APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD THAT TAX REDUCTION Speaker Joz Martin says the House of Rep- resentatives “definitely will” pass that ¢4 billion income tax reduction this week. If so, the House will have voted to cut taxes before it finds out how much money the Federal Government will need for the next fiscal year. It will have voted a tax cut in the midst of an international emer- gency created ont of the plight of Turkey and Greece, an emergency into which Presi- dent Truman has asked the United States to step boldly. Nobody likes to pay taxes, and any reduc- tions in tax rates are always welcome; but reduction in taxes must be based on some- thing far more fundamentally sound than political pledges. Members of the House Ways and Means committee which voted 16 to 9 to report the tax reduction proposal pledged with the Re- publican leadership to postpone action until the dark clouds now hovering over the world Gisappear or until the United States knows just what its world commitments shall be. The Republicans themselves were split on the measure. entative Enoe. of Michigan saying the legislation is a “rich man’s tax bill.” Speaker Marrrw said the Republicans “promised the Nation lower taxes—and we shall keep faith.” If it were possible to separate party politics from economics, and from governmental functions and commitments considered es- sential for the peace, protection, and general welfare of the American people, most of us would be able to make up our minds whether the Nation can or cannot afford to cut income taxes $4 billion at this time. To decide the matter objectively we would need also to divorce ourselves from our own elation over the prospect of personal tax relief. It would certainly seem proper that the Congress decide first what it is going to do with President Truman's request for @400,- 000,000 with which to bolster the strength of Turkey and Greece against communism before it takes steps to curtail revenues and possibly endanger the reduction of the na- tional debt. There can be little argument with Speaker Marrin’s contention that “Government economies and more and more production” must play a much larger part in solving the Nation's fiscal problems. But the Congress which is controlled by the Republicans has yet to say where it will effect “Government economies.” It would seem that any re- duction in taxes could be arrived at intel- ligently only after such economies had been effected and the budget determined. We hope the Republicans are able to re- duce income taxes between 20 and 80 per- cent. The inoreased cost of living would make such a tax reduction a pleasing wind- fall to millions of small taxpayers. But there are other things more important to the small taxpayer, as well as to the large. Among them are American fulfillment of its leadership role in world affairs, and the tion of the individual’s and the Na- tion’s solvency. The British Attitude EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. FREDERICK C. SMITH or OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. SMITH of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the following editorial, appearing in the March 18, 1947, Wall Street Journal, should be read by every Member of Con- grees. Should America be so unfortu- nate as to be involved in World War ITI, it almost goes without saying that we would have very little support from other nations. Indeed, we should be prepared for any eventuality, as it is not at all impossible that some of our former closest allies might even be against us. THE BRITISH ATTITUDE It is quite apparent that the present British Government of Prime Minister Attlee is hav- ing some difficulty staying in the saddle. It is also apparent that if the Attlee Cabinet is replaced it will be by a government further to the left. Such a prospect should be fully considered when Congress takes up President Truman's proposal for an expanded American role in world affairs. In the House of Commons yesterday the left-wing Laborites made a very bitter attack on the Truman policy. It was called an “invasion of southeast Europe,” and there was voiced the suggestion that the British Government ask the United States to reconsider. It will, we suggest, be an error to assume that these sentiments are confined to a iew extremists. A few months ago there was 4 surprising display of Laborite hostility to the Bevin policy of cooperation with the United States; in fact, Mr. Bevin had more enthusi- astic support from Conservatives than from his own party. Actualities must be faced. Far from “pull- ing British chestnuts out of the fire” by send- ing American aid to Greece and Turkey, there is @ reasonable prospect that this country will be undertaking a course which the domi- nant sentiment in Great Britain very much dislikes. Britain may have a government which thinks more nearly in accord with Russia than with the United States. We are not here suggesting that President Truman's proposals be rejected. There are very strong reasons for going ahead with them. What we are strongly suggesting is that the proposals should not be accepted wath any illusion that in any show-down this country will necessarily find that Great Brit- ain agrees with its course or is ready to sup- port its course. We strongly suggest that the idea that democracy as Americans under- stand it and as General Marshall defined it at Moscow has only a very tenuous beachhead in Great Britain and that position is under attack. Britain has undertaken the managed- economy experiment. So far it has not worked as its advocates thought it would. The remedies being suggested are more stringent measures of management. Avow- edly these include more dictation to the individual; such as telling him at what occu- pation he shall work. The only people who have the stomach really to enforce such measures are the extremists and it is among these that the policy of cooperation with Russia rather than with this country finds its adherents. These considerations certainly raise ques- tions as to the policy Mr. Truman has pro- posed. The raising and facing of these ques- tions is precisely the process that must be carried on if the country is to know what it is doing. United States of Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HALE BOGGS OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. BOGGS of Louisiana. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks in Al257 the Recorp, I include the following edi- torials from the Charlotte News of March 21, 1947, and the Memphis Commercial Appeal of March 23, 1947: {From the Charlotte (N. C.) News of March 21, 1947] FOR A UNITED STATES OF EUROPE Within the next few days Representative Boacs of Louisiana and Senator Fuiaricut of Arkansas will introduce in Congress one of the shortest joint resolutions in the history of that body. It will state simply: “Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that the Congress hereby ex- presses itself as favoring the creation of a United States of Europe within the frame- work of the United Nations.’’ It is no accident that the Boggs-Fulbright resolution will hit Congressional hoppers on the heels of the President's message on the Greek crisis. It is intended to touch off a Congressional debate that will clarify the new, ageressive foreign policy outlined by Mr. Truman. Its single sentence makes its spon- sors’ point that mere opposition to Russian expansion is essentially a negative, and there- fore a futile policy. The great need in Europe ts for positive and united action—nction beyond the capac- ity of the tired governments now struggling to rebuild a score of shattered nations. Rus- sia is offering, or thrusting upon, the nations within her orbit a new political and eco- nomic unity to replace the cost)y divisions of the past. In the view of Representative Boces and Senator Fuisricnr the Russian drive in the East can only be counteracted by comparable unification in the West. The concept of a United States of Europe is not new. George Washington predicted tts ultimate organization in a letter to Gen- eral LaFayette. Victor Hugo foresaw the day when “two huge unions, the United States of America and the United States of Europe will face and greet each other across the Atlantic.” A varicty of contemporary statesmen have supported the idea—Wins- ton Churchill, Prime Minister Attlee, Charles de Gaulle, Leon Blum, General Smuts, and John Foster Dulles, among others. In a recent survey of Europesn parliaments more than 600 members in a dozen coun- tries were found to favor federalization; only 12 voiced opposition. History has now lifted the theory out of the realm of the abstract. It offers, Messrs. Boces and FutsricHtT believc, a practical so- lution to the most urgent problem of the postwar world, the German peace settlement. The foreign ministers at Moscow are hung on the horns of a diiemma—the necd to rebuild German industry to sustain the economy of Europe, and the danger of future aggression if that historically irresponsible nation ever regains her industrial strength. Only as one of the United States of Europe could a strong Germany sustain, without endangering, the nations of Western Europe. When the USE plan was revived by Win- ston Churchill more than a year ago it made little stir in the United States. There were valid objections on the ground that such a federation of European states was designed primarily as a barrie. against the spread of communism and, as such, was an tnstrument of power politics tncompatible with the concepts of the United Nations. Those objections, in the Hght of Mr. Tru- man's latest statement of foreign policy, are now meaningless. American support of a United Nations of Europe is a logical ex- tension of the effort to halt Russian expan- sion, to which Mr. Truman would commit the Nation. Clayton Fritchey, editor of the New Or- leans Item, who returned not long ago from an inspection of Europe stated the case for federation in the strongest terms: “A federated Europe may once have seemed an idle dream, but today it is idle to dream of any other solution. It goes without say- ing that to rescue Europe by federation will
A1258 be dificult, but to save it without federa- tion is impossible. The nations of Western Europe have reached the same crisis that once faced the Thirteen Original American States—they can hang together or they can hang separately.” If we accept Mr. Truman's recommendation for unilateral action in Europe we shall automatically suspend the operating theo- ries of the United Nations, Certainly there can be no greater danger in supporting a democratic federation of European states in opposition to Russia than there will be in supporting the doubtful regimes now in power in most of the states concerned. The choice underlined by the Boggs-Fulbright resolution is between risking war to preserve ® doubtful status quo, and taking the same risk to establish a new and vital European federation which will share our own ideals and aspirations. [From the Memphis Commercial Appeal of March 28, 1947] UNITED STATES OF EUROPE Congress now has before it a brief but pregnant proposal that reads as follows: “Resolved that the Congress favors the creation of a United States of Europe within the framework of the United Nations.” The resolution was put before the House by Representative Bogas,.of Louisiana. In the Senate it carried the names of Senators FULBRIGHT, of Arkansas, and THomas of Utah. All three men are Democrats. Thus is projected a matter that carried great promise, that has been considered and favored by many of the world’s keenest thinkers, and is now of larger potential value than it has ever been. Western Europe ought to be in the mood to ponder the possibility of economic and political unity with no less than prayerful attention, It may well spell the difference between democratic liberty and Communist oppression. It has long been obvious that western Europe could not logically hope to compete with the great single powers economically and industrially unless it pooled its resources on some basis of easier access. There is no single nation in that area that can come anywhere near sustaining itself, but oper- ating as a whole the area could do well. It is clear as crystal, too, that western Europe must present some sort of a united front if it hopes to maintain a system of free governments. Soviet Russia has engulfed Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland, Es- tonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. It is so placed as to exert powerful influence on Czechoslo- vakia, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. It is a@ question whether it can be held away from Greece, Turkey, and China. Yugoslavia and Poland are its willing puppets. The purpose of the Communists to take over western Europe as well cannot be doubt- ed. Germany, Austria, France, and the Netherlands are either prostrate or gravely debilitated by the war. Great Britain is in dire straits, living on borrowed money and faced by the speedy dismemberment of the Empire. In short, Europe must gain the strength that lies in union. It has neither present strength nor logical hope for the near fu- ture, Time is of the essence. The process of forming a working United States of Europe would be costly and difficult, but perhaps insignificant for this Nation and Europe by comparison with the alternative. A European union could operate within the framework and purposes of the United Na- tions as appropriately as our own sisterhood of States, the Union of South Africa, and others, The basic idea seems sound and, if the na- tions concerned can grasp the meaning of current omens and portents and put their real, rather than their traditional interests Giret, it could be made to work. The Russians Made It Hard te Aid Them EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT F. RICH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Record, I include the following editorial from the Saturday Evening Post of March 1, 1947: THE RUSSIANS MADE IT HARD TO AID THEM A few weeks ago the State Department sent to Russia its third reminder that the United States would appreciate an accounting of lend-lease. Up to now, this reminder has received from the Kremlin the same response accorded the previous two—namely, none at all. A possible explanation of this attitude is the fact that up to now the Soviet Union has done all right without paying much at- tention to American sensibilities. For ex- ample, a considerable proportion of the ma- terial which Russia received from us under lend-lease had no ascertainable relation to conduct of the war. According to Gen. John R. Deane, head of the American Military Miasion tn Moscow during the war, in his frank and revealing book, The Strange Alli- ance, we sent to Russia in the late stages of the war, industrial machinery, pipe lines, port installations, oil refineries and other items the use of which was very questionable in the prosecution of the war. We even sent a complete rubber-tire plant. The gen- eral’s opinion ifs that the American error was one of timing. The Harry Hopkins program of all-out aid to Russia and Soviet priority over everything else made sense when Russia was tottering on the brink of defeat. When the crisis eased, it was time to scan Russian requests more closely. We didn’t, and it is natural for the Russians to let such a soft touch ride. The story of lend-lease aid to the Russians is replete with bizarre and cockeyed episodes which are lacking from our dealings with countries more sophisticated in international manners, as well as in arithmetic. In spite of the U. 8. 8. R. policy of making it as difficult as possible to aid her, we did manage to hand over ships, tanks, planes, guns, food, and other items, the accumulated value of which, as of November 18, 1946, was $11,266,- 642,270.26. Translated into materials, this enormous sum breaks down to 460,000 motor vehicles, more than 12,000 airplanes, 11.000,- 000 pairs of army boots, 29,000 motorcycles, 135,000 machine guns, 6,000 tanks, 2,120,000 tons of steel, 1,800,000 tons of petroleum products, 638,000 tons of industrial chemicals, 97,000,000 yards of cotton cloth, 60,000,000 yards of woolen cloth, and 733,000 tons of nonferrous metals, The story of how this enormous contribu- tion got to its destination across submarine- ridden seas and suffocating deserts is one of the great sagas of human struggle. But the job was made no easier by the Russians’ re- luctance to let us provide characteristic American service from factory to customer. In delivering to Russia, lend-lease was deal- ing with a customer who didn’t want us to know what he needed or what he did with the goods we were sending to him. The coyness of the Russians in refusing to per- mit America to service the complicated ma- chines we were sending over or to give useful advice on shipping and handling made Rus- sian lend-lease a headache. Mountains of canned food spoiled in the incredible heat of the Indian Ocean route because no lend-lease representative was permitted to supervise its handling. Precious engineering equipment ‘was useless because Russian suspicion pre- vented the admission of enough experts and APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD engineers to supervise its installation. Gen- eral Deane attrtbutes some of this attitude to Soviet sensitivity at the implication that Russian engineering skill was not adequate to any task that might confront it. What- ever the reason, the result was a compara- tively inefficient use of valuable equipment. At times the Russian demands for mate- rials approached the fantastic. According to @ senior assistant lend-lease administrator in charge of operations, the Russians tried to requisition 70,000 pairs of working gloves for a single fishing boat carrying a crew of 80 or 40 men. The crew of one Russian ship at Portland, Oreg., decided that they wanted new fittings in the forecastle, so they chopped the existing fittings to pieces with axes. The local lend-lease administrator gave the ship’s captain some lumber and car- penters’ tools, and told him to build a new forecastle to suit himself. There is no evi- dence that Harry Hopkins reversed this toughness by the west coast administrator in dealing with the Russians. In the later stages of the war a requisition for 22 com- plete hydroelectric plants, whose installa- tion before the end of hostilities was doubt- ful, was held up by top officials in lend-lease. This time, however, the Russia first states- men overruled their inferiors, and Russia got 11 of the power plants. Steel, locomotives, industrial equipment of all sorts flowed to Russia in a continuous stream long after military reasons for such largess had expired. This American matertal is presumably still there, helping along with the achievement of the 5-year plan and the subjugation of Russia’s neighbors. The value of the material capable of nonmilitary use has been broken down to $1,152,214,000 in vehicles and parts; $2,504,276,000 in ma- chinery and parts; $688,502,000 in ships and parts; and $1,330,270,000 miscellaneous, Even after VJ-day the Russians were still permitted to take delivery of lend-lease ma- terial held in this country for their account. They refused to take certain items, including $5,000,000 worth of interoceanic cable made to their specifications. They later bought the same cable as surplus from the War As- sets Administration at a fraction ‘of the agreed price and laid it across the Gulf of Finland as originally planned. Had they not canceled the original order, it would have been charged against the supplementary loan negotiated by Russia to take care of lend- lease material sent to Russia after the war was over. We are not iikely to get back anything of consequence from what we sent to Russia beyond her war needs and beyond the terms of the lend-lease law, which, as amended April 16, 1945, specifically barred shipments for “postwar relief, postwar rehabilitation, or postwar reconstruction.” Since this is so, we agree with General Deane when he says, “‘The next time we supply the world, I hope we shall realize that repayment will be impos- sible and at least capitalize on the good will that might accrue from generosity.” It is his hope that “the story of American gen- erosity will some day percolate to the mass of the Russian people.” It hasn’t been per- mitted to percolate yet. Ex-Presidents as Senators at Large EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GORDON CANFIELD OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, in ad- dition to the many editorials which have appeared in support of my bill, H. R. $04, to make ex-Presidents Senators at
