APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as the families of veterans in the middle and higher inco--e brackets. The committee recommends that special legislation be enacted immediately to pro- vide accistance to local housing authorities to finance for veterans of low income 100,0CO dwelling units under this program. The re- sulting public housing should be restricted to veterans and the legislation should con- tain essential safeguards as to income-rental relationships. SALE AND RENT CONTROL The committee reaffirms the position taken by the National Committee on Housing in September 1945 against rent or sale-price control on new construction, but favors the continuance of rent control on existirg houses. In view, however, of the increased costs prevailing it seems evident that come adjustment in rentals ehould be considered at this time. The committee thereiore recommends that an immediate analysis be made to determine the extent of the needed adjustments and to determine also whether such adjustments should be made on a local- ity, regional, national, or other basis. Approved by the executive committee of the National Committee on Housing, Decem- ber 3, 1946. Recommendations committee: Fred Lud- wig, president, Merritt Lumber Yards, R2ad- ing, Pa., chairman; Ogden Bige‘ow, president, First National Bank, Greenwich, Conn.; Irv- ing Bjork, assistant secretary, Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., Hartford, Conn.; Harold 8. Buttenheim, editor, American City, New York; Russell G. Creviston, director, public relations, the Crane Co., Chicego; Joseph D. Keenan, secretary, Chicago Fed- eration of Labor, and former Vice Chairman for Labor, War Production Board; Morris Macht, president, Welsh Construction Co., Baltimore, Md.; Prof. Winfield R’efier, Insti- tute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N. J.; Robert C. Weaver, director, communities service division, American Council on Pace Relations, Chicago. Reference: Housing Inventory and Fore- cast Conference, Chicago, November 18, 19, 20, 1946; National Committee on Housing, 1 Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y. Aid for Greece and Turkey EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAY LeFEVRE OFr NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, March 21, 1947 Mr. LEFEVRE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include an article by Mark Sul- livan, which appears in today’s New York Herald Tribune. The question asked by the Missouri delegation is very pertinent, not only for Missourians but for all the American people. I saw first hand the conditions in Greece when visiting that country in 1£45. There is no doubt in my mind that these people are deserving and in 1945 these poor Greeks were suffering from the ravages of the war. There is no one more inter- ested than I am in seeing us, as the lead- ing democracy in the world, finish the Job, and I would like to see the fear of want abolished for all peoples. This move to aid Greece and Turkey is a new and drastic step in our foreign policy. The question is—will our inter- vention in these European problems be- come world-wide? Should that become necessary, can we go every step of the way and still maintain our own strength? I believe it is high time that we Mem- bers of the Congress and the American people be given a complete revelation as to what secret agreements were made at Yalta and Potsdam. We shall probably give this aid, but I, for one, want the people to go in this undertaking with their eyes open. The article referred to follows: Arp TO GREEcE VIEWED as A STEP Towarp NORMAL WoRLD TR*DE—MARK SULLIV/N &.YS QUETTION ON CosT OF TRUMAN'S ProcraM Is One or MANY, THE COLLECTIVE REPLICS TO WHIcH WILL ENABLE JUDGMENT OF POLICY (By Mark Sullivan). Wasiincron, March 20.—The present stage of Pees:dent ‘Yruman’s proposal for aid to Greece and Turkey is so definite as to be a remarkable development in democratic gov- ermrment. It is a formal process of question and enswer. The official askers of qu2stions ine ude the Foreign Relations Commitiees of the Senate and House and many individua’s and grcuns in Congress. The officials to whom the quesvions ere dir-ctcd include Pres:dtnt Truman, the S.ate D2partmcnt, and oiher Govcrament officials associated with the pro- pored acticn. Not all the questions and answers can he made Offic‘ally public in quotation marks, for there must be cons:deraticn of diplomatic procriety et a tense time. But the informa- tion will reach the public through news in- terprstations and unofficial statements. By weiching and sifting these, the public will be able to arrive at a judgment. Yet each of us needs to be careful not to arrive at a conclusion based upon the an- swer to any single quest‘on. For beneath the information brought out by specific questions mut be understanding of the meanirg erd intention of the President's new policy, the over-all answer to all the questions. COST OF THE PROGRAM One specific question is in a list of seven formally asked by 11 Republican Senators and Representatives in the delegation from Missourt. The State of their residence has a colloquial American significance. Their question is, “What will be the total expense of the Pres'dent’s plan to the taxpayers of the United States?” That question is intended to find out whether the present proposed expenditure of €400.000,000 will be followed by further expenditures in the future. The answer is to be found in President Truman's speech, which, on this point as on others, was phrased with special care. Mr. Truman said that with the proposed financial aid would go experienced American administrators, economists and technicians, to insure that the financial and other aids given to Greece shall be used effectively in creating a stable and self-sustaining economy. Once Greece has been enabled, by Ameri- can aid and American advisers, to set up a stable and self-sustaining economy, two results should follow: The people of Greece will be in less need of aid from us or any other source; they will be able to support themselves by their own work, with less need, or no need at all, for gifts from the United States Treasury. Further, they will be able to get economic aid from private sources. With a stable economy in Greece, individuals and business institutions in that country can buy goods in the United States on credit. American manufacturers and exporters will be able to find customers in Greece whose standing justifies sale to them on credit of the equipment they need to restore their war-wracked industries. A11$7 PRIVATE AID POSSIBLE To look forward to a time when American maiufacturers and exporters can confidently extend credit to Greek industries mzy seem, in present conditions, u long-distance call on optimism. Even if, for an inte:val, it should be desirab’e tur the United St~ics Government to guarantee such credit, th..t would be less of a call on cur Trezcury the direct gifts are. And, other than Gzecc:, there are several countries clasz to the staze in which norme]l extenricn of credit by Am... - ican manufecturers end exporters to po:- vetely owned industries shculd be practi- cable, £uch a normal condition of international trade is what the Trumen policy locks to for the world. That condition, when and if it arrives, will end the drain on the Amer:ccn Treasury for relief and rehabilitation cbrevd. The funds of the American Trecsury for thet purpose are limited. Concern about whether we czn balunce our natione! budget and re- mein a solvent netion is the reason for the query whether we cught to mcke the pro- posed expenditure in Greece. On the other hard. the funds of privete individuals and corporations and other institutiors in America are encrmous. Use of scme of them as loans or credits to industries abroad is a desirable policy. This enswer to the question about the total ultimate cost cf President Truman's policy to the trxpayers of the Umited States ts part of the over-all arswer to all the ques- tions. The whole policy is a constructive step toward checking the fellhng of one country after enother under dominance by Rusia and communism—towerd enrblirg countries to have independent governments and free-enterprise economies. Wasl:ington Birthday Address by Hen. A. R. Bergesen EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MILTON R. YOUNG OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an excellent Washington Birthday address delivered by Hon. A. R. Bergesen, former speaker of the North Dakota House of Repre- sentatives. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrconp, as follows: The month of February stands out among the months of the year because it wus tie birth month of our two most revered P-ezi- dents. As legislators, it is of interest to us to know that both had had legislative exre- rience before they ascended to the Presidercy. Both were defeated the first time they ran, but in each case they persisted and succzedcd. George Washington served as a membcr cf the house in the colonial legislature of Vir- ginia from 1759 to 1775. He also became a member of the First Continental Coregrcss. Of his work in that Congress, the grent orator Patrick Henry said, “If you speak of solid information and sound judgment, Colonel Washington is unquestionably the greatcst man on the floor.” e e ® e e Every house must have a strong founda- tion if it is to stand. In our Republic, the
A1188 States form the foundation. The suver- structure is the Union or Federal Govern- ment. Washington's great contribution to civilization was in the formation of the en- tire structure; Lincoln's was in its preserva- tion. Washington worked toward uniting the States to form the Union; Lincoln labored to hold the States together to preserve it. Both men recognized that the success of the Nation depended upon the States as a strong foundation, bound tcgether by the mortar of common purpcse. That brings me to the question I wish to discuss with you this afternoon, What is the place of local or State govern- ment in our American Republic? Where should the authority of the State end and that of the Federal Government begin? To fuily understand this question, it is well to go back to the founding of our Re- public. It will be 160 years next May 25 that duly selected representatives from a majority of the Colonies met in Philadelphia for the pur- pcse of drafting the framework for a national form of government. Serving without com- pensation and paying their own expenses, these mcn labored through the hot summer months end emerged in September with a charter of government which the great Eng- lish Prime Minister, William Gladstone, characterized as the greatest instrument of government ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man. These men, familiar with the history of governments and having but recently felt the lash of a despotic ruler, were determined to establish here in America a land tn which men might be free—tree to express their own opinions; free to assemble as we are assembled here; free to worship God or not to worship as they chose; free to choose their own occupation; free to work or not to work, as they saw fit, so long as they did not encroach on the rights of others. In the Bill of Rights they placed certain defi- nite restrictions upon the National Govern- ment for the protection of the individual; guaranteeing the security of people in their persons and homes and against unreasonabie searches and seizures; protecting the citizen from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and guaranteeing the right of trial by jury. They recognized that human rights and property rights go hand in hand. They knew that personal safety and safety of ownership are insepa- rable. They knew that each is fundamen- tally essential to the other, if we are to be assured life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- piness. A fundamental principle underlying the Constitution was that the Federal Govern- ment acqutred only such authority and pow- er as had been given up by the States. To the States was reserved all powers not so granted. In order to bring these things to pass and to guarantee that there be no infringement of State rights in the future, they set up cer- tain safeguards. These safeguards, today, have been largely destroyed, I shall mention only two. The first has to do with taxation. These men recognized that the unlimited power of taxation is the power to destroy. The con- trol of the people over the public purse was carefully devised and set up in the Consti- tution. As one instance, it prohibited any direct tax on the people by the Federal Gov- ernment unless it be apportioned among the several States on the basis of population. But in 1913 we changed that. We adopted the sixteenth amendment authorizing the Federal Government to levy income and in- heritance taxes according to whatever finan- cial success any citizen might have attained. On that power we place no limitation. Thereby, we let loose an avalanche of new Federal centralization that has carried us far from our original principles of local gov- erument, From that day to this, the amount of money the Federal Government can spend has steedily increased, until now it has reached unbelievable figures. With all this money in hand, Congress has been persuaded to appropriate more and more money for more and more functions which had previ- ously been the sole functions of Siates and ° local communities. Many of these have been an utter waste of money. Few have been efficiently or economically administered. ome have been important to our general welfare, but they should have been achieved by methods in keeping with our basic Ameri- can principle of local self-government. Now that the Federal Government collects its billions in taxes, it is relatively easy for advocates of any new propram to put it over. They simply employ the help of some pres- sure group, head for Washington and con- centrate their efforts on the Congress. Con- gress appropriates a huge sum of money and apportions it to the States on a matching basis on condition that each State conform to certain regulations. The offer is irresist- able and the States tax their citizens more in order to get that money. Another Federal bureau is set up in Washington with several thousand additional employees, This system goes on and on, ever expanding. The hold of Washington on the individual lives of the people becomes tighter and tighter, and the participation of the people in their local gov- ernment becomes less and less. In 1946 the people of North Dakota paid the Federal Government over $45,000,C09 in in- come and inheritance taxes. That is more than $90,000,000 for the biennium. At the same time you, as legislators, are wrestling with the problem of keeping your appropria- tions within 820,000,000, the total estimated income of the State for the biennium. Na- tional defense and such projects as the Mis- souri development are nation | in character, but the number of projects purely local in character in which the Federal Government concerns itself is appalling. Every dollar sent to Washington is pretty well used up before it returns. The story is told of a little boy who wanted to build himself an seroplane. He had no money and he needed $100. At night when he went to bed he prayed to God to send him $100. Night after night he prayed, but there was no answer. So he wrote a letter and addressed it to God. The Post Office Depart- ment, not knowing the Lord’s address, sent it to the White House. The President felt that such a worthy appeal should be answered and he sent the boy 85. The young lad wrote to God and thanked him for answering his prayers, but, he said, “I think you should know that your letter went by way of Wash- ington, and those bureaucrats took out 96 percent.” No one can seriously question the advisa- bility of income and inheritance taxes. They are among the fairest and most equitable methods of taxation that we have. -But we may well question the wisdom of granting the Federal Government unlimited authority to sap the financial strength of our people to such an extent that we do not have left sufi- cient means to properly and adequately sup- port our own institutions and our own neces- sary activities. What could we not do for our schools, our institutions, our aged le, our highways, and our other State activities if we had a fair portion of that $90,000,000. What ts more, we could use it as we deemed best, without dictation from Washington. It is time that our State and all other States join hands with the State of Indiana (see 1947 House Journal, pp. 508-10) and resist being considered the adopted child of Wash- ington, D. C. It is only natural that there have been set up in Washington, over the years, individuals and bureaus with almost unlimited author- ity to solve our individual problems. Their job has been to work out a so-called planned economy. As a result of their planning, we are short of sugar, shirts, suits, underwear, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD soap—even toilet paper. The things we need most, these we cannot buy. These planncrs always forget some important factor. Even back in the days of Henry Wallace’s Ever- Normal Granary Plan, which sounded so good and useful—Mr. Wallace forgot that he could not cantrol the weather. It proved to be a serious oversight in his plan. There is no politics intended in what I am saying. Mr. Wallace has been both a Republican and a Democrat. I am speaking on a matter of princip:e only. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat no matter what his party affiliation may be. Shortly after the capitulation of Japan, there came from the high places in Wash- ington the bold assertion that corporations could pay increased wages without an in- crease in prices. Shortly, this country ex- perienced such a wave of strikes and shut- downs as it had never experienced before. As wage increases were granted, the Govern- ment found it neceesury to grant increases in the price of steel and other basic products and thereby set in motion our present spiral of inflation. One may reasonibly ask, why was the Government in there, anyway? Agein, our Government planners over- locked a very important factor. There is nothing automatically good about an in- crease in wages. In fact, there is a positive loss to all of us in wage increases unles> ” there is an equivalent increase in production. A smart labor leadership and a smart Gov- ernment leadership after the war would have stressed production, would have encouraged workers to get goods produced to satisfy wants at a reasonable level of prices, while accepting wage increases obtainable by ne- gotiation. Production of more goods by more people for more people brings higher wages and lowers the cost of living. Money is not wealth. Goods are wealth. It’s how much we can buy with what we have that determines how wealthy we are. The second safeguard in the Constitution, to which I shall refer, ia that provision pre- serving to each State the right of control over commerce within its own borders, and granting to the Federal Government control over only that portion of commerce which is “among the severa] States.” This clause granting to the Federal Gov- ernment control only over commerce “among the several States’ was jealously guarded and protected by our courts, both Federal and State, for almost 150 years. Within the last generation, however, we have acquired a completely new Federal Supreme Court, consisting of men espousing an eco- nomic philosophy contrary to that expressed by the framers of our Constitution. Today, by judicial interpretation, the jurisdiction of the Federal Government has become so broadened in its scope and so many funda- mental principles of law have been upset, that not even an expert on constitutional law can give an opinion as to what the law is or is not, and be sure that he is right. For a century and a half the decisions of our courts have given us a fairly accurate yardstick by which to determine what is and what is not interstate commerce. Now, those decisions have been thrown overboard in favor of the Federal Government. In the last session of the Supreme Court of the United States, for instance, despite the lan- guage of the commerce clause of the Con- stitution and despite prior decisions of that Court, it was held that an employee washing windows of an office building was engaged in producing goods in interstate commerce be- Cause a substantial part of the building was occupied by a tenant who was a manu- facturer of goods which were shipped in in- terstate commerce. He was not an employee of the manufacturer. He was an employee of the owner of the building. Yet, the Court held, he was engaged in interstate commerce washing windows. Recently, a Federal court held that a farm- er in Illinois who sold milk to his neighbor was engaged in interstate commerce because
