2542 can be accomplished by administrative ac- tion. “FURTHER STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS “In several areas the Commission on Or- ganization recommended that further in- vestigation be made to determine appropriate courses of action. To carry out these rec- ommendations a number of staff studies are being set up within the executive branch. “Federal field service “The recommendations of the Commission on Organization for the location of man- agement responsibilities in the executive branch have generally been adopted. The Commission found numerous deficiencies in the application of management prac- tices to Federal field activities, but did not provide general guides for the Government- wide improvement of fleld management. It stated that this is primrarily a problem for the President and department heads in co- operation with the Congress. The proposed study will review present systems of fleld management and develop recommendations for improving this important area of gove ernmenta! activity. “Federal retirement systems “Several different retirement systems for various groups of Federal employees are now in operation. These various systems will be examined from the viewpoint of types of benefits, conditions of eligibility, employee contributions, accounting and financing, and administrative efficiency. A study in which a number of agency representatives will par- ticipate is being organized. “Overseas administration “The entire problem of administering over- seas operations will be studied and recom- mendations made for organization and oper- ating practices which will provide for more consistent and more efficient administration of governmental programs outside the limits of the United States. “Land management “In view of the conflicting opinions ex- pressed by members of the Hoover Comnris- sion on the best organization for administra- tion of public lands, a project is being or- ganized to appraise these views and provide recommendations. “GOVERNMENT-WIDE MANAGEMENT IMPROVE= MENT ACTIVITIES “Important steps are being taken through- out the Government to improve personnel administration, property and records man- agement, budgeting and accounting, and gen- eral management practices. The central management agencies—the General Services Administration, the Civil Service Commis- sion, and the Bureau of the Budget—will pro- vide leadership in these areas. “Bureau of the Budget “The Bureau of the Budget will exercise continued leadership in developing bettor management and aggressive management im- provement programs throughout the Federal Government. The Bureau will review agency plans for appraising operations under title X of the Classification Act of 1949, and evalu- ate progress and achievements in carrying out management improvement programs as an integral part of the budget process. “In cooperation with congressional com- mittees the Bureau will continue to improve the budget process along the lines of the performance budget recommended by the Hoover Commission. This means further simplifying appropriation structures; im- proving activity classifications; and helping to improve methods of work measurement and reporting in the agencies to provide a more adequate basis for estimating budget requirements. “Joint accounting project “The joint accounting project to improve financial administration in the Federal Gov- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ernment will be carried forward cooperative- ly by the General Accounting Office, the Treasury Department and the Bureau of the Budget. The major objectives during 1950 are: “1, To complete development of a body of accounting principles, standards, and ter- minology to assure that accounting processes and financial reporting in the Federal Gov- ernment are comparable and consistent. “2. To further reorient the audit function toward a comprehensive audit at the site of accounting operations. “8. To improve the central facilities in the Treasury Department for bringing together and producing information on the financial condition and operations of the Government. “4. To improve accounting in individual agencies and integrate accounting and budg- eting processes; develop the accrual system of accounting; improve cost figures on an activity or program and unit basis; and ex- tend the use of business type budgets for Government business enterprises. “Civil Service Commission “To improve Government personnel ad- ministration, the Civil Service Commission will continue to give emphasis to a staff de- velopment program and will also emphasize the improvement of operations in agency personne! offices. “The staff development program has two objectives: (1) To assure the recruitment of outstanding young people for beginning jobs in professional, scientific, technical, and ad- ministrative posts; and (2) to assure the development of capable staff to fill top execu- tive posts as needs arise. “To improve the operation of agency per- sonnel offices, the Commission will define the nature and scope of agency personnel programs and develop improved operating practices and standards. “General Services Administration “The new General Services Administration is following closely the recommendations of the Commission on Organization in its plans for improving both the central activities and agency operations in the important fields of property and records management. These include the development of policy, sound organization, and streamlined procedures in the handling of real estate, personal prop- erty, records, and supply activities. For ex- ample, in the area of supply the Administra- tion is making plans to expedite the develop= ment of uniform specifications and a stand- ard catalog of supplies and equipment; sim- plifying bidding and contracting procedures; improving stock and inventory controls; and developing proper traffic management poli- cies and practices. The Department of De- fense, the General Services Administration, and the Bureau of the Budget are taking necessary steps to develop areas of under- standing on the respective spheres of re- sponsibility between the military and civilian supply systems. The Administration will also conduct surveys of agency property and records management practices to make ap- propriate reports to the President and the Congress. “DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES “Department of State “Public Law 78 of the Eighty-first Congress provided for reorganization of the State De- partment along the lines of the Hoover Com- mission's recommendations. The agency has made real progress in converting to the new basis of operation and will complete the re- organization as rapidly as circumstances per- mit. “One major step remains to be considered— that is the feasibility of integrating the Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel into a single foreign affairs service. The Secretary of State has appointed a committee to give him recommendations on this prob- lem. MARCH 1 “Department of the Treasury “Major improvements are being made in organization and procedures of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Three new installa- tions have been made to find the best systems for handling mass paper operations. As sufficient experience is obtained, additional installations will be made. The Bureau is also establishing a more adequate audit of income-tax returns. “The United States Coast Guard and the Bureau of Customs are reviewing all their activities to simplify operating procedures, Some improvements will require legislation, but many are being made through adminis- trative action. These programs are signifi- cant not only in relieving burdensome re- quirements on the public, but also in terms of our general interest in strengthening for- eign trade. “In addition to the internal management projects, the Department’s fiscal bureaus will continue to modernize Treusury—Federal Re- serve bank operating procedures. “Department of Defense “The Department of Defense will continue to make progress in unifying the armed forces and realizing possible economies without jeopardizing the effectiveness of our national defense. “Emphasis will be given to the integration of strategic and logistic planning, unification of commands, unification of medical services, Joint use of facilities and services, and co- ordination of programs in training and edu- cation, research and development, construc- tion, communications, and supply. “A comprehensive study of organization within the three services is being planned. “Post Office Department “The Postmaster General is setting up a small management research staff to work constantly at the job of finding better ways to carry out the responsibilities of the Post Office Department. This staff will support the work of the Advisory Board, to be ap- pointed by the President, to consult with the Postmaster General on the solution of operating problems in that agency. “The principal management objectives of the Postmaster General in 1950 are to mod- ernize and mechanize matl handling and money-order procedures, and to improve motor-vehicle management. Over a period of years improvements in these areas can contribute economies and better postal service. “If legislation permitting accounting re- forms is enacted at this session of Congress, immediate action will be taken to set up an accounting system which can be used effec- tively by management to improve operations in the Department. “Department of the Interior “The Secretary of the Interior is setting up &@ small management research staff to give continuous attention to the whole problem of management improvement throughout the Department. Early emphasis will be given to studies of the organization struc- ture which will be most effective in carrying out the present and future responsibilities of the Department. Studies will be directed to such problems as: “1, Integrating the various resource con- servation and development programs of the Department, with particular emphasis on their interrelationships in the field; “2. Providing for regular and systematic review and evaluation of operations; and “3. Determining organization and mane agement requirements for effective execu- tion of the new responsibility for the admin- istration of Guam, American Samoa, and the Pacific Trust Territories. “In addition, work is under way to revise and improve accounting and reporting sys- tems in several bureaus of the Department. The Bureau of Land Management is plan-
1950 uing a complete revision and simplification of the land record system which is expected to produce significant savings, increased ef- ficiency, and better public service. “Department of Agriculture “The Secretary of Agriculture is making a study of Department organization. Em- phasis is being placed particularly on the development of an organization which will further eliminate overlapping, improve co- ordination of progiams at the county level and better harmonize service to individual farmers with respect to educational, produc- tion and adjustment functions. This study will include relationships between the De- partment and State agencies and the use of farmer committees in the administration of Federal agricultural programs. “Department of Commerce “The Secretary of Commerce has undcr way a comprehensive review of the Depart- ment's services to the business community. Programs of the Department are being geared more closely to the current necds of busi- ness, and organization and procedures are being improved to make the Department's services more effective Recommendations of the Commission on Organization, dealing with organization of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, are being fully taken into account in these studies. “Veterans’ Administration “In 1950 the Veterans’ Administration will make a distribution of dividends on national service Mfe insurance. Approximately 22,- 500,000 policies are involved. Modern me- chanical methods, effectively utilizing micro- film, punched cards, and electric accounting machines are being adnpted to the complex problems of this mass production project. “The agency hus also developed a simpli- fled system of processing benefit applica- tions and preparing records by machine methods. Service testing is under way in the training piogram and will be extended to the medical program Studies of the sys- tem's adaptability to other programs will be made during 1950.” The VICE PRESIDENT. If there are no other routine matters to be presented, the Chair will recognize the Senator from Connecticut. PEACE AND THE PROBLEMS OF ATOMIC ENERGY Mr. MCMAHON. Mr. President, as a Senator of the United States, I feel ob- ligated to address myself once again to the overriding and climactic problem of atomic energy. The first step toward world sanity has been taken. Wherever peace is cherished, men are seeking anew to rid themselves of atomic and hydrogen bombs. Everywhere men are recognizing, as never before, that we must deal with the split atom before it splits the world. Already the atom threatens to sunder our democratic way of life. I need not tell the Senate that atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs are, by their very na- ture, totalitarian weapons. They are Pear] Harbor weapons. They are the natural weapons of a police state. They are the weapons of the sneak attack and the knock-out punch delivered before a democratic victim of aggression is aware that hostilities have commenced. I need not tell the Senate that these weapons impair in a most serious way the constitutional power of the Congress to declare war The conspiracy of events has placed the power to start hostilities CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE in the hands of unpredictable forces which are now beyond our influence or control. Asa democracy, we are incapa- ble of launching the first surprise blow. We are obliged to stand and wait. Un- less we find a method to halt this mad armaments race we have no assurance that the continental United States will not itself experience a hideous day of infamy. This means that our country has lost the power to defend fully its people and its territory. It gives precious little comfort to as- sume, Mr. President, that retaliation will certainly issue from the heartland of America—even though it strikes across the dead bodies of tens of millions of our citizens. A second point requires emphasis, I need hardly say that the armaments race mocks at our hopes of balancing the na- tional budget. More jet-propclled air- crait, new-type submarines, fast tanks. More guided missiles, atomic bombs, and hydrogen bombs. This is the price of keeping stride with the flerce pace set by the Soviet Union. Our budget will go up, up, and up. Even with reduced spending in Eu- rope, the cost of containment will mount higher. In southeast Asia, in the Near East, in the Mediterranean—who knows where clse—we may be forced to fight communism with dollars and goods, In fact, 10 or 15 years of intensified cold war may cost us as much as the Second World War itself. And while our budget goes up and up, our freedoms will go down and down and down. With the armaments race rushing on- ward, Mr. President, do not expect big government to grow smaller. On the contrary, its hand will fall still more heavily upon free enterpriscrs, free labor unions, scientists, teachers—upon all of us. We are being pushed toward more centralization, more surveillance, more regimentation. This is the way an army operates—this ‘s the way an entire peo- ple must operate under the atom’s duress. I touch upon these matters at the out- set to emphasize that we are not merely faced with the issue of physical sur- vival—we are equally faced with the issue of saving or losing freedom. In my hierarchy of values—and I am sure I speak for all in this chamber—preserving our freedom is more important than is preserving our corporeal selves. The wisest among us have long recognized that a lasting atomic armaments race will corrupt and poison freedom even if we could somehow hope to avoid war— even if history did not tell us that arma- ments races always end in outright hos- tilities. Today finds us in the midst of a new hydrogen crisis imposed on top of the old atomic crisis. With the passing of each day, each week, and each month, more fissionable material for atomic bombs comes into existence. This is the old crisis, and it is still unsolved. With the passing of each day, each week, and each month, we draw nearer toward that point in time when 10 hydrogen bombs or 20 or even more will be available and poised on both sides of the iron curtain. This is the new crisis, 2543 These are the facts that impose upon us an imperious timetable, that implore us to act successfully for peace before the store of horror weapons reaches critical mass and chain-reacts into global tragedy. Overshadowing all the world’s problems is the ever-growing stock of annihilation material, both in our country and the Soviet Union. The Marshall plan is good and neces- sary—but dollars to Europe will not stop either Russia or America from collecting hydrogen bombs. The Atlantic Pact and the military-aid program are wise and prudent—but arms to Europe wil] not prevent either Russia or America from stock-piling atomic weapons, We must try to compose our differences with Rus- sia at every point where the iron curtain divides the free world from the Com- munist world; but ink and parchment will not control the uranium and plu- tonium plants running full blast in both those worlds. Our attempt to contain the Kremlin’s outward pressure is im- perative; but containment will not stay the hands within the Soviet fortress now working upon the hydrogen bomb. All these planks in our foreign policy are essential; together they might sus- tain peace and freedom if we lived in a preatomic age. Yet none of them comes to grips with today’s real problem which, I repeat, centers upon the fact that, with each passing week and month, more ma- terial usable for mass destruction is brought into the world. There is only one way to combat the basic problem, that is to put Russian in- spectors in every American atomic plant and American inspectors in every Rus- sian atomic plant. Such a plan, in es- sence, was proposed by our Government nearly 4 years ago. Such a plan is backed by the United Nations, Russia dissent- ing. Such a plan—as its distinguished authors took pains to explain—does not depend upon our trusting the Kremlin or the Kremlin's trusting us. It depends upon rascal-proof safeguards. It de- pends upon dramatic warning signals certain to be given—and given in ample time—if any nation violated its atomic pledge. Such a plan answers those who claim that we should ignore the iron curtain, disregard the atomic arsenal being cre- ated behind it, and stake our lives upon the forlorn hope that some future bloom- ing of confidence will banish fear. I would trust the Russian people if they were the masters and not the slaves of their own government. But I, for one, will never trust a dictator who wields absolute power within a secret world. At the same time, I do not ask and neither does President Truman ask that Stalin trust our peaceful intentions. We do ask that, acting through the United Na- tions, he send Soviet inspectors into America. We do ask that Stalin admit American inspectors inside Russia. Through this realistic approach we have striven, for almost 4 years, to halt the fatal progression toward destruction of liberal values and eventual destruction of city, farm, and factory. We have striven to make atomic energy the serv-~ ant of a different progression—toward
2544 the conquest of disease and the adjourn- ment of poverty and the glorious reshap- ing of man’s material destiny. Our efforts have not only failed—they have Bignally failed. Yet the price of ultimate failure, Mr. President, is death. The specter of Hiroshima multiplied a thou- sand times tells us that we have no choice but to try again. Al! our instincts to- ward life demand it. For that reason, 1 month ago, I sug- gested a new approach to atomic peace. It was my thought that all] nations, in- cluding Russia, should agree to take two- thirds of their defense expenditures and devote these sums to world-wide eco- nomic aid and world-wide development of atomic energy for man’s welfare. In exchange for our contribution we would ask effective control over atomic weapons and effective guarantees of a two-thirds cut-back in military spending. My sug- gestion would not mean attempting to bribe the Kremlin or to purchase a dis- honorable peace with dollars. It would mean giving eloquent and visible evi- dence of our willingness to assume our fair load—and more—in the greatest task of our time, establishing atomic peace on this earth. The idea of a moral crusade for peace has picked up momentum at a startling rate. It swept Britain on election eve. In France, in Belguim, in Italy, in Can- ada—wherever men crave peace with justice—the same pleas for redoubled efforts are heard with rising insistence. Each new speaker proves afresh that democratic discussion and debate con- tribute more to statesmanship than does any strategy planned behind walls of secrecy. But correct statesmanship is now doubly difficult because the hydrogen crisis is superimposed upon the old atomic crisis. Has our thinking fully caught up with the scientific facts pecul- far to hydrogen warfare? Until we chart this new area of technics can we feel absolutely sure that the United Nations plan should stand unchanged? I do not doubt that, for the contro} of ordinary atomic weapons, the United Na- tions plan is still uniquely meritorious, I do not doubt that the United Nations plan could successfully control hydrogen weapons. A complete solution plainly calls for the general kind of technical program which the United Nations, after exhaustive study, has approved. I again warn that an ineffective plan is worse than no plan at all. But we should make ourselves aware of every facet of the problem. Certainly the dictates of conscience decree that we take nothing for granted. We cannot permit the tiniest residue of doubt in the minds of reasonable men. We must stand before mankind in the positive knowledge that the controls we seek are written, not by our own wish, but by the atom itself—the atom of hydrogen no less than the atom of uranium. Only such controls will bring us certainty that our position is objectively Just and right. Only such a position will win the support of moral beings everywhere. As chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, I intend to propose a series of closed hearings. I will propose that committee members review interna- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tional control of hydrogen weapons and its relation to the existing United Nations plan. It is my hope that the joint com- mittee will become equipped to speak helpfully on this grave matter and that, through a report, it will acquaint the Congress with its well-considered views. But, Mr. President, is it not both unjust and presumptuous to suppose that our Nation can alone, without help, locate the wisest solution? The free world shares this crisis with us. We have no monopoly on the yearning for peace. The hydrogen bomb does not recognize national boundaries. The cities of west- ern Europe huddle in the shadow of the new desolators no less than the cities of America. Freedom’s common bond urges @ common approach to our common peril. Neither do we Americans have a monopoly of brains. Wigner, Szilard, Bohr, Chadwick, Zinn, Rabi, Bethe, Fermi, Teller—men such as these came from foreign shores to aid our wartime atomic project. Their honored names bespeak the genuis of all the free world. Once we sought its help for war. Must we not now seek its help for peace? Does not a decent sense of humility toward the wisdom and experience of our allies de- cree that we now take common counsel? I will go further and state frankly— this is no time for self-delusion—that the people of the free countries abroad do not now appreciate the sincerity and the profundity of our American will to peace. We have not yet taken sufficient trouble to combat with truth the Com- munist hes. We have hardly tried to brand the iron curtain for what it is, the No. 1 saboteur of peace and the No. 1 reason why the atomic crisis stands un- resolved today. The spirit of the free world is sick because a wall of misunder- standing conceals America’s true inten- tions, divides us from democratic friends abroad, and obscures our mutual pur- poses. I therefore propose that we act at once to demolish this wall of misunder- standing. I propose that we immediately enter into talks with our allies for the purpose of jointly agreeing upon a new approach to atomic peace. These con- versations would canvass and evaluate the various suggestions that have been advanced both here and overseas. These conversations might lead to an under- standing that each chief of state would go before his own people and set forth the real nature of the atomic-hydrogen crisis, and the fresh solution that all the free nations had prepared in concert and pledged themselves to support. But I have in mind much more than merely offering the Kremlin a new peace proposal bearing the stamp of all the world’s democracies. We need to create a climate for peace. Through the Marshall plan the free world has dedicated its economic re- sources to peace. Through the Atlantic Pact the free world has dedicated its military resources to peace. But the free world has found no instrument for dedicating its mental and spiritual resources to peace. Consider for a moment what we do in time of war. We confer intimately and unccasingly with our allies. We agree upon a grand strategy. We establish MARcH 1 joint means of executing that strategy. Today our peril surpasses any we have ever known in war. The prospect of an atomic-hydrogen blitz spells horror in letters so huge that even the bloody at- tacks of Hitler and Tojo seem almost petty by comparison. Yet in this, our greatest emergency, we have adopted no Measures remotely equal in scope and daring to those used for the lesser emergency of the last war. The next war, if it comes, will not begin with the gutting of New York, Detroit, Washington, and Denver. Historians, if any be left alive, will say the next war began today—in the minds of men. It is for the minds of men that tyranny and freedom now struggle—tyranny around the clock and with full fanaticism, free- dom part time and with infirmity of purpose. No wonder that freedom falls back. No wonder that the iron curtain moves outward. No wonder that we are losing the contest for man’s allegiance. With today’s peace more perilous than any past hostilities, with the future Staked upon possession of human minds, and with democracy everywhere under attack, we are derelict unless we discover means to enlist the free world’s mental and spiritual resources. I make bold to suggest that we have in existence now a potent agency for discussion and nego- tiation which may well serve to mobilize and unify the efforts of men of good will everywhere in a mighty crusade for peace. This agency is the Atlantic Council, created by the North Atlantic Pact. Our Government is a signatory to that pact. Its purpose is to insure the common de- fense and to develop collective capacity to resist aggression. The articles of the pact dcmonstrate that the Atlantic Council is ideally equipped to conceive and initiate a grand strategy for peace— the goal of our democratic partnership. Article 4 of the treaty says: The parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the parties is threatened. Article 9 of the treaty explicitly states how this purpose may be achieved: The parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the imple- mentation of the treaty. The Council shall be so organized as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defense committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of articles 8 and 65. Thus we have in being an instrument which may serve, not alone to develop our common military defense, but to promote and encourage that positive Grive for peace which is the only sure road away from the present impasse. Let the Atlantic Council convene im- mediately. Let this peace council of the free formulate a concrete peace pro- gram. Let it invite all free countries to cosponsor that program. Let it so- licit aid and support, not only among Atlantic Pact nations, but wherever men and women cherish life and liberty. Let it recruit millions of volunteer helpers.