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Large, several leading radio commenta- tors have favored the proposal. Speaking over the Mutual network, Pulton Lewis, Jr., made this statement: Representative Gornon CANTrIELD, of New Jersey, proved today that from time to time there can be something new under the sun, at least so far as ideas are concerned. With every Congress that comes along there Is al- ways revived the usual shop-worn collection of proposals for one 6-year term for Presi- dent of the United States; limitation of the President to not more than two terms; inde- pendent election of the Vice President; merg- ing the Benate and House of Representatives, and so forth and so forth ad infinitum. But Mr. CanFie_p came up with a new one today, at least it's new to my nearly 25 ycars of experience in Congress, and I think it probably will click with you in a very large way. He proposed that a new position of Sena- tor at Large be established, in addition to the regular contingent of 96 Senators, 2 from each State, and this position of Sena- tor at Large would be automatically available to every ex-President of the United States, from the time he leaves the White House un- til his death. It would carry regular sena- torial pay, and regular senatorial office and secretarial prerogatives. These Senators at Larre would not have a vote ifke any other Senator, although the retiring President would not have to accept the job if he pre- ferred not to. He could decline. It would mean that the Nation would not necessarily lose the benefit of the experience and knowledge which a President gains in the White House tenure. Presumably, as Senator at Large he would not indulge in the workaday routine of the Senate, but he would be able, on occasions of really great moment, to participate in Senate delibera- tions. It would undoubtedly enhance the prestige and the dignity of the Scnate, and there have been very few times in the history of the Nation when more than two ex-Presi- dents have been living at the same time, and most of the time there has been only one; therefore, it would not unduly upset the po- litical balance of the Senate. In the present situation, of course, former President Herbert Hoover would be the only candidate, but if President Truman is de- feated in 1948 he then would be able to return to the Senate for life, and, unques- tionably, that would be a very valuable thing for the Nation. It’s worth serious consideration, at least. USES and the National Security EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. AUGUSTINE B. KELLEY OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks in the Recorp I wish to say something in refer- ence to the United States Employment Service and the national security. In its report, the committee makes a comparison between the United States Employment Service and the Bureau of Employment Security. I should like to make a comparison the committee over- looked. Three weeks ago, the Senate and the House in joint session received the re- port from the President personally on certain aspects of the international] situ- ation. The President's report clearly in- dicated that we cannot slip back to the easy way of things simply because we have beaten down the Nazi aggression. I wonder how many members of this body realize the important role played by the United States Employment Serv- ice during the war in the mobilization of our civilian manpower. Without this agency, the job could have never been done. The return of the administration of the public employment offices to State administration must not constitute a sur- render of the national interest in the continuation of a strong nationwide sys- tem of public employment offices in this country. Such a system is not only nec- essary for carrying out our obligation to exservicemen, disabled veterans, handi- capped, and other workers, but is basic to our national security. This Congress before the end of the session will appropriate billions and bil- lions of dollars for national security. This is as it should be. We must continue to man the ramparts of our freedom. The key to a strong America is the means of mobilization of our industrial and oc- cupational know how, and the United States Employment Service is the ma- chinery necessary for this mobilization. I wish to make one point clear. Under the law the United States Employment Service is responsible for achieving a Na- tion-wide network of employment offices through the coordination of their activi- ties and assisting these offices to increase their effectiveness by providing them with improved operating procedures and techniques for carrying out their job. The recommended appropriation will not permit the United States Employ- ment Service to continue its important activities to discharge these responsibili- ties. Such a cut would be comparable, in Army parlance, to maintaining the great body of troops, but entirely eliminating the General Staff. We cannot afford to save $3,000,000 and wreck the United States Employment Service while at the same time we are appropriating billions for other aspects of our national security. For the sake of national security—and that means a safety margin for all of us—every man and woman in this House and Coneress, our sons and daughters, and the security of all other citizens—I would rather have the United States Em- ployment Service and not need it for na- tional security than to need it and not have it. This House will make a serious mistake if we do not provide for the con- tinuation of the operation of the USES as it is today to afford instant mobiliza- tion of that without which our Nation cannot survive, when another Pear! Har- bor is upon us—the total manpower of our beloved country. Patience EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EARL C. MICHENER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, a real- istic editorial by George E. Sokolsky was A1259 called to my attention today, and I am taking the liberty of including it in these remarks. It is factual, as everyone fa- miliar with Government in Washington well knows. This editorial should be read by those persons back home who are becoming impatient because the Con- gress has not already balanced the budg- et, reduced taxes, passed labor laws, and provided the other necessary legislation leading the country back to a govern- ment by law rather than by men and bureaus. Mr. Speaker, patience is a virtue and that patience will be rewarded. May we hope that those who are inclined to crit- icize will withhold judgment until an op- portunity has been given to accomplish the things which the majority in Con- gress has determined to accomplish. The editorial reads as follows: THESE DAYS Got a letter from a friend in San Francisco who asks: “What's wrong with your friends in Washington? We will soon be calling the Republican Party the party of promises. If you don’t get busy, the show-mc boys will put you on the spot when the next clection comes around.” The present Congress took office on Janu- ary 3. The first few weeks of this, us of any Congress, are consumed in organization. Committees have to be appointed, stafis hired and organized, hearings arranged for. This year that was particularly difficult because of the Reorganization Act, which, while well-intentioned, functions crudely. Actually, instead of having fewer commit- tees, Congress has more committees and subcommittees and the act has proved to be a stumbling block to efficiency of operation. Like so many reforms, it defeats its own purpose. This year certain particularly important matters are before Congress about which honest men sincerely differ. To mention a few: 1. The Lilienthal appointment consumed time and will consume more time before it is finished and rightly so because this in- volves more than a man and partisanship for or against a man. It is a question of the future economic structure of the United States. 2. Labor legislation is not merely a matter of passing any kind of Inw. It is necessary to pass just legislation, bencficial not to one group but to the Nation as a whole. A large numbcr of bills have been intro- duced, some of importance, some trivial. Senators Bat. and Fercuson have done unusually important work in this ficld and the hearings under Senator Tarr and Repre- sentative Harrtey have been particularly notable in their direction toward factual data. The New Deal created the doctrine of “must” legislation, reducing Congress to a rubber-stamp. This Congre‘s is making a valid effort to return Congress to represen- tative Government, which means investiga- tion, discussion and debate. The New Deal made a fetish of timing. Everything was staged as though Billy Rose were putting on a circus. The people were softened up. Then the President hit the microphone and he was followed by a cacophony of trained seals on the air and in the newspapers. At that point Congress fell all over itself to pass what the President wanted without Geliberation, thought, or conviction. Out of it came some badly worded legisla- tion, vague in the transfer of powers from Congress to the Executive, setting up a huge and costly bureaucracy with indefinite au- thority and confused responsibility. This present Congress chooses to read, to deliberate, to differ and to consider, Some- times, particularly among the juniors, they
A1260 fuss a bit too much and decline to accept advice and guidance. But from the long range view that is preferable to helter- skelter “Ja” voting. 8. Taxes, budget balancing, and other fiscal matters involve much more study than is generally assumed. Have you ever read the budget of the United States? I have before me the budget for the year ending June 30, 1947. The budget itself takes 808 pages, excluding the President’s message, which runs to 72 pages. That is followed by summary and supporting tables which run to 89 pages, making, with a preface, a total of 974 pages. The budget is always loaded. The depart- ments of Government figure on being cut, 80 they raise the ante. This year the people expect a cut in taxes. Generally, it is estimated that an average 20-percent cut will meet the essential ex- penditures of Government. But is that cut to be made across the board or is it to be averaged out? Men sin- cerely differ both as to facts and methods and it all needs to be studied and considered, It makes no sense to rush the job. Most budgets are passed pretty late in the session. The fact is that after 14 years of Presi- dential government, during which the powers of Congress were curtailed, the country has become unaccustomed to the more deliberate processes of congressional government. It is true that congressional government is slower than the flat of one man, but the despotism of Hitler and Stalin has been in- finitely swifter than anything the New Deal produced. Is that what we want for speed? Knights of Columbus EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include herein a letter I have received from Hon. John E. Swift, su- preme knight, Knights of Columbus, Boston. I would like to bring this letter to the attention of the people of the United States since I believe it to be most interesting and timely. It follows: KNIGHTS oF CoLUMBUS, Boston, March 22, 1947. Hon. THomas J. LANE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My Drar REPRESENTATIVE: On March 29, 1947, the Knights of Columbus will observe the sixty-fifth anniversary of its institution, Over this long span of fraterna)] life, the society has established for itself an outstand- ing record for real Americanism and notice of its accomplishments might very well be publicized in the CoNGRESSsIONAL REcorpD. In the First World War, this society col- lected and distributed $43,000,000 in welfare and educational work for the American Ex- peditionary Forces and their associates in war. At the conclusion of that great tragedy and on the return of the boys to America, the accomplishments of the Knights of Co- lumbus were sounded far and near through- out the Nation. Our slogan was ‘Everybody welcome and everything free,” and the order lived up to the import of this slogan 100 percent. In the Second World War, the Knights of Columbus contributed more than 93,000 of its members to the service of the Allied Forces and more than 1,800 members were killed in action. We are establishing an educational trust fund of a million dollars, with which to furnish a complete college education to the sons and daughters of our members who have lost their lives in World War II, or who may become totally or per- manently disabled within a period of 10 years from the termination of the war from service- connected causes. Already nearly $700,000 of this amount has been collected and the balance will be tn hand before the end of the calendar year. The money is definitely earmarked and is invested in Government securities. We expect at least 500 sons and daughters to be the beneficiaries of this million-dollar educational trust fund. These boys and girls may select their own college and all expenses at the college, including board, tuition, books, etc., are defrayed by the society. This will be the greatest living memorial that any society could erect in tribute to those who have paid the supreme sacrifice on the altar of their country. On June 20, 1947, we are to dedicate at our home office at New Haven a huge bronze tablet which will include the name of every member who died in the service and this bronze tablet will be a permanent addition and erected in a conspicuous place at the homeo office. While we were in the midst of the Euro- pean and Asiatic wars, the Knights of Co- lumbus proposed to the world a Program for Peace and distributed thousands of copies throughout America. It is interesting to note that the outstanding principles enunciated in our Program for Peace are the underlying propositions which have been ad- vanced by our President in his recent ad- dresses concerning the peace conference in Moscow. Last summer, at the Miam! Beach Supreme Council meeting, we set forth a Program for the Preservation and Promotion of American Ideals and we are now preparing this program for adoption by 3,000 councils of our order all over the North American Continent. To preserve and promote American ideals is the most important duty before the present gen- eration of Americans and the Knights of Columbus, true to its tradition for patrio- tism, for education and for the predominance of the spiritual life throughout our land, is making an outstanding contribution to the perpetuity of our American way of life. We have prepared and distributed six broadcasts entitled “Safeguards for Ameri- ca,” and more than 250 radio stations throughout the United States and Canada are broadcasting these six transcriptions as @ public service to America. Undoubtedly the greatest radio audience that ever listened to a series of broadcasts will follow these transcriptions week by week. I have no doubt but what the people of our Nation will be put on the alert when they realize the truth with reference to communism and the great peril that is at our door as a result of the infiltration of this philosophy into our American life. Very sincerely yours, JOHN E. Swirt, Supreme Knight. Red Front Outfit Here Today To Lobby Against Greek Aid EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRED E. BUSBEY OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. BUSBEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorgp, I include the following editorial: APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OUTFIT HERE TODAY TO LOBBY AGAINST GREEK AID (By Frederick Woltman) Five hundred delegates of the Congress of American Women are opening a campaign here today against President Truman's plan to save Greece and Turkey from commu- nism. They arrived from New York aboard a special train, If Senators and Representatives who have given them appointments would check into the organization's background they would find that it is a Communist front on an in- ternational scale. Four of its founders and directors are lead- ers of the Communist Party, including Eliza- beth Gurley Flynn. They were not expected to be in evidence today, however. Most of the national officers are active in Communist fronts. The executive vice chairman, Muriel Draper, is chairman of the women's come mittee of the National Council of American- Soviet Friendship. Other officers and directors of the Congress include Dr. Gene Weltfish, of Columbia Uni- versity, president; Susan B. Anthony 2d, Dr. Bella V. Dodd, Mrs. Gifford Pinchot, Jose- phine Timms, and Mrs. Fredric March. The Congress grew out of a Paris conference in November 1945, initiated by the women of the French Communist Party. Soviet women delegates, wearing bemedaliled Red Army uniforms, ran off with the show, RED “FRONT” What Did America Vote for in the Last National Election? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANK FELLOWS OF MAINE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. FELLOWS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include herein the following timely and thought- ful editorial taken from the Aroostook Republican of Caribou, Maine, of March 20, 1947: WHAT DID AMERICA VOTE FOR IN THE LAST NATIONAL ELECTION? Federal civilian help being paid out of the tax money of you and me numbers 2,300,000 men and women. Eight years ago employees were 900,000. This Nation is supporting a bloated bureaucracy. Our people believed that in the last na- tional election they voted to stop this con- tinuing to carry on our backs 2,300,000 men and women. The President asks a budget of $37,500,- 000,000. How much money 1s that? It is bigger by $4,000,000,000 than the income of all Americans living west of the Mississippi (except California) in 1 year. The statement has been made in Washing- ton that Truman padded the budget ex- Ppecting $6,000,000,000 to be cut from it. Now the House and Senate are fighting to see whether the cut shall] be $6,000,000,000 or $4,- 600,000,000. Either way, if the story of a pur-~ posely padded national budget is true, it will still be padded by some billions of dol- lars if passed as it is, Is this what the voters asked for in the election last fall? A few voices in Washington cry feebly through the wilderness of debate for a budget cut that will still leave this country gasping in its efforts to pay with prices driven to the skies for the white-collar worker. In heaven's name, Senators and Congress- men, forget the next elections and be square with the people who chose you to represent them this term. Get after the blizzards of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD bureaucrats and lay them low. When you have done that—which is one thing among others that we voted for you to do—more billions of dollars can be hewed from the budget, not just six billions or four and one- half billions, but possibly ten billions. Then you Senators and Congressmen, our elected representatives, will be getting into line to do the really sensible thing by a budget cut below that where the President is said to have had it padded so he and his millions of hangers-on could still be in the swim at the taxpayers’ expense. Listen to the gathering storm back home; listen, and as you hear the gale of anger arising, do what you were elected to do, and don’t mind the next election or the labor- union vote. The Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. estimates that the present inflation ts costing the average American family $1,000 a year in the increased prices of what they buy. What's the reason? It is this: Federal and State spending, taxes, and debt. These United States will either follow bankrupt England and busted France into the twilight sleep of socialism, or into the red dawn of communisim, or else some- body in our public life must seize freedom’s flag and crusade once more for the principals that under Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln made America great and the envy of the world. Wake up, Senators and Congressmen. Your constituents are watching to see if you are going to do what they voted for you to do. Or there may be worse than bread riots. and Reciprocal Trade Agreements Economic Peace EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HELEN GAHAGAN DOUGLAS OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 20, 1947 Mrs. DOUGLAS. Mr. Speaker, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, which has approximately 3,000,000 mem- bers, understands that the threatened attack upon the trade agreements is an attack upon the economic and political peace of the future. The General Federation of Women’s Clubs also understands that a high na- tional income here at home is dependent upon healthy trade with the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the statement of the General Federation of Women's Clubs for State Department hearings on the proposed charter for an International Trade Organization: STATEMENT ror STATE DEPARTMENT HEARINGS ON PROPOSED CHARTER FOR AN INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION The General Federation of Women's Clubs, a national organisation of approximately 3,000,000 members, is on record as favoring the creation of an international trade or- ganization under the following resolution adopted at ite 1946 annual convention: “Resolved, That the General Federation of Women's Clubs in convention assembled, June 1946, reaffirms its endorsement of full participation by the United States in the United Nations and in special agencies for international cooperation in flelds including education, science, health, relief, and trade; and further “Resolved, That the General Federation urges prompt ratification by the United States of: “1. Constitutions of such international or- ganizations as may be established by the United Nations; “2. Adequate financial support for all such agencies; “8. Active participation in their work.” The suggested charter for an international trade organization was drawn up by a pre- paratory committee created by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations on which the United States and 18 other coun- tries are represented. It embodies principles which the General Federation of Women's Clubs has long endorsed in connection with the reciprocal-trade-ugreements program. Club members vigorously supported the re- newal and extension of the Trade Agree- mente Act in 1943 and again in 1945. The most recent resolution on this subject, adopted by the 1944 convention reads as follows: “Whereas international trade is an essen- tial element in the intercourse between na- tions and satisfactory international eco- nomic ties are an important factor in pro- moting the well-being of peoples and friendly relations among nations; and “Whereas to achieve these ends it is in- dispensable that artificial barriers to trade be reduced or eliminated, and that economic transactions be conducted with a proper re- gard for the interests of each party, as well as for the effect on the international com- munity as a whole; and “Whereas the reciprocal trade agreements program of the United States is based on these principles and should contribute to the realization of these economic objectives in the period following the war: Therefore be it “Resolved, That the General Federation of Women’s Clubs in convention assembled April 1944— “1, Recommends the continuance of the reciprocal trade agreements program by the Government of the United States. “2. Expresses the hope that other govern- ments will adopt these same principles in their international economic relations not only with this country but with other na- tions of the world.” Sound and equitable cconomic relations among nations are basic to the maintenance of peace. Cooperative international action is required to break down barriers to trade and to expand world commerce. Because the pro- posed charter is a constructive step toward the realization of these ends, the General Federation of Women’s Clubs endorses its spirit and purpose, and approves the creation of international machinery for its imple- mentation. Let Us So Legislate as To Encourage Domestic Production EXTENSION OF REMARKS _ or HON. JOHN R. MURDOCK OF ARIZONA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 20, 1947 Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Speaker, there is a definite trend at the present time, and the trend in general is a healthy one, to do away with subsidy programs. A1261 Some subsidies, however, are generally recognized as necessary for the public welfare. Necessity for price support for certain agricultural commodities is gen- erally accepted and is embodied in the law. I want to bespeak the present en- couragement of domestic production of Strategic and critical minerals and metals. A good deal of the antagonism to sub- sidies developed during the war when roll-back or consumer subsidies were instituted. This was a form of swapping dollars which to many seemed ineffective and a waste of money. However, we should distinguish between these con- sumer subsidies and the producer sub- sidies which keep our raw material in- dustrics operating in competition with cheap foreign imports. The outstanding example of a success- ful producer subsidy is the premium price plan, set up by Executive order in 1942 in order to stimulate the domestic production of copper, lead, and zinc at a time when these metals were desperately needed for the war effort. There can be no question as to the success of this plan. The Congress thought so well of it that it was continued by law in 1945 and again in 1946. Under this system of granting individual mines a sufficient operating income over and above the market price received for their product thousands of small and marginal mines were brought into production and have been kept operating. Although the need for metals in the postwar period does not have the desper- ate aspect it had during the war, the actual demand is as great. There are world shortages of most of the important metals and minerals. Every pound we can produce here tends to help alleviate our industrial shortages and, probably, to keep prices down. Certainly without such a supply our industrial machine cannot function at full capacity. In spite of the temporary high price for metals there are numbers of Amer- ican mines which cannot operate with- out Government support, and as the in- evitable drop in price occurs, move and more of these mines will have to close without such support. This will mean the loss of large tonnages of marginal ores, much of which could not be recov- ered in the future without great expense and a great deal of which would be un- recoverable. Our economy cannot stand such losses and our national security can- not tolerate it. While it is desirable today to supply the manufacturing demand for such strategic and ‘critical minerals and metals as copper, lead, and zinc, ft is even more desirable and necessary to stockpile the same for national defense. These programs should be carried on concurrently with emphasis upon the en- couragement of domestic production. It is a short-sighted policy to neglect en- couragement of domestic production. This is especially true for such strategic and critical materials as copper, lead, and zinc, the production of which in this country depends upon a consistent and wise policy of encouragement. This encouragement it is the duty of Con- gress to furnish by wise legislation.
