodore Aubert’s International Anti-Communist Entente. This organiza- tion, founded before the war with Swiss headquarters, enjoyed the support of Hitler. LETTERS TO TABLET Last June, Kohlberg was vice chairman (and, from his letters, apparently a prime organizer) of a dinner for Paul Yu-pin, the * Archbishop of Nanking. Again, many good and distinguished peo- ple attended. The speakers were Gen. Pat Hurley and Senator McCarran (Democrat, Nevada). But the treasurer for the dinner was Robert M. Harriss, once indicted as an umrevistered Ichbyist and former financial tay icc oa Pather Coughlin in his famous sil- ver deals. One of the sponsors of the dinner was Pat- rick Scanlon, ..-7020""7 ceztor of the Brook- lyn Tablet, the C1 ..¢ paper which still remains faithful to “the radio priest’s line, which printed his blasts and which gives aid and comfort to the most intemperately reac- tionary elements on the American political scene. For a man active in Jewish organizations and generous in Jewish charities, it is some- whet incerecrucnus to find that Kohlberg has had ~ub': ” Gi. ‘east 10 letters to the editor of -he Tri"ev, end has repeatedly received favorable mention in it. OFFERED SERVICES But incongruity (and false modesty) do not seem to bother Kohlberg. This most persistent and intransigent critic of American foreign policy wrote President Truman less than 8 weeks ago, nominating himself for the position of Ambassador at Large. He said he thought it was time that the President give him the job to advise State’ Department people who lost the fight in China and were about to lose it in the rest of the world. Kohlberg has admitted supplying Mc- CartHy material on Lattimore and Jessup. The admission was somewhat superfluous, since the previously available circumstantial evidence was convincing. Lattimore’s lawyers produced, when Latti- more testified before a Senate subcommittee in his own behalf, a double-column docu- ment showing that almost every one of Mc- CartHY’s major specific charges against Lat- timore and Jessup were previously stated by Kohlberg in one or another of his publica tions. In many cases the language, and even the metaphors, were identical. McCartuy had not chosen, apparently, to tamper with Kohl- bere’s distinctive prose style. Even some of the witnesses McCartuyr has said he will produce against Lattimore seem to have been uncovered, or pointed to, in Kohlberg’s earlier material. DRESS REHEARSAL But more important, and as mentioned above, all this material entered into the fight between Kohlberg and the IPR. The docu- mentation connected with that battle reads like a dress rehearsal of the McCarty allega- tions. Everything is there: Lattimore’s associa- tions and organizations; his writings and editing of the magazine Pacific Affairs, allegedly in a manner right down the Com-~ mie line; Jessup’s alleged leading of the IPR in a campaign to smear Chiang and extoll the Chinese Communists; the asserted pro- Communist cabal in the State Department that forced the resignation of Ambassador Grew, that sold Chiang down the river, that deceived Stillwell and forced him to oppose Chiang, that set the stage for insinuating the Communists into the Government—all the charges and the jine of argument used by McCartHy in two major speeches and two major presentations to the subcommittee. There is little point in going into details of the fight Kohlberg had with the IPR. He prepared a huge, 88-page document to back his case—using tactics of rlppimg Dassages out of context and of ignoring coz.i-10.2 ory evidence that remind one precisely of Mc- CartHy’s technique. He claimed that the IPR slavishly fol- lowed, in its publications, the alternating honeymoon and hate attitudes of the Krem- lin toward Chiang. To prove it, he cucted from less than 2 percent of the i-. ¢ es pu:- lished in IPR during the period and less than .002 percent of the books it put out. JESSUP AMONG FOES The IPR made a devasting reply in a docu- ment that it circulated to its members. It showed that Kohlberg had simply ignored the overwhelming number of facts that did not support his argument. The group that took Kohlberg on to an- swer his charge that the IPR was Commu- nist-dominated was about as conservative as one could imagine, including a Wall Street lawyer from a high-collar firm, and a group of major American industrialists. But one of the group was Jessup, and apparently Kohlberg never forgave him. The IPR is supported almost entirely by “fat cat” money—from the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, and from large bank~ ing and industrial concerns. Kohlberg made much of the fact that $3,500 came from the Communist Frederick V. Field, and so has McCarTHY. But to suppose that the IPR was bought by a sum of Communist money amounting to less than 2 percent of its budget, as against 98 percent coming from conservative sources, is as ridiculous as to suppose that an or- ganization of the IPR’s standing was bought by any money, regardless of the source. AWARDED NAVY E The IPR had and has the highest reputa~ tion for objective research. Its job is to pro- vide a forum for views from all quarters about the Far East, and to conduct honest research. The testimonials it has, in the form of doubled grants from the Chase and National City Banks, in the form of a Navy E award for its contribution to the war effort, in the form of its characterization by the Rocke- feller Foundation as “the most important single source of independent studies” on far eastern problems and in the form of an 1163 to 66 vote, would seem to be answer enough _ to the accusations Kohlberg brought against it and such of its principals as Lattimore and Jessup. A2967 Meeting of Americans and Russians at the Elbe EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. PAUL H. DOUGLAS OF ILLINOIS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an eloquent statement by Mr. Joseph P, Polowsky, of Chicago, Ill., entitled “The Oath at the Elbe,” recounting the meeting of Amer- ican and Russian soldiers 5 years ago to- day, and recommending action by the United Nations, which first met on the same day, to commemorate these efforts for world peace. I also ask unanimous consent that a brief statement of my own be printed by way of introduction. There being no objection, the state- ments were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT By Hon, PAvuL H, DOUGLAS, oF ILLINOIS It was just 5 years ago today that the United Nations first convened at San Fran- cisco. People of all lands, sick of the horrors of war, turned to it with new hope for justice and peace. While the years which followed have brought repeated and tragic disappoint- ments of these great hopes, it is, neverthe- less, fitting on this fifth anniversary that we recall them and renew our determination to make them realities. On the same day, in 1945, soldiers of the America Army under Lieutenant Kotzebue made contact at the Elbe with the advance patrols of the Russian Army. One of the infantrymen in this group, Joseph P. Polow- sky, of Chicago, Ill., has told in the brief but moving account which follows about the dramatic details of that meeting. As they viewed the human destruction of war, he recalls that the Russian and American sol- diers took an oath “that they would do everything 1n their power to prevent such things from ever happening again—that the nations would and must live at peace.” And Mr. Polowsky urges that the General Assem~ bly of the United Nations recommend that April 25 be set aside as a day of commemora-~ tion for a peaceful world. The statement by Mr. Polowsky represents the desire of the American people for peace, today as then. There are almost no Ameri- cans who want either war or aggression. It is probable that if the Russian infantrymen were free to speak, they would also join in this plea for peace. But whereas Mr. Polow- sky and his fellow Americans have the frce- dom to speak, the Russian people do not. Therein lies one of the roots of our difficulty. The will of the people for peace cannot be expressed or made effective behind the iron curtain. It is, therefore, difficult almost to the point of impossibility to persuade the Russian rulers to act for peace. We know now that it is no simple or easy task to realize the hopes of 1945 or to keep . the pledge of the soldiers who met at the Elbe. Repeated vetos, boycotts, obstinate refusals of reasonable disarmament agree- ments, the aggressive extension of tyranny over one free nation after another, and continued violations of treaty pledges by the Communist leaders of Russia have destroyed the freedom of millions and threatened the world with another war. Despite all that, the United Nations has made some memo- rable gains, through its concillators in India,
A2968 Indonesia, and the Middle East; through its trusteeship department fcr colonial peoples; through its specialized agencies on economic, social, educational, scentific, health, refugee, and judicial problems; and through the forum provided in the General Assembly for discussing conflicts in interest and creating world opinion. Cur national policy to strengthen the United Nations is clear. Our determination to held fast in the cold war against aggres= sive tyranny is equally firm. To do this, we realize we must continue to be strong. No weal appeasement of the Communist tyranny will buy peace or freedom, and I know that is not what Mr. Polowsky is urging upon us. Existing programs of foreign economic an military assistance must be renewed. Point 4 and other new programs for the welfare and security of underprivileged peoples must be developed. We must within and along- side the United Nations develop those effec- tive, supplemental agreements which will help to deter any aggressor by the clear promise of widespread, international resist- ance to any forces that move out to destroy free nations. And we must steadily seck to appcal to the Russian people for cooperation in our actions for peace, Just as the soldiers at the Elbe 5 years ago joined in their oath that 1t should be done. That it will take steady nerves, stout hearts, and our most highly trained intelli- gence is obvious. Every reasonable avenue for reaching agreements without appease- ment must be explored. But the strength and integrity of the free nations must be maintained. President Truman, on the occasion of the meeting at the Elbe, declared: “Nations which can plan and fight together shoulder to shoulder in the face of such obstacles of distance and of language as we have over-~ come, can live together and can work to- gether in the common labor of the organiza- tion of the world for peace.” And to the conferees at San Francisco he said: “We must build a new world—a far better worlda— one in which the eternal dignity of man is respected.” As we strive anew to attain these worthy objectives, I hope that the accompanying statement by Infantryman Polowsky will serve aS an inspiration to all who read it and that his suggestion for the establish- ment of April 25 as a day of commemoration for international amity may have the fullest consideration as one means of enabling the people of every nation to speak out for peace. THE OATH AT THE ELBE (Statement by Joseph P. Polowsky, of Chicago, Ill.) Five years ago today, on April 25, 1945—the day of the birth of the United Nations in San Francisco—six American soldiers crossed the Elbe River in a small boat, uniting on a common meeting ground the wartime Allied Armies of the east and the west. The crossing of the Elbe River by the American Infantry patrol, led by Lt. Albert L. Kotzebue, joined together the United States First Army and the First Ukrainian Army of the Soviet Union, consummating a great Allied military endeavor. As the Allied Armies met at the Elbe River, the Allied Governments met at San Francisco to give birth to the United Nations. On April 25, 1945, that majestic day of world history of the meeting of the nations as friends and brothers opening up a peace- ful world, mankind, with its soldiers at the Elbe River, with its statesmen at San Fran< cisco, showed itself in supreme dignity and devotion to purpose. On the meeting cround at the Elbe River Maj. Anaphim Larlanov and Capt. Vassili Medov of the Soviet First Ukrainian Army expressed the hope that April 25 be each year commemorated by the nations. April 25, 1949, on the fourth anniversary of the United Nations, the fourth anniversary of the meet- ing of the Allied Armies at the Elbe River, Ambassador Warren R. Austin, United States representative to the United Nations, wrote on behalf of the United States Government: ‘It seems to me important that we remem- ber these two historic occasions, both of which should serve to inspire unceasing and successful striving for the maintenance of peace. * * * JI wish to affirm my desire that appropriate means be found for its (April 25) being brought to the attention of the world each year.” Ambassador Jacob A. Malik, reprecentative of the Soviet Union to the United Nations, expressed similar senti- ments cn behalf of the Soviet Government. And the past and the present President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Dr. Herbert V. Evatt and Gen. Carlos P. Romulo, have publicly endorsed the establishment of Apri] 25 as a day of commemoraticn. Five years ago today the soldiers of the world handed the oath of dedication and friendship, sworn in blood, on to the states- men of the world met together at San Fran- cisco. The United Nations has been en- trusted with the obligation of taking the initiative in carrying forward every means of bringing us closer to a peaceful world. It must be the fervent hope of the nations of the world that the General Assembly of the United Nations, as it reconvenes in session, will approve a resolution to the effect that: “The General Assembly recommends that each year on April 25 the United States and the Soviet Union commemorate, with appro- priate ceremonies, the anniversary of April 25, 1945, when their armies at the Elbe River and their governments at San Francisco met as friends to help open up a peaceful world; recommends that other states members of the United Nations join in the commemora- tive ceremonies.” On April 25, 1945, addressing the delegates meeting at the birth of the United Nations in San Francisco, the chairman of the open- ing session said: “We approach our task humbly, but with united resolution. The prayers of the people of the world are with us. They are spoken in many tongues and in the words of many creeds. But they are as one voice, rising from the tragedy and suffering of war, in prayer for lasting peace. Thus fortified, and with the guidance of Almighty God, we must and shall fulfill the purpose for which we have come together.” Approaching their task humbly, but with united resolution, the soldiers grouped at the Elbe River on April 25, 1945, were also at- tempting to fulfill the purpose for which they had come together. On the evening of April 22, 1945, an enemy engineer platoon, retreating westward, had blown the bridge over the Elbe at Strehla. A half hour later a civilian wagon train of some 200 old men, women, and children, streaming westward, and stopped by the blown bridge, had encamped for the night, huddled in a semicircle about the bridge- head. At 1 in the morning, April 23, 1945, the advancing Russians saw lights flickering at the bridgehead from a distance. Believ- ing enemy military units were engaged for a stand, they bombarded the bridgehead with artillery. At 11:20 in the morning, April 25, 1945— 2 days later—Lieutenant Kotzebue’s patrol reached the west bank of the Elbe at Strehla. Upon being recognized by the Russians on the east bank, the Americans prepared for a crossing. The only means available for the crossing was an old wooden boat moored to the shore. The Elbe, flooded by spring rains,’ To avoid being’ was a swift running river. swept downstream when making their cross- ing, the Americans moved the boat upstream in order to be swept by the river into a APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 60-yard remnant of the bridge jutting out from the east bank of the Elbe. Achieving their objective, the six American infantry- men raced over the remains of the span jut- ting out from the east bank, crossed the Elbe River at noon and were greeted by the Russians. The greetings took place in the midst of some two hundred corpses of old men, women, and children. After the preliminary greetings, the Americans and Russians looked down at the bodies, and fragments of bodies—especially the body of a child with tue eyes and long brown hair clutching crayons in one hand and a doll in the other. At this historic moment of the meeting of the nations, all of the soldiers present— Americans and Russians—swore that they would do everything in their power to pre- vent such things from ever happening again, swore that the nations would and must live at peace. The time has come for the nations to re= afirm that solemn oath at the Elbe. As one of the six American infantrymen to make the boat crossing over the Elbe 5 years ago, as one of the American and Rus- sian soldiers to take the oath at the Elbe, I believe I voice something of the thoughts and feelings of all of us on this fifth anni- versary. I therefore join in calling upon the nations for a new birth of conciliation and friend- ship, that the oath sworn on the blood- soaked historic ground at the Elbe River shall not have been taken in vain. The Owen Lattimore Case EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. KARL E. MUNDT OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an editorial from the Rapid City Journal entitled ‘Not Disloyalty, Just American Tragedy.” The editorial discusses a phase of the Lattimore situation which has not been as well publicized as some of the other features. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Nor DistoraL, Just AMERICAN TRAGEDY What is the difference, in the end, to his country, whether a man betrays it, or by his teachings leads it to great disaster?- The former is the more heinous, but the latter, to the country, may be a greater calamity. Owen Lattimore was not a top agent for Soviet Russia, as charged by Senator Mc- CaRTHY, but he was the author of 12 books, whose teaching helped the Communists to win China, perhaps all Asia. So thinks Time magazine. Lattimore, says Time, paid “lip service” against appeasement of Communists in Asia, but his argument “was in effect a detailed program for appeasement.” The writings of Lattimore, according to Time in its issue of April 17, urged the United States to— “1. Pull out of Korea. “2. Forget Japan as a potential ally in Asia. “3. Hurry up recognition and trade with Communist China. :
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “4, Divorce itself from America’s European allies in the Far Hast, 1. e., Britain, France, the Netherlands. “5, Avoid local entanglements—meaning, presumably, military assistance to non-Com- munist nations—that might annoy Russia if and when the United States negotiates an over-all deal with Joseph Stalin.” This program counds dangerously close to the Kremiim line Time does not say s0, but the program probably looks to the average American like a@ proposal that the United States get out of China and let Russia do its worst. “These ideas,’ thinks the magazine, “do not constitute a crime, and they do not con- stitute disloyalty. But it was nevertheless a tragedy that United States complacency about Asia allowed the ideas of Lattimore & Co. to have as much effect as they did.” Mental and moral poison is not so readily identified as the physical article, but it is often even more deadly. Tribute to Thomas Jefferson by Harry H. Schlacht EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I believe that there are few, if any, Members of the United States Senate who have not become familiar with and devoted ad- mirers of the patriotic editorials au- thored by Mr. Harry H. Schlacht, in the Hearst newspapers throught the Nation. These editorials are printed in the Mil- waukee Sentinel in my own State, and in the newspapers of Mr. William Randolph Hearst throughout the Nation, where they have become hallmarks of great patriotic endeavor. These are not mere editorials in prose, because I think that they are more akin to the Psalmist songs of old—hymns of devotion to great ideals, hymns whose music sings in our ears and which are a delight to our eyes. I have one such poem-hymn in my hands now. It was published in my own State and elsewhere throughout the Na- tion in tribute to the two hundred and seventh anniversary of the birth of the eteat American, Thomas Jefferson, a man of whom Abe Lincoln wrote: The principles of Jefferson are the defini- tions and axioms of free society. It was Woodrow Wilson who said of Jefferson: Thé immortality of Jefferson does not lie in any one of his achievements, but in his attitude toward mankind. And a great Member of the Congress, a great son of the South, Henry Clay, stated: The name of Jefferson will be hailed with gratitude, his memory honored and cherished as the second founder of the liberties of the people. Mr. President, I am proud to call at- tention to this beautiful editorial tribute paid hy Harry H. Schlacht to Tom Jeffer- son—an editorial parallel to these quota- tions which I have just read. In these days, when so many so-called sophisticated folks think that patriotism is old-fashioned, that love of the flag, love of the Constitution, reverence of great heroes of the past—that these aspects of devotion—are old-fashioned, Iam glad that there are voices speaking out proudly like those of Harry Schlacht, and I am glad that they are published in so tremendous a medium, read by so many millions of devoted readers—the Hearst newspapers of the United States. It may seem odd that a Republican should cail attention to an editorial in praise of Tom Jefferson, who has been adopted in a certain sense by the Demo- crats as their particular hero, but, Mr. President, Tom Jefferson is a name and a@ symbol common to all Americans. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that the text of this lovely editorial be printed in the Appendix of the Con- GRESSIONAL RECORD. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: THOMAS JEFFERSON: His INSPrraTION Is Our Battie Cry (By Harry H. Schlacht) Stanch friend of Liberty, In every American home Thy memory is blessed. Today we celebrate the two hundred and seventh anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson. His name is written on every heart. His name springs instinctively to every tongue. Jefferson was the third President of the United States. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence. He was the author of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty. He was the father of the University of Virginia. He opened the window into the soul of the multitude. He declared that “the same God that gave us liberty gave us life.” He was the father of our democracy. He was one of the great humanitarians of his century. He was one of the foremost liberators of the human spirit. He was one of the outstanding exponents of American- ism. He was one of the principal architects of our Republic. He gave liberty and its heroes the noblest document that ever came from mortal pen— the “Bible” of American freedom—the Decla- ration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence he wrote the words which became the bulwark of freedom; he wrote the words which set forth the fundamental truth that govern- ments derive their just powers from the con- sent of the governed; he wrote the undying expression that in a free society every citizen is entitled to the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The immortal words “AH men are created equal” will yet find expression throughout the world. These truths are the foundation stones of free government. These truths are the words of the apostle of man. Behold our modern Moloch across the sea who seeks to destroy our democracy. It was for democracy that humanity fought. Humanity will continue to fight until democracy holds sway. “Peace will not be attained until democracy begins her rightful reign o’er the world. We have fought on many war fronts. We have given of our best blood. We have given A2969 of our hardest toil. We have given of our enormous wealth, We did not receive or ask for one square foot of soil. We did not receive or ask for a single material gain. We have a right to demand that for which we alone have made such a tremendous sac- rifice—liberty for oppressed humans. Let us all pray that humanity may march onward and upward; may attain to that highest goal—where all men shall recognize the brotherhood of man, where all men shall recognize the Fatherhood of God. The wreaths on other brows may fall away, leaf after leaf, withered and faded, but time will add a greener freshness to the everlasting verdure of Jefferson’s laurels. To us he has passed the torch. It is our trust to keep it bright. His inspiration is our battle cry. Imports of Russian Furs, Nuts, and Crab- meat Protested EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. THOR C. TOLLEFSON OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 25, 1950 Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the ReEcorn, I include an excellent article by Victor Riesel who points out that Amer- ican workers are being forced to compete with forced Soviet labor. Imports of Russian furs, crabmeat, and nuts are threatening three great Pacific North- west industries. The facts set forth in Mr. Riesel’s article, which appeared in 154 of the country’s largest newspapers, have already been called to the attention of Secretary of the Treasury John Sny- der, who has the authority under a 1930 law to prohibit the importation of goods made by forced labor. The article follows: Insmpr Lasor (By Victor Riesel) ¥f all the American dollars the Russians have were laid end to end today, they’d reach from some of our fancy fur shops, gourmet haunts and fashionable shoe salons to a Siberian slave camp cluster in Novosi- pirsk. Sound bitter? All right, I'm bitter, though they tell me bitterness at dead line means ulcers inside the waistline. But this story that Soviet slave labor is killing United States jobs because a handful of American traders want to make a fast buck, is going to be told as swiftly as the information can be whisked into the country and authenticated. There are many of us who are sensitive over slavery and horrified that some United States ‘merchants are buying stuff made by the living dead—only slightly removed from those human slag heaps our GI’s found in Nazi camps at the war’s end. I find, for example, that the Director of United Nations Purchasing Department, which spends several million dollars a year, is now in Europe, bound sooner or later for . Czechoslovakia and Russia. He’s going to see how their prices stack up against those of our free European friends and the quota- tions of United States businessmen. The UN director, World Brother Fred A. Mapes, is looking for floor coverings, Tadio
A2970 equipment, broadcasting apparatus, carpet- ing, office machinery, and furniture sup- plies—to equip that z:ew, starkly utuitarian UN headquarters, a few streets from here on Manhattan’s East River Drive. Mr, Mapes needn’t worry about low prices in Soviet- land—the MVD can cut labor costs at any one of the €4 political prison labor camps which --ro777 aie c- in the Morvda re- gion, .-.° 2 - inside the barbed wire at Potma and Yavas. Furniture and fioor coverings might not come so cheaply from free lands, but a lot of us would feel better if we sat on chairs in UN readeuarters that didn’t have blood mixed im wae “utc ture stein. And, incidentally, the United States and free Europe could use the jobs those millions of dollars’ worth of UN pur~ chasing would create. Tais next bit hurts to revor!, because the ladies in mink and silver fox are so lovely thes? early spring days. But they should know that some $55,666,000 worth of Soviet furs are being pumped into this country each year—skins of lovely little beasts who made the sad Soviet error of mooching in too close to the special slave hunting camps at Novoya Zemlya and the Island of Vaigach. So the political prisoners shot them, skinned them and thus set them free of MVD. Once the liberated skins hit this country they did two things: They put United States fur breeders out of business. And they so undercut fur prices offered by other friendly and democratic nations that they hurt the economy of these free lands, which have de- pended on our market for the sale of their furs for years (at normal competitive prices). Result: Only a few years ago in Washington, there were more than 200 fox farmers doing a thriving business. Today—only three are left. And the 400 mink farmers (who breed the soft little animals) report, through their Congressman, that they “are still in busi- ness but how long (they) will be able to com- pete with these foreign importations is prob- lematical.” Hardly a pleasant thought at a moment when jobs in the soft industries are dis- Pyvesring. Recenuy I reported that Soviet crabmeat was coming in directly from Siberian slave fishing camps. Now I’m informed that the Russians are offering United States import- ers an additional $20,000,000 worth of the delicacy at a price which no American canner can meet, Result: One cannery in Bellingham, Wash- ington, already has announced it will close in the face of Soviet competition—and the fishing industry, especially crab fishing, in New England (already depressed in spots by vanishing textile jobs), Maryland and the Pacific coast, is threatened by this slave labor competition. Recently I reported that the Russians are shipping over huge quantities of walnuts, direct from Sovietized Manchuria. Now comes word that the USSR, selling the nuts at 42 cents a pound compared with the 62 cents American pickers get, is threatening to depress the entire nut market, which will be forced to compete with low-priced wal- nuts. Sound funny? Not to those who grow them or pick them for a living. But all this at least is on the open market. Now the iron curtain sharpies are develop- ing a new technique to nip us. Czecho~ slovakian shoe manufacturers turn out the footwear without any identification marks, ship them here, throw them into American boxes and sell them as American shoes. Result: Ask the skilled but jobless shoe workers. I don’t like to be technical. But all this is against the law: Right in Section 1807 of* the Tariff Act of 1980 it says so. “All goods * * * manufactured wholly or in part in any for- eign country by convict labor and/or forced labor shall not be entitled to entry at any ports of the United States.” Doesn’t anybody care? mined, produced, or The Truman Program to Date EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. RALPH A. GAMBLE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent of the House I in- sert in the Concresstronan Recorp the attached editorial from the New York Times, dated Wednesday, April 12, 1950, entitled “The Truman Program to Date”: Tus TRUMAN ProcRAM TO DATE Yesterday was the President’s first full day back at his White House desk after a month of vacationing in Florida. Also, it was just about the halfway mark in this, the first ses- sion of the Highty-first