APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ticed by every art of demeanment, did not cease with his Presidency. The purpose was not limited to preventing his reelection. The purpose was to picture as odious one of the leading exponents of individualism and opponents of collectivism in the world. To drag down so distinguished a symbol of cap- itallsm would help to destroy capitalism itself. To that end, the demeaning of Hoover Was carried on almost up to the present day and not only in America but throughout the world.’ Michigan Copper EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN B. BENNETT OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the copper mines of Michigan are deep mines and the cost of mining their ores is greater than at the mines of the Southwest, especially the great open pit mines. But there are millions of pounds of the essential red metal yet to be won from the Michigan deposits. The United States can ill afford to lose this copper. These mines produced some 3,500 tons of copper per month during the war and they can continue to pro- duce substantial tonnages if encouraged to do so. At present copper is selling at a high price. It is in tremendous demand. There is little reason to believe the ore reserves of Michigan will be depleted dur- ing this period of high prices. Unfortu- nately there is no expectation that the price of copper will remain high over such an extended period. If our mines are forced to close before the reserves are mined out, many millions of pounds of copper will be lost, millions of dollars of taxable wealth will be destroyed, and a national asset irretrievably lost as the cost of -reopening and reequipping at some future date would be prohibitive. The bill to suspend the copper tariff for 2 years has just been passed by this House and there is some talk of suspend- ing the tariffs on lead and zinc because of the great demand for base metals and the present insufficiency of domestic pro- duction. No one knows how long this condition will last. Domestic production may increase as the shortage of equip- ment and labor decreases and as explora- tion and development work neglected during the war is caught up. Consump- tion may decrease as consumer needs are satisfied. The cost of producing copper from our Michigan mines in some in- stances even now is greater than the market price of copper—yet we cannot, as I have said, afford to lose these re- serves for lack of a few cents per pound. I wish to call to the attention of the members the bills introduced by Mr. ALLEN, of Illinois, Mr. Haruess, of Ari- zona, Mr. Hitt, of Colorado, Mr. MEYER, of Kansas, and Mr. Russe.u, of Nevada, to establish a Minerals Conservation Division to administer a plan by which these Michigan copper ores and other high-cost and scarce strategic and crit- ical minerals and metals can be produced for industry, national defense, stockpil- ing, and generally to aid in establishing a sound domestic mining industry as a bulwark against a national emergency such as we have just experienced. What’s Wrong With Our Diplomacy? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks, I am including an article by Robert T. Oliver from the March 26, 1947, issue of the Christian Century. Mr. Oliver speaks from his own background and points out the danger that is inherent in the present system. Our AILING DIPLOMACY (By Robert T. Oliver) Our ailing State Department is being moved from its gloomy old Victorian quar- ters to a new, brightly modern office bulld- ing. Many hope that it will benefit from the change of scene. This expectation seems a little naive, however. The malady of the State Department goes too deep to be cured by a dozen roses and new curtains at the windows. It calls for surgery, blood trans- fusions, and a change of diet. Peoples all over the world are bewildered by our diplomacy—our defeated enemies as well as our disillusioned friends. This coun- try equipped and spearheaded the drive to win the war, but doesn't know what to do with the peace. We rushed forth like St. George to slay the dragcn of evil, but we come back more like a gluttca old billion- aire, with a preponderance of .economic and military power but no plans or desire to use It. NOT A NEW MALADY The malady of the State Department has been festering tor a good many years. Cor- dell Hull was too ill himself to give it the proper care. Stettinius was too inexperi- enced. Byrnes was too busy. And Marshall needs an organization able to function at full speed, rather than a patient requiring diagnosis, expert treatment, and long recu- peration. Just at the time when an efficient State Department is most needed, it is least able to serve. What is wrong? The commonest diagnusis of the ailment is poor personnel, In the final analysis this may be correct, but the problem is not a simple one. The system itself is much at fault, especially since December 7, 1941. By definition, our State Department has con- trol over our ielations with other nations. But in fact this has never been wholly true, and in recent years it has not been even half true. Pearl Harbor placed direct con- trol of our most important foreign relations in the War and Navy Departments. Presi- dential and congressional decisions placed other important internationa)] functions in such newly created agencies as the Lend- Lease Administration and the Office of Stra- tegic Services. The recently organized Atomic Energy Commission is being given jurisdiction over the most vital problem in international relations. Still other impor- tant diplomatic powers are exercised by our delegates to the United Nations. RESULT OF OVERLAPPING AUTHORITY But this is only part of the story. The Departments of Justice, Commerce, Treasury, Labor, and Agriculture all have direct and significant functions in dealing with other A1237 people and governments, especially at a time when we have occupation forces in Ger- many, Japan, Austria, and Korea, to say nothing of the military bases we are setting up in many parts of the world. The lnes of authority held by all these departments and agencies are interwoven but not interlock- ing. Hence chaotic confusion. Two years in Federal service taught me that the chief virtue of the ordinary career man in any division of the Government is astute caution. Federal employees, like oth- er individuals, desire to hold their jobs and win premotion. They svon learn that the best way to do both is to say and do as little as possible, If a Federal official makes a good decision he ts iikely to be assailed by the herds of other departments for having infringed on their authority. If he makes a bad decision he is overwhelmed with obloquy from all sides. The easiest and safest thing to do is to make no decisions at all. Keep the prob- Jems “under study"; report “progress” from time to time; ‘‘consult"” with every other agency tnvolved; request more funds occa- sionally, and when they are not granted point out how the work 1s being handicapped; defer any decision until “joint action” can be taken, thus simultaneously spreading the re- sponsibility and winning a reputation for careful thinking and couperation. These are the officcholder’s success formulas, known collectively to the citizenry as red tape. No real improvement in ths State Department or any other governmental agency can be ex- pected until meusures are taken to cut this red tape THE SITUATION IN KOREA The confusion and inefficiency caused by overlepping and ill-defined spheres of au- thority ure well illustrated by the situation in Korea, which I studied et first-hand dur- ing an 1l-week tour of investigation. The American zone there is ruled by our military occupation force, headed by Gen. John R. Hodge. General Hodge has been assigned the diplomatic function of negotiating directly with General Chistinkov, commander in the Russian zone, in an effort to reunite the severed halves of Kcrea. In these negotia- tions Hodge is governed by directives from the State Department. His progress is sub- j=ct to higher-policy decisions reached in ” Washington and Moscow. On all matters pertaining to his military force and supplies, General Hodge is obliged to report to MacArthur in Tokyo but must deal directly with the War Department. As military governor of southern Korea he is subject to the control of the Far Eastern Division of the State Department, but the equipment and personnel with which he op- erates have to be secured from the Pentagon. The Far Eastern Division urges him to give his officers thorough training for specific jobs, and the War Department keeps bring- ing his officers home and replacing them with raw recruits. Korea's basic economy has been ruined by division of the country into two zones, so contrived that they separate the industrial and agricultural parts. Hence the Commerce Department has an influential voice in de- ciding what steps shall be taken to rehabili- tate the Korean economy. But the currency of Korea has been inflating steadily during the 18 months of occupation, and the Treas- ury Department has charge of the problem of stabilizing Korean money so that it can be admitted to the international exchange. However, since our zone is agricultural, no fundamental reforms may be undertaken without the concurrence of experts from our Department of Agriculture. With so many hands trying to spin the wheel, and no one having authority to call the turn, the result is confusion, stagnation, and increasing misunderstanding. The 30,- 000,000 Korean people can only sit and wait,
A1238 vhile they—and the rest of the Oritent— wonaer why our foreizn policy is so con- furcd. OUTDATED INFORMATICN Actually the situation is even worse than this summary indicates. I the first place, meny of the so-called experts who gather end cocrdinate the facts upon which our Fol'c'cs must be based have never been in ..orca. Oc the few who have visited Korea, mc3t heave done so under Japanese auspices, in the days when Japan was laboring to make a ccse for kccping the peninsula as a slave stcte. In the eccond place, Korea is 8,000 mics away, 1s almost unknown to the Amer- ican pecp.c, hes no bloc of voters in this country, end therefore is easily kept on the ehelf. And in the th'rd plece, there is no efcetive means by which the responsitie Cfiic.cls of the various departments con- ce.ncd con get together to consider the Ercbiem in common. T.e cate cf Korea ts not unique; it ts simriy one specific illustration of how our fore “11 poilcy works. The woncer is that cur intezuctional affzirs aren’t in even a worse mvucdie than they are. The ave:age citizen has no direct contact with the State Depertment. He can write his Cangereesman in protest against or in- quiry ebout the Polish election or the occu- pation of Jap=n or the division of Ksrea or whatever problem concerns him. But hcw- ever much the Congressman may wich to Fliense a constituent, his.influcnce with the Siate Dcp2zrtment is small. The legislative and exccutive divisions of the Gsvernment ere both je-lous of their own status end pcwers. The Congressman may criticize or dem:nd, -Eut except when appropriations are reyuested or a diplomatic appointment is to be approved, there is little effective ection that he c:n take. State Department offiz‘als ere expert in politely brushing off congzes- sional complaints. FAR REMOVED FROM THE PEOPLE If citizens of Oshkosh or Peoria actualy get stronrly enough worked up over a rrob- lem to send a deputation to Weshington, some State Dspartment cficial will corte- cusly give them time to s.ate their case. Then he will smoothly—and accurately—in- form them that due consideration will be given to what they have szid, but that of. ccur.e he himself has no euthority to pass upsn it. It is only when an individual tries to threed his way through the maze to d‘s- cover (if he ever can) just where the deci- sions really are made that he learns how cumbersome and far removed from the peo- ple cur representetive democracy is. One thirg people forget when they try to discaver what ails the State Department is that its employees are individuals much like everyone clee. They range in ability from clerks able to earn 81,800 a year to admin- istrators who can command 810,000. They have their prejudices and special interests and their own quota of ignorance. Most of them are not supermen cfire with geal to reform the world, but simple family men who want security and a living wage. Some are industrious and some are lazy. Most of them do their assigned work with a decent conscientiousnegs, but when the clock strikes five they want to close up their desks and go home to fursue their hobbies and culti- vate their families. Physiciens scon acquire an impersonal, detached attitude toward suffering and diseace. State Department officials develop this same pzrofeasional immunity to inter- national crises. Cases of stomach ulcers are no more frequent among its seasoned func- tionaries than in any other segment of the population. They know from long expsrience that one crisis will pass and another will come to the fore. They know that there will be ex- cited editorials and excited deputations de- manding action about Peron's pro-German recime in Argentina or the Polish elections or the Korean scandal, and they know that ig they sit tight and assert stoutly that “the situation is being carefully studied” the crisis will probably dissolve or at least piss out of public attention. It is only the Bra- dens and Messersmiths and Hurleys and Grews—the men who try to do something abcut the problems—that get into trcu%le. WHAT CAN BE DONE? We may say then that the malady of the State Department stems from iw) sou:ces. One is the cumbersome, overle pping, and ill- dedned division of authority among 100 many agencies and departments. 17h2 othcr is that the tremendous problems of a world which has tudden'y become one must be handled by little men. S:cretary Marshall has no medicine to cure this ailment. The remedy must fit the durl nature of the disease. There must be, fivst, a drastic reorganization of the exxcutive branches of the Government to bring all international cuchority under one head or at lecst into close working cooperation. Tru- man and Congress together could do this, but Marshall can’t. And second, there must be better salaries, more attractive circum- stances, and the preseure of public demand which together will bring wiser and more dcvotcd men into the service of the Siate Dezartment. An observer of the Washington scene can discern little hose that either of the-e reme- diez wiil be immediately applicd. The fatl- ure to apply them is cost..g us the oppor- tunity we won in the crucible of war to remcke the world a.ong democratic lines. It is cosiing u3 the respcct and confi-cence of bewildered peoples everywhere, who prob- ebly couldn't do better themselves but as:uvedly expected better of uz. And, as we watch te crumbling of Cemcc.ai.c Gclenses before the onward maren of commuaismn, we are forced to conclude that this laiiure may cost us the necessity of waging an atomic war. Why is the State Department sick? My answer may not be the same es yous. But surely every Amer:can voice can join in a c-escendo of demand that effec:ive remedies be applied at once to get it well. American Merchant Marice EXTENSION OF REMARKS Le) J HON. HUGH A. MEADE OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. MEADE of Maryland. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rscorp, I include the following radio address delivered by me over station WBAL, Baltimore, March 238, 1947: Ladies and gentiemen of the radio au- dience, I am deeply indebted to Senator Typ- rnos for the privilege of addressing you this afternoon and have chosen a subject of vital interest to every American citiven, that is, the need for an adequate American merchant marine. In the House of Representatives last week, we were called upon to vote for a bill which provided waivers of certain navigation and inspection laws because our ships were not in condition to pass such rigid regulations, It is, indeed, a sad commentary on our short- sightedness and lack of planning for our future self-protection to have safety laws but no ships capable of complying with them. The Congress of the United States, through the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, established a United States Maritime Commission and directed that organization “to further the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD development and meintenance of an ade- quate and well-ba'anced Americcn merchant marine, promote the commerce of the Unitcd States, and to aid in the nationcl defence " The Maritime Commission wh'ch we es- tabiiched hed hardly wet its feet in a sound program for our merchant merine industry when wer broke out in Europe and when this Netion was drawn into the turmoil throug the bombing of Pear] Herbor. We as a! a- ticn, and many of the young men in our armed forces who returncd home safely, can thani: our lucky stats that the preg-sm of the Maritime Commission was ectabliched and working wher. we went to war. In Werld War I the shipyards of this cointry, trc- mendous thouch the: were, failed to de‘iver a cingle newly construcied cry-carpo vcrcel berore the armict:ce was signed, Our mcn an equipment were transported on foreign- flay ships. Derinz the first year of the recent hestil- ities the merchant shipyearcs o7 the Nation, under the d'roction of the United Sia.cs Pcritime Ccmm’ss.on, delivered more thin 8,002.00) deedwe-ght tons of cazg> ch:ppi:g into the service of the Allies. The chinhulld- ing know-how, developed under the 1936 cct and v-tal to th> Nation, was paying big divi- d@en¢s. The next year 16,00),000 tons were delivered, and by the middle of tue third year the shippinz necds of our United Nations hed been larcpely met and cur supplies flawed overccss on a bridge of ships. Thst brizge of sh’ps seved thousands of lives and m-de @ vital contribution to an early end of hos- tilities. These same ships continued to serve the world in its rehabilitation and relief. Today that Commiss‘on, with its wer task successfuHy accomplished, stands in the unique pocit:on of having the wor'd’s largest merchant fleet, yet vitally laciing in the ele- ments of a well-ba'’anced fizet, as directed by the Merchant Marine Act. War did rot require the bullding of prs- senger-trpe vessels except as troop shirs, nor did it require the building of the latest mod- ern technically improved cargo ships. - War demanded only that we get the ships quickly and move great weights of cargoes overseas. Cargo shirs became es much an implement of war as tan's, bombers, and battleships. In the early days of the war our entire passenger fitet was extensively converted in that other phase of the Merchant Merine Act of 1986—the national defense. The one hundred and thirty-odd passenger vessels in the active American fi-g service in June cf 1939 became the troop ships and special. se-vice ships of the armed services that car- Tied our men safely overseas. Of that prewar merchant fizet more than one-third were over 20 yecrs of age, the legal lifetime set by the Merchant Marine Act of 19396. It was part of the Maritime Commission’s program to replece these pas- senger ships as they reached the end of their longevity. War prevented the orderly pro- cedure outlined by the Maritime Commis- sion. That passenger-ship operation is vital to the merchant-marine industry, can best be pointed out by a situation which existed prior to the war. In 1 day foreign-figg shires, in competition with -American-flag ships, catried out of New York harbor 5,000 pas- sengers, most of them American, skimming the cream from some $1,500,009 worth of business. The United States needs passenger ahips to carry our businessmen and the prod- ucts of America to the whole world. Today the United States merchant marine faces world competition again. Pract‘cally every maritime nation in the world is rush- ing the completion of the most modern mer- chant fleet, including adequate passenger- transportation facilities, yet the shipyards of America have not laid a single keel to re- place the vessels lost in war service or those which have become overage, or those whose extensive military conversion makes it too expensive to reconvert them.