A1262 Letter From Greece EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JAMES T. PATTERSON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the ReEcorD, I include the following article from the Lakeville Journal, Lakeville, Conn., March 20, 1947: THE OPEN FORUM LETTER FROM GREECE (Epitor’s Notr.—Any news from Greece is most timely now, and the following letter written by a young lady who has served as a member of the Pierce College at Elleniko, Athens, for the past year, gives a vivid pic- ture of the hardships endured in that coun- try. Miss Hodges is the daughter of Mrs. Arthur Hodges, of Lakeville.) PIERCE COLLEGE, ELLENIKO, ATHENS, GREECE, January 20, 1947. Dear Frrenps: It is almost a year since I have been in Greece, and I shall now attempt to make amends for not having written to many of you by trying to give you a picture of our life here. I landed in Greece on February 1, 1946, to find Pierce College still situated in Athens. Our own buildings were being used by the British Army for one of their military hos- pitals, with no immediate prospects of their being returned. My two other American colleagues and I lived at the British YWCA, from whence we would start out every morn- ing for our daily walks to the four different buildings in four different streets in which our school tried to function. Apart from our headquarters at Mavromichali 1 (a dark, cold, dreary, old house), we were more or less camping out where we could find room, The British Institute let us use their classrooms in one building, but we had to be out by 11 a. m. Despite these itncon- veniences, I think we Americans were glad to be in Athens for a while. It gave us an opportunity to get familiar with the city. Athens strikes me as quite modern for a European city, apart from ithe Acropotis, which by the way is far more: impressive in reality than any of those pictures, with which we have been familiar from our child- hood. could convey. When I arrived most Athenians were liv- ing in great discomfort. The majority of the people had the minimum amount of heat- ing, as fuel was very expensive and difficult to get, electricity was turned off 4 days a week and water was strictly rationed. We were fortunate to live in the neighborhood of the embassies and consulates so were not deprived of electricity and were allowed running water every day. This winter the situation is somewhat better. More people seom to have some kind of fuel and the elec- tricity is on every day, but water stil] runs only every other day for a few hours, which means that most people have to continue the use of their bath tubs for storing pur- poses. The majority of people have not had a hot bath for 6 years, Few Americans un- derstand the extreme discomfort in which the rest of the world lives. We take our cosy houses and constant hot water and electricity so much for granted. No one can imagine the sheer misery of being cold indoors. I personally could go without light, hot water, new clothes, even food, but not heat. A cold house has a Kind of depressing effect on one’s morale hard to convey to those who have never ex- perienced it. A cold house to me is like a body without a soul or a person without love. One often hears of hungry people dreaming about tasty dishes, because hun- ger is such a pervasive feeling that it dominates all other thoughts. The same thing happens in extreme cold. One finds oneself thinking of nothing but being cold, and visions of roaring log fires, sizzling radiators, and glowing stoves cross one’s mind. Perhaps this is the greatest hard- ship that Americans who come to Europe have to endure. Last winter very fow shops were open. Prices were very high and the few goods on display looked shopworn and old, as if they had been hidden away all through the war and had just been pulled out of some musty storing place. Only a handful of rich peo- ple could afford to buy materials for cloth- ing. Literally almost the entire population of Greece was clothed by the United States. The members of our faculty were and are wearing second-hand clothing sent in parcels from the States. I am glad to say that there seem to be signs of improvement in that direction also. Many more shops have opened up and many more attractive goods are on display, although prices are sttll high. There is practically no rationing here and hardly any price control except a ceiling on rents. This country is in marked contrast to England, where everything is so rigidly controlled and a real austerity regime is enforced. In fact, I have been sending food from Greece to Engiand. Such as honey and olive oil. Last summer, as most of you know, I spent 2 months in England visiting my father and many old friends whom I had not seen since before the war. I returned to Greece by air on October 1 to find that much had hap- pened in the meantime. The British had moved out and we had returned to our buildings after 544 years of exile. The Ger- mans took over our school On May 31, 1941, and turned it into a military hospital. If you could see the situation of the buildings and the campus between Mount Hymettos and the sea, with the misty mountains of Egina and the Peleponnesos beyond, you would understand why. Incidentally, Elien- iko is about 5 miles out of Athens and used to be a very popular summer resort before the war. Traces of the German and British occupations still remain. I have a snap of the German eagle holding the Nazi swastika which was painted above the stage in the au- ditorium. On the doors there are still some signs such as “Sister's Duty Room,” “Operat- ing Theater—No Admittance,” and “No Smoking” in the auditorium. The Germans stripped this beautifully furnished and equipped school absolutely bare. When our president, Miss McElroy, came here in Novem- ber 1944 only the empty buildings were left. All fixtures, plumbing, even the windows, were gone. The British at least made basic repairs. They mended a huge bomb hole in the roof, patched up the windows, dug & well, and paved the driveway. Unfortu- nately they left us a legacy of hideous tin huts which mar the looks of the grounds and are extremely difficult and expensive to remove as they have been built on concrete bases. On the whole, this first year at Ellen- iko has been in the nature of pioneer work in practically everything. It was impossible ‘to have a boarding department—there were no stoves, no pots and pans, no beds. Enough furniture was scraped together for us six American teachers and later a few Greek teachers to live here. Fortunately the British had installed a small diet kitchen in the wing in which we now live, otherwise we would not have been able to eat here at all. The only reason we have finally been able to serve hot luncheons to our students is that there were two German field kitchens left on the grounds. These have now been installed in the kitchen, but, of course, only one dish can be cooked in a field kitchen and it cannot take the place of a regular APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD atove. Otherwise, order is gradually being restored. But I expect you are more interested in hearing about the school itself. Our school is a combination of Greek gymnasium and preparatory college department. Altogether we have 560 girls from about 11 to 25 years of age. The gymnasium department has to conform to the regulations of the Ministry of Education. The gymnasium girls are re- quired to take a very heavy program of study which consists chicfly of languages. These wretched girls have to study ancient Greek, Latin, modern Greek, of which two kinds have to be learned, the “demotic” or popular language taught in the elementary schools and the “katharevousa” or pure language taught in the gymnasium, French, physics, mathematics, history, botany or Zo- ology, geography, psychology, art, music, religion (taught by a membcr of the Greek Orthodox Church) and English. This means they have 32 hours of government-required class periods plus 6 hours a week of Eng- lsh and 1 hour for class meetings. The consequence is that the girls of the gym- nasium have no study periods at school, no opportunity for any library research work, and very little time for physical exercise. They leave at 4:00 p. m. in chartered buses and arrive at home with an evening of much study ahead of them. We are all dissatisfied with this program and attempts have been made to improve it, but with so many re- quirements on the part of the Government there is not much we can do. The college department, of course, has a free hand and we are able to make out our own program. Despite all these drawbacks, our students seem eager to leary, and I should say that the average Greek standard of intelligence is pretty high. The English language is very popular in Greece today and will probably replace French as the second language. The popu- larity of English developed particularly dur- ing the occupation, when it was forbidden to be taught or spoken by the Germans. But Greeks were taking private English lessons all over Athens under the Germans’ very noses. At that period our school was carried on in Athens by a small group of devoted Greek teachers as a Greek gymnasium, called simply the girls’ school. It is a tale of de- votion and sacrifice which should be told in detail, but we have only heard fragments. Most of those who lived through the occupa- tion do not care to talk about it much. Oc- casionally we hear about some incidents and 80 get a glimpse of what life under the Nazis was like. This past year I have had the occasion to listen to people who experienced the war from two very different points of view, from the Greek angle, occupation and starvation, from the British angle, the blitz and the rockets. One is left with a feeling of amazement at what people seem to be able to endure and of tremendous admirution for both the British and the Greeks, who fought 80 bravely in this war and who gave and suffercd so much more than we ever did or could imagine. I suppose you are all eager to hear some- thing about the political situation in this country. Now, that 1s something I probably know less about than you do. The only newspaper we ever see is the army paper, Union Jack, which is just about as good as not having any newspaper at all. We have no radio, so we hear very little except rumors and second-hand news from those who read the Greek newspapers, while you have the best news coverage in the world and many excellent commentators. All that I can tell you is that the political situation really is unsettled here and that most Greeks are extremely touchy on the subject. There is fighting up in the north; people are arrested because they are accused of being Com- munists and are thrown into jail or exiled to some of the Greek islands; terrorist activi- ties are being carried out by both groups of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD extreme right and extreme left in the coun- try districts, while those with democratic, liberal sympathies are unable to accomplish anything. The present ent seems to be lean- ing toward a party dictatorship of the right. People in the civil service who are liberals in politics and not considered right enough are dismissed. Two such teachers, one of whom is supposed to be one of the foremost edu- cators in progressive methods in this country, were dismissed last year from the public schools for political reasons. We have profited by this situation and they are now teaching here. It is a sad and dangerous state when politics run to such extremes and interfere in so many areas of life. It is im- possible to understand the tangled and upset state of this country for anyone in our po- sition. That is a question for a commission of experts, which I sincerely hope the UNO commission sent to investigate conditions here will be. Perhaps we will get some kind of truth and a clearer picture than all the conflicting and opposing accounts we now hear. One thing one can be sure of is that the whole situation is very complicated and made more so by world politics and the actions of outside powers, such as Russia and England, which aggravate the purely internal trouble amongst the Greeks themselves. I would like to close this rather sketchy and disjointed letter by saying that in spite of all the discomforts, drawbecks, and inse- curities of postwar Greece, I am very glad I came out here. I think all of us Americans feel that way. We like and admire our Greek colleagues enormously, we love the colorful beauty of this country, and we find the whole of the Near East a truly fascinating part of the world to be in. At present we would rather be here than in strike-ridden, in- flationary United States of America, or in a dreary, rationed England—in fact, we would rather be here than anywhere else in the world. I send you all my very best wishes for the year and hope that I shall hear from you all even though I cannot possibly write every- one an individual letter. Jute C. Honazs. The Trath About British Housing Construction EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by W. Craven-Ellis, former member of the British Parliament: Tux TrotH Asour British Hovsine CONSTRUCTION (By W. Craven-Ellis, Member of Parliament, Southampton, 1931-45) The problem of housing the working classes has occupied public attention in Britain for more than three generations. It was not until the commencement of the twentieth century that it assumed national importance. The problem was not a shortage of houses— supply has always exceeded demand right up to 1914—but the low standard of a very large tage of the available houses. Such conditions were inevitable owing to the lack of foresight of both Government and local authorities, SYSTEM IMPOSES SLUM CONDITIONS The total number of houses in the United Kingdom is 12,500,000 and of these 2,090,739, nearly 17 percent, are 150 years old. There- fore, they can bear no relations to modern standards in any respect whatsoever. It would be correct to say that when these houses were built they complied with the building bylaws and sanitary requirements operating at the time, so no blame for the present conditions can be attached to the builders or to the present-day owners, al- though the latter are attacked from every quarter for slum conditions. One hundred and fifty years ago when the houses were built they would have been keenly sought after and accepted as modern houses. Before building commenced, the plans, as is the custom today, would have been submitted to a responsible authority for approval. This system is as much re- sponsible for the slums of today as it must be for the slures of tomorrow. In effect the approval of plans for houses gives an indefi- nite life to property. The real problem of housing of the working classes lies in a re- form of the system which ultimately im- slum conditions. The remedy is so simple it seems incredible it has never been applied. All that is necessary is to license all forms of property for a definite period instead of giving approval for an indefinite period. For how long is the license to oper- ate in the case of houses of the working- class type? Experience proves that 80 years is the maximum period. Such a policy would assure that houses built today would never become slums. On the assumption that 80 years is accept- able as the economic life of working-class homes, the size of Britain’s housing problem is a formidable one. The number of houses standing in Britain today which are 80 years old and over is the alarming total of 5,255,- 278, and, in accordance with present-day standards, these are insanitary and generally overcrowded slums. Common humanity should compel us to make an end of such conditions, which are so largely responsible for much tuberculosis and other contagious diseases, crime, and social evil, as well as being responsible for much industrial unrest. People who are badly housed as a general rule are discontented and disgruntled workers. WOULD REQUIRE 245,000 NEW HOUSES A YEAR Britain has done little to grapple with its slum conditions, which is the very heart of the problem of the housing of the working classes. The largest number of slum dwell- ings demolished in a single year over the last 90 years was 7,428. At this rate it would take more than 1,600 years to demolish the 12,- 600,000 dwellings existing in Britain. If new- ly built houses are to be licensed for 80 years, as I suggest, a program of demolition of all existing houses becomes essential. Starting with the oldest houses 160,000 slum dwellings would be demolished annually, and a simi- lar number of new dwellings would be erect- ed, so in 80 years Great Britain would have been rebuilt. In addition to the alum pro- gram Britain would require 65,000 new houses annually to accommodate the increas- ing population. These two programs in the aggregate would require the building of 245,- 000 houses annually for 80 years on the as- sumption that the population continues at the rate it has maintained for the last 80 years. Similar slum conditions exist in every large city in the world and are a discredit to twenti- eth century civilization. If a program of demolition and construction were undertaken to deal with the tragedy of bad housing, such as I advocate for Britain, the building in- dustry throughout the world would become very active and this would stimulate general industry to a very marked degree. The work- ing classes would enjoy better living condi- A1263 tions, they would suffer less illness and disease, and, in consequence, they would be more efficient in their work and a greater asset to family life and industry. The expla- nation of an active building industry being so beneficial] to general industry is that, of each £100 spent on building or construction proj- ects, approximately £85 is devoted to payment of earned remuneration either as wages in the building and allied manufacturing trades, or in transport, or in salaries. This propor- tlon of the money expended is thus kept in circulation and constitutes a substantial part of the purchasing power upon which general home industry and exporting industries have to rely for their fundamentally important home market. Little harm, and much good, could accrue to the body politic from keep- ing this money in circulation, even if the Projects themselves were not highly profitable but merely in the nature of useful amenities. In point of fact, there is enormous scope for constructional activities which would con- stitute much more than mere amenities and would indeed create new wealth and, there- fore, new sources of public revenue, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BUILDING At the end of the 1914-18 war the Ministry of Reconstruction issued a report disclosing that Britain would require immediately after the war between 300,000 and 400,000 houses. This proved to be a serious underestimate. Less than 100,000 were built within 2 years following the war. This does not mean that there was heavy unemployment in the build- ing industry, which was mainly engaged in disposing of the arrears of maintenance and repairs accumulated during the 4 years of war. The record of building, however, be- tween 1919 and 1989 was a great achievement. Local authorities erected with the assist- ance of Treasury grants, 1,058,068; and with- out any assistance, 78,389; a total of 1,136,457. Private enterprise built, assisted by Treas- ‘ury grants, 431,669; and without any assist- ance, 2,587,881; a total of 2.969.050; making @ grand total of 4,106,507. It should be noted that for every one house erected by local authorities, private enter- prise erected two and a half and received Treasury assistance on 431,669 houses as com- pared with local authorities on 1,058,068. The evidence from a vast fleld of experience shows that cost o building under local au- thority schemes has worked out at no less than 19 percent in excess of the cost of exactly the same type of house undertaken by private enterprise. The Hability upon the taxpayer and ratepayer as a result of Treasury grants to local authorities over the period for which the subsidies are granted, in some cases 40 years and in others 60 years, will exceed £2,500,000,000. This is a colossal burden, the major part of which could have been saved had private enterprise been left with the full responsibility of carrying out its legitimate function of bullding houses for the people. WAGE LEVEL GOVERNS HOUSING PROGRESS The lay-out of building estates and the standard of houses erected by both local au- thorities and private enterprise showed a substantial advance over pre-1914. This was largely due to higher standards of living and throughout Britain building estates were de- veloped between the two wars which are not only a credit to the builders but also to the nation. From whatever angle housing is in- vestigated it will be found that progress is governed by the wage level. Competition in the building industry compels the highest standard possible within the wage level. Builders will go out of their way to equip their houses with every possible modern con- venience, but they cannot go beyond what the people can afford to pay for. The illus- trations of houses which accompany this ar- ticle are typical examples of the houses bullt throughout Britain for the working classes