Congress. Quite logically, therefore, Mr. Truman made it his first business to review with his Congres- sional lieutenants the legislative develop- ments of the last 3 months and to evaluate the prospects for the 3 months or thereabout that lie ahead before the session’s adjourn- ment. Senator Lucas of Illinois reported at the end of the White House conference that the President was pretty well satisfied with the progress of his program. Before Congress goes home for the summer, Senator Lucas expects that it will pass the foreign economic and arms aid programs, increase social secur- ity benefits, reduce some excise taxes, extend rent control, and increase the borrowing power of the Commodity Credit Corporation. He believes, he told newsmen, that the Presi- dent will get about 90 percent of his 21 gov- ernment reorganization plans, and that Democratic leaders will make a determined effort to obtain action on a fair-employment- practices bill. Even if these objectives are realized the administration would be settling for half a loaf, compared with the comprehensive pro- gram set forth by the President in his state of the Union message in January. Senator Lucas apparently holds little hope of getting any action on such administration issues as the Brannan farm plan, health insurance, tax legislation, expansion of unemployment coverage and the ITO (International Trade Organization). As for repeal of the Taft- Hartley Act, that is admittedly further away than ever. “Everyone knows,” said Mr. Lucas, “that we are not even considering taking that up again this year. There is no point in going through the same debate we had last year. It would come out the same way.” On the basis of the record of the past 3 months, even the half a loaf would appear at this juncture to be a rather dubious possi- bility. Between January 3 and last Friday, when Congress recessed for Easter, 2,354 bills and resolutions had been introduced in the two Houses, of which 31 had become law or were awaiting the signature of the President. But of these 31 only 4 could be said to rep- resent either important or controversial leg~ islation. , There were (1) the repeal of all Federal taxes on oleomargarine; (2) aid to Korea; (3) changes in farm acreage allot- ments for cotton and peanuts, and (4) revi- sion of controls on natural gas. (An import-« ant bill liberalizing the Displaced Persons Act was awaiting reconcilation in confer- ence.) Thus, with half the session gone, the administration has yet to achieve its first major legislative victory. On the other hand, some of its favorite proposals have been badly manhandled. Both the Senate and House voted to knock out of the housing bill the proposal to subsidize cooperative residen- tial building schemes for persons in the mid- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD dle-income brackets. The House produced an FEPC bill which was completely without teeth, while the Senate has thus far suc- ceeded in avoiding a showdown on this issue. These developments should not come as too greai a curn-ite, however, the circum-~ stances heurc \.ne. they are. In the first place, this is a congressional election year, which traditionally means a minimum of controversial or unpopular legislation. In the second place, the program of must leg- islation presented to Congress in January was far too inclusive for anyone seriously to hope that 1t could, or should, all be enacted at the present session. There has, as a mat- ter of fact, been altogether too much inchn~ ation in the past 2 or 3 years to identify the volume of legislative production with the success of a given session. It is high time for de-om~hacic of this concept. We wel- come:« v2.0. 7: statement by Senator Lucas, therefore, that the Senate plans to confine itself to consideration of only about 8 of the administration’s major legislative pro- posals between now and the end of the ses-~ sion, There is such a thing as trying to do so many things in a limited time that none of them is really done well. Communists in Government EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. KARL E. MUNDT OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 25 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an editorial entitled “The Mundt-Ferguson Bill,” from the Aberdeen American News, of Aberdeen, S. Dak., recommending the early passage of the so-called Mundt- Ferguson-Johnson bill, dealing with the thought that it is time to do something besides talk about Communists in Gov- ernment. { There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: THE MUNDT-FErGuson Brin Senator Kart Munopt, Republican, of South Dakota, who scored a victory in his long anti-Communist campaign when Alger Hiss was convicted, is finding satisfaction these days in explaining the objectives of his bill designed to curb subversive activities in the United States. Interest in the Mundt- -Ferguson, bill has increased with the attention directed upon communistic influences by the charges Sen- ator McCarry, Republican, of Wisconsin, has made. { Senator Munpr had a Nation-wide audi- ence for his explanation of the bill Friday night when he was interviewed by newsmen on a radio network program. The bill undertakes to do four things: To make unlawful a conspiracy to perform any act which would substanially contrib- ute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign control. To require the Communist movement in the United States, in view of its foreign-~ . directed character, to operate in the open rather than underground. To cut the threads which bind the inter- national Communist conspiracy together by restricting international travel of members
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the American section of the world Com-~ munist movement. To protect the integrity of our Govern- ment by denying Government employment to members of the American section of the world Communist movement and by pro- tecting the security secrets of the United States against agents of a foreign govern- ment or the Communist movement. In an interesting comment on the Mundt- Ferguson bill the Washington Evening Star called attention to these questions: Is the Communist conspiracy real enough to justify the enactment of such a measure? Will the Constitution permit its enforce- ment if enacted? The Washington newspaper offered its own answers which should be satisfactory to Senator Munopr and fellow supporters of the pill. It concluded: “The reality of the conspiracy is attested by the fact that we are spending more than $20,000,000,000 a year to defend ourselves against the Communists and to check their encroachments abroad. In that setting, it would be an absurdity not to do all that can be done to curb the Communists and their sympathizers in this country. Will the Con- stitution permit this? If not, then it follows that that document denies to Congress the power to adopt laws to protect the Nation against those who would use our constitu- tional liberties to destroy us. It is hard to believe that this is the case. “It seems to the Star that Congress should make all possible improvements in the bill, and then pass it. After that, it can be tested in the courts. But it should not be per~ mitted to die simply because some people think it is unconstitutional and because some others pretend to think so.” A Letter From Charlie Moore, a Real American, Former Governor of Idaho and Commissioner of the General Land Office EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. COMPTON I. WHITE OF IDAHO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 22, 1950 Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, there is inserted herewith a letter recent- ly received from the former Governor of Idaho expressing his views on national policies and present-day trends, for the Consideration of my colleagues: Apri 20, 1950. Hon. Henry C. DworsHak, United States Senate, ‘Hon. JoHN SANBORN, House of Representatives, Hon. Compron I. WHrre, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. HonorasBte Sims: For some time I have been contemplating writing each of you, but I realize your heavy duties and the memory of my own official life both in Idaho and in Washington, D. C., when I received so many letters and so many suggestions that I now hesitate to even write a friendly letter, much less make suggestions. However, neither age nor retirement from activity prevent me from Keeping posted as well as possible—I read most everything worth reading—and as an “American citizen I am still keenly interested. For some years I have spent considerable time down here with my son who has been “the law of supply and demand. long an invalid from arthritis, and added to that this year I, myself, had to again submit to operations and was hospitalized for some time. I should be home in Idaho this time of year, but it will probably be at least a couple of more months before I can go. Some of the things that run through my mind are so-called displaced persons. The records so far are a disgrace; I am wondering how long and to what extent this policy is to be continued. Iam also wondering how long and to what extent we as a Nation propose to support the rest of the world. I know the general answer or what the excuse is; that it is necessary to keep the world from going communistic. What a fallacy. I can remember when as a small boy and more than 75 years ago, when assisting my father, a stranger came to our Missouri home and insisted that father attend a meeting in the- cause of humanity and for the collection of moneys to educate the heathen Chinese. My father’s reply was: “The Chinese are a much older nation than we; their ideas of religion, of living, and of their form of life was such that any contribution or sugges- tions from other sources would have little or no effect upon the life of the Chinese.” How true this statement was, and more emphatic today than ever. I still remember Washing- ton’s advice in his Farewell Address: To beware of foreign entanglements. Economically our great questions seem finance—debt, support of the world. How long can we carry the burden? England, France, and other nations have made it de- cidedly plain to us that regardless of how much money we spend on them they will pursue their usual way of life, and even if war comes with Russia that they will not decisively join us, I have no objections to France’s system of high living, or to Eng- land’s socialistic and communistic form of government, but I think it a shame for United States taxpayers to continue to even attempt to foot their bills. Respectfully yours, C. C. Moors. “Fancy Dan” Economics EXTENSION. OF REMARKS HON. RALPH A. GAMBLE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent of the House, I insert in the CoNGRESSIONAL ReEcorp the at-~ tached editorial entitled “‘Fancy Dan’ Economics” taken from the Daily Times, published in Mamaroneck, N. Y., Wed- nesday, April 12, 1950: “Fancy DAN” ECONOMICS Uncle Sam now has nearly a million pounds of butter in his refrigerator. He plans to puy more—many millions of pounds more. That is necessary to keep prices up. A new law was adopted to cover cotton and peanuts. Already there are huge sur- pluses in each commodity. Now under the new law we shall have even larger surpluses, since this act authorizes planting of more acreage. These are only three items in our national economy. But they are significant and, com- bined, they will extract hundreds of millions of dollars from the pockets of taxpayers and from the budget of housewives. Because, the policy is in direct defiance of It is a policy born of partisan politics, deliberately A2871 designed to rivet to the Truman adminis- tration the farmers’ vote this fall. The tax- payers and consumers who foot the bill to pay for these votes are expected to forget, for such “Fancy-Dan” economics are difficult of layman comprehension, these politicians believe. November will show if they are right in that belief. Let’s Have the Truth EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HAROLD H. VELDE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 25, 1950 Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Peoria Star, April 22, 1950, entitled “Let’s Have the Truth”: Lei’s HAVE THE TRUTH Many Americans are engaged in the dubi- ous practice of deciding the guilt or inno- cence of principal figures in the present State Department investigation. The inter- ests of the Nation would be better served if public judgment were withheld, at least un- til all the evidence is in. Unfortunately, persons in high positions in Washington have been doing everything possible to sway public opinion one way or another before the evidence was heard. One of the first noticeable results of Sen- ator McCarTHy’s charges against Owen Latti- more was Secretary Acheson’s nervousness. He was quick to disclaim all possible con- nection of the State Department with Latti- more. He admitted that Lattimore had been consulted on Far East policy, but did not want the public to think that Lattimore was an employee of the State Department or that he was the architect of Far East policy. That was one of the first positive signs, to close observers of the Washington scene, that Senator McCarty had something sub- stantial and that the administration knew it. The next sign was the obvious campaign, on a Nation~wide scale, to discredit Senator McCartHy by attacks upon his reputation. If the Senator had not had in his possession some important and damaging information, he would not have been made the object of such an intensive smear campaign. We are not going to say or even hint at this time that Lattimore is guilty of the charges brought against him by Senator Mc- CartHy, but we think it is not unfair to point out that Lattimore is receiving about the same frantic support that Alger Hiss received from the administration when he was ac- cused of aiding Communist spies. We expect John Stewart Service also to be given ad- ministration protection. The pattern has been so well established that certain events can be predicted with almost certainty. The testimony of Louis F. Budenz, once editor of the Communist paper, the Daily Worker, seems to have made Senator Mc- Cartuy top man in the Washington picture. Budenz named Lattimore as a former mem- ber of a Soviet spy cell and a person under Communist Party discipline. Since Budenz was the Government’s star witness in the trial of 11 American Communist leaders, his testimony carries much weight. But again we observe the irrational re- sponse to damaging testimony. Instead of accepting it as evidence to be weighed, Lat- timore’s -friends immediately started trying to counteract it and discredit Budenz. These