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Great Britain alone is building 454 vessels; Holland, 91; Italy, 87; Sweden, 66; Norway, 62; and France, 58. How many Russia is building no one Knows. Among these vessels are passenger vessels designed to once again skim the cream of American travelers. Com- pared to these fleets, American shipyards have under construction some 64 vessels, of which the major portion are cargo types carrying relatively few passengers and de- signed for specific trades. We do not want to, and we muat not, con- tinue to use converted troopships for pas- senger service beyond the existing emergency. We should replace them with adequate pas- senger tonnage designed to keep the Ameri- can flag in the world's passenger business. The Merchant Marine Act directs the Mari- time Commission to build a fleet composed of the best equipped, safest, and most suit- able types of vessels, yet today, in the North Atlantic, there is only one passenger ship carrying the Stars and Stripes which meets all the Coast Guard requirements and Amer- ican standards, That is the flagship of our merchant fleet—the America—the largest ves- se] ever built in this country and admittedly the safest ship afloat. We need more ships with these same characteristics. Some of our prewar passenger vessels are still op- erating in emergency service under waivers from the Coast Guard. A few are in various stages of reconversion to resume their pas- senger runs. At the moment that is all that is being done to meet this critical situation, and it falls far short of meeting the directives of the Congress. A year ago the United States Maritime Commission approved 31 ocean trade routes essential to the economy and defense of this Nation, and immediately laid plans for the design of vessels which would be required to meet such service. This program called for an appropriation of about $250,000,000 and provided for the construction of the following ships: (a) Three 22-knot passenger liners for the American Export Lines’ Mediterranean service, for which Bethlehem-Fore River is awaiting award of contracts. (b) The 28-knot passenger liners for Moore- McCormack Lines’ east coast to South America route, on which the Federal ship- yard was low bidder, and whose construction was held up at the request of President Truman. (c) Two 30-knot Great Circle liners for the trans-Pacific trade, on which the Mari- time Commission was about to receive bids, when the President ordered the postpone- ment of the projected shipbuilding program. (ad) Twenty-six modern cargo ships of a new C-3 type to remedy the shortcomings of war-built vessels. (e) Six passenger-cargo ships for the American President Lines “round the world" service, two modern passenger-cargo ships for Alaska trade, and two combination ships for the Puerto Rican service. That program was reduced by approxi- mately 50 percent by the Bureau of the Budget and came in for further reductions by the President until the appropriation recommended to the House by the Bureau of the Budget for the 1947-48 maritime con- struction program provides for an appropria- tion of only $104,000,000, broken down as follows: ’ Three passenger ships for the Meditcrra- mean trade, $60,000,000; 6 curgo vessels, $24,000,000; and the balance of $20,000,000 is earmarked for “betterment of ships used during the war.” Iam told the word “better- ment” means reconditioning in maritime language. The American public has a vital interest in continuation of the shipbuilding indus- try, for its military security and its eco- nomic prosperity. Baltimore has a shipbuilding tradition. From its Sparrows Point shipyards have come for many years the tankers, refrigera- tor ships, and other cargo vessels needed to maintain America's foreign trade. During the war the Bethlehem-Fairfield shipyard in this city established a new rec- ord in turning out the bridge of ships that contributed so much to our ultimate victory in World War II. Today the Bethlehem-Fair- field yard is a junkKyard—literally so. The ways On which were built the vessels that carried men and munitions to win the glo- bal war are now rusting from disuse. Grass is growing in many portions of the shipyard, That part of it which is used is the scene ot shipbreaking, not shipbuilding. Possibly in a few more months the same thing may be true at Bethlehem-Sparrows Point shipyard. Global peace, global prcsperity, depends on ships and shipping. As a leading world power, America must have a hand in the shaping of this global peace and global pros- perity. To do so requires a merchant ma- rine, of the type best adapted to its needs— these needs cannot be met by war surplus shipping. We must build new vessels of the types required to give us a well-rounded mer- chant marine. Do you know that foreign trade contributes 10 percent of our employ- ment in the United States? We need ships for an expanding economy; we need ships for national security. We need swift passenger liners to compete with ships sailing under foreign flags, ships suitable for coastwise transport; shallow-draft vecsels for river navigation; refrigerated vessels necessary for Central and South American trade; fishing craft for Newfoundland and Alaskan banks; and the Great Lakes transport barge fleets and tugs. The shipbuilding program recommended by the United States Maritime Commission would be profitable to American business— it would keep 12 shipyards busy for 3 or 4 years maintaining a construction employ- ment of about 90,000 and giving employment to about 590,000 other workers in related industries throughout 32 States of the Nation. I am a strong advocate of economy in Government but I think curtailment of our shipbuilding program is poor economy. Without sufficient appropriations by Con- gress to carry out a comprehensive ship- building program, the hands of the Maritime Commission are tied and each day our mer- chant and passenger fleets lose their equit- able share of world trade and foreign com- merce. I cannot urge too strongly that the pres- ent Congress give full consideration to the carrying out of the directives so clearly stated in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to foster the development and encourage the maintenance of a mer- chant marine,” adequate to carry a substan- tial share of the world trade and to serve our Nation's defense, a truly well-balanced merchant marine. It was well said, during the war, “The order of the day is the develop- ment of a bold and daring plan to insure the retention of the Stars and Stripes upon the seven seas.” Speech of Col. Robert R. McCormick EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES W. VURSELL OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Speaker, today I am inserting in the Recorp a speech made by Col. Robert R. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune, which was delivered in Los Angeles, Calif., on Friday, March 21, to open up “Spring” on the west coast. A1239 I urge the members to read this speech carefully because it contains a wealth of factual political information which led to the financial and political de- cline of France and to the present fi- nancial political decline of England. I am sure it will be well worth your time and indulgence. The speech follows: As far back as I can remember, France was considered the most conservative of all countries. It was thought that her revolu- tions were past; the royalist and imperial parties merely historic organizations; the Republic so strong that it could permit the use of titles as names, conferring no political or economic privileges; the land under the Code Napoleon widely held; most business small and remaining in the family from gen- eration to generation; France was the lead- ing nation in art, and was high in science. Her industries were in the luxury trades. She pioneered the high-priced automobile to be run on the military roads, and after the Wrights invented the airplane, France developed it as an expensive sport. Although the people were freed, almcst nothing was done by them in such things as plumbing, electricity, and household gadgets to improve their living conditions. They kept their earn- ings in cash or Government bonds which became worthless with inflation. Defeated in all of her grandiose conquests, France had learned to be self-supporting and was carrying on an unprofitable colonial policy of military conquest at high cost, as it was explained to me, to regain her mili- tary self-respect. One thing we did not know was that her bureaucracy remained through all revolu- tions, continued to grow in size and to en- joy privileges over citizens not existent in America or England, privileges called the ad- ministrative law. It was so harsh with dis- sidents that only men of revolutionary de- termination dared dissent. I was tn France in 1915 as a correspondent and as a soldier in 1917 and 1918. I billeted in French houses and served with French troops. If confirmation of the French repu- tation for solidity and conservatism had been needed, I would have furnished it. We started a newspaper for the Army in 1917. We continued it for 10 years after the war, during every one of which I spent con- siderable time in France. Year by year I could see the growing degeneration of the French people. Wartime rent controls were continued, demoralizing tenants and pre- venting new building. The enormous bu- reaucracy was not liquidated. France con- tinued conscription and a large army when it was not needed, and which had become obsolete and mutinous when it was needed. The victorious generals of 1918 were per- niciously active to retain their war rank. Communism grew to the point where work- men would not produce weapons to be used against Hitler, then allied with Stalin. Rescued by American arms, France has confiscated almost all wealth-producing properties, 1s operating them badly or not at all. The country is completely bankrupt financially and morally, with no gleam of hope for recovery. England, on the contrary, was, as Lord Curzon put it, a proud empire. Her wars of conquest had all been successful except our Revolutionary War. As much by diplomacy as by battle, she subdued her rivals Spain, Holland, France, Russia, and Germany. Britannia ruled the waves. Under this protection, beginning in the reign of Eliza- beth, there came a great outpouring of chartered companies and other organizations for trade and conquest. Some of them de- veloped into colonies, of which only the American Colonies achieved independence. The India Company, as we know, acquired a substantial part of India. Cecil Rhodes brought on the South African war and the
A1240 conquest of South Africa. Other companies obtained extraterritoriality in China and in Turkey. The industrial revolution begun in Eng- land gave that country a head start. The Presence of ccal, iron, and tin on the islands in close proximity furnished natural ad- vantages, in trading with countries strong enough to resist aggression but backward in commerce and tndustry. During the life of the Long Yarliament and the Cromwell dictatorship, merchants controlled the government and greatly ex- panded British trade. When the Stuarts re- turned to power and afterward when the ar:stocracy took over uncer William and Mary, trade was again given every considera- tion to Keep the middle class contented. With complete command of the sea, other nations could only trade by British suffer- ance, and with some coercion were required to patronize British banks and British insur- ance. Pritain could import and export whatever she wanted to. The principle that competition is the life of trade did not find its way into British ju- risprudence. No laws preventing restraint of trade or preventing railroad rebates were enacted. Special privilege and monopolies were a definite part of government policy. In consequence the nation became im- menseely rich with the riches in few hands. In 1873, Joseph Medill writing from Eng- land, said: “Notwithstanding the enormous, unprece- dented riches of Great Britain, the distribu- tion of the wealth is fearfully far from gen- eral or equal. There are now 1,000,000 of poorhouse paupers in England whose condi- tion is depicted by Dickens. They literally enough constitute the ‘under-crust’ of Eng- lish society. The ‘upper-crust’ number, per- haps, 100,000 families, or half as many per- sons as the paupers. One-third of these are born nobles and own all the land; the other two-thirds were generally born rich and own most of the residue of the property in the form of buildings, improvements, ships and railroads, stocks and bonds, goods anc chat- tels, moneys and credits of all kinds. Be- tween these extremes of absolute destitution and over-gorged affluence come the great toiling millions who produced all the wealth and development. They live, as a whole, comfortably; but they have little or no accu- mulations, but, while self-supporting, subsist from hand to mouth as artisans or on the product of each year’s crops as farmers. They own no land and few have a house they can call their own. They are all tenants, and the greater part laborers, depending on their weekly wages for means of existence. The tenant farmers number 500,000 families who, by almost starving a million of hire- lings, manage to pay their enormous rents and save a little money. Thus Great Britain is a land of extremes in everything. The British Nation is the most industrious, frugal, enterprising, sagacious, pugnacious people on the face of the earth. They have the richest men in the world and the largest number of paupers and the greatest percent of landless persons.” It was the laws of primogeniture and entail that kept property in few hands. As protection to themselves, the aristo- crats allowed a few successful and rich peo- ple from the middle Class to be elevated to lower grades of the nobility, upon which their descendants could climb through the gen- erations. Thus it became the objective of businesamen to seek success in order to Ob- tain titles and then retire from active busi- ness. As success was never an end in itself, there was little incentive to continue the improvement of an institution. Sons did not take pride in carrying on and enlarging the businesses of their fathers and grand- fathers as with us. It was enough for the ennobled owner to ride along on the old mo- mentum and avoid competition by the cartel system and by keeping wages at a minimum. Life, with the court, the royal enclosure, fox hunting, polo, $1,500 hand-made shot- guns for the exclusive use of landowners, was organized for the rich. Commissions in army and navy and livings in the church were confined to the ruling class. Neglected and ignored, condemned to be- long to the lower classes, the workmen be- came sullen. They refused to accept labor- saving machinery and produced less per man than any other workmen in the world. So strongly established was British control of world trade, however, that it prevailed until the blows of war set it on the road to ruin. The adoption of free trade in 1853 deprived the treasury of much revenue. The owners of the distilleries and breweries now in the aristocracy were able to prevent substantial excise taxes. The system of income taxes was devised to maintain the Government. It operated to destroy the Empire. “Impertalism,” the doctrine that ware were fought to make money for the insiders, was widely held in the early years of this century.’ When the English found themselves at war in 1914, because of a secret treaty, many of them thought that it was an imperial war, They failed to enlist, they went on strikes. As one means to conciliate public opinion heavy corporation and income taxes were im- posed. So heavy were they and so small was the output of English labor that England the great trading and manufacturing country could no longer compete in the world mar- kets. Foreign investments made in previous “years were sold to finance the war so that form of income disappeared. While the war did not come to the island in appreciable extent, considerable wealth in shipping was lost. Drained of capital by these losses, which could not be made good because of overtaxation, the British could not replace obsolete equipment or start any new indus- tries. In 1932 the cartel system, the German and Italian forerunners of fascism, was adopted. Under this system each industry undertook to regulate the quality, quantity and price of the output of each of its mem- bers. In the case of the E. B. B. W. Vale Steel Company, that company borrowed money from the Bank of England to build a steel mill on the American pattern. The bank named the competitors of the bank to a mafority of the places on the board and they held down the output of the only modern steel factory in England. The aristocratic system had run ita course. A revolutionary election put in the present Socialist government, which is confiscating all property. An interesting sidelight on this Government is that half of its members are from the aristocracy. The aristocracy can- not demean themselves by entering private trade, but they may operate business con- ducted by the Government without loss of face, but they don’t know how to. The character of the Government is illustrated by the following: A farmer named George Milton Odlum owned a model farm in Wiltshire, stocked with an exceptional herd of Friesian cattle. From the outbreak of the war in 1939 Odlum was bedeviled by Government regulations, promulgated by the ministry of agriculture under R. 8. Hudeon and applied by the county war agricultural committee. By April 1942 when he had been forced by the committee to part with three-quarters of his herd, Odlum was thoroughly discouraged. At this time, opportunely, a buyer for the farm turned up, This was none other than Hudson, the minister of agriculture. Odlum named his price for the farm (about $240,000) and Hudson closed the deal with him. On that very same day, a members of the local war agricultural committee directed Odlum to restock his farm with cattle. He was in- structed to buy enough to fill his No. 1 shed, which would hold 100 cows. Odium protested the inconsistency of being forced to sell his quality herd and then being di- rected to restock mongrel cows which might APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD be diseased. Apparently, however, he com- plied before Hudson took over the farm 8 months later. Odlum at no time had recourse under the law. His life was made miserable by the application of the mintstry‘s orders by Hud- son's local bureaucrats. In addition, the local committee had power to seize his farm if charges of inefficiency could be proved to the satisfaction of the minister—Hudson himself. He was muscled out of his farm by a cabinet officer coveting that particular farm of al) the farms in England. The scandal finally reached the courts through an action brought by Odlum for libel against one of Hudson's agents. By the time the case was heard, Hudson had been in possession of the farm for 4 years and the libel itself was 8 years old. The hearing de- veloped the facts as to discriminatory treat- ment against Odlum and preferential treat- ment accorded Hudson by the minister's own appointed bureaucrats. Justice Atkinson, who rendered judgment for Odlum, ex- pressed amazement when it emerged during the hearing that the ministry of agriculture had undertaken to indemnify the defend- ant agent of the ministry. “Why the country should be made to pay the damages,” he said, “I do not know.” How terrifying is the Government is shown by the fact that the London newspapers did not cover the trial, except for brief stories about the judgment. The country is bankrupt and only subsist- ing on American charity. Having traced the course of France and England into socialism, tending to com- munism, let us see whether the same move- ment under way in the United States can be arrested. I hope so. America began departing from European ways with the colonial settlements. Pecple left Europe to get away from Europe. This movement was greatly accelerated by the Restoration. While in England the Restora- tion put a graded society in charge, with its doctrines of privilege and exploitation, which, as we have seen, was only ended by the recent political revolution, in America the Puritan movement continued to grow. Exceeres in this country have been excesses of Puritans, not of aristocracy. Virginia, the most British of the Colonies, developed the republican theory to a greater extent than any of the other Colonies and led all the others in the revolution and separation. The rights of man were adopted as the principles of the country. The privi- lege of the established church was abolished. Belief in a certain form of government was no longer prescribed by religion. Entails and primogeniture were done away with. Prcp- erty was divided every generation either by will or relationship. Every man was given an equal chance in Life. During the Colonial period, when enter- prise was held down, development was all in the political field. With the coming of free- dom, economic improvements began almost instantly. What kinds of improvements were they? Improvements not for the few, put for the many. First came the cotton gin, removing the toil] of making cotton. Then the reaper, saving the men and women on the farm from the back-breaking toil of harvesting. The steel plow opened up the prairies to ownership. The railroads were conceived to benefit the seaboard cities and of course to earn profits, but they brought the farmers’ products to the market and immigrants to the land. They supplanted the immigrants’ wagons and the stagecoach. We who accept them as a matter of course should read Mark Twain's panegeric over this marvelous in- vention less than a century ago. Plumbing, almost unknown abroad, is almost unfversal here. The stove, converted into the furnace, has broken the back of winter for every one. The is an apparent luxury. A hundred million phone calls a day attest its wide use.