A1264 between the two wars. Houses with three bedrooms, a good sitting room, working kitchen, bathroom, watercloset, and entrance hall on plots measuring 25 feet by 100 feet, with roads made and all public conveniences connected, were sold before the 1939 war as low as £360. An English family much pre- fers living in an individual home to accom- modation in large blocks of flats, with the result that flats form a very small percentage of the total dwelling accommodation. Lon- don, the largest city in the world, has {ts own special housing problem and here flats are inevitable for the working classes and others. Glasgow and Liverpool have erected more flats than any other of the provincial cities, although the people in the north of Britain look less favorably upon flats than the people in London. When World War II started in 1939 1t could be stated that the saturation point had been reached in almost every type of house and the supply in most districts was commencing to exceed the demand. Throughout the 6 years of war normal private enterprise building ceased completely. The total built by local authorities over this period amounted to 51,163, by private enter- prise 100,389 and by Government depart- ments 10,440, making a grand total of 161,992, but all these houses were essential to the prosecution of the war, were built in outlying areas where munition factories had been erected, and will make little or no contribu- tion to the postwar housing problem except in those cases where the munition factories can be converted to peacetime production. AGGREGATE HOUSING REQUIREMENT As a result of 6 years of war Britain is faced with the greatest house-building program ever. In the first place, new houses are re- quired to provide for the annual adjustment of population—65,000 houses per annum are required for this purpose. There are no pre- war arrears to carry forward to Britain's post- war requirements; therefore, the real short- age is 65,000 per annum from 1939 to, say, 1947, by which time the house building in- dustry should have been reorganized and be working normally. This means that there is a shortage of 620,000 houses to cover the years mentioned over which arrears have accumu- lated. To this must be added 300,000 houses completely destroyed by enemy action. A further requirement 1s 1,415,000 houses to accommodate those people who before the war lived in overcrowded conditions. A still further requirement is 350,000: houses to ac- commodate the agricultural. population. This gives a total of 2,585,000' houses which can be said to be immediately required to be bullt. To get a full perspective of Britain's housing problem we must add to this figure the prewar houses which are now 80 years old and over of 5,255,278, making a grand total of 7,840,278. This takes no account of the blocks of offices, warehouses, works, and factories which have been destroyed by enemy action, and are estimated to cost £700,000,000, or similar properties which are over 80 years old and past their economic life. The need for mod- ern factories, warehouses, and offices is as great as the need for modern houses. In ad- dition, there is the building of public schools, town halls, and other necessary public build- ings, estimated to cost £150,000,000. And, further, there are € years’ arrears of property maintenance and repairs estimated to cost £1,260,000,000. GOVERNMENT POLICY IS DISCOURAGING As I have already stated, Britain has the greatest building program it has ever had to face in its history. Energetically under- taken and efficiently organized, this program would assure without question full employ- ment for at least 25 to 30 years. The imme- diate prospects, however, are most discour- aging on account of Government policy. Housing of the warking classes is, as it should be, No. 1 priority. The Government has made a fatgl mistake by appointing 1,469 local authoritie (housing authorities) as the government instrument for pro- viding working class homes to let, and by its policy has put out of business, or is in the process of so doing, tens of thousands of emall and medium sized builders, spread over the whole of Britain, who in the past have made the largest contribution to the housing of the people. If the building of houses were made the responsibility of these builders, houses would be provided at a much more rapid rate and at a substantially less cost. The house builders are tied hand and foot by & most complete system of control and regulation. Before they can do any building the plans of their houses must be approved by the Local Authority, as well as at least half a dozen government departments, such as the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Supply and the Min- istry of Transport. It is a tedious and la- borious business to get plans approved, it takes months before this bureaucratic mon- strosity arrives at its fina) decision. It is by no means unusual for a builder to have to submit as many as 20, and sometimes over, sets of plans of the same house which somehow circulate through this bureaucratic machine. The type of house which is al- lowed must not exceed 1,000 square feet in floor area and must not exceed in value in the provinces £1,200, including site, road- making, sewering and all public services. In London the limit of value is £1,300. Local authorities are building the same type of house and, while they are tied down to the game floor areas per house, there is no re- striction other than by the Minister of Health himself, on the cost, with the result that recent tenders submitted to local au- thorities have been as much as £2,000 for exactly the same house which private enter- prise is compelled to bulld at a cost not ex- ceeding £1,200. This is only one way adopted by the government to destroy private enter- prise, which it is effectively doing so far as the house builders are concerned. Getting plans approved is only the first bunker to get over. The buiider then has to apply for a permit to build. This is another laborious and exasperating business which, in most caser, occupies months of time. If @ builder is successful in getting over this bunker, he is then faced with the greatest difficulty of all, and that is to get labor and materials. As I have already pointed out, local authorities are the chosen instrument of the Government and, of what labor and material are available, preference is given to local authority building, leaving the private enterprise builder to struggle along as best he can, with the result there is a substantial black market in both labor and material. SYSTEM BREEDS DISHONESTY The Government's policy is a completely dishonest one and is forcing the subjects of the State to be equally as dishonest. Be- fore the war Britons were generally accepted as law-abiding people, but there is no dis- guising the fact today that the country largely consists of lawbreakers. To endeavor to boost the number of houses built by local authorities, the Minister of Health has issued & regulation that they must only issue per- mits in the ratio of one to private enterprise for every four houses erected by the local authority. In spite of this, of the 14,918 per- manent houses which have been built in the 12 months ending July last, over 60 percent have been erected by private enterprise. This means that some local authorities have ignored Mr. Bevan's regulation, The follow- ing 1s an example, and also shows the de- pressing effect of socialist ideology: Building was going ahead in a southern urban district. Licenses to build 510 houses were issued, 361 were ready for occupation or nearly so. This progress on the part of private enterprise did APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -not suit Mr. Bevan, the Minister of Health, so he issued an order: No more private build- ing until the number of houses erected by the council forletting is four times the num- ber built privately. That was 6 months ago. During this time not a single house has been completed in the area. A private builder made an offer to the local authority to build 70 houses to let, the proposal was accepted by them, but the Minister of Health over- ruled the council and the scheme did not proceed. Following this, the council was asked to take delivery of 49 prefabricated houses. A site was found for them, but Mr. Bevan again intervened. He said that n0 more prefabs would be sanctioned; instead, 54 permanent houses were to be placed on the site. Again a local builder came forward and offered to build 54 permanent houses and sell them to the council] for letting, and again the Minister refused the licenses. Re- versing their previous order, the Ministry of Health asked the council to erect 24 alumi- num prefabricated bungalows on the same site. Is it any wonder that so few houses have been bullt? And so the state of frus- tration goes on. In another case, a builder offered to erect more than 2,500 houses con- taining a floor area and a value fixed by the Ministry of Health. The local authority re- fused to give approval to the scheme, in this case I would say because the local authority was afraid to meet the competition of private enterprise. Under such conditions how can Britain with the greatest building program ever lying before it get on with its job? In a few months time the Minister of Health will be boasting in the House of Commons that local authorities have erected houses by thousands in excess of private enterprise, but he will not tell the British public that this is due to the fact that there has been no limit in price imposed upon local authorities and that they have had preference in labor and building materials, sanitary fittings, and equipment. What hypocrisy! MR. BEVAN DISCOURAGES HOME OWNERSHIP The Minister of Health, Mr. Bevan, and hig colleagues have a deep-rooted dislike, as So- clalists, to the building of houses for sale. The policy of the Government is to build millions of small houses to let with the local authorities—as the agents of the State—as the landlords. Home ownership is one of the fundamental desires of the people of Britain and should be encouraged, not discouraged. Before the war about 85 percent of families had either purchased or were in the process of buying their own homes with the help of building society finance. One of the great- est stabilizing factors in our national life is to give the opportunity to all families to have @ real and tangible stake in their country. The avenue to social stability is home owner- ship, it encourages better and more progres- sive citizenship. The argument put forward by Mr. Bevan for building only to let is that it keeps labor more mobile. This is completely out-of- date thinking. There is not denying that purchasing a home is a somewhat hazardous affair. It may be the head of a family loses his job, and, if he has purchased a house with the help of s substantial mortgage from a building society, he will be unable to take fresh employment unless it can be found within a reasonable distance of his home, which he may find difficult to sell and, if he does sell it, may lose money. He, therefore, remains unemployed and a charge on the State. In other words, the man becomes immobile. Modern organization makes it possible for a man to take employment in any area and at the same time purchase a home. Such a scheme is only possible where e@ large number of houses spread throughout the country are in limited ownership. HOME OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS MOBILITY The local authorities of Britain own over @ million houses and these could be taken
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD over by public utility housing corporations. A man occupying one of these houses would make a fixed weekly payment which would cover all charges, such as rates, tax, repairs, insurance, and so forth. We will assume a man first occupies a house under this scheme at Southampton. He is there for, say, 5 years or so when his employment necessi- tates his transfer, say, to Leicester, where he would occupy a house belonging to the Leicester Regional Public Utility Housing Corporation without losing any part of his contributions through rental toward capital redemption which he has paid on the house at Southampton. Later the man may move to Wolverhampton, afterward to Manches- ter; in fact, he may move several times over the period when he is purchasing a home. This may be any number of years up to 60, and whatever house the family occupies at the end of the purchasing period will be the huuse to be transferred to the head of the family free of debt. In effect, the Regional Public Utility Housing Corporations would act as trustees during the period the occu- piers were purchasing the houses. Some advantages of the scheme are: 1. Ownership without any of its obliga- tions except the regular weekly payment of @ sum which would be comparable to rent for similar accommodation. 2. All repairs and maintenance carried out by the housing corporation. 3. No rates, taxes, water rate, or insurance payments to be responsible for. All these charges would be included in the weekly pay- ment and paid over to the authority by the housing corporation. 4. Freedom to leave a house at any time without further responsibility and without losing the contributions toward capital re- demption already made through the weekly payment for the house or houses which have been occupied. In this way mobility of labor would be as- sured while at the same time, if a man wished, he could be purchasing his home. BRITONS ARE RAPIDLY LOSING FREEDOM It is to be hoped that the United States of America will profit by Britain's unfortunate experience of totalitarianism as practiced by our Socialist government. We are rapidly los- ing our freedom. Individual initiative is being destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of our best manhood and womanhood, revolt- ing against conditions which are so un- English, are planning to emigrate to different parts of our Empire and the United States of America, where freedom is respected as man’s most treasured possession. A young man re- turning home to Britain after up to 6 years of war fighting for the freedom of Europe, full of ambition and enterprise, finds every- thing in Britain in a complete state of frus- tration. There are only a few minor things which he can do without first obtaining the permission of the bureaucracy. So he finds himself in the grip of a totalitarian system which is equal to, if not worse than, the system he has spent 6 years of the best of his life destroying in Europe, Central Valley EXTENSION OF REMARKS . HON. HELEN GAHAGAN DOUGLAS OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 20, 1947 Mrs. DOUGLAS. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important struggles against monopoly is the struggle being waged in Congress over the great Central Valley in California, XCII—App.——80 The people have made an investment in the Central Valley in dams and canals, The question now is whether the people or private monopoly will be allowed to harvest the fruits of that investment. For 45 years we have had a reclama- tion law which has protected the people and helped build up the West. For 45 years the law has placed a maxi- mum limitation upon the amount of wa- ter, developed at public cost for private benefit, which may be granted to any one private landowner. That limitation is the amount of water sufficient to irrigate 160 acres. Liberal administrative regu- lation now interprets the law to permit 320 acres for man and wife. The fate of this law, threatened by the blows of those who are attempting its re- peal, now hangs suspended in the con- gressional balance. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the first part of an address on the Central Valley by Dr. Paul S. Taylor, under the auspices of the Los Angeles League of Women Voters, on January 28, 1947. The second portion of the address will be inserted in the Recorp March 26, 1947. THE CENTRAL VALLEY (Address by Dr. Paul 8. Taylor, Burdette Hall, Philharmonic Auditorium, under auspices Los Angeles League of Women Voters) When we talk about American land pol- icy, about the present attempt to repeal acreage limitation in the Central Valley of California, we are talking about the altars of American liberty and the hearthstones of American democracy. We stand on ground that has felt the tread of the founding fa- thers and echoed to the voices of the states- men of the past. Monopoly of the soi] never has received the favor of American people. For three hun- dred years the land, first and foremost, has furnished Americans with equality of oppor- tunity. In 1776 Thomas Jefferson brought before the Legislature of the Colony of Vir- ginia his famous bill to abolish entailed estates. “In the earlier times of the colony,” he said, “when lands were to be had for little or nothing, some provident individuals pro- cured large grants; * * ° desirous of founding great families for themsclves, * © The transmission of this property from generation to generation, in the same name, raised up a distinct set of fami- les * * ®* privileged by law in the per- petuation of their wealth, (and) thus formed into a patrician order. * * * To annul this privilege. and instead of an aristocracy of wealth, more harm and danger than benefit to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for in the direc- tion of the interests of society, and scattered with equal hand through all its conditions, was deemed essential to a well-ordered republic.” The colonial legislature delib- erated, then under the leadership of Jeffer- son struck down the legal device of entail by which large landed estates then were per- petuated. Primogeniture went out the same way, and Americans of a former day felt secure that monopoly of the land and of the power over the lives of other men which it confers never would survive in America. More than a century ago the Massachu- setts statesman Daniel Webster pinned his faith to the same banner which the Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, had raised long befofte, “Our New England ancestors,” Webster said, “brought thither no great capitals from Eue Tope; and if they had, there was nothing pro- ductive in which they could have been in- vested. Whey left behind them the whole A1265 feudal policy of the other continent. * ° ° They came to a new country. There were as yet no lands yielding rent and no tenants rendering service. The whole soil was unre- claimed from barbarism. They were them- selves either from their original condition or from the necessity of their common interest, nearly on a level in respect to property. Their situation demanded a parceling out and division of the land, and it may fairly be said that this necessary act fixed the future frame and form of their Government. The charac- ter of their political institutions was deter- mined by the fundamental lIaws respecting property. * * * The consequence of all these causes has been a great subdivision of the soil and a great equality of condition; the true basis, most certainly, of popular gov- ernment.” If, this evening, we speak at times in the language of dollars and of acres, let us re- member that the deeper concern is for the liberty of Americans, for their equality of opportunity, and for the stability of this Commonwealth and this Nation. That, and nothing less, in the stake of America in hav- ing this issue settled right. In the Central Valley are many landowners. Most of them are not large landowners. A few of them own most of the irrigable land. In the first generation after 1860 when California achieved statehood, while land was to be had for little or nothing, some provident individuals procured large tracts. Land with little population and with less water for irri- gation was not hard to obtain for cash, for warrants, or for land scrip. “With great areas of land in the San Joaquin and Sacra- mento Valleys open to cash purchase the op- portunity for speculative profits was un- paralleled elsewhere; nor was the oppor- tunity neglected,” writes Paul Wallace Gates, of Cornell University, in the American His- torical Review. “From 1862 to 1880 land sales and warrant and scrip entries in Cali- fornia were on an enormous scale, surpass- ing all other States for the period and in some years comprising over half of the sales for the entire country.” After a detailed ac- count of the manner of land acquisition in the Valley, an account which is very much more racy than usual to the pages of an academic historical journal, Gates draws this sober conclusion: “Buying in advance of set- tlement, these men were virtually thwarting the homestead law in California, where, be- cause of the enormous monopolization * * © homesteaders later were able to find little good land.” The manner in which men of an earlier generation acquired land is, of course, no reflection at all upon the present owners, and is not so intended. Irrespective of how they were obtained, it is the perpetuation of great holdings in the Central Valley of Cali- fornia that must be the concern of the people of California and of the National Congress. In order to bring the land issue in the Central Valley into clear focus, we will use plain languoge. For 45 years the law has placed a maximum limitation upon the amount of water, developed at public cost for private benefit, which may be granted to any one private landowner. That limi- tation is the amount of water sufficient to irrigate 160 acres. (Liberal administrative regulation now interprets the law to permit 820 acres for man and wife.) The fate of this law, threatened by the blows of those who are attempting its repeal, now hangs suspended in the congressional balance. Acreage limitation was enacted by Con- gress as a device to prevent monopoly of the scarce waters of the West, and to prevent monopoly of the benefits and the generous assistance which the Nation extends when it builds dams and canals to develop those waters. The national reclamation law is the legal vehicle by which, since 1902, Congress has been using the resources of the Federal
A1266 treasury to water and to build up the arid West. Taxpayers from California to New Eng- land have been willing to make this pro- vision for western reclamation as a national contribution toward the building of America. They expect that the capital sum will be repaid in easy installments. They expect that the benefits of reclamation will be spread widely, not monopolized by a few. The drive for repeal is a drive on the one hand to retain all benefits of Federal recla- mation, but on the other hand to repeal all tts protections against monopoly. Acreage limitation is a device to prevent not only monopoly but also its historic twin-evil—speculation. This time the evil is garbed in the form of speculation on pub- lic appropriations for reservoirs and canals. Reclamation law protects the equities of holders of excess lands who, sceking the benefits of reclamation, comply with the law by agreeing to sell their excess; buyers of excess lands are enabled under protection of the law to get land at fair prices. When you are asked to lItsten to protests registered in tones of indignation, against alleged in- justices of the reclamation law, just remem- ber these things: 1, Acreage limitation has received the blessings of Congress—Republican and Dem- ocratic alike—a dozen times between 1902 and 1943. 2. Acreage limitation has received and withstood the scrutiny of the courts. 8. Previous attempts at repeal, whenever subjected to full public airing and debate, have failed. The first California attempt was made in 1905. The citizens of the National Irrigation Congress—founders of reclamation who prob- ably knew the conditions of land holding in Central Valley as well as any person in this auditor!um today, voted it down. Thcy knew why they had written acreage limita- tion into the law, and they wanted to keep it there. Ninety delegates at that convention which repudiated repeal were registered from California. 