1950 Have this Council make known to all free peoples the free world’s ardent de- sire for peace and its plan for achieving peace. Have this Council hurl the weight of the free world’s conscience against the iron curtain. Make available to the Council those scant radio facilities now broadcasting the Voice of America. Let the Council print illustrated leaflets by the million and in all languages, dramatizing the free world’s program for atomic peace. Let it produce motion pictures for the same purpose. Let it arrange forums for public debate. Let it work with schools, churches, labor unions, and civic groups. Let it undertake the mis- sionary work that must go forward. This Atlantic Council, this peace coun- cil of the free, can fight the good fight in a thousand ways and along a thou- sand far-flung battle lines. It can be a rallying point for peace-hungry minds confused by Communist propaganda. It can overcome the challenge of the Soviet Cominform. It can unite all the scat- tered voices of liberty into one great clarion call for peace that will carry be- yond oceans and mountains and be heard in the land of silence behind the iron curtain. I have said already, Mr. President, that the sands are running out. On that ac- count I sympathize with those now urg- ing 1mmediate high-level talks in Mos- cow. But I point out to them that we may already have exhausted al] but our last chance. We must be sure that we do not squander it. It has never been my view that private dickerings by a few top-level negotiators can resolve the most momentous issue that has ever plagued and vexed the spirit of men. There is nothing in this issue which lends itself to the calming atmosphere of obscurity or serenity. We must open the mind and heart of the free world, and unify its purpose, before we open the door of the conference room. After we review the technical demands of controlling hydrogen warfare, after we concert with our allies, after we have created the climate for peace—then the day for talks will have arrived. Then, with sure intelligence and merged pur- pose, the free world will be ready to ap- proach the Kremlin. Thus equipped, we will not go as ap- peasers. We will go with the pooled wisdom of a billion free people. We will go with strength such as the Kremlin has never before confronted. Far from re- flecting weakness or craven instincts, the approach will stem in part from quiet awareness of our military stature—yet far more from that spiritual power which is the majestic endowment of our belief in democracy, our faith in the worth and dignity of all men, and our adher- ence to the principles of religion. Even now, however, I must warn against the threat that talks with the Kremlin will take place in soundpruof rooms behind locked doors, and that secrecy will prevent the peoples of the earth from hearing what is said. If this is the case, the Kremlin will feel little pressure either from world opinion or from the opinion of ordinary Russians to negotiate sincerely. It will see in secret CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE talks yet another excuse for propaganda. Unless the people everywhere attend these talks unseen, failure is foredoomed. I have long maintained that the ordi- nary Russian is the master key to peace. Only his ignorance of our friendship toward him permits the Kremlin to pur- sue its disastrous course. Standing be- tween the ordinary Russian and the truth is the iron curtain. As one means of piercing or at least weakening this tragic barrier, perhaps we should posi- tively insist that any new approach to atomic peace be discussed in Moscow itself. I do not find congenial the logic that because only Russia and America possess atomic bombs, they alone should sit down to discuss a fresh start toward control. There is a wider fellowship here—the fellowship of the potentially doomed; and it embraces all mankind. The proper forum for new talks is the Gen- eral Assembly of the United Nations. Equally, since this is the most important matter in the world, it should be treated in the most important possible way— and the heads of all the states may well choose to attend. Meetings of the General Assembly have been held in Paris, London, and New York. Of the great powers only the Soviet Union has not yet served as host. Would we not be wise, therefore, to seck the Kremlin’s hospitality? We should absolutely demand that the debates of the General Assembly be broadcast in every corner of the earth, and particu- larly from Leningrad to Vladivostok. If necessary, let the free world offer to bring its own radio transmitters— though surely Russian engineers capable of jamming the Voice of America are equal to this task. If the Soviet rulers permit a real town meeting of the world in their Moscow citadel, then we may truly hope for fruitful talks. If they dare not entertain the Gencral Assembly, all the free world will know the meaning of such a refusal. Testimony so eloquent may not be lost even on the Russian people. Mr. President, the clock is ticking, ticking, and with each swing of the pen- dulum the time to save civilization grows shorter. When shall we get about this business? Now, or when Russia and the United States glower at one another from atop competing stacks of hydrogen bombs? Senators, destiny will not grant us the gift of indifference. If we do not act, the atom will. If we do not act, we may be profaned forever by the inheritors of a ravished planet. We will be reviled, not as fools— even a fool can sense the massive danger. We will be reviled as cowards—and rightly—for only a coward can flee the awesome facts that command us to act with fortitude. This time of supreme crisis is a time of supreme opportunity. The prize of atomic peace lies waiting to be won—and with it a wondrous new world and moral blessedness and the ordainment of hu- man brotherhood. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? 2545 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kr- FAUVER in the chair). Does the Senator from Connecticut yield to the Senator from Oregon? Mr. McMAHON. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I should like to say to the Senator from Connecticut that in my opinion, three great historic speeches have been delivered on the floor of the Senate in the present session of the Con- gress, two of them by the Senator from Connecticut. The third was given by the distinguished Senator from Maryland {Mr. Typtnes] who pleaded the other day for a realistic facing of the disar- mament problem which confronts the people of the world. I want to do honor to the Senator from Connecticut in these very few remarks by saying that his speech is a challenge to not only the Amcrican people but to freedom-loving people everywhere. I think he has laid before the American people once again the crisis of our generation—winning the peace. Unless we meet that crisis, in my judgment there will be no hope either for peace or for freedom in the world. I want to say to the Senator from Connecticut that I was particularly pleased to hear him during his speech point out the importance of our nego- tiating with Russia through the United Nations. The United Nations, in my judgment, after all, is the only hope, of peace in the world. I further want to say, if the Senator will permit me to do so on his time, that I believe one of the important needs at home is for the Voice of America to be heard in America, where it seems to be silent these days. As Iam called into the reception room almost daily by the vari- ous pressure groups that want me to do something to advance their immediate selfish economic interests here at home, I often say to myself: “What can we do to cause the American people to under- stand that we cannot continue in America in this time of crisis with busi- ness as usual? What can we do to cause the American people to realize now, be- fore it is too late, that they cannot hope to go on living their usual life in America motivated primarily, as most Americans are motivated, by their immediate selfish economic interests?” The Senator from Connecticut has made a great contribution to America today by his historic speech, which I hope the American people will ponder upon long enough to appreciate that one voice, at least, was raised in the Senate of the United States warning them and cautioning them that now is the time for them to change their course of action and unite as a freedom-loving people in the fight to win the peace. If the Senator from Connecticut will permit me to do so on his time, I want to make one other point, and then I shall sit down. I believe a great responsi- bility rests on the President of the United States in this dark hour. As a man who does not belong to his political party, I desire to say I am satisfied that if he believes the American people are ready for the type of action the Senator from Connecticut has suggested today, he will meet the crisis and the challenge
2546 which is presented. I think our Presi- dent has great qualities of leadership. I would suggest to him that one of the first steps he needs to take is to unite the Congress, and through the Congress, the American people, in support of a true bipartisan foreign policy. To meet this crisis of winning the peace I believe it will be necessary to call for a coalition of Democrats and Republicans in the field of foreign relations. I believe one of the first steps the Pres- ident should take is to bring about such & coalition at the State Department level. I think a Republican Under Sec- retary of State should be appointed. It is important in my judgment that we bring to bear upon the problems of the State Department the points of view and the thinking of leaders of both major parties, Republicans as well as Demo- crats. It is also true that there rests upon the present administration the responsi- bility of advising with the leaders of both major parties in advance of negotiating any particular international agreement or understanding, because if the Amer- ican people can be assured by the Presi- dent of the United States that we are going to practice, henceforth, a true bi- partisan foreign policy on a coalition basis, at State Department and congres- sional levels a remarkable unity of our people on foreign policy issues will result. As one humble Member of this body, I wish to say to the Senator from Con- necticut that I thank him for the chal- lenge he has issued to the Senate and to the American people today. I close by saying that, irrespective of the political consequences to the indi- viduals concerned, I think every Member of this body owes it to the American peo- ple to get the facts about the interna- tional situation and take those facts to the American people. The facts will show, I believe, that the Senator from Connecticut is correct in his warning that time is short for the preservation of frecdom in the world, time is short for winning the peace, time is short for the prevention of a third world war, a war from which no victor will emerge. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey and Mr. DOUGLAS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Connecticut yield; and, if so, to whom? Mr. McMAHON. I shall be glad to yield first to the Senator from New Jer- sey, and then to the Senator from Ili- nojs. But, first, Mr. President, after warmly thanking the Senator from Oregon for the most generous compliment he paid me, I should like to say to him that if an atomic bomb falls on America, it will not be directed at Republicans or Democrats or Socialists or any other political group, in the sense that any particular person belongs to a political party, but it will fall with an impartial crash upon all alike. There is no room for partisanship in the kind of situation we confront today. Today, in my opinion, the United States needs unity more than it needed it on Pearl Harbor afternoon. I agree with the Senator that the pleas we receive to cut expenditures—expenditures which cannot be cut without betraying Amer- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ica—come from a people who have not thought enough about the facts of the situation. I yield now to the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse] in expressing to the Senator from Connect- icut my appreciation of his contribution to this subject. I wish to add that a number of us have been giving consid- eration to the approach the Senator from Connecticut suggested a few days ago on this floor, an approach different from that which considers merely the ques- tion of who can be strongest in a war of might. In my judgment the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Typrncs] also made a most valuable contribution in suggesting a disarmament conference. Mr. President, I have had occasion only recently in my own State to dis- cuss these issues and to call the atten- tion of the people of my State to the contributions made by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maryland, and to invite their considera- tion to the fact that we are engaged ina mighty, world-wide war for the minds and thoughts of men, which greatly transcends in importance all the dis- cussions in regard to who can be strong- est in a war of might. I feel that the Senator from Connect- icut must be commended for having high-lighted this matter today and in his previous speech, and for giving us the opportunity to say that some of us are working along the same lines and are trying to find the answer in this war for the minds of men, a war in which thus far we have been defeated by the more effective technique and more ef- fective propaganda of those who believe that a more materialistic doctrine, founded in atheism and based on Com- munist totalitarianism, should rule the world. In my judgment we in the western world have something more desirable to offer to the people of the world, and we should adequately present it to the world. I shall join with the Senator from Connecticut in calling for a wider pres- entation of the Voice of America pro- gram, in order to present to the people of the world the American tradition, and wonderful spirited heritage in addition to merely presenting a picture of how we conduct our affairs from day to day. I have talked to the new Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Edward Barrett, about this matter. I have told him that I would be right behind him in that endeavor to widen the scope of the Voice of America, and I have asked him to meet with the Senator from Con- necticut and with other Senators, in an effort to help him present a program which will give to the people of the world a keener awareness of America's tradi- tion and program. So, Mr. President, let us not be afraid to let the people of the world know about the wonderful heritage we in this coun- try have; and let us ask the President to mob.,lize all of our educational and reli- gious forces in presenting, by an ex- MarcH 1 change of views between man and man, our ideals and our realization that the problems of the H-bomb and military armament alone cannot be considered as the only answers in the present situa- tion. In closing, I wish to thank the Sena- tor from Connecticut very much for the contribution he has made. Mr. McMAHON. I thank the Senator. I yield now to the Senator from Illi- nois. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I, too, would like to thank our distinguished colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, for his very moving and very statesman- like speech. I do not know a great deal about atomic energy; but, along with a great many others, I know the simple Ein- stein formula that energy is equal to matter multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. If we try to work out the implications of that formula—E equals MC*—it comes down to the prop- osition that matter can be converted into energy at a rate of about 35,000,000,000 times, or matter multiplied by ten raised to approximately the tenth power, or 10”. Mr. President, no one knows how close we are to that frightening potential. No one in civilian life should inquire. But the potentiality of destruction has, I think, been only faintly hinted at by the Senator from Connecticut. It is death in its most awful form, death to millions of people from one bomb, death over more square miles than can be contem- plated, death to civilization itself. For, in addition to death from the blasts themselves, there is also even more ter- rible and widespread death from radio- active poisoning. These are the awful issues at stake. I am very thankful that, at this hour, the eloquent and moving voice of one of our colleagues has been raised. AsI said when the distinguished Senator from Connecticut made his first speech on this subject, I felt very humble and very proud to be a member of a body which could produce a man who would speak in such tones. Today I feel prouder and more humble than I did a month azo. I think the Senator from Connecticut touched on one very basic point, namely, that with all our desire for peace, with all our desire to preserve the beauty of life, freedom is the most important thing in the world; that if in the struggle for freedom, destruction should come, still if we were faithful in the struggle for free- dom, even though physical life were to be blotted out, we would have fulfilled the destiny which God wishes for us and the destiny which is in conformity with the spirit of America. I think the country should know that in the proposal of the Senator from Con- necticut there is no sign or touch of weakness, no element of fear, no craven effort for a settlement at any cost, no approach to a second Munich, but rather the firm determination of the people to seek for peace and to take risks for it and to try to encompass, with all mankind, our desire for a life of brotherhood, a brothcrhood for all peoples, wherever they may live.