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Petroleum was developed to put a lamp On every table and when the lamp gave way to the superior electric-light bulb, petroleum remained to drive the automobiles, and what automobiles? Not Rolls-Royces, Mercedes, Panhards at great price, but Fords, Plym- ouths, and Pontiacs, reached by the purse of almost everyone. They brought in con- crete roads for everyone to enjoy, not for cannon to pound over. With small beginnings, the producers of these popular articles had to amass capital to enable them to meet the demand for their product. It is well known that Henry Fcrd began with subscriptions of $28,000. The last time I was here in 1933 Harry Chandler told me how he and a number of other for- ward-looking Los Angeles men_ endorsed Donald Douglas’ note for 610,000 each to start his modest factory. The next day I went to the factory and saw the first DC--2 under construction. These examples are typical of all the industrial developments that have created our civilization. Very few men produced them all. In addition to the leaders I have mentioned you easily think of Edison and Westinghouse, and of Wright, but do you know of Igor Sikorski? You may not know who Roebling was. You have never heard of Curtis, who made newsprint pos- sible. Do you remember Selden, inventor of the automobile, or Hughes of the electric stove? Pullman, who did so much to make Chicago and modern travel, is only remem- bered for the obstinacy he developed in old age. Supply all the names you can think of. How many are there? The men who created our industrial civilization, our American way of life, are numbered in the hundreds—not even the thousands. They could do it be- cause they had been freed from aristocratic suppression and had not run into demagogic suppression, The accumulations necessary to production inevitably made thcir possessors rich, many times richer than the bulk of the people, and made them a cause for envy, upon which demagogues like the Roosevelts and Huey Longs played for their political gain. Slo- gans were invented to outcry reason. Taxa- tion according to ability to pay developed into confiscation. Share the wealth turned out to be share the poverty, All advance, as I have suid, is the creation of few men, inspired in their respective flelds. All the rest benefit from their genius. The car builder benefits me far more than I him. Years ago I used to make frequent trips to Buffalo and put up at its poor hotels. One day I found that a first-class Statler Hotel had been erected. The last thing in the world I would care to do would be to collect a string of hotels, but I am more the bene- faciary of the man who does than he is. Now we have come to the point where there cannot be any more such men, there cannot be any more Ford factories or Douglas air- plane works or Statler hotels. From now on, the men who have ideas for the betterment of human life, will not be able to put them into force, for they will not be allowed to accumulate the money necessary to produc- tion. There will be no new industries. There will be no new instruments. Inevitably, existing ones will gradually die off with nothing to take their place. That is the road down which we are traveling, how fast I am not prepared to say. Both the French and Englieh civilizations went to pieces in about 30 years. Yet with- out the causes which brought about their decline, we may proceed just as fast to our doom—or not necessarily so. The evils which were co apparent in them have not existed here. If men of vision will have the courage to explain and expound, we may get a change in the tax laws which in the present state of public ignorance, Congressmen are not cou- Tageous enough to write. Isn't this modern and progressive commu- nity the place to start such education? Aid to Greece EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR CAPPER OF KANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, March 26 (legislative day of Monday, March 24), 1947 Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I send to the desk and ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a radio talk by me, broad- cast from Station WIBW, at Topeka, Kans., on March 23, 1947, commenting on President Truman's recent request for substantial eid to Greece. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: There are so many things I would like to talk over with you today that I am just a little bit in doubt where to begin. There is the wheat market—margins— flurry of the past week. There is the matter of the Greco-Turkish problem—and its implications, because, of couree, the loans or grants to Greece and Turkey, plus the asked-for authorization td use military personnel in connection, are just the opening wedge for a change in the foreisn policy of the United States that would supplant the Monroe Doctrine for the Western Hemisphere by the Truman doc- trine for the entire world. In other words, the Congress and the coun- try face in the coming weeks the decision that from now on—until our resources and will to carry on run out—the United States is in world power politics for Keeps, and to the limit. And the world power politics game in which Uncle Sam proposes to sit with lots of chips—perhaps more chips than high cards—centers around European power politics. A not uninteresting feature of the twen- tieth century game of European power poli- _ tics is that two non-European powers pro- pose to contest for the control of Europe. Neither Soviet Russia nor the United States of America, when you get right down to it, are European nations. Russia, under the czars, under the Comin- tern, is essentially a product of Asia, of the Orient, although geographically Russia might be classed as European. The United States is geographically sepa- rated from Europe by the Atlantic Ocean; at the same time, it could be said that Americans are more closely related to west- ern Europe than is Russia-—whether one con- siders the Russia of czars or the Russia of Trotzky, Lenin, and Stalin. If the United States, through congressional action, backed by public opinion, adopts the Truman doctrine and moves into the Medi- terranean (we are sending a fleet of naval vessels there this spring to intimate to the world that we mean business), the contest will be a twofold contest. There will be the often-referred-to contest of two idealogies—capitalism and the in- dividual freedom versus communism and the complete obliteration of the individual into a cog in the machine of the state. More than that, the contest will be be- tween oriental despotism and western civil- ization, This is just another way of saying the contest is between the East and the West—according to Rudyard Kipling, the twain which shall never meet. What happens to the United Nations, which was to be the agency through which the East and West would cooperate for world peace, after the conflict has been resolved as being between the United States (the A241 Western Hemisphere) and Soviet. Russia (the Orient) to decide the fate of Eurcpe, I can- not undertake to say at this time. But it seems pretty plain, despite the prot- estations to the contrary, that the Truman doctrine by which the United Stuies under takes to preserve the independence of Eu- rope from the Oricnt (as necessary to pro- tect the Western Hemisphere also from the onslaught cf communism)—it scems pretty plain that the Truman doctrine, if and when adopted by the United States, pretty cffec- tively bypasses the United Nations. Whether that bypassing of the United Nations is due to the inherent weaknesses of the United Nations organization or is cue to the spiritual unpreparedness of the 2.600,000,C00 inhabitants of this globe for an international organization capable of preserving world peace and providing or in- suring the “four freedoms,” I do not under- take to say. I do say, however, that the recommenda- tion of President Trumun that the United States move into the Mediterrancan to re- place Britain in controlling that area of the world faces the United States with a momentcus decision to make. And very frankly I say to you that I have very grave doubts if the Congress of the United States can make a wise decision on that question before the March 31 deadline that was originally set for us by the Govern- ment of Britain. You probably have noticed in the news columns that Britain now is considering holding on in Greece, and in support of Turkey, until next summer or fall, instead of moving out immediately. Right at this point I want to applaud Sen- ator VANDENBERG, of Michigan, chairman of the Sonate Committee on Foreign Relations, for his insistence that the administration give to the Congress, and to the American people, the complete story of what commit- ments have been made by representatives of the United States to other nations. And also the complete picture of what the adminis- tration proposes the United States is to do in Europe, and over the world, after the United States takes the plunge from the Greco- Turkish springboard. And I must admit that it came as a con- siderable shock to me to learn, from Senator VANDENBERG’S own statement at the confer- ence of Republican Senetors, and from his later statement on the floor of the Senate, that he had been kept in ignorance of the ad- ministration plans in the Mediterranean area, until called to the White House only 2 weeks ago and informed that the United States was expected to move into Greece and Turkey as the British pulled out. I had supposed, and I believe the Senate and the House and the country as a whole had supposed, that the White House had been keeping Senator VANDENnERG fully in- formed of all developments in the field of foreign relations. Senator VANDENBEnG, who has been carrying the ball for the adminis- tration for the past years in the interest of national unity, certainly was entitled to full and complete information as to developments in the field of foreign relations, The foregoing is not a criticism of Presi- dent Truman. I am not at all certain that President Truman himself has been kept fully informed. My information is that the State Department, or at any rate some per- sons in the State Department, knew last fall that Britain intended to pull out of Greecc. However, according to information put out in the past few days, this information was not cfficially known in our State Department until a short time before President Truman called congressional leaders to the White House and informed them, off the record, of the serious developments in the Mediter- ranean. And that London had informcd Washington that it was up to Washington to decide whether the United States or Soviet
A1242 Russia should take over in Greece and Tur- key—actually in the whole Mediterranean and the Mideast—when enfeebled Britain puled out. You are as familiar as myself with the immediate happenings that followed. After that White House conference, information leaked out as to what President Truman had told congressional leaders. The Presi- dent fiew to Mexico while Congress and the country were trying to get a coherent story, or picture, of what was gotng on itn the Mediterranean. President Truman returned from Mex- fco, and told the Congress in joint session what the country had learned through un- official sources as to the British intentions in Greece and Turkey. And also, President Truman tnformed us in his message, the only course open to the United States ts to grant him author- ity to use $400,000,000—in funds, com- modities, military equipment and mili- tary and civilian personnel—to support the Governments of Greece anc Turkey to block the communtiszation of Burope. By implication, President Truman also in- dicated that other steps will be necessary. He did not state what these further steps will be, specifically, but a glance at the map and a consideration of developments in Eu- rope and Asia in the past months make it plain that support of Greece and Turkey means ultimately similar support for Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Italy, France, Spain, perhaps Belgium and Holland—and any and all other nations and people threatened with infiltra- tion by communism. The President did not mention China, Burma, or India. I have had some difficulty, myself, reconciling our pulling out of China so as not to antagonize Chinese Commun- ists there, and only a few days later, advo- cating that we move into Greece and Tur- key tn defiance of Communist Russia. The two polictes, on the face of tt, do not parse. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I have been a member for the past 25 years, and the House Foreign Affairs Com- mittee, are holding public heartngs on the President's proposals. Perhaps these ques- tions will be answered at these hearings. I very much hope so, because frankly I am a litte puzzted at some of the apparent con- flicts in Astatic and European policies of our own Government. Another thing that adds to the confu- sion—at least the surface confuston—is this: Every time there is a meeting of the foreign ministers to whip peace treaties into shape the Russian representatives spring a new commitment which they say was made by the late President Roosevelt at the Teheran or Yalta Conferences. One of the latest is that President Roose- velt agreed that Germany should make rep- arations puyments to Russia totaling $20,000- 0C0,000, these to be made out of current Ger- man production. If that contention ts ap- proved. and we keep supporting the German economy, what it really means ts that in the long run we will pay the German reparations to Russia. And similarly in Italy. where the Russians expect to collect $100,000,000. The only way Italy can pay such reparations ap- parently ts through a $100,000,000 loan from the Untted States. A compilation made by the United States News would indicate that the United States contribution to European rehabilitation, re- ltef, and support of governments to prevent these going Communist is some $31,500,- 000,000 during the postwar period. We fur- nished $630,000,000,000 in round figures through lend-lease during the war. Now we are being called upon to furnish a little more than that to promote European peace. I ask you, Are there any limits to our con- tributions to the rest of the world? If so, what are those limits? And what are the limits in natural resources that we have to continue making such commitments? What do you think about all this? I would like to hear from you. Defense Against Red Fascism EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT R. O’CONOR OF MARYLAND IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, March 25 (legislative day of Monday, March 24), 1947 Mr. O’'CONOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix to the ConorxssionaL Rec- ORD a copy of the address delivered by my friend, Dr. Joseph F. Thorning, asso- ciate editor of the Americas and World Affairs. This speech was delivered be- fore the Maryland Society of the Daugh- ters of the American Revolution in the Sheraton-Belvedere Hotel, Baltimore. The newly elected Maryland State regent, Mrs. Harry K. N-eld, presided at the session. I am glad to note that Dr. Thorning, a scholar whose compe- tence is widely recognized, gives unqual- ified support to the foreign policy of President Harry S. Truman and Secre- tary of State George C. Marshall. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Reconp, as follows: Delivering the principal address at the Closing session of the Maryland Chapter of the Daughters of the Amcrican Revolution, the Reverend Dr. Joseph FP. Thorning, asso- ctate editor of the Americas and World Af- fairs, both quarterlies published in Washing- ton, caNed for “na twofold counteroffensive against the warfare being waged by Red fascism.” “In seizing the initiative from the Marxz- ist totalitarians,” Dr. Thorning urged, “first attention must be given to an affirma- tive program of socioeconomic justice, pro- viding the wage earners with some share in the ownership, or management or profits of industry and farming. Although it may be too much to expect that every man.can be- come a capitalist, every worker can become @ property owner. Until cach citizen has a stake in our system of private property, the agitation for social revolution will continue. The day on which quarterly dividends are declared for labor, both on the farms as well as in factories and mines, will mark the be- ginning of the end for the autocrats of the Kremlin. The worker-owner will never be the dupe of Marxism.” To illustrate the operation of this prin- ciple, Dr. Thorning, who has lectured in a number of South American universities, pointed to “the growing strength of economic democracy in Costa Rica, where, after the social legislation of 1942, the number of Red Fascists dropped from 20,000 to less than 5,000.” The moment the worker has some- thing to lose, the Maryland educator de- clared, “the natural instinct ts to retain and, if possible, to increase his property for the benefit of the famtty.” Speaking about the second feature of the counteroffensive against the Marxist world revolution, Dr. Thorning urged that “the United States Congress make it unmistak- ably clear that every Marxist totalitarian be regarded and registered as a foreign agent, exactly on a par with any Naszi-Fascist totalitarian.” APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Washington editor added: “In the Soviet bid for the domination of Europe and Asia, we are witnessing the surrection of Hitlerism. Stalinism has be- come a synonym for slavery. Like nazlem, it claims allegiance uver the mind, the con- science, and the soul as well es over the bedy. Unlike Hitlerism, which was bo'd and outspoken tn fts denunciation of democracy, Stalinism pays lip service to the cause of ltberty, @emocracy, and the right of peoples to self-determination, while it soft-p2dals its hatred for the cpiritual idealism of the Judeo-Christian heritage. “Except for the doctrine of racial in- tolerance, every article in the Soviet creed is identical with the Nazi dogma. Gcd, the home, and private property are reduced to @ mockery. Every value in personal ard social ltfe ts subordinated to the omnipotent, omnicompetent state. In this sense, it can be recognized as a new religious cult: the blind idolatry of political power; the worship of force. Even the propaganda line of the Red Fascists bears a striking resemblance to the promises, threats, and tncitements to division that once emanated from Paul Jcseph Goebbels. Innocent people are con- fused and, tn some instances, deceived by the barrage of publicity organized by Marx- ists In the United States. Like their col- leagues in the Kremlin, these international traitors and international gangsters try to utilize a vocabulary of virtue. To the vile- ness of totalitarian propaganda, they add the vice of hypocrisy. “Good faith ts the forgotten principle of the Soviet blackmailers. The last thing to be assumed about a member of the Comin- tern, whether in Asia, Europ:, or America, is that he can be sincere. It is a simple waste of time to ask a Marxist totalitarian whether he is a member of the Communist Party. Opportunism, or convenience, is his onty ethic. Therefore, he deserves to be treated like any racketeer, whose sole ob- ject in life is to live and thrive at the expense of his law-abiding neighbors. “To retreat one inch from the foreign policy line that has been drawn by Presi- dent Harry S. Truman and General George C. Marshall, our Secretary of State, is not only to play into the hands of the most ruthless and most brutal clique of gang- sters on the face of the earth, but also to invite disaster for every home, school, and church in the Western Hemisphere. This is a duel to the death to defend ourselver against the Nazi-minded followers of Kar) Marx. And, at the conclusion of the struggle, the people of the world should not be, as they are today, half slave and half free.” The Portal-Pay Bills EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE D. AIKEN OF VERMONT IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, March 25 (legislative day of Monday, March 24), 1947 Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimouws consent to have printed in . the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled ‘The Portal-Pay Bills,” from the New York Herald Tribune of today. There being no objection, the edi- torial was ordered to be printed in the Rsgcorp, as follows: THE PORTAL-PAY BILLS The portal-to-portal pay bills passed by the Senate and House are not identical and