A2972 things all too plainly indicate that in high places in Washington the primary goal is not to learn the truth about Lattimore but to save him. The people, at least in this part of the country, want the truth, we think. And they are going to see glimpses of it, no matter what efforts are made to conceal it. The Federal Dispensary EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. RALPH A. GAMBLE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I insert in the ConcressronaL Record an editorial which appeared in the New York Herald Tribune for Sunday, April 9, 1950, titled “The Federal Dispensary”: Tue FEepEeRaAL DISPENSARY The President wants to raise the level of unemployment-insurance benefits through- out the country. He wants all States to pay the same rates. At the present time each State determines the size and duration of payments but must meet certain Federal standards in order to participate in the tax- kitty which Washington disburses according to its idea of what each State needs for proper enforcement. The States may have different views, but they depend willy-nilly upon the largess distributed by the Federal authorities. Thus New York which pays a very high amount of the total tax collected for the Federal fund has consistently com- plained that it did not get enough back for proper investigation against fraudulent claims. The country spends approximately $70,000,000 just to administer unemployment insurance compensation in the States. A large part of the administrative expense is due to the difficulty of checking against fraudulent claims. There are apparently a number of people to whom present benefits are sufficiently attractive to cause them to evade work by one device or another. Perhaps in some States the amount and duration of benefits is too low. In other States they may be too high. In some States the tax paid by employers has snow-~ balled into such large reserve funds that the States have felt warranted in transfer- ring from these funds to start disability in~ surance systems. The differences in eco- nomic conditions within the various States have been refiected in the benefits enacted into State laws. Certainly it is clear that a State whose economy is largely agrarian has a different problem from a State that is largely industrial. To take from the States the power to deal realistically on their inti- mate knowledge of their own unemployment problem is very dangerous. The President’s program will put all States on @ common national schedule of benefits, In States where the real value of a dOllar is relatively high, this national schedule will enormously increase the invitation to cheat, and hence the difficulty and expense of sound administration in the public interest. Even though the President at the same time urged that Federal laws concerning fraud and disqualifications should be strength- ened, @ uniform national standard approxi- mately 20 percent higher than the present standards invites the very abuses of which he is apparently cognizant. But of even more serious import is the principle of the Federal Government determining a fixed standard for every State in the Union re- gardless of their economic differences and their local problems—a standard which the people affected will recognize as coming from the Federal Government. If the Pres- ident’s program is adopted we will have taken another long step toward making our people look to Washington as the dispenser of all social benefits. This is repugnant to the American tradition of individual and State responsibility. The United States Treasury Has the Idle Money Metal Bought and Paid for if We Will Use It To Lighten the Excise Tax Load—Statement of Congressman White Before the Committee on Ways and Means EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. COMPTON I. WHITE OF IDAHO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 22, 1950 Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, the war is over and has been for 4 years, but the American people are still forced to pay burdensome excise taxes on many of the everyday necessities of life. While the people have been paying these excise taxes to support their Gov- ernment, we have had a huge pile of money metal bought and paid for, steri- lized and lying idle in the Treasury. The Treasury new has 167,376,637 ounces of sterilized and idle silver which can be turned into silver certificates amounting to $216 538,785 overnight and put into circulation in paying Govern- ment expense. Instead of using this idle money, we are required to pay ex- cise taxes on such things as baby oil, tal- cum powder, telegraph and telephone tolls, and transportation charges. Back in 1942, before the Treasury be- gan to scatter our store of sterilized money metal by lease-lend gifts to for- eign nations for their use as money, we had on hand in the Treasury 1,361,222,- 166.7 ounces of sterilized silver which could have been put in circulation as sil- ver certificates and used in paying Gov- ernment expenses amounting to $1,'759,- 964,011.34; 410,814,344 ounces of this silver has been given to foreign coun- tries to be used by them as money. These governments are pledged to re- turn every ounce of this silver. With the idle money metal we have and the silver that will be returned to us now overdue, which can readily be converted into silver certificates—legal tender pa~ per currency redeemable in silver dol- Jars, why should we continue to carry this heavy load of excise taxes? Following is the statement I made be- fore the Committee on Ways and Means: STATEMENT oF Hon. CoMpron I. Wuuirz, A REPRESENTATIVE IN ConcGrzss FroM THE StatE or Ipawo : Mr. Wir. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Congressman Comp- ton I. Wxire, of the First District of Idaho. Before proceeding I want to take this occa- sion to thank the members of this committee for their courtesy in prolonging the hearings APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD so as to give me a cchance to appear before the committee, now I feel as if I belonged. The CuHalInmMan. Mr. WuHitze informed the chairman and perhaps other members of the committee that he had some suggestions along the line of monetary reform that he thinks would help us in solving our complex fiscal problems. ' Mr. Wits. Further along in my discus- sion I want to answer very definitely the question raised by Mr. Stimpson of Pennsyl- vania. If you repeal the excise taxes, where are you going to get the money to make up the loss in revenue? I come before you in support of the plan to repeal or reduce the wartime excise tax. We have to differentiate between these excise taxes that support our Government, liquor, cigarettes, things of that kind and I suppose they will not be disturbed. But the wartime taxes are working a hardship on our people and we have a lot of letters and telegrams from all over our State suggesting that now that the war is over these taxes be repealed. I am going to read a short letter from a lady from Idaho Falls, as follows: a “We are in favor of repeal of excise taxes in their entirety on transportation, tele- phone, telegram, and teletype machines. Taxes on these services constitute undue hardship upon the produce handlers all over the country as they are the tools of our trade. “Your favorable vote on the repeal of these taxes will be appreciated.” That is signed Rosa Cowlan. I just want to read two or three of these letters because I think they make a point. Here is another letter from Miss Myrtle Ayers, of Mullan, Idaho, which reads: ’ “As a citizen of the State of Idaho, I would solicit your help in repealing the excise tax. “The reason I think it should be repealed is that this is a wartime tax and since we are no longer at war, there is no need for this tax. “This tax is also discriminatory to business, and it is a drain on the poor people. They cannot afford to pay this tax for the articles they need. : “Cosmetics are no longer a luxury, they are a necessity for a woman. Baby powder and baby oils are not a luxury, therefore they should not be taxed. Most of the articles taxed now are necessities. “I would greatly appreciate your help in trying to repeal this tax if it is at all pos- sible.” Here is another letter from A. G. Stanger, of Idaho Falls, which reads: ' “It looks as if there is a possibility, if an effort is put forth, to get these notions taxes eliminated, and certainly the time is long past due and these taxes should be done away with. “If there is any reason in the world why we should pay a 25-percent tax on telephone tolls, Western Union charges on teletype mes- sages, together with the nuisance taxes on such items as baby talc, and so forth, it is a mystery to the writer. These penalties that are being paid 5 years after the war is over are hindering us from doing business in a sane and sensible manner. “We certainly urge you to exert every effort possible to see that these taxes are eliminated so that we can again operate on a basis that has a semblance of normalcy. “Your efforts will be greatly appreciated by everyone in business from the State you are representing.” . ) Now, answering the question of the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. We have over in the Treasury 167,376,637 ounces of money ‘metals, silver sterilized and set aside that. is not being used in any way, that could be turned into $216,538,785 in silver certificates,’ ‘good currency, the kind you are getting paid when you get paid for your services as a' Congressman, silver certificates, getting $1,! $5, and $10 denominations.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Only a part of this money metal over in the Treasury is sterilized, it’s laying there idie while a large part of the silver bought under the same program is used in circu- lating silver certificates. Mr. DinceLu. I agree with you on that. Mr. Wuitt. Sterilized money metal that 1s of no use. You have $2,000,000,600, do not forget that, in silver metal, or money metal, now 1n use every day in the form of silver certificates. There 1s not a man anywhere in the United States that gets a $1 bill and is not using $1 of silver because this bill is redeemable in silver money. It is good money and the United States dollar all over the world is good and we might just as weil put that idle money metal in the Treasury, and the silver that will come back from Europe and put it to work as money in the form of silver certificates and do away with these excise taxes. Why penalize the mother that uses talcum powder and baby oils in dressing her baby? Why penalize the girls and housewives that use toilet preparations? Why penalize the farmers and businessmen that use the tele- phone and telegraph services as their tools in conducting their everyday business and in- crease the cost of living by putting an excise tax on the movement of freight to raise tax money—while we are keeping $216,000,000 in money metal, that has been bought and paid for, idle in the Treasury? It is unthinkable that we should tax talcum powder and baby oil. I do not think there is a man in this room but when he made his advent into the world his parents used talcum powder on his skin. Why should that tax be made when we have al- most $1,000,000,000 over in the Treasury that has been laying there idle; it is not used to pack silver certificates, just held there. Let us put it to work and that is the solution of this excise tax Iam making to the committee. If we will take that 1,000,000,000 idle dollars we have in the Treasury and use it, we will be doing a therough, business-like job. I want to read into the record some in- formation, as to what we have done with some of this silver. It is good enough to use as money over in Europe and good enough over in Asia but it is not good enough for us. The total amount of silver lend- leased to foreign movermmoents. oy countries, is as follows: ‘uwr.r op I’ 763% ounces; Belgium, 261,333 ounces; Ethiopia, 5,425,000 ounces; Fiji Islands, 196,364 ounces; Great Britain, 88,073,878 ounces. I was just told by the Treasury that they put it in circulation not as $1.29 an ounce, which is the value of our dollar, but at $2 an ounce. Now they are gradually retiring this silver money and putting out paper substitutes but it was good enough to tide them over during the war in the emergency. Next we have India with 225,999,904 ounces; Netherlands, 56,737,841 ounces; and Saudi Arabia, 22,347,481 ounces. In all, gentlemen, 410,814,344 ounces of our money that is capable of being put into circulation in the form of these silver cer- tificates, 1-, 5~, and 10-dollar bills, and that is what you get handed to you for your pay when you go to the Sergeant at Arms. That amount of silver is equivalent of $531,153,- 899 that could be put into circulation and take cf these objectionable taxes. All the silver that has been returned under lend-lease agreements amounts to 261,333 fine ounces, received from Belgium. Of all that list of countries that have our silver and circulated as money, only one country, Belgium, is returning it, and this comes to you from the Treasury Department, and I will be pleased to file it for the record. This is under date of January 18, 1950. That is not all of the silver. Sales of Treas- ury silver under the Green Act at 71 cents per fine ounce, during the period from July 1943 through December 1945 amounted to 167,380,241 fine ounces. Sales of silver under XCVI—App.——188 the act of July 31, 1946, at 90.5 cents per fine ounce for the period August 1947 through December 1949 amount to 10,997 fine ounces. The largest amount of silver loaned to Defense Plants Corporation, silver for non- consumptive purposes during the war period amounted to 902,622,278 fine ounces. As of December 31, 1949, a total of 499,101,787 fine ounces have keen returned to the Treasury. I might say that about half of that silver is still out, money metal, if you please, that is good money in any nation in the world. There is a clamor for American dollars. They will take our silver certificates at full face anywhere, and we are not using this steri- lized silver that 1s just as good as any of the silver we are using for money. I just want to take a minute to correct one impression. Every Member of this Congress can have the Treasury bulletin that comes out monthly. Do you know what the Gov- ernment has made on the silver-purchase program since 1934 when I was a member and heiped rass that act? Do you know how much mo:.cy vie Government has actually made in profit? Talk about a subsidy to the miners. Here is a table right here on page 51 and it comes under the date of January 1950, Tam just going to read you the total of silver that has been put out, bought as metal, re- valued in coin. You have made $233,6C00,000. In computing the silver, there are a lot of categories, but in dollars you have made since 1934, $833,000,C00. Mr. Reep. Might I ask a question at this point? Mr. Wu:tE. I will be free to answer ques- tions but just let me finish. Mr. Reep. All right. Mr. Wauire. The total that has heen made in actual profit to the Government, is $1,- 098,100,000. Had they coined all the silver that I am talking about, lying idle, sterilized in the Treasury and the silver that is coming back from foreign countries, they agreed that every ounce of this silver loaned foreign ccoun- tries is to be returned. If we had used all that silver as money, the potential before we commenced to send that away is $1,048,- 200,600 as shown on page 51 of the United States Treasury Bulletin for February. The figure I read you is in 1943. After we began the lend-lease they must not have expected to get it back because the table began to drop and today it shows oniy $124,300,000, a drop from $1,000,000,000. That is the rec- ord of the operation of your Treasury and our money system. Remember the silver program and the Sil- ver Furchase Act are the only monetary programs on which the Treasury makes a profit. Mr. DINGELL. You mean it makes a profit on silver? Mr. Wutre. Certainly Mr. DrncetL. When the world price is 32 cents an ounce, and we are paying 97 cents and 92 cents, yet we are making money? Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. DINGELL. I would not pay 92 cents for something worth 82 cents on the open mar- ket. Mr. Srmpson. From whom did we make the profit? Mr. Wurtz. The miners who mined the silver. Mr. Stmpson. You said we made a profit? Mr. Waite. It costs 1 penny to make a $100 bill or $1,000 bill or $1 bill. You have the cost of the paper, ink, silk, and all that; that cost is 1 cent. -You are going to tell me that when the Government prints that money for 1 cent and puts it out as $100 that that is not a profit? Mr. Sumpson. You were talking about a profit and I asked you from whom we made the profit. Mr. WuirTe. It is like anything else. If you raise onions or raise a cow and sell it for A2973 $100, the difference betwen the cost of pro- ducing and the selling price is the profit. If a miner brings silver out of the ground and sells it to the mint, the diffeernce between the price the miner receives for his silver and the value of the coin is the profit. In the old days the handling of our money system, since 1792, when the first money law was enacted, we did not set any price on sil- ver, we did not set any price on gold. We simply provided by law that when a man brought in his gold it was refined and the copper alloy was added and they did not even charge him for refining it, or adding the alloy. It was his gold and we stamped it dndicating its weight and genuineness. In the case of silver when we had free coin- age, taking it theoretically, we had scale bal- ance at the mint and the miner when he came in put pure metal on one side of the balance and the people in the mint went to the bins and put standard silver dollars in the other side of the balance until the scales balanced. The miner took his silver dollars in payment for the silver and went about his business and the money was put in circula- tion. The mint took its pure silver, added 10 percent copper and minted it and made the difference between the price of a dollar re- ceived by the miner for his pure silver as contrasted with the silver contents of the coined dollar and that in the aggregate totaled a large volume of profit. Mr, REED. One question. Mr. VW/urrE, I will be pleased to answer any questions. Mr. REED. This is for information only; I am not familiar with this subject. When the Treasury buys the raw silver now, what form of money do they use in paying for that silver? Mr. Wurre. It is in the law. The man simply brings in the pure silver and weighs in at the mint. The mint takes 20 percent today of that silver and gives him back 70 percent in doliars. Mr. RzeD. That is the answer to my ques- tion. It was paid for with a bill from the printing press? Mr. Waite. You get paid with a check. Mr. REED. What I am getting at is whether they pay you by check or with the bill? What you receive is the printed bill. The printing press does the business. Mr. WHITE. Yes. We are always dealing with gold and silver which is money in itself and used all over the world. We simply use @ paper credit token and you can issue a man an IO VU and if he accepts it for its face, it is still a credit tcken. Mr. REED. The foreigner can use the gold— our gold—which is good over there, but it is against the law for us to use here. Mr. Waite. It is against the law; yes. This is the Silver Purchase Act of 1934. It was this committee right here, this chair- man, who handled the Silver Purchase Act, because there was a tax feature in the silver bill. It went to this committee because it was a tax measure. Here is what it says: “The Director of the Mint, with the con- sent of the owner, shall deduct and retain of such silver so received 45 percent as the seigniorage for services performed by the Government of the United States relative to the coinage and delivery of silver dollars. The balance of such silver so used, that is 55 percent, shall be coined into standard sil- ver dollars at the same or any equal num- ber of any other standard silver dollars shall be delivered to the owner or depositor of such silver, and no provision of law taxing such transfer of silver shall extend or apply to any delivery of silver to a United States mint under this section. The 45 percent of such silver deducted shall be retained as bullion of the Treasury or coined into standard silver dollars and held or disposed of in the same manner as other bullion or silver dollars held in or belonging to the Treasury.”
A2974 There, gentlemen, is the essence of the whole act. Mr, EBSERHARTER. Mr. DINGELL mentioned that silver is worth 30 cents. Where do you get that other idea? Mr. Wutre. If the Government restriction on the movement and the price of silver were removed, price of silver would be higher than the coinage value of our dollar. With all the restrictions placed on silver by governments the world price is around 70 cents per ounce. Mr. EBERHARTER. Did he mean that we could buy this silver in other countries for 30 cents an ounce? Mr. Ware. I think it is 70 cents on to- day’s market. © Mr. Dincett. I do not know the exact price. Mr. EBERHARTER. AS I understand your statement, if the United States Government should print $2,000,000,000 worth of paper money, there would be a profit of $1,000,- 000,000? Mr. Wurts. Yes; if it printed certificates redeemable in silver dollars. Mr. Cooper. We wish to thank you, Mr. Watrz, for the appearance and information you have given to the committee. Mr. Wuits. I would like to say that I am not in favor of the reduction in mine per- centage depletion and I would like to file these letters with the committee. I think that as long as this committee had the silver pill and put a transaction tax on silver I am asking that that be repealed. I think if you take off that little provision in the law silver will find its price level like any other com- modity. Mr. CoorPer. We thank you for your ap- pearance. You may turn in any letters that you want to file with the clerk. Our next witness is Hon. Franx A. Bar- RETT. Congress in 1950 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH A. GAMBLE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. GAMBLE, Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent of the House, I insert in the ConcRESsIONAL ReEcorD the at- tached editorial from the Daily Times, published in Mamaroneck, N. Y., Mon- day, April 10, 1950, entitled “Congress in 1950.” Coneress in 1950 Just what, prior to the Easter recess, has Congress accomplished this year? The displaced-persons bill, subject to rece onciliation of minor differences between House and Senate, versions, has been passed. The Federal taxes on oleomargarine have been repealed. In agriculture, a half-baked plan for aid to “hardship” cases in cotton and peanuts hid been adopted. » On housing, agreement has been reached between the two Houses on a measure which wil: expand the program but is without aid recommended for middle-class families. And in foreign policy there is reason to ex~ pect agreement on European aid with only & moderate cut in administration requests. As for rearmament of our European friends, the outlook is favorable. - But in other fields, congressional accom= plishments are meager. There is no taxation bill yet reported. The Truman civil rights program is apparently bogged deep. Federal aid to education seems roadblocked in the Rent control extension is not antici- pated. Liberalization of social security is stalled in the Senate. Nothing is expected of the Truman appeal for compulsory health insurance. Selective service has not been extended. Altogether, Congress in its 1950 session has passed little of what Mr. Truman promised. By contrast, tne Eightieth Congress, which he called “do-nothing,” was a beehive. House. Clinten Centennial EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN OF MASSACHUSITTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- oRD, I am pleased to insert an editorial from the Clinton Daily Item: Of course there are some people who be- lieve that we must support a certain num~- ber of people in the Federal Government be- cause there are not enough jobs to go around, but a vast amount of the hidden-tax money the Government is now spending could easily be spent by the very people from whom it is taken—by lower-income groups for milk, meat, and clothing; by middle-income groups for homes, furnishings, insurance, or college education; by higher-income groups for in- vestments in new tools for industry. Such money spent by individuals would create productive jobs for those now carried on the Government pay rolls. No kind of spending benefits the Nation more than that used 1n increasing the pro- ductive capacity of the Nation. Failing to realize that the people are pay- ing the taxes many are easily led into clamor- ing for more Federal aids and into consider- ing the United States Treasury as a Christmas tree. Lacking the adoption of any of the new programs urged by those in power, it is con- servatively estimated that during the fiscal year ending June 80, next, the United States will spend between five and seven billion dollars more than the Nation’s income. If Congress adopts the new programs no man can prophecy how much the country will have to borrow, but all of us know that the next generation must pay it and that our greed for welfare and security will deny to our children the opportunities we enjoy and that they will have to pay for the folly of their fathers. While it is true that the major part of our current increased expenditures go for national defense and foreign aid, this alone is not a satisfactory explanation of the vastly increased expenditures of the immediate past and the present because authentic figures show that in a single year we are spending $15,000,000,000 for the civilian domestic func~ tions of the Federal Government which is making direct payments to 17,000,000 per- sons—one out of every nine of the popu- lation. During World War II the military estab-~ lishments employed one civilian to every five men in uniform but today they employ one person for every two in uniform. The Federal Government is operating more than 50 corporations with assets ex~- ceeding $20,000,000,000, a group 10 times as large as the country’s largest industrial cor~ > poration. The coming generation now stepping on the scene cannot fail to realize that big gov~ ernment is growing bigger and that big gov~ ernment is more dangerous than big busi-< ness. % APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Little governments can regulate big busi- ness and the United States Government can punish all who violate the laws against monopoly, but it is difficult to regulate big government. Every true American hopes the coming generation, now facing the most critical financial condition in the history of this Nation may give us men who can find a solution to our dilemma other than to dele- gate more power in a central Government and one that will provide a turn to the right and end the appalling spectacle we now face in regimenting every individual. Unless such a condition is solved the Com- munists may well say that they are the only ones who are really nmrewidivt world leadership, that we are 1.1 vo" their wake and that they are riding the wave of the future. The danger that faces the generation that will pour out of our local and national edu- cational institutions, next June, is a disease that has proved fatal to many empires and great nations in the past. It is the creeping paralysis that sets in with the inevitability of a law of nature when a government, however benevolent or well intentioned, embarks on a course of solv- ing the individual’s problem for him, of replacing individual Clinton in its infancy by state planning and state decree. This kind of experiment has never suc- ceeded and in all instances where it has been tried it has led, in the end, to moral, politi- cal and economic weakening, decay, and downfall. Today it is a tragic irony that many men in high positions are advocating here these policies of statism which this country is fighting abroad, at enormous cost in money and effort. We have accepted the responsibility of or~ ganizing the western world against commu- nism which never reared its head in Wash- ington until 1933, but which has grown like a fatal cancer in the intervening years until its sinister tentacles have fastened them~ selves on many of the leading departments of Government. May the coming generation set the ex- ample here at home that we understand what that responsibility entails and that it has the strength and honesty to practice what we preach. \ May our local citizens of tomorrow heed the words of former Postmaster General James A. Farley, who, only last month, sober- ly said that the present tax burden of the American people is about all they can stand and that unless we can find some way to check the enormous increase in the cost of government “we shall find ourselves living under a form of government which is utterly different from that in which we were born and under which our forefathers built a great country. " “We cannot, if we expect to remain a great and growing Nation indulge in an extension of the practice of deficit spending in times of prosperity such as these. An increase in our income taxes would probably yield less rather than more revenues. We must reduce our cost of Government and we must reduce it even if some people get hurt in the process. “If we take the cost of Government in 1900,” Mr. Farley said, “and compare it with the cost of Government for 1950 and then figure the same rate of increase for the next 650 years, our Government would cost six trillion dollars, or six times as much as the whole national income. ‘ On that basis we would also have work- ing for the Federal Government alone 20,- 000,000 men and women. The lesson of these simple figures is that, unless we find ways of reducing the cost of Government, it will soon grow so great as to consume not only everything that we have all saved, but every- thing that we call property, which is owned