1950 It is so hard to give that message to a section of the world dominated by the theory and practice of the police state. It is baffling to try to convey to the peo- ple of Russia the fact that we mean them no ill. But, as has again and again been remarked, we must try to do s0; and if we try to do so, we must not do so as a trick, but we must do so with sincerity. I felt that spirit permeating the speech of the Senator from Connecticut. I wish to add my word of thanks for what he has said. Mr. McMAHON. I thank the Senator from Illinois very much. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. the Senator yield? Mr. McMAHON. ator from New York. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me, to permit me to suggest the absence of a quorum? Mr. McMAHON. I should prefer to have the Senator from North Dakota withhold that suggestion for a moment. I should like to surrender the floor, but the Senator from New York has asked me to yield to him, and I have done so. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, about a month ago, when the distinguished Sen- ator from Connecticut made his inspir- ing speech on the floor of the Senate, I, along with a number of my colleagues, rose to congratulate and thank him for his briluant and courageous address. I want to tell the Senator how glad I am to be able to rise again today to com- pliment him. I believe the eminent Senator from Connecticut has made another real contribution to the inter- ests of our country and of the world generally, a spiritual contribution, I do not pretend to know precisely how we should mect the distressing, disturb- ing, and awesome situation with which we are confronted today. I believe, as the able Senator from Oregon has said, that when all the facts are studied and considered by the President of the United States he will reach a conclu- sion which will undertake to be in the interest not only of our people here in America but of the people of the world generally. I realize, however, that two things are, or should be, perfectly obvious to all. One is that the American public should be made aware of the dangers inherent in the situation, not only to the people of this country, to the people of western Europe, of Asia and Africa, but also to the people of Russia and the other coun- tries behind the iron curtain. The second thing which is perfectly obvious is that we must marshal, not only the military strength of the free nations, but we must also, as the distin- guished Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, marshal the mental and spiritual strength of the aroused peoples of the entire world. I do not believe the people of Russia or of the satellite countries desire war any more than our people do. I think they are ignorant of the situation and of course cannot fully express themselves, But, even in those countries, I believe that freedom, security, and lasting peace have adherents far more numerous than is President, will I yield to the Sen- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE generally believed. So I fully agree with my distinguished colleague in his sug- gestion that we must appeal to the con- science of the world. We must marshal the spiritual strength of the entire world. Again I thank the able Senator from Connecticut for the contribution he has made to the thinking of all of us on this profound and terrible problem. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 398) relating to cotton and peanut acre- age allotments and markcting quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended; agrecd to the con- ference asked by the Senate on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houscs thereon, and that Mr. Coo.tey, Mr. Pace, Mr, Poace, Mr. Grant, Mr. Hope, Mr. Avucust H. ANDRESEN, and Mr. Murray of Wiscon- sin were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference. DISPLACED PERSONS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Dis- placed Persons Act of 1948, Mr. LEHMAN obtained the floor. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, in order that I may sug- gest the absence of a quorum? Mr. LEHMAN. J yield. Mr. LANGER. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hunt in the chair). The clerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for a quorum call be rescinded and that fur- ther proceedings under the call be suspended. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, the eyes of the world are looking today to the United States for moral, political, and spiritual leadership. Our action upon the pending legislation will have far-reaching effects. Our decision on this legislation will either buoy the spirits of the democratic peoples of the world and renew their faith in us and in our integrity of purpose, or it will dash those spirits and stifle America’s strong and vibrant voice as the leader of freedom- loving peoples everywhere. These, in- deed, are solemn days. America’s moral and spiritual leadership cannot falter; it must not hesitate. One of the greatest human and moral problems of the twentieth century, cre- ated by World War II, has been and still is that of the displaced persons. Some 10,000,000 human beings were driven from their homes, torn from their families, and herded into concentration camps or forced labor battalions by the Nazis. Our victory in World War II brought an end to their existence as slaves and set them free. Many of them were free to go home. Roughly 9,000,000 dis- 2547, placed persons were able to return to their native lands to try to pick up the threads of their disrupted lives. But some were not able to go back. At least 1,000,000 were faced with a new form of totalitarianism and terror that had replaced the old. Their countries were dominated directly or indirectly by the tyranny of the Soviet Politburo. To return to such lands meant, at the very least, certain: deprivation of their cher- ished liberties, and, at the most, death, These were the original displaced per- sons, the dispossessed and homeless to whom repatriation was a practical as well as a spiritual impossibility. It was they—men, women, and children of a score of nationalities, a cross-section of the great religious faiths—who were left behind when the possibilities of repatria- tion had been exhausted. History was bitterly ironical. These persons were again placed in camps and became the wards of the American, British, and French authorities in Ger- many, Austria, and Italy. This is where I, as Director General of UNRRA, first came into personal contact with the dis- placed persons problem—a problem which I am sorry to say has not yet been solved, but which I am sure this Congress can and will help to liquidate. I need not dwell on the details of the displaced persons’ existence in these camps. Even though UNRR4A, the United States Army, the IRO, and various au- thorities and agencies did all in their power to help the displaced persons, their existence was, at best, grim and hopeless. Exactly like the ancestors of millions of Americans, the displaced per- sons yearned to be free, to raise their families, and to enjoy a full and pro. ductive life. That kind of a life, however, could not be assured to these people by any of the successive international agencies set up to deal with this problem. All of these agencies were, in effect, conducting only a holding operation. The displaced persons had somehow to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and protected against the day when they could return at last to their native lands or be resettled elsewhere. All that UNRRA, the United States Army and the IRO could do was to keep them alive. No guarantee of permanent homes could be extended: On the one hand, the conditions within their home- lands grew steadily worse as the iron curtain was pulled more and more tightly across Europe; on the other hand, these agencies did not have them—and IRO does not have now-—-any authority by which member nations could be com- pelled to open their doors to the dis- placed persons. In theory, there are four possible solu- tions to the displaced persons problem: First. The displaced persons could be compelled to live forever the half life of uprooted people in these camps if we cared to be callous toward them and in- different toward the American taxpayer: Second, The displaced persons camps could be closed and the displaced per- sons could be left to shift for themselves in the shambles of a shattered central European economy—if we were willing
2548 to ignore the conflicts which would un- doubtedly arise between the naturally resentful displaced persons and the hard- pressed indigenous populations of the affected areas; Third. The displaced persons could be rounded up at bayonet point and for- cibly returned to their native lands now under Soviet domination—if we were in- different to the cause of justice and humanity; or - Fourth. The displaced persons could be resettled in other lands. These alternatives were so self-evident that those nations in a position to do 50 began to open their gates. For example, by January 1, 1950, Canada had taken 79.000; the United Kingdom had taken 100,000; Australia had taken 104,000. And little Israel, the youngest and weak- est state of all, had admitted 129,800. In fact, because of the large migration to Israel, the Jewish part of the dis- placed-persons problem has been vir- tually solved; only about 35,000 Jews re- main in the DP camps today. By January 1, 1950, America had ad- mitted only 169,800 displaced persons. The reason for this proportionately small number was the fact that we were com- paratively slow in providing for the emi- gration of these people. Our regular immigration quotas were so geared that relatively few displaced persons could enter. But the heart of America fs big, and when the people learncd the facts they joined together—regardless of reli- gious affiliation or political party—to support the principle that America, too, must do her part. After a long delay, a special law, the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, was finally passed. Under its terms, a limited number of displaced per- sons began to come in. After being screened and rescreened, and complying with requirements much more stringent than our normal immi- gration rules, the displaced persons were met by friends and relatives; guaranties of housing and jobs were made in ad- vance so as to insure that the presence of the displaced persons in this country would not deprive American citizens of jobs or houses. The DP’s were helped by great religious and welfare agencies in a manner unprecedented in our immi- gration history. Never before has the immigrant been as carefully screened or as effectively helped in adjusting him- self to his new homeland. And the result is good. Let us not be misled by those who would reject the whole because of a few exceptions to the rule. All the major religious and welfare agencies report that the over- whelming majority of the displaced per- sons who have come to Amcrica have adjusted or arc adjusting successfully. This is an incontrovertible fact and can- not be denied. The fact that the op- ponents of this legislation can point to only a few isolated exceptions is in- direct proof that the overwhelming number have been completely and satisfactorily resettled. A special subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, under the able and objective leadership of Representative Watter, of Pennsylvania, examined these religious and wcl’:re agencies about their experiences with displaced per- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE sons. Some of the questions asked of these agencies were: Has the selection and fitness of the DP'’s been satisfactory in quality? Have they been properly placed in our communities? Are they adjusting themselves economi- cally, socially, fraternally, and for the better? Can we absorb more people into our American life, and can we do so advan- tageously. The committee receives clear, positive, and affirmative answers, which expressed overwhelming satisfaction with the dis- placed persons on these and other points. These answers came from a wide variety of agencies. ‘These agencies embrace practically every major religious belief and every important immigration aid agency in the United States. Among them were: Mennonite Central Committee. War Relief Services—National Catho- lic Welfare Conference. American Committee for Resettlement of Polish Displaced Persons. Church World Service, Inc., principal organization for Protestant and Ortho- dox faiths. National Lutheran Council. Unitarian Service Committee. Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society. Southern Baptist Displaced Persons Office. United Service for New Americans. American National Committee To Aid Homeless Armenians. United States Committee for Care of European Children. Further proof of the good record of the displaced persons came from the practically unanimous reports of gover- nors and other responsible public offi- cials. These detailed and explicit state- ments are contained in the report of the special subcommittee of the House Judi- ciary Committee, the so-called Walter report, issued on January 20, 1950. I strongly recommend this report to the Members of the Senate and the public generally. Statements reaffirming the satisfactory adjustment made by dis- placed persons came from every region of the United States where these per- sons had been resettled: From Indiana, Tilinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota and South Dakota, in the Middle West; from California, Mon- tana, and Washington, in the Far West; from Texas, in the Southwest; and Ala- bama, Arkansas, and Kentucky, in the South; and from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, in the East. In other words, the testimony of al- most every responsible State official proves that the DP’s have made and are continuing to make good records, becom- ing a part of the fabric of our country, are a credit to themselves, and an asset to us. But, Mr. President, the DP’s are doing this under the terms of a law that was basically cruel and deceptive. It is a law full of obstacles and preferences, a law that is essentially unfair. I need not elaborate upon the defects in the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which are so obvious that they have been almost universally condemned—the dis- MarcH 1 criminatory and arbitrary cut-off date, the inadequate number of displaced per- sons admissible, the unfair priorities of 30 percent to agriculturalists and 40 per- cent to persons from annexed territories, and other features, most of which are remedied in the substitute amendment of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. The demand that these flaws be rem- edied has not come from an isolated few or from a single segment of our popu- lation. There is hardly a responsible national organization which has not ac- tively urged that this Congress amend the act and abolish the injustices it per- petrates. Among the organizations which support the correction of these injustices—of all these injustices—are: United States Chamber of Commerce. National Catholic Rural Life Confer- ence. American Jewish Committee. Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America. cIoO. A. F. of L. National Community Relations Advis- ory Council. National Board of the YWCA. World YWCA. League of Women Voters. United Council of Church Women. American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. These organizations support the mi- nority substitute bill sponsored by Sen- ators Kincore, Fercuson, and 16 others, including both the junior and senior Senators from New York. Perhaps the viewpoint of these organ- izations is best expressed in a telegram, the text of which the junior Senator from New York included in the Recorp of this body last Friday, but which bears repeating now because of its particular relevance. It was signed by a represent- ative group of distinguished Americans which included, among others, Gen. Lucius D. Clay; Mrs. Franklin D. Roose- velt; James A. Farley; Maj. Gen. William J. Donovan; James F. O'Neil, of Man- chester, N. H.; Judge Joseph Proskauer, of New York; James L. Kraft, president of Kraft Cheese Co., Chicazo; Mark Eth- ridge, publisher of the Louisville (Ky.) Courier Journal; Fred Lazarus, of Cin- cinnati, Ohio; and Harry Bullis, chair- man of the board of General Mills, Min- neapolis. The telegram read: As Americans, we are deeply concerned that our country fulfill our moral obligation and international commitment to find new democratic homelands for the helpless dis- placed human beings under our care in Europe. Therefore, we respectfully petition the Members of the United States Senate to approve the substitute amendments to the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 presented by Senators Fercuson, GRAHAM, and Ki.cors. It 1s our sincere and heartfelt conviction that without these amendments it is tmpos- sible for us to create a displaced persons law that will enable our Nation to admit our share of displaced persons in a just, humane, and fair way. These Americans and millions like them want this Nation to do simple jus- tice. They want us to uphold our inter- national commitments. We cannot for- get that in the forum of the United Na- tions, and in the Counzil of UNRRA, the United States, in concert with other
1950 democratic nations, opposed the Soviet- sponsored principle of compulsory re- patriation, and in so doing pledged our- selves to find new homes for the displaced persons, The proponents of this liberalized leg- islation are certain that the few addi- tional displaced persons admitted under the proposed new provisions would not endanger our economy or our society. I know that statistics are a poor measure of human life. The worth and dignity of the human soul cannot be compressed into a decimal point. But for what such figures are worth, let us remember that the additional displaced persons who would be admitted under the terms of the minority substitute would be only 104,000 more than the number admissible under the present law, an increment of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our total population; yet this infinitesimal addi- tion to our population would go a long way toward the solution of the entire displaced persons problem. The displaced persons would benefit by being given a new lease on life, and we Americans would benefit, as we always have, from immigration. New talents, skills, and strength would be added to our Nation. These people bring with them a fresh and revitalized apprecia- tion of liberty and the democratic way of life. They know from bitter personal experience what it means to live under the whip of a totalitarian government. Let us not forget that the displaced per- sons were among the first of freedom’s fighters. They have fought against the forces of tyranny and have survived. They know the worth of freedom at first hand. We cannot afford to deny them admittance into our country. Mr. President, it has been alleged that the International Refugee Organization rather than the Displaced Persons Com- mission makes determinations of who is or is not a displaced person under the act. This results from confused think- ing and from misinformation as to the actual operation of this program as well as of the present law itself. At the very first step of the process, the Displaced Persons Commission throws out 289 percent of all cases for- warded to the Displaced Pcrsons Com- mission by the IRO. In other words, of every 1,000 cases on which the IRO returns documentation to the Displaced Persons Commission, the DPC at the very first step of preliminary determination of eligibility finds 289 in- eligibles for one reason or other, includ- ing failure to meet the date lines pre- scribed in the act. At later steps in the process, particularly after the secu- rity investigation is completed, the DPC rejects others. But the important thing to bear in mind is that although, under section 2 (b) of the law, the Displaced Persons Commission is required to obtain a certification from the IRO as to whether any particular person comes within the IRO constitution and is the concern of the IRO, it is the DPC which makes independent determinations of eligibility. And after the DPC completes {ts preliminary findings the Foreign Service of the United States and the Im- migration and Naturalization Service make their further screenings after CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE sharp scrutiny and detailed investiga- tion. I hope to have something further to say cn this point at a later date. Mr. President, this is not a partisan issue. This is not a regional issue. This is not an ideological issue. It is a hu- manitarian issue. The Eightieth Con- gress enacted a displaced persons law. It was not a good law. It sought to ful- fill an international commitment, but did so in an ungracious, a hard, and dis- criminatory way. It was therefore proposed to amend that act and to provide a more generous and gracious formula, a sounder and more practical formula. But the pro- posal reported out by the able and dis- tinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee is not that formula. It is the opposite of such a formula. It is not humanitarian. It does not fulfill our commitments. It would make it harder than ever for displaced persons to get into this country. It is not a displaced persons amendment at all. It is a pro- posal which shuts the door to displaced persons still further, until only a tiny crack would remain, while it would open the door to a group to whom we have no comparable commitment—the Ger- man expellees. However much I might sympathize with the plight of the ex- pellees, this is not the measure to re- solve that plight. What a cruel irony it would be to displace the displaced per- sons with those who made them displaced persons. But we must not be callous even to those who were our enemies. The minority substitute makes provision for them, too But these are details which will be amply discussed in the course of this debate. On this issue, Mr. President, the re- quirements of honor and decency, the welfare of America, and the path of common sense are all joined. Let us do honor to ourselves, give benefit to our country, and reaffirm our integrity in the eyes of all men by strengthening and hiberalizing the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. This can be done by supporting and enacting the minority substitute measure. Mr. CAIN’ Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I am-glad to yield to the Senator from Washington. Mr. CAIN. I should like to say to the very distinguished Senator from New York that the junior Senator from Wash- ington thinks he has both a sympathy for and a real understanding of the problems which beset the original dis- placed persons. I am not certain at the moment as to which of the several pro- posals on the subject of displaced per- sons I am likely to support, because I have not yet been able to make up my mind as to what the various proposals seek to accomplish. I was particularly interested in the comments made in the very beginning of the Senator’s speech. If the Senator from New York and a good many other Senators subscribe to what the Senator said in the first several pages of his pres- entation, I should like publicly or in any other way to associate myself with those views. I should like to ask one or two questions to see if I understand the Sen- ator from New York correctly. 2549 The Senator from New York has pointed out that during the war approxi- mately 10,000,000 human beings were legislated against or were unfairly, and criminally, in fact, dealt with by the Nazis. Roughly, about 10,000,000 was the number of those to be construed as displaced persons. Is that the opinion of the Senator from New York? Mr. LEHMAN. No; the number which I mentioned was 9,000,000. Of course, they were not legislated against. They were taken from the countries of Europe and brought into Germany and put into forced-labor camps. In addition to those, many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of persons were put into German concentration camps because of their religion or because of their politi- cal ideologies. Mr.CAIN. What Iam endeavoring to establish in my mind is this: There ap- pear to have been roughly about 10,000,- 000 of these persons, of whom about 9,000,000, following the end of the war, were encouraged and permitted to go, and in fact did go back to their coun- tries of origin. That left in the dis- placed-persons category approximately 1,000,000 men, women, and children. Mr. LEHMAN. That is correct. Mr. CAIN. Is it the opinion of the Senator from New York that the primary objective we seek to achieve is to offer a refuge among allied democratic na- tions to those million persons who were not, for obvious reasons, permitted to go back to their countries of origin? Mr. LEHMAN. I do not think the figures the distinguished Senator from Washington has given are quite accurate. What I said was that out of the 9,000,000 persons who were displaced by reason of the war, at the end of the war 8,000,000 returned very promptly to their native countries. That included those who had been taken from France, Belgium, Hol- land, Greece, and other countries. Mr. CAIN. I understand. Mr. LEHMAN. That left, at the close of the war in 1945, about 1,000,000. But I do not wish to give the impression to the Senator that there are 1,000,000 now in the displaced-persons camps. Mr. CAIN. No. The Senator from New York pointed out, as I was casually following his figures, that approximately one-half of the 1,000,000 have already been returned, or have been taken care of by various countries, including the United States of America, Mr. LEHMAN. That is true. Mr. CAIN. Then, are we still deter~ mined to provide relief for the remain- ing displaced persons, or approximately one-half million of them? Mr. LEHMAN. The number today is considerably less than one-half million. I hope that under the substitute bill we will be able to admit into this country approximately 200,000 of these displaced persons. In addition to our contribution to the solution of this problem, I think it is fair to assume that other countries will take a considerable number of per- sons. There will be left in Germany what is called the hard core—the sick, the very aged, people who cannot leave because of illness or other circumstances in their families. But it is believed that