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD must therefore go to conference before the final measure emerges for the President's sig- nature or veto. The House bill is the more restrictive of the two and was passed by a vote of 6 to 1 proportions, while the vote in the Senate was 64 to 24. For this reason it is being predicted that any compromise ar- rived at will be weighted in favor of the House version, in which case a veto seems rather more than likely. We think neither Chamber has approached the problem with the care and moderation it deserves. Granted that the portal-pay suits against industry, now aggregating 86,- 000,000,000, represent an emergency which needs very prompt attention. Granted also that their instigation, largely at the hands of Mr. Philip Murray and his Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a reprehensible attempt to soak and possibly bankrupt in-- nocent employers and get by law that which should be left to collective bargaining. Yet, the kind of blanket action proposed may well work injustice in some cases and raise questions of constitutionality. The Senate bill, for instance, would nul- lify pending portal-to-portal claims by a declaration that no employer was to be held liable for any activity of an employee which was not payable by contract or by custom in the employer’s plant. It would free an employer from payment of any punitive dam- ages in any portal sult which might for any reason remain valid. Is there not a hint of retroactivity in these provisions? The Senate would impose a statute of lim- itations of 2 years barring any future claim arising out of violation of the wage-hour law. This is twice as gencrous as the House bill’s limit of 1 year, but neither, it scems to us, measures up to the “reasonable stat- ute of Mmitations” for which T. Metcalfe Walling, Administrator of the Wage-Hour Act, asked in his last report to Congress. Congress has forgotten, perhaps, that nearly 10,000,000 workers covered by the uct are not members of unions and hence would be at a distinct disadvantage in filing legitimate claims under too brief a time limit. We cite these objections as samples. No doubt some legislation in amendment of the loosely drawn wage-hour law is overdue to prevent the recurrence of uny such pesti- lence as the present portal-pay litigation. But it should be so drawn that it preserves the individual wage earner’s rights while protecting the conscientious employer from the undercutting of unscrupulous competi- tors. We suggest particularly Mr. Walling’s constructive suggestion that Congress give the Administrator of the act power “to apply the statute and to make determinations of fact which will be binding on all parties until set aside in appropriate proceedings.” In the meantime, there is the de minimis decision of Judge Picard in the Federal Dis- trict Court at Detroit throwing out the original suit brought in behalf of the Mount Clemens (Mich.) pottery workers. If this decision, virtually invited by the Supreme Court, is upheld by it, most of the suits sub- sequently filed should wither on the vine. Aid to Greece and Turkey EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLAUDE PEPPER OF FLORIDA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, March 25 (legislative day of Monday, March 24), 1947 Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a very able editorial on the pending question of aid to Greece and Turkey, by Mr. John S. Knight, of the Knight newspapers, which appeared in the March 23 issue of the Miami Herald. There being no objection, the edi- torial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: HYPOCRITICAL APOSTLES OF PEACE ISSUE INVITA- TIONS TO WAR Cat Cay, BAHAMAS, BRITISH WEsT INDIES.— On this tiny spit of land where seventeenth- century pirates cached their loot and modern nimrods troll the warm Atlantic waters for blue and white marlin, domestic and world problems which furrow the brows of think- ing people everywhere are too easily brushed aside. If it were not for the news broadcasts from the Miami radio stations and the Miami Heralds which arrive on the early morning plane, all realities would soon be forgotten on the sun-kissed beaches of Lou Wasey’s is- land paradise. It was the radio which first brought us the news that Georgia's Supreme Court had de- cided against young “Hummon" Talmadge, thereby confirming a prediction I made sev- eral weeks ago that despite the breast-beating of the radio oracles and 95 percent of the American press, constitutional government would be sustained in the Cracker State. I never could understand why our emoting columnists and editorial writers thought the foundations of the Republic were tottering under the impact of a purely local political fight but Drew Pearson had many people convinced that the Georgians had spawned an American Hitler. Now the “Hummon" Talmadge fracas is all but forgotten, a new emotional crisis 1s being sold to the American people under the dis- arming label of ‘aid to Greece.” This time, however, we really have some- thing to worry about, President Truman's recommendation that a $400,000,000 “loan"' be made to Grecce and Turkey is not simply ‘meat and pOtatoes” humanitarianism but a firm detcrmination to “stop the Communists” in Greece before they become too strong in the rest of Europe. If a $400,000,000 gift to the Greeks and the Turks coyld turn the trick, history would give Mr, Truman credit for having made the best international investment of the century. But unless we intend ultimately to send American fighting men to Greece, how effec- tive will our State Department's fist-shaking and dollar-supported Greek army be in pro- tecting Greece's frontiers against nearly 1,000,000 Communist-led Albanian, Yugoslav, and Bulgarian troops. We would all sleep better if the Russians practiced even a little of the idealism they enunciated so clearly at the San Francisco Conference. There the nations of the world laid the groundwork for a lasting peace with the understanding that the problem of dealing with potential aggressors would be a United Nations problem and not the responsibility of any single nation, Now we seem so obsessed with fear of Russia that President Truman has committed the tactical error of suggesting by his action that the United States lacks confidence in the UN. Had the Greek question first been brought to the attention of the UN by Great Britain, Russia’s sincerity might have had a real test. By open discussion and debate, Russia’s at- titude could have been brought out in the open for all the world to see. Now we simply lay ourselves open to anti- American propaganda by Russia and her satellites, wherever it will best serve the Kremlin's purpoee. ‘We may find it difficult to answer the charge that American democracy is so elastic as to permit financing Britain's puppet king, A1243 @ nephew of the late Kaiser Wilhelm who hasn't a drop of Greek blood in his veins. For one, I detest the hypocrisy of political leaders who are once again issuing an invi- tation to war while professing to be apostles of peace. 1. Why did Great Britain decide so sud- denly to abandon Greece in our favor? What private assurance did she have that we would come to the rescue? 2. Why did President Truman bypass the United Nations while an 11-nation commis- sion from the UN was in Greece studying actual conditions? 3. Why did Paul Porter, head of the Amer- ican Commission to Greece, talk so freely at Washington cocktail parties before he left about spending his last cent to defeat com- munism, as charged by Harold Ickes? 4. Why did Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson tell the House Foreign Affairs Com- mittee last Thursday that ‘by strengthening the forces of democracy and freedom, you can do # great deal to eliminate the friction between great powers’’ when he knows the present Greek regime is neither democratic nor free? 5. Why are we sending a 27,000-ton aircraft carrier and a group of other warships to visit Greek and Turkish waters? Just in case? 6. Do we have the moral right to avoid consultation with other signers of the UN covenant and act unilaterally in Greece when unilateral action by Russia is so regu- larly deplored by us? 7. If we are committed to fighting com- munism in Greece with men and dollars, do we intend to wage our crusade wherever Communists exist, including America? Or will we, as in China, urge those in power to give the Communists proportional repre- seniation in their povernments? After the sacrifices and hypocritical double talk of two world wars, the American people have a right to demand the utmost in candor eand honesty from their President. I agree with the Chicago Sun when it says that President Truman’s Greek policy needs aefining before Congress writes a blank check. T agree with the conclusion reached by the Chicago Tribune that “the probable outcome of Mr. Truman’s program is war with Russia sooner or later * “ *. The question is whether that war, if won, will yield us enough to justify its cost in blood and wealth.” I agree with Marquis Childs, who says that the British have spent millions of pounds in Greece and millions of man-hours, yet they failed to do more than maintain precarious order by repression. “Their failure.” says Childs, “will be forgotten as we move onto the stage. But if we in turn fail, then the cumulative blame will fall on us.” Opposed to such realistic comment can be found the vast majority of the watered-down editorial pages which preach a meaningless jargon of phrases about “Greek democracy,” “unavoidable foreign commitments,” and “our sound, practical course.” Then, too, the isolationist cry is being raised against all who dispute the wisdom cf the Greek and Turkish loan even though they have been sincere and vigorous support- ers of the United Nations from the start. Men like William D. Pawley, our Ambas- sador to Brazil, tell us the South Americans are greatly encouraged that a country like the United States—strong enough, big enough, and unselfish enough—is endeavoring to make a reality out of the four freedoms and the Atlantic Charter. What utter nonsense. Why isn't Mr. Paw- ley frank enough to say that virtually all South American governments now have communism for sale? The answer? We still cling to the hope that the breeding grounds of world conflict can be cleansed by a strong United Nations,
A1244 The Greek question should have been pre- sented to the UN, whereupon Ruesia would either have had to fish or cut bait. If the UN is to degenerate into nothing more than a@ debating society, the sooner that is deter- mined the better. There is little point in supporting a world organization for peace that has no sinews. Should the UN fail, the answer may Hie in & United States of Europe, a plan centuries oid but again recently d by the New Orleans Item and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Both newspapers see in American dollar transfusions a negative policy of merely op- posing Russian expansion in Europe. They doubt that such a policy will succeed, Some students of world affairs believe an expanding Russtan Empire would in time wreck itself because of the obligations and commitments it would have to assume. They suepect that i: what actually has happened to the Eritish. “Let those who call themselves statesmen prick themselves awake with the sharp net- tles of necessity,” says the Post-Dispatch, “and rise to the roles to which history calls them. Or if it is not in them to react with verve and vision, let them band together and act, as Kipling said, ‘from common funk.’ Like the famous advice Benjamin Franklin gave to the American colonies for Europe it is case of join or die.” The advice is well given. JOHN S. KNIGHT. Centre! and Regulation of Railroads EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. CHARLES W. TOBEY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, March 25 (legislative day of Monday, March 24), 1947 Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a statement by Willis J. Ballinger, economic adviser to the National Federation of Small Business, on behalf of the federation, in opposition to the Senate bill 110. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the REcorD: BTATEMENT OF WILLIS J, BALLINGER, ECONOMIC ADVISER TO THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SMALL BUSINESS, ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERA- TION, IN OPPOSING SENATE BILL 110 After careful examination of 8S. 110, popu- larly known as the Bulwinkle bill, the Na- tional Pederation of Small Business desires to register a strong protest against ite enact- ment into law. In our opinion, the bill would legalize the growth of private monopoly in railroad transportation and reenforce its existence in other fields of transportation such as motor and water carriers and pipe-line com- panies. Today monopolistic rates in rail- way transportation are seriously preventing the recovery of private business in the United States. In 1929 American business went into a pro- found depression. From that depression the economy has never recovered. From 1929 to the beginning of war mobilisation the eco- nomic system was sustained by Government spending. As a result of the war there are some billions of war savings, the spending of which, for a time, will give the appear- ance of a sound forward movement in private business. But when those savings are gone, it is our opinion that the depression of 1929 will return with greater virulence, and that the system will remain locked in depression until the forces causing the collapse of busi- ness in 1929 have been remedied. A capital- istic system dependent on Government spending is a capitalistic system in danger of liquidation. If private enterprise cannot afford employment to millions, and Govern- ment spending becomes necessary to take care of millions of unemployed, then private enterprise will eventually be replaced by Government control and direction of the economic system. The break-down of business in 1929 was the result of half a century in which capital- ism in the United States was systematically misoperated by en alliance of big business- men and bankers. . Monopoly controls appeared in finance, in- dustry, transportation, and distribution. Re- glonal competition was also eliminated through a discriminatory freight-rate sys- tem on the railroads of the Nation, which prevented the development of more effi- ciently Iccated industries in the South and West. The purpose of this discriminatory freight-rate system was to protect giant monopolistic corporations from potential competition in the South and West. The rapid spread of monopoly in Amer- ican capitalism irom 1890 to 1929 caused a Progressive loss of productive power in our economic system. This is always the effect of moncpoly in a cupitalist system. The de- pression of 1929 registered the {act that pri- vate business had become incapable of car- rying the employment load.of the Nation, shackled as it was by monopolistic restraints placed on trade by big businessmen and bankers. At the same time the eliminaiion of r¢gional competition through the system of discriminatory freight rates had caused a congestion of the population of the Nation in a few giant cities with hideous slums. But for this system of discriminatory freight rates, the population of the Nation would have keen dis d. Hundreds of vigorous small towns and cities would have sprung up in the West and South. The health and prosperity of the American peo- ple would have been materially increased. And from a military standpoint, the produc- tive powers of the Nation in time of war would have been better located from the standpoint of defending those resources from aerial attack. No Communist or Fascist could have thought up a more in- genious scheme to generate mass discontent and to weaken the military defenses of the United States than the men who engineered and have maintained the system of dis- criminatory freight rates on our railroads. Who are these men? They are the invest- ment-banking houses who for decades have controlled the railroads because they con- trolled their credit. They are now asking the Congress of the United States to approve and make impregnable, by passing 8S. 110, the vicious system of monopoly controls and discriminatory freight rates which they have established in railroad transportation. Today, capitalism in the United States is headed for destruction unless the controls which have been imposed upon the produc- tion and distribution of goods by private monopolists in defiance of the spirit and intent of the antitrust laws can be broken. The tack of reform is staggering. But we must accomplish the job or watch free enter- prise in America perish as it did in Germany and Italy, 8. 110 should be the joy of those radicals in America who are hoping that capitalism in the United States will fail and be sup- planted by an authoritarian state of a Com- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD munist, Socialist, or Fascist type, end are, therefore, enthusiastic about policies of big business which are making free enterprise in America unworkable. For half a century Congress has insisted that railroad rates should be determined on the basis oz competition amonz carriers. Ve believe this philosophy of Congress to te thoroughly sound. Competition alone cffers & possibility of railroad rates adjusting them- selves to promote the maximum expansion of business. During the last half century, however, monopolistic controls have becn progressively introduced into the railroad in- dustry. Private rate-making bodies have multiplied which, in violation of the anti- trust laws, have increasingly put into effect monopolistic rate-making agreements. To- ward this growth of monopoly in railroad transportation the Federal Government has been as negligent as it has been toward its growth in banking, in industry, and in dis- tribution. Eut the effect of monopoly in tronsportation on the economic system hee been particularly deadly. The capacity of monopoly in transportation to restrict pro- duction in a capitalist economy is far greater than its capacity in any other field of eco- nomic activitiy. This is so because a monop- olistic rate in transportation may be pyra- mided many times before a product ulti- mately reaches the consumer. Every pyra- miding is a reduction of total consumer in- come resulting in less buying power and less production. Under 8S. 110 the progresa of monopoly in railroad transportation, and in other fields of transportation such as motor and water carriers, would be legalized. If capitalism in America is to be rescued from monopolists, and the system recondi- tioned so that private business may produce abundantly and furnish full employment to the American people, the field of transporta- tion cannot be left in their hands. S. 110 would rivet monopoly controls in the vitally important transportation industry and further exhaust the productive powers of capitalistic enterprise in America at a time when democratic capitalism in the United States is fighting for its life. From the standpoint of small business, 8. 110 1s especially disastrous. The giant mo- nepolistic concerns existing today in indus- try and distribution have been largely the work of investment bankers who, many years ago, established and maintained a monopo- listic control over long-term credit. Having created these giant corporations their invest- ment banker sponsors have tended to protect them from competitors who could only chal- lenge them by obtaining credit. The control of credit, however, has only been one arm by which giant monopolistic corporations have been protected. The other arm has been transportation. Investment banking control of railroads has been used to obtain for large shippers rail- road rates which would protect them from regional competitors and from the efforts of smaller competitors in the same market. The monopoly controls which have been estab- Ished in railroad transportation have been uniformly exercised to protect and expand markets for big business and to limit and destroy markets for small business. Small business shudders at the mere thought of legalizing this unjust system. Yet, this is exactly what 8.110 would do. If monopolists in railroad transportation are to be given legal authority to fix rates in the interests of big business, then small business is doomed to economic serfdom. We urge the members of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee to report unfavorably 8.110. Instead of legalizing the destruction of productive power in our eco- nomic system, we urge this committee to in-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sits upon a vigorous application of the anti- trust laws to the field of transportation, as well as in other fields, and to consider other abuses which are causing the transportation system to aid and abet the restriction of production, We would like to have the committee in- vestigate the reported existence of preferen- tial commodity rates allowed large shippers, We would like to have the committee go into tho whole matter of large shippers owning railroads. Under the Hepburn Act, passed many years ago, Congress specifically forbade any railroad company from owning a manufac- turing compauy. The purpose of this pro- hibition was sound and clear. It was to pre- vent any manufacturing company from hav- ing its costs of transportation subsidized by its railroad owner, so as to give it an ad- vantage in the competitive struggle for mar- kets. Yet today many large shippers own railroads. The effect of this ownership is to subsidize their transportation costs in manufacturing and to accomplish precisely what was forbidden by the Hepburn Act. These railroads are frequently short-line railroads. They used to be called exien- sions of plant facilities. Mysteriously these extensions of plant facilities were suddenly incorporated into interstate railroads with the power to issue through bills of lading. These short lines were built up to the tracks of competing regular carriers, and by play- ing one carrier off against another, they ob- tained an unfair division of the shipping dollar, These railroads have been enormously profitable. But their profits have been a di- rect subsidy to the transportation costs of large shippers. Through the profits of rail- road ownership large shippers have bren able to lay down prices in markets, which can stop small enterprise from attempting to expand tn those markets on a basis of legitimate efficiency. Finally, we urge the Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce to go into the whole issue of railroad freight rates which are discriminating between regions of the United States, These fields of inquiry, we earnestly be- lieve, offer greater opportunities to promote sound capitalistic enterprise in America than S. 110. McGregor Asks for Wisdom in Federal Spending EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. J. HARRY McGREGOR OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, the huge, sprawling structure of Federal bu- reaucracy invites and compels waste, confusion, and inefficiency. The whole bureaucracy is too complex for our peo- ple to understand, for the President to supervise or for Congress to control. The Eightieth Congress is finding it increas- ingly difficult to unravel and establish good and sound and efficient Govern- ment. The almost incredible duplica- tions of effort and overlappings of au- thority are baffling obstacles to wise economy, Recently there were no less than 29 agencies lending Government funds, 3 insuring deposits, 34 engaged in the acquisition of land, 16 in wildlife preser- vation, 9 in credit and finance, 12 in home and community planning, 10 in materials and construction, 28 in wel- fare matters, 14 in forestry matters, 4 in bank examinations, and 66 in gather- ing statistics. In 1932 there were 521 agencies ranking as bureaus or the equiv- alent, and now 1,141 exlst. The people of my district want to know where their tax dollars are going and how wisely they are being spent. Pres- ident Truman's recent budget called for two to three times as much money to be spent by each Government department in the coming fiscal year as was spent in any prewar year. Why should it cost taxpayers almost $700,000,000 more in 1947 than in 1946 to operate regular Government bureaus and departments? Why does the operation and cost of up- keep of the Exccutive Mansion have to be more than three times the amount spent before the war? Do we need over a@ million more civilian personnel in war agencies today than we did before Pearl Harbor? The following table lists a few of the major items in the President’s budget for the fiscal year 1948, as compared with the actual expenditures for these depart- ments, bureaus, and agencies in the fiscal year 1940: Estimated ex- | pe ondinnres penditures, Expe maiture 8. Mids “ Tudependent offices. __| $8, 814, 738, 391 | $3, 269, 254, 403 Departinent of Com- merce, .