A288 The Nation’s answer to this problem was Federal credit for rural electrification, with farmers operating their own power systems. Congress made the first move by including funds for promotion of rural electrification in the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. The late President Roosevelt, on May 11, 1935, established the Rural Electrifi- cation Administration by Executive order, REA became a continuing agency of the Fed- eral Government when Congress on May 20, 1936, passed the Rural Electrification Act. At the start of the program, it was be- Heved that commercial power companies would take the lead in the rural electrifica- tion program. However, utility firms bor- rowed less than $1,000,000 of 8100,000,000 in emergency relief funds mace available for the program in 1935, and it soon became ap- parent that a truly na‘ional program was possible only if farmers themselves became active. In 1935, rural electric cooperatives began to spring up throughout the country. Their accomplishments ~oon established the fact that the nonprofit farmer cooperative was a highly effective instrument for rural electrification. The effectiveness of the Federal] rural elec- trification program is shown by the latest official reports of progress. A few months before REA was established, fewer than 750.- 000 American farms had central station elec- tric service. As of July 1, 1946, this number had grown to more than 38,000,000 or nearly 63 percent of all the farms in the Nation. Approximately half of the farms electrificd since 1935 are served by REA-financed lines. The rest are on nes of commercial power companies whose activitr in rural areas has been stimulated by the REA p.ogram. More than 900 RE‘4 borrowers, financed by loans exceeding §8900.000,000, are today operating nearly a half-million miles of lines serving more than 1.600,0C0 farms and other rural consumers in 4¢ States, Alaska, and the Virgin Islands. More than 75 percent of the consumers on REA-financed lines are farms. The rest are nonfarm rural homes, churches, schools, community halls, stores, and a vartety of rural industries such as creamerics, grain elevators, woodworking plants, machinery repair shops, and quarries. Farmers are managing their own coopera- tive electric systems so well that in many cases they are repuying their Government loans more rapidly than their loan contracts require. REA latest reports show that bor- rowers have paid nearly 8100,000.C00 of principal and interest on their loans, of which almost $20,000,000 represents pay- ments on principal in advance of due dates. Payments overdue more than 30 days totaled only abour 700,000 or less than eight-tenths of 1 percent of the amount due. In the State of Tennessee, before the rural electrification program began, only 9,727 farms, or 3.6 percent of all the farms in the State, had central station electric service. Latest estimates based on the 1940 census show that 25.6 percent of all 247,C17 farms now are electrifed. There are 30 REA bor- rowers in the State, operating nearly 15,000 miles of power Hnes and serving more than 102,000 rural consumers. One of the factors that has enabled REA borrowers to carry out electrification in sparsely settled rural areas that commercial power companies fcund uninviting is the principle of area cuverage. REA believes that in any rural community every farmer who wants electric scrvice is as much entitled to it as another. In carrying out this policy of area coverage, REA borrowers group farms in thinly settled territory on lines with those in more populous areas. In this way, they are able to serve entire rural communities at uniformly low rates. A great deal remains to be accomplished in Tennessee in carrying out this area-coverage program Tennessee contains some of the Nation's largest co-ops and ranks second only to Texas in number of consumers served by REA-financed lines. However, the latest operating reports of the Tennessee co-ops in- dicate that only 49 percent of the consum- ers they serve are farms. This is among the lowest percentages in the country. The rest are nonfarm establishments, such as homes, business stores, and industries in small towns and villages. The REA-financed Ines in Tennessee serve an average of more than 7 consumers to the mile, the highest of any State, indicating grounds for suspecting that the co-ops here have not. yet gone so far back into the hills and remote valleys as those elsewhere. In 1945, Congress approved the McCord amendment to the Rural Electrification Act, under which REA was authorized to make loans to finance the Tenncssee co-ops to refinance their indebtedness to TVA. This action enabled the co-ops to qualify for the 2 percent, 35-year financing available through REA. All of the TVA co-ops in Ten- nessee have now taken advantage of the more favorable financing made available to them under this amendment, have refinanced their TVA loans, und are fully financed by REA. One effect of this change in financing is expected to be increased emphasis by the Tennessee co-ops on service to farms. This tendency can be seen already in the expan- sion plans the Tennessee co-ops have sub- raitted to REA for approval. Of the $550,000,000 in REA loan funds available during the 2-year period of fiscal 1946 and fiscal 1947, REA has already allo- cated more than 818.000,000 in loan funds to Tennessee borrowers. These loans will fi- nance the additional REA-financed power systems in the State of 12,500 miles of rural power lines serving 63,000 new consumers. These new lines are being built as rapidly as line-construction materials can be obtained. The Tennessee co-ops are continuing to pre- pare plans for additional expansion. As of the end of 1946, loan applications totaling almost $9.000.000 from Tennessee borrowers were beine processed in REA headquarters or were tn preparation in the field. REA loans approved in Tennessee since the program began amount to more than $30,000,000. Of the total amount approved, almost 818.000 000 has been advanced to the borrowers to finance paying for completed construction, The Tennessee borrowers have paid nearly $5.000.000 of principal and in- terest on their Government loans. Nearly one-fourth of this amount represents pay- ments on principal in advance of due dutes. Rural electrification has greatly stimulat- ed city and small-town employment and trade in Tennessee. Experience has shown that for every dollar spent in building rural power lines, farmers spent 82 for wiring. plumbing, equipment, and appliances. Add- ed to these direct business benefits is the effect of rural electrification in increasing farm efficiency and income and thus con- tributing to community morale and pros- perity. Farmers served by REA-financed lines in Tennessee are making ever wider use of elec- tric powcr. Scores have taken up dairying as an added farm enterprise, using electric- ity to do most of the work: pump water, milk the cows, and cool the milk for the grade A market. Electric haydriers no long- er are a novelty in the State. One farmer last year was paid a premium of 85 to $10 a ton for his barn-cured hay. Some farmers have turned from cotton to livestock farming, relying on the electric pump to supply water; others have turncd to truck farming, using electricity to irri- gate; still others have gone into the poultry business, using lights to provide longer days for the laying hens, electric heat for chick brooders, and electric power for the water pump. In many sections of the country, the in- creased use being made of electricity by APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD farmers has produced « shortage of powet in rural areas. The co-cps of Tennessee, supplied abundantly with TVA power at rea- sonable wholesale rates, are fortunate that this problem does not bother them. This power situation, plus the relatively high con- sumer density of the co-op systems, places the Tennessee co-ops in unusually favorable position to carry out farm electrification on a wide scale. The Rural Electrificution Administration was established because of the needs of rural people for electric service. Electricity on the farm may once have been a luxury, but de- velopments of the last 11 years have made It plain that it is now an essential service. Without electric power, it is becoming in- creasingly difficult for the farmer who lacks electric power to make nis full contribution to our agricultural economy. Extension of that service to every Tennessee farmer will require enlightened membership and con- tinuance of wise and unselfish local leader- ship. A few days ago I received a letter from Mr. W. S. Bates, manager o! the Volunteer Elec- tric Cooperative I want to quote three para- graphs from this letter. I am Certain Mr. Bates expresses the sentiments and experi- ence of rural electric cooperatives throughout the country. “It bas been reportec that Congressman TareR, who, we understand, is slated to be- come chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has stated that the Rural Elec- trification Administration has been “eceiv- ing three or four times too much money, that it ought to be put on a business basis, and that he intends to see that this is done “Our project is providing electric service for approximately 7,700 members and has on hand applications from approximately 3,500 othcrs who have been waiting from 1 to 5 years. With just a little encouragement, we believe another thousand applications would be made immediately. The last request we had with REA for funds was in the arount of $860,000, but, due to limitations of funds, our application was cut $335,000. “Through the years our cooperative has been operating, many applicants have had to wait and wait, because we were advised REA did not have adequate funds to lend to build all the lines for which we had requests.” We cannot avoid thc fact that the private power trust and lobby is going to try to do ull the damage possible tc the TVA and to its rural electrification program. They feel encouraged by the recent change in control of Congress. Both the TVA and REA are bipartisan programs. Neither has ever par- ticipated in politics, and they do not rest on & political basis. Both programs have the support of both parties in Cong:ess. I do not think the change in political control of the Federa, Legislature is going to greatly affect the REA program. It will not if you see to it that the people are well informed as to the benefits of the program and that they make their position known to their Senators and Congressmen. But we must be on the outlook for crippling amendments. They will be offered. Some of them look reason- able until they are fully analyzed. Undoubtedly the amendment prohibiting the building of generating plants, unless the Federal Power Commission finds that rates are unreasonable, will be presented again in this Congress. Well, in the Tennessee Valley we do not have tO worry s0 much about gen- erating plants, but this amendment is in- tended to sabotage the whole REA program, and if it is applied to generating plants sooner or later it will also be applied to transmission and distribution lines. It is an effort to make the farmers of America operating their co-Ops come to Washington, go through the expense of litigation before the Federal Power Commigsion and in courts. It would result in such prolonged delays as to effectively pro- hibit co-ops from building needed generating
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD plants. would follow as to co-op lines. ment must be defeated. Another amendment that will undoubtedly be offered is to prohibit co-ops from buying existing plants or distribution lines. The big part of the success of the REA program has been in the acquisition of existing facili- ties. The co-ops in the Tennessee Valley would never have been able to operate suc- cessfully if they had not been able to pur- chase facilities of the private electric com- panies. Throughout the Nation farmers have built electric lines. These later have been purchased by the electrical co-ops and services have been improved. The REA pro- gram would be sabotaged if this amendment should be adopted. An amendment offered last year to the House appropriation bil] requiring REA to contract all of its construction will no doubt be offered again this year. This is an un- reasonable proposal. It would result in pay- ing on occasions an unreasonable amount for construction. It is ->n impediment which no private utility has to operate under. Most contracts should and ordinarily would be let by contract. But to provide by law that this must be done would take away the bargain- ing position of electrical cooperatives. I hope that throughout the United States you wil) get the message to your Representa- tives in Washington as to what the REA pro- gram means to you—or what it means to the farmers of America. If you do this, we need not fear repressive legislation. And mark you, the same thing The amend- Good Advice to Genuine Republicans EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOWARD H. BUFFETT OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. BUFFETT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I am includ- ing the following editorial: FATE OF THE TIMID It was along in the middle of the 1940 Presidential campaign that an observing citi- zen whom we know made this comment: “TY wish I could escape the impression that the Democrats had named the Republican candidate.” The man who said that was a friend of Mr. Willkie, a rather close friend in fact, Perhaps he contributed sizably to Mr. Will- kie’s campaign, although that would be his business. Certainly he had Mr. Willkie’s confidence; did all he could for his election and was distressed at his defeat. What this citizen had observed was that the speakers, writers, and commentators who had appeared enthusiastic for Mr. Willkie's nomination and who i: great degree were Yesponsible for the creation of public senti- ment that influenced the Republican conven- tion to choose Mr. Willkie, had, in many cases turned out to be strong partisans of Mr. Roosevelt. Once the Republican nomination was made, they turned against Mr. Willkie. Well, perhaps that particular suspicion was born from clear intimations of Mr. Willkie’s defeat, but it is also a fact that it would con- form to pattern. The Republican Party has indeed been influenced by the propaganda outcries from sources which mean no good to the Republican Party. In the campaign of 1944, Governor Dewey certainly made some concessions to New Dealism, notably when he endorsed the Wagner Act. It is certainly questionable whether any of the #0-called liberal senti- ment which had been so vocal on the subject XCIII—App.——19 was thereby converted to Mr. Dewey. It is equally questionable whether very many in- dependent voters were impressed. In the battle over the continuance of price fixing a great many of the Republican lead- ers of Congress thought it best to pay lip service to OPA. It is hard to believe that they were not greatly influenced by the prop- aganda blasts in behalf of OPA. It soon de- veloped that the country was very tired of OPA. Either the Republicans were influenced by the propaganda or else they sadly mis- Judged public sentiment. Finally, the Re- publicans saw that the country was tired of controls and Washington meddling. When they acted on that theory they began to gain the votes that won the 1946 elections. Having gained that success, one might think that the Republican majority would cease to pay attention to a lot of people who right up to the day of election insisted that American sentiment wanted none of the Re- publicans. Howeve1, such judgment would be lacking a full appreciation of the timidity of politicians. The same old tune is being sung. The Republicans are in the hands of the “old guard”; what is the “old guard” is not speci- fied. The progressives are frozen out; they are, but it was the voters who did the freez- ing. The Republicans just think the people gave a mandate against New Dealism. and they had better be careful what they do. Now the new Republican Congress is not very old. It is too early to judge what it will do. But at this stage of the proceedings there are certainly grounds for the unpleas- ant impression that some of the leaders have been listening to the liberal fairy tales. There was the campaign promise to de- mobilize war controls. That has been con- siderably modified by some Members of Con- gress who now think that most of these con- trols still are necessary. How the Govern- ment functioned for one-hundred-and-fifty- odd years without them is not adequately explained. There was the promise of economy. Now we hear that a budget of $37.500,000,000 can- not be reduced very much. It certainly can’t if the Republicans are to accept the idea that the elimination or curtailment of any cur- rent Government activity would be a ca- lamity. And then they must be careful not to do anything drastic in labor-relations legis- lation. Very well, let’s don’t do anything drastic. But to make unions equal—and no more—before law is hardly in the cate- gory of drastic. Every one of these modifications of posi- tion exactly corresponds with the line put forward by that group of publicists which never meant the Republican Party any good. All over this world political parties which do not know what they think or have not the courage to say and act on what they think are disappearing. They are no loss, Reciprocal Trade Agreements EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROSS RIZLEY OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. RIZLEY. Mr. Speaker, as one of those who represents a congressional dis- trict rich in agriculture, and represent- ing a State which is second in the production of hard wheat, and a great cattle-producing area as well as large numbers of sheep, my farmer constitu- ents are quite apprehensive about the A289 proposed further reduction of duties under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. The Congress, by adopting the Steagall amendment, established an agricultural policy for this country for a period of 2 years after the war had been officially declared over. A further reduction of duty on basic agricultural commodities will in effect nullify the Steagall amend- ment and consequently the fixed policy of Congress. Accordingly, I have today introduced a bill suspending temporarily the au- thority of the President of the United States from entering into any foreign- trade agreements that would decrease any existing rate of duty without the advice, consent, and approval of the Congress. Concurrently with introducing this bill, I have today directed a letter to the Honorable George Marshall, the Secre- tary of State, suggesting and requesting that he halt further hearings in the State Department having to do with the proposed reduction of the present rates. As a part of my remarks I include copy of my letter to Secretary Marshall: CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Houses or REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 27, 1947. Hon. Grorct MARSHALL, The Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, D.C. My Dear Me. SecreTary: May I say in the beginning, that I offer my sincere congratu- lations and best wishes to you in the tre- mendous task you have undertaken. I know of no appointment that has been made in a decade that has been more popular or meets with the universal approbation of the Ameri- can people. I represent one of the grent agricultural congressional districts in the United States. For 6 years I have been a member of the Committee on Agriculture in the House, and only left the committee thi~ year because I was named to a position on the Rules Com- mittee. Because of what I sincerely believe to be one of the most serious economic problems facing the American people is now being considered by the State Department, I am prompted to write you this letter. Appar- ently it is proposed to lower duties still more at this time, under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act; and I sincerely hope that you will terminate at once the hearings now being held before the Committee on Re- ciprocal Information. The question of import duties has been a controversial issue ever since the Boston Tea Party. In fact, this has been the main issue in many, many Presidential campaigns. It is of course high-sounding, and theoretically a beautiful case could be made to the effect that duty fixing or rate makin should be entirely eliminated from politics. I say, Amen! so far as partisan politics is con- cerned; but as I view the situation, if poli- tics means “Science of Government,” then the question of reducing or increasing duties is most assuredly a political question—not 8 partisan political question, but neverthe- less a political question. Mr. Secretary, I should like your indul- gence, and submit herewith a few of the many reasons which, to my way of thinking, make it necessary that these hearings should be terminated at once, (a) The problem is political. If it is said that it should not be a domestic political roblem, then I submit that further lower- ng these duties at the present time is power politics,