2550 if the substitute bill is passed the num- ber of those remaining in Germany, Austria, and Italy on June 80, 1951, will be very small. I wonder whether the Senator realizes that a great many of the people who are now in the displaced persons camps or under the charge of the Displaced Per- sons Commission in Germany, are people who came from the iron-curtain coun- tries since the end of the war in May 1945? That is why, of course, we have asked for an extension of the cut-off date. Mr. CAIN. Iam very keenly conscious of that as being a fact, because I have personally visited a good many of the displaced persons camps in various places in Europe; and, before that, it was my own responsibility in the Army to handle literally tens of thousands of displaced persons under my own com- mand. When I began my questions I was lead- ing to the cut-off date. The Senator from New York has said, and I think very properly, that the United States of America and other freedom loving na- tions, have a concrete responsibility to provide a new home and opportunity for persons, men, women, and children, who as a direct result of enemy action were injured. But I should like to suggest to the Senator from New York that our original definition of a displaced person certainly cannot be accommodated by the new suggested cut-off date of Jan- uary 1, 1949, because it seems very clear to me that a large number of persons to be admitted under the suggested later cut-off date will not have suffered not at all as the result of enemy action; they never were in a concentration camp or a forced labor establishment. The one {tem to which I individually object in the proposed legislation is the cut-off date of January 1, 1949, because of my primary desire to give relief, first to those who I think are most deserving of it. The reason I rose to ask some ques- tions of the Senator from New York is that in the beginning of his very excel- lent statement he said, “Our job is to take care of a million displaced per- sons who were displaced persons.” I think the Senator from New York has in that sense referred to those who were hurt as a direct result of the war. Then when he and others like-minded recom- mend a cut-off date 4 years after the war was concluded, if I understand cor- rectly, the Senator from New York is talking about an entirely different sub- Ject. Mr. LEHMAN. I do not recall that I said that it is our duty today to take care of 1,000,000 persons, because there are not 1,000,000 persons in the displaced persons’ camps. Mr. CAIN. What I should have said was that the Senator made the state- ment, which I certainly agree with, that it was our duty to have taken care of the million displaced persons left at the end of the war, and admittedly the United States and other nations have already taken care of half of that load. Mr. LEHMAN. That is correct. I did gay that. Of course, there are in the displaced persons’ camps, or rather un- der the supervision and control of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE IRO, a number of persons who were not in Germany during the war. Mr. CAIN. That is the point I wish to make clear. Mr. LEHMAN. But they are persons who have fled from the tyranny of the Communist regime. Mr. CAIN. And they have fled since the war. Mr. LEHMAN. In many cases they have fied since the war. Mr. CAIN Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. Some probably had been in Germany as Slave laborers during the war, and subsequently went back to Poland or Czechoslovakia, and then, af- ter 1945 again returned to Germany to seek the protection of the occupation forces. But undoubtedly there are among the persons in the camps today a considerable number who fled from Po- land or from other of the satellite coun- tries or iron-curtain countries into Ger- many, in order to escape from the Com- munist terror which we are fighting, and which we should fight. Mr. CAIN. Let me suggest in all seri- ousness to the Senator from New York that, as a result of my own experience, I can agree with him that since the war a number of persons have fled from their own countries, to get into displaced per- sons’ camps; but I wish to say—because I believe it to be a fact—that they have fled for a good many reasons, not the least of which is that in many instances they seck to come to the United States of America. Presumably it will be made possible for them to do so by means of changing the cut-off date from Decem- ber 27, 1945, the date which was de- signed to take care of persons who actu- ally were hurt by the war, to January 1, 1949. That change clearly will permit a number of persons to come into our country—and perhaps we shall deter- mine that we wish to make that provi- sion—although these persons were not injured during the war and did not spend 5 minutes under duress by anyone, but of their own free will decided that they could not make a living where they were, or that they were not very much im- pressed by their then neighbors, and that they wished to go to the United States of America. It concerns me, because as we extend the cut-off date, we shall be just that much less likely to take care of some of those who were included under the orig- inal purpose of the legislation, as we understood it to be, when it was first ap- proved by the Congress. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, it may be that there are certain few who have entered the German zones for the pur- pose the Senator from Washington has outlined. However, I think the number is small. But, quite aside from that, I think it is fair for me to point out that while the IRO and the Displaced Persons Commission have to be guided, and un- doubtedly are guided, by the present defi- nition of a displaced person, the mere fact that they certify a person does not mean that he or she will get into the United States. Mr. CAIN. I understand that. Mr, LEHMAN. Such individuals still have to pass the very, very careful scru- tiny of the consular service and of the MARCH 1 Immigration and Naturalization Service. So we really have four checks on these people now, whereas under normal im- migration procedure there are only two checks, Mr. CAIN. Yes. I appreciate the friendly way in which the Senator from New York has answered my questions, Mr. President. I should like to make only this observa- tion: I think all of us should clearly tell the American people that in the pro- posed legislation now pending before the Senate we seek to do two things. Most of us say we intend to do only one thing; to take care of those who, as dis- placed persons, were hurt and displaced as a result of enemy action during the war. A good many people throughout the country have thought that is all we are attempting to do in this measure, But obviously that no longer is the case, for by means of an extension of the cut- off date—and those who believe in doing so certainly can fight for the adoption of such a measure, and certainly they seek to justify it—it is sought, by means of this legislation, to take care of per- sons who were not adversely affected by the last war, but who now seek to enter this country because of political de- velopments in their home lands, fol- lowing the end of the war. I have a deep feeling that we should make that situation very clear to the American people, so that they will know precisely the purpose of this pro- posed legislation. I am in favor of the first great pur- pose of the proposed legislation; to see that anyone who was hurt by the last war, aS a slave laborer or as one who lived in a concentration camp, is given a@ new home and a new opportunity. But I shall have to make up my mind in respect to the question of determining how far we should go in extending the cut-off date. Mr. LEHMAN. Let me say to the Sen- ator that there is included in the sub- stitute bill authority for former citizens of Czechoslovakia, who, in fleeing from the scourge of communism, entered Ger- many, to come to this country. I do not know whether those persons suffered di- rectly from the war. I think probably they did, because their country was oc- cupied. I know very well that there were no more loyal, no more democratic people on the face of the earth than the Czechoslovaks, while Thomas G. Ma- saryk and Eduard Benes were the Presi- dents of that country. Myr. CAIN. I quite agree, Mr. LEHMAN. I want them to have an opportunity to come to the United States; I refer to those who have fled from the terror and the danger of Com- munist tyranny. Mr. CAIN. Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. They are fighting our battles, and I am glad that we are help- ing to a certain extent to fight their battles. Mr, CAIN, I beg the Senator's indul- gence for a moment further, as I try to clarify my thinking on these matters. I should like to see my country solve the displaced persons problem on the basis of the original definition of a dis-
1950 placed person. Under that definition, a an, woman, or child was a displaced person if he or she had been adversely or seriously harmed or affected as a result of enemy action. However, enemy ac- tion was over in 1945; and the then cut- off date of December 27, 1945, permitted all the persons who came within the def- inition to use seven months in going less than 100 miles in a single direction in gctting into a displaced persons camp. First I should like to see my country solve and conclude that problem, by ex- tending relicf and refuge to the few of those persons who remain to be cared for. Furthermore, of course, the world is faced with a much larger problem, than that of displaced persons. There are millions of political refugees and expel- lees. Fcom my point of view, if it is the wish of the people of America, and the wish of the Congress, to take care of the refugee and expellee problem, I should like to see us face that as an immigration problem, and do so directly. I think the problem of the citizens of Czechoslovakia to whom the Senator from New York has referred belongs in the field of immigra- tion, rather than in the fleld of displaced persons. I am frightened that the Con- gress sceKs to do by indirection, through an amended displaced persons bill, what it will not take action on directly by facing the larger immigration question. I wish only to make my position clear. Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the Senator very much. Mr.O’CONOR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LEHMAN. I yicld. Mr. O'CONOR. First, I should like to compliment the Senator from New York for his very comprchensive statement on this subject. Apropos of a comment just made by the distinguished junior Senator from Wash- ington |{Mr. Cain], let me _ inquire whether it is true that, actually, great numbers of the persons who would be admitted under this measure are pres- ently under IRO supervision, and al- ready have been considered as coming within the definition of IRO displaced persons nomenclature. Mr. LEHMAN. That is quite true. Mr. O’CONOR. So, actually, if we are to increase the numbers along the lines which have been suggested, we shall not be making any radical change or We shall not be guilty of any radical departure from the understanding already had as to those who come within IRO supervision. If the Senator will permit, I wish to say that I have in mind not only the great numbers from Czechoslovakia, to whom the Senator properly referred, but also those from Yuroslavia—Croatians and others—who fled from Communist op- pression, some of whom found their way to the IRO camps, and others who have never been heard from; people who we believe—and I ask the Senator if he agrees as to this—would make very worthy citizens of our country, have been forced by communism to flee from their native country. Mr. LEHMAN. Yes; I feel that way. I fee] now, and I have felt so for a long time, that people who have suffered from oppre‘sion, from totalitarianism, who have been deprived of their freedom, and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE have gone through great agony, are likely to appreciate the blessings of democracy and of liberty as much as anyone in the world possibly could. Mr. O’'CONOR. That is very true. Mr. LEHMAN. I have seen that happen often. Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further for a question? Mr. LEHMAN. I yield. Mr. O’'CONOR. The Senator made reference to the “hard core” that will have remained after there have been drawn off large numbers under the pres- ent system. May I ask the Senator whether he is familiar, as I am sure he is, with the experience already had in regard to the attitude of Israel in taking the lead in opening its doors to great numbers of the so-called hard-core group? In my humble opinion, it should be said to the everlasting credit of Israel that it has initiated a movement which certainly, from the standpoint of hu- manitarianism, is one of the brightest pages of history. I ask the Senator, does he not feel that Israel inaugurated a new policy? Mr. LEHMAN. It did. I think I can speak with some authority, because Mrs. Lehman and I visited Israel last year. As the Senator knows, I have been deeply interested in the question of refu- gees for as many years as I can remem- ber. There, we found that there have been, I believe, approximately 200,000 persons taken from the camps and brought to Israel, where they have been received. As I pointed out in my re- marks, the whole question of displaced persons is no longer one which involves, to a major extent, persons of the Jewish faith. There are only, in the total num- ber of persons populating the displaced persons’ camps, or among the people who are under the control of the IRO, about 35,000 members of my faith. The others have gone to other countries. A sub- stantial number have come to the United States although the far greater number have gone to Israel. I think it is also important to point out that the Republic of Israel has accepted and taken into that country a considerable number of the sick, the disabled, and the incapaci- tated who would otherwise have con- stituted a part of that “hard core” to which the good Senator from Maryland has just referred. That was enabled to be done in large measure as a result of the support given by that great Amer- ican relief organization, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. Mr. O’CONOR. I thank the Senator. It occurred to me it was a very commend- able thing that this new Nation should open its doors to such a group, who otherwise might possibly be discarded by all other nations of the world, or for whom, at least, under present circum- stances, no solution has yet been found. I thank the Senator very much for his observation. THE ECONOMIC YALTA Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, foreign trade should be promoted on a basis of fair and reasonable competition—pro- viding Americans the same access to American markets as the foreign pro- ducers. 2551 TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT BETRAYED THE WORKING= MEN AND INVESTORS In 1934 Congress passed the Trade Agreements Act transferring its consti- tutional responsibility for the regulation of the national economy to the President. The act constituted a betrayal of the workingmen and investors of the United States of America—it was an economic Yalta. REMOVES THE FLOOR UNDER WAGES AND INVESTMENTS The act as extended gives the Presi- dent the right to reduce import fees and tariffs virtually 75 percent from the 1934 rates—thus effectively removing the floor under wages and investments. EVERY JOB AND EVERY INVESTMENT IN JEOPARDY The 1934 Trade Agreements Act, as amended, thus placed the fate of every workingman’s job and every investment in this Nation in the hands of an indus- trially inexperienced State Depart- ment—with the power to direct which of the American jobs and industries shall survive and which shall be sacrificed on the “‘one economic world” altar. Mr. President, if any doubt could be expressed that this is exactly what has happened in the past 15 years, then one would only need to read the testimony of the distinguished Secretary of State Mr. Acheson, and of the distinguished ECA Director, Mr. Hoffman, during the last week. ABANDONMENT OF AMERICAN WORKINGMEN AND INVESTMENTS The statement by the Secretary of State Dean Acheson several weeks ago in New York that ‘We must want to devote our time and energy to discover- ing and bringing in imports,” marked the final abandonment of the American workingmen and investors. The only point of disagreement now between Mr. Acheson and Mr. Hoffman, according to the recent testimony be- fore the Foreign Relations Committee, is whether the Congress should pay the industrialists of our Nation, displaced by low-living-standard foreign labor, a subsidy, or whether we should set up a school where tutors, probably furnished by the ECA, would teach the displaced workers a new trade. TUTORS FOR WORKERS Mr. President, tutors are people who are not generally able to make a living at the trade, but who teach it in a school, in lieu of working at it. ADOPT “BUY EUROPEAN’’—DROP “BUY AMERICAN” Both Mr. Acheson and Mr. Hoffman agreed that the old “Buy American” slo- gan should be dropped in the face of 1n- creased unemployment and that the new slogan of “Buy European” should be adopted and a real drive begun, assisted by Government appropriations to make it effective. ACHESON-HOFFMAN FREE TRADE SHOULD BE CONTINUED “Buy European” with approximately 6,000,000 unemployed in this country to- day and probably 12,000,000 partially un- employed at the present time, and with the number increasing each day in the textile, crockery, precision instruments,
2552 lumber and wood products, mining, aeri- culture, petroleum, and other vital indus- tries, Mr. Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, and Mr. Paul Hoffman, Director of ECA, had the effrontery to tell the United States Senate Foreign Relations Com- mittee that the State Departments “Free Trade” program should be continued. DIRECT RELIEF TO DISPLACED WORKERS I shall quote from the New York Jour- nal of Commerce of February 23 relative to a suggestion made by Mr. Hoffman. During his initial testimony on Tuesday, Mr. Hoffman had merely stated that, “if there must be some relief in this situa- tion, I suggest that it be given directly.” They had disagreed slightly on how to support the unemployed in this country, and to reimburce industrialists with their stockholders whose investments have gone bad as a result of the imports, fos- tered by ECA. THE HOFFMAN THREE-PART UNEMPLOYMENT SOLUTION Taking the highly problematical case of the one-industry town, with a plant which could not shift its products to some other line, the ECA Chief said he saw three possible types of relief: First. Unemployment compensation insurance; Second. A program of job training; and Third. Possibly management training, to try and bring new industry into the area, ALICE IN WONDERLAND SOLUTION Mr. President, this, to my mind, reached the nth degree of some kind of Alice in Wonderland theories. In other words, here is a man, a supposed indus- trialist, drawn into this great job of di- recting the expenditure of from $5,500,- 000,000 to $6,000,000,000 each year, who apparently has never found until now that for a hundred years the nations of the earth have been competing for mar- kets. So, after financing industries in ECA countries to the extent that they cannot, through their own quotas, em- bargoes, and the manipulation of their foreign currencies and other stoppages of trade among themselves, sell what they produce, he suddenly finds out there is a great solution on their doorstep. What is it? It is to allow them to take the market we have protected and built up the hard way for 75 years in the United States. Mr. President, it is a great solution. In my opinion, it is comparable to two great armies facing each other, such as you and I and many other Senators on this floor have seen twice within the last 30 years. The armies face each other. So, one of the generals suddenly determines how to stop the war—he surrenders to the other. A wonderful solution, Mr. President. It seems almost a miracle that men of the experience of these two men should think of such a solution on the verge of the most critical period the United States has ever experienced. So, in the case of a plant which could not shift its produce to some other line, the ECA chief said he saw three possible types of relief; the first of which was un- employment compensation insurance. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE That is new. It is a little difficult to see, busy as the Director is with the work of such an important agency as the ECA, how he would have the time to think of such a thing—that the unemployed could go on relief. We, in the United States, for the past 25 or 30 years, have provided industrial accident insurance and unem- ployment insurance, but we did not an- ticipate that Congress would cooperate with foreign nations in bringing about the necessity for it, nor did we anticipate that these great men would think of this kind of a solution in such an emer- gency. TUTORS—JOB TRAINING Second, a program of job training. Mr. President, in towns such as those in New England, where the industries, in- cluding textile business, the watch in- dustry, and the precision-instrument companies, are to a certain extent dis- placed or cut down—we know, of course, that it would be very easy for the tutors to come in, with their college educations, to teach the unemployed a new job. Of course, the question of what kind of job is immaterial, because, aS any person, even a 10-year-old schoolboy in New England knows, an unemployed worker taught a new job in any industry could be displaced in the same manner the next day. Of course, that probably did not occur to the Secretary of State and to the ECA Director, Mr. Hoffman TUTORS TO TRAIN BUSINESS-MANAGEMENT FOR NEW INDUSTRIES The third is a business-management training, to draw new industry into the area, In other words, we will have the same tutors, college graduates, available to teach hard-boiled industrialists, who have grown up in the business and who have spent their life in it, for 20, 30, 40, or 50 years. We are going to have tutors, who, of course, understand all these things, to teach the industrialists who want to save their investments in the business how to coordinate industry, develop, and set up a new industry in their area. One would suppose, Mr. President, that no one had ever thought about the type of industry adaptable to certain areas of the United States until it 1s time to dis- place the industries which have grown up naturally—with what? With prod- ucts provided by the low-wage and slave- labor nations of the earth. The ques- tion is displacing high-wage living standards with low-wage living stand- ards, Mr. President. That is what we are talking about today. CONSPIRACY TO LOWFR THE WORKINGMEN’S ‘WAGE STANDARD OF LIVING This is a conspiracy to lower the wage and living standards of American work- men and to displace and destroy invest- ments in this country to such a point that, of course, the Government will have to step in and provide full employment. That has been the bill of goods sold to this country for the past 18 years. Whenever private industry cannot pro- vide full employment, the Government must step in. Of course some persons MarcH 1 agreed to that theory, knowing it was wrong, but never understanding that the Government itself was going to finance the industry which displaced the private industry. AMERICAN WORKERS DISPLACED When men and women are working for 40 or 50 cents a day, as they are in the Far East, in Africa, and in some parts of Asia, and when men are working for $1.50 to $2.40, as they are in Europe and in South America, with the great Con- gress of the United States providing the investment money for industries in the low-wage countries, providing for the establishment of refineries for crude oil, providing for drilling rigs and other ma- chinery to drill for oil, providing for factories, providing the raw materials, and furnishing money to pay help, and to hold working people down to low wages, using our machinery and our know-how, then, Mr. President, when we have displaced the workingmen of America through our free-trade poli- cies and have ruined investments which have been made over a period of years through private sources, we find Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Acheson disagreeing only as to method of relief—both agree- ing that we must continue to import the low-wage and slave-labor goods. One of them thinks there should be subsidies granted to industry. Mr. Ache- son suggested that method. Mr. Hoff- man thinks of the workingman—and it is about time—but not with reference to saving his job; he is simply thinking of teaching him, through educated tutors, to take a new Job and of educating in- dustrialists, possibly ECA-trained, to try to bring new industry into certain areas. Mr. President, I can picture that. It seems to me it is quite the nth degree of an Alice in Wonderland suggestion. RETRAIN GOLD MINERS Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MALONE. I shall be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. MILLIKIN. Does the Senator re- member that during the war an effort was made to put the gold miners out of business in order that they might be retrained to become copper miners? But nothing happened. The gold miners would not be retrained. The Senator will remember that there was a fantas- tic Utopia which Professor Tugwell es- tablished in order to retrain persons in agricultural pursuits who had been coal miners. It is a dislocated part of plans which have been tried and which have failed in the past. Mr. MALONE. It is not a dislocated part of a plan tricd in the past; it is a@ continuation of the plan begun 18 years ago—all of the parts of it are now fitting together to establish a Socialst government in this country. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. MALONE. Ishall be glad to yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. Ithink many of these retraining plans violate the dignity of the workingman. If he started out to make a gold miner of himsclf, he is en- titled to be a gold miner. If he started