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the milk came in competition with other milk which was shipped across the State line. So gradually and yet swiftly, the pow- ers of the States are dwindling and the Fed- eral Government becomes an octopus. Lacal self-government is taken away, and author- ity rests with the great ruler in Washington. No court has the right to constitute itself, in effect, a constitutional convention for the purpose of rewriting the Constilution of the United States and more particularly where to do so destroys the balance of puwer be- tween the States and the central govern- ment and thereby destroys the right of local self-government. What is the solution? We cannot look to the United States Supreme Court as now congtituted for relief. The majority of its members have committed themselves to the Philosophy of Federal sup-emacy. Our help must lie with our elected representatives in Congress. I will give you one illustration. Some 2 or 3 yecrs ago, the insurance world Was dumbfounded by a new proncuncement by the Supreme Court. Contrary to a long list of prior decisions, it held that when the agent in one State wrote a nolicy of insur- ance for a company whose home cffice was in another State, that company was engaging in interstate commerce. By that decision the law was changed overnight—not by Conrress, not by the people, but by the Supreme Court. The insurance commissioners of the 48 States became concerned. They saw here another step to concentrate all power in Washington. They appealed to Congress. Congress has now taken action nullifying, for the time being at least, that decision of the Supreme Court. In my opinion, one source of hope lies with Congress. I am not the least worried as to what Congress will do when the majority of the people make their desires known. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to perform some drastic operations in Washington. They must be performed if local self-govern- ment is to survive. It must be first on our agenda to return to the States their natural share of governmental responsibility. But, we cannot rely solcly upon Congress. We, as States, must do a better job than we have done in the past. One of the argu- ments used for usurpation of authority by the Federal Government is that the States are not performing their full functions. One means of correcting this situation is by closer cocperation with the other 47 States through the Council! of State Governments. If we are to Keep abreast of the times; if we are to give to the people of North Dakota the best in modern thought for State gov- ernment, it is necessary that we keep in- formed on whut other States are doing. The Council of State Governments, of which this State is a contributing member, and which has been carrying on its work for more than 20 years is the principal existing agency whereby State executives and legislators, by careful research and exchange of ideas may keep the 48 States abreast of each other and abreast of the times. This cannot be done by going home at the close of the session and forgetting about the affairs of state until the cpening of the next session of the legislature 2 years later. The means of contact between the legislature and the people; and between the legislature and other States, during the interim between sessions, is the Legislative Research Com- mittee. ‘ It is evident from the compensation paid to our legislators that the people do not fully appreciate the worth of a legislator nor the importance of the legislature. ‘Yet, the laws you adopt are the laws which govern our daily lives. Somehow, the legislature has failed in the field of public relations, Our State executives and the courts are in con- stant touch with the people. The contact of the legislature is for but 60 days every 2 years. Now, the legislature has the oppor- tunity, through the work of the Legislative Research Committee, not only to do a more intelligent job, but also to keep the function of lawmaking constantly before the people of the State. I pay tribute to the members of the Legis- lative Research Committee for the fine piece of work which they accomplished prior to the opening of this session. Representing both majority and minority factions, they have put politics aside and have labored solcly on the basis of what is best for the Feople. The results of the few months since they secured the services of a research di- rector are clearly evidcnt in the more effi- cient work of the prcsent scseion. We cannot have good local government without good legislation. You cannot ex- pect to operate efficiently and intelligently as members of the legislature without hav- ing the benefit of careful research. The Legislative Research Committee is a vital part of the legislative function of State govern- ment. The thing of transcendent importance is that. by putting governmental recponsibility back close to the pecple and into units of government sufficiently small for them to operate, the goverhmental capacity of the People will be developed by its exercise. The lecsons of histury teach us that unless re- Sect for law, love of liberty, and the gov- ernmental capscity of the private citizen are secured, then the entire superstructure falls. We are all familiar with the song “America, the Beautiful.” America is beautiful. It ts beautiful) for its lofty mountains and fertile Plains; its cities and hamlets; its winding rivers and verdant forests; its pastures of grazing cattle and fields of waving grain; its factories, its farms, and its homes. But more than all, America is beautiful for its liberty- loving, self-reliant people, who have gained and retained their freedom by the constant exercise of self-government. Destroy local self-government and you de- stroy the foundation. When that founda- tion crumblics, our Government will go as Greece and Rome went and as every govern- ment has gone that forgot to develop the stability of its individual citizenry. It will die as a tree dics, rooted in the soil which js no longer able to sustain it. Labor in Britain EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WALTER NORBLAD OF OREGON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. NORBLAD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include in the Appendix of the REcorp an edi- torial by ex-Gov. Charles A. Sprague, publisher of the Oregon Statesman, Salem, Oreg. I commend this editorial to your attention as the views and infor- mation therein set forth are of extreme interest and value. It follows: LABOR IN BRITAIN The British are not going to be counted out of the fight even though snows and floods have dealt them a crippling blow this winter. Prime Minister Attlee, in an address to the nation, Tuesday, assured his people and the world: “We shall win in peace just as we did in war.” Those with recollection of the way Britain stood alone through most of 1940 and 1941 have faith that the bulldog quality of the British will pull them through this immediate trial. Admittedly Britain is in a difficult position because of its necessity of making heavy im- Allg9 ports of foodstuffs and raw materials. It Jost much of its overseas investment which returned income to pay for these imports and has not increased its exports in volume to bring a balance. Manpower is lacking in in- dustry, and for coal mining a Ipck: of reedi- necs to work, Prime Minister Attice in his address said his government rcjected the idea of compelling workers to enter ecgential in- dustries, depending still on persuasion to get workers to leave less necessary emp'cyment. Yet that is an ecute problem in a S:cialtst government which is bcsed on pi.uned ecsnomy. Writing in The Naticu, Aylmer Vallance refers to it eas the problem which hes faced the Labor government ever since it took ofiice—how to carry cut effec\.ve plan- ning without measures of compu’sion re- pugnant to its conception of political demac- racy. Communist Russia entertains no such scruples. It puts men to work where it wauts them; and on slight provocction may ship them off to lcbor camns which ere really penel cvlonics. Whether Socialist Britain can pull thrcuga w.thout resort to comnulsion in labor assicnment is a grave quest.on. Thut, it muy he recalled, is a thesis of Frederic Hayek's much reviled (by leftists) Road to S-rfdom: the deprivaticn of human Nber- ties. If the British can get their werl: done without forcing labor they will have euc- cecded at a point critical for socilist por- formance. Vallance draws another conclusion from his observation of the British economic crisis: “The present stoppage of production due to a month of Arctic weather and the de- pletion of coal stocks has brought home strikingly to the man in the street the cold, hard fact that full employment cannot be obtained by acts of Parliament or by chesp money but is dependent ultimately on physi- Cal resources.” That comment merits reflection here in America where months ago there was urgent demand for legislation to provide full em- ployment, with the prospective use oO! déticit financing—cheap money—to provide employ- ment. The paraliel with Britain is not exact, but the testimony of Vallance is pertinent, namely, that full employment is not guaran- teed by a law or by easy money, save tn a totulitarian state. Condensed Skim Milk in Bulk EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. REID F. MURRAY OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at various times I have called the attention of the agencies connected with food production, conservation use, the importance of the food value of skim milk. The OPA placed a 14.5 cent per pound ceiling price on the product. The Agriculture Department has recently placed a 10-cent-per-pound floor price on this product. This skim milk in dried form not only has 30 and 35 percent di- gestible protein but, in addition, con- tained as much or more calcium, phos- phorus, iron, thiamine, niacin, and as- corbic acid as whole milk contains. This floor price of 10 cents per pound means 10 cents for about 6 quarts of skim milk, and after the drying process it leaves the farmer receiving around 1 cent per quart. Of the 653,000,000 pounds of dried skim
A1200 milk produced in the United States in 1946, al] but 15,000,000 pounds were used for human food. This is by far the cheapest food in the world today, and every effort should be made to prevent the waste of the product. In addition to the 653,000,000 pounds of dried skim milk produced in the United States in 1946, there were over a billion pounds of condensed skim milk, sweet- ened and unsweetened, in bulk produced. This unsweetened condensed skim milk was used in very large quantities wherein the condensed unsweetened skim and high-test frozen cream were reconsti- tuted and sold as bottle milk in many dis- tricts of the United States that had a short supply. The production of the sweetened whole and skim milk and the production of the nonsweetened condensed whole and skim milk are shown in the following table: Sweetened and unsweetened condensed milk [In thousands of pounds] Sweetened con- | Unsweetened con- densed milk in densed milk in bulk bulk Year —_— — —_—_. Skimmed | C™ .|Skimmed |. © skimmed |° skimmed 15x, 971 62, 421 156, 212 128, 203 440, 361 45, BR? 145, 416 110, 038 120,623 | 42,628] J88, 646 98, 052 114, 936, 40, O64 127, 197 £6, Wz 120, 368 43, 3&3 140, 913 92, 414 183,417 | 36,207 | 164,372 | 102, 823 145, 640 49,618 | 190, 404 120, 601 104, 755 48, 203 | 219, 378 13%, 124 165, (36 48, O21 280, 143 12%, 504 152, S86 54, 807 223, 00) J07, 026, 166, O17 76, 138 245, 010 328, O17 178, 658 70, 209 | $26, 485 115, 065 225, 840 7h, 382 | 31k, 370 125, &80 £06, 588 66, SRR | 325, 612 102, 452 _| 370,049] 63, 586 | B67, Rt 119, 405 -| 404,472 | 162, 780 | 1 460, 324] 1120, 528 .) 1 654,530 | 66,675 | 462,315 | 116, 565 1 Preliminary. 2 Estimatos, Souree: Bureau of Arricultural Economics—U. 8, De- partment of Agriculture, It does not make sense during a period of world hunger to allow food products that have required manpower and fer- tility to produce, be wasted. Nor does it make sense to anyone that has any respect for the Treasury of the United States or for the taxpayers of our coun- try. The $80,000,000 loss of public funds on the 1946 potato crop should indicate that we should have some correlation between production, processing, and distribution of food products. Johannes Steel REMARKS oF HON. C. JASPER BELL OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested to find a clipping in the Daily News the other day giving the statement that Johannes Steel, who was a Communist candidate for Congress in New York recently, has been found in Moscow as a correspondent. Our State Department, I understand, has refused to accredit him over there. He was not there as one of the accredited corre- spondents. For some reason or other the authorities in Moscow admitted him, anyway, and he is over there writing as an accredited correspondent as far as Moscow is concerned. You will remem- ber that at the time he was a candidate up there running with Communist sup- port, Mr. Henry Wallace went up there and campaigned for him against the regular Democratic candidate and against the Republican who also ran at that time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in my remarks the clipping in question from the Washington Daily News. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis- souri? There was no objection. Mr. BELL. The clipping is as follows: JOHANNES STEEL BYPASSES STATE DEPARTMENT; Covers Moscow TALKS (By Frederick Woltman) New York, March 20.—Despite a “grave housing shortage” which caused rigid limita- tion of American correspondents, Russia has admitted a pro-Soviet ex-radio commentator to the Moscow Conference, although he was denied accreditation by the United States Government, it was learned today. He is Johannes Steel, darling of the United States Communist Party. Steel obtained a Russian visa, and, according to the United Press, arrived this week in Moscow, where he attended Foreign Minister Molotov’s recep- tion Tuesday. NOT ACCREDITED Informed that Steel had gone to Moscow, @ spokesman for the State Department ex- pressed surprise today in Washington. He said: “It is a mystery to us how Steel got there. He is not accredited as an American correspondent to cover the Moscow Confcr- ence.” In granting him admission, the Soviet Gov- ernment bypassed or ignored the State De- partment, Only by strong diplomatic pres- sure did the State Department induce Russia to raise its original quota of 20 newsmen to 86. (The Daily Worker's editor, Morris Childs, was No. 35.) As foreign editor of the left-wing magazine, Reader's Scope, Steel stood fifty-second on the list of applicants. Representatives of 16 news-gathering agencies ahead of him were cut out. In a dispatch from New York to Moscow last December, Tass, official Soviet wire serv- ice, approvingly referred to Steel as a “pro- gressive commentator.” It was learned that Steel is not attending the Moscow Conference in behalf of any American newspaper, press service, magazine, or radio station. REPRESENTS NEWSLETTER He went there in behalf of his private monthly (multigraphed) newsletter, “The Johannes Steel Report on World Affairs,” in which he has plugged hard for the Commu- nist Party line since he started it 2 months ago. He js trying to sell 100,000 annual sub- ecriptions at @5 apiece. Before he sailed for England, March 7, on the Queen Elizabeth, the War Department withdrew its permission for Steel to enter the American military zones in Germany and Austria. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Legislative Procedure REMARKS OF HON. A. L. MILLER OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, ‘ihe voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” On Thursday, March 20, the gentleman from Louisiana {[Mr. HEBERT] inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp an attack on myself as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Education, and Recreation of the Committee on the District of Colum- bia and on the Republican leadership of this House, charging legislative thievery, because a bill he had introduced, H. R. 496, a measure to set up a clinic in the District of Columbia for the treatment of alcoholics, had been reintroduced as H. R. 2620, by myself. The bill had ex- tensive hearings. It was found neces- sary to make 19 changes in the bill to perfect it. There were two entirely new sections added to the bill. Had it not been for the fact that my colleague had used this for an excuse to attack the Republican leadership in the House for unfairness, I would have let the matter pass unnoticed, but I see in this instance the “hand” of the minority leadership and its purpose to resume the delaying tactics it so effectively em- ployed during the last Republican ad- ministration. There is more back of this than the hurt feelings of an individ- ual Member. Since this matter has been brought up, I thought it well to acquaint the Mem- bers of this House with the policies along this line employed by the Democrats when they were in the majority, and, let me say right here, many Democrats seem unable to learn they are no longer in the driver's seat directing legislation through the Congress. Soon after I became a Member of the Seventy-eighth Congress, I became aware that no piece of legislation of the slight- est importance ever bore the name of a Republican. The Democrats let the Re- publicans sponsor the Case bill because they thought it was full of dynamite. The bill was vetoed by the President. Examination of legislation passed into law during the last 16 years indicates that our friends on the other side of the aisle seldom let any legislation out of a committee under a Recpublican’s name. Certainly there was no legislation which was policy forming or far reaching. In order to satisfy my curiosity and place the record before the Members of the House, I made a study of all the pub- lic laws passed by the Seventy-ninth Congress just to see how liberal the Dem- ocratic leadership in that Congress was with the minority in that respect. Here are my findings. Of the 733 public laws passed by the Seventy-ninth Congress, 481 were originated in the House of Rep- resentatives. Of these, 79 were ‘intro-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD duced by-Republicans, -Not one of them had to do with policy. All of them were of purely local significance. For in- stance, 21 authorized the building of bridges over navigable streams within @ Republican Member’s district or over the boundary of two districts represented by Republicans. Five authorized the granting of medals. The Republican Delegate from Hawaii was permitted to keep his name on six bills having to do with that Territory. Eight had to do with Indian tribes within the districts of Republican Members. The Democratic leadership magnanimously permitted the passage of H. R. 4590, introduced by the then minority leader, now our hon- orable Speaker, a bill authorizing the Treasury to sell to manufacturers for a period of 2 years, silver owned by the United States at not less than 71.11 cents per fine troy ounce. One bill af- fecting the District of Columbia, intro- duced by a Republican Congressman from Maryland, was permitted to pass. So, my colleagues, this is “the studied program of political carnage and legis- lative thievery” that has been consist- ently followed by the Democratic mi- nority for the past 16 years. Is it any wonder they now suspect the Republi- cans of learning that policy? Mr. Speaker, for 16 long years, this big, healthy Republican elephant was practically denied the power of creat- ing and guiding new legislation through the Congress. The elephant took all the attacks, and put up with this legislative thievery and political carnage, but, be- cause it has a thick hide, it did survive. Now the tables are turned. The bray- ing New Deal jackass which is symbolic of the Democratic Party now objects to the same treatment the Republican ele- phant has had to endure. I do not blame the Democrats for objecting, but their mule may well turn out to be a legislative eunuch. Exports and Imports of Dried Skim Mik EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. REID F. MURRAY OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr, Speaker, on several occasions I have called attention to the importance of skim milk and how every effort should be made to prevent the waste of this great food. I have shown the official reports of the United States Department of Agri- culture that indicate the diversion of this food from animal feed into human food. These records also showed how the dried skim milk has increased up to over 600,000,000 pounds a year. They also showed that over 1,000,000,000 pounds are now produced in bulk form. Dried-milk exports were as high as 237,000,000 pounds in 1943 and were down to 167,000,000 in 1946. Anyone who realizes that this dried skim is the very cheapest source of animal protein in the world cannot explain any valid reason why larger amounts of this great food have not been used by UNRRA. You will note that in 1936 with 25- cent butter and cheese as low as 12 cents in the United States, there was over 19.- 000,000 pounds of this product imported. The official table from the United States Department of Agriculture is as follows: United States exports and imports of dried skimmed milk, quantity and value, 1920-46 Domestic exports Year ended Dee. 31— Milk, powdered (dried) 167, 330 1 General imports prior to 1930, 3 Not soparately classified prior to 1930. ‘ Not separately classified prior to 1932, ss than 500, § January 1047 data not available as o/ Feb. 27, 1947. Milk, skimmed, Imports for consumption } Milk, skimmed, dried » Milk powder darted ¢ 1,900 Ib, 1,000 dol. 1,000 th, | 1,000 dol, 20, B46 28, 676 Moe of Foroign Agricultural Relations, Compiled from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States and official records, then of the Census and U. 8, Tariff Commission, XCIII—App.. 16 A1201 Legislation by Litigation Should Be Stopped REMARKS HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, in con- nection with any study of possible ways of reducing Government expenditures, particularly by cutting down personnel, consideration should be given to a ques- tionable practice that has lately devel- oped among Government lawyers and of- ficials of trying to legislate by litigation. Thus, if some agency or department of the Government is not satisfied with the laws passed by Congress, which it is sup- posed to enforce and which it has already interpreted, the agency, under the guise of new regulations which it proceeds to promulgate, commences lawsuits in an attempt to change the law to accord with its new interpretation, although the law was in nowise changed by Congress and the failure to attempt any changes clearly indicated that Congress was con- tent with the original interpretation. This sort of legal “pioneering’—as cer- tain Government employees cal] it—is not only unjustified in that it is an at- tempt by the executive department of the Government to legislate, but indeed, impose a cruel burden on the “guinea pigs” arbitrarily selected by the particu- lar agency in its campaign to change the existing law or the interpretation there- of. To illustrate, the press recently car- ried statements concerning an attempt by the subcommittee of the House Ap- propriations Committee to find a method for reducing the 58,000 employees in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. A sub- stantial group of these employees are un- doubtedly engaged in the _ so-called guinea pig cases. For many years, for example, the income-tax law relating to such things as family partnerships, family trusts, employee stock purchase plans and a host of other items had been relatively sect. Thousands of taxpayers entered into transactions in reliance up- on the policy of the Bureau of Internal Revenue established for 30 years, toward these transactions. Then some of the bright young boys determined that the laws and attitude relating to such sub- jects should be changed. Immediately new regulations and rulings are issued and the entire subject matter is thrown into a state of confusion, while hundreds of lawyers, accountants, and other Gov- ernment employees start to make new laws. Obviously if any new laws were to be made on these subjects or if the interpretations of the existing laws were to be changed, Congress is the duly or- ganized and existing body for such a purpose. The failure of Congress to act on most of these questions since 1913 provides an indication that Congress was satisfied with the status quo. Unques- tionably the new interpretations if ul- timately sustained—and it must be con- ceded that in many cases the Govern- ment was successful in persuading the