A290 (b) The problem is highly controversial, (c) Further reduction in duties at this time will unduly disturb our domestic econ- omy. (d) The domestic and foreign commerce situation is much different today than !t was when the reciprocal-trade program was in- augurated. (e) Many excise taxes have been imposed and increased on American goods. Many foreign goods are now wholly in the hands of foreign monopolies. (f) The Congress by legislation, with the full approval of the President of the United States, adopted the Steagall amendment, un- der which guaranties of not less than 90 percent of parity as a floor price for most agricultural products is effective for the next 2 years. (g) According to official reports from the Department of Agriculture, the world price of many agricultural products, plus the pro- posed duty, is much less than the lawful floor price guaranteed by Congress. For ex- ample: If the world price of wheat is $1 and the proposed duty is 21 cents per bushel, we have a total wheat world price, plua duty, of @1.21 per bushel. The 90 percent parity floor price guaranteed by law to the wheat farmers in this country is approximately $1.69 per bushel. You can thus readily see the difficulty that would confront us in re- spect to the wheat situation. (h) Our Government has a huge financial task to provide the funds to support agri- cultural prices in conformity with the pro- visions of the Steagall amendment, without taking upon itself the responsibility of sup- porting the agricultural prices of the whole world. (1) If we are to provide the funds neces- sary to support the expense of Government, and certainly if we are to pay anything on the national debt, we must maintain a na- ttonal income that will make this possible. This we cannot do if the Office of the Secre- tary of State permits any group within the State Department to wreck our domestic economy. (J) Some agricultural products are not at this hour bringing the guaranteed price, and since the futures market indicates that per- haps many domestically produced agricul- tural products are, and will be, below the le- gal support price guaranteed by the Steagall amendment, you can readily understand the extreme seriousness of the situation; and cer- tainly this is no time to further “tinker” with duties. If we are to back you up in the huge undertaking you now have, in estab- lishing a permanent peace, certainly we must keep our country strong at home, not only from a military standpoint, but from the standpoint of our own domestic economy. We are facing a very serious fiscal situa- tion. You have tremendous responsibility, but I can think of none more serious than your responsibility of preventing the people in your Department from jeopardizing the economic welfare of our people in this bin. try. You and I both know that it is much easier to keep men employed than it is to find them jobs after they have lost them. By the same token, it is much easier to main- tain a price structure for commodities than it is to try to adjust them after the prices have taken a downward spiral. It is worthy of note that this is the first postwar period in history where there has not up to this time been a downward spiral of agricultural prices. I believe the Steagall amendment 1s largely responsible for this sit- uation. As I see it, you cannot at this time lower these duties on agricultural products without nullifying the benefits of the Stea- gall amendment, which is the law of the land. I, therefore, respectfully submit that the hearings which are now being conducted and which are within themselves causing much apprehension in the country, be terminated and this whole matter of further “tinkering” with the lowering of duties, be suspended for ® period of a year, until we can have a better opportunity to take stock of ourselves. By that time the peace treaty will have been written and we will have a much better pic- ture of the whole situation than we could possibly have at the present. Very sincerely yours, Ross RIZury, Member of Congress. The Important Decision Awaited EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OREN HARRIS OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. FARRIS, Mr. Speaker, the ques- ton of equalization of freight rates has been under consideration for many years. Mu nh progress has been made in the last few years toward equalizing rates between the official zone in the north and th: southern and southwestern zones. In carrying out the policies established under the Transportation Act, the Inter- state Commerce Commission held hear- ings in various places throughout the Nation over a period of many months. As a result, an order was issued by the Commission that would reduce class rates 10 percent in the South and in- crease them 10 percent in the East and North. The order was contested in a Federal court in New York and upheld. It was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and 3 decision will mean much toward resolving this issue. Recently the Louisville Courier-Jour- n+l, of Louisville, Ky., had an editorial, which I think is significant. The E] Do- rado Daily News, of El Dorado, Ark., com- mentea on this editorial in one of its recent issues and under unanimous con- sent I include it in my remarks: THE IMPORTANT DECISION AWAITED This indeed is a momenteus year for the South, when it is remembered that we can expect a decision from the Supreme Court on the all-important freight-rate issue. The battle was Joined in the high tribunal when the Court agreed to hear the protest of nine Northern and Eastern States against an In- terstate Commerce Commission order reduc- ing class freight rates 10 percent in the South and increasing them 10 percent in the East and North. This order was upheld by a Unit- ed States district court. Also pending is the suit brought by Gov- ernor Arnall, of Georgia, with that State it- self as the petitioner, to force equal rates and to penalize railroads and having imposed his- toric differentials. The Louisville Courier-Journal said in a recent editorial that the South might well be grateful to its rival region for having brought its suit. “Never was the point of dispute more clear- ly revealed than in the petition of the nine Northern States, and never was greater sup- port given to the southern cause,” the Ken- tucky newspaper points out. “For what the suit says, in so many words, is that the North will lose some of its traditional advantage in industrial competition if the ICC is per- mitted to reduce class freight rates 10 percent in the South while raising them 10 percent in the North.” APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Courier-Journal goes on to declare that the South certainly will agree that this will be the result of the order. But it will disagree stoutly with the North’s argument that the result will be improper and con- fiscatory. “Look,” the South might well say—“look who's talking now about confiscation and discrimination, After generations of com- petitive advantage, the North is talking about unfairness when the advantage shifts.” Portal-to-Portal Pay EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. E. C. GATHINGS OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I commend to you and to the membership of this body a most- learned brief on the situation created by the decision in the Mount Clemens pot- tery case. The author is the Honorable Joe C. Barrett, an outstanding member of the Jonesboro, Ark., bar. I believe that members of the House of Represent- atives Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Education and La- bor will find this brief of especia) interest in their endeavors to solve the problems arising under this decision of the court. Attorney Barrett has studied this matter most earnestly, and he has, in this brief, submitted much information which will be of real value to the considerations of the Congress. MEMORANDUM BRIEF ON CONGRESSIONAI, POWER To OUTLAW PORTAL-TO-PORTAL PAY SUITS The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (opinion by Justice Murphy) in the Mount Clemens Pottery Co. case has resulted in the filirg of suits seeking to re- cover overtime, liquidated damages and at- torneys’ fees by employees against employers totaling an enormous sum. While the de- cision does not definitely settle anything in that particular case, the clear import of the decision is that, regardless of prior custom or contract, recovery can be had for all time in excess of 40 hours per week spent by an employee as “walking time” and “prelim- inary preparations” prior to and after the usual customar' beginning and stopping time. Of course, the opinion indicates that jt the time spent in these activities is insig- nificant, the de minimis non curat lex rule applies. We recall no instances, however, where the de minimis rule has herctofore been applied in suits for the recovery of money and, to this extent, we believe it is a new application of that rule. What is de minimis must still be settled by an author- itative opinion of the court of last resort, The impact of this decision upon industry 1s so great that the Attorney General asked leave to intervene in the Mount Clemens case upon its remand, apparently in the hope of minimizing the ultimate effect upon the public Treasury because of the fact that a very large portion of any ultimate recovery will fall upon the United States by reason of the cost-plus war contracts. The very ex- istence of small industries is threatened by this decision. It is hardly to be hoped that there will be such complete reversal by the courts as to afford corrective relief, Any relief that can be effective must, therefore, come from Con- gress. If we view the trend of public think-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ing correctly, the Congress is ready and willing to act. It becomes important, there- fore, to analyze the legal basis for action by Congress. CONGRESS HAS THE RIGHT TO FORBID THE EN- FORCEMENT OF CLAIMS NOW PENDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF BACK PAY UNDER SEC- TIONS 6, 7, AND 16 (B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT Apparently, many believe that there is something inherently unconstitutional in retroactive legislation. This belief is not justified. Of course, ex post facto criminal legislation is prohibited by the Constitution, but retroactive civil legislation is not. It is only when the validity of such legislation is attacked on the ground that some vested right is taken away without due process of law under the fifth amendment that there is any constitutional limitation upon Con- gress to enact retroactive civil legislation. Furthermore, even a vested property right which would otherwise be protected by the fifth amendment may be abolished retro- actively by Congress when Congress is exer- clsing a power specifically conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. An example of such power vested in Congress is the power to regulate interstate commerce. An example of the power of a State is the police power. It will be pointed out hereinafter that it seems reasonably clear that the rights of an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act are not such as- would survive a repeal of the act. Since this is a question, how- ever, to be interpreted by the courts and may vary with such interpretation, it would appear advisable to couple with a repeal of the act of affirmative abrogation of those rights, in the lawful exercise of the congres- sional power to remove present burdens placed upon commerce by the enforcement of the act as construed in the Mount Clem- ens Pottery Co. case. If this be done, 1t would be desirable for Congress to make certain findings of fact. In adopting the Fair Labor Standards Act, Congress declared public policy and found as a fact that the existence of sub- standard living conditions and excessive working hours (1) caused the channels of commerce to be used to spread and per- petuate such conditions; (2) burdened the free flow of commerce; (3) constituted un- fair competition; (4) led to labor disputes obstructing commerce; (5) interfered with the orderly marketing of goods. (See sec- tion 2 of the act.) It is also found to be the purpose of the act to relieve unemploy- ment by shortening the workweek and spreading the work. It was to relieve these burdens that the act was adopted providing for minimum wages and maximum hours and overtime pay. Congress could now find that (at least, prior to the Mount Clemens Pottery Co. case) in applying sections 6 and 7, both em- ployers and employees followed a substan- tially uniform practice of interpreting “work- week” as being either period upon which pay was customarily based at the time of the act’s adoption either (1) by custom or usage; or (2) as a result of collective-bargaining contracts; or (8) upon some other accepted understanding of the period during which the employee was actually engaged in pro- ductive labor. Congress could now find that agreement had been entered into and car- ried out on that basis; that rates of pay had been calculated on that basis and had been paid and received without protest. It would seem proper for Congress to then find that, as a result of the Mount Clemens Pottery Co. case, suits seeking recovery of vast sums for overtime had been instituted under the provisions of section 16 (b); that such suits seek to recover pay for time be- yond that which, by the practice of the par- ties, had been thought of as constituting a legitimate workweek; that enforcement of such claims threatens the solvency of the employers, particularly those who had pre- pared their financial budgets according to the past practice which they and their em- ployees had consistently followed. It would seem proper also for Congress to find that the present enforcement of such claims could not serve retroactively to alleviate the con- ditions which the act found to exist, par- ticularly those relating to burdens on com- merce; that such enforcement could result only in the imposition of additional burdens and in unexpected and unanticipated re- covery by employees. It would seem proper for Congress also to find affirmatively that instead of aiding com- merce, the enforcement of such claims threatens the credit of employers who have in good faith relied upon the construction heretofore placed upon the act and the ac- quiescence of the employees thereunder; that the enforcement of such claims at this time would create hardship, financial embarrass- ment, and, in many cases, financial disaster; that the threatened enforcement would cre- ate ill feeling between management and labor, confusion and uncertainty as to what pay labor is entitled to receive and the em- ployer obligated to ,ay, and interferes with collective bargaining; that for these and other reasons the present interpretation con- stitutes a burden on interstate commerce and free flow of goods in commerce, leads to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce, and thus enhances the very bur- dens upon commerce which it was the pur- pose of the act to remove. Upon such findings Congress could then well declare that it is contrary to public policy to permit the enforcement of such claims. Perhaps it would be desirable to in- clude one exception in favor of employees who actually perform services in reliance upon the provisions of the act as interpreted by the Mount Clemens Pottery Co. case. Basing its action upon such findings of fact, Congress could first repeal sections 6, 7, and 16 (b) of the act retroactively; then it could reenact sections 6 and 7, including definitions of hour and workweek in such way as to exclude walking time and such other unanticipated items as now constitute the basis of the actions now pending. Con- gress could then reenact section 16 (b) 80 as to prohibit the maintenance of suits under that section for overtime based on claims alleged to have accrued prior to effective date of the new act, except in cases where the em- ployee can affirmatively show that he per- formed portal-to-portal services prior there- to in reliance upon an interpretation of the original act entitling him to pay for such services, and providing also that in an: such action acceptance by the employee without protest of pay tendered for services performed during any workweek constitutes conclusive evidence that no such reliance was in fact placed by the employee upon his right to portal-to-portal pay. With refer- ence to future suits, the new section 16 (b) should contain a short period of limitations. The following reasons support the power of Congress to adopt such an act: I. A right created by statute falls with the repeal of the statute, even as to rights in litigation actually pending in the courts at the time of repeal, provided it has not been reduced to judgment, and provided a con- tractual or vested property right has not been created by action of the parties under the statute. qT. The er of Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional duty to regulate inter- state commerce, is not limited by private contractual or vested property rights, which may be taken away without compensation in & proper exercise of that power. : III. The rights of employees under sections 6, 7, and 16 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act are not private property rights, but are rather in the nature of public rights granted \right is held to survive. A291 to effectuate a declared legislative policy and, therefore, a fortiori can be taken away retro- actively to effectuate in legislative policy. These points are briefed in consecutive order: z Under this heading we will discuss cases dealing with the effect of the repeal of a statutory right, where there is neither a sav- ing clause protecting rights accrued there- under, nor an indication that the legislature affirmatively intended to strike down the right in order to effectuate a legitimate legis- lative policy. The general rule in these cases is that a right created by statute, having no separate existence apart from the statute, falls with its repeal even when Ntigation to enforce the right is actually pending in the courts. It is only when the court finds that by reason of action by the parties under the statute, a vested right protected by the fifth amendment, or in the case of a right created by a State legislature, a contract right pro- tected by the Constitution from abrogation by the State, has been created, that such a It is not believed that such a right exists here. But even if it be thought that the rights of employees be- cume vested or contractual, as we shall see in point II, infra, they may be abrogated by a proper exercise of a legislative power created by the Constitution. A, Cases where the right fell with the statute The principle that a statutory right falls with the statute, even as to cases pending in the courts, has its origin in the English law. Leading English cases on the subject arose under a statute of insolvency which author- ized a debtor who had delivered all his prop- erty to his creditors to obtain a discharge of all his debts. While a motion for discharge by a debtor who had turned over his property was pending, the statute was repealed. A number of cases arose under it. In Surtees v. Ellison (9 Barnwall & Cresswell, 750), Lord Tenterton declared that, notwithstanding the disastrous effect of the repeal on proceedings then in progress under the act, the right toa discherge fell with the act. In a later case dealing with the same subject (Key v. Good- win, 4 Moore & Payne, 341), Tindal, C. J., said: “I take the effect of the repealing statute to be to obliterate the repealed statute as completely from the records of Parliament as if it had never passed, and that it must be considered as a law that never e::cted, except for the purpose of those actions or suits which were commenced, prosecuted, and con- cluded while it was an existing law.” English cases, of course, are distinguish- able because of the absence of constitutional limitations. But they illustrate the effect of a repeal when no such limitation exists, This principle has found extensive appli- cation in a large variety of decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The American rule is well stated in West- ern Union Telegraph Co. v. L. & N. Railroad Co, (258 U. 8. 18). The telegraph company under an existing statutory power, had con- demned an easement for its telegraph lines along a railroad right-of-way. While the judgment of condemnatior was on appeal, but after the telegraph company had paid the amount of the condemnation award into court, the statute authorizing such condem- nation was repealed. The Court, in holding that the rights of the telegraph company fell with the repeal of the statute, after pointing out that the rights were more of a public than a private character, said at page 22: “Our conclusion, therefore, is that as the State could have withheld the power from telegraph companies to condemn the right- of-way of railroad companies, the State could withdraw the power before its exercise, and it could not be exercised before the con- ditions of condemnation were established
A292 and adjudicated, and this not preliminarily or dependently, but in final and unreviey- able determination. To this situation the condemnation in the present case had not attained. The grant of power to the tele- graph company, therefore, was subject to legislative control, and the act of March 14, 1916, was not an ‘interaerence by the legis- lature with judicial proceedings in court’ and does not offend the fifth or fourteenth amendments.” In Norris v. Crocker (13 How. 429), a Fed- eral statutory right of action in favor of slave owners rgainst persons aiding fugitive slaves was held to full with the repeal of the statute even though such an action was pending at the time of the appeal. In Maryland vy. Baltimore & Ohio Ruilroad Co. (3 How. 534), a condition placed upon a railroad franchise that unless it passed through certain villages it should pay 81,000,000 to the State for the benefit of the county in which the villages were located, was held to fall on the subsequent repeal of the condition by the State legislature. As the Court said in that case at page 549: “eo # © if the policy which at that time induced it to prescribe a particular course for the road, and, in case it was not followed, to exact from the company $1,000,- 000 and devote it to the use of Washington County, was afterward discovered to be a mistaken one, and likely to prove highly injurious to the rest of the State, it had unquestionably the power to change its policy.” Other examples of cases holding that statu- tory rights which are found by the courts to be in the nature of remedies, procedural rights, penalties, or public rather than vested private rights, fall within the statute, follows: Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Goldsboro (232 U. S. 548); South Carolina v. Gaillard (101 U. 8. 488 (1879)); Pearsall v. Great Northern Railway (161 U. 8S. 646 (1896) ); Gibbes v Zimmerman (290 U. S. 326 (1933) ); Ogden v. Blackledge (2 Cranch 272 (1804) ); Eell v. Daggs (108 U. 8. 143 (1883) ); Morley v. Lake Shore Railroad Company (146 U.S. 162 (1892) ); Oshkosh Water Works Com- pany v. Oshkosh (187 U. 8. 437 (1903) ); Union Dry Goods v. Georgia P. S. Corp. (248 U. S. 872 (1919) ). B. Cases where a right was held to survive repeal But where the courts have found that, as @ result of action taken by the parties pur- suant to a statutory right, vested or con- tract rights have been created and there is no indication of an affirmative intent by the legislature to abrogate such rights retroac- tively in the exercise of an undoubted legis- lative power, the courts have held that the right survives the repeal of the statute. Steamship Company v, Joliffe (69 U. 8. 450 (1864) ); Ettor v, Tacoma (228 U. 8. 148); Coombs v. Getz (285 U. 8. 