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by all of us. tion. In urging a decrease in Federal grants to States, Mr. Farley added: “The national Government took five times as much out of the State of New York in taxes as it re- turned and this is true of other States. If this trend of grants to States, now approach- ing $2,000,000,000 annually, continues, the States would gradually give up all of their responsibilities and the Federal Government would aksorb them.” Every true Americ: g today should pon- der these warning Sy mds from so ciear- headed a leader as Mr. Farley. The only hope for the future of cur Gov- ernment, aS many students and economists see it, lies in a return to sanity, with bluff and coercion given the gate. The sands of emotionalism and hysteria seem to have pretty well run their course and that the era of one-man government which began March 4, 1938, and which in reality has been a dictatorship almost as definite in effect as that of an absolute monarchy, may result in a rebellion by over- taxed Americans, with ciass hatred and class consciousness lessened and the threat to the security of every Man, woman, and child as represented by Our unprecedented national debt now affecting the savings of all types from ownership of. property to life insur- ance, ultimately averted to be supplanted by thrift and economy which previously made this Nation great and with the assurance that unconstitutional measures which are both uneconomic and antisocial at once ab- rogated. The vast majority of Americans are united in the thought that they do not want to see the Constitution under which they have lived junked and it is evident that the time has arrived to turn back to it and to the concepts of the average citizen. It is apparent that American taxpayers are doing some basic thinking these days, un- cluttered by figures and political arguments, on the financial crisis of the United States Government, They know that government is primarily a spender and not a producer and that every dollar spent is wrung from tax- payers who, too long, have been supine and have withstood the ever-increasing waste of money which has been and is being contrib- uted by the producers of real wealth. Of course, government is charged with the performance of public services all of which cost money and which should be paid for by the people. There is no argument there, but from that solid ground it has béen the im- memorial habit of government to be lured into strange and sinister departures of thought and action. Like any person who spends but does not produce and who has acquired the habit of meeting his bills by merely asking for more money, government invariably launches on an upward spiral of spend and tax, spend and tax more and more, to a vanishing point lim- ited only by the ability or willingness of the people to pay. The running faucet of extravagance is allowed to flow unchccked and instead of turning it off government then starts to mop up the floor in the hope of getting still more money to pour into the drain. The castiga- tion by any government official of the tax- payer who legally and properly manages to avoid exorbitant ahd confiscatory taxes is merely a variation of the mopping technique and evades the fundamental question whether government is not obliged to man-~ age well and thriftly, rather than to seek out new sources of income to sustain its prodi- gality. This is a very sobering situa- It is infinitely easier to take in more money than to control habits of thriftlessness. Unlike the citizen who must make money before he can spend it, all government has to do is to squeeze the taxpayer harder and, failing, that, to create more money by de- basing its value. This plan has been routine for the past 17 years in Washington, but, like the citizen who spends more than he earns, Govern- ment can and does go bankrupt, dragging with it the taxpayer who thoughtlessly went along with the shadowy and impossible promises of spendthrift policies. Never before in our history was it so timely or necessary to recognize these simple and obvious facts. Never before has it been so obvious that Government should recognize them and act upon them. We face a type of freedom that, in the guise of humanitarianism, chokes the broad, vigorous private initiative that made this Nation great. It is a soft freedom, pro- tected and cherished and is dangerous. This precious democracy of ours, the great- est remaining citadel of individual inde- pendence, is being more easily undermined than many people realize. May Clinton continue in its next 100 years to maintain its place in the sun as— “A bright, cozy town of valleys and hills, All thriving with schoolhouses, churches, and mills; Where green drooping branches all arch over the street And industry shines on the faces you meet, Where houses are homes, where childhood is gay, And order and honesty ever hold sway.” Home Builders Shatter All Monthly Records in March EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. RALPH A. GAMBLE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the REcorp, I include the following state- ment issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the United States Depart- ment of Labor titled: “Home Builders Shatter All Monthly Records in March— 110,000 New Dwelling Units Started:” Home BuiwwErs SHaTrer ALL MONTHLY REc- ORDS In MarceH—110,000 New Dwes.1iine Units STARTED March 1950 was the best home-building month in history, according to preliminary estimates of the United States Labor De~ partment’s Bureau of + Labor Statistics. Builders started 110,000 new nonfarm dvwell- ing units during the month, an increase of 80,000 (88 percent) over February and 40,600 (59 percent) over March 1949. Well over a quarter of a million new dwelling units were put Under construction during the first 8 months of this year. January, February, and March housing starts totaled 270,000 greater by 59 percent than the first-quarter volume for 1949. For the past 9 months, home builders have surpassed by an ever-widening margin, their volume for the same month in the previous year. Home-building activity for the first half of 1949 was 6 percent under that for 1948, as measured by new dwelling units started. But the 100,000-a-month rate for the third A2975 quarter of 1949 brought the new housing volume up 13 percent above that for the same period in 1948, and by the fceurth quarter it was 46 percent greater. Final 1949 reports show a total of 1,025,100 new dwelling units started. Of that year’s total, 4 reent of the new housing was publicly owned, ecmpared with 2 percent in 1948. The increascd interest in apartment-horse construction in 1849 was reflected by the preportion of units started in multifamily buildings. Units in two-cr-mcre family structures comprised 23 percent of the entire total for 1949, compared with 18 percent in 1948. In the two other postwar years, 1046 and 1947, apartments accounted for about 12 percent of the yearly total. There has been little chanve in the past 3 years in the proportion of new nonfarm housing begun in rural and urban areas, about 57 percent being started in urban places. Of the houses started by private builders last year, 7 out of 10 were within metro- politan districts—that is, within the eco- nomic and social orbit of a central city or cities. In 1948 about two out cf every three dweliing units started were in metropolitan districts. Telegraphic reports of local building per- mits issued for new housing during March in principal cities of the country show an increase for all regions. All but a few of the cities showed increases in building-permit volume, with the greatest occurring in Los Angeles, Calif.; Boston, Mass.; Detroit, Mich.; St. Louis, Mo.; New York, N. Y.: Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pa.; Dallas, Houston, and Fort Worth Tex.; and in Mil- waukee, Wis. Taste 1—Number of new nonfarm uniis started—1948, 1949, and 1950 1948__-2 2 ee 931, 300 January__....------------. 53, 500 February-.. a 50, 100 March____. a 716, 400 April____ a 89, 500 May--..~-..2---------.--- 100, 300 June__. ---- 97, 800 July... en 95, 0CO August... —~ 88, 600 September_____ -- &2, 200 October__.._. -—- 73, 400 November... -~ 63, 609 December____- ee 52, 960 1949_ 2 11, 025, 100 January_....------. 50, 000 February... 50, 400 March... 69, 409 Maya 05" 400 ay—~-.---- 5, June... 95, 500 July__..--.------- 96, 100 August... 99, 000 September__ 102, 900 October._._ 104, 300 November... 95, 500 December. 178, 300 1950: 280, 000 280, 000 2110, 000 1 Revised. ? Preliminary. The housing industry is continuing to make an ever-expanding record in the construction of new housing units both for sale and for rent, the latter on an increasing scale. Both will break the back of the housing shortage.
A2976 Now Is the Time To Find a Cure for Cancer and Heart Disease EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I com- mend to the attention of my colleagues the following article written by Dr. Floyd M. Green, medical director of the Colum- bus Mutual Life Insurance Co., of Co- Jumbus, Chio. His comments are quite apropos on the very day when the House has been devoting most of its time to debate and action on the appropriations for health and research projects. Now Is THE Time To FIND A CURE FOR CANCER AND HEART DISEASE (By Dr. Floyd M. Green) The next time you get together with five men in a card game—it’s a safe bet that can- cer or heart disease will kill one of them. The next time your wife entertains the bridge club, take a look at the ladies there for two of the persons at each bridge table is “vulnerable” to heart disease or cancer. It seems foolish doesn’t it, that knowing it to be a dead certainty that out of every five people we meet or know three will fall victim to heart disease or cancer, we are still so complacent? Don't forget, however, that the “one” may well be you—or a loved one— the odds are not great—at the greatest three to five. That thought may cause you to say, “Well, can’t something be done about it?” The answer is a positive “yes” if you and your family, your city or town and your State want to—enough. One hundred years ago very little was known about scientific medicine. Research was almost unheard of. We have progressed very rapidly in our knowledge of diagnosis and therapeutics. The art of curing disease has taken great strides in the past decade. It is very certain. It is very gratifying to the physician to know there are drugs today that are nearly specific for a number of dis- eases, especially the infectious ones. The layman perhaps doesn’t realize that these newly discovered drugs will, through their assistance, go a long way toward preventing the physician’s hair from becoming pre- maturely gray. The basic factor of all this ingenuity is research. We all know from past experience that research is slow and pains- taking. Everyone has been extremely benefited by past medical research, especially research in the acute infectious diseases. The annual mortality rate in the United States has de- creased 36 percent since the beginning of this century. Eighty-one percent of this de- cline can be accounted for by the decrease in the combined death rates for the diseases listed in the following table: Rate per 100,000 estimated popula- Pp ion ‘er- Cause of death cent 1900 1043 All causes.------~---------- 1,719.1 | 1,089.5 36 Typhoid and paratyphoid fever. ..------------------ 81. 3 5 98 Measles, scarlet fever, whooping cough, and diphtheria...-_----------- 76.4 4.7 94 Diarrhea and enteritis... 139. 9 9.5 93 Tuberculosis (all forms) .... 194.4 42.6 79 Influenza and pnoumonia._ 202. 2 67.3 67 This table taken from 1946 annual report of the Life Insurance Medical Research Fund. Please keep in mind we were unsuccessful in our attempts to control these infectious diseases until we determined the causative agents and their actions on body tissue and by proper therapeutic measures. Research in bacteriology should be given credit for most of our success in resisting these infectious diseases. They are all pro- duced by a specific organism. Nevertheless should we be satisfied with the progress of speed of research today? For one, I am not, Iam impatient, I believe. Research needs a shot in the arm. Why am I so mtolerant of delay? I am impatient because 180,000 of your friends and my friends are dying each year from cancer. I am impatient because 500,000 of my friends and your friends are dying of cardiovascular disease (disease of the heart and blood ves- sels) each year. I am impatient because there are at present 7,000,000 cripples without crutches in the United States who are cripples because of heart trouble. Are there more, less, or the same number of deaths from these two maladies than there were 15 years ago? Read your daily papers—look around among your friends and business associates. The answer is there for you to see. Do not condemn or rebuke the researcher for this condition. Research men are per- forming wonders—almost miracles. I mar- vel at the extraordinary progress they are making with such limited facilities and finances. The research group of men and women have in common certain psycholog- ical characteristics not possessed by most of us. They have the knowledge, ingenuity, originality, and technical ability by which progress can be made if they are supported financially. You do not see the researcher concentrat- ing on the stock market, hoping to invest afew dollars and become wealthy in a short time. You do not see him spending hours studying real-estate values so that he can “get rich quick.” On the contrary your re- searchers are a select group of individuals with one object in view and that is to dis- cover something that will aid the suffering and alleviate physical distress. Unfortunately most research men do not have the opportunity to put in full time on research. For example, Dr. Fleming noted 80 years ago that certain organisms would not grow in the presence of a certain type of mould and it has just been recently, within the past few years, that the real value of penicillin has been determined. No doubt the lack of funds for research permitted this wonderful discovery to be delayed 30 years. Most of the grants-in-aid and fellowships are supported by endowments from philan-~ thropic associations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, the Carnegie Institute, the John and Mary Markel Foundation, and the Josiah Macy, dr.. Foundation. The grants from these foundations are a great help but are tre- mendously inadequate. Most medical reséarch problems today are conducted mainly by professors and teach- ers in medical colleges, teaching one-half the time and attacking research problems the other half. This is no fault of the re- searcher. He has himself and family to se- cure. Actually with most scientists medical research is an avocation. - It is not my intention to be critical, but, to me, there is one big factor which is hin-~ dering rapid progress in medical research. Research units are too widespread. We need concentration and we need full-time research men. For example, $588,127 was subscribed by 148 life insurance companies for research in cardiovascular disease. Grants have been placed in 48 medical centers, spotted through 21 States in our country, and a few in Canada. No doubt all insurance com- panies and the public will benefit greatly from this research, but it is safe td say far APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD greater and quicker results could be obtained if these research men from 48 isolated med~ ical centers in 21 States and in Canada could work together full time as one com- plete unit. I realize this is the most that can be ac- complished under the present circumstances. We should at once attempt to formulate some method of unification, if we expect to realize quick results. We should, if possible, solve these problems not in 20 years but in the next 5 years. Each year’s delay means 180,000 deaths from cancer and a half million deaths from cardiovascular disease and sev- eral thousand more will become cripples without crutches. Here is a plan that may be impractical and erroneous, but if it could be put into effect at once thousands that are living today will not die in 1951. Why not make this another Manhattan project, or, better still, a life- saving project? Convince our Government that this is an emergency, and a large appro- priation is needed immediately for a new Manhattan project. If they will appropri- ate $1,000,000,000, which is just one-half of the amount expended in the development and perfecting of the atomic bomb, we will determine the etiology of cancer and cardio- vascular disease and their cure in 4 years, which was the time required on the first Manhattan project. Let’s review the Government's action when they decided they needed a weapon to end the war in a few hours. They selected 96,000 acres of land at Oak Ridge, Tenn. They en- closed these acres with a high, impregnable, wire fense, and made it virtually an Alcatraz. Then they conscripted the majority of the world’s leading scientists, among which were physicists, chemists, metallurgists, geologists, and about every type of “ist” known. They practically imprisoned these scientists and ordered immediate results. These were not part-time scientists. They were under pres- sure 24 hours a day. Never in the history of the world was such concentrated effort ex- pended as on the Manhattan project. Con- sidering that we know more about cancer and cardiovascular disease today than the fission experts knew about the bomb at its beginning, can you conceive what results would be obtained in determining the cause and cure of these diseases, if this kind of concentration and effort was applied to our problem? It would certainly be wonderfully humane to eliminate enemies, Nos. I and II, You may well gasp at the cost. One billion dol- lars sounds [ike a staggering sum, and it is. However, let us break it down to the stand- point of Mr. Average Citizen. As of July 1, 1946, the United States Bureau of Census tells us that there were 91,634,472 potential voters in these United States and their pos- sessions. I am recommending the expendi- ture of $1,000,000,000, just one-half of what was required for the development of the atomic bomb. If you think one billion is too much stop reading at this point. Simple computation reveals that each voter would be taxed $10. This amount distrib- uted over a period of 4 years would be about $2.50 per year. Is there a voter living under the protection of the Stars and Stripes who has witnessed death of a near relative or friend from cancer or cardiovascular disease who would object to having his taxes increased $2.50 for 4 years, if he knew that as a result of this taxation the cure of cancer and circulatory disease could practically be guaranteed in that length of time? If so, I would be compelled to classify that voter as a selfish criminal and a traitor to his fellow men. Some more computations which we can well afford to consider: Assume it would be possible to secure 500 properly selected re- search men. We must make our researchers an attractive, remunerative offer for their Services and as a further inducement they