1950 out to make a machinist of himself, he is entitled to be a machinist. Some “double-dome” in Washington is not en- titled to make plans for him to change his vocation and to be retrained for other things as if he were a robot. ONE ECONOMIC WORLD Mr. MALONE. I take it the Senator from Colorado does not agree with the great plan which has been worked out for the one economic world. In other words, the effort is made to lower the standard of living in this country to the level of the average living standard of the world. When that has been accom- plished, it is said that we shall have perpetual peace. What does the Scn- ator say to that? Mr. MILLIKIN. My only objection to what the distinguished Senator from Nevada has said is that he is dealing in terms of understatement which the rules of politeness of the Senate require. I could not fully express myself on that subject and still keep within the rules. Mr. MALONE. I thank the distin- guished Senator from Colorado very much. I am somewhat handicapped my- self in that connection. WORKINGMEN AND INVESTORS DOWN THE DRAIN Mr. President, the things suggested are so silly that it seems there is no need to try to improve on the language used by the Secretary of State and the Director of ECA so that the American people, the workingmen and the investors, may know just what kind of a “drain” they arc going down and who is at the head of the movement. CONGRESS ARROGATED CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OVER NATIONAL ECONOMY Mr. President, I want to come back to one thing which was stated a while ago. The Congress of the United States passed the 1934 Trade Agreements Act. It has since been extended every 3 years. In September 1949, it was extended for another 3 years. In that act, Mr. President, the Con- gress of the United States abrogated its constitutional authority to regulate the economy of the United States and placed it in the hands of an industrially inex- perienced State Department whose eyes were focused 3,000 miles or 10,000 miles away from the American shores, with no idea of preserving our own industry, or wage standard of living, but simply of arriving a. the one economic world. INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION The Congress of the United States must. take responsibility for that. I sug- gest that Congress take back its consti- tutional authority to regulate the na- tional economy—especially before there is an opportunity for the administration to bring to the floor of the Senate—and it is coming, Mr. President, soon after we dispose of the ECA question—the In- ternational Trade Organization. While the Congress of the United States transferred to the State Depart- ment the control of the economy of this country, a constitutional authority with which it was charged, and gave the State Department the right to lower tariffs and impert fees on nearly every product as much as 75 percent, the International CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Trade Organization, which for the past 2 years has been sold to this country through State Department propaganda, This organization would simply trans- fer the authority to regulate the national economy from the State Department to 67 foreign nations. 58 NATIONS—58 VOTES In other words, the International Trade Organization would be composed of 57 nations, including America. We would have one vote, just as Siam has, Many of those people are living on canals in the rice fields, in sampans on the rivers. I visited Bangkok and saw persons living in sampans, drinking the water from the river, bathing in it, and cooking with it. They weigh around 110 pounds, wringing wet. One company of United States Marines could take over the whole nation in a week, and the peo- ple would not know that the authority had been changed. But they would have one vote in the International Trade Or- ganization even as the United States of America. TINKER TO EVERS TO CHANCE I say it is a case of Tinker to Evers to Chance. In 1934 Congress gave its con- stilutional authority to the State De- partment, which has no knowledge of industry in this country. The International Trade Organization would transfer the authority from the State Department .o the control of the foreign nations to which I have referred. When we have read the plan and di- eested it we find that there are two things uppermost. TRANSFER RIGHT TO FIX IMPORT FEES AND QUOTAS TO ITO One of them is that we transfer all the authority and the right to fix tariffs and import fees to the member nations. It is complicated, but adds up to that. Just as the distinguished Senator from Colorado explained in such a masterful manner last September when the 1934 Trade Agreements Act was before us for extension, they have an escape clause. It is hedged about with so many condi- tions that it is impossible to invoke the escape clause. That is the way with the International Trade Organization—they end with the authority to fix import fees and quotas of production for the member nations. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MALONE. I shall be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator. Mr. MILLIKIN. The escape clause is simply a recognition that the Inter- national Trade Organization has escaped from a planner’s “bughouse.” It is a document inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on anyone required to read it. No one has read it who has not had to read it. Noone will read it. It para- lyzes the human mind because of its conflicts and because it is utterly loaded with nonsensicalities. I cannot believe that the opposition will be foolish enough to bring that idiotic-thing to the floor of the Senate. They have had it since 1948 and have not been able to screw up their courage sufficiently to bring it in. If it is brought in, I venture to say that we 2553 shall beat the stuffing out of it, because we are not yet ready completely to give away the sovereignty of this Nation. FOLLOWING HITLER'S SELLING TECHNIQUE Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Colorado, I should like to point out, however, that it has been the policy of the adminis- tration for the past 15 years to follow what might seem to us to be idiotic and nonsensical practices. Does the distin- guished Senator from Colorado remem- ber what Hitler said on that subject? He said that no matter how preposterous a thing is, if it is said often enough and Positively enough, many people will be- lieve it. The administration advances things like the 1934 Trade Agreements Act and the ECA, which is to make up the trade-balance deficits of the 16 Mar. shall plan countries each year in cash until such time as they can divide the markets under the 1934 Trade Agree- ments Act, averaging the living stand- ards of the nations of the world, includ- ing our own. INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION Take the International Trade Organ- ization, which they have attempted to sell to this country for a year and a half—I would say to the distinguished Senator from Colorado that the admin- istration has followed a deliberate policy of selling an idea through propaganda; then when they think it is sufficiently sold to the people of the United States, no Senator will have the guts to stand up and debate it and vote against it. Mr. MILLIKIN. If I may make a sug- gestion, I should like to say that when they think they have sufficiently sold it, they will find it is sufficiently unsold on the fioor of the Senate. Mr. MALONE. I thank the distin- guished Senator from Colorado for his contribution, but I will say to him that the ITO is not any sillier than many things which have already been sold to them by the administration. Mr. MILLIKIN. Oh, I would not debate that with the distinguished Sen- ator. However, it is almost the silliest. Mr. MALONE. I will agree with the distinguished Senator that it approaches the ultimate. Mr. MILLIKIN, I would challenge the distinguished Senator to state something that is sillier. Mr. MALONE. I would have to bow in ignorance, Mr. President, to the dis- tinguished Senator’s challenge. To continue with the suggestions of Mr. Hoffman and Mr, Acheson, the ar- ticle in the Journal of Commerce of Feb- ruary 23, 1950, goes on to say, speaking of Mr. Hoffman: He rejected suggestions that such indus- tries should be subsidized. That was the suggestion of the dis- tinguished Secretary of State. Appar- ently there is some disagreement among the people who are dividing our markets with foreign nations. They agree that we must give up our markets but dis- agree as to how the losers, our working= men and investors, will be paid off, Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
2554 Mr. MALONE. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Utah. Mr. WATKINS. Did the Secretary of State or Mr. Hoffman indicate which particular industries in the Nation would be put out of business and given a subsidy? Mr. MALONE. They did not indicate which industries, but as I have said here- tofore and am saying again now, the imports coming into the United States indicate which industries will be af- fected. I have named those industries. They are the wood and wood products industries, the textile industry, petro- Jeum fuels, the mining industry, the watch industry, agricultural products, and many other manufactured and proc- essed materials. Incidentally, at this time 75 percent of all watch movements, on our wrists and in our pockets, come from Switzerland, because of the fact that a Swiss watchmaker earns in wages about one-third of what our American workers earn—that is, what our workers earned before they were thrown out of work. A large part of our watchmakers are now petitioning the President of the United States to save their jcbs. Mr. WATKINS. Does the Secretary of State or Mr. Hoffman indicate approxi- mately when they are going to rut this program of help into operation? Mr. MALONE. Yes; immediately. Of course, it may take congressional ac- tion—additional appropriations. Mr. WATKINS. I am glad to hear the Senator say that, because there are some mines in Utah which have been closed down, and severe] thousand miners have been thrown out of work and need help. The program must go into operation immediately, if we are to save the United States. CONGRESS CAUSING UNEMPLOYMENT Mr. MALONE. I will say to the Sena- tor from Utah that it might take spe- cial legislation in Nevada, Utah, Maine, Massachusetts, and in various other States, to increase their appropriations for State unemployment insurance, be- cause at the time these funds were es- tablished it was not thought that the Congress of the United States would deliberately cooperate to bring about uncmployment. We assumed that we were taking care of the normal unem- ployment ups and downs and that we were planning to withstand only the nat- ural buffeting to which a free economic system is subject. We never thought that the great Congress of the United tates would conspire with the execu- tive department of the United States, with the ECA, and with the Secretary of State, to bring about unemployment. So I believe it would require special ses- sions of many State legislatures, to pro- vide more money and higher contribu- tions from employers and employees for some period of time, to withstand the eficcts of this Government-created unemployment, “ONE ECONOMIC WORLD” I might say, in continuing to answer the distinguished Senator from Utah, that what the Senate and the House did in passing the 1934 Trade Agreements Act was to put into the hands of our in- experienced State Department the right CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to say what industries should survive and what industries should be sacrificed in the interest of this great ‘“‘one economic world’’—averaging the living standards of the nations of the world, including our own, in the interest of perpetual peace. Let us look at the last Geneva agree- ment. By the way, another confer- ence is about to be held within the next few months. The purpose of it is to still further lower tariffs and import fees, with a view to further directing which industries are to survive and which {industries are to be sacrificed in this country. RESPONSIBILITY TO LABOR AND MANAGEMENT Reading again from the February 23, 1950, issue of the Journal of Commerce, I continue with the article referring to Mr. Hoffman, as follows: Placing his whole reliance on competition and efficient management, tn this respect he may be in conflict with Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who yesterday in general terms said the Government has the respon- sibility to businesses which suffer from in- creased imports. Acheson {s speaking of responsibility to management, while Hoffman is talking about responsibility to labor, Well, now, could we not have continued responsibility to both, inasmuch as we have an economy built up by the coop- eration of labor and management dur- ing the past 150 years? Could we not continue that responsibility to beth la- bor and management by continuing to fix fair rules and regulations under which they could all operate, instead of putting into the hands of an industrially inexperienced State Department the manacscment and the control of the na- tional economy of this country, to the end that they can say which of the groups of workers, all over the United States, and which of the groups of inves- tors in our industries shall be protected and which shall be sacrified—on the “one economic world” altar. So, here we have the spectacle of the State De- partment being allowed to say which of the industries will be sacrificed, and the investments wiped out. UNITED SENATORS BEG FOR THEIR INDUSTRIES What is an investment in the Wal- tham Watch Co. worth? It was my privilege to stand on this floor on Febru- ary 6 and hear the distinguished junior Senator from Masachusetts (Mr. Longe], almost with tears in his eyes, read a tele- gram which the head of the watchmak- ers labor union, or the president of the Waltham Watch Co., had sent to Presi- dent Truman begging him to intercede with the RFC to save that great indus- try. I said at that time that it had been my privilege on a previous occasion to hear a great Senator, the senior Senator from Colorado (Mr. JoHnson], beg a commit- tee not to sacrifice a national industry. It was a committee set up by the State Department to hear objections to the lowering of tariffs and import fees which they were contemplating in the matter of tungsten. As I said in the debate before in this, I took a good look at this board of seven, sitting up there like the Supreme Court of the United States. There was not one MARCH 1 of them I would have hired in my private engineering business. This was back in 1942, when I was special consultant to the Senate Committee on Military Af- fairs—not in the United States Senate. It came out later that this board had no authority to pass on what the Sena- tor from Colorado was discussing. The matter was passed on to another board for final decision. Nothing happened. The great Senator from Colorado begged there, with his hat in his hand, looking up at the men who made up this board, whom I would call, the least I could say, undistinguished persons. Then he walked away, and they abolished the tungsten industry, just as they are going to abolish or reduce other great indus- tries of this Nation. That was quite a long time ago, but they still might find enough of the tung- sten miners to take their subsidy. We find this wide difference of opinion between the great Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, and the Director of the ECA, Paul Hcffman, differing on the question of how they should assist the workingmen and industries destroyed through free trade. If these two great men disagree on how this help is to be rendered, could it not be that there would be no help rendered? Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield? Mr. MALONE. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Utah. Mr. WATKINS. Did the plan embody any help for the employers as well as the employees? Mr. MALONE. Oh, yes. Dean Ache- son suggests, in his big-heartedness, how by his own actions he is causing the wip- ing out of the investors’ money and the dcstruction of industries and working- men’s jobs. He said the Government, meaning the Secretary of State, has a responsibility to business not to repay the investments but to lend money probably out of the RFC to establish a new indus- try—after the tutors have retained the workingmen for the new jobs—and the industrialists have been shown by the tutors how to establish a new industry, Mr. WATKINS. Does the Senator know whether they have taken any prac- tical steps to help the mines now closed down because of the importation of met- als and minerals from Yugoslavia and other countries? Mr. MALONE. I will say to the dis- tinguished Senator from Utah that there is no indication in any of the dispatches that any of them know what they are doing whatever, or what industries are suffering. They have merely been told, and through questioning by the commit- tee it has been developed that many workers are unemployed and that certain industries are suffering and losing money and probably will be closed down or severely curtailed. Mr. WATKINS. Has it occurred to the Senator that this is possibly one way of making one world, by putting us on the same trade level with Siam, and so on Mr. MALONE. I wish to say to the Senator from Utah that I have been a Member of this distintuished body for only 3 years. Every time I can obtain
1950 the floor I say that that has been their objective from the very beginning. This great three-part, free-trade program has no other objective. THE SENATE BIPARTISAN FOREIGN POLICY Complete “free trade” was the objec- tive of the great bipartisan policy on the Senate floor. It never was anything else. I refer to the bipartisan policy agreed to by this distinguished body in the form of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, which put into the hands of the State Department the right to say what industries shall survive and what shall not survive. I quoted the Secretary of State’s own words. He said we must search for more products to be imported into the United States of America, which obviously would displace our own work- ers. He did not say to displace them. Those are my words. But he suggested we must search for more products to bring into the United States. The Con- gress of the United States put that weapon into his hands and walked off and left him—plus the Marshall plan, now ECA—to make up the trade- balance deficits until such time as the markets of this country could be divided to wipe out the deficits. That was the bipartisan foreign policy. It ruined the Republican Party for 18 years, and is in a fair way to ruin the United States of America. The second step, which never had for its purpose anything else in the world, was the Marshall plan, which in reality was the Bevin plan. Marshall made a remark, a paragraph in length, at Har- vard on the subject, and Mr. Bevin caught it on the first bounce beyond the Atlantic and told us in 30 days what amount of money we should appropriate to make up the trade-balance deficits. TRADE-BALANCE DEFICITS VERSUS “FURNISH MARKETS FOR AMERICAN GoopDs” I said on the floor of the Senate on March 5 and 6, in 1948, that the pur- pose was to make up the trade-balance deficits. Many of my distinguished col- leagucs on the Senate floor stood up and said, “This proposal is supposed to create markets all over the world for the busi- nessmen and workingmen of the United States. This increased foreign trade will create markets. Naturally, if we are going to sell, we must furnish some money to others to buy our products.” Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MALONE. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator does not mean, does he, by his observation that Senators rose all over the Senate floor and said the Marshall plan would create great markets for American businessmen all over the world; that the Senator from Nebraska joined in saying that? Mr. MALONE. I did not mean to in- dicate that all Senators joined in that statement. There were a number, how- ever. Mr. WHERRY. I am in total sym- pathy with what the distinguished Sen- ator from Nevada is saying. He will re- call that in the debate we had a year ago on ECA the junior Senator from Nebraska discussed for nearly one whole afternoon the question of making up the British trade-balance deficits, and the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE effect it would have on the petroleum industry of the United States. As a member of the Small Business Commit- tee I have discovered that more than 600,000 harrels of petroleum a day was being imported into the United States. I pointed out then, and it was also point- ed out by the distinguished Senator from Texas and others, that the time would come when those interested in the pro- duction of petroleum would cry for re- lief, because in balancing the British economy we were providing $500,000,000 to be spent in exploration to bring in wells in backward areas, the oil from which would be shipped into the United States so the producers of that oil would receive dollars, which would bolster up the dollar balances of other countries whose oil would be sold in competition with that of the petroleum producers of the United States. Today that has become a reality. Before the Foreign Relations Committee an attempt is now being made to solve the problem by re- stricting the purchases and sales to the sterling areas, rather than bringing products to the United States, which would have the result of taking away from the American producer the right to sell in sterling areas, on top of what they are doing here in America. The Senate has just passed a bill re- lating to the potato problem. Through the State Department we endeavored to have an agreement entered into whereby the producers of potatoes in Canada would temporarily be halted in bringing potatoes into this country. We have a surplus of 60,000,000 bushels. Potatoes which are imported into the United States from other countries receive the benefits of our support price, to the dis- advantage of our own potato producers. Potatoes are being imported from coun- tries that have no acreage limitations an no marketing restrictions of any kind whatsoever. Yet 15,000,000 bush- els, nearly one-fourth of the entire sur- plus, are imported. Mr. President, those who believe in an international agreement whereby the potato farmer of Nebraska is supposed to benefit, are placing him in a strait-jacket with marketing quotas and marketing restrictions, taking his potatoes, if you please, with no support price, and at the same time permitting surplus potatoes to come in from other parts of the world. I could go on and on and on with il- lustrations of the same sort. The Senator from Nevada mentioned watches. Now, however, the worst situ- ation I know of exists in the textile in- dustry. After these industries are ruined, after we come to the point where we cannot help them to survive—and Congress has not even adopted a peril- point provision—when our industries be- come so sick that they can no longer continue to operate, then application is made to the RFC to bail them out. It is proposed to use thirty or forty million dollars of the taxpayers’ money to bail out an industry which is sick, but which, had we followed a proper procedure, had we taken a proper course, would never have become sick in the first place. When the Senator said that a number of Senators rose on the floor and ex- pressed themselves as being in favor of 2555 the international trade agreements, as they were submitted to us by Dean Acheson and some others, at least the junior Senator from Nebraska was not among them. I voted against that pro- posal. Iam proud tosayIdidso. Today industry and many laboring men in this country are feeling the effects of the in- ternational trade agreements which were put into effect against and over the opposition of the entire Republican minority, which voted at least for the adoption of the peril-point provision to protect the industries of the United States. Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield to me so I may ask the Senator from Nebraska a@ question? Mr. MALONE. Iam happy to yield to the Senator from Utah. Mr. WATKINS. I ask the Senator from Nebraska if it is not true that the reciprocal-trade agreements and the foreign-trade treaties themselves con- tain an escape clause which the Pres- ident is supposed to make use of in the event American industries are threatened? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield? Mr. MALONE, I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I agree that they do. The escape clause, however, has not been used, and it is not in the mind of Mr. Acheson to use it. Mr. Acheson today is not only writing our foreign policy but he more than any one man in the United States is dictating our domestic economy. The other day I placed in the Recorp a statement respecting Mr. Hoffman—I have not interrogated him on the subject and do not know whether the statement is true—to the effect that Mr. Hoffman now wants further imports to come into the United States on practically a free trade basis, to help countries, and Britain is one of them, whose productivity is even higher than it was in 1939, by 35 percent, even at the expense of further dislocating our industry and increasing our difficul- ties in the United States. The result would be that Congress would be obliged to pass remedial legislation, to extend unemployment insurance to take care of the workers in America who would become unemployed by reason of the adoption of such a policy. A further re- sult would be that industry in England would take over some of our domestic markets. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, MALONE. I yield to the Senator from Indiana. Mr. JENNER. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Nebraska a question. He referred to the fact that the trade treaties had a peril point or escape-clause provision, the enforcement of which was left to the President of the United States. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Nebraska a question, in view of that fact. Let us consider the present coal crisis. We have a Federal law known as the Taft- Hartley law. It contains provisions by which threatened national emergencies can be dealt with. But unless the Presi- dent or the Siate Department has the interest of America at heart, and has the
2556 will to enforce ‘he Jaw as it is written, what good does it do to have any such kind of law? Mr. WHERRY. The answer to that question is perfectly obvious. In such event the law would not be of value. Mr. JENNER. If it is the will of those persons to give away our American mar- kets and destroy American labor no law which the Congress could pass would ever protect American industry and American labor. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I am in complete agreement with what the Senator from Indiana has said. With re- spect to the coal situation I should like to say that if the law which now ifs on the statute books had been thoroughly en- forced a month ago when the national emergency began, if there had been a will to enforce it, we would not have expe- rienced the disastrous effects which have resulted because of the failure to enforce it. That result has come about simply because there was not the will to enforce the provisions contained in the National Labor Relations Act. Those provisions could have been enforced. Congress did not enact a peril-point provision when the trade agreements were entered into. Some of us tried to have such a provision included; we did our level best to have it included. But even the peril-point provisions for which we fought did not go far enough. It simply called for an explanation by the President of why he permitted certain imports to come into the United States efter they had destroyed some Ameri- can industry. That would not be of much aid to a sick industry. Mr, President, it is time for those who have charge not only of our foreign pol- icy but our domestic policy—because the two cannot be separated—to take to heart America's interest. Certainly they should recognize that unemployment has increased. They should recognize the dislocations in industry which have oc- curred. Certainly it is not the proper thing to do, after an industry has become so sick it can no longer continue to operate, to attempt to bail it out by making loans to it. Steps should have been taken to see that imports were not permitted to come into the United States in such quantity as to destroy our indus- tries, or lower our standard of living in America and cause unemployment, and in the end wreck our domestic economy. Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MALONE. Iam happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. JENNER. I do not believe that the distinguished Senator from Nevada has been quite fair with—as I believe the Senator called him—the great Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, and with Mr. Hoffman, because, if I correctly under- stand their position, it is that, in order to bridge the dollar gap, either we have to give away the American markets or else we have to continue to give away the money of the American taxpayers. In other words, after all, under the theory of the present administration and of Dean Acheson and of Paul Hoffman, I think their argument in favor of giving away the markets of American labor and bringing about the collapse of industry in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the United States is sound because they say that we must either do that or else we shall have to continue forever to give away the money of the taxpayers of the United States; and they ask which one we think would be less onerous on the American people—to give away the money of the American taxpayers or to give away the American markets. That is the choice the administration gives to America. WISHFUL THINKING Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I was going to come to that point a little later, but I am glad the Senator has brought it up at this time. In reply, let me say that, apparently, in the opinion of those administration stalwarts, the Secretary of State and the Director of ECA, it is necessary that we do either one of the things the Senator from Indiana has just mentioned or con- tinue a combination of both as we have been doing; in the opinion of those in the administration we can simply adopt one of the Alice-in-Wonderland solu- tions which young children sometimes imagine—namely, that there is no prob- lem, but that all that it is necessary to do is to make a wish, and everything will come out all right. You either give up our markets or give them money. THE FLEXIBLE IMPORT FEE However, Mr. President, I wish to say there is a means by which we can help the other nations of the world raise their standards of living, and that is through the flexible import-fee system. Mr. JENNER. I understand that, of course. CONGRESS WOULD REGAIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER Mr. MALONE. Nevertheless, I should like to explain it now, for fear that some- one does not even yet understand it. A flexible import-fee system would take the place of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, Mr. President; and by means of the adoption of a flexible import-fee system, the Congress would regain its constitu- tional power to regulate the economy of the country. I argued for that in 1948 and 1949, even as late as last September 13; I said that we should substitute such a system for the 1934 Trade Agreements Act. I think the Senator from Indiana voted for it at that time. In doing so, we would turn the present long-experienced Tariff Commission into a Trade Agree- ment Authority—more nearly repre- senting the work it does—and give the Authority the same latitude in deter- mining the import fee on any particular product in order to make up the differ- ential in cost, chiefly due to the differ- ence between the American wage stand- ard of living and the standards of living in other countries. Inasmuch as all the other governments of the world, practi- cally speaking, are operating on a basis of bulk buying, bulk selling, and the subsidization of their industries, so that the costs of production in those coun- tries, available to us, really mean very little, two factors which would be taken into consideration by the Authority, working independently in that field— just as the Interstate Commerce Com- mission works independently in the field MARCH 1 of permitting reasonable returns to be made on the investments in fixing freight rates for the carriers. The Authority would establish a fair and reasonable basis of competition, so that American workingmen and industrialists would have the same access to the Amer- ican markets as the foreign nations. A floor under wages and investments would be established. Two of the prin- cipal factors considered by the Author- ity would be the declared customs value of the goods coming into this country— and the offered-for-sale price. These two factors would prevent ma- nipulations by governments being ef- fective in market competition. In other words, no one believes that England's bid of $250,000 below the American firm’s bid to supply the generators and other electrical equipment for the city of Seattle was a fair bid. It was really a government bid, because in England in- dustry is being underwritten as a result of the subsidizing of food and the hold- ing down of the prices of food by means of the money and goods we are furnish- ing to Britain through ECA. Asa matter of fact, then, the Senate of the United States itself had a hand in furnishing England the money with which to pro- vide the food subsidies and lower wages for the British workingmen, as a result of which England has endeavored to under- sell American workingmen by approxi- mately 30 percent, in the case of the elec- trical equipment in Seattle, to which I have just referred. The Seattle authori- ties were smart enough to turn down that British bid; the Seattle engineers under- stood why they should do so; had the bid been accepted, it would have been necessary in the future to get the repair parts from England. That bid was made possible because of the money we have furnished to England. So I say we should establish such an import authority and should give it lati- tude in that field, on the basis of fair and reasonable competition principle. That would only mean that American workmen would again be given the same access to foreign markets that foreign workmen have. Mr. JENNER. The Senator from Ne- vada thinks that is the answer, does he? Mr. MALONE. Absolutely. The flex- ible import fees would go down as the standards of living of other countries rose, as a result of our help. Whenever the other countries’ living standards approximated our own then the common objective of free trade would be the al- most automatic and immediate result. JUMP OFF THE ROOF OR CLIMB UP THE LADDER But I say to the Senator that the dif- ference between the flexible import fee method of reaching free trade and the method of simply suddenly cutting off all tariffs and import fees and putting the 50-cent-a-day or $1-a-day or $2.50- per-day labor in competition with Amer- ican $10-a-day or $12-a-day labor is the difference between our jumping off the roof to reach someone on the sidewalk and lowering a ladder by means of which our friends could climb up to the roof and join us there. That is the difference. Mr. President, in answer to the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY], let me say
1950 that I am very happy that he called my attention to the fact that, along with the junior Senator from Nevada, he opposed the present program of the administra- tion. I assure the distinguished Sena- tor that I had no {dea of implying that he had favored such a silly program. In reading from the ConaresstonaL Recorp for March 5, 1948—and let me say that the junior Senator from Nevada stood on the fioor of the Senate and spoke for 3 or 4 hours on that day—— Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. BAID 2 YEARS AGO THAT “FREE TRADE” WOULD AFFECT ALL INDUSTRIES Mr. MALONE. We see that the Sena- tor from Nebraska said: Does the Senator think there is anything in the language of the bill which has any- thing to do with the schedules or provisions of any trade agreements which now exist, or, if the Trade Agreements Act should not be extended, would the Secretary have any au- thority under any provision of this bill to have anything to do with trade relations be- tween Switzerland and the United States relative to the importation of watches? A little later he said: Does the Senator think it has nothing to do with trade relations between those coun- tries and the United States? I said then, in answer: Mr. President, I must agree with my dis- tinguished colicague from Nebraska that this loosely drawn bill may involve every industry in the United States. Mr. President, in two short years it has done just that. Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. Mr. MALONE. It has involved almost every industry in the United States. Automobiles, heavy farm machinery, heavy construction machinery, and some very intricate machinery can be manu- factured and processed here in the United States ahead of the foreign nations be- cause they have not yet reached the point where they can compete with us on such items. Nevertheless, within a very few years—3 or 4 years, at the most—they will be able to compete with us on those items, At this time Henry Ford can manufacture a Ford automobile in Eng- land and can sell it in Detroit cheaper than a Ford can be manufactured in De- troit and sold there. Why is that so? Is is because of the $2.50 a day labor avail- able in England as against the $10 to $15 per day in Detroit. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MALONE. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I wish to thank the Senator for the observation he has made. It is absolutely in harmony with my own pesition and, I am satisfied, with the Senator’s position, not only in regard to trade agreements, but particularly in re- gard to the importations made under the ECA. It seems to me that the point which is the burden of the Senator’s re- marks, and of which all of us should take recognition today, is that unemployment in the United States is increasing and will increase and will cause dislocations, If the Senator from Nevada will yield further, I should like to state what Paul C. Hoffman said, namely, that the ad- ministration’s drive to increase imports XCVI——161 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE from Europe to balance international trade would create unemployment in a few localities in this country, necessitat- ing special unemployment programs. His suggestion was that we increase un- employment insurance in order to take care of those who will be forced out of work, so as to permit foreign nations to continue to ship their goods, as imports, into this country, and to sell them in competition with goods produced by American workmen, to sell them in com- petition with the products of our own economy, to the point where either it will be necessary for many of our laboring men to be discharged, or at least it will be necessary for many of our industries to seriously curtail employment. Then Mr. Hoffman’s solution is that the tax- payers of the United States pay, by means of extended rates of unemploy- ment Insurance, in order to make good those dislocations. PLEADED FOR PROTECTION FOR WORKINGMEN AND INVESTORS Mr. MALONE. Of course, Mr. Presi- dent, I heartily agree with the Senator from Nebraska that no other result could be expected, as was shown in our debate of 2 years ago, almost to the day—in 5 days it will be exactly 2 years—when we pleaded with the Senate not to do this thing to the workingmen and to the in- vestors of America. Mr. WHERRY. That is correct. ADMINISTRATION SEES NO PROBLEM Mr. MALONE. Still we have the Alice in Wonderland answers which the ad- ministration proposes, almost as a 10- year-old school child would do, namely, that there is no problem. The admin- istration takes that position because it knows of no problem. Of course, it knows nothing about the problem. Therefore, Secretary Acheson sees no problem; and he believes that all we have to do, when a few thousand American workingmen are thrown out of work, perhaps in Ne- braska or perhaps in Massachusetts or perhaps itn Nevada, Js simply to put them on unemployment insurance in that State. He takes the position that that is what unemployment insurance is for. DID NOT TAKE CONGRESS INTO ACCOUNT But, as I said a while ago, when I was State engineer of Nevada, when we were still trying to adjust the industrial in- surance rates so that when accidents occurred, the men who were injured would be fully cared for, and later when we were trying to figure out the proper rates for unemployment insurance, cer- tainly we did not take into account the possibility that the Government of the United States would be in competition with us and would be sending machinery to low-wage countries, to permit their labor to better compete with ours. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point? Mr. MALONE. I am glad to yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is it not a fact that if the Administrator of ECA would en- force the actual provisions of the ECA Act, namely, that the beneficiary coun- tries remove all trade barriers among themselves and establich free converti- bility of currency, in a great measure, 2557 that would alleviate the dollar shortages among those countries? Mr, MALONE. Mr. President, in reply to the distinguished Senator, let me say that I do not agree with him that the ECA Act provides that the ECA Admin- istrator must do that. The ECA Act does not specifically say anything of that sort, except that the Administrator can spend the money. It does mention that. RESPECT THE INTEGRITY OF PRIVATE INVESTMENTS But I would say to the distinguished Senator—and I have made speeches, about this matter all over the country, ever since I have been a Member of the Senate, and I have said this many times here on the floor of the Senate—that all we need to do, if we are going to continue ECA—and ECA would be unnecessary if we were to establish the proper rules— is to require, first, that the integrity of private investments in those nations be respected. RUN MORE MONEY UNDERGROUND THAN ASKING FOR UNDER MARSHALL PLAN I said in March 1948 that my research had established beyond any doubt the fact, which no one then questioned and which no one has yet questioned, that they had run more money underground in the ECA nations, including England, France, and other nations, through their nationalistic and socialistic policies, by confiscating property—they had run more money of their own citizens under- ground than what they were asking for under the Marshall plan. What I say is, we should never give a dime to any country, unless it respects the integrity of the investments of our nationals, of our citizens in their country, in the same manner as we respect the in- vestments of their nationals in this coun- tiy. If they did that, I may say to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, they would not need money from our Government or from anyone else. BOLD NEW PROGRAM—POINT ¢€ We now have the great point 4 pro- gram of the President, which is coming up, and which I intended to discuss later. This is a good time to discuss it. What is there in the great point 4 program, that great and bold new program, under which we are to provide additional billions to guarantee investments — investments that are gone when they are made; in- vestments that the nationals of their own countries will not make; investments that the English people will not make in their own country because of the nationalization and socialization of prop- erty principles adopted by those coun- tries? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I should like the Rrc- orp to show that what I said was, “Does the Senator not realize the purpose of the act is to provide that these countries shall eliminate trade barriers and establish free convertibility of currency?” I do not mean that it should be spelled out in the act. What I mean is that the Di- rector, in contributing funds to balance an economy, could insist upon those measures being taken. It is a fact that the Director has been advised by the Ap- propriations Committee that it should be