434 (1932) ). In Ettor v. Tacoma, supra, a State statute authorizing a municipality to change the grade of streets, and imposing a liability in favor of abutting owners against the mu- nicipality for damages arising out of any such grading, was repealed after grading op- erations had been completed, but before the damages had been determined. The Court held that the right of action had become a vested right which survived the repeal of the statute. It is distinguishable because the right was one created by the Government against an agency of the Government itself, as a condition to the exercises of a power con- ferred upon the agency. The theory of the case appears to be that the municipality, as an agency of the Government, could not avail itself of the benefits of the act to the detriment of private property for whose sole benefit the right was created, and then seek to avoid its obligations. Here, the right was a “public private right” granted to private parties for a public purpose. In Steamship Co. v. Joliffe and Coombes v. Getz, supra, a divided Court in each case held that a statutory right created by State legis- lation had ripened into a contractual right because the parties had acted in reliance upon the statute prior to its repeal, and that this right survived the repeal of the statute. These cases illustrate the strictness with which the Court compels adherence to the contract clause by State legislatures. The contract clause, of course, is clear and ex- plicit, and where the Court finds an obligation of contract to exist, it will not permit that obligation to be abrogated by a State except in the exercise of the police power ‘see point II, infra). We have found no cases where a contract right has been held to arise under a Federal statute as a result of mere . *tion by the parties. In the Joliffe case a pilot had tendered his services to a vessel under a statute allowing him half fees upon such tender. The statute was subsequently repealed, but simultane- ously a new statute providing generally for similar services and fees was reenacted. The Court, in a 4-to-8 decision, held that the repeal was not intended to impair rights ac- crued under it as similar rights were created by the new act, and that the pilot having tendered his services as required by the act, had obtained a quasi-contractual right to his fee, which “has become a vested right which stands independent of the statute” (ibid, p. 458). The dissenting justices, per Miller, J., citing many authorities, took the position that in any event the right fell with the statute. The most interesting of these cases, per- haps, is Coombes v. Getz, supra. A State constitutional provision rendering corporate directors jointly and severally liable to credi- tors for embezzlement or misappropriation by corporate officers was held by the majority of a divided Court to create a quasi-contrac- tual right in favor of creditors who had relied upon the statute in extending credit to the corporation which survived repeal of the constitutional provision creating the right. There was a strong dissent by Car- dozo, J., writing for himself, Brandeis and Stone, JJ., who held that the contract provi- sion of the Federal Constitution was in- tended to protect only express contracts and not quasi-contractual rights, and that in any event the right was not contractual but remedial. These cases are of importance for two rea- sons. First, it is apparent that in each all members of the Court were in agreement that the right would ha e fallen with the statute if no quasi-contractual right had been found to exist. There was no suggestion that the right in either case would survive as a vested right under the due-process clause of the fourteenth amendment. If the cases had arisen as the result of Federal legislation, therefore, 1t would seem that the views of the dissent would have prevailed. Secondly, it 1s to be noted that the quasi-contractual right found by the majority in each case was based upon the fact of action taken pursuant to the statute. It would seem, therefore, that the rights of employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act who could not show that they had performed the services for which they are now suing in reliance upon any particular interpretation of sections 6, 7, and 16 (b) would fall with the repeal of those provisions. For presumably a contractual right cannot be predicated upon work which both parties believed was part of the work for which payment had been made and accepted. There would be no change of posi- tion in reliance upon the act, whereas in each of the cases cited there had been such & change of position, Whether the rights of employees who can affirmatively show that they did rely upon these provisions would be held to survive repeal if the Fair Labor Standards Act were a State statute by a State legislature may be open to question under APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the above decisions, though they appear to be contrary to the weight of authority, which 4s in accord with the dissenting opinions. But we have found no authority for suggest- ing that any contractual or other rights can arise under a Federal statute such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, It would seem, therefore, that the rights of employees under sections 6, 7, and 16 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, being of a public rather than a private character, granted to effectuate a legislative policy, would have no separate existence apart from the statute and would fall by its mere repeal. However, it is not necessary to rely upen any such analogy to support the retroactive legislation here contemplated. For, as will be seen in the next point, even express con- tract rights do not restrict a proper exercise of the State's police power by a State legis- lature, and a fortiori, the due process clause does not restrict Congress in the proper ecxer- cise of a legislative power conferred upon it by the Constitution. Under point I we saw that a statutory right automatically fell with the repeal of the statute creating it, except in a few cases where the Court held that a contractual or vested right had been created by the acts of the parties in reliance upon the statute, which had an existence apart from the stat- ute and therefore survived its repeal. Those cases did not deal with the power of the legislature to abrogate a right, whether vested or not, if it affirmatively intended to do so in the public interest, but rather with the ques- tion whether the right fell as an incidental result of the repeal-of the statute. So far &8 appears from the opinion tn the cases there cited, there was no indication of a legisla- tive intent to abrogate the right retroac- tively. In addition to raising the question whether the rights of employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act fall automatically with its repeal, the purpose of the discussion under point I, was to demonstrate the result flow- ing from the repeal of a statutory right, whether automatic or intentional, when no constitutional provision requires that the right be protected. Under the present point we shall show no constitutional provision save the rights here in issue, because there is no constitutional imitation upon the plenary power of Con- gress to abrogate a property right affirma- tively in pursuance of a legislative policy under a constitutional legislative power. It is believed that an examination of the cases will show beyond any doubt that even if employees who worked overtime under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the wages- and-hours law could be said to have obtained quasi-contractual or otherwise vested rights to be paid for such overtime, those rights may now be abrogated retroactively by Con- gress if it be found that their present en- forcement would constitute an interference with or place a burden upon interstate com- merce, or would otherwise be contrary to a present legislative policy. For purposes of convenience we shall dis- cuss under subheading A what appear to be the leading cases sustaining the right of Congress to override private rights in the exercise of a constitutional legislative power; under B we will consider cases estab- lishing the related proposition that one Con- gress may not, by creating private vested rights, restrict the constitutional legislative power of a successor. In the event that any further authority is needed, we have added under C cases indicating that the rights of Congress under the commerce clause are as broad as the rights of a State legislature under the police power, and have collected a few cases indicating how far the Supreme Court has gone in sustaining the power of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Btates to override private rights in a proper exercise of that power. 4. Private rights cannot fetter the constt- tutional authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce Perhaps the leading case on this subject is Norman v. B. & O. BR. Co. (294 U. S. 240 (1985)) where the Court, by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, held that gold clauses in private contracts were subject to the superior power of Congress under the Con- stitution “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin,” article I, sec- tion 8, paragraph 5. The Court, in rejecting the argument that the fifth amendment protected the rights of holders of “gold clause” contracts, said at page 307 et seq.: “This argument is in the teeth of another established principle. Contracts, however express, cannot fetter the constitutional au- thority of the Congress. Contracts may create rights of property, but when con- tracts deal with a subject matter which lies within the control of the Congress, they have a congenital infirmity. Parties cannot remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them.” (See Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. 8. 349, 357.) “This principle has familiar illustration In the exercise of the power to regulate com- merce. If shippers and carriers stipulate for specified rates, although the rates may be lawful when the contracts are made, if Con- gress through the Interstate Commerce Com- mission exercises its authority and prescribes different rates, the latter control and override inconsistent stipulations in contracts previ- ously made. This is so, even if the contract be a charter granted by a State and limiting rates, or a contract between municipalities and carriers.” (New York v. United States (257 U. 8. 591, 600, 601); United States v. Vil- lage of Hubbard (266 U. 8. 474, 477, note); see, also, Armour Packing Co. v. United States (209 U. 8. 56, 80-82); Unton Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Public Service Corp. (248 U. 8. 872, 375). nN se almost indistinguishable from the situation under consideration, and upon which great reliance was placed by the Chief Justice in the Norman case is Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley (219 U. 8. 467 (1011)). In 1871 a claimant for damages against the railroad had released all claims against the railroad in consideration of a life- long free pass. Thereafter in 1906 Congress limited the right of railroads to give free passes. It was held that the private right was subordinate to the commerce power of Congress. In discussing this case, the Chief Justice said in the Norman case at 300: “Quoting the statement of the general principle in the Legal Tender cases, the Court decided that the agreement must necessarily be regarded as having been made subject to the possibility that, at some future time, the Congress ‘might so exert its whole constitu- tional power in regulating interstate com- merce as to render that agreement unenforce- able or to impair its value.’ The Court con- sidered it inconceivable that the exercise of such power ‘may be hampered or restricted to any extent by contracts previously made be- tween individuals or corporation.’ ‘The framers of the Constitution never intended any such state of things to exist.’ Id., p. 482. Accordingly, it has been ‘authoritatively set- tled’ by decisions of this Court that no pre- vious contracts or combinations can prevent the application of the Antitrust Acts to com- pel the discontinuance of combinations de- Clared to be illegal.” (Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, supra; United States v. Southern Pacific Co. (250 U. &. 214, 234, 288); see, ai80, Calhoun v. Massie (253 U. 8. 170, 176); Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States (261 U. 8. 502, 508); Stephenson v. Binford, (287 U. 8, 251, 276) .) | Chief Justice continued, at page 309: “The principle is not limited to the inci- Gental effect of the exercise by the Congress of its constitutional authority. There is no constitutional ground for denying to the Con- gress the power expressly to prohibit and in- validate contracts although previously made, and valid when made, when they interfere with the carrying out of the policy it is free to adopt.” It is important to note that in both the Norman and Mottley cases the taking was in every sense retroactive. For in each case the party asserting the right which was abrogated had performed his part of the contract and was prevented by the legislation from col- lecting his pay. In discussing cases dealing with retroactive application of the Employers’ Liability Act, Second Employers’ Liability cases (223 U. 8. 1, 62), Philadelphia, V. & W. R. Co. v. Schu- bert (224 U. 8. 608), the Chief Justice said, at page 310: “The power of the Congress in regulating interstate commerce was not fettered by the necessity of maintaining existin, arrange- ments and stipulations which would conflict with the execution of its policy. The reason is manifest. To subordinate the exercise of the Federal authority to the continuing op- eration of previous contracts would be to Place to this extent the regulation of inter- state commerce in the hands of private in- dividuals and to withdraw from the control of the Congress so much of the field as they might choose by ‘prophetic discernment’ to bring within the range of their agrecments. The Constitution recognizes no such limita- tion.” (Id., pp. 613, 614). See also United States v. Southern Pacific Co., supra; Sproles v. Binford (286 U. 8. 874, 390, 391): Radio Commission y. Nelson Bros. Co. (289 U. B. 266, 282). It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court relied upon this case in holding that private contract rights are subject to the very provisions of the Pair Labor Standards Act here under consideration (Overnight Motor Company v. Missel (816 U. 8. 572 (1942)), In that case the employee was concededly being paid at a rate in excess of the mini- mum required by the act, but he was being paid under an employment contract calling for a weekly rate which allowed for no dif- ferentiation between the rate of pay for work done in excess of a 40-hour week. The em- ployer relied upon the fifth amendment as protecting his contract right. In disposing of this contention, the Court said, at page 577: “If overtime pay may have this effect (of removing burdens) upon commerce, pri- vate contracts made before or after the pas- sage of legislation regulating overtime can- not take the overtime transactions ‘from the reach of dominant constitutional power’” (citing Norman v. B. & O. R. Co., supra). Congress, having the undoubted power under the commerce clause to abrogate the private rights of employers in establishing hours of work and minimum wages for the benefit of employees in interstate commerce, must have the corollary power to take away rights thereby granted to the employees at any time that it finds their further enforce- ment will create a burden upon interstate commerce, and especially, as here, that such enforcement will defeat the very purposes for which the rights were originally granted. B. Congress may not, by creating private vested rights, restrict or bargain away tts constitutional legislative power To hold that Congress in 1938 by enact- ing the Fair Labor Standards Act may create private rights which would prevent Congress in 1947 from removing what at such later tame is found by Congress to be a serious burden upon interstate commerce, is to run afoul of another established principle; that Congress may not bargain away its power to regulate a subject over which it has un- A293 doubted legislative power. Only an amend- ment of the Constitution may limit the power of Congress to legislate in a field as te which the Constitution directs and empowers it to legislate. As was held by the Supreme Court in Boyd v. Alabama (94 U. 8. 645 (1876) ), in sustain- ing an Alabama statute repealing an earlier statute creating a private lottery for a period of 25 years, the Court said, at page 650: “We are not prepared to admit that it is competent for one legislature, by any con- tract with an individual, to restrain the power of a subsequent legislature to legis- late for the public welfare, and to that end to suppress any and all practices tending to corrupt the public morals.” (See Moore v. The State (48 Miss. 147); Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, (34 N. ¥. 663) .) And in Manigault v. Springs (199 U. 8. 473 (1805) ), the Court in holding that astatutory prerequisite to the enactment of certain laws passed by one legislature though not re- pealed, could be disregarded by a successor legislature, said at page 487: “As this ts not a constitutional provision, but a general law enacted by the legis)ature, it may be repealed, amended, or disregarded by the legislature which enacted it * * *¢ but it is not binding upon any subsequent legislature, nor does a noncompliance with it impair or nullify the provisions of an act passed without the requirement of such notice.” In Stone v. Mississippi (101 U. 8. 814, (1879) ), the Court upheld a State statute re- pealing a prior statute granting a 25-year charter to a lottery company in consideration of a stipulated cash payment and further an- nual payments. In answer to the claim that the right of the lottery company was a vested Private right protected by the contract and due-process clauses the Court said, at page 819: “The question is therefore directly pre- sented, whether in view of these facts, the legislature of a State can, by the charter of a lottery company, defeat the will of the people, authoritatively expressed, in rela- tion to the further continuance of such busi. ness in their midst. We think it cannot. No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. The supervision of both these subjects of governmental power is continu- ing in its nature, and they are to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the mo- ment may require.” And again at page 817: “All agree that the legislature cannot bar- gain away the police power of a State. ‘Ir- revocable grants of property and franchises may be made if they do not impair the su- preme authority to make laws for the right government of the State; but no legislature can curtail the power of its successors to make such laws as they may deem proper in matters of police.'" (Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie (84 N. Y. 657); Boyd v. Alabama (94 U. 8. 645).) To permit Congress in 1938, by creating vested rights, to prevent Congress from ex- ercising its power and duty to regulate in- terstate commerce in accordance with the facts as it may find them in 1947 would be to fly in the teeth of this principle. Only the people by amending the commerce clause contained in the Constitution of the United States can limit the power of Congress in a proper case to regulate interstate commerce. C. The power of Congress to regulate com- merce is as broad as the power of State legislatures under the police power. A proper exercise of that power ts not lim- ited etther by the due-process or contract clauses A power conferred upon Congress to legis- late in a particular fleld by the Constitution
A294 has been held to be as broad, and as free from limitation arising out of private prop- erty rights, as the rights of States to legis- late under the police power. Indeed, the constitutionality of the very provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act now under consideration was sustained by the Supreme Court on the basis of the “plenary power con- ferred on Congress by the commerce clause” in U. S. v. Darby (812 U. 8S. 100 (1941)). As the Court in that cuse said at page 114: “Tt is no objection to the assertion of the power to regulate interstate commerce that its exercise is attended by the same inci- dents which attend the exercise of the po- lice power of the States.” (Seven Cases v. United States (239 U. 8. 510, 514); Hamilton v. Kentucky Distillertes & Warehouse Co. (261 U. 8. 146, 156); United States v. Carolene Products Co. (804 U. 8. 144, 147); United States vy. Appalachian Electric Power Co. (311 U. S. 377).) And again: “The power of Congress over interstate commerce ‘is complete in itself, may be ex- ercised to its utmost extent, and acknowl- edges no limitations other than are pre- scribed in the Constitution.’” (Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, 196.) “e © *The judicial cannot prescribe to the legislative department of the govern- ment Hmitations upon the exercise of its acknowledged power.”  (Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 583 (ibid., p. 115).) In Hamilton v. Kentucky Distillertes Co. (251 U. 8. 146 (1919) ), the Court, in uphold- ing the power of Congress under the War- time Prohibition Act to deprive private own- ers of their right to sell bonded liquor legally acquired and owned by them, said, at page 156: “That the United States lacks the police power, and that this was reserved to the States by the tenth amendment, is true. But it is nonetheless true that when the United States exerts any of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, no valid objec- tion can be based upon the fact that such exercise may be attended by the same inci- dents which attend the exercise by a State of its police power, or that it may tend to ac- complish a similar purpose.” (Lottery Case, 189 U. S. 321, 357; McCray v. United States, 195 U. 8. 27; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45, 58; Hoke v. United States, 227 U. 8. 308, 323; Seven Cases v. United States, 239 U. 8. 510, 515; United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 93-94.) And again, at page 156 et seq.: “If the nature and conditions of a restric- tion upon the use or disposition of property is such that a State could, under the police power, impose it consistently with the four- teenth amendment without making compen- sation, then the United States may for a permitted purpose impose a like restriction consistently with the fifth amendment with- out making compensation; for prohibition of the liquor traffic is conceded to be an ap- propriate means of increasing our war effi- ciency.” That the police power of the States is not overridden either by the “contract clause” or the “due process clause” has been estab- lished beyond question and by innumerable decisions of the Supreme Court since the case of Munn Vv. Illinois (94 U. 8. 118). As was said in the case of Atlantic Coast rine R. R. Co. v. Goldsboro (2382 U. 8. 548, 558) : “For it is settled that neither the ‘contract’ clause nor the ‘due process’ clause has the effect of overriding the power of the State to establish all regulations that are reason- ably necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community; that this power can neither be abdicated nor bargained away, and is in- alienable even by express grant; and that all contract and property rights are held subject to its fair exercise.” A useful cross-section of the cases in sup- port of this proposition will be found in Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia (248 U. 8. 372, at pp. 875-876). In that case the Court in upholding the power of the State by fixing rates for supplying electricity to super- sede lower rates agreed upon in an existing contract between the company and the con- sumer said: “That private contract rights must yield to the public welfare, where the latter is appropriately declared and defined and the two conflict, has been often decided by this Court. Thus in Manigault v. Springs (199 U. 8. 478, 480) it was declared that: “It is the settled law of this Court that the interdiction of statutes impairing the obligation of contracts does not prevent the State from properly exercising such powers as are vested in it for the promotion of the common weal, or are necessary for the gen- eral good of the public, though contracts previously entered into between individuals may thereby be affected.’ “This is on authority of many cases which are cited. “In Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarler (209 U. S. 349, 357) it is said that: “One whose rights, such as they are, are subject to State restriction, cannot remove them from the power of the State by making @ contract about them. The contract will carry with it the infirmity of the subject matter.’ “In Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley (219 U. 8. 467, 482) this is quoted with approval from Knoz v. Lee (12 Wall. 457, 550, 551), viz: “ ‘Contracts must be understood as made in reference to the possible exercise of the rightful authority of the Government, and no obligation of a contract can extend to defeat the legitimate Government author- ity.’ ” After citing and quoting excerpts to the same effect from Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. McGuire (219 U. 8. 549); Rail & River Coal Co. v. Ohio Industrial Commission (236 U. 8. 