4. Twice, on small projects in Colorado and Nevada, under cover of a minimum of pub- city and without floor debate, large land- owners managed to obtain exemption from acreage limitation. The large landholders of Central Valley seem to think that those ex- ceptions gained by large landholders else- where, ought to persuade Congress to do the same here. Congress, after holding public hearings on Central Valley in 1944, refused. Having failed in 1905 and 1944, the large landholders of Central Valley are now seeking repeal for the third time. They do not want to repeal all of the reclamation law; they seek to repeal] just that portion of it which limits the amount of the benefits under the law which any one owner may keep for himeelf. Why do some landowners in the valley want so badly to repeal acreage limitation? A great public investment is now being made in the Central Valley of California. Its purpose, to be achieved in a generation and at cost of around $1,800,000,000, is to harness the waters of the valley to the full use of man. All the lands of the valley are privately owned; they passed long ago from the public domain. Since huge appropriations from the public purse are about to be showered down upon them, it is necessary to know who owns them and in what pattern of ownership. Principal among the beneficiaries are the valley floor lands of Madera, Tulare, and Kern Counties. In these three counties as few as about 4 percent of all the holders of irrigable land together own 58 percent of all the irrigable land. The rest of the land- owners—about 96 percent of them—are un- touched by acreage limitation and conse- quently have no direct interest in repeal. Indeed, nine-tenths of all the landowners (89 percent to be exact) own 160 acres or less, and three-fourths of them own less than 80 acres each. So far as that, are the great majority of farmers who make their living in the valley, below the legal limitations. Thetr interest is against repeal, of course, not for it; repeal would reduce their chances of adding to their holdings, if necessary. The reclamation law is generous, and I find no one in Central Valley who wants to repeal its generosity. The taxpayers of the Nation from Minnesota to Florida have shown repeatedly that they are willing to put their hands down their pockets, to ask no interest on their investment, and to al- low western water-tUsers more than a gen- eration in which to repay capital. Recla- mation law extends the benefit of a strong Federal credit, allows use of public power to raise project water to thirsty lands at rock-bottom rates, and foregoes any direct return upon the public investment for fr- rigation. What the people of the East and South do want and expect in return is that we shall use these Federal resources to build the West in the traditional American way, distributing the benefits widely among citi- zens. But that much they expect. We have the direct testimony of the author of the act, that without acreage limitation Con- gress never would have assented to the Na- tional reclamation law in the beginning. There is plenty of evidence of which Cali- fornians should take heed, that many Sen- ators and Congressmen from East and South today will not favor further appropriations for California except they are made under the protection of acreage limitation. The British Nationalization of Transport Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON OF NFW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following memo- randum on the British nationalization of transport bill, giving an outline of the bill itself and summarizing the debate for and against it in the House of Commons, December 16, 17, 18, 1946, by Dr. C. S. Duncan, economist, Association of Amer- ican Railroads; Washington, D. C.: Brit 12. THE BrrrrsH NATIONALIZATION OF TRANSPORT BILL On November 12, 1946, the King opened British Parliament with a most gracious speech. After expressing his solicitude for “my people” at home and abroad and after dealing with certain pressing foreign prob- lems, he came to the domestic situation and proposed a legislative program. In this con- nection, he declared “a measure will be laid before you to bring inland transport services under national ownership and control.” When the Commons had returned to its own chamber, Mr. Usborne, of Birmingham, proposed a vote of thanks to the King for “the gracious speech.” It was seconded by Mr. Hoy of Leith. There then rose a brief skirmish between Mr. Winston Churchill and Prime Minister Attlee with respect to the Proposed legislation to nationalize trans- portation. Mr. Churchill spoke in criticism of what the government had done, had failed to do and was planning for the future. Upon the subject of nationalization of transport he said he would not claim that there was anything immoral in government ownership of ratl- ways if proper compensation be paid, that he, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD himeelf, had once (in 1918) advocated that step, arguing by analogy of the Post Office, but since that date the government had managed the affairs of the railways with such bad results that his early enthusiasm was “damped.” Further, the rise of road trans- Port had so complicated the problem that it was most unwise for government at this time “to throw all this new sphere into con- fusion and disturbance and make a large ad- dition to the national debt in order to thrust the clumsy butter-fingers of the State into all this intricate apparatus.” Prime Minister Attlee rose to make reply. He said that he did not expect any disagree- ment in principle on the nationalization pro- gram because it was only carrying forward the trend that had long been evident. He said, further, that in his opinion “it was not possible to deal with railways alone, for the various forms must be complementary and not competitive.” Bill 12, the transport bill, was introduced into the House of Commons on November 27, 1946, by Mr. Alfred Barnes, Minister of Trans- port, supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Lord President of the Council and leader of the House of Commons, Sir John Dalton, Chancelor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, president of the Board of Trade, the Attorney General, and G. R. Strauss, Parlia- mentary Secretary to the Minister of Trans- port. It was moved that the bill be printed and be brought up for a second reading on the succeeding Monday. The purpose of the bill as stated was “to provide for the estab- lishment of a British Transport Commission concerned with transport and certain other related matters, to specify their powers and duties, and to provide for the transfer to them of undertakings, parts of undertakings, property rights, obligations and liabilities, etc” The bill was not brought up for a second reading until December 16. At that time the Minister of Transport moved “that the bill be now read a second time.” He pro- ceeded to speak in explanation of the bill and also in its defense. When he had fin- ished. Major Sir David Maxwell] Fyfe moved to strike out the word “now” and at the end of the question add the words “upon this day 6 months.” After all of these preliminaries, the debate was opened upon what was acknowledged by both sides as the most momentous piece of legislation that had been considered by the British Parliament since the Magna Carta. The order of the debate had apparently been very carefully planned and the over-all time definitely sct. The debate lasted for 3 days. There were 22 speakers on exch side, and in addition, there were the summary remarks of Mr. Morrison, Leader of the Com- mons, in favor of its approval. When the debate was finally ended a vote was taken upon the question, with the result that the House divided 362 ayes to 205 noes. The approval of the second reading was equivalent to the approval of the bill. THE BILL The bill upon which the debate was held has for its purpose the setting up in Great Britain of a publicly owned system of inland transport, other than by air, and of port facilities as well. The most important agency to be created by the act is the British Transport Commis- sion, which is to consist of a chairman and four other members appointed by the Min- ister of Transport, and is authorized to take over the properties of all transport agencies end to carry goods and passengers by rail, by highway, and by inland waterways, and to own and supervise all public port facilities within Great Britain. The Commission is primarily to be a policy body under the direction of the Minister of Transport. The actual operating Of the facilities is to be done by the execu- tives under the authority of the commission. These executives are to be appointed by the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Minister of Transport, and there. is to be one for railways, one for highways, one for docks and inland waterways, and one for London passenger transport service. Provision is also made for the hotels owned by the railroad companies, For such areas as the Minister may direct a transport consultative committee may be organized, and there may be organized also transport users consultative committees. These bodies may be called in to give con- sideration to’ matters affecting services and facilities provided by the commission. The property of railways, motor haulers, ports, and London Transport Board is to be transferred to the commission, with all the rights and Habilities of these undertakings, on January 1, 1948. Under direction of the Minister of Trans- port, the Transport Commission will under- take to devise an entirely new rate and fare structures for all the agencies of transport in Great Britain. There is no direction or statement of principles in the law upon which this revision of the rate structure is to be made. All cars owned by private industries on the railroads shall pass into possession of the Commission. All trucks owned and operated under A and B carrier licenses are to be transferred to the Commission and operated by it, with the exception of operations confined to a distance up to 40 miles and for operations within a radius of 26 miles from “its operat- ing center.” C licenses for private carriers are limited to operations up to 40 miles from their operating centers. There are definite exemptions for the carriage of liquids in bulk, meat, livestock, heavy indivisible loads, and ordinary furniture. Road haul of passengers is left to be dealt with later by the Commission, though it has ample powers to take them over. Compensation for the property transferred to the Commission is to be made in the form of British transport stock, issued by the Commission “of a value equal in the opinion of the Treasury on the date of issue to the amount of compensation.” In the case of the purchase of a truck or bus or a privately owned railroad car, where the compensation does not exceed 2,000 pounds, payment in cash may be made. The basis of compensation is as follows: “(a) For railway and canal undertakings— on the average market values of securities at certain dates.” (These dates are the average of 6 months prior to the previous election (February- July 1945) or the average of 6 days prior to the King’s speech (November 1-8, 1946), whichever is higher.) “(b) For road haulage undertakings—on the net value of the assets, plus, in certain cases, sums in respect of compensation for cessation of business and severance.” (This means the depreciated value of the rolling stock, plus from two to five times an- nual net earnings.) “(e) For local authorities undertakings— payments to cover the interest and sinking fund charges on the date of the undertak- ing. ay da) For privately owned railway wagons— values calculated by reference to age and condition and original cost.” In order to deal with questions of rates and services there is to be a Transport Tri- bunal which is to take the place of the exist- ing railway rates tribunal and other rate bodies. The government is required to sub- mit proposed rates to the Transport Tri- bunal for confirmation. Of its own accord the tribunal may later, at the request of interested parties, alter these charges and the Minister of Transport may at any time require the tribunal to review the operation of any such rate. schemes. Provision is made in the bill as to the terms and conditions of employment of the staff, pensions and compensation to displaced staff. The British Transport Stock which the Commission ia authorized to issue as com- pensation to the stockholders and owners of railroads, highway operations, and others is to be guaranteed by the British Govern- ment, The stock is to draw 214-percent in- terest. It is calculated that the result of this transaction will mean a reduction of the war rental charge paid by the government to the railroads of £40,000,000 per year to £22,760,000, or a saving of £17,250,000. THE DEBATE The great debate on the British transport bill to nationalize all facilities for inland transportation except alr opened on the aft- ernoon of December 16, 1946. Having moved that the bill be now read a second time, Sir Alfred Barnes, the Minister of Transport, proceeded to give an outline of the bill it- self and to present the general arguments in favor of it. At the close of his remarks, Maj. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe moved that the word “now" be omitted and that there be added at the end of the question “upon this day 6 months.” Thus was opened « most earnest and extended debate of this tmpor- tant bill. While there were 23 spcakers who argued in favor of the passage of the bill, the chief debaters were Sir Alfred Barnes, Minister of Transport, Sir John Dalton, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. G. R. Strauss, Parliamentary Secretary to the Min- istry of Transport. The other speakers, all members of Parliament, either repeated the arguments of these three master debaters or gave detailed reports from their districts. Arguments in favor The arguments in favor of the passage of this bill are given in outline form. 1. There is a mandate from the people to pass a bill nationalizing transport facilities. It was said that it had always been a plank in the Labor Party platform to nationalize transport facilities. It was so in the recent campaign when the Labor Party won its ma- Jority and, therefore, a vote for that party was perforce a vote for nationalization. In some districts, it was pointed out, this was a direct issue, one member stating that 60 percent of his constituents were transport workers and that they overwhelmingly sup- ported nationalization. Furthermore, it was claimed that the bill had the support of the Labor Party, the Trades Union Congress, and the Cooperative Congress. Together these represented a majority of the people of these islands and, consequently, it was argued the majority of the people of the country desired nationalization. 2, There was a great and immediate need for the Government to take over transporta- tion facilities. During the war these facili- ties were worked hard and suffered from wear and tear since replacement and maintenance were impossible. The roadway, the rolling stock, and the ports had all come out of the war in damaged condition from too much use or from bombing. Very large sums of capita] were needed to restore them to a desired de- gree of efficient operation which private un- dertakings were unable to raise. Now, thcre- fore, is the time to end the uncertainty that has existed for so long and to enable the people of the country to realize the results of unification. This would conserve capital re- sources, materials, and manpower. In order that the people might have the best possible service there must be over-all planning and control. This could be done only by govern~ ment. As for the need of rehabilitation the London and Northeastern Railway was used as the example. Its locomotives averaged 32 years of age, and its rolling stock was of a like character. Its roadway needed rehabili- tation, as did the stations and freight houses. Separate undertakings for each of the railroads and each of the highway oper- ations and waterway operations would result in a acramble for materiala and manpower, This would be bad for the country, and the A1267 Government should step in and control the situation. 8. Transportation is an overhead cost for all the people. Therefore, it is of interest to all the people. Parliament is the body that can and must look at it from this nation- wide angle. The government must direct its organization. Out of 18,000,000 men em- ployed in industry, one and one-quarter mil- lion were engaged in transport. Under this bill 750,000 would be immediately affectcd. This great body of men would be directed by government to the best advantage of the country. 4. Nutionalization of transport facilitics is in line with world trends. Not only are more and more of the transportation facilities of the world coming under government owner- ship and control but this is likewise true in the British Empire. Fifty-five percent of Canada’s railroads are in government hands. In Australia and New Zealand 95 percent is government-owned, in South Africa 81 per- cent, and throughout the world 45 percent. This bill, therefore, follows the trend throughout the world. 5. The only issue before Parliament is, therefore, a workable program. That is set forth in the present bill. The line of direc- tion is clear, from the Minister of Transport, who is responsible to the Parliament, through the transport commission and the executives, down to the people. It is a practical and workable scheme and its results will be of tm- mense value to the British people. 6. Private industry in transportation has failed. It has not kept its facilities up to standard, as may be seen from the rolling stock, the atations, and the roadways. With- in Great Britain travel has become now an unpleasantness to be endured, not a pleasure to be sought. There are areas that lack ade- quate transportation facilities and it is only by spreading this overhead cost over a uni- fled industry that such conditions can be met. Under the direction of the Transport Commission a revolution in efficiency will be brought about. 7. The proposed method of compensation is fair and fust. It is not only fair and just but also simple and easy. “A nationalized public service is quite entitled to have the advantage of public credit.” That accounts for the fact that there will be a reduction in the amount of returns to individual owners of securities. There will be no loss of cap- ital to these owners and the low interest rate is due to the strength and capacity of the Nation. A value of railroad property set, for example, at £900,000,000 would represent 25 years of net revenues at £38,000,000 to £40,- 000,000 per year. That is ample payment to the owners of the securities. They are offered shares of national transportation stock equal in capital value to their present holdings, with a return of 214 percent guar- anteed by the government. The use of the stock-exchange values instead of arbitration, or public hearings or court procedure, is a fair, a simple, a direct and easy way to meet the situation. This is provided for in the bill. 8. The new rates tribunal under Govern- ment direction will have the authority and will be directed to simplify the existing rate structure which is nothing more or less than @ jungle of rate charges, There are today from 40,000,000 to 60,000,000 different rates. This structure is to be simplified on a com- mon-sense basis. Opportunity for public hearings before the tribunal will be afforded. 9. This is to be a Government monopoly of transportation facilities, Such a monopoly is the only means to realize coordination, unification, and integration which the transport situation requires. No one agency will be permitted to destroy the capital or the people, the finances, annual revenues, competition. As an overhead charge on all the people the finances, annual revenues, annual expenses, and annual receipts are all to be pooled. The financial activities are
A1268 subject to parliamentary and public exami- nation. The results will be a transport sys- tem that is more efficient, will render better service, and have better equipment than has been Known heretofore. The workers will be more satisfied and more hopeful. Appeal to them will be made to expend effort for service to all the people and not for profit for private enterprise. The proponents of the bill were not unani- mous as to all provisions in it. On the ques- tion of compensation to be paid owners of railways and highway transportation, some proponents thought the terms were over- generous and some reported from their con- stituency that nothing should be paid for the property taken over. There were some also who felt that the bill did not go far enough but should be extended so as to in- clude the carrying of passengers as well as of freight. As to the general body of the bill, however, they all seemed to be in agree- ment. Arguments against The debate against the bill was vigorous. Particular phases of the subject had evident- ly been assigned to the principa] debaters so that the voluminous and complex Dill could be covered without too great repeti- tion. The leaders among the debaters in opposition to the bill were Maj. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, Anthony Eden, Sir Arthur Salter, Mr. M. 8. Morrison, and Sir John An- Gerson. The particular angle of the Tory Party was presented by Mr. Thorneycroft. The arguments against the passage of the bill are presented below: 1. The burden of proof that the national- ization of transport is necessary, desirable, and will improve service and decrease costs rests upon proponents. This fact has been admitted and so stated by Mr. Herbert Mor- Tison in a speech in Canada and elsewhere. The proponents, however, have made no ref- erence to the experience of Government con- trol during the war, when costs rose and service declined to the annoyance of the travelers and shippers. They have cited no instances where Government ownership and operation elsewhere have reduced costs and improved service. They have not and they have not even undertaken to prove their case. It has largely been presented on a doctrinaire basis, the political theory of socialism. What they have offered is “a monopoly which will be cumbrous and top- heavy, whose structural defects are as mani- fest as its powers are unlimited.” 2. A public inquiry into the merits and de- merits of the bill has been refused. The proposals in the bill, therefore, have not been put to this crucial test and conse- quently remain “half-baked proposals.” An understanding by the people and their con- sidered reaction, with a full knowledge of what is being proposed, have not yet been had. No claim of a mandate from the peo- ple for this bill is valid. One voter, when charged with being a Socialist because she voted for the present administration, be- come indignant and declared she was not Socialist but Labor. The users of transport have not had an opportunity to express themselves. It is significant that no asso- ciation or organization of traders or busi- nessmen, the users of transportation, has come forward to support the bill. 8. The bill is self-contradictory. Its aim is said to be coordination and integration but as the bill sets up the organization the result will inevitably be disintegration. There are to be separate and independent executives for each agency and, consequently, there will follow a division along functional lines. One cannot have integration and disintegration or competition at the same time. 4. The Minister of Transport, wielding al- most unlimited powers over a wide and com- plex area, will be vulnerable to political pres- sure. There is nothing and there is no one to protect him. Asa political appointee he will inevitably be susceptible to political influ- ence. And from another angle “this bill gives an unexampled opportunity for political pa- tronage and jobbery.” 5. The bill will do a great injustice and injury to the British people just at the time when all should work shoulder to shoulder for increased production. It provides for the taking over by government not only of the rail lines and waterways but also of the A class or common carriers, the B class or con- tract carriers on the highway, and the C class which includes the traders’ trucks handling their own goods beyond a 40-mile limit. This haul is far too short for his operations. Within this orbit of a 25-mile radius, this maximum distance of 40 miles, there will re- sult the wildest cut-throat competition. There is no intimation as to what principles will guide the commission in revamping the rate structure. Traders cannot know what their costs of transport will be. One thing is certain, costs will rise. No promise is made for reduced costs. Traders will be forced to use the agency which the Minister of Trans- port, through the commission, decides he shall use. The stimulus of initiative will be taken away, for all planning ts to be done by government. ‘Traders and the business of the country will be greatly injured. This is not the path to increased cooperation and increased production. 6. The compensation to stockholders, and especially to stock held in trust provided for in this bill, is confiscatory. Stock-market prices are not a valid basis for determining value of the physical property to be taken over. They are affected at a given time by many factors that have nothing to do with such value. Only a small fraction of total securities ever pass through the market, and trustees are, therefore, placed in a quandary. About 29 percent of railroad stock is in trusts. This bill means a reduction in returns by fiat of government affecting innocent parties. The question of compensation is a matter for the courts or for arbitration and agree- ment. The administration, through this bill, is capitalizing on the low prices which it has brought about, not alone by its uninhibited cheap-money policy but also by its threat of taking over. 7. The condition in the ports will be greatly confused. Some holdings are now Govern- ment, and these will be taken over. Some holdings are private and will be in competi- tion with government. In some ports the Government, so far as this bill is concerned, seems to have no interest. They are small ones. What is to happen to them? Ocean shipping is not to be nationalized. How can these private enterprises have a common in- terest with the Government in these ports. A half fish and half fowl! condition cannot be efficient or permanent. 8. The purpose of the bill ts “power and influence in the land.” It is not to control monopoly, because the railroads have no mo- nopoly. This is a bill of 1936, when there was fierce cutthroat competition on a de- clining market and it was intended to cut the throat of the virile road competitors. The Socialists know that if they take over the railways and leave open-road competi- tion they will show colossal losses within 6 months. “Monopoly or competition, boom or slump, restriction or expansion, they (the Socialists) have only one sovereign remedy— nationalization. This- is a political, not a practical, decision.” But the real problem today is how to expand production, increase exports, and cheapen transport costs. The road to this end is through fair and healthy competition. The present bill blocks this road. The debate ended with a summing up of peal for the bill. It was very largely a purely APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD political address, given with a smugness and satirical humor characteristic of a man who has a majority vote in his pocket. points were made and much repetition oc- curred. So strong was the contrast be- tween the manner and tone of the address and the momentousness of the occasion and the seriousness of the proposed legislation that the members grew more and more res- tive, interrupting the speaker frequently. The harangue ended at 9:59 p. m. and Sir Stanley Holmes, of Harwich, leaped to his feet and expressed the feeling, certainly of the opposition and probably of all readers of Hansard, in these words: “In all the speeches winding up a great debate on a major bill, I have never heard anything more frivolous and less convincing.” The gavel fell. The debate was over. The question was put. The House divided—ayes, $62; noes, 205. Testimony of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., on Housing Legislation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN J. SPARKMAN OF ALABAMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 26 (legislative day of Monday, March 24), 1947 Mr. SPAREMAN. Mr. President, one day last week Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., appeared before the Committee on Banking and Currency, on behalf of the American Veterans’ Committee, giving testimony on certain housing bills. I ask unanimous consent that his state- ment be printed in the Appendix of the RECORD. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee, I appreciate the opportunity to pre- sent the views of the American Veterans’ Committee (AVC) on housing legislation to this committee. The AVC is an organisa- tion of close to 100,000 World War IT veter- ans who have banded together in the be- Hef that the first major problem of the vet- eran is his successful readjustment to civilian life. In the last year it has been increasingly apparent that the major obstacle to the vet- eran in making a satisfactory transition from the armed services to community life has been the acute and continuing housing crisis. The AVC is therefore intensely interested n the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill (8. 866) which Proposes a comprehensive national housing program. The veteran is only part of our society, al- though today a very large part. Special vet- eran benefits which are harmful to the rest of the Nation are, in the long run, harmful to the veteran. But the long-range housing bill being considered benefits all citizens and is especially valuable to veterans who have been most gravely affected by the housing shortage. Veterans want and need housing desper- ately. They need housing to fit their limited incomes. Today it does not require extended investigation but merely a few conversations with veterans to discover that they are not happy about the current housing picture. Veterans have been reasonable and patient in their housing demands. They have en- dured a multitude of extreme hardships in living in substandard makeshifts which have threatened their health and that of their families. They have doubled up