A1202 New Deal courts to adopt its new ap- proach—results in the collection of ad- ditional taxes. But again it is the func- tion of Congress to determine in what manner and from what sources taxes shall be collected and it is not the proper function of the Bureau of Internal Rev- enue to augment collections by new and novel twists in laws or regulations. Not only does such an usurpation of the functions of Congress create a state of confusion for business in general, but, as noted, it works a particular hardship on the unfortunate group who are se- lected as guinea pigs in the Govern- ment’'s legislation by litigation cam- paign. These people find that their fam- ily partnerships, approved for years and never even challenged, suddenly get a crushing blow from the revenue agent’s office announcing an income-tax defi- ciency of sizable proportions based upon the new approach, or a family trust set up long ago and consistently passed by the Treasury finds itself under at- tack despite the fact that Congress has in nowise amended the laws. In prac- tically every case the Treasury is not even interested in trying to settle such cases since their purpose is to make new law. Thus the Bureau insists upon litigation, and if they lose in the Tax Court they insist upon appeals. At the outset of its campaign in most cases the Govern- ment has no clear-cut precedents upon which to rely, but simply tries to make precedents as it proceeds in its relent- less insistence upon forcing taxpayers to litigate and appeal and litigate some more. During the entire procedure the credit and business standing of the un- fortunate guinea pig is seriously im- paired, his prospects are endangered, and there is nothing to do except to hold on in the hope that the courts will tell the bureau legislators that they were wrong in the first place, in which case the bureau legislators will say, “Well, at least we tried.” Enlightening indeed would be statis- tics to reveal the number of cases pend- ing in the Bureau of Internal Revenue which obviously are simply test cases. Even more significant would be a study to determine the number of employees who are engaged in such questionable ventures. It is difficult to imagine law- yers recommending litigation in a case where there is no precedent to support it. Indeed only Government lawyers who are paid the same amount whether they win or lose cases could afford to engage in such frivolous and unreason- able contests. The Government attor- ney has nothing to lose, but the poor guinea pig has much at stake. Certain- ly lawyers, whether working for the Government or not, should not be per- mitted to commence litigation in the hope of reversing established precedents or long-settled rulings. If this part of the Government lawyers and bureau- crats were eliminated, many hundreds or even thousands could be released into private practice where they would find that such frolicking tactics were not feasible or practicable. They would soon learn that lawyers just do not start litigation with the can- did admission that the existing cases are against us but we would like to test them out to see whether they cannot be changed. Such an iconoclastic approach is particularly dangerous and out of place in the field of taxation which so intimately affects each business trans- action and where respect for an estab- lished precedent is so essential. Please note that the guinea pig is not a crim- inal trying to evade the law, for no one has sympathy with this class. They are not people who are failing to report their income or evading or suppressing any facts or information in connection there- with. They are simply people who, with a full disclosure of all the facts, deter- mine upon a course of conduct only to find that the rules are changed after the Government begins the game. Certainly Congress, the largest group of whose members have been trained in the law themselves, should be qualified to write laws that are clear enough to dispense with such machinations. This is particularly true under the congres- siona! reorganization bill which provides experts for the congressional committee and which further provides executive as- sistants for the Members. They should now be sufficiently talented to frame laws clearly enough so that the executive de- partment of the Government can confine itself to its traditional task of enforcing those laws as written, which would en- able the Congress to eliminate so many of the present personnel that are engaged in legislation by litigation. Let Us Practice Democracy in America While We Parchase It Abroad REMARKS HON. NORRIS POULSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. POULSON. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill which I hope will eventually become an organic act for the Island of Guam. My bill proposes no raid on the Federal Treasury and estab- lishes no new instrument of Federal bu- reaucracy. My bill simply proposes to ex- tend, by act of Congress, to 23,000 loyal American nationals, the liberties and human rights which we ourselves value so highly. It proposes to extend to Guam the guarantees of personal free- dom and civil liberty guaranteed other Americans by the Constitution of the United States; it proposes to give them an American system of law and courts with the right to appeal to the courts of the United States; it proposes to give them a measure of local self-government under a civilian governor to be appointed by the President with the advice and cen- sent of the Senate; it proposes to extend to those permanent residents of Guam who do not already have it, full United States’ citizenship. There is much talk of democracy these days. We are being told that the blood and treasure which we squandered on the battlefields of the world in two great APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD wars in the cause of democracy has not been enough. We are told that two na- tions—the one a kingdom; the other a dictatorship—are in danger and that we must again rush to the rescue. This time there appears to be no immediate need for American troops; the job can be done with American dollars. The will-o’-the-wisp which we have pursued for almost two decades—the call to spend, and spend, and spend—is again being sounded from high places. We are told that the goals which could not be achieved in Europe by bloodshed and death on the battlefields of the world can now be purchased in two countries at least with several hundreds of millions of American dollars. Gen- tlemen, I say to you that if the cause of democracy in Greece and Turkey is in danger of being extinguished it will take more than dollars to rekindle the flame. Democracy is a thing of the spirit—it is in the souls of men—it cannot be nour- ished with dollars and it cannot be kept alive with bayonets—not even with bayonets purchased with American dol- lars and wielded by soldiers paid in American dollars and sustained on food purchased with American dollars. I have not taken the floor today to attack the proposal put forward by the administration to solve the dilemma which now confronts the United States in Europe. If we have reached that unhappy state in Europe where we must organize a political machine of Euro- pean nations in order to overcome our political enemies, then I say Jet us do as the administration suggests—it has experience in such matters. I have been told, though, that political machines require an awful lot of oil—even the smallest cog must be lubricated—not just to get the machine started but from time to time thereafter in order to keep it running. If we must now create a political machine of nations in order to Save democracy in Europe, I say create it and create it now. Start it with dol- lars if we must, but let us be careful that we do not create a Frankenstein which will devour more and more of our economic substance and push us further and further on the road of deficit financing. It is my belief that the real answer to the situation which confronts us abroad is not to be found in bigger and better loans. I believe the answer lies in big- ger and better democracy. I believe that we must rouse our democratic ideology from its slumber and again make it alive and militant. We must place it on the highways of the world and make it act and do democracy. We must give renewed vigor and being to our philosophy of government. We must dust off the Declaration of Inde- pendence and give it new life in the twentieth-century world. We need a Tom Paine, or a Jefferson, a Washing- ton, or a Lincoln to proclaim democracy abroad in these days of doubt. I have just returned from a 20,000- mile tour of the Pacific. There as in Europe, the forces of reaction and totalitarianism are at work. Commu- nism threatens in China, in Manchuria, and in Korea. Relentlessly and ef-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ficiently the agents of the totalitarian way of life are boring from within to de- stroy the democracy which General MacArthur is laboring to bring to life. Yes, democracy in government is fight- ing for its life in the Pacific as well as in Europe. Those of us who live in the far West— especially those of us who live on the shores of the Pacific—are also anxious about democracy. We believe that com- munism and autocracy in the Pacific is as great a menace to the United States as is communism in the Mediterranean. Gentlemen, the millions of Americans on the west coast and in the western United States see danger in the Pacific. We are not opposed to erecting safeguards in Europe but we also want to see safe- guards established in the vast areas of the Pacific Ocean—even in Asia itself. We of the West are aware of the fact that security for the United States does not lie in Maginot Lines of island bases. We do not believe that American democ- racy can save itself merely by crouching behind walls of defense and waiting for the onslaught. We are convinced that in order to survive, our democracy must move far out into the Pacific even be- yond our naval and military bases. We believe: that the United States must build the outposts of American democ- racy not only in the far away islands of the Pacific but in Asia itself. We must build outposts in Asia in the minds and the hearts of men who have come to be- lieve in the democratic way of life and who would fight for what they believe. The people of the Pacific West believe that the United States should erect two walls of defense in the Pacific. The one should be material. It should be of earth and concrete and steel. It should be bases, fortifications, ships, and planes. The other must be spiritual. It must be constructed of loyalty and love for the United States and the democratic way of life. It must be thousands—possibly millions—of Pacific peoples believing in democracy. The best defense for democracy in the Pacific is democracy in the Pacific. We should nurture it there and raise it up with all the care and attention at our command. We should build a bulwark of democracy in every island in the Pacific. We should teach these far- away peoples the ways of democracy and should do our utmost to raise them to the level of free beings in a free society. Each little island in the Pacific should be an outpost of our democratic way of life—an outpost which in time of need might well prove to be a forward bul- wark of defense. During the course of the Pacific tour from which I have just returned I vis- ited a number of Pacific islands and far-away places. Among these were Guam and American Samoa. It was by visiting these two islands, which have been in the possession of the United States for almost 50 years, that I came to a full realization of the enormity of the wrong that the United States of America is perpetrating on almost 40,000 loyal American nationals in the name of democracy and national defense. The local inhabitants of Guam and American Samoa—and this includes many Ameri- can citizens from the mainland of the United States—are governed under a form of military autocracy which is a disgrace to our democracy. It is an ab- solutism beyond anything I could have imagined even in my wildest dreams. And it exists under the American flag pursuant to authority from the Presi- dent of the United States and with his knowledge and consent. Guam was ceded to the United States by Spain at the close of the Spanish- American war. The cession was pro- vided for in the Treaty of Paris of De- cember 10, 1898, in which the United States agreed among other things that the Congress of the United States would define the civil rights and political status of the local inhabitants of Guam. To this date the Congress has neglected to fulfill that pledge. By Executive order of President Mc- Kinley the United States Navy was directed to assume control of the island, establish a form of local administration, and maintain law and order. The gov- ernment so established exists to this very day. A naval governor, appointed by the President, reigns supreme on the island. He makes the law, creates the courts, and hires and fires the judges and policemen who interpret and en- force his law. There is no appeal be- yond the island even in capital cases. The naval governor's power to legis- late is absolute, complete, and all-inclu- sive. It includes the power to tax and the power to appropriate private property. The writ of habeas corpus as such does not exist; neither the petit jury nor the grand jury has ever been established— not even for the thousands of Ameri- cans who have taken up residence on the island. A Guam congress exists but it is an advisory body only whose mem- bers serve without compensation and who are subject to removal by the naval governor. Gentlemen, that in short is the democracy under which the 23,000 local inhabitants of Guam and thousands of Americans who reside on Guam must work and live. Gentlemen, that in a few words is American democracy on Guam. In American Samoa a similar system of government, stemming from similar authority, is administered in similar fashion by an absolute sovereign in naval gold braid. In this American outpost of democracy and national defense the lot of the local inhabitant is indeed sad. As a matter of fact, the lot of the mainland Americans who also reside there is little better than that of the Samoans them- selves. : A United States Senate Committee un- der the chairmanship of former Senator Hiram Bingham visited Samoa in the late twenties and reported on conditions there as the committee had found them. Most of the conditions brought to atten- tion in the Bingham report exist to this day and I shall not repeat them here. I would like however to invite your atten- tion to a few of the tidbits of absolutism which I found in American Samoa on my recent visit. As in Guam, the governor’s absolute authority includes the power to tax. A general personal tax of $10 per annum is levied on each male inhabitant 18 years of age and over. Delinquency in the pay- A1293 ment of this tax is treated as a contempt of court and is punished by imprison- ment—not by fine or by tax sale of prop- erty, but by imprisonment. Another source of revenue is an ad valorem cus- toms duty of 20 percent on practically every item imported into American Sa- moa. This 20-percent duty is levied even on items of food and clothing. It is ap- plied with equal force and effect to im- ports from the United States itself. Yes, a 20-percent import duty is levied and collected by the United States naval gov- ernment of American Samoa on imports from all foreign countries including the United States. In addition to this im- port duty a flat 2-percent tax is levied and collected by the United States naval government tax gatherer on the value of all merchandise and produce exported from American Samoa. As in Guam, the only bank on the is- land is owned and operated by the Navy, which thereby absolutely controls all commercial credit on the islands. Samo- ans are prohibited from borrowing more than $25 from non-Samoans on pain of fine und imprisonment for the lender. A naval government commodity ad- ministrator has absolute authority to regulate imports and exports and the supply and price of food and consumer goods on the shelves of Samoan mer- chants. Storekeepers are compelled to pay what is called an annual license charge which in reality is a flat tax of 2 percent on gross sales. That, gentlemen, is only a partial de- scription of the United States naval de- mocracy in Guam and American Samoa. That is the kind of democracy we—the United States of America—have extended to our own possessions. That is the American democracy now in existence in American territory on the authority of the executive branch of the United States Government—the very same branch which is now calling on us—the Coneress of the United States—to come to the rescue of democracy in Europe. I say to you, gentlemen, we should prac- tice the democracy we preach. We should take prompt action to abolish the military absolutisms which exist in Guam and American Samoa, and replace them with a democratic form of govern- ment under civilian administration. And, gentlemen, this should be done by the Congress on its own initiative. The bill which I have introduced to extend democracy to Guam should be fol- lowed by a similar bill with respect to American Samoa. Although I am not prepared at the moment to submit such a bill, I call on you, my colleagues of the American Congress, not to forget the people of American Samoa when you get around to the business of extending de- mocracy and the American way of life. The people of American Samoa, like the people of Guam, are standing and wait- ing with the patience so common to the subject peoples of the Pacific islands. They await the day when the United States will at last restore to them the human dignity and the pride in living enjoyed by other free Americans under the American system. They are Ameri- cans, gentlemen, loyal Americans who have remained steadfast through the years. They are Americans residing on
A1204 American soil—not Greeks, or Turks, or Hungarians, or Bulgarians, or foreigners of any name or brand. They seek only a@ decent form of government under the American system, and in the process are not asking for one single dollar. Discharge of Disloyal Governmert Employees EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. BARTEL J. JONKMAN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Speaker, Presi- dent Truman’s directive setting up a policy on firing disloyal Government em- ployees was long overdue. For over a decade Communists end their sympa- thizers have enjoyed a paradise in the United States. For many years the pol- icy of the Government has bcen to pro- tect, shield, and nurture them. This an- nounced reversal of that program is, therefore, at least encouraging. However, announcement of a new Policy is one thing—its execution is quite a different undertaking. And pray, who is to carry out this program, this house- cleaning in the administration? Is it to be done by the rightists or the leftists? You certainly cannot entrust this job to the leftists. They have created the very condition which requires this reversal of policy. The trouble with the leftists is that while he may be non-Communist, he seldom is anti-Communist. On the other hand, if this job is to be done by the rightists in the adminis- tration, they will need all the intelli- gence, intestinal fortitude, patriotism and devotion they can muster even to make a start. They might as well gird themselves for a battle royal, for the en- suing year will witness a life and death struggle by the leftists and Communist sympathizers for the control of the ad- ministration. They did not put Harry S. Truman in the White House just for fun. They are well entrenched in the administration. The late Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he was President, said in October 1939: Extreme rightists and extreme leftists should not be taken out by us and shot against the wall, for they sharpen the argument and make us realize the value of the democratic middle course—especially if that middle course, in order to keep up with the times, is “just a little bit left of center.” In December 1844 he said he had lots of people in his administration who are on the left, and lots on the right, and that on the whole it worked out pretty well. Using his Supreme Court appoint- ments as a criterion, there is no diffi- culty judging which appointments pre- ponderated. As to its working out well in his party and administration, we have only to remember Jim Farley, Jack Garner, Al Smith, and others. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I know something about this struggle and probably, together with the Novem- ber election, played a small part in bringing about President Truman’s di- rective. I have given an outline of my work in a speech recorded last Wednes- day for delivery over WJR in Detroit last Saturday. I present it herewith. Last year a dangerous Communist spy ring ‘was uncovered in Canada. It involved high government officials. Nevertheless, the Cana- dian spy ring would, in all probability, still be operating smoothly and under oover except for one fact, namely, that a Russian Com- munist agent, Igor Gouzenko, turned in- former and exposed the whole ring. The American people would be naive to think that nothing of that kind 1s going on here. The same Soviet agent, Gouzenko, testified that he believed that similar spy rings were operating in the United States. In fact, the Canadian report on the investiga- tion of this ring proves that the Canadian spy ring used Communist egents in the United States to transfer $10,000 in currency to Communists in Europe. Reds and “pinks” have a paradise in the United States. It has been the policy of our Government to protect and shield Reds and “pinks” even in Government jobs instead of discharging them. This fact was driven home to me in July of last year, when I was avpointed by the Committee on Foreign Affairs to investigate communism in the Department of State. For inctance, we have read of Carl A. Marzani, who is now under indictment for perjury. It is alleged that in his application lor u job he swore he was not a Communist while in fact he had been a member of the party for years under the alias of Tony Whales. In tracing his record, I found that on February 25, 1944, the Civil Service Commis-~ sion, which investigates the record of appli- cants for Government positions, was sub- penaed by the then Dies committee to give the records of 20 persons, and among them Carl A. Marzani, as to their loyalty to our Government and its institutions. The Civil Service Commission turned them down fiat with a letter from which I quote part of the last paragraph: “The Commission now de- clines with the approval of and at the direc- tion of the President of the United States, to comply with certain of your requests only because it believes that it must do so if it ts properly to perform its statutory duties.” This, notwithstanding that they possessed at that time the facts upon which the present indictment is based. With such a policy of shielding and pro- tecting from the Congress and the people the Communists and Communist sympathizers of the administration in general, it was not sur- prising that the same policy of shielding and protecting Reds and “pinks” obtained in the Department of State. I think you will read- ily come to the same conclusion if I give you a brief outline of my work as a committee of one last year. Early last summer Representative Cox, of Georgia, made a‘speech on the floor of the House in which he said that his good friend, Jinmimy Byrnes, Secretary of State, was clcan- ing house in that Department, and that hun- dreds of Reds and “pinks” had been dis- missed, and the process was still going on. However, this was merely a false propa- ganda barrage from the State Department to shield the “‘commies” in their jobs. It misled Mr. Cox, the Congress, and the people, lulling them into a false sense of security, for, as will appear later, not a single “pink” or Red had been fired. On July 2, Under Secretary Dean Acheson denied the above statement of Cox before the Committee on Foreign Affairs. He stated that it was not the policy of the State Depart- ment to fire people for belonging to progres- sive organizations—by which he could mean nothing other than Communist-front organ- izations, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD It was these tt o events and their implica- tions which a week later led to my appoint- ment to investigate. Under this assignment, on July 12, I had a meeting with J. Anthony Panuch, the deputy to the Assistant Secre- tary for Administration, whose office had charge of personnel. Mr. Panuch informed me that the real truth lay between the two statements; that the Department had what they call a Security Committee which made investigations of alleged Red and “pink” activities; that on the recommendation of this committee, 40 employees had been fired for being Reds and “pinks”; but upon questioning, he finally admitted that some of these 40 had been dis- charged for incompetency. Professing not to know how many had been discharged for being Reds and “pinks” and how many had been discharged for being incompetent. On the 15th of July I received a long letter which told me all about what departments the 40 had been in, and other history, but not @ single word of a break-down on why the 40 had been separated from the Department. My next step was to demand accees to the files. But I was politely told that these were secret and private files, and not open to my insnection. On July 17 I broke through this barrier, and Mr. Panuch showed me about twenty- odd files of employees who had been recom- mended for dismissal by their security com- mittee 4 or 5 months earlier. The causes for dismissal were being listed on poll lets as members of the Communist Party, belonging to Communist-front organizations, ocon- stantly contacting and associating with known Communists, and other activities which made their employment a security risk. When asked why they were still on the pey roll and had not been discharged 4 or 5 months ego, the answer was that they could not be discharged until they had a hearing before the Civil S2rvice Commission, which did not take such charges seriously. To this I countered that the Department was not so bound; that Congress had passed a law known as the McCarran rider, providing that “notwithstanding the civil-service law or any other law, the Secretary of State is hereby given absolute discretion to discharge any person in the Department whenever he deems that nis services are not in the best interests of the United States.” Panuch’'s answer to this was that this law was uncon- stitutional. I then azked to see some of the files of those of the 40 who were dismissed as Reds and “pinks.” Then came the pay-off. After some hem-hawing and stammering, he finally ad- mitted that there were not any, not even one, that had been discharged. But he said in the same breath, ‘I realize that we have got to go along with you under the MoCarran law, and if you will keep these names secret and lay off, I will start dismissing these people at once. I will fire Marzani and Zablodowski tomorrow, and the others in due course.” However, on July 18 nothing had been done, and with the realization that so far I had only the verbal promise of the deputy of an Assistant Secretary, I directed a letter to Secretary Byrnes, asking for a confirma- tion of this promise. The next day, Friday, Mr. Byrnes called me up on the long-distance telephone, saying that my letter had just been read to him, and that if I would lay off, he would immediately, upon his return to Washington the following Monday morning, investigate the whole situ- ation, and fire any persons found to be Reds or “pinks,” as alleged. I agreed to lay off but urged that, in view of the existing serious neglect, he should act promptly. To this he said, “You must realize, Congressman, that it is a difficult matter to do wholesale firing of people merely because they belong to what is here a minority party, when the same party is the sole and dominant of a great country with which I have serious