338, 349); Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co, v. Goldsboro, supra, and similar cases, the Court concluded: “These decisions, a few from many to like effect, should suffice to satisfy the most skep- tical or belated investigator that the right of private contract must yield to the exigen- cies of the public welfare when determined in an appropriate manner by the authority of the State, and the judgment of the Su- preme Court of Georgia must be affirmed.” It is to be noted that the cases last above cited all deal with State legislation and turn primarily upon the contract clause. But it is obvious that even if the specific constitu- tional prohibition against the abrogation of contract rights may be overridden in the exercise of the police power by a State, the fifth amendment does not restrict a proper exercise by Congress of a legislative power conferred upon it by the Constitution. m We have seen that a proper exercise of the power conferred upon Congress by the Con- stitution to regulate interstate commerce cannot be limited even by private property rights which would otherwise be protected by the fifth amendment. That the proposed legislation is a proper regulation of commerce can hardly be questioned. As a result of the situation created by the bringing of innu- merable suits retroactively under the orig- inal act, the very physical and economic structure of interstate commerce is threat- ened, Can it be doubted that if Congress found that as a result of an act passed by its predecessor 8 years previously the wheels of commerce were about to be brought to a APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD standstill—let us assume, for example, that the inevitable result of such legislation was to bankrupt most interstate carriers in the country—that private rights created by Con- gress under such earlier legislation could bar a later Congress faced with such a national catastrophe from relieving commerce from the burden of such enactment But in the present instance we are not con- fronted with any such private property rights as those stricken down by the courts in the gold-clause cases, the wartime-prohibition caser, the commerce-clause cases, or the State police-power cases cited under the previous point. The rights which the courts in those cases held could be stricken down were gen- erally private property rights in the purest sense: Property legally acquired and held by private individuals or contract rights based upon contracts legally entered into between private individuals. Here we are not con- fronted with private rights created either by private contract or by private initiative and industry. On the contrary, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, we are confronted here only with rights of a “private-public character * * *, Although this right to sue is compensatory, it is nevertheless an en- forcement provision.” (Brooklyn Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U. 8. 697 (1945) at p. 709.) This right to overtime pay forming the basis of the rights of the employees is de- scribed in the Fair Labor Standards Act it- self as a civil penalty, and in the O'Neil case, supra, at page 711 as ‘statutory wages and liquidated damages. One section, 16 (b), creates the obligation for the entire remedy.” It 1s further described in the same case at 704 as a “statutory right conferred on a pri- vate party, but affecting the public interest” which “may not be waived or released if such waiver or release contravenes the statu- tory policy,” and again: “Where a private right is granted in the public interest to effectuate a legislative policy, waiver of a right so charged or colored with the public interest will not be allowed where it would thwart the legislative policy which it was designed to effectuate.” The fifth amendment forbids only the tak- ing of private property without due process of law. Private rights created by statute “in the public interest to effectuate a legislative policy,” and which cannot be waived or com- promised, are not such property rights as it was the intent of the Constitution to pro- tect. On the contrary it would seem that such a right was one created purely by statute and must fall if the statute is re- Pealed for the express purpose of abrogating such rights in order to effectuate a legislative policy, if indeed, it does not fall by a simple repeal of the statute creating it. Joz ©. BARRETT, Attorney, Jonesboro, Ark. Nebraska Fertilizer Situation EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. KARL STEFAN OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Speaker, Nebraska farmers are in dire need of fertilizer. ‘Recently, Mr. Charles Marshall, presi- dent of Nebraska Farm Bureau Federa- tion, wrote a letter to me giving full in- formation regarding this problem. In order that the membership of the House
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD may have this information, I quote from his letter: ressman Kari STEZraN, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear ConcressMAN STEFAN: I am writing you in regard to the fertilizer problem in the State of Nebraska and the seriousness of the situation. I am enclosing, for your consideration, a table showing the estimated consumption of fertilizer by crops and by groups of crops, as prepared by the College of Agriculture and the Production and Marketing Administra- tion of Nebraska in conjunction with other interested groups. You will note at the foot of the page that there is indicated a possible consumption in 1947 of 5,100 tons of am- monium nitrate, with that consumption in- creasing to an estimated 14,800 tons by 1950. It is the feeling of our organization that, if the materials were available, that these figures are likely below the actual amount which would be used. However, these are the figures which were arrived at by these reliable and conservative organizations. They also indicate total use of 1,800 tons of P,O, for 1945 and an increase to 4,200 tons in 1950. On the second page of this sum- mary of needs, you will see the break-down as to crops and groups of crops for 1951 and the estimated uses of the two principal fer- tilizers used in Nebraska now—ammonium nitrate and superphosphate (P,O,). In order to substantiate our statement as to the immediate and urgent need for am- moniurm nitrate, we have orders for 300 car- loads of 3214 percent ammonium nitrate upon which deposits have been made by vari- ous dealers and members. These deposits are covering the entire purchase price of the fertilizer with a portion of the deposits in our office and the balance in the hands of the county offices and dealers. One carload of fertilizer is usually 40 tons. If we get a 32- percent product, then we have about 13 tons of nitrogen per car. We have orders for a great many carloads of fertilizer in the immediate neighborhood of the plants at Grand Island and Mead, which are manufacturing 321, percent am- monium nitrate, and if we could receive per- mission to take delivery in truck lots, we could move many carloads of the product from these plants direct to the farms which are needing these materials and have ad- vanced money to pay for them. There are a great many trucks which have delivered livestock to the Omaha market that return by way of Mead and Grand Island and a great many times these trucks are empty. By having permission to handle ammonium nitrate in truck lots, it would serve to alle- viate a serious condition in regard to box- cars which is facing the grain producers and livestock men in Nebraska. These boxcars are so very urgently needed to transport grain which is now in the farmers’ hands and which they are unable to move because of the boxcar shortage. The use of trucks would serve the dual purpose of getting the fertilizer materials in the hands of the farm- ers for the production of crops for the com- ing year and, to our way of thinking, would provide a logical answer to @ critical condi- tion in both the delivery of fertilizer and the release of boxcars for grain shipment. Prom this time on during the production season when this fertilizer can be used in Nebraska to such advantage it is our feeling that by the time it could be shipped to the seaboard and there loaded into boats and transported to foreign lands, it would have perhaps largely missed the growing seasons in those particular areas to which we are now shipping fertilizer and, consequently, would serve the needs of all mankind to far greater advantage by using it in the immediate proximity of its manufacture— right on Nebraska farms and in the adjacent territory. With the present arrangements under which we are operating, we are receiving only approximately 6 percent of our to’.1 needs and are paying the high freight rates necessary to transport this small amount of fertilizer that we are receiving from Sheffield, Ala. The freight adds materially to the cost of production to those people using the fer- “*tilizer and further complicates the question of transportation and most assuredly pro- vides a situation extremely difficult for the average farmer and user of the product to understand. Approximately one-half of our total needs should be delivered in Nebraska in April for use on bromegrass, amall grains, pota- toes, etc. Inasmuch as the demand for fer- tilizer for the production of bromegrass is very high and Nebraska is listed in our de- partment of rural economics as the highest producer of certified bromegrass seed in the United States, this need should mcst as- suredly be recognized as a problem affecting @ much wider region than just the indi- vidual farmer producing the seed. This cer- tifled bromegrass seed has been extremely scarce and orders for this seed come to Ne- braska producers from all over the United States. Viewing this need in connection with a few curloads of fertilizer—being man- ufactured within a few miles of these pro- duction fleids—would be of assistance to thousands of farmers in their farming pro- gram in all parts of the country. The Nebraska Non-Stock Cooperative Asso- ciation is the service organization of the Ne- braska Farm Bureau Federation. We ‘ave 10,000 farm families who are members of our organization and approximately 300 dealers and distributors in various parts of the State. Many of them are located in the irrigated areas where the over-all production can he materially increased to the benefit of local farmers and the Nation as a whole by the use of commercial fertilizer. These Jands will be farmed regardless of whether commercial fertilizer is available or not. The lack of fertilizer will contribute to the serious depletion of soil fertility brought about by all-out production upon these Ne- braska farms—which continues even now as it has during the war years—and the effect of this depletion of fertility will be felt by generations yet to come if we are not in a position to meet the problem now when it can be met much easier than it can after further depletion has taken place and a re- building process is necessary. The orders for fertilizer in Nebraska, at the present time, in our opinion, are barely that necessary to maintain fertility and will do nothing toward rebuilding some areas in which serious deple- tion has already taken place. Consequently, Nebraska farmers are desperate in their effort to preserve the fertility of their farms for the benefit of all people and any assistance that you may be able to give us in providing fer- tilizer by way of elimination of regulations which, at the present time, are the apparent handicap in our being able to get nitrate from the plants located in Nebraska, would certainly be appreciated by every farmer in the Btate. The Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation and the Nebraska Non-Stock Cooperative Associa- tion are not interested in this problem from & profit angle but entirely from a service to Nebraska agriculture and the maintenance of a sound, stabilized farming industry. If we can provide any further information which would be of assistance to you in your efforts to help Nebraska farmers in this par- ticular problem, we are at your service. Sincerely yours, Nespaska Farm Burxav FEDERATION, CHARLES MARSHALL, President. A295 National Service Life Insurance EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing letters: VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., January 23, 1947. Hon. JosepH W. Marri, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Speaxer: There is enclosed here- with draft of a proposed bill entitled “A bill to amend the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended,” with the request that it be introduced and considered for enactment. The purpose of section 1 of the proposed bill and conforming amendments contained in section 2 thcreof ts to authorize the Vet- erons' Administration to issue originally national service life insurance on any of the permanent plans of insurance author- ized by the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended. Under existing law, national service Ife insurance may be originally issued on the 5-year level premium term plan only, and such Insurance must be carried for 1 year before tt may be con- verted to insurance on a permanent plan. The need of these restrictions in existing law has passed and there is no reason why insur- ance on any plan should not be initially issued. The further purpose of section 2 of the proposed bill is to provide that in any case in which an insured ts shown by evidence satisfactory to the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs to be totally disabled at the expira- tion of the level premium term period of his national service life insurance under con- ditions which would entitle him to con- tinued insurance protection but for such expiration, such insurance shall be auto- matically converted to insurance on the ordi- nary life plan unless the insured has elected some other available plan. It is anticipated that some policyholders of national service life insurance will be totally disabled at the expiration of the level premium term period of their insurance. Such individuals who will have been totally disabled for 6 or more consecutive months will be entitled to waiver of premiums until the expiration of the term, but insurance protection will cease at that time unless the level premium term insurance is converted to insurance on some other plan before the end of the term. Upon conversion of insur- ance to a permanent plan, the right of waiver of premiums which exists at the time of con- version will continue. Many such totally Gisabled persons, either because of iIncom- petency or other circumstances beyond their control, may be unable to make application for conversion of insurance within the level premium term period. To guard against the hardship which would otherwise result un- der such circumstances, automatic conver- sion of insurance to a permanent plan must be provided. Under the provisions of section 2 of the proposed bill the insurance protec- tion and right to waiver of premiums of such individuals will be continued. The purpose of section 3 of the proposed bill is to repeal subsections (y) (1) and (y)
A296 (2) of section 602 of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 10940, as amended. Subsection (y) (1) authorizes reinstatement of level premium term insurance upon writ- ten application, payment of two monthly premiums, and evidence satisfactory to the Administrator that the applicant, subject to the provisions of the second sentence of sec- tion 602 (c) (2), is in good health. The part of section 602 (c) (2) which is referred to contains independent provisions relating to the exclusion of service-connected disability, less than total in degree, in determining good health for reinstatement purposes. These general provisions would continue to be ap- plicable to reinstatement as provided for by Tegulations upon the repeal of subsection (y) (1). Reinstatement within the term, upon the payment of two manthly premiums and a showing of good health is now authorized under Veterans’ Administration regulations and, to meet existing conditions, was 80 au- thorized for several years prior to the enact- ment of subsection (y) (1). Although no change in such regulations is presently con- templated, it is believed that the matter of reinstatement generally is so affected by changing conditions involving the interests of policyholders as a group that considerable flexibility should be permitted.in determin- ing when and upon what conditions rein- statement may be accomplished. In keep- ing with this general principle, the provisions of subsection (y) (1) should be repealed in order that regulations with respect to the subject matter thereof shal] be susceptible of such periodic changes as may be war- ranted. Subsection (y) (2) authorizes reinstate- ment of level premium term insurance with- in 6 months after lapse or within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Insurance Act of 1946, approved August 1, 1946, (Feb- ruary 1, 1947) whichever is the later, upon payment of two monthly premiums, pro- vided the applicant is in as good health on the date of application and tender of premi- ums as he was on the date of lapse. Under the provisions of this subsection, insurance which has lapsed more than 6 months may not be reinstated on a comparative health basis after February 1, 1947, and the Veter- ans’ Administration will be without author- ity to provide by regulation for reinstate- ment on a comparative health basis in such cases on or after February 1, 1947. If subsection (y) (2) is repealed, the Vet- erans’ Administration contemplates the is- suance of reguiations which will allow rein- statement on a comparative health basis up to August 1, 1947, without regard to the date the insurance lapsed. Subsequent to Au- gust 1, 1947, regulations will authorize rein- statement of National Service Life Insurance on @ comparative health basis within 8 months after lapse upon application and evidence satisfactory to the Administrator that the applicant is in as good health at the time of application and payment of pre- miums as he was on the date of lapse. Such privilege of reinstatement will be similar to the reinstatement provisions now applicable to converted National Service Life Insurance policies. This right is more liberal than the reinstatement privileges generally provided under policies issued by commercial insurers and affords reasonable protection for policy- holders. In regard to permitting reinstate- ment to be accomplished for an indefinite period in the future on the basis of compara- tive health within 6 months from date of lapse, there is grave doubt that such practice would be equitable to those policyholders who continually retain their contracts in force. This conclusion is based to some extent upon the reinstatement requirements as published by other mutual insurers. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine comparative conditions of health at two periods more than 3 months apart. A great majority of the veterans who have been discharged from World War ITI have al- lowed their National Service Life Insurance to lapse. It will be the purpose of the Vet- erans’ Administration, on a national acale, to carry on an informative campaign so that veterans may be fully enlightened relative to their rights and privileges regarding Na- tional Service Life Insurance. This program will comprehend the solicitation of assistance from all organizations interested in veterans’ welfare. It is planned to utilise all recogs nized media, such as the mail, newspapers, magazines, radio, moving pictures, etc., for carrying information to the veterans. This program will have been completed before August 1, 1947. It is obvious that the pro- posed plan will be ineffective unless and until subsection (y) (2) is repealed. The proviso of subsection (y) (2) author- izes the.granting of an additional period not exceeding 60 days for the payment of pre- miums'by an insured who makes inquiry prior to expiration of the grace period disclosing a clear intent to continue insurance protection. Similar provisions were contained in Veter- ans’ Administration regulations prior to the enactment of subsection (y) (2). For the reasons heretofore stated in support of the repeal of subsection (y) (1), it is believed that this proviso, which also was intended to meet an existing situation, concerns a mat- ter which is more properly one for regulation. The proposed bill, if enacted, will not in- volve any cost in addition to that contem- plated under existing law. © Because the right of reinstatement on a comparative health basis will expire February 1, 1947, in those cases where insurance has lapsed more than 6 months many veterans will be unable to reinstate lapsed insurance after that date under existing law. It is therefore respectfully urged that the proposed measure be specially considered for enact- ment at the earliest possible date. Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objec- tion by that Office to the submission of the proposed legislation to the Congress. Sincerely yours, Oman N., Brap.ey, General, United States Army, Admin- istrator. A bill to amend the National Service Life In- surance Act of 1940, as amended Be it enacted, etc., That subsection (a) of section 602 of the National Service Life In- surance Act of 1940, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: “(a) Every person who is commissioned and hereafter ordered into, or who is here- after examined, accepted, and enrolled in, the active service and while in such active service shall, upon application in writing (made within 120 days after entrance into such active service) and payment of pre- miums as hereinafter provided and without further medical examination, be granted in- surance by the United States against the death of such person occurring while such insurance is in force.” Src. 2. Subsection (f) of section 602 of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: “(f£) Such insurance may be issued on the following plans: Five-year level premium term, ordinary life, 20-payment life, 830-pay- ment life, 20-year endowment, endowment at age 60, and endowment at age 65. Level premium term insurance may be converted as of the date when any premium becomes or has become due, or exchanged as of the date of the original policy, upon payment of the difference in reserve, at any time while such insurance is in force and within the term period to any of the foregoing perma- nent plans of insurance: Provided, That con- version to an endowment plan may not be made while the insured is totally disabled. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In any case in which the insured ts shown by evidence satisfactury to the Administrator to be totally disabled at the expiration of the level premium term period of his insur- ance under conditions which would entitle him to continued insurance protection but for such expiration, such insurance shall be automatically converted to insurance on the ordinary life plan unless the insured has elected insurance on some other available -plan, All level premium term. policies shail cease and terminate at ‘he expiration of the term period. Provisions for cash, loan, paid- up, and extended values, dividends from gains and savings, refund of unearned premiums, and such other provisions as may be found to be reasonable and practicable may be provided for in the policy of insurance or fror: time to time by regulations promul- Gated by the Administrator.” Src. 3. Subsections (y) (1) and (y) (2) -of section 602 of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, are hereby repealed. — THE AMERICAN LEGION, NaTIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C., January 22, 1947. Hon. Enith Nourse Rocers, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Drak Mrs. Rocrers: I enclose herewith the proposed drafts of three additional bills and I would appreciate it very much if you would introduce them for us. One would provide Government protection for widows and orphans of deceased veterans of World Wars I and II; the second would renew expiring 5-year level premium-term policies for another 5 years; the third would amend certain provisions of the National Service Life Insurance Act. We certainly appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Joun THoMas TaYzor, Director, National Legtslative Committee. — A bill to provide Government protection for widows and children of deceased veterans of World Wars I and Il, and for other purposes Be it enacted, etc., That section 6, Public Law No. 483, Seventy-eighth Congress, is hereby amended to read as follows: “Sxc. 6. The surviving widow, child, or children of a veteran who served in World War II whose death is not due to service therein, but who was discharged or released from active service under conditions other than dishonorable after having served 90 days or more or for disability incurred in wartime service in line of duty, or who at time of death was receiving or entitled to receive compensation or retirement pay for wartime service-connected disability, shall be entitled to pension in the amounts and otherwise subject to the conditions of Public Law No. 484, Seventy-third Congress, as amended: Provided, That for the purposes of this section the definition of the terms ‘veteran,’ ‘widow,’ ‘child,’ or ‘children’ shall be those applicable to World War II as pro- vided in Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, as now or hereafter amended.” Src. 2. The .surviving widow, child, or children of any person who has died, or dies, in active service in World War I or World Wer II after having served 90 days or more and whose death js held not due to service therein, shall be entitled to pension in the amounts and otherwise subject to the con- ditions of Public Law No. 484, Seventy-third Congress, as amended: Provided, That for the purposes of this section the definition of the terms “veteran,” “widow,” “child,” or “children” shall be those applicable to World War I and World War II as provided in Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, as now or hereafter amended.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Sec. 8, Section 1 (c), Public Law No. 484, Seventy-third Congress, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: . “(c) Payment of pension under the provi- sions of this act shall not be made to any widow without child, or a child, whose an- nual income exceeds $1,800, or to a widow with a child or children whose annual income exceeds $3,000. In determining annual in- come any payments made by widow, child, or children, for expense of last sickness and burial'of the veteran shall be excluded and any payments by the United States Govern- ment because of disability or death under laws administered by the Veterans’ Admin- istration shall not be considered nor shall life-insurance payments from any source be considered: Provided, That where payments to a widow are disallowed or discontinued hereunder, payment to a child or children of the deceased veteran may be made as though there is no widow.” Src. 4. Notwithstanding any other provi- sion of law or veterans’ regulation, for the purpose of payment of compensation under laws administered by the Veterans’ Admin- istration, one parent whose annual income does not exceed 81,800, or two parents whose annual income does not exceed 63,000, shall be deemed to be dependent. In determin- ing annual income any payments made by a parent for expense of last illness or burial of the veteran shall be excluded and any pay- ments by the United States Government be- cause of disability or death under laws ad- ministered by the Veterans’ Administration shall not be considered nor shall life-insur- ance payments from any source be con- sidered. Src. 6. Paragraph II (a), part ITT, Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), as rmended, is hereby amended to read as follows: “II. (a) Payment of pension provided by part III, except as provided in paragraph I (g) shall not be made to any unmarried per- son whose annual income exceeds $1,800, or to any married person or any person with minor children whose annual income exceeds 3,000.” Src. 6. This act shall be effective from the date of its approval: Provided, That claims otherwise payable for a period prior to the effective date of this act may be adjudi- cated and placed on the roll and the benefits of this act shall be applicable to such claims and those claims now on the rolls. Src. 7. Except to the extent they may conflict with the provisions of this act, the provisions of Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, the Veterans Regulations promul- gated thereunder, and of Public Law No. 144, Seventy-eighth Congress, as now or here- after amended, shall be applicable to this act: Provided, That no compensation or pen- sion shall be reduced or discontinued by the enactment of this act. A bill to amend existing law to provide privi- lege of renewing expiring 5-year-level-pre- mium-term policies for another 5-year period (Introduced by Mrs. Rocxrs of Massachusetts by request) Be it enacted, etc., That the last proviso of the first paragraph of section 301, World War Veterans’ Act, 1924, as amended (47 Stat. 234; U. 8. C., title $8, sec. 512), is hereby amended to read as follows: “Provided fur- ther, That at the expiration of any 5-year period a 65-year-level-premium-term policy may be renewed for a second, third, fourth, or fifth 5-year period at the premium rate for the attained age without medical exam- ination; and in case the 5-year period of any such policy shall have expired between January 24, 1947, and the expiration of 5 months after the date of the enactment of this amendment to this amendatory proviso and the policy bas not been continued in an- other form of Government insurance such policy may be renewed as of the date of its expiration on the same conditions upon pay- ment of the back premiums within 5 months after such date of enactment; and the Ad- ministrator of Veterans’ Affairs shall cause notice to be mailed to the holder of any such policy of the provisions of this amend- ment to this amendatory proviso.” A bill to amend certain provisions of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended. (Introduced by Mrs. RoGgrs of Massachusctts by request) Be it enacted, etc., That section 602 (d) (2) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940 is hereby amended effective as of October 8, 1940, to read as follows: “(2) Any person in the active service on or after October 8, 1940, who, while in such service and before April 20, 1942, or within 120 days after entrance into active service and prior to September 3, 1945, dies or has died, in line of duty (including death re- sulting from disease or injury incurred in line of duty), without having in force at the time of such death insurance under the War Risk Insurance Act, as amended, the World War Veterans’ Act, 1924, as amended, or this act, in the aggregate amount of at least $10,000, shall be deemed to have ap- plied for and to have been granted insurance as of the date of entry into active service or October 8, 1940, whichever is later, in the sum of $10,000 payable as provided in section 602 (h), except that payments here- under shall be made only to the following beneficiaries and in the order named— “(A) to the widow or widower of the in- sured, if living and while unremarried; “(B) if no widow or widower entitled thereto, to the child or children of the in- sured, if living, in equal shares; “(C) if no widow or widower entitled there- to, or child, to the mother or father of the insured, if living, in equal shares: Provided, That if such person serving as a flying cadet or aviation student, Navy or Army, between October 8, 1940, and June 3, 1941, the date of approval of Public Law No. 97 and Public Law No, 99, Seventy-ninth Congress, died as the result of an aviation acci- dent incurred in line of duty while in such active service, such person shall be deemed to have applied for and to have been granted an aggregate amount of in- surance of not less than $10,000. Any addi- tional insurance granted by virtue of this proviso shall be payable in the manner pro- vided by this section.” Szr-.2. Section 602 (d) (8) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940 is hereby amended effective as of October 8, 1940, to read as follows: “(8) (A) Any person fn the active service who on or after October 8, 1940, and prior to April 20, 1942, or within 120 days after entrance into active service, and prior to September 8, 1945, becomes or has become totally disabled as a result of injury or dis- ease incurred in line of duty and such dis- ability continues without interruption for a period of 6 mqnths or until death interven- ing prior to the end of such 6 months’ pe- riod, without having in force at time of in- currence of such disability at least $10,000 insurance issued under the War Risk Insur- ance Act, as amended, or the World War Vet- erans’ Act, 1924, as amended, or this act, shall be deemed to have applied for and to have been granted, effective as of the com- mencement of such total disability national service life insurance in an amount which, together with any such insurance then in force, shall aggregate $10,000 and such gra- tultous insurance shall continue in force without payment of premiums until 6 months after the insured ceases to be totally A297 disabled or until 1 year after the date of enactment of this amendatory act, which- ever is the earlier date: Provided, That such protection shall cease and terminate unless within such period such disabled person shall make application in writing for continuance of all or any part of such insurance and shall submit evidence satisfactory to the Admin- istrator of entitlement to waiver of pre- miums under section 602 (n) of this act or tender the premiums thereafter becoming due: Provided further, That waiver of pre- miums under section 602 (n) shall not be denicd under this subsection on the ground that total disability commenced prior to the effective date of such insurance: And pro- vided further, That anyone who applied for and was issued insurance after becoming totally disabled, and but for such application would be entitled to insurance hereunder, shall have the right, upon application within the time and in the manner as above limited, to elect to surrender insurance applied for and to be issued insurance hereunder, or if such insurance shall have lapsed without election, such person shall be considered subject in all respects to the provisions of this subsection, as hereby amended, but poli- cies issued hereunder shall be effective from date of surrender or lapse of policy previously issued, . “(B) Any person in the active service who on or after December 7, 1941, and prior to April 20, 1942, hus been or shall be captured, besieged, or otherwise isolated by the forces of any enemy of the United States for a period of at least 30 consecutive days and extending beyond April 19, 1942, and at the time of such capture, siege, or isolation by the enemy did not have in force insurance in the aggregate amount of at least $10,000 under the War Risk Insurance Act, as amended, the World War Veterans’ Act, as amended, or this‘ act, shall be deemed to have applied for and to have been granted, effective as of the date of such capture, sicge, or tsolation, national service life insurance in an amount which together with any in- surance then in force shall aggregate $10,000 of ineurance, and such insurance shall re- main in force and premiums on such insur- ance shall be waived during the period while -8uch person remains so captured, besieged, or isolated, and for 6 months thereafter: Provided, That such protection shall cease and terminate at the end of such period of 6 months unless within such period such person shall make application in writing for the continuance of all or any part of such insurance and shall submit evidence satis- factory to the Administrator of entitlement to waiver of premiums under section 602 (n) of this act, or tender the premiums there- after becoming due.” Src. 8. Section 602 (d) (5) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940 is hereby amended effective as of October 8, 1940, tu read as follows: "“(6) If any person deemed to have been issued insurance under subsection (3) (A) or (B) hereof die without filing application and within the time limit therefor, death- insurance benefits shall be payable in the manner and to the persons as stated in sub- section (2): Provided, That no application for insurance payments under subsection (2) or (3), as hereby amended, shall be valid unless filed in the Veterans’ Adminis- tration within & years after the date of death of the insured and the relationship of the applicant, where required as a basis for such claim, shall be proved as of date of death of ingured: And provided further, That persons shown to have been mentally or legally in- competent at the time the right to apply for continuat’on of insurance or for death bene- fits expires may make such application at any time within 1 year after the removal of such disability.”
A298 “The International Conference on Trade and Employment Is But an Impudent Attempt To Set Up an International New Deal in Utter Defiance of the Plain Meaning of the November Elec- tion” —George Rothwell Brown EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BERTRAND W. GEARHART OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 14, 1947 Mr. GEARHART. Mr. Speaker, from day to day the hidden meanings, the sinister purposes, and the cunningly con- cealed objectives which are involved in the craftily contrived promotion of the International Conference on Trade and Employment, scheduled to convene in Geneva on April 8 next, become increas- ingly clear. The extremist left-winger, the ultra-radical gne-worlder, the in- veterate international New Dealer, is up to his old tricks again. As this mad maneuver of those who have lost faith in all that has made America great bodes no good for the country we have known and loved, it is reassuring, indeed, to note that that able and ever alert student of public affairs, Mr. George Rothwell Brown, widely known publicist and newspaper colum- nist, has delved deeply into these mys- terious machinations to expose with his analytical pen, and in no uncertain terms, all the plans of these artful archi- tects of this thoroughly un-American scheme to control and regulate the for- eign trade of the United States through an international organization in which America will be accorded but one vote. Because of the timely importance of that which he has written on this mo- mentous subject, I ask the unanimous consent of the membership that a series of articles which were printed in the Los Angeles Examiner and numerous other metropolitan dailies during the month of December 1946, under his byline signature, may be printed in the Con- GRESSIONAL RECORD as @ part of my in- stant remarks. Mr. Speaker, the George Rothwell Brown articles, to which I have just re- ferred, are the following: New York, December 2, 1946.—It is a for- tunate thing for the United States that in January the control of Congress will be taken over by a political party which, presumably, still believes in the economic policies which made this country so rich and strong that it was able twice in a quarter of a century to fight, feed, and finanace most of the whole world. The keystone of this policy for many years, until the Roosevelt New Deal, was a pro- tective—but not a monopolistic tariff—which developed American industry to the highest plane ever attained, and made American labor the best paid on earth. The stage has now been set at London for the final destruction of this keystone of the economic American arch, to be con- summated at the International Conference on Trade and Employment, to be held at Geneva beginning next April 8. All is now in readiness for one of the most deadly blows ever struck at the Ameri- can free enterprise system and the American standard of living, at Geneva, unless the new Republican majorities of Senate and House in the Eightieth Congress step in and stop the outrageous scheme before it has been permitted to be put so far into effect that subsequent withdrawal by the United States might bring down upon us & world-wide boycott. The present American high wage level is already tops for anywhere on earth, but organized labor is voicing demands for fur- ther wage increases in many basic industries. If labor can be made to realize that what the administration has in mind is a proposal, cleverly concealed in the intricate double- talk of economic sharpers, the effect of which would be to reduce the American high-wage standard to the mean average low world standard, labor will demand—and obtain— the abandonment of this scheme. At a time when the voters of the United States have overwhelmingly repudiated the Roosevelt New Deal on the domestic front, the American State Department, totally and impudently ignoring the plain meaning of the November election, is preparing, behind the backs of the American people, to set up an international new deal to which, once we shall have ratified it, the whole American domestic economy will be compelled to con- form. It 1s a vicious and underhand plot, the most unbelievable part of which is that it was not devised by the foreigner, but by alleged experts in our own State Department in Washington, which is permeated with pinks and fellow travelers. The whole plan is tied in with the British loan and the International Bank, and is es- sentially a scheme for American financing of the whole world, the reduction of American tariffs, the curtailment of American exports to permit foreign competition in a world- controlled market, the regulation of employ- ment by Government, and the lowering of the American wage scale. Congress ought to get after this monstros- ity in a hurry. : New Yorx, December 8, 1946.—The dead- lock imposed upon the world by Russia to give her time by delaying the making of peace, to consolidate her gains of geography and populations in Europe and fasten the communistic system on her satellites, in- cluding eastern Germany, has distracted at- tention from the graver economic disaster threatening the United States through the United Nations. This threatened economic menace is in- herent in the terms of the American pro- posals, prepared by the State Department technicians, to form the basis for a plan of world control of trade and labor, to be adopted by the International Conference on Trade and Employment, called to assemble at Geneva in April of next year. Under this plan the control of American production, both of manufactured goods and agricultural surpluses, would pass from the hands of the American people into the hands of an international superstate. This superstate would say what Ameri- can surpluses might be exported and how much of foreign goods must be imported by the United States, to bring about a utopian equality of living to the underprivileged peoples of the world. What the State Department has kept carefully concealed is the fact that this pro- posed international new deal, this world- wide dream-state, would be established at the expense of the American standard of living and the American wage scale, the highest any country in the world has ever known, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The three greatest nations in the world today are the British Empire, which is social- istic;’ Soviet Russia, which is communistic; and the United States, which is the last bul- wark anywhere of free enterprise. How the proposed grandiose system could be made to work with a country like Russia, with a completely controlled economy, was the question which suddenly preplexed the preparatory committee, which has made the plans for the Geneva Conference,-just before it adjourned its sessions in London last week. A special addition was made to the pro- pdsed charter as bait to gain the adhesion of Russia to the world-trade plan, to provide for meeting those objections to free trade grow- ing out of the fact that the totalitarian Rus- sian Government is the sole importer and the sole exporter of goods at prices fixed arbitrar- ily by itself. A London dispatch to the New York Herald Tribune of November 27 discloses that except for this additional provision the peculiar problem presented by Russia has been Passed over until the full United Nations meeting. The contemplated world-trade scheme to be adopted at Geneva is the lungs, if not the heart, of the whole United Nations super- state. No such plan as this, which must be em- bodied in an international agreement, can be approved and put into effect by the Truman administration without action by and the consent of Congress. PART 3 New Yorx, December 4, 1946.—Members of two very tough committees of the House of Representatives—to be taken over in Janu- ary by some very tough Republicans—are watching the slowed-down construction of the United Nations edifice with impatience. These are the Committees on Ways and Means, and Foreign Affairs. Both are heavily endowed with prerogatives over issues that are building up here in the General Assembly and the Conference of Foreign Ministers, President Truman will encounter a good deal of Republican stubbornness in both of these committees, not on domestic ques- tions, such as taxation, although there may be plenty there, too, but on the many in- ternational questions, growing out of the ses- sions of world statesmen now in progress in New York. Some of the more pessimistic members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee expect that the contemplated honeymoon between the President and the new Republican Con- gress will go on the rocks early in January. One of the principal causes of friction, cal- culated to prevent a full measure of that cooperation which Truman invited when he had studied the meaning of last month’s elec- tion returns, will be the attitude of the Re- publican House toward the trade and em- ployment agreements to be reached, if State Department hopes are realized, at the Ge- neva Conference, in April of next year. The “American proposals,” as they are called, which will form the basis of the con- templated international’ new deal for the regulation of American foreign markets and the wage scales of American labor, aim a deadly blow at what is left of the American protective system. This brings them squarely into the juris- diction of the Ways and Means Committee of the House, in which body, under the Con- stitution, all matters affecting the tariff must originate. Any expectation in United Nations circles in New York that the agreements affecting American foreign markets, enforced import quotas, and reduction in American produc- tion at the order of an international organi- gation will be regarded as agreements having the character of treaties must speedily be abandoned,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There is evidence here that the new Repub- lican House will be exceedingly jealous of its own prerogatives. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, much more internationally minded than its House opposite number, will have no mo- nopoly in considering issues growing out of the peace settlements if and when any such are finally agreed upon. At the close of the First World War a Re- publican Foreign Affairs Committee took the play away from the Senate and reported, and the House adopted, its own resolution de- claring the war with Germany to be at an end. History may repeat. It is understood here that both Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs are considering sending Republican Members to Geneva as observers at the Trade and Employment Con- ference April 8. The Republican House will insist upon taking the cover off the package which the State Department has wrapped up in 80 much secrecy. PART 4 New Yorx, December 7, 1946—"There was probably never a stranger political fact than this—that the one nation in which free en- terprise is still a fighting term should lead the movement to create a planned world econ- omy; nor a more ironical fact than this—that what strongly recommends its proposals to other nations is their fear of American com- petition if free enterprise survives in this country.” The above is one of the striking conclusions reached by Mr. Garet Garrett, editor of Amer- ican Affairs, in an article he has written for the January number of that quarterly, analyzing the “American proposals” of our State Department, which form the basis of the agenda which will be considered at Geneva, on April 8, by the International Con- ference on Trade and Employment. In this article, from the proof sheets of which I am permitted to use the following quotations, Mr. Garrett makes the first tech- nical exposure of the secret scheme prepared by this Government, for setting up a world superstate at the expense of the American economy, American tariffs, and American labor. Referring to the State Department's “Amer- ican proposals,” Mr. Garrett sounds this note of solemn warning against them: “Every conscious citizen ought to know what they are and understand them. Not for the reason only that the twenty billion will be in jeopardy if they fail, but for such other reasons as: “(1) That they call for a transfer of gov- ernmental powers to a world economic au- thority, and “(2) That if they are adopted and take effect as the law of the world we shall be deeply touched in our daily lives, even to the point of being no longer free to do as we would with our own things, no longer free to act upon our own problems in our own way.” Mr. Garrett then goes on to ask whether, under this proposed scheme, American free enterprise could survive. He answers it by saying: “That question is in heavy labor of debate and yet the planners already know the an- swer. Their answer is logical, not speculative. “If the world economy is planned by an international authority invested with gov- ernmental powers, 80 also national economies will have to be planned. “It cannot work any other way, and that is why all the ideology of planning has been transferred from the national to the inter- national plane. “The experts now writing the book for a planned world economy are those who a little while ago were planning on a national scale. National planning does not force world planning, but world planning does en- tail national planning. “The answer, therefore, is that in a planned world, covered by such a thing as the interna- tional-trade organization, acting as an agency of the United Nations, free American enterprise as we knew it, would belong to history.” PART 5 New Yor, December 9, 1946—While East, and West were sparring for strategic advan- tage in the location of the political capital of the United Nations in New York last week, the economic capital of the new world gov- ernment was being quietly estublished in Geneva. The fate of the American economy, and the ability of American industry to maintain the high American wage level through unre- strained production and unrestricted foreign markets will be settled according to State Department plan, not in an American, but in a foreign atmosphere. This will be accomplished by the Inter- national Conference on Trude and Employ- ment, under the United Nations. Congress, and the country, with few ex- ceptions, have not yet awakened to the men- ace in the bold scheme for an international New Deal that will set the pattern for the American domestic economy, embodied in the American proposals of the State Depart- ment. Garet Garrett, editor of American Affairs, who has taken this plan apart and examined it with microscopic eye in an analysis he has written to be published in the January number of that quarterly, has this to say of the scheme devised !n secret by the State Department experts: “They had to achieve a feat of conceal- ment. The thing to be concealed, from the American public, at least, was that a fair statement of the meaning of the American proposals would read: ‘A plan developed by a technical staff within the Government of the United States to impose upon the trade of the world a collectivist system.’” The charter of this international world authority which it is proposed to set up at Geneva under the United Nations was ap- proved last week by the preparatory com- mittee sitting in London. Of this subtle plan Mr. Garrett writes, and has given me permission to make these quo- tations: “No member nation shall conduct its for- eign trade in a way to injure another or to put another at a disadvantage. No member nation, the United States, for example, shall, &@s we now say, export unemployment. “A nation will be supposed to be exporting unemployment when it forces its goods upon the markets of the world merely in order to keep its own labor busy. “On the contrary, if there is unemployment in the world as a serious economic evil, mem- ber nations shall share it with one another instead of trying to unload it; and from this it follows that they shall in fact share em- ployment. * * * “Two of its implications are revolutionary. The first one is that a nation may no longer do what it likes with its own market, not even to protect its own people. * * * “The second implication is that as the trade of the world is planned and controlled by an international authority, so the Ameri- can economy must be planned and controlled, for, unless the Government did plan and contro! production in this country, it could not fulfill its obligations under the charter.” To state it bluntly, in the language of the street, here is a plot by the Democratic De- partment of State to outlaw the American standard of living, heretofore maintained by the highest wage scale ever attained by any people, and to share equally the poverty of the world through curtailment of American production and trade at the order of an in- ternational superstate. Can they get away with it? A299 Illegal Entries of Aliens Into the United States EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speakcr, I find that bureaucratic government has become so securely entrenched and con- sequently so arrogant that requests for information by citizens or Members of Congress are ignored. It is most im- portant that any department of the Gov- ernment having information upon which to enable Congress to legislate for our national security, such information should be promptly made available to the Congress. I believe it is highly impor- tant that the Congress know how many persons are entering this country illegally. The shortage of houses, the high cost of living, and other factors may be pre- sented as reasons for not flooding our country with illegal alien entries. Im- portant as these reasons may be, the most compelling objection is that a person who enters our country illegally, flouts our laws to get here, will disregard our laws while he is here. We have enough lawbreakers now without importing them. I have tried to assemble facts on this vital problem of illegal alien entries into the United States but the press seems to be the only reliable source from which to draw a conclusion as to what is taking place in the field of immigration. I am inserting such materia] as I have been able to gather, which may be useful to the Judiciary Committee. Under leave to extend my remarks I am inserting quotations and photostatic copies of tables: ADMISSIONS AND ENTRIES OF ALIENS TO THE UNITED STATES AND THEIR IMPACT ON OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE AND OTHER PROBLEMS December 20, 1946: The Washington Post contained a story that President Truman had assigned four ships to a special refugee run to ferry European immigrants to the United States. The article quotes the President: “During the Christmas season a year cgo, on December 22, 1945, I issued a directive to a number of executive agencies designed to facilitate the immigration of refugees and displaced persons up to the full limit pro- vided by the immigration law. “Op to October 21, 1946, only 4,767 persons were provided for under these arrangements. At the present time, foreseeable sailings in 1946 will provide for only 683 more persons.” After quoting Truman as to delays in ship- ping for displaced persons who hold immigra- tion visas for the United States, the article further quoted him: “Mindful of the bleak Christmas ahead for these people who have already suffered so much, I have taken up this matter with the Maritime Commission and can hold out hope of early improvement.” The article concludes: “The President did not say how many more refugees are scheduled to enter this country, but the presence of 2,100 at Bremerhaven alone indicated the total number would be eiGovember 26, 1948: On this date Breckin- Long, Assistant Secretary of State, testi- tine in executive session before the House
A300 Foreign Affairs Committee, said that Presi- dent Roosevelt some years previously had set up an agency to rescue people from Europe, and implied there was no need for the adop- tion of H. Res. 350 and H. Res. 352 “providing for the establishment by the Executive of a commission to effectuate the rescue of the Jewish people of Europe.” Myr. Long said that, under the machinery theretofore estab- lished by the President, over 307,000 visas of all kinds were granted to persons from enemy or enemy-occupied territory; and most of them came here on visitors’ visas. Long's testimony, suppressed for an ex- tended period, was finally issued as a “(Con- fidential print) extracts from hearings” be- fore the committee mentioned. Nore.—About a year ago, the writer asked the Department of Justice’s Immigration and Naturalization Service concerning aliens in this country, and was told that “be- tween 1940 and 1945, both years inclusive, there had been 241,708 immigrants admitted to the United States, 1. e., immigrants ad- mitted as entitled to ultimate citizenship.” The same source informed that, at De- cember 26, 1940, the estimated number of aliens registered here was 4,889,770; and that, due to deuths, departures, etc., the estimated number of registered aliens at July 1, 1945, was 3,350,000. March 16, 1946: The Washington Post, under the byline of Dillard Stokes, reported that, under Justice Department Order 3229, issued by Attorney General Frank Murphy, the matter of ‘what aliens are getting into your country” is “run in totalitarian se- crecy,” since that order prevents the dis- closure of that information. April 25, 1946: The Washington Times- Herald reported that immigration authori- ties at New Orleans had reported that “enemy aliens arrested during the war were being returned to South America by plane at a cost of $195 to $266 each.” Part of weight and balance manifest for trip No. Originated at: Catro, Egypt. Passengers embarking at: Cairo, Egypt. Passengers destined to: Miami, Fla. Name Ticket No. Age 1] Souren Aghazadlan.........-.---...... 45 2) Chouchanik Aghazadian.. 29 3] Roubik Aghazadian.... 12 4| Albert Aghazadian... 7 6 | Zola Sharmini. 2... 26 6] Eli Tour, ...--. - 18 7) Dorine 8. Issaq... 19 8] Salmon Y Bieerl. 52 9 | Viollet Sheeri.. 20 10 | Iraj 8. Fard 2... 1) 11 | Kassan Shahminz 21 12 | Olea Vostrakova. 37 14 | Eddy Vostrakova 2 14 | Kouros Satrap. 22 15 | Naim Bahery.... P) 16 | Margarets Amisian 42 17 | David Michol...- 25 18 | Albert Waby......------....---------- 49 Part of weight and balance manifest for trip No. Originated at; Cairo, Egypt. Destined to: Miami, Fla. Crew embarked at: Cairo, Egypt. Crew destined to: Miami, Fla, Position Name Captain... ..........----.e0-2- Granere, James, U Copilot... ---| Middleston, Henry Jy os! B.A. Fit/ong..... it] Garvey, James P.. U. 8, Nav..... 221] Calkins, Leonard, U. 8. a Hostess. .....-0-----eeeneeenee Mansour, Cecilia, U. 8. A..--..-2--.|-2--0.. Totals; Number of crew, & Prepared by: Antoine G, Meuusse, June 8, 1946: The Baltimore Sun reported that the Immigration Service had informed Attorney General Clark that an estimated “60,000 aliens have illegally slipped into the United States this year,” and that ‘the bor- der patrol arrested 30,000 aliens who had illegally crossed the Mexican border during January, February, and March of this year, the official, who cannot be quoted, said: ‘The number of persons gaining illegal entry in addition to those apprehended is variously estimated up to the number caught.’” June 8, 1946: The Evening Star carried substantially the same report as did the Baltimore Sun. July 19, 1946: The Baltimore Sun reported: “Since the end of World War II, millions of aliens have turned their eyes and hearts to- ward America and are now pouring into this country—illegally—at the rate of 2,000 a day. “That is the estimate of Tom Clark, United States Attorney General, who said that of the 60,000 who entered this country unlaw- fully in a month, 30,000 were arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, per- haps better known as the border patrol.” Notr.—Two thousand a day is 60,000 a month, 720,000 a year. House appropria- tion hearings show that the Bureau of Im- migration and Naturalization advised Mrs. Earl Browder to go to Canada, get a visa, and then apply for her citizenship; and that this is a frequent procedure for aliens who originally entered the United States, or were here, illegally. In 1937, letters from Sumner Welles told aliens how to go to other Latin- American countries, get visas, and then re- turn for admission to citizenship. September 26, 1946: The Times-Herald re- ported that: “1,075 alien stowaways seized as flight to United States continues.” October 26, 1946: The Hearst papers re- viewed the entry of 2,000 aliens a day, ille- gally, and quoted Congressman NoaH Mason as severely criticizing the gag order of the Department of Justice preventing giving of Skyways International passenger manifest . Plane No. 53472 (flight No. Destined to: Nationality Passport No. M Housew Ifo... Student... Skyways International crew manifest plane No. 63472 (flight No. Miami, Fla. Occupation 8 Mechanie (New York)-.....---- Phonographs operation (New York). APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD information on aliens, and as saying an in- vestigation of immigration is in order and will be made. November 2, 1946: The Evening Star, under & Miami date line reported: “48 Estonians rejoice as President permits them to stay in the United States.” The story quoted the White House (Mr. Truman) as saying: “In due course they would be given immi- gration visas which will enable them to re- main in this country.” (They had arrived and entered illegally after an ocean crossing in a small open vessel.) It is known that aliens are being flown in in droves from Tel Aviv by Skyways; and the same is doubtless true as to other in- ternational air lines. Dear Sir: As per your request, we are listing below the names of passengers carried on our recent flight from Tel Aviv, Palestine, to Miami, Fla., as reported by cable by Cap- tain Granere, pilot of the flight: ~ Miami to New York: Abraham Goldberg, Mindla Szostak, Nili Szostak, Szoszana Szus- tak, Asyr Rajcjes, Riuilia Tisch, Alfred Fren- kel, Khaim Chmouter, Edith Schuster, Eva Schuster, Riva Kawa, Anna Neumann, Mare kus Juwiler, Elhanin Cohen, Walter Berman, Adele Bermunn, Swi Swet, Alfred Rosenfeld, Salamson Simche, Golde De Mayer, Elara Schalit, Fande Rich, Joseph Zareckti. Miami to Los Angeles: Fred H. Hilton. Miami to Venezuela: Lee Robitschek, Henia Robitschek, Daniel Robitschek. We have been advised that a Mr. Fred Hilton was picked up in Cairo, Egypt, rather than at Tel Aviv, anc proceeded to Los An- geles, Calif., instead of New York. We trust that this is the information you desire; if not, please feel free to call upon us at any time we can be of further service to you. Very truly yours, —-) Date: October 10, 1946 Date: October 10, 1946 M Manufacturer... Date: 10 October 1946 Date: 10 October 1946 ; bags, welght, 770 pounds. Revised totals: Number of crew, 5; bags, weight, 770 pounds,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Skyways International pilot’s declaration Plane: 58470. Nationality: U.S.A. Trip No. 806. Date: 2d October 1946 From: Lydda. Bound for: New York. Name and surname n, C.J... Van Calkins, L. A...... CR CORD ee Sky ways International Ltd., Miaml, Fla. Denomination A301 Sanitary conditions Bagrare (pieces) 1) Ameen, Albert K. 22.0222 -e ene e eee ee ULB. AL. §&8[ M$ | Married.......| Retired...22......] Lydda. iii... 2 21 3B bP: (;) ee Brazilian... 2.222.022.2222. 5] M_ | Bingle-........] Student...22222222). 22. Nil 8 | Baadarani, Fatma........2...2--.--- eee n= [en eee do... 22); F  {.....do......... 2 4] Bajner, Marjem Dvo: Polish... 48] EF | Married. .....]----- 3 5 | Chinicz, Mordokhai... Palestinia ae] Mf... Agent. 3 6 | Daoud, Tewfk Eff.. Trans-Jordar 48 Merchant, 3 7 | Ezrovits, Moric.... tealoss 34 .-| Barber... ... 4 8 | Exrovits, Holena........-.-----------------}-2--- do.... WwW) FL. -| Housewife... 1 9 | Garfinkle, Bouena. -| Canadian 2) FO fl Welfare wor 4 10 | Garfinkle, Max.......2. 222... eee ewe eee e eee] nee do, 33{ M= f...--dow.l...|.... do... 4 11 | Gyulal, Lenka. .... .| Palestinian. . - 38 4 12 | Gyulai, Suzanne Mirjam..-....-...--..----|--.-- do.....----2----------- WY] EF | Single.........] Student.__.2.2 2. 2.]--..- 1 13 | Haouache, Khalid Ahmed...-...-....----- Syrian.. --.--22----22...- wl] Mf... -| Merchant appren- 2 tice. 14 | Hicherman, Sara..........----------------- Palestinian.......-2-222--- 4) Fo todo. Seorctary....--....|--..- 3 15 | Katter, Edmund Noafe.. -_------.-.--...--. U. 8. ALL. eee eee WM) Ms 4f..._-do.-...-.-- Student....---2-2-/- 2-2. 2 16 | Lubliner, Hans Immanuel. -| Undefined .. 23; M_=s{-..-- Le 2 17 | Makari, Laroud de, Lind, Lebanese 27 4 18 | Makari, Katia... ----do_- 5 Nil 19 | Makari, Wilma-- ----do..- a> Fo dw. do. .-|---.-d0__--- Nil 20 | Nassar, Shaflq Nelib.. ---| Palestinian. 3u Married... erchant..22..2..[--..- 2 21} Rehfisch, Dr. Uaus Undefined... 55 --| Author... 4 22 | Rehfisch, Antonin . ...-...--..-----------]-.--- (a SD De -| Rousewlfe__ Nil 23 | Vainbren, Mordek hai Palestiuia .-| Contractor. 2 24 | Weihl, Klora....... --do.. .-| Housev ife_. 1 25 | Weihl, Oskur___..._....2...-..------------- | eee MO.c ce eceecececneneee-| 25) M_ | Singlo.....-.- Accountant. 3 26 | Wothl, Rudolf.............-.--------- eee ee fees dO.e cee cece eeee-f QE OM fu... do--.- ee. 2 Origin of the Truman Committee Democratic National Committee—and Part of this story was told in the Ap- they decided to bring the information pendix to the ConcRESSIONAL REcorp (vol. EXTENSION OF REMARKS to the attention of the Department of 89, pt. 10, p. A2280) by Senator StTyYLzs or Justice. On January 4, 1941, they made  SBRIDGEs. their first call upon the then Attorney Fearing that the statute of limitations HON. RAYMOND S. SPRINGER General Robert Jackson, Wendell Berge, would run on the above-mentioned case, OF INDIANA Assistant Attorney General, and other Leib got a bill introduced, H. R. 4916, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 19¢7 Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, last week the upper Chamber of Congress de- bated at great length the question of whether or not the famous Senate War Investigating Committee should be con- tinued. After the debate came to a close, the Senate deemed it advisable to grant this committee an additional year in order to complete its investigation of the war period. . This committee has been in the pub- lic eye for several years, yet very few people know of the incidents that oc- curred behind the scene to inspire its creation. It was this committee, originally headed by Harry 8. Truman, that sent him skyrocketing into the Vice Presi- dency of the United States and then into the White House itself. In this connection, it would seem apro- pos to state for the first time the genesis o” this committee. The story dates back to late in Decem- ber 1940, when sensational information concerning a highly placed defense-con- tract profiteer, came to the attention of Joseph Leib, free-lance writer of Wash- ington, D. C. Leib took this matter up with Sam O'Neal, who was at that time Washing- ton correspondent of the St. Louls Star- Times—now publicity director of the Officials. ‘They made other calls on January 9, 14, 15, 16, and 23, 1941. However, the Justice Department re- fused to take action on this case. Nevertheless, Leib sent the following letter to every Member of the Senate in the hope of bringing the case out into the open. The message read: January 6, 1941. My Dear MEMBER or Conaress: Several Gays ago I conferred with Department of Justice officials relative to profiteering and fraud in defense and war contracts. The Washington correspondent of the St. Louis Star-Times assisted me in presenting amazing evidence in connection with this matter. It is becoming increasingly evident that the Congress should set up an investigating committee to watch over possible frauds against the Government and I trust that you will give this suggestion your careful consideration and attention. Should you care for further information, please advise. With many thanks, Very truly yours, JosEPH LErs. This letter was followed up with per- sonal calls upon a number of Senators, including Mr. Truman. Then, on February 13, 1941, Senator Truman introduced his resolution call- ing for the creation of a defense inves- tigating committee, and the measure was officially approved on April 1, 1941. Sen- ator Truman immediately became chair- man of the committee. Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, which demanded the suspending during time of war or national emergency the running of any statute of limitations on prosecutions for Federal offenses. This measure was introduced on May 29, 1941. Finally on November 26, 1941, a long- delayed hearing was held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee and the only witnesses were Congresswoman Jean- nette Rankin, who introduced the bill, Mr. Leib, and Mr. Alexander Holtzoff, Special Assistant Attorney General. The Justice Department opposed this piece of legislation because it was too broad, but on January 28, 1942, after much agi- tation they sent to the Congress H. R. 6484, a bill to suspend during the present. war the running of statutes of limitations applicable to certain offenses. This be- came law on August 24, 1942, and it was during this period that the Justice De- partment set up a war-fraud unit. From the exposure of a number of war con- tracts came the demand for the Rene- gotiation Act and the subsequent saving of untold billions of dollars. Unfortunately, all the details sur- rounding this matter cannot be made public at this time. Who the defense contract profiteer was, why the Justice Department refused to take action and other incidents that took place will be revealed at a later date. When it does break, one thing is sure, it certainly will make interesting reading.