------- +. 260, 814, COO 75, 116, 635 Department of Tne terior... -.-- a 363, 405, OG8 71, 385, 280 Department of Justice. 117, 268, 863 50, 813, 162 Department of Labor. 108, 242, 617 18, 570, 698 Navy_ Department....] 4, 510, 670, 000 O44, 198, RBS State Department . -. GUL, 972, £42 10, 829, 487 Treasury Department.| 9, 141, 861, 717 2, 125, 082, 035 War Department .....) 8, 254, 658, 654 2h, 85k, O79 Post Offtee Depart- ment....---.-2-..--- 3846, 670, 270 45, 953, 822 The increase requested for 1948 over expenditures for 1940 for eight of the above departments, excluding Army and Navy, is $14,095,982,958. That is a lot of money. Mr. Speaker, I want to know why—and I believe my people want to know why— and I am asking those in authority to tell me in great detail if it is necessary to have these enormous increases. For examiple, what does the Post Office De- partment intend to do in 1948 which it did not do in 1940 which would justify the American taxpayer spending an ad- ditional $310,725,428 on its operations, I would also ask why the Interior Depart- ment needs an extra $292,019,818 in- crease above 1940. . The Labor Department wants in 1948 approximately six times what it had in 1940, and the State Department asks for more than 29 times what it had in 1940. We all know the State Department will have a whole lot more to do in 1948 than it had in 1940, but in doing this extra work, can it legitimately spend 29 times as much money as it spent in 1940? Al245 Mr. Speaker, I do not want to do away with any department, or with any indi- vidual, absolutely essential to the orderly functioning of our Government, but I venture the assertion that if the various department pay rolls were gone over carefully, the results would show that some of their pay rolls are havens for displaced bureaucratics and wartime refugees who do not want to go back where they came from. As I have said many times, the Gov- ernment is just a big individual, or a big family, and no family ever balanced its budget by arguing that it “could not do without this, that, or the other thing.” It has to use the approach, “What can we afford?” So it is with the Govern- ment—$260,000,000,000 in debt. We can afford an adequate Army, Navy, and Air Force and whatever is absolutely neces- sary to give us a full and complete pro- gram for national defense and protec- tion for our American way of life. Congress might have to repeal a few laws which provide some services which it once thought essential. But we can reduce by at least 700,000 those on our Federal pay roll, if we start thinking in terms of what the country can afford. When a family can no longer afford a maid and a gardener, Mama goes into the kitchen and Papa mows the lawn. A Government in debt, like a family, has to put into effect the same kind of wisdom. Soil Conservation in Carroll County, Ark. EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JAMES W. TRIMBLE OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, under the privilege granted me, I extend in the following summary the soil-conservation practices carried out in Carroll County, Ark., in 1946: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, FIELD CERVICE BRANCH, Berryville, Ark., March 22, 1947, Hon. JAMES W. TRIMBLE, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. TRIMBLE: For your information we are enclosing a summary of the soil-con- servation practices carried out in Carroll County during 1946. These practices repre- sent those for which assistance was offered under the agricultural conservation (triple A) program. We feel that the accomplishments of this program last year and every year siace its beginning in 1936 have brought benefits to farmers and city folks alike. Every citizen, whether he lives in @ rural or urban area, has a stake in our Nation’s wealth—the soil. Much has been said during the past few months concerning the farmer's responsi- bility in maintaining the fertility of his own farm, We fee] that not only the farmers but
Al246 the consuming public is responsible for keep- ing the land productive. At the outbreak of the last war, farmers were called upon to produce an abundance of food and fiber, and we know that this production would not have been possible had it not been for soil-con- servation practices carried out immediately preceding and during the conflict. Every indiv.dual benefited by this tremen- dous production, and we believe it is the responsibility of every individual to assist the farmer in restoring the fertility to the soil by offering assistance for carrying out soil-building practices. As you recall, the President has recom- mended a $100,000,000 reduction in the ap- propriations to make payments to farmers in the 19/8 program year. We are sure that such a cut would result in decreased par- ticipation since more cash outley would be required by farmers in order to carry out needed soil-conservation practices. We be- lieve, and are sure you do, that the triple A program is a sound conservation program and that cuch a reduction in funds would spell disaster to a soil-conservation program and invite the return of soll erosion to many of our farms. It has also come to our attention that plans are being made to reduce the 1047 program funds by €100,000,000, a one-third reduction. Needless to say, such a reduction, coming after the program has been developed and presented to farmers would cause many farmers to lose confidence in the whole pro- gram and would cut participation by a large percentage. This matter has been discussed with many farmers throughout the county and we feel that we can speak for them in asking you to make an effort to prevent a cut in either the 1947 or 1948 funds. We wish to express our appreciation of your past support of the triple A program and are confident we can count on your con- tinued support of a program that has not only benefited agriculture but the entire Nation. Yours very truly, H, E. McMorzis, E. A. CONNER, Otro G. McCatt, Carroll County PMA, Field Service Branch, Conservation Committee. Summa, of soil-conservation practices car- ried out in Carroll County under the 1946 agricultural-conservation program Participating farms, extent and value of soil-huilding practices carried out by practices in connection with the AAA pru- gram in 1946 rractice Num- her of partiei- Extent Value pating farms Phosphate...........- 1,857,8€0 pounds. |$12, 244 Limestone. .......---- 1,669 tons... ... 4, 580 Ryegrass secded as 94,860 pounds__| 6, 640 cover crop. ann eee 7,326 acres......| 10, 980 Winter legumes 6,930 pounds... 670 Sodding Bermuda... 192 acrean__..--.| 1,152 Seeding pasture 58,916 pounds. -| 10, 211 grasses and ileg- umes. Harvesting legume 574 acres......- 2, 008 and grass . Construction of ter- 24,783 feet ...... 247 races. Construction of stock 63,788 cubic| 8511 ponds. ards, Contour farming... .. 218 acres_....-. 127 Development of 3,561 cubic feet.| 1, 780 springs for stock water. Mowing pastures 6,912 acres..-...- 4, 492 (weed control). Should Special Restraints Be Placed Upon the Communist Party? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KARL E. MUNDT OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Speaker, it has been said today that the test:mony of William C. Bullitt, former American Am- bassador to Russia and personal repre- sentative of President Roosevelt in Eu- rope during the war, as recorded before the House Committee on Un-American Activities yesterday afternoon, “com- priscd the most startling and cobering testimony ever presented to a congres- sional committee at a public hearing.” Be that as it may, it should certainly be read and carefully studied by every Mem- ber of Congress and by a great many pri- vate citizens in this Republic. Copics of those hearings will soon be meade avail- able by the House Committee on Un- American Activities. - America is at long last awakening the true significance and menace of communism. For whatever it may con- tribute to this growing realization of the vicious aspects of communism, Mr. Speeker, I include with these remarks a copy of the radio talk I made last night over the Columbia Broadcasting System on the subject Should Special Restraints Be Placed Upon the Commu- nist Party in America? SHOULD SPECIAL RESTRAINTS BE PLACED UPON THE COMMUNIST PARTY? As background for my answer to the ques- tion, “Should Special Restraints Be Placed Upon the Communist Party?” I want first of all to get before this radio audience the true picture of what is actually involved in the term “Communist Party.” Unlike all other political parties in Amer- ica, the Communist Party devotes its alle- giance not to the United States but to a for- eign country. By every test and by every action, the Communist Party in America, as in all other countries, devotes its first alle- giance to Russia which is both the ideolog- ical home and the directive force of the Com- munist concept all over the world. For that all-important reason, the Communist Party in America cannot be considered in the same category as any of our other political organi- zations. The highly reliable New York Times put this matter clearly in a recent editorial when it said—and I quote—“The Communist Party is not a political party but a conspiracy which uses democratic methods to kill off democ- racy and resorts to bullets whenever the bal- lots go against it.” These blunt truths are dramatically supported by what has tran- sptred in Hungary during the past 12 months. In that unhappy country, ‘the anti-Commu- nist party known as the Small-Holders Party won an election with an overwhelming ma- jority of some 70 percent, Despite this fact, the brute force of the Russian Communists exercised through their army of occupat:on has put so many of the anti-Communist gov- ernment leaders and officials in concentra- tion camps that today the Communists are in control of Hungary. The United States Chamber of Commerce has also recently undertaken to arouse Amer- icans to the dangers of permitting the Com- munist Party to flourish unrestrained and APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD unwatched within the United States. It has issued three separate booklets describing the methods by which Communists in this coun- try seek to overthrow cur Government. As an eside in this broadcast, I would like to recommend that each of you get*all three cf these bocklets and read them carefully. If you will drop a note to the United States Chamber of Commerce here in Washington, you will be told how you can get these very significant booklets for yourself and for the libraries of the schools and colleges of your community. The first of these three book!ets says this—and I quote: “Communism makes no pretense of granting freedom. The Boviet Union and the nations it controls are rigid dictatorships.” Add to this the fact that Prof. Louis Budenz, who was formerly editor of the Com- munist Daily Worker, published in New York, has now admitted publicly that the Com- munist Party in America takes its crders direct from Moscow, and you must realize from these unchallengeable facts that the Communist Party in America is a great and genuine menace to our Christian civilization and our way of I:fe. With that background in mind, let me say to you emphatically, I think the United States is, indeed, heading for trouble and inviting disaster if we permit Communist sympathizers and operatives in this country to dissuade us from placing effective re- straints upon the Communist Party since for all intents and purposes it is but the agency of a foreign power operating in our midst. Last Eaturday the President of the United States finally issued an executive order de- manding that every department, agency, and bureau of cur Federal Government purge its ranks not only of al] Communists but also all Communist sympathizers and all other subversive and disloyal fellow-travellers, pinks, punks, and political pustules. In do- ing this, President Truman was doing merely what the present Republican majority in Congress has insisted must be done as legisia- tion had already been introduced and is now pending which would otherwise have taken Precisely the same steps the President has now ordered by executive action. Just today, the House Committee on Un- American Activities opened public hearings on still other legislation which is designed to restrain and repel the activities of the Communist Party in America. In fact, I have just come from the committee room, where our House Committee on Un-American Ac- tivities has been hearing the remarkable testimony of William C. Bullitt, our former Ambassador to Russia. You will read much about this testimony in tomorrow's news- papers. Not only do I believe that appointment to public cffice should be denied to all Com- munists and the dim-witted dupes or de- signing conspirators who join their front or- ganizations or strengthen their plots as fel- low-travellers but I favor additional restraints against American Communists whether they be native born citizens or im- migrants who now seek to betray and destroy the country of their adoption. I think Communists should be denied the privilege of holding office in labor organiza- tions under penalty that labor organizations violating this regulation should lose their rights under Federal labor legislation. I think the privilege of obtaining passports to leave this country to visit abroad only to re- turn with new orders and directives from their foreign masters should be denied to American Communists. I favor the imme- diate deportation of all alien Communists not here as the accredited representatives of a foreign government. American citizens engaging in Communist propaganda and activities should perbaps be required to register as foreign agents. However, the fight against communism in America cannot be won by the Government
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD alone. Today’s critical conditions require that patriots in private as well as in public life take steps to eradicate the evils of com- munism. Each citizen should help in this crusade. Churches, service clubs, veterans’ organizations—individually and collectively there is work enough for all of us. Is their Communist literature in your public library? Is it to be found in the magazine racks or school books of your public schools? Is it being made available in the college or uni- versity nearest you? Are Communist sym- Pathizers or agents slyly peddling their doubts, suspicions, criticisms, and propa- ganda in your community? Have your church, your club, your schools, your labor union, your group affiliates purged themselves of all Communists and all who promote the Communist line? When each of you can convince yourselves that you can give an honest, considered, patriotic American an- swer to these questions you can then—and then only—take comfort in the fact that you are helping to provide the restraints against communism which we in Government are “now belatedly setting into action. During a critical stage of our national his- tory at Valley Forge, George Washington gave voice to the stern admonition—place only Americans on guard, In conclusion, let me say that I believe it is just as important in Washington now as it was at Valley Forge then to place only Americans on guard. Government, a Blind Bull in the Wheat Pit EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ALBERT L. REEVES, JR. OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. REEVES. Mr. Speaker, a week ago wheat was selling in American markets at more than $3 per bushel while pota- toes were bringing 1 cent per hundred pounds, sacked, at Kansas City, Mo. Both of these extreme situations illus- trate the usual disastrous effects which follow Government regulation and con- trol of production, prices, and consump- tion of agricultural products. In the case of wheat, skyrocketing prices were caused by the administra- tion’s expanding program of purchasing wheat and flour for export in the face of dwindling available supplies. Orig- inally it was planned that about 267,- 000,000 bushels of wheat, including 17,- 000,000 bushels from last year’s crop, would be purchased for relief shipment abroad. If purchases had been limited to that total, there would have remained available in the United States a reserve stock of some 200,000,000 bushels, or somewhat less than,the normal and de- sirable reserve. A reserve of only 100,- 000,000 bushels, under existing condi- tions, would be regarded as dangerously low, But what happened? Instead of limiting purchases for overseas shipment to the announced 267,000,000 bushels, the Government increased its purchases under a plan to ship 400,000,000 bushels of grain abroad by March 31 and to con- tinue shipments at the rate of more than 50,000,000 bushels per month, which would have brought total Government purchases to more than 500,000,000 bushels for the season. This program was conceived and carried forward with reckless disregard for the consequences. By mid-February the damage had been done. Indiscriminate Government buy- ing created a scarcity which even the Government “planners” could see ahead. Government purchasing was suspended, but it was too late. The pattern had been set and conditions created for the extraordinary price increases which followed. The Department of Agricul- ture was quick to deny all responsibility, which is easy to understand. They assert that they could not possibly be responsible for the price situation be- cause, they say, the Commodity Credit Corporation has purchased no wheat in the market since February 17, and then at only $2.07 base price per bushel. What they fail to say is that the Com- modity Credit Corporation bought 25,- 000,000 bushels at that price, thereby further accelerating the climb in price. The market was so stripped of wheat and flour that flour mills have been and are frantic for wheat to keep operating and to supply urgent domestic requirements. At the same t:me.every tidewater port in the country is choked with wheat and flour awaiting overseas delivery. What scant supplies remain in the domestic market are chiefly owned by the Government. In a clumsy effort to shift blame for the ruinous boom in wheat prices and the damaging reaction which followed, the Agriculture Department has asserted lamely that the price fluctuations were caused by the activities of speculators. This incredible alibi is obviously manu- factured, and nobody believes it—not even in the Agriculture Department. The fact is that as late as March 5, 1947, the Production and Marketing Administra- tion declared that “The effort now is to reach the 400,000,000 bushel total as soon as possible, and to exceed it as much as possible during the rest of the marketing year.” From the consumer's point of view, what hope has he for lower prices when parity levels are the highest in history and a loan of nearly $2 per bushel in prospect on the new crop? And suppose 1947 should bring a crop failure, or a short crop, what would the consequences of this program be? There would be.a critical pinch and perhaps an even higher price peak. We have im- periled our own position by a dangerous impairment of our reserve supply of wheat. A normal crops of 740,000,000 bushels in 1947 would compel us to im- port wheat from other countries for our own domestic needs, if we could get it. Only another bumper crop—the fourth in succession—can protect the American people against the administration’s pol- icy of gambling with our wheat supplies. A statement issued March 14, 1947, by Walter R. Scott, president of the Na- tional Association of Commodity Ex- changes and Allied Trades, is exception- ally illuminating, and I quote it: Unpredictable Government actions, rather than any speculation, are responsible for fluc- tuating grain futures, referred to in today’s telegraphic request to exchanges that margin requirements in grain be approximately tripled, A1247 The situation in grain futures, referred to in the telegrams of the Commodity Exchange Authority to the grain exchanges, is one of the Government's own making. It has been brought about by the actions of the Govern- ment itself and the uncertainties that have resulted from these actions rather than from “speculation talking loud in the wheat mar- ket,” as recently charged by the Secretary of Agriculture. Statements that speculation is responsible for the present situation in grain, which has brought about the highest prices in three decades, are completely contrary to the facts. The high prices that are ruling today are di- rectly due to Government policies and activ- ities that have brought about conditions that the entire grain trade views with concern and alarm. If on the basis of the record as it now stands, the Government intends constantly to revise upward its export goals to the hilt of possible supply, the possibilities of further market reflection are apparent— regardless of margin rules. Predictions of price trends are futile un- less given factors respecting governmental intentions are known. In the light of recent developments, it is apparent that the en- tire matter of attempting to forecast future grain prices becomes a guessing game as to possible Government moves. These moves, the grain trades have ample warrant to believe, have been closely integrated with what were in effect, price support activities— due to fears of surpluses and threatened price support problems under the Steagall amendment. The grain exchanges, in common with agri- culture and the agricultural trades, have both a desire and a determination to play their full role in extending relief to war- torn peoples. The Government originally planned to ship about 267,000,000 bushels of wheat abroad for relief purposes. Last November the Government announced completion of those purposes and revoked certain restric- tions that had been placed on the usage of some grains, The trade was not prepared for that statement, and there were declines in the market of about 10 cents a bushel. In December, the Department of Argiculture, in a most optimistic report estimated a wine ter wheat crop of 946,500,000 bushels. Then the Commedity Credit Corporation announced that it would support wheat on the basis of $1.88 per bushel for shipment in May—a higher price than May wheat futures were bringing in the market. The trade could not figure why the Government should resort to this policy in view of the previous statement by Secretary Anderson that the export program for the season had been concluded. Many believed that it might be a support program rather than one de- signed for relief purposes, Should the Government’s estimate that a total crop, including spring wheat, of 1,170,- 000,000 bushels will be harvested next sum- mer be correct, it would establish a new rec- ord of four successive billion-bushel wheat crops. However, bumper crops are just as unusual as failure crops, and if we revert to normal crops of 740,000,000 bushels, it is obvious that we may have to import wheat from Canada. It is also obvious that, with the estimated requirements for export and next year's carry-over, the chief reason for high prices is that we are probably shipping larger amounts than are safe for our econ- omy. We believe that there are inherent dangers in letting our carry-over sink to the present levels. When Government expanded its export program unjudiciously, the futures market stepped into the breach and saved the situa- tion. It probably is the outstanding instance in history of a vital economic function per- formed by the futures market. The public supplied the hedges against which the grain