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD with in-laws under circumstances which have caused general unhappiness and in many cases broken homes. But despite the patience and the fortitude of our veteran population no American can escape the con- clusion that it is the Nation’s duty to make @ sincere and hard-hitting effort to face and solve the housing problem. The Bureau of the Census recently an- nounced (March 18, 1947) the results of a veterans’ housing survey which it made be- tween July 1946 and September 1946. The surveys were made in 70 selected cities and reveal some of the facts about the veteran's housing desires and his income which must be taken into account in considering any housing legislation. I sincerely hope that every member of this committee will have the occasion to study this survey as it per- tains to his own particular urea. The survey concretely presents the hous- ing problem when it shows that from 30 to 40 percent of married veterans are living in rented rooms or doubled up with in-laws. In Los Angeles County, Calif., for example, fully 60 percent of the married vetcrans in that area are without desirable living quar- ters. In the New York City area some 44 percent of the married veterans fall into this category. For the New Orleans area in Louisi- ana, the Detroit area of Michig:n, and the Philadelphia area of Pennsylvania the figures are respectively 32, 61, and 43 percent. The survey also vividly demonstrates that veterans cannot afford either the rental or purchase cost of new housing. The median weekly income of veterans is shown to be between 840 and $50. In the majority of cases they cannct afford to pay more than 640 a month rent, and they cannot afford housing costing over 86,000. These figures present in the cold language of statistics the crushing problem which is facing the veteran. Even under the Wyatt program new housing costing up to 880 a month in rentals and $10,000 in purchase price was permitted. These figures, as we now know, are rapidly becoming minimums. The Wall Street Journal reported in a survey printed February 17, 1947, that over-all build- ing costs are up 86 percent over 1939 and have reached an all-time peak. Builders are curtailing their programs up to 90 and 95 percent because of the current record high oosts, according to the same source. It is clearly impossible to survey the cur- rent housing problem and deny that imme- diate action is necessary. If the Congress refuses to act it is in effect saying to their veterans: “We Know that you face a housing problem and we are grateful to you for hav- ing won the war, but don't bother us with your troubles.” We are confident that Congress will not take this attitude and we believe that ex- amination of the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill will reveal that it is the major weapon we need to lead the attack on the housing crisis. I should like to examine briefly some of the major provisions of this bill and point out why the American Veterans Committee has given its complete endorsement to this approach. I shall also describe briefly a group of amendments to the bill which we are proposing in order to prcevide additional incentives and aids to veterans and builders. The principal purpose of these amendments is to lower the cost of both rental and sale housing so that it will be within the reach of the average veteran. The major provisions of 8. 866 deal with financial aids and guaranties to expand rental and sale housing construction. I am sure there is no need for a detailed descrip- tion of the provisions enunciated so ably by Senator Taft. The yield insurance provi- sions with such liberalizations as may be necessary are important as @ means of at- tracting large investment funds and guaran- teeing their return just as is done now with mortgage loans. The 60-year period of amortization which is part of the yield in- surance plan is both sound and helpful in achieving lower rents and should be extended to the other plans for insuring mortgages for rental and cooperative housing. The yield insurance plan also contemplates @& smaller return on the money invested which should help reduce monthly rents. Other provisions of the bill provide for longer-term mortgages for rental cooperative and sales housing which, although very help- ful, still do not go far enough. AVC reiterates its wholehearted support for the slum-clearance and redevelopment provisions of 8. 866 which should enable a successful attack to be made on the long- accumulated blight of our cities. Those pro- visions would make it possible for the cleared areas to be reused in whatever manner the cities determine most sultable including pri- vate or public housing, commercial or pub- Ue buildings. The public-housing provisions are impera- tive as they represent the only means for providing homes for families of low income. There are many veterans who unfortunately are in the low-income group and S. 866 re- quires that these veterans be given a pref- erence for a period of 4 years after enact- ment. In line with the comprehensive character of this bill we are gratified to see there 1s an equally comprehensive program for rural and farm areas, The amendments being proposed by the AVC to S. 866 have been distributed to mem- bers of the committee. I regret that the data on these sheets was prepared with reference to the bill which passed the Senate last year and that because of the pressure of time it has not been possible to adapt the amend- ments, where necessary, to the bill now under consideration. In most cases, however, I do not believe that this will cause difficulty. Mr. Paterson I’m sure would be glad to work with the committee in adapting these amend- ments to S. 866. LOWER-RENTAL HOUSING—AMENDMENTS 8, 9, 11 AVC believes the period of amortization for mortgage loans on rentul housing should be extended to 50 years and the interest rate reduced to 3 percent. The effect of these provisions would be to reduce a $60 monthly rent to around $48. It is also necessary to provide for insurance of 100-percent loans for rental-housing projects for a period of 1 year, i. e., during the present housing crisis, in order to overcome the hesitancy of investors to invest in large-scale housing projects given the present inflationary costs. Similarly on projects undertaken under the yield-insur- ance provisions within a year there should be 100-percent insurance of return. All the above provisions should be equally made applicable to mutual and cooperative projects. Incidentally there is a great vet- eran interest at present in mutual and co- operative housing because an apartment is considerably cheaper. 8. 866 is by the way less favorable for cooperative and mutual projects than S. 1592, as it passed the Senate. Another important provision of last year's bill which should be restored called for a 1 percent advance to cooperatives to enable them to undertake the planning and prelimi- nary work prior to financing. Amendment No. 11 provides for veterans preference on new rental housing along the same lines as 8. 866 does for public housing. SALES HOUSING—-AMENDMENTS 4 AND 7 AVC recommends an extension of the amortization period for home owners to 40 years and reduction of the maximum inter- est rate to $ percent. Amendment No. 4 permits the $5,000 and 95 percent of appraised value mortgages to go up to 66,700 or 95 perecnt of the Adminis- trator’s estimate of necessary current costs. This amendment as well as amendment No. 8 is necessary in order that the bill may have some realistic application to housing constructed at present day costs. Amend- A1269 ments for the same purpose are necessary on rental housing (amendments Nos. 10 and 8). Amendments Nos, 1 and 2 cover the even- tuality that the borrower may be faced with periods of unemployment, sickness or other misfortune, in providing for temporary ex- tensions to meet these emergencies. These amendments are particularly applicable to the veteran who may at present be buying over his head out of necessity. INDUSTRIALIZED HOUSING All the amendments described so far re- late to reducing financing costs which, al- though important, are only part of the solu- tion. America’s housing future may well de- pend upon the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the newly established industrialized hous- ing industry. Somehow capital as well as financing Costs must be reduced. The use of modern industrial methods in housing pro- duction should be encouraged, because they hold the promise of substantially reducing costs in the area where the greatest savings can be effected, Amendment No, 13 includes several impor- tant provisions which are necessary to en- courage continued development and expan- sion of this new housing industry. The first of these would continue until the end of 1948 the guaranteed market program estab- lished under the Veterans’ Emergency Hous- ing Act. That extension is necessary to en- able these producers to get financing. Another provision would transfer $25,000,- 000 of the unused premium payment money for advances to users for the development and testing of new materials. If the product proves successful, the -dvances are to be re- paid. Finally the RFC should be authorized to make 90-percent loans to these new produc- ers who, we feel, are real pioneers in devel- oping housing the average citizen can afford and in providing large-scale employment for years to come. s. 701 I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Taytor for his fore- sight in introducing 8. 701. Until private enterprise is able to provide housing for vet- erans of moderate income the Government has a responsibility which it cannot escape to assure that its housing program will meet their pressing need. 8. 701 recognizes that this is an emergency problem which calls for temporary financing aid to the localities, which will undertake the projects and oper- ate them solely for veterans of moderate in- come. Certainly there should be no objec- tion to a proposal such as this, and I hope it can be incorporated into the Taft-Ellen- der-Wagner bill. In summary, AVC believes that the bill under consideration alms at reducing the cost of housing, both to the builder and the user. It is, in our opinion, the most practical plan as yet proposed for the solution of the long- range problem of adequately housing all American familics. We believe that it should be strengthened by a group of amendments which provide the maximum incentives for lowering the cost of housing and to protect the veteran. We respectfully urge that this committee give them careful consideration. Intervention in Greece EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON OF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 26 (legislative day of Monday, March 24), 1947 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, the most compelling and chal- lenging newspaper article which I have
A1270 read on our newest foreign adventure since the President’s fateful Greek- Turkish proposal appeared on the finan- cial page of the New York Times, Sunday, March 23. This article is headlined “In- tervention in Greece—investment sur- vey” and should be read by every Member of Congress and by every citizen. There- fore I ask that it be publishd in the Con- GRESSIONAL RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: FPorTNIGHTLY COMMENTARY OF THE VALUE LINE INVESTMENT SvuRgvEY—INTERVENTION IN Grxrecs (A day after this letter goes to press, Presi- dent Truman will address Congress on the subject of American intervention in Greece. We are of the opinion that even if the United States should establish an anti-Communist regime on the Greek flank of the Dardanelles, Russia would not immediately go to war. But American commitments in Greece, if they are to achieve their purpose, would have to be followed by commitments in other parts of the world and such extensive un- dertakings would weaken capitalism in the American sphere. In so doing they would prove to be self-defeating.) American investors are deeply concerned over taxation. Taxation far more than com- munistic infiltration is threatening our way of life. Lest this opening sentence be inter- preted as an expression of sympathy for the poor millionaire who is forced now to get along without an extra yacht, let it be stated at the outset that the problem of the rich in this day and age is not lack of money to spend. Faced with enormous inheritance taxes and little possibility of retaining in- come under existing income-tax schedules, the rich man inds it easier to spend money today than at any other time in history. If he does not spend his money, his Govern- ment will. He has every inducement to waste capital and no incentive to save it. The function of rich people is to accumu- late capital with which to produce more goods for poorer people to consume. That they have done so here is proved by the fact that America has the highest standard of living in the history of the world. That they will not be able to do so much longer Is proved by the fact that anyone who accumu- lates income over $100,000 a year, whether for investment in business or personal spend- ing, must pay back about 87 percent in per- sonal income taxes. Under the conditions, the only large capital that is likely to be accumulated is that which the Government takes in the form of taxes and invests in the form of State-owned enterprises, or tifat which is accumulated by already established companies. In the absence of all possibility of new competition, these established com- panies gradually develop into national car- tels that in one way or another must be in- tegrated into the Government. In short, under existing tax rates, capital formation will in time become the function of either the Government itself or of industrial car- tels integrated into the Government. This is the socialist organization toward which we are blindly moving. It is against the background of American tax crisis that the proposed intervention in Greece takes on added significance. No one could be naive enough to imagine that the United States of America could gain perma- nent possession of a flank on the Dardanelles, Russia’s only outlet to the Mediterranean, for $250,000,000. The cost will come much higher than that, not only in terms of the commitment in Greece but also in the col- lateral undertakings in the Near East, in Europe, and in Asia—wherever in fact the Russian expansion will have to be bottled up if the new foreign policy is to carry through. The investor can find no prospect of tax reduction in such a foreign policy. The question he must answer is whether he has a better chance to resist communism by strengthening capitalism or by aiming a gun at the Russians. THE SHIFT OF BRITISH POWER The No. 1 fact of life to hold onto in this maelstrom of postwar political readjust- ments is that the British are shifting their empire. They are moving out of Asia and east Europe to consolidate in Africa and the Near East. Their great adventure is the chance of developing an Arab world and ex- Plolting Africa. From a speculative stand- point, it seems to be good strategy. Britain has neither the economic sinews nor the fire- power to hold India and the Far East or to defond Australia and New Zealand. Her land-based planes probably could hold Africa. There she could obtain raw materials pro- duced with chenp labor to be processed in England for export at a profit to Britain. By agreement with cither the United States or Russia she might be able to share the rich oll fields of the Near East, whence would come the oil to power the air force and fleet that would defend the African empire. The Arabs offer a brilliant opportunity, for they are a people of great ability and no organiza- tion. Their political life is a jigsaw of feudal rivalries. Their economy 1s totally unde- veloped. Their unity Hes in their common Semitic race and in their catholic Moslem religion, which tolerates no racial discrimt- nation within the legions of the faithful. A relatively small force could balance the pow- ers of the rival Arab potentates while the traditional Anglo-Saxon respect for the other fellow’s religion would permit the strength- ening of religious ties. A certain amount of industrislization, carefully planned so as not to compete with British industry, might in time be developed. The big danger to the British scheme is that the Russians may inject themselves into the Near East and North Africa before the British are able to carry their plans for Africa and the Near East to fruition. It 1s here thet the next American move becomes decisive. If the United States takes up the position in Greece that the British Army is evacuating, the burden of defend- ing the British sphere in Africa, and the Near East in its formative period falls upon the United States. Not only is Britain's African empire then protected, but Britain is in a strategic position later on to shift her alliance toward a Russia exasperated by American obstruction. Once BEritain’s African and near-erstern empires are established, she would have stock in trade—Arabian oi] that could be shared with Russia, and foreign markets in the Balkans and in Asia that might advantageously be shared with the Russtan cartels on some basis mutually satis- factory to the two Socialist governments. The exclusion of American goods from Bu- ropean and Asiatic markets would naturally be required, since England’s production com- petes in export with America’s. The British shift out of the Far East and eastern Europe into Africa and the Near Bast, and her political reorientation from the American orbit to the Russian will not come to pass in a day. Britain has still to use up her American loan. She can import only from America, because only America ts rich enough to export eat this time. But in the jong run Britain’s interests will dovetail with Russia's more closely than our own, and her political alinement with Russia fs therefore probable. To think thus may shock the sentiments of many good people. But in the game of power politics, which for four centuries has found England waging wars against Spain, France, Russia, and Germany APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD with complete impartiality, there are no ecruples, but only interests. THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN POWER Until only a few ycars ago Russia was an agricultural country, with practically no in- dustries. In order to build up her tndus- trics—her capital—Russia must keep her current consumption down. That imposes a low standard of living upon the people and requires stern government. It will be difficult for the regime to carry out its pro- gram of capital formation—fust as if we were to levy heavy sales taxes tn order to butld TVA’s—and at the same time retain its pop- wartty. Therefore it would be quite natural to expect the Russian Government to act lke any other government which functions without strong popular encouragement: to emphasize the foreign threat in order to pre- serve internal unity during a difficult pertod. At the same time, the Russian Government is desirous of expanding its sphere of influ- ence to contiguous territories for three rea- sons: (1) for defense through buffer states; (2) for space in which to build up comple- mentary trading areas; (3) for outlets to the bea. How then will the Russians react if the United States should formulate a foreign policy that has as its obvious purpose control of the flanks on Russia’s only warm-water outlet? Imagine, for a moment, that the United States of America were a landlocked nation without Atlantic or Pacific seaports and that our only outlet to the Atlantic was through the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine then that Russla, dis- approving the Aleman regime in Mexico, decided to intervene with arms and money to unhorse Mr. Aleman and substitute a regime sympathetic to and tn close collabo- ration with one of the totalitarian govern- ments, let us sny the Argentinian. Even without the Monroe Doctrine, America would spring to arms. To Russia the American decision to take over Greece must be a particularly bitter pill to swallow, because not only ts it a threat to Russia's security as well as her expan- sion, but it comes right after the Russians gave their approval to America’s claim for control of the militarily strategic Pacific is- lands. The Russians must think that we Americans want the whole world including their back door. The upshot cannot be favorable for the United States. The Russians will be resent- ful and even more suspicious than in the past. They will close ranks at home, more willingly suffering a low standard of living in order to build up their industrial poten- tial for defense. They wil! look to Britain as an ally, even as a partner in the development of oll fields in the Near East, and to the ex- clusion of the United States. Almost surely the Russians will not go to war over Greece at this time. Rather, like Germany, they will wait