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and difficult diplomatic negotiations.” There, my friends, was his policy. However, he solemnly promised to take action and apprise me of the results by letter Monday night. I received no letter on Tuesday, and need- less to say, upon inquiry, I found that no action had been taken with reference to the files. After repeated telephone calls, I finally, on the following Friday, received a letter dated July 29 from Assistant Secretary Donald Russell, which proved only that noth- ing had been done, and outside of that was thoroughly evasive. In tact, on July 26, Mr. Byrnes sent out a letter to a Congressman from lilinois, which was broadcast in the newspapers, stating that 4) had been fired for subversive activities, although Mr. Panuch, 10 days before, had already admitted to me that this was false, and nobody had been fired for this reason. Congress adjourned on August 2. This was the green light for “pinks” and Reds. On August 6 the Security Committee was dis- charged—in other words, they fired the Americans on guard without one Red or “pink" having been fired. This was followed the same week by a bar- rage of propaganda in which Mr. Russell, through newspaper columnists and other releases, bombarded the millions of Ameri- cans with such statements as “witch hunters in Congress carried stupidity to unbelievable length in the closing days of the session— badgering by Members of Congress—Russell stands firmly for fair treatment—40 have already been separated—accused are entitled to a civil-service hearing—the McCarran rider is a dangerous power, a dangerous prece- dent, etc.” No one was discharged until December 20, and this was that same Carl A. Marzani. And in order to make a typical grandstand play and to pretend vigilance against the Reds, Panuch had him indicted at the same time. The Department knew that Congress wus coming back in a few days. I think these events clearly prove the policy of protecting and shielding the Reds and “pinks.” But there came a time of reckoning. With the return of Congress the first of the year there was a housecleaning. All three, Secretary of State Byrnes, Assistant Secretary for Administration Russell and his deputy. Panuch, resigned before Congress could get organized. The new Secretary, Gen. George C. Mar- shall, has appointed John E, Peurifoy, a World War II veteran, to supplant Russell. I believe he is going to make a sincere effort to clean out at least the known Reds and “pinks.” Already several Communist sym- pathizers have been separated from the De- partment and other have cleared out volun- tarily. But this does not mean that we can relax. My investigation was confined to the De- partment of State, and to those of whom there was evidence to establish probable cause of sympathy with communism. The smartest and most dangerous avoid such exposure. Mr. Peuritoy has a tremendous job on his hands. Last Monday's decision by the Supreme Court that Communist sym- pathizers have no right to a Government job should strengthen his hands considerably. But from my investigation I am satisfied that conditions are much worse in other de- partments. Last week it was officially dis- closed that since February 5, 1943, 8352 com- plaints against Reds and “pinks” in the Treasury Department had been received, with only one investigation. And how many do you think were cemented into the De- partment of Commerce while Henry A. Wal- lace was Secretary? And what do you think Ickes did to them in the Department: of Interior? But even that is only a fraction of our problem. J. Edgar Hoover made a speech on this subject in California last summer. He certainly knows the subject. He said, “I am not so much concerned about the 100,000 Communists in the United States, but for every Communist there are 10 so-called pro- gressives and phoney liberals.” These persons like to call themselves leftists, and the ratio of 10 to 1 exists in the administration as well. They work hand in glove with the “pinks” and Reds. The only fundamental difference between Communists and leftists, generally speaking, is that Communists belong to a world move- ment under Joe Stalin, and leftists, while having the same ideologies, are not working for Stalin, but want to establish a despotic dictatorship of their own in this country. Leftists do not believe in an independent Congress or judiciary, free enterprise or indi- vidual initiative, but believe that, like the Soviet, these should all be subservient to the dictator. And the greatest danger of the leftist is that, generally speaking, he is not anti-Communist even though he 1s non- Communist. For instance. last January Henry Wallace, who has almost found his level, formed the Progressive Citizens of America, a radical leftist movement. This apparently was too communistic for Eleanor Roosevelt, Leon Henderson, and others, so they organized the Americans for Democratic Action, which they said was a non-Communist leftist move- ment. This is food for thought. William Bullitt. who spent 4 years as our Ambassador to Russia, says in his recent book, The Great Globe Itself, ‘The American Communists are potential traitors,” who as Lenin taught them “use every ruse, cun- ning, unlawful method, evasion and conceual- ment of truth” to gain their objective; “who know when to retreat and use that retreat to consolidate for another attack." This is the force we are struggling with. There is great tumult and shouting today about whether the whole world is going into despotism and totalitarianism with Russia, or into freedom and republican governments with the United States. Far more funda- mental for Americans is the question, “Which way is our great country going?” We still have a choice, but we must make that choice. We will never be destroyed from without, but destruction. if it ever comes, will come from within. Eternal vigilance is still the price of Mberty. Significance of Evacuation Day in an Upset World EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LEVERETT SALTONSTALL OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcorp an address delivered by me on the occasion of Evacuation Day exer- cises at South Boston, Mass., on March 16, 1947. The address is entitled “Sig- nificance of Evacuation Day in an Upset World.” There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: It is a real privilege for me to speak to- night in South Boston at Evacuation Day exercises, an annual occasion which is so symbolic of our country’s ideals. In the true sense, we are paying homage tonight to the most priceless heritage of our county— individual freedom and faith in ourselves. Evacuation Day 171 years ago was one of A129 the events in our history which marked the end of tyranny in this country. We always remember, too, that March 17 is St. Pat- rick’s Day. Was there ever a greater ex- ponent of faith, understanding, and Chris- tianity than St. Putrick, the patron saint of Ireland? Let us reflect for a moment on how lucky we are to be sitting here tonight. We have only to read the news from abroad to tully realize this. While the terrible shooting war jis over, civil war still rages in parts of Europe and Asia. Many people ure hungry and cold. Fear of want still lingers in much of the world. Recently we saw bitter bliz- zards slow the wheels of British industry almost to a stop, something the Nazis could never do. In many countries people are actually worse off than during the war. We surely are lucky to be citizens of these United States on March 16, 1947. We owe much to that little band of men and women who settled duwn on Dorchester Neck in the seventeenth century. Those courageous people set an example that we must follow today. They proved that no obstacles, no matter how difficult they may Seem, could not be overcome by hard work and an unselfish approach, with plenty of individual initiative, yet founded upon a strong community responsibility. There was Gen. John Sullivan who was brigadier of the day when the Red Coats sailed away trom Boston Harbor; James Fos- ter; Commodore John Barry, one of the founders of our Navy; and Maj. Gen. Henry Knox. They, and many others, took matters into their hands, stood by their guns, and knew that they could get results when they worked hard and worked together. With this courage and profound faith in their convictions, our forebears founded a country which has grown and prospered ever since. It has become the home of over 140,000,000 people who demand freedom of speech and worship and the right to live their own lives. There is not a man or ua woman in this hall tonight whose ancestors Or who themselves did not come here for that reason. Since that birth of our Na- tion, our country has progressed through wars and depressions to become today the strongest nation in the world. Like our ancestors, who found themselves faced with the responsibility of building for themselves a new country, we find our- selves—with this last World War only 2 years behind us—faced with the responsi- bility of building a peaceful future for our children in a free country with a world at peace. This responsibility comes because we have grown; because we have learned how to make life in the United States happier, more secure, yet freer than in any other country in the world today. We must meet our responsibilities courageously, realisti- cally, and just as unselfishly as did our an- cestors. To win the war we poured forth some 340 billion dollars. We sacrificed the lives of over 400,000 of our boys and girls. Unless we win the peace and continue to stand firm to win it, all these sacrifices will have been made in vain. We must always remember that the aftermath of war is long and tiresome, demanding our utmost pa- tience and courage. We have in the United States a Govern- ment freely elected by our people. Other people who love freedom want to choose their own governments. How far should we, the strongest nation in the world, go to their assistance with money, with men, with advice to help them maintain their freedom of choice? Have we, even with all our manpower and our resources, sufficient strength to support all these countries who want our help? Our first aim above all is the maintenance of a lasting peace. That is the great problem of the world today. The next few months, whether we like it or not, will go far to determine the relation- ship of our country with the other nations
A1206 in the world. In these months the United States must decide how it plans to meet its responsibilities of world leadership. It is fundamental that no country, however strong, can carry on alone in an age of atomic energy. In fact, many of our an- cestors knew that complete self-sufficiency was an impossibility even in the eighteenth century. But, we must always remember, as they did, that our position in the society of nations must be founded on what will best give us in the United States of America a lasting peace. That must always be our primary concern. Today we watch with deep concern the present internal plight of Greece and Tur- key. We know that England can no longer continue her assistance to Greece. Last Wednesday President Truman asked Con- gress to authorize the United States to give financial aid to Greece and to Turkey. The President went a step farther—he a'so asked authority to send over military and civilian Personnel at the request of those two coun- tries. Toa joint session of Congress he said in part: “The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members. We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free in- stitutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes. This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, un- dermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United State. * * © “In addition to funds, I ask the Congress to authorize the detail of American civilian and military personnel to Greece and Turkey, at the request of those countries, to assist in the tasks of reconstruction, and for the purpose of supervising the use of such finan- cial and material assistance as may be fur- nished.” This, indeed, is a great extension of our foreign policy. Its implications are breath- taking. I believe that the President gen- erally expressed ideals of which we all zep- prove. The great difficulty, however, is to be realistic and practical enough to carry them out. Secretary of State Marshall is now in Moscow. He is there with the united backing of the American people. What will be the reaction in the minds of other world powers if Congress fails to back, in sub- stance, the recommendations of President Truman concerning Greece and Turkey? What will be its effect on Marshall's ability to negotiate treaties? We certainly must support him whole heartedly. No other course is conceivable. We must take no step that will weaken his position in Moscow. Before we who are in Congress vote on this recommendation of the President, we must understand the facts and realize all the implications. So must the people back home. That is why I'm talking about it tonight. There is one thing sure. We must continue to make our own commitments on the basis of what is to the best interest of our own security and safety. England is stopping her financial assistance to Greece because of conditions at home. We must never go so far as to take over other coun- tries’ commitments simply to help that coun- try out of a hole. Our policy must never be dictated to us by any other nation on earth. We must make them our own com- mitments because it is for our own interest to do so. As a world power and with every country coming closer and closer together through modern means of transportation, it is helpful to us to have other nations healthy and economically sound. On the other hand, we do not want to see our funds go down the sink hole. We must not sign any blank checks. Recently, former President Hoover reported on conditions in Germany and Austria. He said that the Germans and Austrians must be given food and medicine as relief meas- wres; that United States aid should be sent in the form of United States products on a month-to-month basis; and that all assist- ance should carry a “please repay” tag. His concluding paragraph on Germany stated: “If Western civilization is to survive in Europe, it must also survive in Germany. And it must be built into a cooperative mem- ber of that civilization. That indeed is the hope of any lasting peace.” The sooner destitute countries are back on their feet economically, the sooner we can stop worrying about relief assistance; the sooner we can expect some trade that will be to our mutual advantage. That is just common senze. Of course, we would all like to see the Greek situation and similar problems handled bv the United Nations. I have faith in the United Nations and I have the will to try to make that organization an effec- tive body to maintain world peace. We must never frll into the habit of bypassing the United Nations by any independent actions. Eut, unfortunately, that organization tcday has no relief funds nor policing powers to take on the problems confronting us at this moment. Therefore, until the United Na- tions does become sufficiently strong we must be realistic and continue to do our part to keep the peace of the world. President Monroe laid down in 1823 a crys- tal-clear expression of the American atti- tude toward foreign nations with his so- called Monroe Doctrine. It may be signifi- cant to note that it arose in part out of Russian refusal to allow anything but a Russian vessel to fish in Northwest Ameri- can waters from the Bering Strait to the fifty-first degree north latitude. Monroe ex- pressed the principle that the American continents were no longer to be considered as a field for colonization by European rowers. There was also fear that European coun- triese—Russia, Prussia, and Austria—might seek to conquer and reduce again to colonial status the Latin-American states that had recently revolted against Spain. Monroe stated that the United States would not stand for European interference in the nations of the new world. Now we hear the question asked: “Are we expanding or reversing the Monroe Doctrine to mean that the United States will assert the same principle in European countries and in other freedom-loving countries of the world?” At the moment, as the Presi- dent said last Wednesday, it means giving ecoromic and financial assistance to Turkey and to Grecce. If this aid is given to these countries now, what may it mean in China, Korea, Germany, Austria, France, and possi- bly England in the future? Let us not mince words. One of the issues which brought forth the Monroe Doctrine was Russia seek- ing to fish in North American waters. Now the issue is, Shall the Russian sphere of in- fluence be permitted to spread and inculcate its roois in Turkey and in Greece?—or, put it another way: Shall United States concern itself with communism taking over these countries? What will be the effect on us if this happens? If communism does take over in Greece and Turkey, what will happen in Italy, Spain, and France? What will hap- pen to our trade in those countries? Can we compete even with our superior know- how and assembly lines? Can the United States, the greatest exponent today of the free-enterprise system and of individual Uberty, survive with Europe and Asia either completely or substantially dominated by the Communist ideology? That is the great ques- tion of policy that faces our Government and every one of us in the United States of America today. It is a question that cannot be decided by us tonight, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Let us look now at the situation from an- other point of view. The Monroe Doctrine has been a successful policy for 124 years because we have had the strength, the re- sources, and the will to back it up. For these reasons, no other nation has dared to chal- lenge us to defend this policy. Our power today is even more vibrant than ever. Before we enter upon a drastic extension of our foreign policy, we first must determine whether we have the strength, the financial ability, and the will to send money and men into the Mediterranean with the implication that this aid may not be enough. Will we in the future have to send over more aid to back up the men and money we have already sent? Are we willing to consider the inevitable im- plications that these loans will create in the minds of the French, the Italians, the Chi- nese and the Korcans? Are we willing to help these nations too if they ask us for more help? Are we strong encugh and are we determined encugh to stand up to the Rus- sians tcday in support of nations which love their freedom and want the right to deter- mine their own lives? Until we are sure that the United Nations can give us security by xeeping the world at peac2, we must keep cur country strong at home if we are to support President Truman and Secretary Marshall in their dealings with other countries. There is no alternative. I believe that Russia and other nations in the world today consider the decisions that we make at the peace table in terms of cur strength at home. Our Army, Navy, and Air Forces are the largest in our peacetime his- tory. We certainly do not want to maintain an unnecessarily large military force, but we do want our Army and Navy to be efficiently and economically administered, to be well trained, and to be equipped with the most modern, scientific weapons. This will mean some sacrifice on the part of every man, woman, and child in the United States of America. Sometimes we forget this. Too many people today believe that the atomic bomb and other new and drendful weapons of destruction make our Army and Navy obsolete or unnecessary. We must not permit the atomic bomb to become the Magi- not line of the United States, as Professor Einstein so well stated. We must be pre- pared. I hope from the very bottom of my heart that there will never be another war, but we must never forget the lessons we have learned so bitterly in this last war. Furthermore, the Army and Navy can never be prepared with the best of modern weapons unless we are willing to produce the tools, machinery, and goods that have made us the greatest industria] nation in the world. To see what happens when productivity lags, we have only to look at England's plight this past winter. Our level of production 1s now running high. Let us keep it high. Our productivity means strength at home and thus gives us our best chance to main- tain the freedom which so many other coun- tries have lost. These are indeed crucial decisions to be made by President Truman and Secretary Marshall. It then becomes the duty of Con- gress, if in its judgment they make wise decisions, to support them with legislation. Congress is elected by the people. They re- flect the opinion of the people back home. In these troublesome days the people back home must do their utmost to understand the questions which face their chosen lead- ers and to help them decide wisely. T have tried briefly to describe to you the alternatives that face our country. I want our Government to have a firm foreign pol- icy—a policy that will allow other govern- ments of the world to know just how far we will go to maintain our security and the peace df the world. We are not an imperial- ist nation. We only want our own security. We have seen two wars in our generation. In both those wars your boys from South