A1248 trades and the millers were able to book for- ward contracts with the Government, Cash grains were not available due to a farm with- holding movement and a physical shortage of boxcars. At the present time the Government has decided not to ship any more wheat during May and June, but to confine its activities to flour purchases. In view of the Govern- ment’s increascd purchases of flour, mer- chandisers and elevator concerns, in order to carry on this business, had to protect themeelves with purchases of wheat futures and, at the same time, public traders, who believed the prices to be too high, were pre- dominantly on the short side of the market. Records of large commission firms show that for the first time in twenty years, public par- ticipation has been on the short side and not on the long speculative side. All these factors—the announcement in November of the completion of relief pur- chases; the backing away of prices; the re- entry of the Commodity Credit Corporation into the market at above-market prices; the announcement of greatly expanded govern- mental export programs; Government ectivi- ties in absorbing all offers of grain as soon as they became available in competition with the trade—brought about widespread competition for meazer supplies. All these conditions—in the face of licht movement of grain from the country because of voluntary witbholding action on farms and restricted shipping facilities, due to the box car shcrt- age—are the real causes of the highest grain prices of 27 ‘years. And potatoes? In 1946 a bumper crop, produced as the result: of guesswork and improvident subsidy on the part of the Government, found us with a huge po- tato surplus. To correct this fumbling error the Administration bouvht the rur- plus potatoes with $89,000.000 of the tax- payers’ money. Distillers bought some of them at low cost. Schools and hospitals were given, free, all they could use. Re- Hef shipment abroad was too expensive. Vast quantities were stored in a cave near Kansas City, Mo. According to informa- tion furnished to me they are being sold as animal feed for 1 cent per hundred pounds, sacked. I understand they cost the Government $2.50 per hundred pounds, plus handling, storage, and ad- ministration costs. Three things are heppening. First. These potatoes are being used as cattle feed, at 1 cent per hundred pounds—but beef continues to sell at $25 per hundred. Second. Apparently many of these “giveaway” potatoes are finding their way into trade channels in competition with those commercially grown, with ob- vious damage to the price in the local market. Third. The purchaser of the surplus potatoes buys a hundred pounds from the Government for 1 cent, removes the sack, and sells it for 7 cents. And all the while the Government is reported to be buying potatoes in Florida out of the new crop at $3.30 per hundred pounds; potatoes in New York are re- tailing at $2.50 per bushel; and a month ago, following the Government’s order to dump the rotting remnants of the sur- plus, potatoes were being used as ferti- lizer in North Dakota. Mr. Speaker, the crazyquilt policy of the Administration in regard to agricul- tural production and prices is not only costly to the taxpayer, but is dangerous to our economy. No foreign relief program, however worthy, justifies the impact on our economy which has occurred in the last several months, In the long run, the preservation of a strong America with unimpaired resources and a sound econ- omy is just as important to the needy na- tions of the world as is our direct aid to them. And certainly in our purpose to be generous abroad we must not neglect to be just to our own posterity. Better People and More Wealth—Pandit Nehru on India’s Aims EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orb, I include the following statement: BETTER PEOPLE AND MORE WEALTH--PANDIT NEHRU ON INDIA’S AIMS “This governnient or any government at the centcr, whether we are there or not, cen- not but have the policy of encouraging in- dustry and prcduction in every possible way and we are certainly going to follow that,” declered Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, vice presi- dent of the interim government, in his in- cugurel address at the annual session of the federation of Indian chambers of commerce and industry in New Delhi on March 3. Pandit Nehru said that almost everything depended on adding to India’s prcduction. The government was pureuing numerous schemes of development at the present momient, some of them bigger, in extent at ony rate, than the Tennessee Valley Au- thority scheme. They had vast schemes for dams, reservoirs, irrigation, hydro-electric works, scientific research, technical institu- tions, educational progress, etc. All these were meant to help in the production of a better type of human beings and more wealth in India. Proper distribution also was a highly important factor. Pendit Nehru hoped it might be possible for representatives of labor, industry, gov- ernment, and others concerned to meet and find a way out of the vicious circle which had arisen on account of demands for higher wages, strikes, loss of production, and the consequent loss of capacity of the tndustrial- ists to pay high wages. Referring to the industrialists’ criticism of the Government's latest taxation proposals, Nehru said they faced ea very big deficit and that very large further demands were prob- ably coming from the pay commission. “We can possibly shift the burden or try to shift it to the next generation or to the next few years. This is rather a timid thing to do. It is better to face the burden today and ac- celerate progress rather than simply carry on and follow what might be considered to- day a popular and pleasing policy and yet which may involve a greater burden tomor- row” Nehru said. He, however, asked the in- dustrialists to put their suggestions before the Finance Member. “If we find we have committed a mistake we will change that. After all, insofar as this is a popular gov- ernment, it cannot function away from the people. It must react to the popular will.” Nehru said they wanted industry to grow “in a big way” tn India and to encourage the use of India’s manpower in every ible way. “When I talk about tndustrialisation for my part I don’t see any essential conflict APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD between the development of cottage indus- tries in India and the industrialization of In- dia * * © even if millions and millions come into industry, tens of millions remain.” Nehru said that the only right way to plan was to bring up industrially the backward parts of the country so that there could be a@ balanced economy in all parts of India. Economic factors did not pay too much at- tention to boundaries. Of course nobody was going to force something against the will of a province; but the whole conception of Planning, if it was to become provincial, would become ineffective. Nehru thought there was no reason why in the future there should not be a place in India for industrialists and busineesmen from outside, provided they fitted into the picture that was produced in Indla. Nehru exhorted the audience to view India's problems in tneir larger context. Behind the latest British statement—generous as it is, because it is certainly a brave act to recog- nize facts occasionally—there is a certain dynamic quality about the Indian situation, he said. “India is going ahead in spite of all manner of setbacks. You cannot stop India. On the political side of it the British Government recognize that, and we must appreciate their wisdom and courage in do- ing so. But the fact remains, and from that fact flow other facts, that India as she is situated, geographically and economi- cally, is going to be the center of Asia." Nehru continued: “Recently Dr. Evatt, eminent Foreign Minister of the Common- wealth of Australia, delivered a speech in which he sald it was necessary to have co- Operation between the countries of South- east Asia for a solution to the Pacific prob- lems. Dr. Evatt thought the cooperation of India was also essential and he asked India for that cooperation. That was a wise speech, and the general line that the Aus- tralian Commonwealth has been following in regard to foreign policy has been a wise one because it is thinking in realistic terms of the present.” Nehru emphasized that India could play its important role in Asia and in world af- fairs only if Indians made good in their own country. Nehru said the recent British white paper on the economic situation in England was @ brave paper because it frankly put the difficultics before the English people and sug7ested ways of meeting them—ways full of privation. Concluding, Nehru said we are full of long- term plans but how are we even to think of these when starvation might face millions of our people immediately? “So we have to import food and we have to pay, and we are made to pay by other people through the nose for food we import. It is unfortunate that they take advantage of our need.” Cost of Debt Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ELLSWORTH B. BUCK OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, in an ad- dress before a New York State banking group in Albany, N. Y., on March 8, 1947, Aubrey G. Lanston, a vice president of the First Boston Corp., and a recognized authority on matters pertaining to Treas~ ury financings, debt management, and fiscal policy, made certain comments with respect to Treasury interest costs
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD which should be valuable to Members of Congress ‘in general. Mr. Lanston’s address aimed princi- pally at the necessity of returning to the Federal Reserve Board some greater de- gree of control over the credit situation in the country. As a consequence of war financings and war financing policies, the Federal Reserve’s authority has been dominated by Treasury financing desires. The principal obstacle to the termination of this wartime usurpation of power by the Treasury is deemed to be the desira- bility of keeping the costs of interest on the public debt at a low level. Mr. Lanston analyzed the principal ele- ments which comprise the appropriation which is classed as for interest on the public debt. This should be interesting to Congress because the way it is now reported this interest cost is going to rise Tregardless of the Treasury’s endeavors to hold it down. Substantially more than 10 percent is not interest on the publicly held public debt. It certainly is misleading to say that five billions is nec- essary for debt service because the public thereby assumes this means service on publicly held debt. Hundreds of mil- lions of this service is actually compound interest on special types of high coupon obligations held only by public trust funds and other public agency accounts. Such debt service is nothing but an ap- propriation in support of such trusts and special services. Why should we not appropriate separately for special serv- ices and trust funds if necessary, and re- duce the appropriations made for debt service? It seems to me that a clearer under- standing of what this five billion of debt service is composed of is a worth-while contribution. Apparently, the methods employed by the various Secretaries of the Treasury over the last 12 years have been such that future Secretaries of the Treasury, re- gardless of whether the administration is Republican or Democratic. will have to explain increases in the interest cost of the public debt as it is now reported. ‘These increases will have originated with the present administration and will be continued into succeeding administra- tions unless we change now. I would like to insert in the Recorp for these rea- sons the following quotations from Mr. Lanston’s address: This brings us back to politics. Can the Treasury afford to increase its short-term financing costs to 1% percent? When any increase in rates is suggested, Washington officials always ask, “What can we tell the boys on the Hill?” My answer today is that we can tell them the facts, the facts about interest costs on the public debt. I hope to prove that a new peg of 1% percent would not serve to increase the Treasury's interest costs. I have already illustrated to you how such a new peg might be sufficiently high as to return to the Federal Reserve some capacity to discharge its legislated re- sponsibilities. The estimated interest cost for the fiscal year of 1947-48 is $5,000,000,000. This is made up of three principal elements. The first of these is that paid to Treasury trust funds and agency accounts. The second is that attributable to savings bonds. The third is that which is paid on the publicly held marketable debt. . XCII—App.——79 In the year 1946 the Treasury paid to its trust funds and agency accounts some §500,- 000,000 of interest on special issues. In ad- dition, the funds received interest on about $6,750,000,000 of marketable securities. Ac- cording to our estimates, the 1948 total fig- ure of interest should total $700,000,000 or more. Over succeeding years the total pay- ments will show further substantial increases. It should not take many years (under exist- ing practices and requirements) for the total to materially exceed $1,000,000,000. Some of these funds receive interest currently at 2 percent, others require more favored treat- ment; that is, at rates up to 4 percent. For example, the Government life insurance fund receives interest at 34% percent. The national service life fund receives 3 per- cent. But this is not all of the story. The interest which is paid to most of these funds amounts to a compound interest. The in- terest payment of 1 year is capitalized into new debt and, in the succeeding years, the interest must be paid on the original in- vestments plus these increments of capi- talized interest. This theory of Government investment in its own securities was de- vised, in most cases, to provide a means by which they could earn on their assets and reduce the direct appropriations needed but, in essence, the result is to create a series of indirect appropriations. The benefits are not always general. Some go to special groups. If the appropriations were not made under the guise of “interest on the public debt”, they would have to be made as direct appropriations to the particular accounts or their enacting legislation changed. The whole theory of trust fund and agency ac- count investments should be reexamined. It seems to me to be misleading, however, to have the interest payments to these funds included as an item of interest on the public debt. Certainly there is only an indirect re- lation between this interest cost and interest rate and credit problems. The second element is the amount of in- terest appropriated for the account of savings bonds. Treasury accounting procedure in- cludes in the annual interest appropriation the difference between the redemption values of discount savings bonds at the end of one period and the redemption values at the end of the prior period. Since the schedule for redemption values accelerates, the amount which will have to be appropriated in suc- ceeding years should be substantially higher. This assumes, of course, that no particular change occurs in the amount, or series distri- bution, of the outstanding issues. We esti- mate the 1948 appropriation for interest to be almost $500,000,000 below that which would be the case if Treasury accounting procedure figured E bonds at their 2.90 per- cent yield to maturity. Again there can be very little relationship between this element of interest cost and the changes outlined for short-term interest rates. These securities tie into the longer-term 2%, percent rate. The third element of interest is that paid to the public holders of marketable debt. This can be measured on a basis which in- cludes or excludes the Federal Reserve hold- ings. In recently commenting on the de- sirability of unpegging Treasury bills Mr. Eccles suggested an indirect means of taxing away any excessive earnings of the Federal Reserve banks. While this method may be lea; desirable than a reenactment of the franchise tax which was a part of the origi- Nal Federal Reserve Act, either would remove Federal Reserve holdings from the earnings impact of a higher short-term rate. Excluding the Federal Reserve holdings, th : average weighted cost of interest on mar- ketable Treasury obligations due or maturing within 5 years is about 1.60 percent. For some time the Treasury has indulged in a policy of refunding all such issues into cer- tificates bearing interest at seven-eighths percent. Thus present refunding policies are steadily reducing the payments to public A1249 holders of marketable debt, while savings bond interest continues on its original sched- ule, and payments to trust funds, etc., are increased. The first point of agreement that would be necessary in order to permit the new peg for certificates to be set at 114 percent is that the Treasury and Congress be satisfied with the present costs on the currently outstanding total of marketable debt. It is not necessary to defend a plan which would create higher interest costs. The only other point of agree- ment necessary would be that interest rate and refunding policies will not be combined in an attempt to reduce interest payments while adhering to a policy of rate stabili- gation. It seems to me that the average person might be justified in the inference that a policy of stabilizing interest rates implies that the level of interest payments on a given total of debt are low enough—at least for the common good. I go along with the view that reductions in debt should be made via bank-held securities. But I can’t go along with a policy aimed at stabilizing interest rates which is then combined with a refund- ing policy which reduces interest costs with- out retiring debt, and thereby tends to un- stabilize market yields. Holders of short- term securities seek to recover the loss of income that is entailed in the refunding policy by buying longer securities in the mar- ket and thus depressing market yields. It is small wonder that Chairman Eccles foresees &@ future trend toward lower market yields. Now I would like to comment on two points. The first concerns Government ac- counting. Two offsetting items cannot be lumped. This is probably standard account- ing procedure but it doesn’t change the facts of life which are as follows: Treasury inter- est payments are taxable. One estimate that we have heard of the effective rate was about 30 percent. If this is correct, then the real cost of our third element of interest is less than 2% billions or one-half of the total gross appropriation. This is the real cost of the debt that can be directly affected by Treasury and Federal Reserve policies con- cerning interest rates. The second point is that the interest costs on the debt are going to rise no matter how persistently the Treasury continues to re- fund with seven-eighths of 1 percent cer- tificates. I might digress to repeat that the further that the Government persists in this refunding poltcy at the seven-eighths of 1 percent rate, the more it increases the prob- lems of stabilizing interest rates. Eventually it meets up with the necessity of increasing its costs by offering higher securities. The increase in the interest payments called for by the investment requirements of trust funds, etc., will alone far outweigh decreases in payments to the public marketable se- curities which come from refunding debt costs of about 1.60 percent into seven-eighths of 1 percent issues and occasion:! offerings of longer securities. When one must add to the increasing cost of interest to trust funds, the increasing costs of servicing savings bonds, the possible offsetting reductions via refunding policies appear even less effec- tive. The Need for Tariff Protection for Textiles EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALBERT RAINS OF ALABAMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 24, 1947 Mr. RAINS. Mr. Speeker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I