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD shculd ke ceceured fer the remainder of their livres. For example, if they were to be given a salary of $20,000 per year until the problem was solved completely, a matter of 4 years, then $10,000 per year for the remainder of their days, that would involve an amount of $40,000,0C0. If the average age of the re- searcher were 35 years, their expectancy would be 35 years, this security price of $10,- cco per year would amount to $155,000,C00. These payments would total $195,000,000 over @ pericd cf not less than 35 years, or an average of only §5,571,000 per year. It is my opinion, the average age of the researcher would be nearer 45 years of age. With the same computation at an expectancy of 25 years, the outlay would be $145,000,C00. We started out to spend $1,000,000,090. We have $855,CC0,000 left. We must have housing and laboratory facilities, also equipment. My observation and information leads me to pelieve the Government has building centers constructed during the war which could be used for this purpose. I am wondering if all the buildings at Oak Ridge are being cccu- pied. Would it not be a contrast if the Oak Ridge buildings could be used in aiding us to find a cure for cancer and cardiovascular disease, thereby preventing 750,000 deaths annually? It was here a weapon was de- veloped and perfected to destroy lives at the rate of 3C0,000 in 5 seconds. What a contrast. It was here that the bomb was developed that according to military strategists saved the lives of 1,000,000 American boys, by elim- inating the necessity of invading Japan. These 1,000,000 lives were saved at a cost of $2,000,000,000—#2,000 per life. The plan I advocate will save lives at a cost of $10 per voter. Are you willing to enter into this humane project heart and soul by contacting by let- ter or word your Senators and Representa- tives and prevail upon them to see that the money is appropriated for this work? We have two major problems confronting us. It is our first duty to take care of the patient who has been so unfortunate as to bave contracted cancer or circulatory disease. We must attempt to cure or make comfort- able these unfortunates and prolong their lives. Our second duty is to determine as soon as possible the etiology of cancer and cardiovascular disease and how to prevent them. We will never be successful in curing cancer and cardiovascular disease until we have determined the cause. Personal knowledge is needed of all diseases pertaining to allages. Our knowledge is just as gocd as our information and our infor- mation must come from one source and that is medical research. Therefore, medical re- search should receive substantial financial support not alone from philanthropic asso- ciations and life-insurance companies, but from our Federal Government. Our problem with tuberculosis several years ago was a serious one and we were not successful in coping with tuberculosis until we found that a small germ-tubercular bacil- lus—was causing the trouble. Rapid and successful results were secured, once the cause was known. The research which has been the basis of this improvement began 50 years ago. Are we to continue in a state of expectancy for 50 years before we arrive at a definite solu- tion to the problem being discussed? Not if concerted action is taken and proper meth- ods of combat are established. When we think of cancer and coronary disease we picture someone belonging to the geriatric age. However, this is not true. Cancer and coronary disease are very preva~ lent in ages over 45, but they do occur in the young more frequently than we might suspect. As an indication of the truth, we will turn to a partial report of the Army Pathological Institute. One thousand post mortems were made on 1,000 young men ap- parently in excellent health between the ages of 18 and 45 who died very suddenly. The mcst common cause was coronary thrombosis. Several died of intracranial hemorrhage from congenital ancurys: Why should young adults between the ages of 18 and 45 years of aze develop coronary in such great numbers. I don’t know—neither do you, nor anyone else—pbut, let’s find the solution as s00n as poscible. We quite often read in our magazines and daily papers cf some very substantial dona- tions given for the purpose of taking care of the ill and fcr research. This leaves a false impression with us. Medical research dces mot receive substantial finencial support. In 1044, it was estimated that the public spent $3,000,000,000 for medical care. I have made an extensive search to see if I could determine the amount of money that would be available for medical research in 1947. My information shows it will be less than $5,000,000. We might compare this small sum with what was spent for liquor in the United States in the year 1946. The colossal sum of $8,600,000,000 was spent for alcoholic liquors. This means approximately $150 per person, over 21 years of age, was spent for alcoholic liquors in 1946. On the other hand, cancer and cardiovascular disease can be cured in 4 years at a cost of $10 per voter. Save a hang-over and save a life. I feel somewhat chagrined when I think of the people in my home State spending one hundred and forty millions for alceohclic liquors and only donating a very few thou- sand for medical research. We have just completed a national cancer campaign for the purpose of raising twelve millions for the alleviation of the cancer subjects and for the cure of cancer. The donors and everrvone who aided in this cam- paign should be complimented. It is a great and worthy undertaking. The campaign in 1946 yielded ten millions. Sixty percent of this money remains locally. Forty percent is given to the national organization. Seventy-five percent of these donations is for the treatment of those who are afflicted with cancer and for the early diagnosis; 25 per- cent for research. The percentage that is allocated for research is very inadequate. With all our efforts, cancer and cardiovascu- lar disease are on the increase. We must find the cause—not within 10 or 20 years— but in 4 years. I am optimistic enough to believe it can be accomplished, if we estab- lish the proper methods. Let’s do it and save thousands of lives. Sixty percent of all deaths reported by in- surance companies in the United States and Canada were due to cancer and cardiovascular disease. The total amount cf these death claims was §$816,000,000. In 4 years this would total $3,272,000,C00. If, taking a pes- simistic view this research project cut deaths from cancer and cardiovascular disease only one-third, this would cut the net cost of life imsurance to the policy holder tremendously. Is that gocd business? Let’s pool all available moneys, organize and cure these enemies in 4 years—not 20 years. I Enow the philanthropic societies still want to take part. Insurance com- panies, I feel sure, will donate their share. Personal subscriptions no doubt are available. Tke American Way—How May We Improve It? EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) _ HON. ALVIN F. WEICHEL OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. WEICHEL. Mr. Speaker, the American Legion essay contest of Ohio A2977 had three winners in the Highth Congres- sional District, and on behalf of Con~ gressman Smitu, of that district, who is Ul, I want to include in the Recorp the winning essays of Carol Schnarenberger, of Chatfield, Ohio; Louis Corwin, of Galion, Ohio; and Marilyn Bachman, cf Marion, Ohio: THe AMERiIcAN War—How Mayr WE ImMPrRovE Ir? (By Carol Schnarenberger, Chatfield, Ohio) Cur American way is the best way to live, and we as good Americans should know and appreciate it. Our standard of living is higher than that of any cther country, and we want it to stay that way. Evecything is petter here. But we must realize that there is always room for improvement, and some improvements are needed. Communists, strikes, labor violence, crime and juvenile delinquency currently are of national concern. We cannot let more and more of our citizens become Communists, or whole cities be tied up by a strike, or homes and streets become no longer safe. These are only a few examples of some of America’s problems. The hope for improvement lies in the fu- ture citizens of America—the youth of today. If every child could grow up in a decent home, have plenty to eat and wear, use ade- quate recreational facilities, and receive wise education on how to live with others, we would not have to worry so much about crime, communism, and intolerance. Slum clearance should be one of the first steps. We cannot expect those who are forced to live in overcrowded, dirty, insani- tary, rat-infested tenements to become the best citizens. They’ve been given a bad start in life to have to live this way, and may nat- urally resent those who have had a better chance. Another important procedure is to provide recreation for the youth. Parks, play- grounds, canteens, and clubs keep the future citizen off the streets, cccupied with some- thing worth while, instead of out getting into trouble. Perhaps our greatest chance for improve- ment is through education—education for the youth, and for the older citizen. We can- not sit by and watch our liberties slip away from us through too many restrictions and rules. Too many people do not realize that this might be happening. Every person should be familiar with and know something about our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the “four freedoms.” They should be taught how and why the American way came into being, ard why it is best. They should know how to be a good citizen, Children should learn about our system of democracy through Government courses. There at school they should learn also to live peace- ably with children of other races and creeds. The citizen should be continually reminded of his freedom through the use of news- papers, magazines, radio, television, and movies. If more people really understood just how fortunate they are to be American citizens, they would take more interest in their Government and in their part in im- provement of the American way. Commun- ism would lose its foothold, as people would realize how much better their own way is. It is a high goal, and one every good citizen should strive for to keep our Amer- ican way the greatest and best in all the world. THE AMERICAN Waxy—How May WE Improve IT? (By Louis Corwin, Galion, Ohio) America is not just a country, but the people living in it, and the American way is the way of these people. Thus we can improve the American way by improving the people. For if we improve the people we improve the Government which is the
A2978 people; we better the way of living; we improve the way of thinking and in im- proving these we improve the American way. The improvement, that is to say, enlight- ment, is education for them. If they are educated and given the power of thought and then are set to thinking they surely will find the answers. But can we honestly say that we are getting an education today? With crowded conditions and few teachers to teach all these pupils are we really get- ting an education besides the A B C’s. Are we being taught to think and are we given self-reliance. fSelf-reliance itself is as im- portant as thinking. As Emerson said: “To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for your own private heart is true for all men—that is genius.” We must rely on ourselves and our thoughts to im- prove ourselves and others for we are the American people and the American way is cur way. To solve the problems of others and of America a man must first know the facts and he must think about them. He can solve his problems and the problems of others not by what he has read, nor heard, nor what has been written by others but by what he thinks. It is the opinion of many that too much emphasis is put on textbook knowledge. Many students today are at a loss when they graduate because they know only dates and names but they don’t Know enough about current controversial issues. The question then arises—should more emphasis be placed on controversial subjects. Contro- versial subjects are to form inquiring atti- tudes and to force the student to think in- dependently. The student should have a factual background but he should go further in research before being able to make judg- ments and before forming any opinions. Be- fore reaching a conclusion he should weigh the evidence. All this would be his own work and more Knowledge would be gained by this type of education. Some of the con- troversial issues could be the press and the question of its printed truth, religious edu- cation in public schools or science such as the atomic problem, evolution, and inter- planetary studies. All this could improve education which in turn would improve the students who are future Americans. These students shall then be molded into the people who will shape America. What they accomplish and the way they accomplish it will be the Amer- ican way. THE AMERICAN Way—How May We ImMPRovE Ir? (By Marilyn Bachman, Marion, Ohio) Since 1789 the United States has had a democratic government under our great Con- stitution of the United States. Our democ- racy and our way of life have been defined as our respect for personality, our faith in education, our capitalistic system of busi- ness, our civil liberty, the personal freedoms and equality of status that we enjoy, our democratic institutions, and, best of all, the political democracy of our government. Our country has learned because of its faith in education, that it can be an im- portant factor in keeping a country demo- cratic. Our schools, colleges, and universi- ties through their American Government and political-science departments have taught young Americans to appreciate their Government and take an active interest in keeping it democratic. Our capitalistic business system has no equal in the world today. The one way we can keep this great system is to promote good, clean, honest competition and free enter- prise. In no other country in the world do people enjoy as much personal freedom and equality of the masses as in the United States of America. We have been and will only be able to keep this freedom by respecting our Government and its laws and by not in- fringing upon the rights of our neighbors. All the people in this country