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Boston have fought bravely. You are justly proud of them; but neither we nor any other nation can survive a third world war. Let us hope that the decisions that must be made in Washington will keep the respect for our country among the other freedom- loving countries of the world—will maintain our prestige as the strongest nation in the world—and above all—will make crystal clear in the mind of the leaders of the Rus- sian and other world governments just what we intend to do and what we intend to pre- vent them from doing. They must under- stand us for what we are—a nation of free enterprise and of individual liberties. St. Patrick was a courageous saint who stimulated spiritual faith, good will, and self- respect. Our ancestors who took part in evacuation day 171 years ago were imbued with there ideals and St. Patrick's courage. So must we be today. Report by Hon. Herbert Hoover on Eco- nomic Mission to Germany and Austria EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF KON. H. ALEXANDER SMITH OF NEW JERSEY IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REccrp Report No. 3, submitted to the President of the United States by former President Herbert Hoo- ver, who headed President Truman’s re- cent economic mission to Germany and Austria. This third report presents what Mr. Hoover feels are the necessary steps for promotion of German exports so as to relieve American taxpayers of the bur- dens of relief and for economic recovery of Europe. The recommendations which Mr. Hoo- ver makes seem to me to be most timely in light of the pending negotiations in Moscow and the Greek-Turkish crisis. There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THe PRESIDENT'Ss ECONOMIC M‘SSION TO GERMANY AND AUSTRIA REPORT NO. 3. THE NECESSARY .STEPS FOR PRO- MOTION OF GERMAN EXPORTS, SO AS TO RELIEVE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS OF THE BURDENS OF RE- LIEF AND FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY OF EUROPE (By Herbert Hoover) MARCH 18, 1947. The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D. C. Dear MR. PRESIDENT: I am sending you here- with my conclusions upon the problems of reviving German industry and thus exports with which to relieve American and British taxpayers from their burden in preventing starvation in Germany. These problems also involve economic stability and peace in Europe. Whatever may have been our policies in the past, I am convinced that the time has come to face the realities that have developed. The mission you assigned to me would be less than performed if I did not state the atark situation and make such recommenda- tions as seem to me necessary, 1 wish again to expreas my appreciation to yuu for your consideration, to my colleagues Mr. Hugh Gibson, Dr, Gustav Stolper, Dr. Dennis A. FitzGerald, Dr. William Sebrell, Jr., and Messrs. Louls Lochner, Frank Mason and Tracy Voorhees, and to our military and civil Officials in Germany. Yours faithfully, HERBERT HOOVER. INTRODUCTION Inquiry into the economic policies in Ger- many which would relieve financial support from the United States was one of the sub- jects assigned to my mission to that country. Aside from a mass of information and statis- ticul material secured on this journey, I have been familiar with German economic prob- lems over many years, including my expe- rience before and after World War I. In view of the gravity of the crisis which con- fronts the world, it would be an 11] service if I did not state my conclusions tully and frankly. Tnese conclusions are not the product of sentiment nor of feeling toward a nation which has brought such misery upon the whole earth. They are not given in con- donement of the enormity ot her crimes. They are the result of a desire to see the world look forward, get into production, and estublish a lasting peace. They are based upon the stern necessities of a world in- volved in the most dangerous economic crisis in all history. At the present time the taxpayers of the United S.ates and Britain are contributing nearly 600,020,000 a vear to prevent starva- tion of the Germans in the American and British zones alone. The drain is likely to be even greater after peace unless the policies now in action are changed. Therefore, en- tircly aside from any humanitarian and po- litical aspects, policies which will restore productivity in Germany and exports with which to buy their food and relieve this drain upon us are of primary importance. But our economic interest is far wider than this. We desperately need recovery in all ot Europe. We need it not only for economic reasons but as the first necessity to peace. The United States, through loans, lend- lease, surplus supplies, and relief, in the last 2 years, has spent, or pledged itself to spend, over $15,000,000,000 in support of civilians in foreign countries. Even we do not have the resources for, nor can our taxpayers bear, a continuation of burdens at such a rate. There is only one path to recovery in Europe. That is production. The whole economy of Europe is interlinked with Ger- man economy through the exchange of raw materials and manufactured goods. The pro- ductivity of Europe cannot be restored with- out the restoration of Germany as a con- tributor to that productivity. Some assumptions In order to offer constructive conclusions as to economic policies which will relieve the American taxpayer and will promote eco- nomic recovery in Europe, I make six as- sumptions, which I believe will be accepted by sensible people. They necessarily include certain political aspects which underlie all these economic problems. First. I assume that we wish to establish a unified federal state in Germany, embracing mainly the present American, British, Russian, and French military occupation zones, With economic unity and free trade between the states. I shall refer to this area as the New Germany. Second. I assume that our objective must be to clear German life of the Nazi con- spirators and to punish those who have con- tributed to this conspiracy, which murdered millions of people in cold blood and brought this appalling disaster upon the world. Third, I assume that we will not make the major mistake of Versailles, but will com- plete absolute disarmament of the Germans so that they shall not be able again to engage in aggressions; that this disarmament will embrace destruction of all military arms, fortifications, and direct arms factories, with certain control of industry; that the Germans A1207 will have no army, no navy, and no air forces, retaining only a constabulary in which no Nuzi or previous army officer may be em- ployed; that this disarmament must be con- tinued for a generation or two, until Ger- many has lost the “know-how” of war and the descent of militarism through birth. Fourth. I assume that these requirements must be safeguarded by international guar- untees and effective police service by the nations. Filth. I assume, in our own interest. and that of Europe, that we wish to restore the productivity of the continent, that we wich to revive personal freedom, honest elections and fenerally to reconstruct the German people into a peace-loving nat!on cooperating in the recovery of western civilization. Sixth. Tassume that the United States will not join in such guarantees and policing un= lets the treaty with Germany is 20 concluded that it contributes to the restoration of productivity and lasting peace in Europe and promptly relieves us of drains upon our tax- payers, The German economic problems The German economic problems have two aspects: First, the long-view, broud economic poli- cles toward the New Germany which alone can produce the reconstruction of Eurcpe and peace. Second, our immediate problems in the joint Anglo-American military zones during the interregnum pending peace. I therefore divide this discussion into these two parts. I The long-view economic problem The long-view economic problems involved in the peace with the New Germany and its aftermaths are greatly affected by war de- struction, the boundary settlements for the New Germany, the plant removal for reparn- tions, and the policies with respect to war potential of industry. These effects may be summarized: 1, There was considerable destruction of nonwar industry from the air and otherwise duriny the war. The loss to peaceful pro- ductivity has not been determined, but it 18 considerable. 2, The proposed annexations to Poland and Russia, and the possible annexation of the Saar Basin by France. will take from Ger- many, as compared to 1936,' about 25 percent of her food supply, about 80 percent of her bituminous coal, and about 20 percent of her manufacturing capacity. 8. The population of Germany in 1936 was about 68,000,000. The populatiomof the New Germany by 1949 will be about 71,C00,000, due to the expulsion of Germans from the Polish and Russian annexations, from Czech- cslovakia, Hungry, Austria, Yugoslavia, Rou- mania and the return of prisoners into this area. 4. The Allied economic policics toward Germany are of two categories: The first in- volves world safety, and the second, repnra- tions for wrong done: (a) There has necessarily been, or will be, a demolition of all arms plants as part of disarmament, This destruction, however, has included some plants which might have been converted to peaceable production, (b) Reparations have been provided by us- signment for removal to the different allies of certain percentages of usable and complete industrial equipment. What proportion of Germany's peaceable productive plant has been, or is, in the course of removal in the French and Russian zones is not known. Certainly they have been very large from the Russian zone. The total for all Germany 1I have adopted 1936 as a basis for eco- nomic comparisons because tt was u full year before German industry was distorted by her annexations and her most intensive arma- ment activity,
A1208 amounts to an important segment of its peaceful productivity. These removals in- clude a large amount of light industry (pro- ducing mostly consumers’ goods) as well as heavy industry (producing mostly capital goods). The removal of plants from the American and British zones has been halted because of the refusal of Russia and France to cooperate in interzonal economic unity as provided for at Potsdam. 5. In addition to the above courses of ac- tion, there have been general policies of de- struction or limitation of possible peaceful productivity under the headings of pastoral state and war potential. The original of these policies, apparently expressed on Sep- tember 15, 1944, at Quebec, aimed at “‘con- verting Germany into a country principally agricultural and pastoral,” and included “the industries of the Ruhr and the Saar would therefore be put out of action, closed down.” This idea of a pastoral state partially sur- vived in JCS Order 1067 of April 1945 for the American zone. It was not accepted by the British. The pastoral state concept was not entirely absent in the Potsdam declaration. It was partially ameliorated or its name changed for another concept, the level of in- dustry, developed by the agreement of March 26, 1946. and signed by Russia, Britain, France, and the United States. This agree- ment was a compromise between the drastic terms proposed by Russia and France and the more liberal terms proposed by the other two nations. One major theme of this “level of indus- try” concept is to destroy Germany's “war potential.” Under this concept certain in- dustries are to be blown up or prohibited, Others are to be limited as to production. The emphasis was placed upon the limitation of “heavy industry” with the view that Ger- many could expect enough goods from “light industry” to buy her food and necessary raw materials. The absolute destruction or prohibition in- cludes ocean-going ships, shipbuilding, air- craft, ball bearings, aluminum, magnesium, beryllium, vanadium, and radio-transmitting equipment, together with synthetic oil, am- monia, and rubber. Some of these provisions may be essential to disarmament. Such ex- ceptions are not included in the discussion which follows. Beyond these prohibitions, however, the “level of industry” concept provides elaborate restrictions, mostly on heavy industry. The following items are illustrative: Iron and steel production to be reduced from 19,000,000 tons (as in 1936) to a ca- pacity of 7, ,000 tons, with a maximum pro- duction of 5,800,000 tons, and only the “older plants” to be used. . Heavy machinery production to be 31 per- cent of 1938. Light machinery production to be 50 per- cent of 1938. Machine tools to be 38 percent of 1938. Electrical machinery to be from 30 percent to 50 percent of 1938. Agricultural implements to be 70 percent of 1936. Automobiles to be 10 percent of 1936. Trucks to be 67 percent of 1936. Basic chemicals, including nitrogen, cal- cium carbide, sulfuric acid, chlorine, and alkali to be 40 percent of 1936. Cement to be 65 percent of 1936. Electric power produced to be 60 percent of 1936. No new locomotives until 1949. Some “light industries” were also to be limited: Textiles to be 77 percent of 1936. Paper to be 65 percent of 1936. Boots and shoes to be 70 percent of 1936. Precision instruments and optics to be 70 percent of 1936. Miscellaneous chemicals to be 70 percent of 1936. Pharmaceuticals to be 80 percent of 1936. Dyestuffs (export) to be 58 percent of 1936, The consequences to food supply We may first examine what has happened, and what will happen, to the German food supply under all the circumstances of an- nexation and industrial controls. Germany in 1936 was, by most intensive cultivation, able to produce about 85 percent of her food supply. This 85 percent has now been reduced by 25 percent through the Rus- sian and Polish annexations, or is down to about 64 percent because even a larger pop- ulation is to be concentrated in the New Germany. Her production, however, was greatly de- pendent upon intensive use of fertilizers. The New Germany will require at least 500,- 000 metric tons of nitrogen and 660,000 tons of phosphoric anhydride, she having sufficient potash. Under the level of industry agreement, the domestic production of nitrogen eventually would be reduced to under 200,000 tons; the production of phosphoric anhydride would be reduced to about 200,000 tons. A larger production of nitrogen is allowed pending an cpportunity to import. Part of this re- auction is due to the “level of industry” steel reduction from which some nitrogen and a large percentage of phosphoric an- hydride requirements were obtained as by- products. From these figures it is obvious that a great discrepancy exists between minimum agricultural needs and the possible fertilizer production under the “level of industry” plan. If we persist in these policies, un- less there are large imports of fertilizer, Germany's food production is likely to drop under 60 percent of her requirements even with an austere diet. New Germany, if there is to be a will to work, to maintain order, and to aspire to peace, myst have an average food supply of at least 2,600 calories per person per day, with adequate fats and protein content. (The British average being 2,800-2,800 calories at present and prewar Germany about 3,000 calories.) Taking the above limitations into consid- eration and based upon actual experience in the American and British zones, and extend- ing that experience with adaptations to the Russian and French zones, the indications are that New Germany would need at pres- ent prices to import over $1,250,000,000 an- nually in food and animal feed alone. At the end of the war Germany had a very large nitrogen capacity. Despite losses from war destruction, its potential production was still about 700,000 tons per annum. This ca- pacity, if it had been preserved, would have supplied not only her own needs but large exports to neighboring countries as well. Fertilizers are now sorely needed all over Europe for crop restoration. Therefore through the fertilizer reduction Germany not only loses in her own food production but her export potential to pay for food, and the crops elsewhere in Europe are reduced. Consequences of level of industry upon heavy industry The effect of the agreed level of industry is stated in American official reports that the heavy industry products for which Germany was noted will virtually disappear from her exports. . I have exhaustively examined the produc- tion and exports of Germany over some years in the light of this level of industry and they amply confirm this statement. What the result may be is indicated by the fact that her exports during peace from now- restricted heavy industries comprised be- tween 60 and 70 percent of the total Ger- man exports. In 1936, for instance, a gen- erally prosperous year, they amounted to about $1,900,000,000 out of a total of about $2,700,000,000, both figures converted into present prices. Under the level of indus- try most of the 60 to 70 percent is to be APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD abolished, and Germany must pay for most of her imports from exports of light in- dustry. Germany must not alone import food and animal feed, but also reduced amounts of copper, lead, zinc, iron ore, leather, cotton, ‘wool, and other raw materials. Due to the prohibitions, she must import all of her oil and rubber, and considerable nitrogen for fertilizers. It is indeed a cynical] fact that today we are supplying Germany with oi] and nitro- gen at the expense of the American and British taxpayer, at a rate of $70,000,000 per annum, which, except for the level of in- dustry and the Russian refusal of zonal co- operation, Germany could have produced herself. Consequences upon light industry As I have said, the assumption is that ex- ports from the German light industry, from coal and native raw materials, such as pot- ash, can pay for her imports of food and other necessities. There are two reasons for believing this assumption to be completely invalid. Had there been no loss of light-induatry plants by annexation, had there been no de- struction of them by war, had there been no removals for reparations, they could not have produced enough exports to pay the food bill alone. And the situation ts made doubly impossible by the restrictions now imposed on what light industry is left, as, for instance, on textiles. If Germany is to buy food and the neces- sary imports of raw material for the light irdustry, she would require not only com- plete restoration to prewar level in light in- dustry but a much larger equipment than she had even before the war. Then Germany, with the expansion of these industries, would be in a competitive field of consumers’ goods with all the rest of the world whose light industries have been little damaged by war. Some economic illusions There are several illusions in all this war- potential attitude. (a) There is the illusion that the new Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a pastoral state. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,- 000 people out of it. This would approxi- mately reduce Germany to the density of the population of France. (b) There is an illusion in war potential. Almost every industry on earth is a war potential in modern war. No industry (ex- cept direct arms manufacture) is a war po- tential if the energies of a psople are con- fined to the paths of peace. If Germany be disarmed in the way I have assumed above, there must be a control commission to see that they do not have any army or any navy. And two score of intelligent men, as part of thhkt commission, could see that there is no arms production and that no industry is manufacturing or storing materials for evil purposes. Moreover, industry is not likely to waste its substance, either by storing or manufacturing for war, when there is no army or navy to use it. The question here is not “level of industry.” The real question is whether the Allied nations will stick to their abolition of mili- tarism itself in Germany. If they do that, there 1s little danger from war potential in industry. (c) Another illusion is that the light in- dustry in Germany can be expanded to a point where she will be able to pay for her imports. In my view, it cannot be done for years, and even then it is doubtful in the face of competition with the light industries of other parts of the world. (da) The over-all illusion is that Germany can never become self-supporting under the levels-of-industry plan within the borders envisioned at present for New Germany.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (e) A still further illusion is that Europe as a whole can recover without the economic recovery of Germany. Consequences to Europe generally Thus there its a still wider aspect of this level of industry—the needs of the rest of Europe. Germany had been for a century one of the great European centers of produc- tion of capital goods—heavy industry, which I may repeat are construction materials, fac- tory equipment, railway equipment, electri- cal and heavy machinery. The other nations of Europe are in desperate need of such goods for reconstruction from war damage. More- over, a considerable part of the European equipment on these lines is German-made, and today they cannot even get replacements and spare parts, in consequence of which their productivity lags. From the standpoint ot other nations, the expansion of light industry to a point of self- support for Germany will, by competition, injure these industries in the rest of Europe. On the other hand, the products of heavy industry is Europe's first necessity for recovery. It must not be overlooked that Germany was the market for every nation in Europe and such a reduction of her economy will tend to demoralize the industries and em- ployment in those countries. For instance, Germany was the market for over half the exports of Turkey and over one-third those of Greece. In consequence, their loss of this market contributes to ircrease the re- lief they seek from us now. Another illustration is the proposed lim- its on steel,“ Large and efficient steel and iron plants, undamaged or only partly dam- aged, are standing idle in Germany. For- merly the Germans imported millions of tons of iron ore from France and Sweden, These mines, under the level of industry, must remain idle until a new steel indus- try is built elsewhere. That will require years and an amount of capital that is not in sight. In the meantime, Europe needs steel for reconstruction as she never did before. To indicate the anxiety of surrounding states, a memorandum of the Netherlands Government of Junuary 1947, in presenting the absolute necessity to the surrounding nations that a productive economic state be created in Germany, said: “The provi- sions of the plan for reparations and the level of German economy of March 1946 re- quire to be revised * * * it is inadvisable to lay down maximum quota for production of German industries, including the iron steel industries.” The sum of all of this is: Germany, un- der the level-of-industry concept, unless she is to be allowed to starve, will be a drain on the taxpayers of other nations for years and years to come. In the meantime, if her light industries were bullt to become self-supporting, she would become an eco- nomic menace to Europe; if her heavy in- dustries are allowed to function, she has an ability to export and would become an asset in Europe's recovery. To persist in the pres- ent policies will create, sooner or later, a cesspool of unemployment or pauper labor in the center of Europe which is bound to infect her neighbors. We can keep Germany in these economic chains but it will also keep Europe in rags. A new economic policy Therefore, I suggest that we adopt at once a new economic concept in peace with New Germany. 