until their indus- trial potential for war—possibly for atamic war—will be fully developed, at which time they can break the American Maginot line around the Mediterranean as easily as the Germans broke it in France. That kind of a line is more dangerous as an illusion than as a weapon. THE DEFENSE OF THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIVE The essential quality of capitalism is this: that it is an economy governed by a free market in which prices, demand, and supply are at liberty to reach an equilibrium with- out government intervention, Under pure socialism, prices, and supplies are deter- mined by the government and the demand is regulated by rationing. The free economy is clearly the more effi- cient except during periods of deep mal- adjustment when, the soctalists assert, the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD people are free only to starve. Economists of the Keynes school reply by proposing that the general level of business activity be controlled through compensating Govern- ment investments, so that though the mar- ket for specific goods remains free, the pur- chasing power of the people as a whole is held within tolerable limita of fluctuation. In every instance where the people them- selves have had a chance to choose between an economy that has a degree of free de- termination and an economy of complete government regimentation, the people have always shown a strong preference for the free economy. Since this has been so wherever the two systems came into conflict, it may be concluded that sooner or later the Rus- sian people will themselves insist upon a greater degree of freedom in their country. To this the foe of Russia replies that there can be no freedom of choice in that country. That is true today. That is not true of to- morrow. Today the Russians must tighten their belts to produce capital enough to build up their income. Once they have forced through their industrialization—a process which the Russians are attempting to complete in a generation though other na- tions have required centuries—they will be ready to live. The Marxist theory does not contemplate abrogation of personal liberties. To say that it does is to misrepresent. The Lenin theory of taking the leap from an agricultural econ- omy to an industrial economy in a single life-span does contemplate dictatorship. But it 1s a temporary dictatorship and !t is worth noting that the goal of personal freedom is not lost sight of. The Russians today are spending above five times as large a per- centage of their national income for educa- tion as the British and about twice as much as the Americans. Illiteracy has been great- ly reduced. No conspiracy of tyrants, de- termined to deprive people permanently of their liberty and individualism, would sacri- fice so much for public education. The Russian people have a sincere admira- tion for America and American achievement, as attested by the dispatches of many re- sponsible men who have visited Russia. Why, then, is it necessary to prove to them at the point of a gun that our way of life is superior to thelr own? Especially so when pointing the gun requires that we weaken our own way of life? It is necessary to be practical. There must be some lines within which the contest for men’s loyalties can be fought out by force of example. We are not yet such a perfect race that we can eliminate power politics altogether. But in the practical application of power politics, the first rule is not to bite off more than can be chewed. The natural— the practical sphere—in which to prove the superiority of capitalism and individualism is North and South America and the islands of the Caribbean and Pacific. These happen also to be the territories that the United States has traditionally defended. The area is large enough to be economically self-sus- taining. Yet one imagines that if any re- sponsible government authority advocated intervention in South American political and economic affairs, he would be denounced as an imperialist by the very same people who shout isolationist at anyone who is reluc- tant to see America control the Government of Greece. There is no such a vast gulf between the Russians and ourselves that we could not live together in peace in our own parts of the world. It is implicit in the Russian program to relax the present regimentation of the in- dividual’s life. When that happens the dif- ference between us will be no greater than that between us and the socialist state of Great Britain. The contest of capitalism versus commu- nism will then get down to a question of which works better. That could be settled without warfare. It would seem to be the part of wisdom for America to strengthen capitalism by removing as many as possible of the controls that make it unworkable, such as tariffs, cartels, subsidized prices, labor monopolies, and income taxes that pre- vent constructive enterprise. Nobody is going to stop the expansion of communism by sticking a $250,000,000 thorn into the side of Russia. Communism will be stopped by something that works better. Russian Com- munists are men. They have the same love of God and their fellowmen that other peo- ple have. They can learn, but they will not be taught at the point of a foreign gun. Nor will they learn to admire the capitalist economy unless we Capitalists see to it that it works. We have more to do in North and South America than on the flanks of the Dardanelles. The danger to Americans is not the activity of Comumnist agents but the deterioration of capitalism itself. Sensing our own weak- ness we look for a foreign devil to blame it on, But this is self-deception. Commu- nism would have no chance at all in a world, or even in a part of a world, in which capi- talism was working. Rome did not fall be- cause of the power of the barbarians but because of the weakness of the Romans. In weakening capitalism in order to contain Russia by naked military force, we do not defend ourselves intelligently. The Greek Crisis—Are There Only Two Roads? EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. CHET HOLIFIELD OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of World War II Greece was @ monarchial type of government. In modern times Greece has never been a democracy as we are. Her government was very similar to England’s and in fact her King was a blood relation of the King of England. For possibly a hun- dred years Greece has been within the orbit of British influence, both economi- cally and militarily speaking. This has been true of all the small nations border- ing the Mediterranean Sea. Great Brit- ain has exercised this influence and maintained this power in the Mediter- ranean through her financial invest- ments and naval strength. The famous British life line extends, as you know, through the Straits of Gibraltar along the Grecian peninsula, northeast through the Dardanelles into the Black Sea and southeast through the Suez Canal to India, Burma, and China, The raw materials from the Far East have flowed for decades along this line to Britain, and manufactured articles have been returned to her colonial possessions and eastern markets. During these decades, Russia has al- ways looked with longing eyes toward the warm water outlets on the Baltic and through the Dardanelles. Her far- eastern port, Port Arthur, was too far away for extensive use, and here she was Al1271 blocked by the Japanese. Her northern port, Murmansk, was closed by ice many months of the year. The pressure upon Turkey for free use of the Dardanelles has been constant and in fact accelerated in recent years because of Russia's growing strength and the development of oil in Iraq, Iran, and other parts of the Saudia Arabian area. This development of oi] has been mainly through American-British and Dutch initiative. The importance of oil in in- dustrial as well as military use is para- mount. It is the lifeblood of transpor- tation, whether it be merchant ship or bomber. The desire of Russia to obtain this vital element and the fear of its loss by American-British-Dutch interests is one of the most important factors in Middle East relations. Its complicated tentacles of cause and effect reach into the background of every phase of inter- national relation in the Middle East, from the Palestine problem to the Gre- cian and Turkish political situation. For over a century the British lion has been strong enough to protect and ad- vance her territorial and economic in- terests. The picture has not always been a pretty one. Intrigue, bribery, ag- gression, military threats and action has had its place in maintaining the British Empire and every other empire known to history. In the main, how- ever, order has been maintained. The Pax Britannica, as the Pax Romanas, has been maintained by military strength. But as the Roman Empire finally fell and chaos ensued throughout the Roman orbit, so we today see the disso- lution of the British Empire. Great Britain, weakened financially by two great wars and the virtual independence of her most treasured colonial posses- sions, Canada and Australia, sees now the coming independence of India and Burma in the Far East. She can no longer solve her economic problems on the basis of colonial possessions. The present Labor government is the result of the failure of the former Conservative government, which could not find the answer to the poverty and want of her home-island people. It is a compromise experiment between complete statism and our form of free enterprise. England, therefore, has been forced to admit that she no longer can carry the burdens of the past. She can no longer police the Mediterranean and maintain a balance of power in the Med- iterranean area. Two roads apparently lie open to the people of the United States. Neither road is smooth, both are fraught with great responsibilities and terrible po- tential danger. One road is labeled “nonintervention,” which after a period of civil and interna- tional wars will either end in chaotic anarchy or the dictatorship of the strongest nation involved. In the back- ground and participating openly or clandestinely, stands Russia—awaiting the prize of the Dardanelles—oil and the extension of her philosophy of life in the Mediterranean sphere. The second road is labeled “interven- tion.” This is the road which President
A1272 Truman has advocated. His statement was very frank and open. There was no attempt to evade or becloud the issues and responsibilities involved. I will not attempt to repeat his sub- stantiating reasons therefor at this point. One point. is very plain: We are chal- lenged as never before to adopt a foreign policy which will assume the world lead- ership commensurate with our stature among the nations. Once we have made this decision, there is no drawing back into national or hemispheric isolation. Once the die is cast, we will be expected to follow through with every resource at our command—dollars and lives. Before we take this step along the fateful road the President has pointed out, let us pause and ask a few questions. Are the American people properly in- formed regarding the seriousness of this policy of intervention? Are the American people united in the Policy advocated? Are the American people ready to openly declare that the philosophy of de- mocracy as we practice it and the phi- losophy of communism as practiced by Russia cannot exist together in the same world? Are we, the American people, ready to say that there is no field of compromise between these two philosophies of gov- ernment? Have we decided that the United Na- tions organization is a futile and func- tionless shadow? Are we ready to go back to the bi- lateral and unilateral solutions which brought the two great wars of the twen- tieth century? Are we ready to junk the multilateral solutions envisaged in the framework of the Atlantic Charter and the United Na- tions organization? Are we, the American people, ready to go into a third world war, if it becomes necessary, to combat the spread of com- munism, and culture the spread of de- mocracy in the countries as near to Rus- sia as Cuba and Mexico are to us? I am not ready to answer all these questions in the affirmative. I do not have enough information from either my President or my people. T do not know yet that there are only two roads to choose from. There may be a third road as yct undisclosed. Maybe we can afford to pause a few hours or days in study and prayer before we choose to take either of the two fate- ful roads now facing us. H. R. 2455 Should Be Enacted EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, although my district does not include the mining areas of Michigan, I naturally am con- cerned about any measure which may come before this House which benefits my State and this great Nation. I have had called to my attention H. R. 2455, a bill introduced by my col- league, Mr. Russet, of Nevada, which is intended to stimulate the mining in- dustry of this Nation into new activity, help in the conservation of our mineral resources and provide strategic and crit- ical materials for the national stock piles. The effect of this bill, as far as the Mich- igan copper mines are concerned, will be to permit them to operate, regardless of the market price of copper, until their precious reserves of red metal are ex- hausted. As I read the reports of the Interior Department regarding our domestic min- eral position, I believe it behooves us to mine whatever marginal ore bodies we can in mines which already are open and equipped so that this Nation will not lose one pound of recoverable metal in our domestic reserves. Within reason, the cost is not so important right now as is having the metal above ground, where we can use or stock pile it against an- other national emergency. As I understand the bill of the gentle- man from Nevada [Mr. RussEtL], and the similar bill introduced by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ALLEN], it is intended to stabilize prices to the mines for all the strategic and critica] minerals which we need for the national defense and security without increasing the prices of those materials for industrial use. In other words, regardless of a possible drop in copper prices, where there will be a loss to the national economy, such as would occur if the Michigan copper mines shut down permanently before their ore reserves were mined out, these mines will receive what help is necessary in order to put the copper where it belongs—above ground—and where it will be an asset to our great Nation. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD My colleague the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Benn&tTT], in whose dis- trict these copper mines are located, un- derstands the economics of mining much better than do I. I understand he is supporting H. R. 2455, and that this bill has the strong backing of his mining constituents. In fact, a future drop in the copper price without some plan to conserve the Michigan ore bodies will not only lose millions of pounds of copper but will ruin a large section of my State. I congratulate the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. RUSSELL] on his far-sighted measure, and am glad to say that I shall support it when it comes to the floor of this House. European Voting Statistics EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. EDWIN C, JOHNSON QF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 26 (legislative day of Monday, March 24), 1947 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Recently there have been official references to the democracy of Greece. In this connec- tion it is interesting to note out of 17 European states, only Greece, Belgium, Spain, and Switzerland do not counte- nance woman suffrage. Also, that only Portugal and Spain have a lower voting record than Greece. Out of a population of 7,500,000, only a little over 1,060,000 votes were cast. I ask unanimous con- sent to insert in the REcorp a table of European voting statistics. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Europe—Voting statistics 1 By latest census figures (source, World Almanac). ; Estimate ted. x «No jons under Franco. Nores.—1. Onty other countries besides Greece without woma n suffrage are: smaller popular participation in elections han Greeoo: eigon | 10 percent of population; 2. Only « countries with Votes cast, from latest official sources (Report of Allied Mission to observe Greck elections, p. 32:) Total popula tion, 7,500,000. Total votes cast, 1,106,510, equals 14.74 percent. widows and mothers of members of armed forces and resistants. ium, Spain, and Switzerland. Spain, sero. 3. Only other remaining monarchies besides Greece: United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Rel- glum, and Eumania. ¥
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Sales Tax on Liquor Advertising EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR CAPPER OFr KANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 26 (legislative day of Monday. March 24), 1947 Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I have before me excerpts from a statement made by Dr. Clinton N. Howard before a@ subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee as printed in Progress mag- azine for March 1947. I ask unanimous consent that this appeal for a sales tax on liquor advertising be printed in the Appendix of the REcorp. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Demanps SALES Tax ON Liquor ADS My name is Clinton N. Howard, general superintendent of the International Reform Federation, incorporated 1895, and editor of its official publication Progress, which has 8 paid circulation in every State, with head- quarters at 134 B Street NE. and 300-302-306 East Capitol Street. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com- mittee, we favor the passage of the present bill as it stands 100 percent as a choice be- tween what it proposes than to continue the status quo We would support this bill or any other bill that in good faith sought to rehabilitate the terrifying crop of alcoholics, with the certainty that the present number will ‘ncrease under present conditions. KNOW YOUR CITY It has already been testified by Mr. Donald Clemmer, District Corrections Director, that from 1934 to 1946 a total of 137,073 commit- ments to District jails, or 61 percent of all commitments were for drunkenness. He placed the number of chronic alcoholics fil- tering through the courts at 36,000. This does not include the number who have 610 forfeited to avoid going to court, nor the probable larger number who are not ap- prehended by the police. It was testified that one day last week there were 539 per- sons in District prisons on drunk charges. This does not take into account the high percentage of criminal offenses in which drink 1s a major contributing factor, many courts placing it as high as 30 to 50 percent. And it does not include those chronic alco- holics suffering from delirium tremens sent to the hospitals, 4,000 of them sent to Gal- linger Hospital in 1946, an increase of 100 percent in 2 years. A TERRIBLE INDICTMENT James V. Bennett, Director of Prisons, stated that drunkenness cuts across the de- partments of correction, police, custodial, health, courts, mental disorders, suicide, and crime, rnd estimated that chronic alcoholism cost the city no less than $2,500,000 annually. Captain Milliken, chief of women's divi- sion, testified that 50 percent of the 7,000 women who pass through the District jails every year are there from drunkenness or disorderly conduct resulting from drinking, many of them women of breeding and intel- lect, including women lawyers, professors, accountants, stenographer teachers, nurses, social workers and theatrica) folks, from some of Washington's first families. She testified that because women are af- flictcd more by hypertension than men, alco- hol has a worse effect on them. “Add alco- hol to hypertension and you have dynamite. It usually takes two policemen to handle a 90-pound package of alcoholic femininity,” she asserted. Without going further into the facts al- ready disclosed in the first 2 days of this hearing it must be apparent that some kind of corrective legislation is imperative. Like Senator Murray, we think it was, who said on another bill pending, he would support this bill or something worse rather than en- dure the present intolerable and inhumane situation. A CRIMINAL BUSINESS The bill, H. R. 496, under consideration is what might be considered experimental legislation. It establishes a precedent in dealing with alcohol addicts. While the rehabilitation of alcohol addicts has been attempted with some success in several of the States, the method of financing the cost of clinical operation is new, and to some extent difficult of execution, because it is dealing with an industry and the distribu- tors of its product that has a reputation of concealment, of adulteration, of illegal prac- tices, which legislation in every State and from time tmmemorial has _ recognized, whether under prohibition, regulation. or State control. It is unlike any other mer- cantile business. NO INHERENT RIGHT We do not have to establish clinics, nor prisons, courts, nor a police force to take care of the customers of the grocery, dry goods, the restaurant, or any other kind of business. These trades have an inherent right to exist, but the Supreme Court has held that the liquor traffic has no inherent right to exist. “It is a right conferred by a legislative act, a mere temporary permit which can be sus- pended at any time by a vote of the people.” Also it must be remembered that the 5,000 addicts, and the 36,000 estimated confirmed drunkerds get their surplus liquors at these licensed outlets, despite the laws which for- bid the sale of liquor to drunkards or those who have had a sufficient quantity. But a sign orf the wall of a bar which read “No sale to drunkards” had underneath the words, “He is not drunk who on the floor can raise bi. glass and ask for more.” An old logger came in who had carried a thirst from the camp to town, seeing an ad- dict lying unconscious on the floor, he pointed to the object and said to the bartender, “Give me a quart of that.” Of course, he got it, addict or no addict. The drink addicts are as well known to the Keeper of the bar as they are to the judge at the bar. They see them oftener. They make them. Such business should carry its own casual- ties by the proposed plan or a better one, but, in my judgment, it should be financed by a direct and sufficient appropriation and not upon an uncertain and varying amount, de- Pending upon the quantity of alcohol con- sumed. That ts like letting the fire depart- ment depend upon the fire losses, with a lot of fire bugs in the department. Thus you encourage the sale of intoxicating liquors to increase the appropriation to hospitalize and rehabilitate their victims. ANOTHER BLACK MARKET The Federal Government has never suc- ceeded in suppressing illicit stills, or the States successful in suppressing or regulat- ing its sale. The proposal] to apply a sales tax to the liquor traffic is not an easy one to collect. We fear there would be a large amount of liquors that would escape taxa- tion in the bootleg market, with a revival of the evils charged against prohibition, from the thousands of stills now in illegal operation and those stills and blind pigs that would blossom in the city cellars, or exclusive apartment houses by those seeking to avoid the tax. Also there is something tronical in the suggestion that the victims of the drink traffic impoverished by excessive indulgence should be assessed a sales tax which would be passed on from the dispenser to the con- sumer. It also imposes a tax upon those A1273 who are able to carry their liquor who have not yet been overcome by this new scientific sickness, making the moderate drinker finan- cially responsible for the sins of the immoder- ate drinker. the addict and the drunkard. Last evening at dinner a former promi- nent Member of Congress, representing for three terms a great industrial district, ex- pressed his conviction that an industry which is responsible for making the alcohol ad- dict should be responsible for the cost of his rehabilitation. I may say that the man was a Hebrew banker and looked upon this leg- islation as a business proposition and not from a moral or ethical standpoint. He said, “Such a business as the liquor traffic ought to carry its own casualties." It seems reasonable that the Nquor busi- ness should hospitalize their own victims, and this bill, however indirectly, does hold the traffic to a modicum of responsibility for supplying their customers with excessive nar- cotic poison. But we can afford to overlook these incongruities if the legislation pro- posed would result in the rehabilitation of those who have become confirmed addicts by their excesses until they have lost all semblance of self-control. UNEQUAL TAXATION However, we insist this tax upon bar re- ceipts to rehabilitate drunkards is in fact &@ tax upon the consumers, as the amount collected by the imposition of the tax, whether 1 percent or 8 percent, as in the case of all other taxes, will be passed on to the customers, exactly as the sales tax upon cosmetics, jewelry. handbags. or any other article of merchandise. You ask the price, and the clerk will say, if it is a sealskin coat, “$3,000 plus tax,” or if a handbag sold to some poor woman for $2, you get the same story, $2 and 20 percent tax. It does not seem a hardship upon drinkers to impose a 1 or 3 percent tax upon intoxicating drink, when women pay 20 percent tax on their cosmetics. TAX UPON REVENUE However, the city could well afford to in- augurate this new and worthy experiment from the tax money which it already receives from the sale of intoxicants. According to the annual report to the Commissioners by the Alcoholic Control Board, the total re- ceipts from District liquor taxes and license fees for the year ending June 1, after deduct- ing all overhead charges of collection and administration, was $3,401,873.31 an increase of $305,821.68 over the previous year. The official budget estimate for 1947 1s $4,700,000. A more simple and direct method of raising the million it ts hoped to raise by this tax on gallonage would be to pass an act that would impound one-third of all tax money received from the license fees to rehabilitate those who have become hopeless addicts. The cost of collection und administration would be much less, as it would not set up another bureau and put additional men and women on the public pay roll. SIMPLE AND SENSIBLE METHOD If it is argued that the city cannot afford to divert this revenue from rum to the re- juvenation and rehabilitation of alcohol addicts, a simple and quick method of obtain- ing it without encroaching upon the 84,000,- 000 now realized from the approximately 1,800 outlets licensed by the ABC Board would be an increase in the license fee, an immediate, inexpensive, and painless methcd of realizing the needed amount. For ex- ample, there are class A liquor stores which do a business of $100,000 per year at a cost of $750, which could be doubled and still be less than 1 to 3 percent of their gross income. I have taken occasion to examine the ads appearing in the Washington papers under the heading “Business opportunities.” In ® recent edition of the Sunday Star, I found 85 liquor-serving restaurants, liquor stores, and off-sale groceries listed for sale,