stand on the same level while in some countries, India, for example, a caste system is still in practice although the government is trying to de- stroy it. One of the keys to the understanding of democracy is found in our great respect for the human personality. This respect is dated from the Declaration of Independence which states ‘that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness.” We have extended this respect to every member of this democratic society of ours without regard to his birth, wealth, or social position. Our civil liberties—freedom of religious worship, speech, assembly, press, and the right of petition—have been guaranteed to all, It is not only our privilege but our duty to exercise these rights to the fullest degree. A well-informed citizenry should be encouraged because our method of democ~ racy depends on this very thing. It has been said by the late Justice Holmes that “the best test of truth is its ability to gain acceptance in the market place of ideas. “The government of a democracy is at the same time the servant of the people, the guarantor of their liberties, and the agency for the advancement of public ends.” Demo- cratic control in the United States is exer- cised through universal suffrage and the active participation in the government of those who are being governed. Some of the political instruments used in our country are: The Constitution, regular elections, the secret ballot, proportional representation, the “check and balance” system, and many others. I think that we can improve our democ- racy by exercising our privilege of voting, having a better informed public, promoting honest competition and free enterprise, by removing the racial discrimination in this country, and by improving our educational system constantly. Israel’s Second Anniversary of Independence REMARKS HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 25, 1950 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the State of Israel is now cele- brating the festival of the second year of its independence. Those of us in the United States who have helped the Jewish cause in Palestine before the Jewish state came into being and also during the 2 years of its existence, are very happy on this aniversary of the rebirth of Israel. Israel is still beset by many and diffi- cult problems and still faces a long and hard road ahead. There are problems in absorbing and integrating the new immi- grants which have been coming injo Israel at the rate of about 200,000 per year. There are problems in connection with the economy of the country and standard of living of its people, APPENNIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The most important problems how- ever, at the moment, are the peace and security of the new Jewish state in ths Middie East. Because of the intransi- gence of certain Arab leaders, Israel feels that its independence and its very exist- ence is now being threatened. These Arab leaders have for some time been issuing threatening statements calling for a war of revenge against the State of Israel. When one of the Arab countries, Israel’s immediate neighbor to the east, Jordan, recently entered into negotia- tions with Israel for a permanent peace settlement, the Arab League adopted a resolution forbidding its members to con- duct individual peace negotiations w:th Israel. While these threats on the part of the Arabs and their success in breaking up the peace efforts in the Middle East csn- tinue, Great Britain has been shipping large supplies of arms to Egypt and other Arab countries in recent months. Ac- cording to the British, such heavy arms as jet planes, Sherman tanks, and heavy artillery are needed for maintaining in- ternal order in the Arab countries. When the attention of our State De- partment was drawn to the fact that large-scale shipments of heavy arms are going from Britain to the Arab coun- tries, we were given the assurance that these arms are not intended for a re- newal of hostilities against Israel. It is difficult to understand the reasoning in this case by our officials when we note how reluctant the Arab states are to dis- cuss peace with Israel and how threat- ening their general attitude has become of late. Arming the Arab States is not the way toward peace in the Middle East—and peace is what the United States desires most in that area at this crucial hour in world affairs. It should be the policy of our country to make clear to Great Britain and to the Arab countries that we cannot afford new bloodshed and tur- moil in the Middle East, and that we cannot tolerate any aggressive acts against any country in the Middle East. By so doing we shall, at the same tims, assure Israel’s independence and future existence. I am happy to extend my good wishes and felicitations to the peo- ple of Israel on their anniversary and to the Jews of America who join them in this celebration. Declaration of the Israel Government on Second Anniversary of Israel’s Inde- pendence EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 24, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to call to the attention of the House the following declaration of the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Israel Government on the second anni- versary of its independence: ECLARATION OF THE IsRAEL GOVERNMENT ON Seconp ANNIVERSARY OF IsRazL’s INDE-~ PENDENCE A year of war, heroism, and victory during which the young Israel Defense Army \7ith- stocd and overcame the armies of the Arab States—such was our first year of freedom. In the second year we werd faced with the first phase of the realization of the ingather- ing of the exiles and the building and devel- opment of enterprises cn a scale at a rate far greater than anything we had previously experienced since the beginning cf our re- sectlemont 75 years ago. Nearly 400,000 immigrants have arrived in Israel since the establishment of the state. in the past year the last Jew stepped out of the Nazi heil camps and the majority of Jewish refugees from the displaced persoas camps in Germany, Austria, and Italy were absorbed in the homeland. The remnants of the dispersion in some Eurcpean countries where our people were threatened with na- tional extinction have been liquidated. The most ancient, oppressed of the Diasporas in the Arab world, Yemen, is in the precess of liquidation. More than 180 new settlements were estab-~ lished this year throughout the length and breadth of the state. More than 30,000 immigrants from many countries rooted themselves in the soil in various forms of agricultural settlements. An additional 50,000 children entered educational institu- tions in the state. More than 25,000 housing units for immigrants were built in all parts of the country. During the year energetic measures were taken for strengthening our security and our defense forces; for the development of the state’s democratic institutions and the real- ization of civic equality without discrimina- tion against community or race; for the con- tinual reduction of the cost of living; ex~ pansion of markets; increased labor pro- ficiency; improvements in the quality of our preducts; full employment; increased in-~ dustrial production; development of work- shops and handicrafts; maintenance of an eppropriate standard of living. Israel was accepted by the United Nations organization during the year as a sovereign state with equal rights and duties in the family of nations; in the concert of nations, Israel’s independent voice was heard for the first time in our history, speaking for the safeguarding of peace and the extension of justice throughout the world. However, the road ahead is still long and hard. Cur enemies and opponents continue to threaten us, our very existence, our inde- pendence, and the borders of our state. The fate of world peace still hangs in the balance. The great majority of our people are still on foreign soil, many of them subject to racial hatred and spiritual extinction. Ninety thousand immigrants still live in camps in the homeland itself, not yet integrated into the framework of the productivity and na- tional economy of our state. Our liberated homeland remains largely barren and waste- land, our national economy unstable, the volume of our imports greatly outweighing exports, and we are dependent on foreign currency products. We are still being weak- ened and divided by tendencies of lawless- ness and division, fruits of dispersion and lack of independence. But the toil of three pioneering genera~. tions was not in vain and we are privileged to witness the beginnings of deliverance. Let us rejoice in our festival of independ~ ence and let us gather our strength to realize fully and completely the vision of our de-~ liverance. Address by Hon. James M. Mead EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ANTHONY F. TAURIELLO Or NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESINTATIVES Tuesday, April 25, 1950 Mr. TAURIELLO. Mir. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- GRD, I include the fcllowing address by the Honorable James M. Mead delivered to the Harvard Club, Washington, D. C., at the Army-Navy Club of Washington, cn April 15, 1950, with an introduci:on by President John H. Pratt, of the Wash- ington, D. C., Harvard Club: INTRODUCTION BY JOHN H. Pratr Gentlernan of the Harvard Club of Wash- ington and guests, this will be the last meet- ing of our club until the beginning of the fall season which we will inaugurate either during the latter part of September or the first part of October. It is always proper and fitting that our sessions should end on a very high note. We have had many able and distinguished speakers who have addressed us each Satur- day for the last few months, and now we have saved for the last one of our very best speakers. Cur guest today has had a long and distin- guished career. He has served his State and Nation faithfully and well. He began his active life in the railroad service and there he learned to fully appreciate and evaluate the problems which beset those who toil. As a result, throughout his entire political career he has always been a champion of the rights of the common man, as distin- guished from those who have received or de- sire special privileges. He served for a number of years in the Congress of the United States as Represent- ative from the Buffalo, N. Y., district. Then he became a member of the United States Senate from the State of New York, and as such, was a member of the so-called Truman committee which investigated war frauds. Upon the elevation of President Truman to the Vice Presidency of the United States, our speaker succeeded him as chair- man of that most important committee. The work which he did in this position was most outstanding. Due to the irrefutable evi- dence which his committee unearthed, men in high places were convicted of fraud; fur- thermore, millions of dollars were saved our Government by the tireless efforts of our speaker and his committee. Our speaker is now a member of the Fed- eral Trade Commission and, although he has held this position but a short time, his inde- fatigable efforts, keen insight into the prob- lem before the Commission, and his balanced judgment have made him a most valuable member to this great governmental agency. It is with much pleasure and honor that I present to you the Honorable James M, Mead, of the Federal Trade Commission, who will speak to us on the Federal Trade Com- mission and the prevention of unfair busi- ness practices. Apress By Hon. JAMES M. MEAD THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE PREVENTION OF UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES Mr. President and members of the Harvard Club of Washington, there is an old proverb to the effect that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I shall talk to you today for a few minutes on the ways and means the Federal Trade Commission uses its ounce of prevention in the protection of A2979 free and fair competition in these United States. I think that the subject is im- portant because the continued existence of civilization, as we know it, depends upon the strength of our domestic economy. The measure of the vigor of our economy is the extent of the freedom from unfair restraints enjoyed by the competitive forces of such economy. The prevention of such unfair restraints is the business of the Federal Trade Commission. President Woodrow Wilson is one of the great statesmen and political philcsophers of the twentieth ceniury. After World War I it was his firm conviction that an effective league of nations would prevent future wars and permit the nations of the world to live at peace with their neighbors. It was his thought that when men of good will mest at the conference table and discuss their problems the result will be peace, and under- standing. That dream would be true today if the representatives of the nations that sit at the international conference table were all men of gcod will. The League of Nations was Wocdrow Wil- son’s dream for the prevention of war. President Wilson had another dream and that was the prevention cf monopoly, re- straints of trade and the other unfair busi- ness practices which disrupt our domestic economy as wars disrupt the international economy. In 1913, President Wilson recom- mended to Congress that an Interstate Trade Commission be established. He stated in part in that message and I quote: “The opinion of the country would in- stantly approve of such a Commission. It would not wish to see it empowered to make terms with monopoly or in any sort to as- sume control of business, as if the Govern- ment made itself responsible. It demands such a Commission only as an indispensable instrurcent of information and publicity, as a clearing house for the facts by which both the public mind and the managers of great business undertakings shall be guided, and as an instrumentality for doing justice to business where the processes of the courts or the natural forces of correction outside the courts are inadequate to adjust the remedy to the wrong in a way that will meet all the equities and circumstances of the case.” I should like to emphasize the President’s words when he said that the Commission should be a “clearing house for the facts by which both the public mind and the mana- gers of great business undertakings shall be guided.” In 1914, Congress delegated to the Federal Trade Commission the authority in the field of unfair trade practices in inter- state commerce to procure the facts and to keep the Congress, business, and the people advised so that disruptive influences of unfair restraints on commerce may when= ever practicable be prevented. In connection with the power of the Com~ mission to make investigations and procure factual data Mr. Justice Jackson in an opin- ion recently delivered in U. S. v. Morton Salt Company, stated in reference to the in- vestigatory powers of the Commission as follows: “The only power that is involved here is the power to get information from those who best can give it and who are most interested in not doing so. Because judicial power is reluctant if not unable to summon evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues in litigation, it does not follow that an administrative agency charged with see- ing that the laws are enforced may not have and exercise powers of original inquiry. It has a power of inquisition, if one chooses to call it that, which is not derived from the judicial function. It is more analogous to the grand jury, which does not depend on a case or controversy for power to get evidence but can investigate merely on sus= picion that the law is being violated, or even