A302 Our War Dead EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER G. ANDREWS OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. ANDREWS of New York. Mr. Speaker, undcr leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp. I include the following article by Mrs. George S§. Patton, Jr.: LET WAR DEAD REST (By Mrs. George 8. Patton, Jr.) Wherever our soldiers are buried overseas, there is America, and American cemeteries mark the triumphal march of our armies through the islands of the Pacific and from Africa, Sicily, and Italy through France to the borders of Germany. No Americans are buried in any enemy soll. The crosses, each with its identification tag, stand in long rows guarding the dead, and on my journey overseas last June I saw loca) people everywhere, both grown-ups and children, putting flowers on the graves of the men they call “our liberators.” I have seen this picture repeated three times, in 1921, 1938. and 1946, and I believe every American who some day visits a gruve in one of these cemeteries will Come away feeling it is completely right that he should lie there. This is the judgment of many of the be- reaved of World War I who have talked with me after the first poignancy of their grief subsided. After the last war I saw the dead brought back. I watched them being put into graves on funeral day at a national cemetery, week after week. Each of those coffins had meant the bereavement of some family when the word of death was received. and in that time of great emotion the relatives had asked to have the bodies returned. But on the day of burial it was rare to see @ family present. Many of them did not come, I think, because the wound of sorrow had begun to heal, the meaning of the burial ceremony had changed for them, and they had begun to realize that the broken bodies brought back in sealed casKets bore no rela- tion to the men they had known and loved. Our Army graves-registration units under the Quartermaster General are making in- credible efforts in all parts of the world to identify the bodies of lost Americans, thus ending the strain of uncertainty in many homes. Our Government will either bury their bodies in national cemeteries overseas or send them home, according to the dgcision of their next of kin. As a specious comfort to the bereaved rela- tives, sending them home Is called repatria- tion. The word is a misnomer, for every American cemetery, wherever it is, is already American soil, owned and cared for by the United States Government. My husband felt this deeply, and in 1919 he wrote the poem in which he said: “Our free souls will be far, Holding the line in sunny France Where we died to win the war.” Lt. Gen. Lesley J. McNair, killed in Nor- mandy, held the same belief, Mrs. McNair wrote: “Lesley was a soldier and wanted to die a soldier's death. I know he would want to stay where he is, surrounded by the men he trained and with whom he died. He would not want his body moved.” What do most of those graves overseas hold? Parts of men wrapped in blankets or mattress covers, without coffins—gone back to earth because they could no longer serve their purpose. Will it comfort you to hear that your sol- dier is being shipped home in a box or an urn to be reburied? What will come home to you isn’t what you remember and love. Will it ease your grief, or make you happier to know that some young soldier, drafted to serve our country overseas, is digging up these poor bones? If the family of the fallen soldier would find comfort in a permanent, tangible record near at hand, let them erect a simple monu- ment in the family cemetery plot, inscribed with the man's name and record and the place of his burial overseas. Or this could be added to the list on a family monument already established. Thus there would be a lasting memorial at home where it could be seen, without the gruesome performance of moving the re- mains. And what would your man himself say if he could speak? Every good soldier I have ever known wanted to be buried where he fell. Mine did. Our dead have earned the right to rest in peace. Amendment of Civil Service Retirement Act—Bills To Aid Postal Employees EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN C. BUTLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Speaker, I am in- troducing in the House three bills, one to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act, as amended, for the purpose of in- creasing the annuities of those who have retired, or are about to retire, under the Retirement Act, by 50 percent of the annuities they are now receiving, or will receive, or by $600 per annum, which- ever amount is lesser. I believe this to be a very just and worth-while measure, for it will afford employees who are eligible to retire an opportunity to do so with a livable an- nuity which will offer them security for the future. It will also encourage older employees to take advantage of the re- tirement system, and thus make open- ings available for employees to move up, and thereby create new positions to be filled. This action will help materially to solve some of our unemployment. Heretofore, employees have hesitated to retire due to the low retirement rate they would receive as they felt the annuity would be inadequate to meet the needs of present-day living, and they contin- ued on in their positions even after reaching the retirement age. This bill, I feel sure, will help to remedy the sit- uation and will aid in bringing about a proper solution to the problem. The other two wills are to aid the postal employees. One measure provides for a working schedule with 8 hours’ service not to extend over a longer pe- riod than 9 consecutive hours; that is, to get 8 hours’ work in on a 9-hour pe- riod. Many times postal employees re- port to work and then have to wait APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD around several hours before going back on duty. This seems to me to be a great waste of time, and I am sure that a working schedule can be arranged which will correct this situation. Also, I have a bill to grant to postal em- ployees the same leave privileges which are enjoyed by regular civil-service em- ployees. This bill provides that post- masters and employees shall be granted 26 days’ leave of absence with pay each year, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and also 15 days’ sick leave with pay, exclusive of Saturdays, Sun- days, and holidays, and to be cumula- tive. This also provides for certain leave privileges for classified substitute em- ployees. I firmly believe that the postal em- ployees are entitled to the same leave benefits as are granted to other civil- service employees. Canol, the Major Scandal EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. LEON H. GAVIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOJSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Tulsa (Okla.) Daily World of January 20, 1947: CANOL, THE MAJOR SCANDAL When the history of World War II scandal, inefficiency, and horrible waste is written, Canol will be a big item. That was the oil project some United States military officials dreamed up. They were partially aided by Canadians. The scheme was to furnish oil for war by a long pipe line. It turned out the project was impractical in the first place, The oil supply was tenuous. The capacity of the plant and line was not enough to be of any help in the war, even if careful opera- tion had been possible. Now we are told that the $100,000,000 project is a ruin; that only the $25,000,000 refinery remains, and it is worse than use- less. The story, among the most disagrec- able of the war, is that the junk dealers have taken everything they found loose. It is likely the refinery has been cleaned out of all the relatively small or detachable equipment. The great scarcities of metals and other things in the United States fur- nished first-class incentive for looting. The equipment scattered about the place—bull- dozers, tanks, trucks, and heavy materials— would deteriorate, anyway, regardless of the looting. The whole affair seems to have been left to the guardianship of the highly touted and much-pictured Canadian Royal Police. In other words, the United States prom ters and managers and even the Gov- ernment, appeared to abandon the whole business right after it was ostensibly com- pleted. Whatever the circumstances under which decay took place, the United States suffered a tremendous loss. The expendi- ture was never justified and it was poorly handled. Just who was responsible for this miser- able but very costly farce should be put on record. Our recollection is that a military man was the mainspring. The Government end war authorities generally must have acquiesced. The whole matter should be
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD looked over and assorted and cataloged. The size, in the first place, was forbidding, and the caloulations were incorrect. The plan had no chance to succeed. Now, to add to the injury, comes the mysterious re- moval, the busy capitalization by indus- trial scavengers. The whole thing, even at this late date, has a ghastly look, an evil sound, a mighty bad smell. Portal-to-Portal Pay Suits EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN W. GWYNNE or Iowa IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. GWYNNE of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, as part of this extension of remarks, I include a statement of Alva W. Phelps, president of the Oliver Corp., well-known makers of farm machinery. In this statement to all members of the Oliver Corp., Mr. Phelps discusses the so-called portal-to-portal pay suits as they may affect the Oliver Corp. ‘ The statement is as follows: To AU Members of the Oliver Organtzation: You are all aware of the tidal wave of so- called portal-to-portal back pay and damage suits recently instituted against American industry. Most of these suite, the total amount of which now exceeds $4,000,000,000, were suggested by the recent court decision in what is known as the Mount Clemens Pot- tery case—a decision involving a new and entirely unforeseen interpretation of the Wage and Hour Act, and contrary to tradi- tional and well-known practices and customs. Most of you also know that suits have been filed against Oliver for tremendous sums to- taling $11,000,000. It is claimed that half of this total represents a recovery of wages, although such additional compensation was never anticipated by our employees or by union officials during regular contract nego- tiations. The other half, in the amount of 65,500,000, has been asked for damages. We believe that it is best for all.of us to make it clear to you that at present the suits are no more than a gamble. Jurists and leg- islators have indicated that they are aware of the crippling effect on industrial progress and job security that such a terrific and un- earned body blow would have on industry, As a responsible member of American in- dustry, Oliver has attempted at all times to meet its obligations to employees, customers, dealers, and the general public interest. In meeting these obligations, Oliver has, desires to, and will, as must any other business, move within the framework of the law. Now a surprising interpretation of one law has led certain labor leaders to believe that they have grounds to impose a heavy penalty upon in- dustry—the same industry on whose orderly expansion and success the jobs and pros- perity of all productive workers depend. All Oliver employees heave received full and fair compensation according to the terms of contracts made in good faith between their representatives and the company under the lawful process of collective bargaining. The company, therefore, advises you that it must defend these sults vigorously in order to pro- tect its dealers, customers, stockholders, and, ultimately, its own employees. Balanced protection of the best interests of all those concerned with a business as well as the general public is an important function of honest management. In this case, as in any other where one group might seek temporary benefit at damaging expense to the others, we will make every effort to carry out this function. Yours very truly, Atva A. PHELPs, President. Farewell Message of the Late Gen. Joseph Stilwell EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER G. ANDREWS ; OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. ANDREWS of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I include therein the farewell message of the late Gen. Joseph Stilwell to the Tenth Army as he took leave of them. The message follows: Now that you are on the way back to the farm, the shop, the desk, or the mine, or soon will be, listen to a few words from an old brass hat who has watched the genera- tions pass by. You are not required to listen any more; nobody can call you to attention; you are free from red tape, discipline, cen- sorship, and restrictions; the wraps are off you at last. But give me a chance to speak to you briefly with the wraps off me. too. Even brass hats are tied up in red tape, and sometimes they don't like it any better than you do. My great regret is that I can't expect to go along with your generation very much longer. I have seen how you respond in a crisis, and it is okay. I have heard you cuss and gripe, and that’s normal and proper. You can take it on the nose, and you can dish it out, with interest. You have made the grade, as sol- diers, sailors, and marines, and you can have my shirt any time you need it. When you get home, they will make a fuss over you. They will be shouting, “Welcome home, heroes,” “The thanks of America,” etc. How you will squirm and wish you could get down to Clancy's with the boys! All you can do is sweat it out, make your speech, and be thankful that it doesn't last very long. The home folks think a lot of you and they will only be trying to show their apprecia- tion. You want your own people and your own community to feel that you made good, anyway. They never doubted that you would; it was only you who had any qualms about it. And here is where you cash in; you have been through the mill, you have stood the gaff, and you have the satisfaction of accomplishment that nothing can buy. That is the real reward of your service. From now on you can live with yourself, without regrets. But unless I read you wrong, you will not think your work as Americans is all done because the war is over. In the face of aggreasion, we got together and submerged all our little differences. In the big issues, everybody came through. You did not hesi- tate to go forward and pull a buddy out of machine-gun fire at the risk of your own neck, And it didn't count that you were maybe a college graduate and he never got beyond the eighth grade, because you know he’d have done as much for you. You wouldn't know, except incidentally, who were Protestants, Catholics, or Jews in your company, who were union men and who non- union. It wouldn't have made any differ- ence anyway. The war has proved the essential cohesion of America, If the Germans and the Japs A303 had looked us over carefully, and had had the brains to evaluate what they saw, they would never have been crazy enough to try to pull us down. If we can lick a problem such as this war has been, are we going to let the comparatively minor problems of peace bother us? Why, if we put the same effort on solving our domestic problems that we have put on licking the Germans and the Japs, we could make over the United States of America the way we'd like to have it. It is too much to expect that we should continue the same pace when the urge is gone, but 11,000,000 ex-servicemen can have a lot to say about what we will do. I am sure of one thing—you like the way America is headed, or you wouldn't have put up such a fight for it. Maybe in the near future your machine gunner will make a million dollars and you will run a filling station. What the hell! It may be that you will make the million and the gunner will run the filling station. That's America—everybody on his feet, and nobody on his knees. One more thing before I stop talking. You have left your outfit and exchanged the bugle for the alarm clock, but you will never be ulone again. There are 11,000,000 men now who belong to the same club you do, who have had similar experiences. You have, all of you, seen a lot of the world and can better appreciate what we've got in the United States of America. Because I have faith tn the outlook and ideals of your generation, I should like to live long enough to see what you do with your opportunities. But though it is a fine day in the morning for you, it is getting late in the afternoon for me. Good luck, soldier. I am proud to have known you. Second Bay Bridge Crossing EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD J. WELCH OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, San Fran- cisco has four outstanding daily papers each of which ts of national and inter- national prominence. A few days ago in the extension of my remarks I included editorials from three of these papers which dealt with the fact that a second San Francisco Bay bridge is imperatively needed of a type and lo- cation that will meet the future require- ments of our peacetime economy and na- tional defense. Such a crossing must not only provide for vehicular traffic, but also adequate facilities for transconti- nental railroad service. The complete unanimity of opinion in San Francisco and in many other communities in that area is demonstrated by a further edi- torial in the fourth newspaper—thc San Francisco Examiner. That editorial is as follows: HASTEN THE NEXT BRIDGE Ten years ago, in November 1936, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was open for automobile traffic, and even at the time of the opening there were persons who insisted it was not needed. Now, a decade later, it is found that the great bridge is insufficient to handle the traffic, and construction of another struc- ture is urgent.