Al274 each indicating the weekly or monthly in- come. BLACK MARKETS IN PERMITS One reports a profit of $15,000 yearly, another of $15,000 weekly, another on Con- necticut Avenue $425, daily, or an annual business of $133,000, and a downtown res- taurant with on-sale liquor license with an annual income of $286,000. These elaborate off-sale liquor stores pay only $750 tax. A class C tax for such restaurants as the Occidental or any one of the six on-sale restauzants on the block adjoining this House Office Building on B Street SE., $500; beer and wine licenses, $200. The class A license under which they operate costs them 8750! The Chairman of the ABC Board testified before a Senate committee last year that the resale value of a liquor license in some instances ran as high as $50,000. Rector's restaurant in the adjoining block was on the market for 40,000 It applied for a class © license. We opposed it because there were already six saloons on that block opposite the Con- gressional Library. Despite our opposition, which was supported by four of the liquor dealers, the license was granted, and the place was sold for $65,000 within a month, 8 $25,000 increase on a $500 investment. The proprietor of the Neptune Restaurant four doors away recently bought the half interest of his partner for $40,000, which represents an 680,000 business on a $500 tax invest- ment. This black market in liquor licenses is in constant operation with 1,800 licenses in operation. Doubling the fee would support several liquor clinics without a sales tax on liquor. TAX ADVERTISING INCOME But there is another source of income from the sale of liquor that runs up into the millions, which is entirely untaxed, and that is the income of the newspapers from liquor advertisements, wholesale, and retail. The amount spent for advertising by the distillers of the larger producing capacity is $75,000,000 annually, and by beer of the larger breweries $25,000,000 besides their income from retall stores, night clubs, cock- tail lounges and restaurants operating bare, perhaps a total, including beer and wine broadcasts, of $150,000,000. WET WASHINGTON POST The purpose of all advertising is to in- crease sales and the liquor trade recognizes this stupendcus sum paid to the newspapers as a good investment. The dally papers in Washington get their share as is evidenced by the scrap books of liquor ads which we have on file at our headquarters. Let me give you a few recent examples. The Washington Post in a recent issue had 50 columns of liquor ads. By contrast the New York Times in an edition double in size had only 14 columns, while the papers published by Senator ArrnHur Carrer and the Gannett string of 21 daily papers with & total circulation of 10,000,000 do not pub- lish any liquor advertisements and never have. It does not seem unreasonable, there- fore, to suggest that the papers of Washing- ton who have an income of millions annually from promoting the sale of liquor should bear at Jeast a part, if not the entire cost of main- taining the clinics for rehabilitating the drunkards they helped to make, with every news and sporting broadcast boosting at both ends Senate, Premium, Globe, National, Arrow, and Valley Forge beer. This is no argument in oposition to the pending proposal or questioning the good faith of ites sponsors; it is a suggestion as to some form of amendment to the pending bill before it gets to the floor which will more quickly, easily, and cheaply accom- plish the same result, and at the same time cut off or reduce the supply of drunks, that is making Washington a hissing and a by- word from ocean to ocean. WASHINGTON WETTEST On more than a dozen occasions during the past several years we have called at- tention in our official publication, Progress, and in addressec to ministerial meetings and pulpits to the fact that the consumption of Uquor, that ts high powered spirits, is greater in the District than in any other State or similar area in the country. Not only greater in gallonage but greater per capita, more than double the consump- tion, more than three times the consump- tion, over a period of years. Time and again these figures have been challenged despite their official origin. These figures are ob- talnable through the Department of Internal Revenue for every State tn the Union and confirmed by the District tax collector whose department issues stamps for the sale of whisky, gin, brandy, champagne, wine above 15 percent alcoholic strength, and beer for the District over a period of years, show- ing a startling upward per capita consump- tion in all categories of intoxicating liquors, of low and high alcoholic content. We have here charts giving the consump- tion for every State in the Union which gives the pennant for alcoholic consumption to Washington, or the District, over every other State, and the District reports twice the gal- lonage of the 10 wettest States and 3 times as much for the country at large. This is doubtless due to the higher advertising pres- sure in the newspapers of Washington than 1s found in any other city of the United States. FIGURES GIVE FACTS Now that the facts have been officially presented to this committee by Guy W. Pear- son, of the Tax Department, and by the year and in detail by Dr. Joseph L. Gilbert, who has furnished us with a copy of his: testi- mony, they will no longer be denied. Mr. Pearson placed the consumption for the cur- rent year at 5,000,000 gallons, or 25,000,000 fifths for hard liquors. That is 12 bottles of whisky like this [holding up a Seagram's pint] for every man, woman, boy, girl, and infant in the District per year. We restate the totals for the purpose of showing a source of revenue which would finance the alcoholic clinics proposed by this bill without imposing an additional sales tax or setting up a special fund. Note the mounting increase in sales for the past 3 years: 1944 sales of distilled liquor were 3,141,000 gallons; 1945, 4,175,000 gallons; 1946, 4,583,000 gallons. Champagne for 1945, 22,000 gallons; 1946, 57,900 gallons; wine above 14 percent, 1945, 555,630 gallons; 1946, 880,000 gallons; while wines of 13 percent and under are untaxed, with beer, 31 gallons per barre] at 60 cents. RETAIL STAMP TAX Note that the total revenue for the top consumption is 82,000,000 for the first 6 months of 1947, approximately $4,000,000 for the year. This tax is lower than in any other area in the United States. On distilled spirits the tax in the District is 50 cents per gallon, while over the line in Maryland it is $1 per gallon. On champagne, the rich man’s drink, the District tax is only 15 cents per gallon, and on wine above 14-percent alcohol the tax is only 10 cents a gallon, On 13 percent wine and under, there is no tax. The line drawn between 13 and 14, 10 cents above and noth- ing below. If these taxes were only doubled, and brought up to the national average, it would at once produce the needed 64,000,000 for the purpose of the bill. Indeed, the reduc- tion in the number of alcoholics, and the cost of their arrest and maintenance, would APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD possibly foot the bill, as 90 percent of the misdemeanant ropulation of the Occoquan Workhouse are there on charges of intoxica- tion, at a cost approaching $500,000 a year. The reduction in the cost for the city jalis, police, and courts, would more than mike up the entire cost of the clinics. Judge McMahon in his illuminating testi- mony yesterday sald the cost of disposing of drunks in his court was $30,000, and the fines recovered $2,000, represent a loss of $28,000 to the taxpayers on addicts in his court. If the clinics would reduce the ad- dicts by a half only, it would save the tax- payers $14,000 in one court. JESSE SUTOR QUOTED In this connection may I quote an illu- minating peragraph from the double-column article appearing on the editorial page of the Sunday Star of February 23, from the versatile pen of its long-time and very able columnist, Mr. Jesse Sutor, which is well worthy of your serious consideration. I suggest also that you read, as 1 ussume you have reed, the three illuminating and lengthy articles recently appearing in the Star by George Kennedy with the accom- panying editorial in the Star of February 15 entitled ‘Alcoholism in the District.” A THOUGHTFUL SUGGESTION Let me quote briefly from the article by Mr, Sutor: “From the best sources of information it appears that there is considerable com- munity support for this proposed measure but there are those who feel that a com- panion measure would be of material as- sistance in accomplishing the desired pur- poses. In the proposed legal recognition of alcoholism as a ‘disease,’ there arises an im- plied obligation to supply preventive as well as curative measures Without preventive measures the cure of those who have already contracted the ‘disease’ will be more uncer- tain and also new crops of alcoholics will be needing the cure. “Those who adhere to this latter school of thought believe that the excessive number of places in the District licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages, the elaborate window displays of liquor and the blatent advertising programs of the trade are not calculated to encourage the temperate use of alcoholic beverages but would encourage their wider The case could not be more succinctly sayings sink down into your ears.” Mr. Sutor advisedly says, “In the proposed legal recog- nition of alcoholism as a disease there arises an implied obligation to supply preventive as well as curative measures,” to avoid the cre- ation of a new crop “to take the places of those who have been cured of the disease,” and he suggests as a remedy ‘‘a reduction in the excessive number of places in the District licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages, the abolition of the elaborate window dis- plays of liquors and the blatent advertising programs of the trade in the press and on the radio calculated to encourage the temperate use of alcoholic beverages but would en- courage their intemperate use.” To this we would add, prohibit the advertising of liquors altogether in the press and over the radio in the District, or let them pay the cost of main- taining the clinics for the army of drunkards they help to create. We suggest that the bill under considera- tion, in the light of the facts disclosed at this heartng, be recommitted for further study, so that some of these worthy sugges- tions may be included, not delayed as an amendment, but as a part of the original act. We have waited for years for the bill; we will all be dead when the amendments pass.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Changes in Cloture Rule EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND OF CALIFORNIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 26 (legislative day of Monday, March 24), 1947 Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I desire to have printed in the Recorp several editorials relative to the desirabil- ity of a change in the cloture rule, one from the Denver Post, one from the St. Louis Star-Times; then, very interest- ingly, three from southcrn newspapers— one from the El Paso Times, one from the Virginian-Pilot, of Norfolk, Va., and one from the Citizen, of Asheville, N. C. There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the Rec- orD, as follows: [From the Denver Post of February 21, 1947] FREE BUT UNDEMOCRATIC Another attempt is being made to curb abuse of the ancient Senate freedom of un- limited debate. Senators KNOWLAND, of Cali- fornia and SaLTONSTALL, of Massachusetts are advocating an amendment of the cloture rule with a view of making filibusters more diffi- cult. They propose that the Senate, by a simple majority vote, be allowed to shut off debate on a motion or a bill. Under the presont rule, a two-thirds majority ts re- quired. As a practical matter, this means that cloture can be imposed only when the southern bloc is willing. The principal argument advanced by southern Senators against the proposed rule change is that it would be ineffective. In this connection, they say cloture has been in- voked only 16 times in 40 years, that it was voted only 3 times and that in 10 of the 13 failures it would have failed even under a simple majority rule. . Probably no senatorial practice is more dis- gusting to the American public than the filibuster. By no stretch of the imagination can it be justified as an exercise of the right of free speech and unlimited debate. The purpose of the filibuster is to obstruct. The reason for debate ts to clarify. Senators en- gaged in a filibuster do everything but discuss the merits of the measure they are trying to talk to death. They may read passages from the Bible. whole pages from the Conares- SIONAL RECorD, excerpts from books—any- thing to kill time. The theory of the filibusters is that the end justifies the means. With this idea in mind, they feel free to employ any strategy which will prevent a vote on the measure they oppose. That is not democratic. It is indefensible. The tradition oi full debate is one the Senate should cherish: But abuse of a priv- ilege is the most certain way to discredit and lese it. Under the filibuster technique the privilege of unlimited debate 1s misconstrued as a license to defeat what logically is the ultimate aim of any honest debate—a de- Cision on the issue under discussion, Apologists for the filibuster device contend that cloture is an infringement upon the right of free speech. But no human right is unlimited. The extent to which one indi- vidual may exercise his rights depends upon where and when he bezins to interfere with the rights of his fellows. Any citizen has a right to stand on a sidewalk. But when 1,000 people insist upon -xercising that right, at the same time, in the same block, they become an obstruction. Each of the 96 Members of the Senate has the right of free speech. But manifestly all 96 have no right to insist upen speaking at the same time. The very fact that under present rules the Senate reserves the power to vote cloture by a two-thirds majority shows it recognizes that occasions may arise when it is necessary to restrict to stop debate. It is not unreasonable that a majority of the Senate should have power to invoke cloture and prevent or stop a filibuster. [From the St. Louis Star-Times of February 20, 1947] FILIBUSTER SIDESHOW While other matters have been occupying center stage in Congress, off in the wings a subcommittee of the Senate Rules Com- mittee has been considering a proposal that would end the filibuster. It received little attention until it ended yesterday, and that’s a pity. The Nation should not have been deprived of the spectacle of southern Demo- crats doing a double somersault from the high trapeze of reason without a net. Hard pressed in logic, the southerners came up with a two-wnay-stretch argument aguinst the proposal of Senators KNOWLAND, of California, and SALTONSTALL, of Massa- chusetts, that debate be closable on a simple majority vote. Present Senate rules— which require two-thirds vote for cloture— are too valuable to be tinkered with, said the Senators. And then, without drawing a@ full breath, they rushed on to say that the Knowland-Saltonstall proposal wouldn’t make any difference anyway, because cloture is seldom called for and, when it is, would fail as often on a requirement for majority as on that for the two-thirds. How they can have it both ways—impor- tant and unimportant—at the same time is, of course, a little difficult to follow. If a double point is to be made, it should be this: The unlimited filibuster puts the will of the majority at the disposal of the whim of a minority, and the realization that cloture is most difficult under present rules fre- quently keeps the majority from doing any- thing about it. Only 16 times in the past 40 years has cloture been called for in the Senate. But the number of times a small group of willful men has been able under the protection of the two-thirds rule to talk praiseworthy legislation to death is many times greater. In at least three instances, moreover, a proposal for cloture failed al- though it did have a majority vote. Unfortunately for all this logic, the move to throw the anachronism of the fillibuster into the discard will probably fail. But at least the prospects for action are brighter now than at any time within long memory. There are more newcomers to the Senate around than Washington has seen in many days, and it is the newcomers who are justi- flably annoyed with this device for thwarting the majority. The Republican freshmen, who have re- fused to bow to defeatism, but instead are drumming their proposal through the sub- committee, deserve a round of thanks for their fight. And the southerners deserve at least a gallery giggle for their entertaining acrobatics. [From the El Paso Times of January 26, 1947] STREAMLINE SENATE DEBATE A filibuster in the Congress of the United States is not democracy. The man conduct- ing the filibuster may think it is his right to talk as long as he wishes, but, by doing so, he is preventing an orderly vote on a meas- ure. The people of the United States are entitled to more consideration than that. It is encouraging that resolutions to change the present Senate rule on cloture are to be considered in hearings opening early this week before a Senate Rules and Administration Subcommittee. Al1275 The proposals call for applying cloture by @ majority vote. Unless cloture is applied, Senate debate is unlimited and filibusters can flourish. Senate rules may be changed by a majority vote. The rules for procedure in the United States Senate were originally based largely on practice in the British House of Com- mons. However, the House of Commons changed its procedure 65 years ago so that the majority could limit debate, whereas the Senate allowed debate to be unlimited until 30 years ago, and then allowed it to be lim- ited only by a two-thirds vote. The change in Great Britain came about because of dilatory tactics employed by the Irish Nationalists to get home rule for Ire- land. In 1882 Prime Minister Gladstone ob- tained the passuge of a rule in the House of Commons whereby the previous question could be moved, so as to end debate, when- ever the majority of the House obviously wanted a vote to be taken. Gladstone ex- Plaincd that previously all members had de- ferred to majority sentiment, but since then a body of men had entcred Parliament to whom its traditions meant npthing—a polite way of saying that they weren’t gentlemen acting like gentlemen. Now the House of Commons acting through its speaker has additional methods of sup- pressing dilatory and obstructionist tactics. The Speaker of the House of Commons is expected to be above politics and to function as a political neutral. At first the rules of the Senate allowed the majority to close debate by adopting a mo- tion for the previous question. This provi- sion was omitted from the Senate rules when these wore changed in 1806; there was com- plaint that it had been abused. It has re- mained in the House rules, as one of the methods by which debate is strictly control- led in the House. On February 3, 1917, President Wilson broke diplomatic relations with Germany because of the resumption of unrestricted German submarine warfare. On February 27 he asked Congress to authorize the arming of Ameri- can merchant vessels against submarine at- tack. The House complied and 72 Senators said they would vote to comply if given the chance, but with Congress due to adjourn on March 4 the armed neutrality bill was killed by a filibuster of a dozen or so Sena- tors. Thereupon the President armed mer- chant ships without specific legislative au- thority. The new Congress was immediately called Into special session, and a conference of Democratic and Republican leaders agreed to comply with the President's demand to pro- vide that debate in the Senate might be limited in the future. The conference agreed on a new rule whereby cloture might he ap- plied by a two-thirds vote. An amendment was Offered to make it by majority vote in- stead of by two-thirds, and there was good reason to believe that the amendment would have carried if put to a vote. But Senator Penrose of Pennsylvania objected thut the amendment violated the bipartisan agree- ment, and its sponsor (Hollis, of New Hamp- shire) withdrew it. The new rule was then adopted by vote of 76 to 3. Since then cloture has been applied on only four occasions. Motions for cloture on the antilynching bill in 1939 and on the anti-poll-tax bill in 1942 and 1944 failed to achieve even a majority vote. In 1946 a mo- tion for cloture on the British-loan bill re- sulted in a tie vote; a motion for cloture on the FEPC bill received a majority but not a two-thirds vote. [From the Norfolk (Va.) Virginian-Pilot of January 14, 1947] FORESTALLING FILIBUSTERS During the brief but bitter filibuster over the seating of Brtso, Senator Tart warned