A1250 attach herewith a statement by Donald Comer, an outstanding southern indus- trialist, which appeared in the Lafayette Sun, of Lafayette, Ala., under the head- ing This Morning, a column by John Temple Graves 2d. Mr. Donald Comer, chairman of the board of Avondale Mills, is the son of the Honorable B. B. Comer, one of Alabama's great governors. His statement on the need for tariff protection for textiles is a thought-provoking one. I commend it to the attention of the Members of the Congress. When John Temple Graves asked me to write about the need for tariff protection for textiles, I didn't know that I would be writing it from Key West.. My little boat is here. From her deck I have had the op- portunity of seeing our tariff in action. A schooner from Cuba came in loaded with bananas and tomatoes. I bought bananas; they were duty free. I bought tomatoes with a tariff charge of 89 cents added. Two schooners came in from Honduras with sev- eral hundred green turtles. I had turtle steak last night—duty free. This is fair. We are taking from our neighbor stuff that we need—bananas and turtles, duty free. We are taking a few tomatoes out of season after paying an accepted duty. Certainly Cuba and Honduras are taking some of our stuff under similar arrangements. Extremists point to our reliance on for- eign sources, mentioning coffee, certain to- baccos, sugar, hemp, tungsten, quinine, tin, rubber, etc. We need such items and wel- come reciprocal trading. The Hull program stated that it was to facilitate exchanging other countries’ surpluses that we needed for our surpluses that they needed. No one ob- jects to that. There should be triangular trading also. Some nations take from us only their needs, but insist on our taking their stuff that we don’t need. And that is where cotton textiles enter. In 1925 we have 37,000,000 spindles. Today there are only twenty-three million. Some of these were dismantled and shipped abroad. Others, like the old sow, Just went down the road and died. The Eco- nomic Almanac of 1945-46 lists investments in textiles and their products in 1925 at $6,487,000,000; in 1941, $4,471,00C,000. Net earnings for those intervening years amounted to $991,000,000, which was an aver- age of 1.15 percent earnings on capital in- vested. Any industry claiming need of full tariff protection should show not only capacity to care for home needs but also freedom from all collusion for price control. Our industry is sharply competitive; failures all along the route and records of low earnings speak for themselves. We are encouraged that President Truman has just given his approval] to Under Secretary of State William L. Clayton’s plan for modification of the trade program. I certainly am opposed to any Washington trades that permit entrance of foreign cotton goods which stop Avondale looms. Secretary Clayton now promises in- dustry a public hearing before any such trades. World peace will not come by stop- ping my looms in order to start looms in Germany, Japan, Italy, or anywhere else. This country is launched on an industrial program based on not how little a wage we can pay but how much more we can pay. And I am in accord with Senator Prerrsr’s bill to increase the legal minimum to 75 cents per hour. With high wages there are some things we can make cheaper and which the world will want, but let’s take our pay in bananas, coffee, turtles, sugar, tin, rubber, etc.—not in cotton goods. When you speak of swapping goods with our neighbors, be specific—mention the goods that are to be swapped. All industrial nations use the same automatic textile machines, Their wages are much lower than ours. Japa- nese working at 25 cents per day use the game machines we do. Previous to 1937 Japanese cotton goods were flowing into our country in tremendously increasing percent- ages. President Roosevelt increased their tariff rate 50 percent. The Japanese, to use their own words, just laughed. The flood from Japan was only stopped by quota agreement. Protected by tariff we have today a mini- mum textile wage of 80 cents an hour. The two are tied together. High labor costs and standards have priced United States shipping out of the world competition. Our prodigious wartime shipbuilding pro- gram has served to build up nearly every merchant fleet in the world, while leaving United States at old prewar level. What about this? Will our trade treaties provide a place for American merchant ship- ping? I mean a place in ocean traffic—not rotting at anchor up Hudson River. We are losing our ocean trade; let's protect our home industry. There is another reason. Key West is a submarine base, warships are training here for our protection; as long as we need them we will need our 23,000,000 cotton spindles for our protection too. Naval Shipyards EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN J. ROONEY OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orp, I include the following resolution and memorandum: RESOLUTION Whereas the United States entered the last two major world conflicts with a Naval Es- tablishment and fleet which, while an effi- cient force for its size, was wholly inadequate for the responsibilities thrust upon it; and Whereas during these two national emer- gencies we had formidable allies who were able to delay the attack and encroachment of the enemy until such time as our indus- trial and manpower resources could build, equip, and efficiently man a naval force of su- perior power; and Whereas we may not in the future depend upon the delaying action of such allies and, furthermore, the speed with which today’s armaments can move in an offensive action makes this Nation especially vulnerable if faced with emergencies as we have previously experienced: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the below-listed organiza- tions in regular session assembled at Long Beach, Calif., March 2, 1947, do hereby request their respective congressional Representa- tives, and the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, to take such affirmative stand which has for its objective the holding of budgetary limitations to insure the main- tenance of naval shore establishments and fleet, capable of creating international re- spect and assuring peace and security for the people of the United States, its Territories, and its protectorates: Terminal Island Naval Shipyard Employ- ees Association. San Francisco Naval Shipyard Employees’ Association. Navy Yard Association, Mare Island Naval Shipyard. Master Mechanics’ and Foremen’s Associa- tion, Terminal Island Naval Shipyard. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Master Mechanics’ and Foremen's Associa- tion, San Francisco Naval Shipyard. » Master Mechanics’ and Foremen’s Associa- tion, Mare Island Naval Shipyard. Quartermen and Leadingmen'’s Assocla- tion, Terminal Island Naval Shipyard. Quartermen and Leadingmen’s Association, San Francisco Naval Shipyard. Quartermen and Leadingmen’s Association, Mare Island Naval Shipyard. Technical Supervisors’ Association, Termi- nal Island Naval Shipyard. Technical Supervisors' Association, Mare Island Naval Shipyard. — - Fesrvary 11, 1947. MEMORANDUM REGARDING CURRENT STATUS OF NAVAL BHIPYARDS 1, Subject shipyards are 11 in number and support units of the United Statcs Fleet in accordance with the geographical distribution of the units thereof. These shipyards are located as follows: East coast: Portsmouth, N. H. (note, pri- marily a submarine-design and construction yard); Boston, Mass.; Brooklyn, N. Y.; Phila- delphia, Pa.; Norfolk, Va.; and Charleston, 8.C. ‘West coast: Bremerton, Wash.; Vallejo, Calif.; San Francisco, Calif; Long Beach, Calif.; and Pear] Harbor, T. H. 2. These 11 yards are manned entirely by civilian labor under top management of in- dustrially trained naval officers and civilian technicians. Generally speaking, the highly trained, skilled, civilian personnel of these yards are career civil-service employees who have received much of their specialized train- ing in the Government service through ap- prentice and other schools and the helper grades and represent a rather considerable Government investment. The modern fight- ing vessel of any class today represents the most highly developed and complicated mechanisms of our mechanical age. The skilled employees under consideration are basically trained in the repair and mainte- nance of such mechanisms and, it is safe to say, their like cannot be found anywhere in the country other than in naval shipyards, True, highly specialized mechanics are avail- able everywhere in industry, but the general skills represented in shipyards cannot be directly replaced from such sources. For ex- ample, a highly trained lathe hand in a factory on shore would be utterly useless to undertake repairs of a battleship’s machinery. It would require several days for him just to find his way about the ship, without a guide. 3. It was from these nuclei of trained work- ers that the country drew many keymen to form the basis for new yards, both govern- mental and commercial, during the late war. The naval shipyards themselves were built up about tenfold on the rolls by the demands of the war by constant recruitment of avail- able labor from any and every source. These tremendously increased complements were not efficient but they managed to meet the demand in an almost miraculous way. How- ever, their success rested on the foundation of the comparatively small number of basi- cally skilled naval shipyard workers from which our supervisory and instructional per- sonnel was drawn. Without them it would never have been possible to return our many bombed and torpedoed vessels to the front line in time to meet the strategical demands of the naval commands afloat. In this re- spect, our workers were in direct competition with the shipyard workers of the enemy and that they were far superior to anything the enemy could develop was certainly demon- strated many times especially in the Pacific area where our workers took on successfully the additional handicap of long time-con- suming voyages of damaged ships to and from the battle area. 4. These naval shipyard complements of skilled mechanics have already been rather drastically reduced and the relatively un- skilled and semiefficient labor is no longer
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on the rolls of these yards. The general reduction has now brought most of the yards to about 25 percent of war complement— more than prior to the war, of course, but our two-ocean Navy is also many times greater than before the war, and modern military installations are vastly more com- plicated and dificult to maintain. If these basically trained shipyard workers ure cut still more , they may be perma- mently lost to the Government service. Many, if not all, of our best naval shipyards are located at a distance from industrial centers where these akilled workers could be readily absorbed and therefore will be forced to move out of the area beyond recall should their services again be needed. Preparedness for World War III, if it comes, will require constant industrial readiness. There is a definite minimum below which any one of these shipyards cannot be cut without scri- ously endangering its continued existence as an efficient and economic operating unit. 5. Tho President's 1948 budget provides for these skilled workers under the title in the naval budget indicated as “Maintenance, Bu- reau of Ships.” This title includes other matters than naval shipyara workers and totals $81,150,000 under six basic subheads, as follows: 1. Maintenance of the active fleet --.----.--~--_---.-. $154, 000, 000 2. Maintenance of the inactive fleet.....-.---------..... 29, 400, 000 8. Miscellaneous operating cost. 4, 000, 000 4. Electronics maintenance..... 85, 000, 000 5. Investigation and test....... 39, 520, 000 6. Shore establishments........ 118, 000, 000 Total... eae-- 430, 670, 000 Less adjustments...n-.... 49,520,000 Final estimate.......-.. $81, 150, 000 6. The naval shipyard workers in all ship- yards are largely contained in items 1 and 4 of the above, and, to a less degree, In items 2 and 6. Item 6 contains funds for many other workers largely in the class IV (b) category in inspection, supply, design, etc., services in naval stations as well as ship- yards. The shipyard personnel included in item 6 consists largely of personnel such as for safety, industrial relations, and other gen- eral services chargeable as indirect labor. The real shipyard skilled mechanics are largely charged off as direct labor under items 1, 2, and 4. A general comparison can be made with “Maintenance, Bureau of Ships, 1947,” which was $443,750,000 and served to sunport about 100,000 employees in the 11 naval ehipyards mentioned. The same title for 1948 would support the employment of about 84,000 employees in the same 11 ship- yards. To cut below this would be a serious and drastic matter in the service, to the active fiect in particular. The 1948 budget set-up for the Bureau of Ships has already discounted the increased efficiencies expected from the discharge of relatively untrained workers and also has had to take account of about a 22-percent increase in basic ship- yard wages during 1947. Dropping OPA Suits Bad Policy (H. J. Res. 146) EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LEROY JOHNSON OF CaLUFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recommend as forcibly as I can the defeat of the amendment of the gentleman from Tllinois [Mr. DirksEw] to the pending resolution (H. J. Res. 146). His amendment would drop all the prosecutions, running into the thousands, because of violations of the OPA regulations. Already this vast number of cases has been filed and per- haps many more are on the way. Think what this means. Millions of our people struggled along with ration- ing, rent control, and all the other con- trols. They faithfully obeyed the rules and cheerfully made whatever sacrifice was necessary to make rationing and other controls work. Thousends volun- tarily worked on boards and in other capacities, without pay and often at great inconvenience, to make wear regu- lations work. The small group that is being prosecuted are the “black sheep” in the flock. They violated the law and broke the regulations to make profits, to get advantage, to break down the rules of the game so they could make more and have more. They are the ones that made things tough for those who ad- ministered these necessary wartime reg- wations and for those that obeyed them. Now, this group, that by their actions were downright disloyal, are to be made a favored group by having the cases against them dismissed. It is an insult to the great army of loyal and patriotic people I have mentioned to take such a step. It is a terrible example to set by Congress, of all institutions, who make the laws and certainly should expect vio- lators of those laws to be brought to task. This talk about being sucd by the United States, and its possible dire consequences, is really child’s talk. Why should not a man be sued or prosecuted when he de- liberately violates the laws which are supposed to be and are obeyed by 99 per- cent of the population? This is the kind of action that brings disrespect for the law and lack of confidence in Congress. These big operators and black markceteers would laugh up their sleeves if Congress passed such an act. But more important, it would be a severe shock to the great group of law-abiding, honest, and loyal people who cheerfully put up with war- time regulations and did all they could to make them work. There might be some suits that will work a hardship or perhaps an injustice. I have enough faith in the courts to think that they wil] make just decisions— whether made by juries or judses. Just because of the filing of a suit is no reason to conclude that the Government will win. To turn the scoundrels out, with- out trial certainly wil? not help the sit- uation. Of course, what they did is not a vio- lation of the law now. The reason ts that the law and rules that they violated are not needed now. They were desper- ately needed during the emergency and that is the more reason why they should not have been violated and why those who did break the rules at that time, when the country was at war or in the emergency following it, showld be prose- cuted. When has ft been the policy of any sound government to make a, citizen account for and even be punished—after trial—for his defiance of the rules of the Government which gives him protection and the opportunity to live a useful and A251 productive life? Such a policy as fs pro- posed tn this amendment would in effect be to punish the law-abiding and honest citizens and favor the crooked and law- less citizens. Let those who made their unlawful bed lie in it and if they are found guilty obtain the punishment that they so richly deserve. I cannot believe that the House of Representatives would ever give its approval to such a doctrine as this amendment expresses. Should there be some small technical cases, that might work injustices, they can be han- died by the administrative agency in charge of the cases. True Freedom EXTENSION OP REMARKS HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, in these days of world-wide confusion and uncertainty as to what constitutes freedom, I am inserting under leave to extend my remarks a definition of true freedom: I call that mind free which masters the senses, which protects itself against animal appetites, which contemns pleasure and pein in comparison with its own energy, which penetrates beneath the body and recognizes its own reality and greatness. which passes life, not in asking what it shall eat or drink, but in hungering, thirsting, and seeking after righteousness, I call that mind free which escapes the bondage of matter; which, instead of stop- ping at the material universe and making it @ prison wall, passes beyond it to its Author, and finds in the radiant signatures which tt everywhere bears of the Infinite Spirit, helps to its own spiritual enlargement. I call that mind free which jealously guards its intellectual rights and powers, which calls no Man master, which does not content itself with a passive or hereditary faith, which opens itself to light whencesoever it may come, which receives new truth as an angel from heaven, which, whilst consulting oth- ers, inquires still more of the oracle within iteelf, and uses instructions from abroad not to supersede but to quicken and exalt its Own energies. I call that mind free which sets no bounds to its love, which is not imprisoned in itself, which recognizes in all human beings the tmage of God and the rights of His children, which delights in virtue and sympathizes with suffering wherever they are seen, which conquers pride, anger, and sloth, and offers itself up a willing victim to the cause of mankind. I call that mind free which is not passively framed by outward circumstances, which is not swept away by the torrent of events, which is not the creature of accidental tm- Pulse, but which bends events to its own im- provement, and acts from an inward spring, from immutable principles which it has de- liberately espoused. I call that mind free which protects itself against the usurpations of society, which does not cower to human opinion. which feels itself accountable to a higher tribunal than man’s, which respects itself too much to be the slave or tool of the many or the few. T call that mind free which, through confi- dence in God and in the power of virtue,