A304 Hearings have been held and the matter will soon be considered in Washington, with Congressman RicHarD J. WeLon, of San Fran- cisco, endeavoring vigorously to haster the final decision. The necessity is apparent. The site or route of the new bridge has yet to be de- termined. That is the problem which must be solved by engineers, traffic experts and the advisors of the cities which the bridge will serve. The new bridge should relieve, rather than further confuse, the traffic problems of its terminal cities, in particular San Francisco, which owing to its downtown congestion is @ traffic problem child among municipalities. The new bridge must not dump further traffic into already congested areas. That aspect of bridge planning was dis- cussed when the bridge commissioners met here. It must ‘not be neglected in the Wash- ington deciston. But that decision should not be delayed. The bridge is needed now. Dr. Conant on 2-Year Colleges EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD G. ROHRBOUGH OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. ROHRBOUGH. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks, I include herein an editorial from the New York Herald Tribune of Sunday, January 26, 1947. This editorial discusses the annual re- port of President James B. Conant, of Harvard University, in which President Conant expresses his approval of junior colleges. By implication he also ap- proves Federa) aid for education. The editorial follows: DR. CONANT ON 2-YEAR COLLEGES Those who believe that the 2-year period following graduation from high school offers @ promising educational level will find un- expected support in the annual report of Dr. James B. Conant, of Harvard. Looking ahead to the time when the GI boom will have spent its force, Dr. Conant anticipates a steadily growing demand for advanced edu- cation. “For many types of students,” he suggests, “a terminal 2-year education beyond the high school, provided locally, seems better adapted to their needs than that offered by a traditional 4-year residential college.” In recommending “the rapid expansion and development of such terminal 2-year col- leges," the governing factor in Dr. Conant’s mind is one of cost. His argument is that local provision for students would be far less expensive than equivalent provision at resi- dential colleges. Moreover, if Federal aid for public education is made available, without Federal control of education, he sees no rea- son why some of the money flowing to the States should not be used tn supporting the local 2-year colleges. For many students, two or more academic years would prove a fitting climax to their formal education. For others, particularly for those qualified for the professions, there would still be the oppor- tunity to go on. There is nothing novel in the idea of a 2-year level beyond the high school. For decades it has been the concept on which the flourishing development of junior colleges has been based. Here in the East, these in- stitutions are financed privately as a rule; in California, the additional 2 years are usually provided at public expense. In Cali- fofnia, also, a variation on the pattern has been evolved, known as the New American College, in which the last 2 years of high school and the firat 2 years of college are combined in a single 4-year unit. In New York State, the most recent application of the idea has been the far-sighted program of 2-year institutes, recommended by the board of regents and just now getting under way. If Dr. Conant’s discussion serves no other purpose than to further this program, it will have been a useful contribution. New England Fisheries EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. AIME J. FORAND OF RHODE ISLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. FORAND. Mr. Speaker, the fish- ing industry—a vital part of the business life of New Engiand—soon will be non- existent unless steps are taken to remedy the ills that now beset it. In an effort to call public attention to this important matter and in the hope of helping to solve the problems now fac- ing this multi-million-dollar industry the Providence (R. I.) Journal recently as- signed one of its reporters, Leonard O. Warner, to study the industry and the problems now facing it and to write a series of five articles on the subject. So that every Member of the House and Senate may have the benefit of these articles, I propose to offer these articles for printing in the CONGRESSIONAL REcORD, and under permission already granted me I include herewith the first article, as it appeared in the Journal of January 12, 1947. It follows: New ENGLAND’s FISHERIES VIEWED As DYING InpusTRY — MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR BUSI- NESS FISHING ITsELF OvuT OF EXISTENCE THROUGH MACHINE METHODS, COLOSSAL WasTE, AND LACK OF CONCERN FOR THE Furur® (By Leonard O. Warner) Austin Powers, one-time fisherman turned labor executive, looked out from his second- story office window onto teeming Northern Avenue, off the Boston Fish Pier, and ob- served: “If this keeps up, Boston will be the home of the bean and not the cod. This is a dying industry, but it doesn't know it. The pity of it all.” With deep feeling that brought out his slight Irish brogue, Powers was talking about the depletion of the great fishing grounds which fan out from the New England coast. From these vast ocean bottom plains, hills and valleys, New England has bullt an indus- try that now earns, according to the best estimates, an income of about 860,000,000 each year. The industry itself and its allied busi- nesses—boatbuilders, net makers, ships out- fitters, filleting plants, etc.—probably repre- sent an investment of $500,000,000, stretching from Connecticut north and eastward to the tip of Maine. Haddock and redfish are the largest items in the New England catch, each totaling about 114,000,000 pounds a year. About 100,- 000,000 pounds of cod are caught annually. Flounders, herring, whiting, pollock, and mackerel are the only other species taken in APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD quantity, but there are at least 65 other miinor species landed. From the large New England ports of Bos- ton, Gloucester, and New Bedford, Mass., Portland and Rockland, Maine, and scores of small water-front villages in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hamp- shire, and Maine, come between 40. and 50 percent of the Nation's fish. Much of all this is threatened now by an industry that has become so efficient it 1s cleaning out the nearby Georges and South Channel banks, and forcing its small drag- gers and large otter trawlers to push further eastward into the North Atlantic in the search of haddock, cod, redfish and other species. “Pretty soon we'll be going to the Flemish Cape east of Newfoundland, halfway to Europe, and then there won't be any fishing because it won't be worth it,” said Powers. As the fishery moves eastward and northward farther away from shore, bank after bank is depleted. And still the trend is eastward, ever eastward, leaving poor grounds behind near home. Several years ago a fisherman, a little more than 6 hours out of Boston, could drop his nets on the Georges bank or in South Chan- nel and come up with a load of haddock, New England's favorite fish. Today, he is sailing to far off Emerald bank, Sable Island, and even Banquereau (Quereau to fishermen). SEVEN HUNDRED MILES FROM BOSTON Quereau is from 700 to 800 miles east by north of Boston—and east of Halifax—and to reach it the Boston and Gloucester men must sail from 65 to 65 hours. The gulf of Maine, skirting the Massachu- setts, New Hampshire, and Maine shores, was always good for a pen full of redfish—the favorite in midwestern fish and chip places. But today, the horny-handed men of Glouces- ter, specialists in the art of catching and marketing redfish, are sailing far out onto the Nova Scotian shelf to get their fill. And even there, redfish aren't so abundant as they used to be. The drive must be to the east, ever eastward, farther from home. A trip for fish now in many cases means 10 or 11 days out on the far-away banks in dirty weather and rough North Atlantic seas. In one year alone, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service of the De- partment of Interior, trips to the Nova Sco- tian banks increased the aggregate running time of the New England otter trawler fleet by more than 2,600 days. Thus, if the trawlers had been able to find good fishing in Georges, the fleet could have spent 2,600 fewer days running between port and fishing ground. Since a trawler’s time is worth something like 8250 or more a day, the increased running time cost the owners, crews—and consumers—around $660,000 in a year. Causes for the decline in the Georges bank and South Channel fishery are several, but all are interrelated. William C. Herrington, aquatic biologist of the Fish and Wildlife Service in Cam- bridge, across the Charles River from Boston, pointed out that right now the unexplained failure of young haddock to survive is one of the reasons for scarcity of the fish. His office has several theories concerning the reason for death of many young fish, but none has yet been proven, and so, noth- ing is being said yet. CAUSES OF DEPLETION But, the causes for depletion during the intensive fishing just before World War II and in the early months of the war go like this, as given by Herrington: 1. Destruction of unnumbered millions of baby haddock too small for market. Official observers indicate in some yéars between two-fifths and four-fifths of the total num- ber of haddock caught by otter trawlers were below commercial size. :
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 2. Development of a trend to market small haddock—fish below 14% pounds. The prac- tice results in the capture of most of the young haddock before they have completed more than a fraction of their normal growth, A 2-year-old haddock, left on the banks an- other year, would double in weight, and similarly a 3-year-old haddock will increase ifs weight by 30 to 40 percent more. 8. Lack of regulations protecting small fish. The Pacific Coast halibut industry, tacéd with extinction because of overfishing, submitted to an international commission an agreement limiting catches and protecting small fish. Similarly, the English fisher- men in the North Sea, confronted with the fact they were fishing themselves out of business, are now controlled by regulations protecting baby fish. Results in both cases: increased catches. The constantly dropping catches brought into port by New England fishermen are re- flected in figures kept at the Boston fish pier office of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 1941 LOAD AT BOSTON Take Boston, for instance. In 1941, while the Boston fleet was operating at high level, spe boats brought in 300,000,000 pounds of During the war, the Boston fleet lost many boats to the Navy, but by 1946 the dragger and otter trawler numbers were at their all- time high. Old boats had been returned and veterans had entered the business with new vessels. But the 1946 catch was only 155,000,000 pounds, slightly more than half the 1941 total. Opponents of conservation will point out that during 1946 the Boston fleet was tied up by strike for 5 months, but B. E. Lindgren, fish and wildlife marketing spe- cialist in Boston, estimated that the 5 months would probably have not yielded more than @n additional 50,000,000 pounds. In any event, operating last year at full steam with more boats than ever, Boston could have landed about only 200,000,000 pounds, or 100,000,000 pounds less than in 1941, To the consumer, whether he lives in sight of the sea on the rugged New England coast or in the Corn Belt of the Midwest, the deple- tion of the nearby North Atlantic fishing grounds and the longer runs out to sea add up to higher prices for fish and poorer quality. SQUEEZE TOO GREAT When the day comes—and some on the Boston fish pier believe it not far off—that the consumer refuses to pay high prices for fish, many boats in the fleet will be forced to tie up. It is impossible to go far out to sea to fish and then sell it at a low price. The squeeze is too great. With the increased cost, tronically enough, comes poor quality. Although gutted and iced as it is taken aboard, fish that is 5 days in the hold will not be so fresh as fish 1 to 1% days from the water into the freezers or on store counters, When Austin Powers, business agent for the Atlantic Fishermen's Union, was decry- ing the tndustry’s blindness to its troubles, he used cod to illustrate his point. No Bos- tonian would do differently. But to Powers, to the fishermen, and the researchers of the Fish and Wildlife Service, haddock is probably the most rapidly disap- pearing fish. FISH BECOMING SCARCE The redfish is becoming scarce; so is the cod. The yellowtail flounder, found off southern Now England to the southward of Block Island, 1s becoming harder to find and on the Massachusetts north shore other specialists of the Fish and Wildlife Service are trying to determine the cause for the scarcity of clams. Rhode Island clams are not so plentiful ag they uscd to be, and while pollution is XCIl--A.p— 20 to some extent responsible, overfishing must also bear the brunt of the responsibility. . Maine is concerned because its 1946 catch of lobsters was 1,000,000 pounds under that of 1945. There, also, fishermen are pleading for legislation to protect egg-bearing crabs. And so it goes. If you confine the problem, for the mo- ment, to the deep-sea fishing ground in the North Atlantic, it’s just like Capt. Elroy Coffin, of South Portland, Maine, skipper of the dragger Nautilus, says: “Too many and too much—too many drag- gers and they take too much.” Rome Wasn’t Built in a Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orb, I include an editorial appearing in the Brighton-Pittsford Post, Pittsford, N. Y., of January 9, 1947: ROME WASN'T BUILT IN A DAY From some of the most casual situations come some of the most obvious lessons. Watch a small child patiently building up e set of blocks, one at a time, one on top of another, steadily wider and then higher; over a long period of time the construction process continues. The plan, the creative work and its projected result, take time, patience, care, and study. But it only takes 1 second for another child to make a sweep of his hand and knock the entire labor to pieces. The damage has been done. The destruc- tion wrought. And now it becomes the nec- essary objective oi the new Congress to bring back some order out of the chaos. The low condition in which it finds the ship of state is one which cannot be built in a day, a year or 2 years, or even 4 years. The bungling, the graft, the infiltration of foreign ideolo- gies, the sovereign bureaus, are but titles to endless chapters of waste and mockery of this Republic, the correction of which was mandated to this and succeeding Congresses, Despite the initial headlines which have appeared, on a set of bills to be pushed im- mediately into the hopper of legislation, no one should be stupid enough to think that the boys in Washington are going to succeed in doing a housecleaning job overnight or in any very short time. The period of re- construction is a slow, tedious, somber, stu- dious operation. In the conditions inher- ited by the Republicans, dissatisfaction with so many things is so intense that a few, un- thinkingly, may wonder why they see no sud- den sunburst pattern of a new millenium. First things must come first; a sound pro- gram must be planned; foundations must be laid again; the structure of a sound economy must be built; harmony, happiness, security and a hopeful future must be fab- ricated into the design for living: and with all these combined as a goal, nothing can be undertaken loosely and disjointedly. It must be workable. For those entrusted with the future of the United States, there is today the biggest order ever confronting a Congress. Not only are our domestic problems of tremendous weight, but also we are now committed to an assembly of nations to still further compli- cate our future. Stil] heavy with moisture A305 behind the ears, we are feeling our way in the dark, among friendly and unfriendly peoples, not yet aware of which are which. The new Congress will do well to make progress at all, it will do well to produce some sort of a record this year, which will achieve something to point at with pride. Some glaring troubles will necessitate immediate action to offset the unbalanced position in which the Congress finds the ship of state. Some people will consider that only what affects them personally is of paramount importance. Everyone should be considerately intelli- gent, patient and cooperative. Don’t expect Rome to be built in a day, and give the new Congress a little time to get organized and under way. You can expect great things from it, but not always will the things you think are great, necessarily be so. Summary of Antelope County Triple A Activities for 1946 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KARL STEFAN OF NEBRASKA ' IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. STEFAN. Mr.Speaker, during the recent recess of Congress, it was my privi- lege to travel into every one of the 24 counties in the Third Nebraska Congres- sional District which I have the honor of representing in Congress. One of the great counties of this district is Antelope County, where unusual] progress has been made in the planting of trees under the program once known as the “shelter belt.” This tree-planting program in Antelope County has been outstanding. It is of great pride to the farmers on whose farms these trees were planted. The soil-conservation practices in An- telope County have been unusually good. I have received a report on this program in Antelope County. I include it as a part of my remarks for the information of the House. It follows: The close of the first postwar year finds triple A playing a major part in the recon- version of agriculture to peacetime produc- tion, with most emphasis on soil conserva- tion. Many wartime activities have been discontinued, and we will try to summarize some of them for you. During the past year Antelope County farmers continued to carry out soil-conserva- tion practices approved for the county, and they will receive approximately $156,333.41 for these practices. In order to bring our soil back to a high level of fertility, which has been greatly exhausted during the past few years of intensive production, Antelope County farmers during 1946 farmed approxi- mately 7.842 acres on the contour; strip- cropped 58,840 acres; constructed 45.000 linear feet of new terraces; established 3,921,- 000 square feet of sod waterways; seeded 25,361 pounds of grass seed in native pasture; moved 85,000 cubic yards of dirt in construct- ing dams; harvested 6,380 acres of alfalfa for seed; applied several tons of chlorate on bindweed: clean-tilled 175 acres; plowed un- der 33,452 acres of green manure crops; moved 32,836 cubic yards of dirt in construct- ing drainage ditches: tilled 32.836 acres of stubble; planted 76,500 new trees; main- tained 360 acres of estublished trees; and seeded 4,779 acres of laud back to native pasture,
A306 All of the above practices were inspected by community or county committeemen and received their approval before any payment was made for the practice. Nineteen hundred and forty-six saw the terminating of various wartime activities. These included subsidy payments on dairy products, beef, and sheep and lamb sales; $76,594.72 was paid Antelope County farmers to help increase beef production badly needed here and abroad. In addition, $15,- 57720 was paid to producers of fat sheep and lambs. Emergency corn and wheat pur- chase programs were started in early sum- mer to purchase grains for shipment to for- eign countries where famine threatened. Antelope County farmers were paid §112,- 682.74 for 86,718 bushels of corn and 87,- 564.56 for 3,694 bushels of wheat, payments being handled through the local AAA office. Farmers redeemed 33,526 bushels of corn valued at $30,173.40 which was under seal from previous commodity-loan programs. To date 43 loans have been completed on 1946 corn and 65 applications for loans have been received, indicating that ai preat amount of the 1946 corn crop will be placed under seal, thereby keeping the corn where it will be readily available to the producer, or other Antelope County farmers instead of the corn moving out of the country. Handling of rationed items such as build- ing materials and farm machinery has ended with the exception of extensions to February 8, 1947, only on farm machinery. Records indicate that 371 veterans applied for rationed items in 1946; 371 permits were issued and 334 permits were extended on these applications. Although this is a minor wheat county, there are 259 Federal crop-insurance con- tracts in effect for which $11,091.92 was paid in premiums. A number of producers suf- fered wheat losses and were paid a total of $1,975.78 for such losses. Office activities continued with over 8,900 callers during the year; telephone calls amounting to 2,812 on record; 18,670 personal letters were written; 8,653 mimeographed let- ters were mailed; 5,918 received; 77 county or precinct meetings held at which 2,031 per- sons attended; made 1,338 contacts by county and community committeemen; held 22 meetings with other agencies; and published 62 articles of interest to farmers. Local, State, and national interest seems to be increasing in a farm program. The last few years did not necessarily require as strong Qn organization of farmers as we are certain to need once we are in the middie of over- production, loss of heavy shipments of agri- cultural commodities abroad, and the general slump that is certain to come within the near future. Triple A is looking to intensive Soil-conservation practices and continuation of a price-support program to see the Ameri- can farmer through. Good News Frem Pittsburgh EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. CHESTER E. MERROW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. MERROW. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include therein an editorial from the New York Times of January 26, 1947, entitled “Good News From Pittsburgh,” as follows: GOOD NEWS FROM PITTSBURGH The year’s best news on the industrial front so far was the announcement on Fri- day that the United States Steel Corp. and the United Steelworkers of America had agreed, in the public interest, to extend their existing wage contract from February 15 to April 30, followed by the simultaneous state- ment of both parties that agreements had been reached on substantial and basic parts of a program for equalizing wage rates for comparable jobs within plants, between plants, and between companies. The con- tinued production of steel] is assured until at least May 1. The sense of public respon- sibility which both sides show encourages hope that there will be no strike after May 1, CIO President Philip Murray's steel union is asking concessions which, it is estimated, will add 8300,000,000 to the industry's exist- ing $1,500,000,000 wage bill. Among these is the issue of portal-to-portal pay. If this were written into a new contract the em- ployers would at least know where they stood. Pending legislative, judicial, or collective- bargaining action, they do not know where they stand on back pay based on the portal- to-portal theory. The present extension of the contract may give time for this question to be threshed out. Meanwhile the adjust- ments announced this morning provide for retroactive payments of more than $30,000,- 000 to iron out what both parties have agreed were inequities in previous wage rates. The wisdom of the steelworkers’ demands has been and will be questioned. Their real- ization in full would be felt in increased prices for a thousand commodities and serv- ices. But the wisdom of corporation and union in recognizing, as they did in an agreed statement, “their joint interest in main 1 industrial relations” will be applauded by all except those who believe in industrial warfare as a political weapon. The general principles of wage increases can be debated on an intellectually respecta- ble plane. Many of us hold that excessive wage costs do not in the end even benefit the wage-earner. Others seem to regard any increase in the money wage rate as a posi- tive good. But there can be no intellectually respectable argument about stoppages in basic industries. Such stoppages hurt every- body—employer, employee, and consumer, Last year there were enough of them and enough threats of them to shake the founda- tions of our economic and political life. Per- haps we have just seen at Pittsburgh the be- ginnings of an industrial statesmanship that will avoid them. One cannot predict, but one can hope. Peace in Industry EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON OF WASHINGTON IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, January 29 (legtslative day of Monday, January 27), 1947 Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, in my State there is a very distinguished and capable labor leader who often de- livers statesmanlike and intelligent speeches, and makes analyses of our great domestic labor problems. I refer to Dave Beck, the international vice president of the teamsters’ union. About a week ago he delivered an important ad- dress before his own organization. I think it is one of the finest analyses of labor-management problems ever given, and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Recor». APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rsecorp, as follows: We are entering a new year. If history repeats itself, as it has done since the Pil- gtims landed on Plymouth Rock, before an- veloped a finer America. sacrifice. To use the words of Winston Churchill, this will require “blood, sweat and tears.” We are emerging from a terrible war. We are still trying to readjust our people and our industries from war to peace, and we are meeting some difficulties in so doing. Al- ready we have experienced serioue strains on our economic life. Capital ahd labor have had bitter disagreements and the public has been seriously disturbed. Many feel that a better job could have been done, but we must not forget that a lessened efficiency is the price we sometimes must pay for democracy, though democracy is worth far more to us than this small sacrifice. I am sure that we would not trade places with the people of any other nation. Those who advocate private enterprise, as I do, surely would not prefer a situation similar to that in Britain, where the nationalization of industry is going forward today. Not even those who most dislike John L. Lewis want us to follow the footsteps of the British. Surely the problems of Asia and Palestine and India are far more serious than any we have to face, either foreign or domestic. I am certain that at least 99 percent of our peo- ple—labor, capital and the public—do not look upon the situation in Russia as an im- provement over our own. We can find no solace for our ills in China, or Japan, or France, or in any other country in the world. No, we are still in the num- ber one position. Our people are enjoying the finest of living standards, our hopes are the highest for the future. Yes, we have our serious problems. It will require time and effort to solve them— but solve them we will. Some politicians think they have the answer, but they have not. Some say labor is entirely at fault. It isn't. Others blame capital entirely, and they, too, are wrong. We have in America the finest leadership of capital and labor to be found in the entire world. It is overwhelmingly against the so- cialization of industry and opposed to com- munism. Some of the leaders in industry oppose any form of recognition for organ- ized labor, but a great many other men in influential business positions have grown practical. They have advanced with the times. They bave learned that new tech- niques are necessary in this modern world. Some men in labor have felt that when Franklin D. Roosevelt passed on to his re- ward, everything he fought for would go to wreck and ruin, but that, of course, is fool- ishness. No such thing will happen. Per- haps it is true that labor enjoyed an edge, even a considerable advantage under Roose- velt, but labor was a long way behind when he was first elected. Perhaps in some in- stances labor moved a little too fast for industry. The profit picture during the war eased that strain, however. When the war ended, and when we began to get back to competitive operations, we discovered that the restraints of wartime controls prevented the easy meshing of the gears of our economic machine. We are now working out our problems through the process so common to democracy. Our last national election came as a sur- prise to many of our people, but there were those of us in labor who anticipated the Tesults. We are now watching the changing picture. We face a new Congress; we ses politicians attempting to understand the meaning of the election, and hold-overs try- ing to discover exactly what happened.