2558 done. The very fact that the Director, in one of his statements since his return to this country, states that he proposes to withhold $600,000,000 until these mat- ters can be negotiated, shows that the Director can, by withholding funds, en- force the provisions; which I am sure the Senator will agree with me would be most helpful, if the money is to be spent. Is that not true? FOUR CONDITIONS ON FURTHER AID TO EUROPE Mr. MALONE. I may say tu the Sen- ator from Nebraska, of course it would have been helpful, but this is the third year and nothing has been done. I addressed the Senate on January 24 of this year and stated that not a dime should ever again be paid out to the ECA nations without four things: First, in- tegrity of private investments; second, a United States of Europe, including Ger- many; third, free convertibility of cur- rencies, among all those countries, and in terms of the dollar; and, fourth, equal access for our country to the markets of the nations of the world, subject only to the action of that particular nation; not subject to the action particularly of an empire-minded nation, a nation which says we cannot trade in the Far East, which says we cannot trade in Africa, which says we have to buy the materials from that empire-minded country, in- cluding the purchase of tin. I would say to the distinguished Sen- ator from Nebraska, we do not buy tin from the Malayan people; we buy it from England. At this very moment there is a tin cartel being formed in the State Department, or being formed in Europe with the full knowledge of the State Department, I am informed. A cartel for what? To make us pay through the nose again for the tin which we should buy direct from the Malayan States, Siam, and other Far East coun- tries. BUY FROM EMPIRE-MINDED NATIONS We are not buying tin from the Ma- lJayan States. Only recently have we been able to buy it in Indonesia. I was in both those countries, I may say to the distinguished Senator, late in 1948, and the way we bought things then from the Indonesians was, if the Indonesian sold a dollar’s worth of stuff to us he did not get the dollar in his little hard hands. The dollar went into the exchange pool, run by the Dutch, as it is run now in the Malayan States by the English, and as it is run in Indochina by the French. So what happened to the dollar? It went into the exchange pool, and the Indonesian obtained 2.63 Indonesian guilders for his dollar which could be spent in Indonesia only; on the street the dollar was worth 14 guilders; the In- donesian was getting less than 20 percent from his dollar, to start with. He had been kept bare legged and hungry for 300 years. THE COLONIAL YOKE The same thing has been done in Ma- laya for 100 years. And the same thing is being done in Indo-China. I did not intend to discuss this phase of the sub- Ject, having fully discussed it on Jan- uary 24. We were doing the same thing with the Dutch in Indonesia, with the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE British in the Malayan States, and with the French in Indo-China. We are fur- nishing them the money to hold the na- tives under the colonial yoke. What is Russia doing? She is prom- ising them relief from the yoke. She recognizes the independent ruler of Indochina. Who does the Senator think is going to win? We are going to lose, and it will not be long, either. TRADE BALANCE DEFICITS Mr. President, since the subject has been brought up, I want to say that on March 4, 1948, I discussed this subject. I mentioned a while ago, it will be re- membered, that we were making up the trade-balance deficits of the ECA na- tions. I shall show where we proved it, on the floor of the Senate, only 2 years ago, almost to the day, early in March, 1948: No doubt it is a coincidence— I may say to the senior Senator from Nebraska, I am quoting exactly from the record of my own talk, on February 4, 1948—that the money which has been asked for under the bill is $6,800,000,000 for 15 months, The distinguished Senator will re- member we had 15 months lumped to- gether; then, later, when the 3 months was cut off, they cut it down to $5,300,- 000,000. They made up the difference by cutting off 3 months. The amount asked for under the bill, $6,- 800,000,000 for 15 months, corresponds exactly to $5,300,000,000 for 12 months. In other words, the $6,800,000,000 asked for by the President for 15 months under the Marshall plan corresponds exactly in propor- tion to the #5,300,000,000 for 12 months, so the trade-balance shortage of the 16 coun- tries from all trade sources in the world for the 12 months exactly balances, by a re- markable coincidence, the amount of the Joan or gift. I hope that no one is so naive as to believe that any of it will be repaid. The exact shortage in the trade balances of all these nations with all the countries of the world in which they trade, adds up, by coincidence, to exactly $6,800,000,000 for 15 months, the exact amount asked for dur- ing that period. I was then answering the Senator from Massachusetts | Mr. Lopce], who had sug- gested that we take minerals in repay- ment of the loan. I then went on to show that if we took minerals and tex- tiles that it would shut down all the mines in America and textile plants for something like 74 years. I understand that recently the Senator has become in- terested in textiles since the “free trade” has really started to operate. FIVE BILLION DOLLARS ADDITIONAL FOR ENGLAND I may say at this point, as long as this has been brought up, that within a very short time, I understand—the rumor is very strong around Washington—the proposition will be laid before the Con- gress by the President, that the Congress appropriate an additional $5,000,000,000 for England. This will be in addition to the ECA millions. What will be the proposition? That they are going to specify, then, that we shall get materials, processed and manufactured materials, in payment of the $5,000,000,000 we ad- vance. It will then put us in a position MARCH 1 where, in order to collect it, we must all be in favor of importing this $5,000,000,- 000 worth of material. That will no doubt get into wheat, corn, textiles, min- erals, fuels, manufactured products, and so forth, before we get through. I sup- pose the distinguished Senator from Nebraska understands that we are im- porting wheat. We are importing steel. We shall have better information by the time the ECA debate comes along. It is my understanding there is going to be something like 8,000,000 to 172,000,000 tons of surplus steel in Europe next year, so they will have to sell it here. That will cause a reduction in the amount manufactured here. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MALONE. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Do not forget we are importing potatoes. STABILIZING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OF THE WORLD Mr. MALONE. It was my privilege to listen to the able argument of the Sen- ator from Nebraska in behalf of his amendment. I voted for the amend- ment, I am happy to say, because it is silly to import all the agricultural prod- ucts of the world when we are storing our own here. I refer to such things as dried eggs, potatoes, and so forth. We are storing commodities in this country while we eat those imported, or, as in the matter of potatoes, the Government is buying from the farmer at $2.25 a bushel and selling back to him at 1 cent a bushel to be fed to the hogs. When I was on a farm in Kansas I remember that when we fed potatoes to the hogs, which we did sometimes, we received no pay for the potatoes, but merely got paid for the hogs—and not very much at that, as I remember it. But if we had had the kind of Congress at that time that we have now, which does all the farming on the Senate floor and the arguing on the farms, I think I would still be on the Kansas farm. Now, Mr. President, before I leave that subject I wanted to say, at the time the distinguished Senator from Nebraska and the junior Senator from Nevada were in a colloquy, on March 5, 1948, I made certain further observations: NINETY PERCENT OF MINES SHUT DOWN As a result of the operation of the selective free-trade acts—selective by the State De- partment, which is supposed to handle for- eign affairs and not domestic affairs, just as one example, and it can happen with respect to any industry—90 percent of the mines in the United States have been shut down. That was 2 years ago. Two thousand four hundred mines in Cali- fornia have been cut down to 350. That was 2 years ago, Mr. President. They have still continued to be shut down. In Nevada the proportion is about the same, and perhaps throughout the country. If the textile industry were treated as the mineral industry has been treated— And it could be done at any time— the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LopcE] might be very much interested. I understand now that he is,
1950 JOB LISTING Mr. President, I have previously said Mr. Acheson and Mr. Hoffman suggested that the unemployed should be put on unemployment compensation insurance, to which a program of job training should be added, to train the unem- ployed men and women for new work— the unemployed men and women of New York, Massachusetts, Nevada, Nebraska, Virginia, and all other States who are affected—and they will all be affected. I understand that the lemons are being imported from Italy, and there has been considerable complaint in Florida and California about the importation of Jemons. The flexible import-fee principle ad- ministered on a basis of fair and reason- able competition would answer the problem. It would give the California and Florida lemon growers the same access to the United States markets as the Italian growers now have. FULL-PAGE ADVERTISEMENT—BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR Mr. President, I have here a full-page advertisement which appears in the New York Times of today. It is an advertise- ment of the British Industries Fair which opens on May 8, and announces that the dollars of United States buyers will be worth 30 percent more, due to deflation and other things. It all goes to show that the United States buyers can purchase necessary products for their stores at much reduced prices. It BOYS: Leo Martinugzzi, head of R. H Macy’s for- eign buying offices, to send representutives to British Industries Fair. I understand they have said they may be able to buy one half of their products in Europe under the “free trade” set-up. We have now withdrawn our “Buy America” slogan and have instituted “Buy European” slogans. I read further: Lonron.—Beginning May 8, at Ear)’s Court, London, and Castle Bromwich, Birmingham, the internationally renowned British Indus- trics Fair will exhibit the latest and finest products of British industrial genius. Dis- plays featuring products representative of the major part of British industry will be visited by trade buyers from 63 nations. In announcing the 1950 fair as the largest and most comprehensive in 29 years of Brit- ish Industries Fair history, officials stressed the fact that visiting trade buyers will have Qn opportunity to see and examine the wid- est varicty of consumer and industrial prod- ucts ever displayed. e e * s e SPECIAL FEATURES FOR UNITED STATES BUYERS VISITING BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR Every visiting buycr and purchasing agent will receive on application an advance edi- tion of the Britich Industries Fair catalog listing every product exhibited at the fair. Final editions will be available at the fair itself. It will be remembered, Mr. President, that in 1949—I do not at the moment yemember the exact date—the junior Senator from Nevada quoted from an article written by Mr. Hoffman, the ECA Director, which appeared in the Amer- ican magazine, I believe it was in March, during the debate when the ECA Act was extended the first time. Mr, Hoffman CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE advocated operating such a fair train throughout the United States of America and advertising British wares, and also the further lowering of duties and im- port fees to facilitate the importation of products. We have now arrived at that stage. I read further: 2. Buyers will receive free membership in the Overseas Buyers Clubs located at all three of the fair’s buildings. Refreshments will be served at the clubs, and an advisory staff will be on hand at all times. 3. All United States and overseas buyers will be able to obtain ration-free meals at restaurants, hotels, and cafes throughout the United Kingdom If they are staying in pri- vate homes they will be able to obtain ration cards. 4. Overseas buyers will receive buyer's badges upon arrival. Badges will admit them to all sections of the fair free, and entitle them to the use of special buyers’ clubrooms which may be used as busincss offices or social rendezvous 5. Honorary membership in the English- Speaking Union will be given to all visiting buyers. The union's travel, sightseeing, pri- vate hospitality, and personal contact facill- ties will all be available to buyers. 6. Buyers will have opportunities to visit British industrial plants and inspect methods of production and working conditions. 7. Two special British industrics fair trains will run daily to transport buyers between the London and Birmingham exhibits, and air- taxi service will be available. 8. Cable, banking, and secretarial services will be avuilable for the asking. 9. Buyers bringing cars can obtain a gaso- line allowance for 1,600 miles of travel, and a 90-day tax-free permit. 10. Overseas newspapcrs will be available and a special guide to recreation and enter- tainment will be at every buyer’s disposal. The headlines go on to say: British Industries Fair opens May 8: dol- lars of United States buyers worth 30 percent more. Largest national industrial fair open London and Birmingham May 8-19, greatest values ever for United States buyers. 1934 TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT—FREE TRADE It will be remembered, Mr. President, that on the floor of the Senate, when we were debating as to whether the 1934 Trade Agreements Act should be ex- tended, early in September 1949, the junior Senator from Nevada stated that at the time of the international confer- ence between England, Canada, and the United States, in Washington, the pur- pose of the conference was twofold: First, it was to divert attention from the most important debate on the Senate floor in a century—extending the free- trade policy for another 3 years—and to cover up the fact that they meant to devalue their foreign currencies. There has never been any objective of any foreign nation except to get part of our market from the time they met at San Francisco to form the United Na- tions Organization. I was present, rep- resenting the fenate Military Affairs Committce. I had been representing it during the war in various parts of the world, and I had the credentials to enable me to at- tend that Conference. DIVIDE OUR MAREKETS—ONLY PURPOSE I entertained representatives of most of the Asiatic and South American na- 2559 tions at lunch, dinner, or breakfast to determine what the real objective was. Their only thought was, “How much of our products can we sell, and how soon can we begin?” That was their purpose in being present, When I was returning after the Con- ference, at Denver newspaper reporters asked, “What do you think of the great United Nations which has just been or- ganized?”” What I said sounded a little facetious, but it was not facetious. I said: At that Conference there were 49 nations representcd. Forty-eight of them had a mar- ket basket on each arm and Uncle Sam was the only one who had anything to put into them. What do you think? OBJECTIVE—-SELL GOODS IN OUR MARKETS It has required 4 years for it to become plain to every Senator that that is ex- acily the objective of all foreign nations, to divide the markets of the United States and to sell their goods in this country, not for this country to sell abroad, as was first claimed. That was what was held out to us in 1948. They spoke of the great mar- kets which would be developed for Amer- ican businessmen and American work- ingmen. No markets have been devel- oped. Those nations will not even trade with each other, let alone with us. Our markets have been wide open since 1934 the first date of the Trade Agreements Act—then extended in September 1949. I stated at that time that England would devalue her currency and come under every agreement which had been made. That is exactly what has happened. Mr. President, at the moment, almost, of their return home, they did devalue their currency, efter denying it seven times. Several times during the course of the debate the junior Senator trom Nevada said they would so devalue it. Mr. Cripps denied it seven times. How- ever, when he got home, he did devalue the currency, about 30 percent, as it says here. Just as the junior Senator from Nevada said at that time he would, it is now said in the article I hold in my hand, from which I read: POUND DEVALUATION GIVES MORE FOR DOLLAR New valuation of pound gives more for dollar. British quality goods now available at low cost. Buyers going to fair advised to make early reservations for hotel and travel. Devaluation of pound makes dollars worth 30 percent more in Britain. Exhaustive market research conducted in the United States by British manufacturers is now beginning to show results in products specially designed for the American market. Many British manufacturers have developed completely new products and effected radi- cal changes in their prewar packaging and marketing methods. In consequence, United States buyers and purchasing agents visiting the British In- dustries Fair on May 8 will sec an entirely new line of British merchandise specifically manufactured to create extensive sales in the American market. For the first time in their history, Britain will concentrate on displaying products designed to meet com- pletely non-British needs. The fair will filustrate the extent to which British in- Gustries are combining to earn dollars. In most merchandising circles it is felt that devaluation of the British pound is the
2560 key to greater distribution of British prod- ucts in the United States. Millions of Amer- icans who have long admired quality British exports have, in the past, been ruled out as customers because of cost considerations. Now, with the dollar worth 30 percent more in Britain, prices have readjusted at a level that will bring British products within the reach of most Americans. Items like china, leather goods, hand woven fabrics, and a host of other products for which Britain has long been famous, will be priced within the range of the average American’s pocketbook. There is every indication that the American market for such goods is virtually limited, and American importers can look forward to brisk sales and excellent profits. POUND DEVALUATION—FREE TRADE Mr. President, I invite the attention of the Senate to the full-page advertise- ment in the New York Times, in order to call attention not only to the prod- ucts, which, of course, is a very legiti- mate thing—we have our own fairs— but to the fact that through devaluation of the pound, a benefit of 30 percent in values can be given. That is only half of it, Mr. President. The Secretary of State and Mr. Hoffman say that free trade must be continued. They say we have a choice, if you please, of whether to continue large appropriations to make up the trade-balance deficits, as I just outlined, of $6,800,000,000 for 15 months in 1948, and $5,300,000,000 for the following 12 months, or of dividing the markets of the United States so that our markets could be averaged and there would be no deficit. LOWER LIVING STANDARDS~-PERPETUAL PEACE In other words, our standard of liv- ing is to come down and is to be averaged with the nations of the world, particu- larly the European nations. Presum- ably, on that basis, we shall have perpetual peace, because we shall have nothing about which people will be envious. In other words, perpetual peace is what is held up in front of us, while, as a matter of fact, no direct conver- sations have ever been held with the only nation on earth which could give us battle. We do not work through third parties; we work with third parties. Still, we must lower all our imports and tariff fees, which make up the differen- tial in the standards of living of the 50-cents-a-day slave labor, the dollar- and-a-half-a-day labor in Europe, Africa, and South America, and the eight- or ten-dollar-a-day labor in America. That is what we are asked to do, and that is what is being advocated by the State Department. ANOTHER TARIFF LOWERING CONFERENCE Another conference has been called for a further lowering of tariffs and im- port fees. Now, Mr. President, a suggestion was made before the Foreign Relations Com- mittee which was very interesting to me. I quote from an article written by W. M. Jablonski, petroleum editor, which appeared in the New York Journal of Commerce today: ECA Administrator Paul G. Hoffman went in for understatement when he told Senator Henry Cabot Lopce that he knew of no prob- lem with so many complexities as intcr- national oil. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE And a gocd illustration of what Mr. Hoffman must have meant was the Senator's own simple solution to the problem. Senator LoncE proposed that an easy way to eliminate Britain's dollar gap and at the same time end Marshall plan subsidies of American oil companies would be to: (1) Buy and import into the United States a billion dollars’ worth of oil from sterling sources, and (2) put an end to ECA’s $600,- 000,000 subsidy of American oil sales to Britain by forcing the British to use their own oil instead. BUY AT LOW PRICE—SELL AT HIGH PRICE Mr. President, without discussing the answer given to the distinguished Sena- tor from Massachusetts by the ECA Di- rector, I should like to make the observa- tion that all of us desire to sell our own services or goods at a high price, and to buy everything we need to buy at a low price. That principle has been going on for some time. Furthermore, no indi- vidual or nation ever buys anything from anyone else if it can conveniently pro- duce it for itself. That is axiomatic. Secondly, when one cannot conveniently produce something for himself, either as an individual or as a nation, he buys it where he can get the quality he wants at the lowest possible price. That principle, Mr. President, if al- lowed to operate, would solve many prob- lems. The suggestion by the distin- guished Senator from Massachusetts is merely following out the attitude of nearly everyone in the world, namely, if the onus can be put on the other fellow, and he can be made to bear the brunt of it, it is all right. But do not let it happen to Texas, as the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. ConNnaLty] said the other day, according to an editorial in a local paper this morning. Do not let it happen to Massachusetts. “Do not let it happen to Nevada. GET DOWN TO PRINCIPLES I say, Mr. President, the time has come to dismiss all those things. Let us get down to principles. Instead of saying we should have free trade in oil, or free trade in textiles, and a high tariff or some other kind of a tariff on some prod- uct like wheat, or someone else’s product, perhaps potatoes, let us get down to principles and have the Congress of the United States take back its constitutional authority, which it transferred volun- tarily to the State Department, to regu- late the economy of this Nation through fixing import fees and tariffs on imports. Let us not transfer it further away to 57 foreign nations, as will be proposed by the International Trade Organization bill, which is now in committee, and is supposed to come out to the floor of the Senate soon after the ECA is disposed of. Let us take the authority back. THE FLEXIBLE IMPORT FEE PRINCIPLE Let us substitute the flexible import fee principle for the Trade Agreements Act of 1934 as extended, and simply trans- form the long-experienced Trade Com- mission body and foreign trade authority into a body more nearly representing what it does, and give that body the lati- tude to fix tariffs and import fees on the basis of a fair and reasonable competi- tion—the differential in costs, due main- MARCH 1 ly to the standards of living in competi- tive nations and in this Nation. FACTORS CONSIDERED BY FOREIGN TRADE AUTHORITY Mr. President, how can that be donc? Many people dismiss it as impossible, It is not impossible. It is the simplest thing in the world. Many factors would be taken into consideratio:. by the Au- thority, just as a Railroad Commission in a State may take into account many factors in fixing a freight rate. When the nations, as at present, are subsidizing their industries and bringing in products at fictitious prices, with no consideration at all of the original cost, the controlling factors can be used, under the flexible import-fee principle to neutralize these fictitious values. Let us use the two fac- tors of declared value or imports, and the offered-for-sale price. They are in- cluded in the flexible import-fee bill. Those two factors are available to any commission, they are available to any citizen. When there is manipulation, which the commission would certainly know about, let us use those two factors as controlling factors. Britain is subsi- dizing its industries through food sub- sidies, by holding prices of food down and making up the difference in cash— our cash, if you please. Let them ma- nipulate their currency and lower it 30 percent, or any other percent, but when they offer it for dollars in this country, at an offered-for-sale price, let the two factors I have mentioned control. THE RESULT WILL BE HIGHER FOREIGN LIVING STANDARDS Mr. President, what is the effect? When it is realized that we have adopted a principle, when the Congress of the United States has takan back its consti- tutional authority to regulate the econ- omy, foreign countries immediately real- ize there is no advantaze gained by all these manipulations and false va’ues for currency, and subsidizing their indus- tries. So what would they do? Instead of paying the money into the United States Treasury, they might go home and decide to raise their own standards of living, which we say is our objective in the first place. Any sensible nation would do that, and I am sure that they would make it to their interest to do what we say we want them to do in the first place. HELP THEM RAISE THEIR WAGE-LIVING STANDARDS Then, as they raise their standard of living, the import fee on these products would come down in proportion. It is then to the interest of the foreign coun- tries to raise their standard of living. When they do finally reach approximate- ly our standard, the common objective of free trade which we all want is auto- matically reached. That is just the dif- ference between jumping off the roof to come down to the level of someone else, as we are doing now, and lowering a ladder to him so he can climb up on it. The latter course would require a little longer time, but in the end we would all be on a higher plane.