1. We should free German industry, sub- ject to a control commission, which will see that she does no evil in industry, just as we see that she does not move into militarism through armies and navies. The difference between this concept and the level-of-industry concept is the saving of several hundred millions of dollars a year to the American and British taxpayers. It is the difference between the regeneration and a further degeneration of Europe. 2. The removal and destruction of plants (except direct arms plants) should stop. 3. A further obstacle to building Germany as an essential unit of European economy arises from the Russian Government’s ac- quiring a large part of the key operating industries in their zone. Germany in peace must be free from ownership of industry by a foreign government. Such ownership can thwart every action of control or of upbullding by joint action of other nations, German industry must be operated by Ger- mans if any international contro] is to work, if she is to recover production and is to serve all nations equally. 4. There can be no separation or different regime of the Ruhr.or Rhineland from the new Germany. That is the heart of her in- dustrial economy. Any control commis- sion can dictate the destination of coal or other exports from that area and even such control would not be needed after the era of scarcity passes from Europe. n The interregnum before peace How long it may be before there is such a constructive peace with Germany, no one can tell. It may be long delayed. In the meantime, we are faced with the feeding of the people in the Anglo-American zones on a@ level just above starvation until we can develop enough export goods from these zones so that the Germans may pay for their food. I have said, American and British tax- payers are called upon for about 8600,000,000 a year for relief. We have an admirable staff in military government of Germany under Generals Clay and Draper but their administration is constantly frustrated in building up the needed exports to pay for lood and mini- mum raw material imports. A large part of these delays is due to the following: (a) The Russians and the French have failed to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Agreement for economic unity in the four zones. The Russian zone ordinarily Produces a surplus of food but that surplus is used elsewhere, thus increasing the bur- den of imports on the Anglo-American zones, Both the Russian and French zones are pro- ducing industrial commodities which would relieve necessities in the Anglo-American zones and could contribute to exports with which to pay for food. The net effect is that the United States and Britain through relief are paying Russian and French repurations, (b) The inability to determine what spe- cifle plants are to be the victims of level of industry, or destruction or the removal for reparations, produces stugnation because the Germans do not know where to begin work, (c) There is lack of working capital with which to import raw materials for such in- dustries as are allowed to function. (d) An inflated currency and no adequate banking system hampers all forward move- ment in such industry as is left. (e) While denazification and decarteliza- tion are necessary and important certain phases of them limit recovery. They are so involved as not to warrant description here, Conclusion as to the bizonal admintstration If, however, we cannot get a quick and sound peace on the lines I have recounted, the Anglo-American zones should abandon the destruction of plants, the transfer of plants for reparations, and the level of in- dustry concept, and start every plant, heavy as well as light, which can produce nonarms goods. This will relieve far more rapidly great costs to our taxpayers; it will do in- finitely more for Europe than American loans and charity. Indeed the Congressional Committee on Postwar Economic Policy urged, on December A1209 30, 1946, that the levels of industry be ig- nored wherever they conflict with exports s0 that there may be earlier recovery and payment for food. The violation by Russia and France of the agreement for economic unification of the four zones of military occupation and the additional burdens this imposed upon us in consequence certainly warrant our ignoring all agreements for level of industry, trans- fer and destruction of nonarms plants. If this interregnum is to endure for long, we could build a self-sustaining economic community out of the Anglo-American zones alone. This could be only a temporary cx- pedient, not a final solution. Building a last- ing peace in Europe should be our objective. Power of Congress To Remove Members of the Supreme Court EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, on Sat- urday I released a Senate Judiciary Com- mittee print on the subject of Congress’ removal power with respect to the Su- preme Court. This material had been prepared by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. My purpose in having the Library of Congress prepare this report was to clear the air and provide the legal background on this question. There have been many questions asked as to why the Senate Ju- diciary Committee, in particular, did not intervene when charges were made re- garding the persona] conduct of partic- ular Justices of our Highest Court. This committce print then gives the legal pic- ture of Congress’ relations with the court, and explains that impeachment proceed- ings, if desired, must be initiated in the House of Representatives. Very wide interest has been indicated in this Judiciary Committee report, and for that reason I ask that it be printed in the Appendix of the REecorp along with a statement which I presented in connec- tion with it. There being no objection, the report and statement were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT OF SENATOR WILEY I have asked that there be prepared as a Judiciary Committee print a statement of Congress’ constitutional removal power with respect to the Supreme Court. For some time I have felt the need tor a concise summation of the legal basis for Con. gress’ power in this connection, particularly because of reports that have come in trom time to time on deep-seated personal differ- ences within the Supreme Court, in addi- tion to reports on the conduct of various Court Justices and pleas for congressional in- tervention in this matter. I have, therefore, had this study prepared. I firmly believe in the constitutional sys- tem of three independent and co-equal branches—legislative, executive, and judi- cial—and I have felt that Congress should approach this matter only on the most cau- tious, conscientious, and thorough legal basis. The phases of this study relate not Only to the relationship of Congress with the
A1219 Court, but also congressional power with re- spect to the tenure of Court Justices, which, in turn, goes to the very heart of our cOn- stitutional system. This print has been prepared in order that all the members of the Senate Judiciary Com- mittee might have the benefit of a legal summary on this subject. I have given a great deal of study and consideration per- sonally to the matter and have reached defi- nite conclusions, and thereafter asked the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress to check into and brief the mat- ter, which it has done. A copy of this committee print is being sent to the president of the American Bar Association, to the editor of the American Bar Association Journal, and to the presidents of all State bar associations. REMOVAL POWER OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO THE SUPREME COURT The following report, prepared by the Leg- islative Reference Service, at the request of the chairman, Mr. Wrey, is presented for the use of the Senate Committee on the Ju- diciary. Article ITI, section 1, of the Constitution, vests the judicial power of the United States “in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Article III, sec- tion 1, also provides that the judges, “both of the Supreme and inferior courts,” shall hold their offices “during good behavior” and that the compensation for their services “shall not be diminished during their con- tinuance in office.” The Supreme Court, therefore, is a con- stitutional court and is the only court es- tablished by the Constitution itself. (See Kline v. Burke Construction Co. (1922), 260 U. 8S. 226; Ex parte Bakelite Corp. (1929), 279 U. 8S. 438; Harris, The Judicial Power of the United States (1940), 79-81.) Its organiza- tion and terms, however, depend upon con- gressional enactment, subject to the limita- tions imposed by the Constitution (Harris, op. cit. supra). These Hmitations, dealing with tenure of office and reduction of com- pensation, were designed to secure the inde- pendence of the judiciary and to protect it from encroachment by the executive and legislative branches of the Government (Car- penter, Judicial Tenure in the United States (1918), 22-33; Ex parte Grossman ((1925), 267 U.S. 87)). And it has been the generally held belief that the theory of a paramount authority of Congress over the judiciary is incompatible with the idea of an independent judiciary and the doctrine of the separation of powers. The doctrine of the separation of powers, although not expressly contained in the Con- stitution, is now well grounded in American constitutional law (Harris, op. cit. supra, 75- 76). The doctrine has been affirmed in many cases, among them Meyers v. U. S. ((1926, 272 U. 8. 52); Springer v. Government of Philippine Islands ((1928), 277 U. 8S. 189); Evans v. Gore ((1920), 253 U. S. 245). Thus it has been held that Congress cannot im- pair the independence of judgment of the courts by imposing arbitrary rules of deci- sion (U.S. v. Klien (1872), 13 Wall. 128); can- not impose nonjudicial functions or duties upon the courts established under article II (Aayburn’s Case (1792), 2 Dall. 409; Musk- rat v. U. S (1911), 219 U. S. 346); and is without power to reduce the tenure or com- pensation of the judges of the constitutional courts (Ex parte Bakelite Corp. (1929), 279 U. 8S. 488). Nor may the legislative and ex- ecutive branches, by the passage of direc- tive legisiation, render impotent the func- tions of the judicial branch (Montgomery Ward & Co. v. N. L. &. B. (D. D. C. 1044), 66 F. Supp. 502). The doctrine of separation of powers, however, does not require an ab- solute and complete separation. As a prac- tical matter of government there is a con- siderable accommodation of power, and each branch has certain authority which neces- sarily infringes upon the authority of the other branches. (See Ex parte Grossman (1925), 267 U. S. 87; Frankfurter and Landis, Power of Congress Over Procedure in Crim- inal Contempts in “Inferior” Federal Courts— A Study in Separation of Powers (1924), 37 Harv. L. Rev. 1010). But this interaction does not permit any infringement on the op- eration of constitutional courts in their capa- city as judicial tribunals (Frankfurter and Landis, op. cit. supra). When the Constitution was drafted, the framers rejected a proposal to vest the selec- tion of the constitutional courts in the Na- tional Legislature, because “experftence has shown the impropriety of such appointments by numerous bodies.” Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention (1, p. 232); Carpenter, Judicial Tenure in the United States ((1918) 29-30, 207). Although not all members of the Convention were agreed on the exact method, it was uniformly thought unwise to leave the choice of judges with any authority administered by a number of individuals (Carpenter, op. cit. supra, 208). With re- gard to removal from office, the framers also rejected various proposals whereby the judges would be subject to executive or other re- moval (Carpenter, op. cit. supra, 22-30). Among the methods proposed was the English mode of effecting judicial removal by legisla- tive address. It was felt that such devices were likely to weaken the necessary inde- pendence of the courts (Carpenter. op. cit. supra, 101-103). Instead, the framers of tne Constitution borrowed from the State consti- tutions the idea of impeachment and convic- tion as the means of judicial removal con- sistent with the independence of the judivi- ary. It was felt that impeachment was a proper means of securing good behavior, and so the impeachment clause of the Constitu- tion must be construed with that portion of article III, section 1, guaranteeing tenure during good behavior (Carpenter, op. cit. supra, 101-107). Article I, section 2, clause 5, vests the sole power of impeachment in the House of Representatives, and article I, sec- tion 3, clause 6, confers upon the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Within the bounds of the impeachment power, therefore, Congress, of course, may investigate and in- quire into the conduct of the judges of con- stitutional courts. Shortly after the adoption of the Consti- tution, the theory was advocated by some that the impeachment power could be used as a check on the exercise of the doctrine of judicial review. When Jefferson and his party came into power an attempt was made to apply this theory in practice, but with the failure to impeach Justice Chase it was abandoned. (See Carpenter, Judicial Tenure in the United States (1918) 108-123; 1 War- ren, the Supreme Court in United States History (rev. ed. 1926) 269-315.) During the course of the attempt, however, it was argued broadly that there was nothing in the Constitution expressly insuring judicial independence, and that it was within the right of the House to impeach and the Sen- ate to remove judges solely on the basis that they held opinions not compatible with the best interests of the Nation, however sincere. Nevertheless, even members of Jefferson's own party were not agreed on this theory or united in their efforts to gtve it effect. Ibid. After the failure of Chase’s impeachment, Randolph proposed a constitutional amend- ment whereby judges of the courts of the United States could be removed on the joint address of the two Houses of Congress (An- nals, 8th Cong., lst sess., p. 1213). No ac- tion was taken on this proposal, and later attempts along the same line also failed Carpenter, Judicial Tenure in the United States (1918) 123-124, 135-144). Neverthe- less, several States have some form or modi- fication of this means of removal, which originated in the English Act of Settlement, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD guaranteeing judges tenure during good be- havior but making them removable by the Crown upon address of the two Houses of Parliament (Carpenter, op. cit.. supra, 124- 135). ‘ During the course of our history numer- ous proposals have been made to revise and speed up the impeachment procedure. None of them has been given effect (Carpenter, op. cit. supra). Of later years a different approach has been tried, based on the idea that removal of Federal] judges could be ec- complished properly by a judicial trial and judgment of removal. The most ambitious of these efforts was H. R. 146, introduced in the Seventy-seventh Congress. This bill provided detailed machinery for judicial re- mova! of all Federal Judges except Supreme Court justices. It had the backing of the American Bar Association. The method pro- vided was to be cumulative to and did not supplant impeachment, and its constitu- tionality was well supported by authority. (See Moore, Judicial Trial and Removal of Judges: H. R. 146 (1942) 20 Tex. L. Rev. 352, and other sources and authorities there cited.) Notwithstanding, the measure was not enacted, although !t passed the House by a narrow margin. Many Memb?>rs of the House regarded the bill as unconstitutional. (For House discussion of the bill, see 87 Congressional Recorp (1941) 8142-8168.) Upon occasion, attempts likewice have been made to adopt a constitutional amend- ment to limit the tenure of Federal judg-s to a definite term of years. These attempts usually were the outgrowth of a sincere be- lief that the doctrine of judicial review con- centrated power in the hands of an un- touchable judiciary which could thus nulli- fy the acts of the legislature. These at- tempts so far have not succeeded (Carpen- ter, op. cit. supra, 154-168). The conclusions from the above must be as follows: 1, There is no power in the executive or legislative branches of the Government to remove or limit the tenure of Supreme Court Justices, or, indeed, any judges of constitu- tional courts, except as Congress is expressly authorized to act by impeachment for lack of good behavior. (Also see Shartel, Fed- eral Judges—Appointment, Supervision, and Removal—Some Possibilities Under the Con- stitution (1930), 28 Mich. L. Rev. 870, 908.) 2. Means of removal other than impeach- ment and limitations on tenure could be pro- vided for by constitutional amendment. Among such methods of removal could be that of legislative address. 8. Congress perhaps can constitutionally provide for judicial removal of Federal judges for lack of good behavior. (See Moore, Judicial Trial and Removal of Fed- eral Judges: H. R. 146 (1942), 20 Tex. L. Rev. 362; Shartel, op. cit. supra.) While the good behavior tenure clause has never been construed by the Supreme Court, it has teen contended that the clause must be read with a view to changing needs, and that Congress, therefore, might define the term so as to allow judicial removal for any form of con- duct or neglect which according to modern notions tends to corruption or inefficiency (Shartel, op. cit. supra, 900-903). Tax Reduction EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Appendix of the Recorap an editorial which appeared in the Boston Post of last Saturday, entitled “Reduced Taxes,” which contains some very wise observa- tions on the international situation. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: REDUCED TAXES The consjderation of a 30-percent Federal income-tax slash for the small-wage earner and 20-percent cut for the higher brackets is lovely to behold—but doomed bcforehand to revision if the facts are faced by the mil- lions of taxpayers. The cash outlay necessary to meet Amer- ican obligations in a stone-broke world is immense, and, even if the Nation retreats iuto stern isolationism, the cash needed to balance the Federal budget, keeping ex- penditures within reasonable limits of pru- dence and national safety, will not be pro- duced by any such tax slash. This may be unwelcome news, but it is the stern reality. The time to decide whether the safety of the Nation is of more importance than a glittering and somewhat specicus campaign promise is now. No one can be cheerful over the fact that the immense outlay of public treasure has not secured victory over the noxious things the Nation was fighting, and that we must now spend more and more money to secure pence and safety in » world divided between communism and democracy. If there is any doubt of the seriousness ot the international situation, or any lingering dubiety over our role in power politics you have merely to consult your daily newspaper. We are playing power politics, because there is no other kind to play at the moment. However we may object to the rampant employment of American money to buy time and good wiil for the democracies, if the facts are faced, it will be seen that there is no other way short of war. When the British Commonwealth of Na- tions had the money it was spent lavishly, if somewhat more quietly, for that very pur- pose—to buy good will and strategic position in a world economically and politically at war. There will be a reduction in the income- tax rates, but people can be certain now that it will be nothing like 20 to 30 percent. It will be closer to 10 percent. Economies can and must be effected in our Federal Government, But the economies cannot be pennywise and pound foolish un- less the American people are willing to sur- render without a fight to the sinister and ever-active forces of statism. If you believe in democracy you must sup- port it with more than lip service. It must be supported with cash. No one has yet proposed any other means of direct taxation that will raise the necessary cash other than the present tax set-up. All you get for your money is the privilege and the comfort of being an American—and these are not negli- gible benefits if the problem is faced hon- estly. The Elmore Corp. Profit-Sharing Plan EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CLYDE R. HOEY OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Rrecorp a news ar- ticle from the Rutherfordton (N. C.) News giving the details of a profit-shar- ing plan which has been put into effect by the Elmore Corp. Mr. Sam E. Elmore, one of the most public-spirited industrialists in North Carolina, is the dominant figure in this corporation and his plan for sharing profits with his employees, seems to be practical and well founded. A great many industries in my State have adopted some plan for giving the em- ployees a continuing interest in the suc- cessful operation of the various plants where they are employed and good re- sults have followed the institution of these plans. It is essential to have the enthusiastic and effective cooperation of all employees. Any fair method of shar- ing profits with employees or paying bonuses furnishes a splendid incentive to obtaining full production and insuring a satisfied group of workers. Industry generally can well afford to consider the advisability of voluntarily adopting some method of creating among the employees a larger interest in the successful opera- tion of the business. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: ELMORE cCoRP. HAS GOOD PROFIT-SHARING PLAN—15 PERCENT PROFIT-SHARING FUND ANNOUNCED The Elmore Corp., of Spindale, has adopted a profit-sharing plan for its 150 employees who have worked at least 8 weeks for the corporation. Mr, S. E. Elmore, president and treasurer, called all of his employees together Monday afternoon in the plant and explained the plan in detail. The plan will have two 6-month periods each year. The first will end March 31, 1947, as the fiscal year of the corporation ends September 30. Soon after March 31 the net profits of the corporation for the past 6 months will be computed. Twenty cents per share of all then outstanding stock will be deducted. Then 15 percent, not count- ing taxes will be computed. And if it amounts to $3,500 or more, each employee will get his or her share of the profits. Good wages will continue to be paid. The second profit-sharing period would end September 30, 1947. The corporation volun- tarily adopted the profit-sharing plan as an inducement to each employee to do his best. All who contribute to the success of the corporation should share in the profits is the idea. It works both ways; that is, helps employer and employee. The corpo- ration can discontinue the plan upon 60 days’ notice to the employees. Each em- ployee except the president and salesmen will share in the plan. The plan simply means all working to- gether in a friendly atmosphere for the bene- fit of all. If the corporation makes no profit, there will be no profit sharing. The more the corporation makes the more each em- ployee will get. Mr, Elmore stated a time clock would be installed in the front as a double check, as each employee is expected to put in 8 hours per day. No telephone calls allowed to em- ployees except for sickness or other emer- gencies. Mr. Elmore urged each employee to watch waste and reduce it to minimum. Mr. Elmore also stated that he had studied various profit-sharing plans and thought this the best for all concerned. The Elmore Corp. is the first to adopt such a profit-sharing plan in Rutherford County, and the results will be watched with much interest. It shows the fine relation between employee and employer. A121] St. Patrick’s Day Address by Hon. Joseph C. O’Mahoney, of Wyoming EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BURNET R. MAYBANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, at the annual dinner of the Hibernian So- ciety, on St. Patrick's Day, March 17, we were extremely fortunate in having in Charleston, S. C., our distinguished col- league the Senator from Wyoming |Mr. O’ManoneEy]. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD two accounts of the speech he delivered on that occasion, as they appeared in the Charleston Eve- ning Post and the Charleston News and Courier of March 18, 1947. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Charleston (S. C.) Evening Post of March 18, 1947] THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY HEAR TALK BY O’MAHONEY AT BANQUET America faces the great paradox of per- fecting instruments that have made the world so small that in the hands of dicta- torial government these instruments can make it impossible to retain freedom, United States Senator JoserH C. O'MAHONEY de- clarcd last night in an address at the one hundred and forty-sixth annual banquet of the Hibernian Society. An audience of 350 persons heard the Wy- oming Democrat, introduced by Eugene G, Skinner, say that the United States rem ins almost alone as a nation devoted to sith economic and political freedom. “We are the last refuge of the liberties of mankind,” he declared. “The United States was founded by the men who believe that the people are the source of all authority that rightfully may be exercised over them. We have grown great and wealthy because the door of opportunity has been Kept open. We have repudiated the doctrine of arbitrary power whether through political imperialism or any false theory of totalitarianism—whether expressed in the economic or political sphere. “We face a great paradox today in that the very instruments of scientific progress in- vented and perfected by the United States have made the world so small that in the hands of dictatorial governments these in- struments can make it impossible for free men to retain their freedom.” * * * ° es The Reverend William G. Doyle, of Ander- son, responding to the toast, “The day we celebrate,” said, “St. Patrick stands out as a man among men,” for his religious contribu- tion to Ireland and other nations. He termed the noted saint a foe of paganism. Gov. J. Strom Thurmond, who responded to the toast to South Carolina, lauded Charleston's history and predicted a bright economic future with the: development of the port. C, Fletcher Carter, Jr., retiring president of the society, presided over the banquet in the absence of Joseph W. Welsh, newly elected president, who is confined to a hos- pital. Guests at the head table included, besides the speakers:
A1212 United States Senator Burner R. MaYBaANK, Gen. Charles P. Summerall, Mayor E. Edward Wehman, Jr., Rear Adm. L. T. DuBose, Col. Joseph Kohn, Commander C. J. Sullivan, the Reverend Ralph 8. Meadowcroft, Philip Frankel, A. G. Podlesney, and Henry A. Schroeder. [From the News and Courier, Charleston, 8. C., of March 18, 1947] UNITED ESTATES LAST REFUGE OF LIBERTIES, O'MAHONEY SAY8—WYOMING SENATOR DE- LIVERS TALK AT ANNUAL BANQUET OF HIBER- NIAN SOCIETY The United States stands almost alone in the world as a nation devoted to both eco- nomic and political freedom, Senator JosEFH C. O'MAHONEY, Democrat, Wyoming, told the Hibernian Society last night. Citing the words of the Irish patriot, Henry Grattan, wher, he referred to America as “the only hope of Ireland and the last ref- uge of the liberties of mankind,” the United States Senator declared it is now evident Grattan spoke with the tongue of a prophet. “The United States was founded by men who believed that the people are the source of all authority that rightfully may be exer- cised over them,” Senator O’MaHowry said in the principal address at the traditional celebration of St. Patrick's Day by the 146- year-old society. “We have grown great and wealthy because the door of opportunity has always been kept open. * * * We've repudiated the doctrine of arbitrary power whether through Political imperialism or any false theory of totalitarianism, whether expressed in the economic or political sphere. “We face a great paradox today in that the very instruments of scientific progress in- vented and perfected by the United States have made the world so small that in the hands of dictatorial governments these in- struments can make it impossible for free- men to retain their freedom. “The freedom of opportunity in the field of business and industry and self-determi- nation in the political sphere are both ex- pressions of the basic principles to which this Nation has always been devoted,” the Senator continued. “May we never falter in the will to main- tain our role as the last refuge of the liber- ties of mankind,” he concluded. Senator O'MaHoney responded to the tra- ditional toast to the United States. About 225 persons attended. The Reverend William G. Doyle, of Ander- aon, reeponded to the toast to “the day we celebrate" by giving a talk on St. Patrick, whom he described as the grand champion of our way of life. In citing the life of St. Patrick, Father Doyle brought out that he converted all of Ireland in the fifth century. “It is fitting that the saint whom we honor tonight used a soft tongue rather than an fron hand,” he said. Responding to the toast tu the State: of South Carolina was Gov. J. Strom Thurmond, who spoke on the future of the State. “A chief aim of South Carolina today is to develop the port of Charleston into one of the greatest on the Atlantic coast,” the Gov- ernor declared. The progress of this State looks exceed- ingly bright from the standpoint of educa- tion, health, income, and the training of our workers to become more skilled, he said. Among distinguished guests at the annual banquet was Senator BURNET R. MAYBANK. At a meeting of the Hibernian Society ear- lier in the day the following new officers were elected and installed: Joseph W. Welsh, pres- ident; Eugene G. Skinner, vice dent; Louis L, Miller, secretary; and Matthew P. Halloran, treasurer. Mr. Welsh succeeded C. Fletcher Carter, Jr. New committee chairmen named were Thomas A. Croghan, managing; William J. Leonard, finance; Dr. Norman 8. Lea, relief; and Dr. Julius Sinclair Smith, letters; John I. Cosgrove was chosen as historian and the Reverend J. Lawrence McLaughlin was re- named chaplain. Congress Admonished To Deal Cautiously With the President’s Proposed Greek- Turkish Loan EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. GEORGE B. SCHWABE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Speaker, the peopte of this country are very anxious. Their anxtety was not re- lieved by the address of the President of the United States to the foint assembly ot the two Houses of Congress on March 12, 1947. Perhaps they were more anxious and perplexed after they had heard or read the President’s message. Quite characteristic of the secret com- mitments of his predecessor, were some of the statements of President Truman in his speech of March 12. It was not a statement of plain everyday facts. It was glossed in generalities, and we, even Members of Congress, are about as much in the dark as to factual conditions and circumstances as we were before the President’s speech. Many of us Mem- bers of Congress think we have not been taken into the President’s confidence. The people think they have not been taken into his confidence. We all want to know the facts and truth about con- ditions as they exist, before the President makes any more commitments for or on behalf of the people of the United States. Before Congress acts on the President’s request for us to authorize and appro- priate a loan, which will likely turn out to be a gift to Greece and Turkey of $400,000,000, as representatives of the people, we are entitled to know all about the situation. Mr. Speaker, the people generally want to see the whole picture before they express themselves, favorably or unfa- vorably, with reference to the President’s proposal. Many of them have written their Representatives to proceed cau- tiously and without haste. Some have reminded us that the President knew as early as in August 1946 that England would decline to furnish further fman- cial assistance to Greece after March 31, 1947. If the President has known for 8 months before making his recent address to Congress that England would fail in her obligations to Greece, why the delay in passing this information on to Con- gress and to the citizens of this country generally? Why are we asked now to act so hastily? Why should not Congress have had the benefit of the President’s knowledge on this subject in order that the Members of Congress, as the repre- sentatives of the people, might have pro- ceeded cautiously? APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Is not Congress as much entitled to study the facts and circumstances and all of the implications as the President himself? Does not the President owe Congress that consideration? Are not the people and their duly elected Repre- sentatives entitled to that respect and consideration under our form of govern- ment? As typical of the thinking of many of our most serious-minded and patriotic citizens who are not in the habit of going off “half-cocked,” but who are deliberate in their actions, I am pleased to quote from a letier I just received from an out- standing citizen of the United States ad- monishing Congress to deal cautiously with the President’s proposed Greek- Turkish loan. I quote: The proposal of President Truman with regard to Greece and Turkey confronts the United States with one of the gravest ques- tions in its history. Acceptance of that proposal involves com- plete reversal of our long-standing policy in foreign affairs. It involves intervention and Participation in and responsibility for the internal affairs of other nations. It involves an economic drain on the people of this country which, from a relatively small be- ginning, may proceed to an extent which no one can now foresee. More than that, it involves employment of the military power of the United States—again apparently on & small initial scale, byt again also with no predictable limits. It projects this ccuntry directly into the complexes of both Europe and the Middle East under circumstances which may well lead to war. It has not been established why it is to the vital interest of the United States to take this step. Nor, if it can be conceded that the vital interest of our country is actually affected, has there been any revelation of the facts in this situation that make hasty action an imperative. All that the Congress or the people have been given is the President's assertion that the vital interest of the United States is in- volved and that immediate action is essen- tial. And the President's address is much more remarkable for its vagueness and re- sort to generalities than for any light it has shed on the reasons for making it. As a matter of plain common sense, how- ever serious the straits of Greece and Tur- key, they cannot become too much worse in the time that will be required for the open and thorough discussion of this situation which alone can pive the American people the opportunity to know what they are be- ing asked to do, what the material cost will be, and what commitments of other natures are to be made in their name. It is the piain duty of Members of Con- gress to prevent hasty action—to insist that all the facts are made known—to see that these facta are laid before the people in un- derstandable terms—and finally, to take ac- tion in the light of the facts and the ex- pressed will of the people. Members of Congress can serve no good purpose by premature and ill-considered statements of opinion. Such, for instance, as the one attributed to Senator VANDENBERG to the effect that “we must uphold the hands of the President.” Certainly, our history gives abundant evidence that Presidents can make mistakes. The welfare of the country is always consideration of far greater mo- ment than support of the President in either national or international affairs. Twice in a single generation our country has become involved in the wars of others. In each case the American people endured the suffering anc sacrifice of war for lofty ideals. In neither case have they seen those
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ideals realized. On the contrary, this coun- try emerged from each war weaker than it entered, and after each war the world in general was in a worse condition than before. We lost men and wealth, we exhausted ir- replaceable natural resources, and we bred conditions that caused widespread dissatis- faction and doubt among the American peo- ple concerning their principles of govern- ment and way of life. Intrinsically, we are a weaker nation today than ever before in our history. We appear strong only by contrast with a prostrate world. In this weakened condition are we now to embark on a new adventure about which we know nothing, but which may lead first to war, and second to the final de- moralization of the world and the disappear- ance of the slightest hope for an orderly society? The two world wars caused the virtual destruction of the great British Empire. Is that not a sufficient example to make us pause before starting down a road which may lead to the same end? The President said: “There is no other country (except the United States) to which democratic Greece can turn.” What does this statement mean? That no other country cares anything about Greece as a democratic country? Tidat no other country cares enough to help alleviate the physical want of her people? Or that no other country has the resources to ex- tend aid? Under any interpretation, the implication of the President's words are far-reaching. There are 2,000,000,000 people in this world. Out of this number can the 140,000,000 peo- ple who comprise our Nation be the only ones who can assume the burdens of weaker countries? Is it a practical possibility? If 80, can we do it or even attempt to do it without destroying ourselves? The President said: “The United States contributed $341,000,- 000,000 toward winning World War II. This is an investment in world freedom and world peace.” Where is the freedom and where is the peace? Is the world we have tcday the kind of a return on “investment” that justifies the beginning of a new outpouring of funds? The President said: “The assistance that I am recommending for Greece and Turkey amounts to little more than one tenth of 1 percent of this invest- ment.” Does the President or anyone else think for a moment that the amount he proposes will be the whole amcunt? Obviously, $400,000,000 will be only the start. It will be followed by other millions and billions in those countries and in other countries which, with Greece and Turkey as precedents, will make claims on our generosity. The President said: “The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by Com- munists.” If a government is so weak that it cannot cope with several thousand armed men under any leadership, there is reason to conclude: (1) that if many of the people of the coun- try do not actually sympathize with the sev- eral thousand they at least do not care much one way or the other and, (2) there is little that an outside power can do to aid such a government. If we take this action in Greece, we will in effect say to Russia, “We are opposed to communism and intend to help the govern- ments of Greece and Turkey oppose it.” Under the circumstances, is not Russia likely to reply, “You are free to do that, but if you do, we will take measures of our own to sup- port communism.” It must be remembered that Russia has many means, short of war, to foster the spread of communism; many more, in fact, than we have to oppose it. Unpalatable as the idea is, we must also real- ize that many people in countries throughout the world look with favor on communism and regard it as a superior form of govern- ment. In our own country, we have a Com- munist movement which is far from large, yet there is little we cun do to halt its acceptance by some of our people. You can- not stop a political growth any more than you can stop a religious growth—particularly by use of force. And the adventure in Greece, whatever its other aspects, is basic- ally a use of force. At Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam, commit- ments were made for the American people without their knowledge or consent. Se- crecy was excused by those who indulged in it on the ground that it was essential to war security. Yet, there is Httle doubt today that those secret deals, in which a few men swround a table played with the destiny of nations, were !mportant causes of the world’s present condition. There is no excuse now— not even a lame one—for asking the Ameri- can people to move blindfolded and in haste into a situation of most serious conse- quence, Certainly, the time has come to end secret diplomacy, The urgency, the need for haste which the President so strongly emphasized has an artificial quality. It smacks of the “rush act” of the high-powered salesman. Britain accepted Greece as a responsibility during and after the war. Admitting that Britain's economic condition is unhealthy, why does it suddenly kecome absolutely impossible for her to continue that responsibility beyond the outside date of March 31—just 19 days aiter the President's addiess? Would Britain collapse if she stayed in Greece until April 30 or May 31? Or wis an almost immediate date selected to force Americans to act be- fore they could think? Although it has been mentioned only in passing, the thing of paramount importance in this entire matter to the United States and her people is the interest of the United States—not only the immediate interest but also long-range intcrest. Certainly if it is not in the interest of this country to take a step, then there can be no other good reason for it in Greece. Europe, the Middle East, or elsewhere. With its present huge debt and the other weakening influences ot the war, the United States should regard any commit- ment with caution. This caution should be doubled and redoubled in the face of a step as grave as that into Greece with all the implications of a continuing economic drain if not the actual threat of another war. Might not the United States best contribu- tion to the world be the rebuilding of her own strength so thet she can in fact remain the strongest bulwark of free government? These questions should be resolved before we take an action which may prove to be acostly gamble. Tcday, the American people do not have the information on which to base either support or rejection of the Presi- dent’s prceposal. Congress alone has the power, and it must exercise that power, to see that the people get the facts—all the facts. Keating Plan Gains EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. R. WALTER RIEHLMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- A1213 orD, I include the following editorialfrom the Rochester (N. Y.) Democrat and Chronicle of March 20, 1947: KEATING PLAN GAINS Any reduction in Federal taxes approved by Congress ought to give the low-income brackets a better proportionate break thun the high brackets. This principle has been recognized by the Republican leaders who are trying to work out a tax program to mect the projected cut in the Federal budget, which ts expected to be at least $3,500,000,L00 and may be as large as $5,000,000,000. The Knutson bill proposes a straight 20 percent cut in all income-tax brackets. We note that much interest has been shown toward an alternative plan worked out by Rochester's Representative KENNETH  B. KeaTInG which would give the small-bracket incomes a larger reducticn than the high brackets. This would be done by lowering the surtax rate 7 percentage points. The goal of this and similar plans is to give cuts of 25 to 30 percent to the smaller incomes and not more than 20 percent to the larger ones. The Keating plan, according to a dispatch from Washington, “has developed support as a possible compromise with the Knutson bill, since some Republicans believe the latter is too favorable to persons with high incomes.” Another proposal is to raise personal ex- emptions from 500 to $700, this to apply to both husband and wife and to any depend- ent. All taxpayers in all groups would have the same exemption. Under this plan the married man with an income of $2,500 would have his “spendable” balance increased by 4 percent over the proposed Knutson plan, the $10,000 man by 2.8 percent and the $300,000 man by only 1 percent. One objective of a tax-reduction program ought to be to increase the spending power in the lcewer brackets, where most of the country's spending is done. This is not only hard sense but sound justice to the section of the population that is hardest hit by soaring costs of living. Is the TVA Carrying Out the Intention of Congress in Providing the Farmers With Fertilizers? EXTENSION OF REMARKS to) HON. JOSEPH J. MANSFIELD OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. MANSFIELD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when the Muscle Shoals Dam on the Tennessee was under construc- tion, Congress was assured that its prin- cipal purpose in peacetime would be to provide fertilizers for the farmers of the United States. Without that assurance, the dam would probably never have been constructed. Approximately $1,000,000.- 000 have now been expended primarily for power on the Tennessee, and the Na- tion is undergoing a shortage in ferti- lizer that extends from coast to coast. Farmers are appealing to Congress from every State, and are unable to obtain even small quantities of this material so essential at this time. Is there any good reason why a portion of the surplus power produced on the Tennessee should not now be devoted to carrying out the purpose promised to the farmers?