1950 STATESMANSHIP HAS REACHED A NEW LOW Mr. President, I believe we will all agree, if we stop to consider the matter, that when proposals are made by Mr. Acheson, Secretary of State, and Mr. Hoffman, head of the ECA, that we sub- sidize our own labor, and our own work- ingmen, who are put out of employment by bringing low-wage labor in direct competition with them, and that we sub- sidize or pay the investors the losses they incur in a business when that busi- ness loses out, and when the stockhold- ers are wiped out through competition permitted by the Senate and the House, American statesmanship has reached a new low even for a socialistically in- clined State Department. CONSPIRACY TO LOWER THE WAGE STANDARDS OF AMERICAN LABOR The whole three-part free-trade pro- gram of the administration amounts to @ conspiracy to lower the wage standards of living of the American working man and to sacrifice American investments in the interests of the one economic world, all in the name of perpetual peace, The administration’s three-part free- trade program includes: First. The 1934 Trade Agreements Act, as extended, giving the President (State Department) the right to lower import fees and tariffs as much as 75 percent after perfunctory hearings. I have de- scribed those hearings, Mr. President. The result of the hearings was to give other countries all the best of it. Con- gress in effect transferred to the State Department through this act their con- stitutional responsibility to regulate the national economy of this Nation. Second. The Marshall plan—now ECA—making up the trade balance defi- cits of the 16 European nations each year in cash and goods; our chief export is cash. That is the second part of the three- part, free trade program. What is that third part? It is the third part, as I have proviously described, which has not yct been adopted by the Senate and the House. At first, as I un- derstand, {t was intended to bring the International Trade Agreement before the Senate as a treaty, but it was known that the proponents could not muster the two-thirds vote necessary to pass the proposal as a treaty, so now it is going to both Houses, to be passed by a simple majority, and to be signed by the Presi- dent of the United States. It is on the President’s must lst along with higher taxes and additional billions of dollars for point 4. FOINT 4 GUARANTEFS INTEGRITY OF COLONIAL SYSTEM Point 4, the great, “Bold new pro- gram,” is nothing more or less than the guaranty of investments in colonial areas for empire-minded nations, It is pro- posed to guarantee investments in co- lonial areas, not for the benefit of the people of those areas, but for the benefit of the colonial-minded empire nations which control those areas. That is point 4. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE THREE MUSTS ON PRESIDENT’S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM What all was contained in the first speech the President made this year be- fore the United States Senate? This may be a good point at which to sum it all up. After all the nice things he was going to do for all the foreign nations of the world, after all the things he was going to do for all the individuals in the United States, what did the President say? He made three recommendations. First on the must program is the International Trade Organization I am about to de- &cribe. Second, billions for point 4, the “Bold new program” and third, higher taxes, Second was point 4. By that he pro- posed that billions of dollars were to be used to guarantce investments which are lost when they are made. The na- tionals of the countries concerned them- selves will not invest their own money in their own countries because of the sccialistic policies of their governments, which include nationalizing industry, socializing industry, and appropriating capital. It is impossible to get any one of their own people to invest their money in their own country. So we are going to guarantee the investments. That isa Httle different from the way any bank with which I have done business oper- ates. The borrower from a bank him- self guarantees the investment. JUST DO NOT DO ANY MORE TO ME Mr. President, we are always doing something for somebody. That reminds me of a letter I received from a con- stituent in Nevada. He wrote me a letter with a pencil containing three or four paragraphs. First he agreed with an address I had delivered. The last para- graph was the pay-off. He said, “Do not try to do anything more for me. Just do not do anything more to me.” I think it is time the Senate of the United States understands that kind of language and I think they will begin to hear more of it. Let us now sec what the International Trade Organization is. The first two parts of the three-part free-trade pro- gram establish the system of free trade through the 1934 Trade Agreements Act. They can lower the tariff 75 percent. The Marshal! plan would make up the trade-balance deficit until such time as the markets can be divided sufficiently so there are no more deficits. Third. The International Trade Or- ganization—on the President’s must list for passage by Congress early this session—will be 58 nations—57 foreign nations and the United States—each with one vote—the United States will have the same vote as Siam. Fifty-four or 65 nations have already signed up, and the rest will, because they can do nothing but win, and we can do nothing but lose. We are the only nation in the world today in which goods can be sold for which dollars will be given in return unless we have previously given that na- tion the money to pay for ft. This Organization will be empowered to fix the import fees and tariffs of its 2561 member nations, and, Mr. President, note this—to set the quotas of production for the nations on processed and manu- factured articles of ali kinds, agricul- ture, fuel, minerals, and all the rest. In other words, the Congress of the United States transferred this constitutional au-~ thority to regulate the economy of the United States to the State Department in 1934. In 1950 it is contemplated that the Congress of the United States will then transfer the contro) of the econ- omy from the State Department to the 57 foreign nations. If we are silly enough to do that I only hope our constituents understand what we are doing and will take note for future reference. It will make permanent what the first two steps have already established. BIPARTISAN FOREIGN POLICY Mr. President, I want to say the so- called bipartisan foreign-policy group on the Senate floor has supported the ad- ministration's three-part free-trade pro- gram, which transferred the author- ity over the national economy to the State Department. That was the bi- partisan policy, and nothing else. We passed the first two parts. However, the third part of the policy which would transfer contro] over our national economy from the State De- partment to the International Trade Organization, now on the President’s “must” legislation list, is yet to be passed by the Congress. I am hoping to say that the bipartisan-foreign policy is dead. FLEXIBLE-IMPORT-FEE PRINCIPLE—CONGRESS REGAINS CONTROL The _ flexible-import-fee principle which I have previously mentioned must be substituted for the 1934 Trade Agree- ments Act. Through the flexible-im- port-fee bill introduced in 1948 and again in 1949, and then offered as a substitute for the extension of the Trade Agreements Act in September 1949 by the junior Senator from Ne- vada, the Congress would regain con- trol of its national economy and sep- arate the national economy control from the foreign-trade policy. To tie the two together was the effect of what Congress did in 1934. The Constitution of the United States never contemplated anything of the kind. It never contem- plated that the State Department with all its interests tied up in foreign affairs would be given the authority to divide the markets of the United States of America with foreign nations, to gain some fancied advantage. CONGRESS ESTABLISHES THE PRINCIPLE The bill provides for turning the long- established Tariff Commission into a for- eign-trade authority—more nearly rep- resenting its work—and giving it the same latitude in fixing import fees and tariffs on the basis of fair and reason- able competition, as the Congress has long since given the Interstate Com- merce Commission the responsibility of fixing freight rates for the carriers on the basis of reasonable return on the investment.
2562 In other words, it is merely a matter of an established principle by the Congress of the United States to be carried out by a commission already established, that is, the long established and experienced Tariff Commission. By some who favor free trade the re- moval of obstructions so as to permit low-cost labor products to come into the United States, which would result in dis- placing the labor of the United States as well as destroying investments in indus- try, I have heard it said, “Oh, yes; you want a high tariff.” NO QUESTION OF A HIGH OR LOW TARIFF No one wants a high tariff. No one wants a low tariff. No one who has stud- jed the subject wants either one. What we want is that differential due to the different standards of living representcd by an import fee. There would then be no question of a high or low import fee or tariff, but such an import fee would represent the differential of cost mainly due to the difference between the wage standards of living of workers in our country and in competitive countries on each specific product, Since manipulation of their currencies, subsidies through food costs and bulk buying and selling by governments is widely practiced by many foreign coun- tries for trade advantage, actual costs of production mean very little. There- fore the two most reliable factors avail- able to the Foreign Trade Authority are the “declared customs value” and the “offered for sale price,” both of which can be included in the factors determin- ing the proper import fee or tariff on any specific product. MAINTAIN WAGE STANDARD OF LIVING Through this method our own wage standard of living would be maintained while we are assisting the foreign na- tions to raise their own—as the world wage standards of living were raised, then the flexible import fees would be proportionately reduced—and when their wage standard of living approxi- mates our own then the common objec- tive of free trade would be the almost automatic and immediate result. As the wages and standards of living are raised the flexible import fees would be propor- tionately reduced. When their wages and standards of living approximate ours, Mr. President, the common objec- tive of free trade will be the almost auto- matic and immediate result. Mr. President, the jugular vein of the system 1s the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, as extended, and the International Trade Organization, which is on the must hst of the President's program for early 1950. To cut that jugular vein then, Mr. Presi- dent, let us reject the proposed Interna- tional Trade Organization and let us sub- stitute the flexible fee import principle for the 1924 Trade Agreements Act, as extended. Mr. President, at this point I wish to say something which could more properly be presented in connection with foreign- policy matters; but, inasmuch as the Con- gress has made possible the tying to- gether of regulation of the national econ- omy of this country with the forcign policy, I wish to 1cfer to an article ap- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE pearing in the Washington Star of Feb- ruary 26. The article was written by Constantine Brown. The headline is: Western Europe swings toward neutral policy—idea of taking sides in war between United States and Russia is more distasteful because of superbomb threats. Mr. President, on many previous oc- casions I have pointed out that the in- terests of the western European countries lie with Russia and with the iron-curtain countries. As proof of that statement, on January 24 of this year I submitted to the Senate 95 trade treaties made be- tween 16 of the ECA nations and Russia and the iron-curtain countries. By means of those trade treaties, those 16 ECA nations will sell to Russia and to the iron-curtain countries everything from monkey wrenches to locomotives, tool stecl, ball bearings, heavy industrial equipment, elcctrical equipment, ma- chinery of all kinds, road machincry, farm machinery—in fact, everything on earth that the Russians need to consoli- date their gains in eastern Europe and in Asia and to fight world war III. I say that the interests of western Eu- rope are identical with the interests of Russia and the iron-curtain countries, because Russia and the iron-curtain countries are producers of raw mate- rials, and, just as the United States is, the ECA countries are processors and manufacturers. Trade between them and Russia and the iron-curtain coun- tries 1s a natural thing. ECA BUILDING UP COMMUNISM Incidentally, Mr. President, we in this country say we are stopping communism by means of the ECA; but there never was a greater piece of poppycock in all the world than the statement that we are stopping communism by sending money to the ECA countries. The fact is that, to the contrary, we are building up communism by that means. Let us consider Britain. I am sorry to have to say that it frequently is said that there are Communists in Britain. Mr. President, why should there be Com- munists in Britain? Why should there be, when the authorities in Britain are socializing Britain, and already have na- tonalized most of the British industries. According to their own statements, they will nationalize all the rest of British industry as soon as they are strong enough to do so. Again, Mr. President, I say there is no difference between socialism and com- munism, for the ultimate objective of each is the perfect state, with the indi- vidual owning nothing. The only dif- ference is that a Communist will shoot you in order to reach that situation, where as the Socialist will spend you into it. That is what we are doing to the people of the United States, Mr. President; right here on the floor of the Senate we are heading toward the same kind of government. So why should there be a Communist in Britain? That is no place for a Com- munist, for the Communists have joincd with the Socialists. So, Mr. President, what is a Com- munist? He is just an impatient Social- ist; a Communist will shoot you to get what we will spend our way into. Marcu 1 Mr. President, let me quote from the text of the article to which I have re- ferred, as it appeared in the Washing- ton Sunday Star on February 26: (By Constantine Brown) A sentiment in favor of neutrality in case of an east-west war is spreading rapidly throughout western Europe. In both Britain and France, muinstays of the western European defensive bloc, many in the highest offices as well as many rank- and-file citizens believe that the best policy for their country in this age of atomic and hydrogen bombs is to stay out of any con- flict, regardless of the consequences. Two giants are facing each other; Russia, the ruthless, which will stop at nothing to Gain its ends, and America, feartul of en- gaging its strength except under direct provo- cation Europeans say there is nothing for them to do in the presence of this rivalry but to stand aside in an uncomfortable and painful neutrality and await developments. Until recently there was a widespread be- lief, not only in western Europe, but also among Russia's satellites, that America had something more than financial and techno- logical strength. Europeans believed that behind the screen of dignified patience, which was due to the realization of what an- other war would mcan, America concealed a real punch, The disparity between our regular forces and those of the U.S S R were well known. The details had been published in this coun- try and abroad. But in Europe that disparity was considered as a temporary matter. UNPREPARED BEFORE Amcrica had been militarily unprepared in both World Wars. Yet, within the shortest imaginable time we produced the greatest and most powerful fighting forces in the world Germany and tts allies went into both World Wars I and II with most tor- midably prepared military machines. But those machines collapsed when America made up its mind to replace soft words with hard-hitting physical force. But that was in the past. Since the end of World War II western Euope, collapsing under the strain of two of the most ex- hausting wars that continent has ever ex- perienced, has looked to America for the eco- nomic and financial help necessary to stem the advance of communism. We responded immediately. But soon it becomes obvious that economic recovery alone was not pos- sible unless the west had the means to fight militant communism with force. We suggested—or it was suggested to us— that the Atlantic alliance be created and that Europe be rearmed through the military aid program. But neither of these plans could be of any value, Europeans realized, unless America itself proceeded to rebuild its mili- tary forces to the point where it could inter- vene successfully against a Red onslaught. Europeans knew only too well that the 25 divisions and 2,000 planes which were to com- pose their rejuvenated military forces would be only a kind of advance guard, which would delay, if possible, the advance of the Russian forces. RUSSIANS CATCH UP There can be no strength in such a small force. The French and British and their as- sociates remembered only too well that a force nearly four times that size melted like snow in the spring before a smaller, but de- termined German military machine. The reference in the article is to the North Atlantic Pact, by which we say we will give the western European countries a billion or a billion and a half dollars’ worth of arms each year. Mr President, on the occasion of the dcbate on the North Atlantic Pact, I
1950 quoted a well-known general, who is an authority in France, and other authori- ties, to the effect that nothing short of $50,000,000,000 would make a dent in that situation; and their estimate was that $100,000,000,000 would be required in or- der that Europe could resist Russia at all. Otherwise, as anyone well knows, tomor- row or the next day or 6 months from now or at any other time, unless we spend that amount of money, Russia will take Europe in 30 days, along with everything we have given Europc—whenever the no- tion strikes her. Further along in the article the follow- ing statement is made: Some top-ranking political men in Europe becun having qualms, however, about Amer- fen’s firmness in its policy of containing communism. HAULING COAL WHILE RUSSIA TAKES ASIA Mr. President, I should think they would have some qualms by now, so far as concerns our containing communism, when communism already has practi- cally all of Asia, and when we are the ones who, at Yalta, turned over to Russia the bread baskct of Europe, and at Yalta we also gave Russia Berlin, without pro- viding any way by which we could either get into it or get out of it. Of course, Mr. President, when the Russians were able to block our access to Berlin by sim- ply posting a sentry or two, armed with rifles, on the highways leading to Berlin, we were forced to haul supplies to Berlin by air, and we even went so far as to haul coal by air, at a cost of $400 to $500 per ton. We were forced to spend tremen- dous sums of money to take supplies to our personnel in Berlin, whereas Russia did not have to spend any cffort at all in order to require us to make that tremen- dous effort and expenditure. Of course, Mr. President, one of the great tricks of warfare is to draw the fire of the encmy without at the same time using one’s own ammunition or sup- plies. So the Russians simply posted a sentry or two, armed with rifles, along the highways leading to Berlin, and then we were required to establish the expen- sive airlift. During that time Russia took Asia, and after Russia took Asia she lifted the Berlin embargo. What great strategists we are, Mr. President. I read further from the article: They could not reconcile our forceful state- ments, for instance, with our policy in China, Politically astute Europeans have always con- sidered us amateurs and novices in the old game of diplomacy. Mr, President, I certainly agree there with the writer of the article. Was 1t not Will Rogers who said, facetiously, in the old days—as a matter of fact, it is all too true, Mr. President—that we never lost a@ war or won a conference. If he were alive today, Mr. President, he certainly would say the same thing again. We have maintained a perfect record, Mr. President, when we get into matters of international trade we are just like neo- phytes in a professional poker game. When I participated for 4 or 5 hours in the Senate debate on extension of the Trade Agreements Act in September 1949, Senators on both sides of the aisle said that Britain and the other Euro- pean nations would not devalue their CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE currencies. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Nevada said they would de- value their currency and would flood the United States with their goods. Mr. Cripps said, seven or eight times, that they would not do that. But he and the other representatives of the western European countries had no more than returned home before the did Just that, but only after we had extended the Trade Agreements Act for 3 years and hed given them more money. Of course they did not devalue their currencies until we had extended the agreements for 3 years more. I read further from the article: But to them China meant more than a diplomatic defeat. Mr. President, I wish to say that it means more thin a diplomatic dcfeat to those of use who have been in the two world wars I read further: It meant a@ crushing military defeat at the hands of those we were trying to contain in Europe. It meant that the Russians, after so many years of effort, finally had sealcd their eastern flank Mr. President, I think I shall not be violating any confidences if I now quote a great gencral. In early December 1948 I was talking with a great general in Japan. I asked him, “General, what would be the effect on us if we lost China and Asia?” I had just left Pcking, where we were told that the Communists were only 8 miles out of the city. General Fu had met us with a plane without hghts, and we had gone to his camp and had talked to him for several hours. He said: “I want to tell you, Senator, that I was de- feated in 1946, when the great General Marshall decided he would not send any American ammunition for the American guns you had already given us, and when he decided that we must Iet the Commu- nists through the pass, to go into Man- churia, which had already been given to the Communists, to get the ammunition and the guns Japan had left there.” Furthermore, General Fu said he had good information that certain of the ammunition factories had been moved into the edge of Russia and were oper- ating and getting new ammunition to the Communists. He said, “You can take back the word.” This was either late in November or early in December 1948— he had held open the railroad to tide- water—“you can take back the word that unless I get substantial help within 30 to 60 days, Iam a prisoner of war”—and he was. China and probably the whole Far East henceforth are closed to us militarily. And, of course, it is. School boys know it. We have been talking about Formosa, Mr. President, and the little islands nearby. We are complaining of a pim- ple on a man’s nose, when he is dying of cancer. We are not touching the real subject. What did this great American general in Japan say to me when I asked him, “General, what will be the effect, if we lose Asia? Can we hold Japan? Can we hold the Philippines?” The great gen- eral, who had spent most of his life in the area, a man wi.om everyone reveres 2563, and respects when it comes to his mili- tary knowledge replied, “Yes, we can hold them at least for a long time, but the cost would be terrific. But psycho- logically and economically, we are doomed.” That is what he said. CONFIDENCE IN A GREAT NAMB Those things are not secrets with the State Department or with the Presi- dent of the United States. They were not secrets then. What we did, in the humble opinion of the junior Senator from Nevada, was to take advantage of a@ great name, a man who had just won a great war, General Marshall, to put over @ preconcelved plan to let Asia go into the hands of the Communists. That is what we did, in my opinion, because the people of the United States had confi- dence in the name, not realizing the gencral was an old man who had passed his prime, a man who was taking orders from the State Department, and who knew nothing at all about the job and who, apparently, from all appearances and from the effects of his policy, had no idea of retaining anything in Asia. OPPOSITION TO THE RULE OF RUSSIA So, what do we get from the preat Secretary of State? He says, “Well, we must play the field. We must allow this to take its course.” That was because, in his opinion, there would be opposition in all the countries to the rule of Russia. Mr. President, how is opposition to de- velop in those countries, when we fl- nance the ECA countries to the extent of $6,000,000,000 or $7,000,000,000 an- nually, and they in turn make 95 trade treaties, up to now, since World War II, with Russia and with Eastern European countries, sending them everything in God Almighty’s world necessary to con- solidate their gains in Eastern Europe and in China and in Asia and Africa, everything with which to fight World War III. OUR ERSTWHILE ALLIES RECOGNIZE COMMUNIST CHINA How is that going to create dissatis- faction in those countries? How will they become dissatisfied when they will be getting along better than ever before? What do we then find our great ally, England, followed by India, doing? They recognize Communist China and continue to increase their exports through Hong Kong to Communist China, in order to consolidate their gains. How is there going to be dissatis- faction? They will get along better than ever before. CHINA CLOSED TO US China, and probably the whole Far East, henceforth will be closed to us militarily. There is no longer any op- portunity to use the great eastern part of Asia as a base for air operations against the Soviet Union, and thus threaten the vital industrial portions of the USSR. ECA NATIONS WILL BE NEUTRAL Mr. President, I merely bring out these matters to show what I have said before on the Senate floor, that in my opinion the ECA nations, to a large extent, will be neutral when Russia and the United States wage war upon each other—if they do, They will remain neutral, just