Al214 Statement by Franklin D. Schurz on Pro- posed Increase in Second-Class Postage Rates EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a statement by Franklin D. Schurz, president of the Inland Daily Press Association, on the proposal to increase second-class postage rates. There b2ing no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the REeEcorpD, as follows: PROPOSAL TO INCREASE SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE RATES (Statement of Franklin D. Schurz, president of the Inland Daily Press Association) My name is Franklin D. Schurz. I am secretary-treasurer and business manager of the South Bend (Ind.) Tribune, which has a circulation of 86,415 daily and 84,647 Sun- day. I appear here, however, not primarily to represent the South Bend Tribune, but in behalf of the 407 daily newspapers which are members of the Inland Daily Press Asso- ciation, of which I am president. These newspapers are located in 17 States com- prising the Midwest and Rocky Mountain area, and represent a combined c.rculation of eleven and a half million. The 407 members of our association tn- clude only 34 with circulations over 60,00), and only 73 with circulations over 25,000. More than one-fourth of our members, 120, have circulations under 6,000. More than half, 237, have circulations under 10,0C0. E:ghty-two percent, 334, of our members have less than 25,000 circulation. It is these smaller newspapers, and par- ticularly the smallest of them which would be hardest hit by the increase in second- class postage rates which have been proposed. I will shortly demonstrate that. First, let me say that if it can be froved that some increases in second-class rates are justified, I would not oppose fair increases. While I cannot speak for all newspapers, or even for all members of my association, I am svre that most newspapers would not appose rea- sonable increases if their fairness can be shown. Newspapermen, however, have for years been convinced that too great a proportion of the Post Office deficit hes been assessed against newspapers because of faulty cc- counting allocation. Consequently, news- papermen have never accepted as fair the Post Office’s claim of subsidized newspaper distribution. In support of our views the Department’s method was specifically rejected as an un- satisfactory basis for rate making or for computation of actual costs by a joint Con- gressional subcommittee which investigated postal rates in 1924-26. Nor has the Post Office devised a_ satisfactory system or changed its methods in the 20 intervening years. Pormer Postmaster General Walker, in a communication to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee on July 7, 1942, presented further evidence support- ing our claim that second-class mailing costs are not justly computed. Walker wrote, “If no second-class matter were in the mails, it would not thereby eliminate a proportion- ate share of the department personnel, the inspection force, the clerks, the carriers, the laborers, the railway mail clerks, the rural carriers, rent, light and fuel, because it is not possible to eliminate that portion of the personnel, the equipment, the buildings, the mall care, and the trucks of the Postal estab- lishment that are handling the work-load of second-class matter. We have no post offices, or parts of post offices, designed, equipped, and maintained to handle second-class mail exclusively. We have no railway mall cars or motor vehicles exclusively devoted to sec- ond-clazs mail. We have no post-office clerks or carriers, village delivery carriers, star route carriers, or mail messenrers recruited, trained, and employed to handle nothing but second-class matter. The postal system is not ,composed of mail and service expense compartments which can be automatically eliminated or flatly reduced by the curtail- ment of expenditures when losses of mail or services occur in a particular category or classification. This elimination might enlighten the burden of the employees, but it is very doubtful that it wculd work any great saving in manpower. The efficiency and economy of the postal system depend upon the continual maintenance of a high degree of intcgration of all services and operations.” Walker's recommended solution to some of the Department's problems lay, be felt, in in- creasing revenue through increasing volume of second-class mail. Certainly if that mail was being carried at a known loss, such a recommendation could never have been made. Further, the change currently pro- posed, upon which this present hearing is based, with its exorbitant increases of up to 850 percent in newspaper mailing casts, can result only in driving newspapers out of the mails and in immediate withdrawal of mil- lions in revenue now received by the post Office from newspapers. To offeet these excessive increases in matl- ing charges, large newspapers will transfer to trucking routes much current mail circula- tion, aud may lose a high percentage of their APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD remaining mail c'!rculation beccuse of the sharply increased subecription rates. Smell papers, unable to finance truck delivery, will be doubly vulnerable since their subscription raises to cover increased mailing costs cannot be paased on to the subscriber without greet circulation casualties. Additional practices of the Depertment in arriving at costs which the newspapers decm unjust are: 1. Failure to credit the newspapers for money rpcnt performing services which the Post Office Department should render, Full postace charges are paid on more than a mil- lion newspapers which, as mail circulat:on, newspaper employees sort, route, seck, weigh, and transport, at the newspapers’ expense, to post offices that in some instances are many miles distant from places of publication. 2. The Department charges against other clasees of mail, including second class, the costs of various public policy services such as a large proportion of the cost of RFD ce: v- ices, and a substantial proportion of the ccst of star route services. Congress created both of these services for the general benefit of farmers and other citizens living at too great Gistance from their post offices to make it practical for them .to call for their mail. Congress intended that this service should be given irrespective of expenditures or re- ceipts, yet the Poet Office Department charges against second-class mail large proportions cf the cost of operating these services. The extent to which the proposed new rates would prompt newspapers to look to other means of distribution, and the oppres- sive—perhaps suppressive—burden placed upon small newspapers which are least able to shift their mail circulation out of the mails, is indicated by the following tabula- tion. The figures which follow are not special cases. They are figures showing the prcpcs:d mailing cost increases which would obtain for newspapers chosen at random from our membership. lowerane Tota! cir- Mail cir- Present Proposed | Percent of Newspaper culation culation Tostage Tostage increase Annual Annual Norwalk (Ohio) Reftector-Herald_.........-------2-- 1,390 $418.00] $1, 763.00 827 Niles (Mich.) Star. 2.0 0 2... 74 459.16 1,905. 72 Ih4 La Porte (Lud.) Herald-Argus - 2, 45 1,433.84 5, 084, 73 ans Ravenna (Ohio) Record... -.- 1, 1k4 1, 800.00 7, 0. 00 all Champaign (O11) Courier _ - 2, £9) 1, 166. $3 4.11% 01 £53 Fedalia (Mo.) Democrat-Cap: 5, a0 8,300.00 7) 12,800.00 r-aN) W voster (Ohio) Record... 2. - 1, 203 2,100.00 &, C0000 31) Rochester (Mion.) Post-Bulletin. 5, 600 3, 600.00 | 31, 800.00 Pee) Sandusky (Ohio) Register-Star.._._ tw 1, O88, 00 2, 600.00 13) Elkhart (Ind.) Truth 20. 222. - 2536 8,030 84 8, FER E9 125 Merion (ind.) Chronicle; Leader. . . 4,487 4, 407, 28 842, 40 J81 La Crosse (Wis,) Tribune. ..-.-. 6,200 7,718.00 | 22,276.00 180 Medison (Wis,) State Journal... 12,415 | 18,C48.20] C1, 726.40 103 Bloomington (11,) Pantagraph. ..... 14,¢50 | 13,011.00 | 40, 267.00 212 Crand Forks (N. Dak.) Berald . $8,000 | 22,512.00 | £0, 124,C0 1B Jeekson (Mich.) Patriot ........- 6, 000 #4800 | 20, £34.00 w7 ‘Topeka (Kens.) Capital and Jaurn <0, 762 | 42, C4} 48, 800, UC 133 Fouth Rend (ind.) Tribune.___..- 4,609] 12, (A | 27, E04 126 §t. Louis (Mo.) Glote-Democrat . 1f, C00 7 61,612.00 | 121,041. C0 Wiz Les Moines (lowa) Register and ‘Trittune........--. 120, C00 | 170,000. 00 | 260, (00. LG 112 Higher postal rates hit small dailies hardest Percent Average increase for circulation group 50,000 and up......---_----------- 121 Averare increase for circulation grcup 25,00) to 60,000-.__----.---.------ 179 Average increase for circulation group under 26,009___...-.. 122-2 eee 235 I feel sure it was not the intention of the Post Office Department and will not be the desire of this committee to estab- lish rates which would place such a heavy burden of increase upon the small news- papers, or which would place in jeopardy the opportunity of each citizen of our country, however, remote his home, how- ever lean his purse, to have access to his newspaper—democracy’s bulwark. American Federation of Labor on the WFTU Delegation to Japan EXTENSION OF REMARKS RON. GEORGE A. DONDERO OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Con- GRESSIONAL REcoRD, I include therein a telegram scent by the American Federa- tion of Labor to the Secretary of War protesting the action of the War Depart-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ment granting permission to a delegation including one Louis Saillant, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, to proceed to Japan and Korea for the purpose of affiliating Japanese unions with the WFTU. This telegram affirms my state- ment in an address before this House that the World Federation of Trade Unions is an organization definitely hostile to the United States. Hon. RosperT W. PATTERSON, Secretery of War, Washington, D.C. Hon, DEAN ACHESCN, Acting Secretary of State, Washington, D.C. Gen. DouGtas MacARTHUR, General Headquarters, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, APO 509. In the name of its more than 7,530,000 members, the American Federation of Labor protests vigorously against the decision of the War and State Depurtments acceding to demund of Louts Saillant to proceed to Japan for the purpose of affiliating Japanese unions to World Federation of Trade Unions. We brand pro ected Saillant visit as actively hostile to highest ideals and best interests of American people and world pence and as intensely detrmental to development of Japan as a peaceful democracy. Under Saillant's chairmanship, WFTU has persistently vilified our country's demo- cratic policies and consistently glorified every imperialist adventure of Kremlin Commis- bars who dominate this organization as cam- oufluged but continuous agent of Soviet ag- gressionist foreign policy. Primarily under Saillant'’s leadership blindly following Russian Communist ne, World Federation of Trade Unions have ini- tiated, fostered, and promoted gravest men- ace to ideals of freedom for the preservation of which American people fought the war. WFTU has been prime mover for generating new totalitarian danger in Germany by seex- ing to impose forced labor on Ruhr miners. Fearing to antagonize its Muscovite master, WFTU has not dared utter a single word of protest ugainst undermining of democracy in Czechoslovakia through introduction of streamlined system of compulsory tabor and penal servitude into that country. American Federation of Labor further de- clares it utterly unfair and injurious to rising Japanese trade-union movement to place it in position of hearing only WFTU viewpoint without at same time having A. F. of L. pre- sent its case against affiliation with WFTU. This Soviet-directed move to stampede Japa- nese labor unions into WFTU affiliation and place them under covert but complete Krem- lin domination is utilizing American author- ization of visit as indorsement of its sinister purposes. This mission is mere continuation of Saillant’s antidemocratic procedure which he applied against German unions when French authorities under WFTU and Com- munist Party pressure prevented A. F. of L. delegation in Germany last November from visiting French zone thereby denying four zonal German labor conference at Mainz op- portunity to hear A. F. of L. viewpoint. Fur- thermore Saillant and his Comrade Frachon, member French Communist Party Central Committee, even phoned American Embassy in Paris threatening A. F. of L. European rep- resentative Irving Brown's life if he estab- lished A. F. of L. office in France. Therefore, in addition to our vigorous pro- test against recognition of and facilitating the work of the Saillant mission in any man- ner or form by our Government, we call upon the War and State Departments and General MacArthur— . 1. To use all their good offices and au- thority to prohibit any action by the Saillant mission to Tokyo to blitz Japanese unions into WFTU; 2. To have this statement printed in full in Japanese labor and general press so that the workers and people of Japan may be immediately apprised of the vital issues at stake, MatTTHEW WOLL, Chairman, International Labor Rela- tions Committee, American Fed- eration of Labor. Protection of American Fi:bert Growers EXTENSION OF REMAREIS HON. HOMER D. ANGELL OF OREGON IY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, under leeve to extend my remarks in the REc- orD, I include the following statement by A. C. Jacobson, general manager, Northwest Nut Growers, Dundee, Oreg..,- at the hearing on the International Trede Organization, San Francisco, March 11, 1947: I am A. C. Jacobson, general manager of the Northwest Nut Growers, a ccoperative walnut and filbert markewng asscciation which represents over 3,000 Oregon and Wash- ington nu growers. We have requested this opportunity to appear, not as cxperts On international trade, nor with any thought of opposing the basic humanitarian principles of the proposed charter, but to register our opposition to the charter as it is now written, on the basis that scme of the _ tentative provisions threaten the very existence of the domestic filbert industry. Our industry is vitally con- cerned with the problem of international trade and we feel that this is the proper place to discuss these problems in order that adequate provisions can be made to pro- tect our own and other similarly affected agricultural industries, The filbert industry of the United States is comparatively a young industry, only dat- ing back some 20 years; and although from an international viewpoint the United States filbert industry is relatively unimportant; yet thousands of good American citizens in Oregon and Washington depend for their livelihood upon a reasonable return for their filbert crops. The States of Oregon and Washington are preud of their pioneering efforts which have demonstrated that the Northwest can pro- duce filberts which excel any competitive foreign offering. Now that the pioneering is over and the demonstration conclusive, the people of the great Northwest can be de- pended on to fight to the last ditch for rea- sonable and effective protection, within the limits of fair competition, Justice, and reason, Well over 20,000 acres of fertile lund has been planted to filberts in the past 20 years, and from such a small beginning the domes- tic production has increased to a point where 18,000,000 pounds of filberts in shell were produced last year. . We do not in any sense subecribe to the theory that no foreign filberts should be al- lowed into the United States. We sincerely feel that the domestic requirements should be taken care of, and if the United States cannot produce a sufficient quantity of fil- perts to take care of the domestic need, im- ports should be allowed but only in such volume as will take care of that demand at prices that will assure our American pro- ducers of a fair return for their production, This is not, however, the much-to-be- desired situation in which our filbert in- dustry finds itself today. Filberts in the shell and shelled have been coming into this country in ever-in- Al215 creasing quantities and at prices that spell financial ruin to our growers. The United States production in 1946 alone amounted to 90 fercent of the entire domestic consumption, that ts, production plus imports during the averuge pre-war yeurs, 1935-39, The domestic production in 1946 was more than double that produced in the av- erage period above, yet Jmpurts during the past year were 425 percent greater. Further- more, the domestic production of filberts is beund to increase substantially in the im- mediate future because many hundreds of acres planted before and during the war Will be coming into production, und other orchards which have already started pro- ducing after 6 or more yeurs of careful touding, will be pyramiding their production as the: attain full bearing age. Tue largest market for Mediterranesn-pro- duced filberts, prior to the war was in con- tunental Europe and the United Kingdom. These markets were lost during the war and it dces not seem likely that their buying power will be restored sufficiently for some yezrs to come to enable them to absorb thelr historic requirements. This, plus an already discriminating low tariff of only 8 Cents per pound on shelled filberts as com- pared to double that amcunt on other nuts and a mad scramble by foreign governments for Amer.can dollar exchange, even to the extent of subsidizing exchange rates on the part of Turkey and Italy to encourage ex- ports to the United States. are the primary reasons for the situation in which the do- mestic industry finds itself. Let us look for a moment at the actual results which were brought about by this situation, Out of the 9,000 tons of in-shell filberts nro- duced in the United States in 1946 45 per- cent were still in grower or packer hands on January 1, 1947. Lest year grower returns on filberts in the shell was 28 cents per pound, according to the United States Department of Agricul- ture. On a basis of current prices for shelled filberts, the only market available at this season of the year, grower returns will do well to equal half of the above, for shelled filberts are today being quoted in the low- forties cents per pound while a year ago there was a ready market for them at 85 cents, the price designed to return our grow- ers the parity price which our Congress es- tablished as the price to which growers were entitled. Procuction, labor, processing, freight and general marketing costs are appreciably higher than a year ago, yet our growers’ re- turns are in a tail spin. The filbert industry is only one of the first American agricultural industries to feel the effect of what is sure to come to most other agricultural commodities. As the war-torn countries to our east and west return to normalcy more and more exportable agricul- tural surplus will develop. Even at existing turiff rates we will receive such a flood of imports into this country that a stable agri- cultural economy will be a myth, regardless of the millions or billions of taxpayers’ funds we might pour out in subsidies to American farmers in order that they might continue to exist. What commodities are foreign countries most interested in importing? Industrial gocds? Automobiles, refrigerators, radios, electrical equipment, farm machinery, fac- tory machinery, office equipment and many others. What commodities are most rvailable for export by foreign governments? Agricultural products. What currency do they need and want most? American dollars. What market is the most attractive? The American market.
A1216 Where will their agricultural exports go under the above circumstances? To Ameri- ca, of course. These questions and answers, we believe, throw some light on the American agricul- tural problem and in that light we recom- mend that our Government which ts of the people, by the people and for the people freserve the solvency of American agricul- ture thru the maintenance of justified tariffs, yes, and the raising of others as in the case of filberts so that living and pro- duction costs between the United States and abroad can be somewhat equalized. We rec- ommend further that quantitative limita- tions be placed upon competitive agricultural imports, when, in the opinion of the Secre- tary of Agriculture, the volume of such im- ports places or threatens to place a dispro- portionate burden upon any segment of American society. I have concentrated on filberts primarily because filberts at the present time are suf- fering from foreign competition and refural of our State Department to take timely ac- tion. The growers whom I directly represent also have a vital interest in walnuts, in fact, last year they produced a crop which turned out close to 5,000,000 pounds merchantable. I understand that Mr. W. E. Goodspeed, pro- gram manager of War Fcod Order 82 and secretary of the Walnut Control Board, who, for the past 14 years has managed an indus- try-wide program which we believe kept northwestern walnut growers in business during the depression years, is to follow me and will present the problems of that com- modity group. A'so, that he will be followed by Mr. Carlyle Thorpe, manager of the Cali- fornia Walnut Growers Association, who is recognized as a leader in the field of market- ing and cooperative endeavor. We have had the opportunity of reviewing five specific recommendations for changes in the Inter- national Trade Organization's charter which Mr. Thorpe has advised he will place before this meeting. The forthcoming recommen- dations champion the principles currently being urged upon our Government by the entire tree-nut industry and have the hearty endorsement of the Northwest Nut Growers and Oregon Nut Growers, Inc., who together market better than 65 percent of the filberts and walnuts grown in the Northwest. Unofficially, I feel certain that our views and endorsement would meet with the ap- proval of the entire tree-nut industry of Oregon and Washington and the majority of the people in those States who have an interest in the economic well-being of North- western agriculture. Protect the Home Fires First EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. NORRIS POULSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. POULSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orD, I am including herewith an editorial which appeared in the Los Angeles Times under date of March 16, 1947, written by Kyle Palmer, Times political editor: Prorect THE HoME Frees First (By Kyle Palmer) The President of the United States believes this country should appropriate $400,000,000 as an initial fund to combat communism as the world’s chief menace to the freedom of man and to the security of freedom-loving peoples. The Secretary of Labor believes commu- nism in the United States has but one ob- ject—the destruction of our form of gov- ernment. Members of Congress, including our own Representative SHEppanrp, believe laws ehould be enacted to outlaw the Communist Party and to euppress activities of Communists and their sympathizers. THE METHODS The United States Chamber of Commerce reports that Communist penetration of lxbor unions is being accomplished by methods generally familiar to blackmailers, black- gua-ds, and panderers. From innumerable other sources come au- thentic and competent assurances that the weapons of communism include deception, subversion, duplicity, corruption, and plain old-fashioned prevarication. We have seen efforts of Communists to stir class conflicts, to instigate clamor, create dis- cord, sow suspicions, incite hatred. Adopting the recourse of a chameleon, the Communist takes on whatever coloration any given circumstance demands—being a “lib- eral’ or a “progressive” or a “Democrat” or a “friend of the people,” but seldom, very sel- dom, appearing under his true colors, vir- tually never announcing or acknowledging his true purposes. WHY DOES HE LIE? As Secretary of Labor Schwellenbach in-— formed the House Labor Committee, “the first thing a Communist learns is to lie about being a Communist.” Why does he lie? Simply because the truth would discredit him, defeat his aims and thwart his philosophy. Why has communism, despite its evil methods and its harmful doctrines, made such inroads in a country which abhors dictators and risks its security to fight to- talitarianism? Again, the explanation is simple: Because Communists lie, deceive, con- fuse and follow any other method calculated to disarm those whom they seek to dominate. A PRACTICAL FACT If the ordinary American citizen could come to a practical realization of one prac- tical fact about communism, whether found in this country, in Greece, in Turkey, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Japan, or elsewhere, much uncertainty, misunderstanding and actual mischief could be avoided. The practical fact is this: A Communist outside of Russia, for all effective purpgges, is a foreign agent. He believes—or thinks he believes—that the Marxist-Lenin philos- ophy offers the world its only salvation. Your Communist, is, in fact, a fanatic, and communism is his religion. With him the end justifies the means, however repre- hensible, murderous and brutal such means may be. To him any religion that involves a belief in God or any being other than Lenin or Marx or Stalin is false, or, in the familiar Communist patter, “narcotic for the people.” And there you have your typical Com- munist. He regards free enterprise as an abomination, free speech as a downright menace, a free people as a contradiction in political nature. To each citizen in the Republic of the United States the presence of Communists and the existence of organized communism here present certain specific problems and offer a challenge: What are we going to do about Communists as political agitators and about communism as a calculated subversive movement? TRUMAN'S REQUEST First, there is little we can do row about President Truman’s request for an appre- priation of §400,000,000 to combat come. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD munism in Greece and Turkey. Really, we have not—collectively—enough actual in- formation to justify a firm opinion one way or the other. We must assume, if the President says co, and if a majority of the Membcrs of Can- gress agree, that the money, gocds, and pcs- sibly the military advice of our experts are required to insure freedom for the Greeks, the Turks, and other peoples menaced by Communist plans for world domination. Aside from an approving attitude or a letter or telegram urging our Senators and Representatives to enact laws deemed ade- quate to protect us from communism here at home, there is little we can do to force legis- lative action in Washington at this time. WHAT WE CAN DO But there is something we can do, both individually and collectively, to combat com- munism and to defeat the Communist pro- gram: We can realize the actual danger of Red plans and plots, we can be on the alert to detect Communist designs behind what- ever front they may be advanced, we can en- gage tn active orposition to Communist undertakings. We need not look to the international scene for an opportunity to strike a blow against this enslaving drive from Moscow: it is not essential right now that we even get into the scramble in the Nation's Capitol to renounce, denounce, and suppress the Ccm- munist Party. We have a much simpler task which is much closer home and much more important to our immediate welfare—we can vote and Get others to vote in the April 1 municipal primary which represents our own front-line contact with the Red advance. QUOTING DENNIS Perhaps you read the comment of Eugene Dennis, general secretary of the Communist Party in the United States, when Dennis was informed of Secretary Schwellenbach's rec- ommendation that the Communist Party be outlawed, 2nnis was positive that “the American People, the followers of the late President Roosevelt, and especially the labor-union Movement, were shocked” by Schwellen- bach's suggestion. Locally, the People’s Daily World, which serves as the escape valve for most of the Communist propazanda, is in hysterics. It quotes a long statement of Dennis in which the Red leader attempts to identify the Com- munist program with “the best interests” of labor and of the people generally, ELECTION ADVICE It is this same Communist, Dennis, who wrote an exhaustive analysis of the causes and effects of the 1946 elections, with infer- ences to be drawn therefrom and with eug- gestions as to the best methods for Tecoup- ing Red losses in the 1947 local elections as well as the Presidential election in 1948. Attention has heretofore been drawn to the keen inteiest Dennis and his comredes are taking in our own municipal elections, but it may be just as well that the memories of Los Angeles voters be refreshed. It is not complimentary to our national intelligence that the Communists at home and abroad feel Americans have short mem- orles—as is evidenced by the almost sublime complacency with which the Reds generally ignore the sweet and “enduring” friendship struck up by Hitler and Stalin when, cach for his own purpose, they entered into agree- ments which actually enabled the Nazis to start World War II. ‘ . THE CHANGING LINE But conelstency is not among Communist virtues. We should never forget, however, that the United States-faced very real danger from Communist sabotage in this couniry while the Hitler-Stalin “friendship” pacts