A1252 has cast off all fear but that of wrongdoing, which no menace or peril can enthral, which is calm in the midst of tumults, and pos- sesses itself though all else be lost. I call that mind free which resists the bondage of habit, which does not mechan- ically repeat itself and copy the past, which does not live on its old virtues, which does not enslave itself to precise rules, but which forgets what is behind, listens for new and higher monitions of conscience, and rejoices to pour itself forth in fresh and higher exertions. I call that mind free which is jealous of its own freedom, which guards itself from being merged in others, which guards its empire over itself as nobler than the empire of the world. In fine, I call that mind free which, con- scious of its affinity with God, and confiding in His promises by Jesus Christ, devotes itself faithfully to the unfolding of all its powers, which passes the bounds of time and death, which hopes to advance forever, and which finds inexhaustible power, both for action and suffering, in the prospect of immortality. Legislative Larceny EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. F. EDWARD HEBERT OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Speaker, on yester- day the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska, Dr. MILLER, taking advantage of my momentary absence from the floor, attempted to explain away his participa- tion in one of the rawest legislative thieveries ever perpetrated in any Con- gress. There was nothing new to his protests of “It ain’t necessarily so.” The same kind of protests always emanate from the lips of the individual who is caught in the coop with a chicken in his hand. If I may be allowed the privilege of moving into the realm of the classics, I would paraphrase a bit of Shakespeare and say aloud: Methinks the gentleman doth profess his innocence too much. The gentleman’s defense, or rather at- tempt to explain away the unenviable Position of himself and his party in this current program of legislative larceny in an effort to at least give the sem- blance of some initiative and accomplish- ment for his beleagured party, reminds me of the defense of the little boy who shouted, “Well, he hit me first” when he was caught in a fight. I will not charge the gentleman with deliberately misstating the record. I will be generous and suggest that he has been misled as to the facts in the case. This is the gentleman's first year as a member of the District of Columbia Com- mittee. I am now entering my seventh year on the committee. Not once during my many years service on the District of Columbia Committee, except in the present instance, has a bill introduced by a member of the minority, or even the majority party, been taken away from the member of the committee and rewritten in the name of the chair- Man. Until the gentleman from Nebraska injected partisan politics into the hear- ings on the alcoholic clinic bill, which I had introduced, I had never heard the words Republican or Democrat men- tioned in the committee deliberations. The District of Columbia Committee has always been a nonpartisan committee until this introduction of the “minority- party-be-damned policy” enunciated by the gentleman from Nebraska who said he was acting on instructions of the Re- publican leadership. When the distinguished, able, and persuasive gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] took over the chairmanship of the District of Columbia Committee, he made it a point to emphasize in his open- ing statement that the District of Co- lumbia Committee was a nonpartisan committee in considering the affairs of the Nation’s Capital. Now partisan politics and party self- ishness has taken over full sway. As I pointed out when I first objected to the procedure, all I wanted to know was whether or not this would be the Repub- lican Party policy in all legislation which was introduced by a member of the Dem- ocratic Party. The gentleman from Nebraska made the very frank statement before the members of his subcommittee, before at least three representatives of the Wash- ington press, and before District of Co- lumbia officials that it was their—the Republicans—intention to take all the “cream” and credit for all good legis- lation. The gentleman makes no denial that his party has embarked upon a policy of legislative thievery and political thievery. The gentleman frankly, openly, and unashamedly admits it. I quote his own words from the extension of remarks in the Recorp of yesterday: He says: The elephant stood all the attacks, and put up with this legislative thievery and political carnage, but, because it has thick hide, it did survive. Now the tables are turned. Yes, Mr. Speaker, “Now the tables are turned” the gentleman says, thereby ad- mitting that the Republican Party is going to adopt as its policy for the next 2 years “political carnage and legislative thievery’” and the gentleman’s only jus- tification is that the Democrats are al- leged to have practiced it which makes it right for the Republicans to practice in retaliation. If the Republican Party intends to emulate the Democratic Party I think everybody should know about it right now. That is not the song they sang when they were crying for votes in the last congressional elections. At that time they were going to do everything quite different from the Democrats. Up to now they have not done things differently from the Democrats. They have not done anything at all and we are fast approaching April 1, traditional April Fools’ Day. It will be a fitting day for the majority of Americans to observe the fact that they have been fooled and fooled plenty. Mr. Speaker, I have never been a fa- natical party member. My record in this House will show that I have voted for and against legistation regardless of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD party lines. Iam not one who is so nar- row as to believe that all the good Ameri- cans in this country are in the Demo- cratic Party and all the bad Americans are in the Republican Party. There is good and bad in both parties and any fair-minded and impartial observer will admit as much. I denounce the present policy of the Re- publican Party in refusing to grant any member of the minority party the right to sponsor important, progressive, and constructive legislation. I would de- nounce a similar policy in the ranks of my own party if it ever came to my at- tention. The gentleman from Nebraska quotes what purports to be an accurate record of bills introduced and sponsored suc- cessfully by members of the Republican party during their lean and hungry years in the Congress. Somebody has said that statistics can prove anything and the gentleman from Nebraska clear- ly demonstrates it. He does not point out that the Repub- licans were not only short numerically in the Congress but that they were also short on initiative and creative legisla- tive powers. For all his misleading figures and groping to prove statistically what the facts in this legislative thievery are, nowhere and not once does he point out a specific instance in which an individual Member of Congress introduced and sponsored legislation such as I have in this instance, and then had the Demo- cratic Party steal the legislation. Until he is able to show where there has been partisan politicians in the Dis- trict of Columbia Committee; until he is able to cite one instance in which an individual Member’s legislation has been expropriated by the chairman of a subcommittee on instructions of the party leadership—his puny and weak ex- planations and attempts to justify this rank usurpation of the rights of the minority party, fall by the wayside. The gentleman is as inaccurate in his conclusions as he is when he makes the statement: “The bill had extensive hear- ings. It was found necessary to make 19 changes in the bill to perfect it. There were three new sections to the bill.” The facts in the case are that during the extensive hearings the bill was al- ways referred to as the Hébert bill and never the Miller bill. The facts in the case are further that the gentleman himself openly admitted that “several small changes” had been made in the bill when his hand was called before his subcommittee, for steal- ing the bill from my authorship. He minimized the importance of the changes at that time. The fact further remains that no new sections were added to the bill and only, one section was rewritten. I believe the record speaks for itself. I mean the correct record. If the gentleman from Nebraska is quoted correctly in the press he made the statement last week, “So all the screaming Hfsgert wants to do will not change the situation.” He is absolutely correct in that my screaming will not change the situation as far as it relates to the policy of the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Republican Party in this House to em- bark on a rampage of legislative larceny. No, Mr. Speaker, my screams will not affect any individual who defends him- self by saying, “You did it first.” The echoes of those screams, however, Mr. Speaker, will not fall on deaf ears when they reach the cities and the shin- terlands and come to the attention of those who were followed by false Repub- lican promises in the last congressional election. My sole purpose in making an issue of this legislative skullduggery is to get it to the attention of the American people who should be informed about the poli- cies and the practices of the party which has carried a self-made halo about its head for so many years but now finds that the halo has become the hangman's noose about its neck. Could it be that the Republican Party in the Congress, suddenly awakened by the results of the recent Gallup poll and unnerved by the storm of protests which have come to Capitol Hill, are going to attempt to smother any progressive thought from the minority party. Could it be that the Republicans are at- tempting to hitch their chariot, weighed down with broken promises and multi- tudinous mistakes, to the fast ascending star of the Democrats. Could be. Soviet Imperialism EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN J. ROONEY OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following article by Dorothy Thompson from the Washington Evening Star of March 17, 1947: ON THE RECORD (By Dorothy Thompson) Certainly, if the successor to Hitler’s dream of a consolidated empire from the Channel to the Urals becomes another totalitarian power hostile to the whole civilization of which America is a part, we have not only lost the peace; we fought the war in vain. That sooner or later, therefore, the United Btates, as the defender of the West, would have to call a halt to Soviet imperialism— which has already encompassed or obliterated a series of historic European states—was long obvious, But it {s also time that our right hand should know what our left hand is doing. After Munich gave Hitler the most im- portant strategical points for expansion, Britain and France “guaranteed” Poland. What that guarantee amounted to we now know. Now, while Congress is being asked to guarantee the freedom of Greece, it is also being asked expeditiously to ratify the Ital- ian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Rumanian peace treaties. I submit that it is impossible, in reason, to reconcile these two policies. The issue is whether Greece is to become a Boviet colony. The means for securing that end is Marshal Tito’s support of the radical elements of ELAS. The factors contribut- ing to possible success are misery, unemploy- ment, hunger, fear, and military incapacity to deal with an armed rebellion supported within Greek territory by external assistance. The Greek Government must be aided to relieve the economic suffering of the Greek people and resist the enemies of Greece for the defense of Europe and the Middle East. But what, then, of Italy? Soviet pressure on Greece comes via Yugo- slavia. So does the pressure on Italy and Austria. Italy, however, is an “enemy,” who must be “punished.” What Italy? The Italian people and nation? Former Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt affirmed, with accuracy, that the Itdlian peo- ple were all but unanimously against the war. The Italians were the only people to overthrow fascism on their own initiative. No European resistance movement contrib- uted so much to our victory nor suffered 80 many casualties in actual fighting on our side. Italy's government is as democratic as any in Europe. And this government is now asked to sign a treaty which lays Italy wide Open to the same Soviet puppets who con- quered Yugoslavia and are threatening Greece. While Italy is forced to abandon her most important naval establishments on the Adriatic, the Soviet puppet, Albania, is creat- ing a powerful naval and air base across the same sea. With a powerful Yugoslav army across her borders, Italy is required to aban- don the mountains, which are her only de- fense on land, and to disarm. A poor country by nature, and an over- populated one, she is to be deprived of her chief mineral resources—including most of her inadequate supplies of coal—and prepare to receive into her congested area 250,000 evacuees from less congested parts. Finally, she is to be taxed a reparations bil] from cur- rent production. The Italian Communists, in intimate con- tact with Marshal Tito, profiteer on disillu- sionment with the west, proclaiming that exploitation of the lost territories and the recovery of the Italian economy can begin only when Italy combines with Yugoslavia. If we consider these propositions in con- nection with our stand in Greece, we appear to be running around like chickens without heads. Hungary has been looted to collapse by the Russians. The anti-Communist parties, rep- resenting the vast majority, are being smashed by the Communist machine. The people place their dying hopes only on the United States. Bulgaria, as much a Hitler ally as any satellite—as was Slovakia, which nobody mentions—is a Soviet pet to be rewarded, though the Dimitrov regime turned even these perennial pro-Russians against it. Now all these countries are to be pushed away from us by treaties that violate reason, justice, common sense, and pledges, while we take a stand in Greece. The Senate is not required to ratify these treaties. It should await developments and consider them only in the framework of an all-European settlement. War Assets Administration EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. OTTO E. PASSMAN OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, what about the War Assets Administration? Are we safe in saying, “Where there is smoke there is bound to be fire?” A1253 Iam of the opinion, and for sound rea- sons, that our veterans in many in- stances are being given the run-around by the War Assets Administration. Presently, and past, I have had specific instances brought to my attention where the _veteran’s-preference certificate meant no more than a piece of blank paper. Is it not time that Congress made a complete investigation of the War Assets Administration, asking them to account for the unpardonable manner in which they are pushing our veterans around? Such an investigation may reveal startling facts, and would be the begin- ning of a new era for our veterans who are definitely entitled to certain benefits and consideration by the War Assets Ad- ministration. Under leave to extend my remarks, I include the following letter: STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Ruston, La., March 18, 1947. Congressman OTro E. PAssMAN, Old House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PASSMAN; With reference to the attached copy of a superbly asinine Jetter from the New Orleans office of the War As- sets Administration, you will recall that jn December 1945 after I became the veterans’ service officer for Lincoln Parish in Septem- ber, I accused the Smaller War Plants Ad- ministration in the press and by letter to you and certain other public officials, of gross in- efficiency in the handling of veterans’ ap- plications for Government war surplus prop- erty, implying therein that the condition was due mainly to ignorant, inexperienced personnel, and incompetent administrators. Constant dealing with the SWPC and its present successor, the WAA, in helping vet- erans of Lincoln Parish in their attempts to obtain various items of surplus property have proven my previous contentions to be en- tirely wrong; I concede that, from top to bot- tom, these organizations were and are com- posed of smart, grasping, mercenary individ- uals who have worked in such close coopera- tion that very little Government surplus property has ever been released directly to in- dividual veterans. I predict that future his- torians will marvel at the gigantic swindle which worked so smoothly, and consistently channeled surplus property away from the individual veteran while an unconcerned Congress was busy with “important mat- ters.” The various systems for disposing of sur- plus war property were cunningly designed to lead the veteran into a hopeless mass of red tape. If a veteran happened to have the proper assistance, patience, persistence, and insistence enough, some of them actually re- ceived a “veteran's-preference certificate’ and always along with this certificate came implicit directions cautioning the veterzn against taking any further steps as he would be notified “when, wherc, and how” to pro- cure the article covered by his highly prized certificate. In this parish I doubt if more than 10 percent of these “certificate holders” ever heard anything more; but, in a few iso- lated instances where the veteran refused to be discouraged, maybe he actually went to the time and expense of attending a sale sev- eral hundred miles from his home. This sale, for instance, where the automotive vehicle he was “certified” for was, was pur- portedly ‘“‘for veterans only.” As & result of the veteran's persistence, he finds that the sale prices of each vehicle are “fixed” and that their “condition” is mag- nanimously certified by the Government of these United States as being ‘‘as is.” This “as is" condition, in most every case, was a guaranty that all such vital farts as batteries,
A1254 carburetors, generators, distributors, tires, transmissions, and so forth, had been re- moved. As practically no veteran went to the expense of having a wrecker accompany him from his home to the sale site, he was very successfully stymied at this point. However, a8 a further precaution against the insistent veteran, these so-called fixed prices (to individual veterans only) were an insult to the intelligence of a half-wit, but the objective of keeping automotive equipment out of the hands of the individual veteran was thus attained in a great majority of cases. This situation, of course, leaves most of the “as is” vehicles still in the possession of the Government, and a very successful plan for disposing of them to “dealers,” many of whom are actually dealers only for the day of the sale. goes into effect the day following the “veterans-only sale.” The simple plan that worked to perfection was to accept what- ever price was offered by the so-called dealers for large lots of vehicles. In this way our benevolent Government disposed of acres of vehicles to nonveterans and unscrupulous veteran dealers for what the Government had the day before asked an individual for one vehicle. This—not allowing the individual veteran to purchase at a fair price based on the “as is” condition of the vehicles as were the “dealers” —was very effective in prohibit- ing automotive equipment from reaching the individual veteran. This system also assures the Government of a terrific financial loss, which the taxpayers will have to absorb; the individual veteran has been prevented from getting much-needed equipment essential to his self-employment, and as a last step in this apparently prearranged vicious circle, both the veteran and the public will have to pay exorbitant prices for this property when it appears on the market manipulated by war Profiteers. The system used in preventing individual veterans from obtaining items other than automotive varies somewhat from that de- scribed above, in that the individual vet- eran could obtain another so-called “veter- ans’ certificate to purchase surplus property for personal use” for articles listed on the veterans’ only “set-aside list” of property through the assistance of veterans’ service offices. The same technique is followed in that with his certificate the veteran was always informed that he would be advised “when, where, and how” to use his certifi- cate. Only a very small percentage ever hear anything further, but if the veteran acciden- tally learns of a sale at which articles covered by his certificate are to be sold and he ts for- tunate enough to find a catalog or listing of the articles, he may actually try to purchase a small desk, office chair, filing cabinet, type- writer stand, etc. If this happens, a very effactive method of confusing this veteran is to advertise a sale to begin, say, on January 8, and stipulating that purchase orders of veterans who must buy throush correspond- ence (which includes all veterans in Loul- siana residing outside of New Orleans) will not be considered if they are received prior to midnight of January 8. After contacting the post-office and railroad agents in an attempt to determine when a letter which will be handled by three public carriers will reach the WAA office in New Orleans as soon as possible after midnight of January 8, the veteran either gives up in disgust or takes a chance and submits his purchase order any- way. In most cases on January 10 he gets a nice mimeographed letter from the WAA tell- ing him his order was reccived prior to the Gesignated hour and explaining that this procedure was “‘necessary in order to afford all veterans, wherever located, a sufficient amount of time to place thcir orders and be given equal consideration after midnight of January 10.” This procedure admittedly makes it pos- sible for some veterans residing in the im- mediate vicinity of the sale site to submit their orders during the period from Janu- ary 3 to 7, inclusive, as is borne out by the fact that the “mail order” veteran frequently receives notice that the article which he ordered by an order perfectly timed to reach the WAA at exactly the time stipulated, is not available as it had already been sold (obviously to a veteran who was in position to submit his order in person between the 8d and 7th). Every once in a while though, in spite of these little obstacles, a veteran manages to keep from being tagged out and is actually awarded an item of Government surplus property, say as of November 6, 1946; on November 10 the veteran forwards a re- mittance to cover the “fixed” price together with shipping instructions and is agreeably surprised on Decemher 11 (it being only apprcximately 300 miles from the veteran's home to the sale site) to reccive confirmna- tion of his purchase and acknowledgment of his remittance. This notice ts in the form of Sales Document No. 4985024 for article No. 990511. Then in a day or so he gets an important looking teletram from the WAA which stntes, “your purchase one desk sales document 4955034 routed truck line. Prop- erty located Higgins, La. Unable to ship by truck will rail be satisfactory?” The vetcran hastens to reply by wire, “re-tel please ship articles on sales documont 4955034 by freicht.” Being a reasonable sort of person and still having some confidence in our Gov- ernment the veteran heaves a sigh of relief and begins bragging to his friends that he has boucht a piece of surplus property from the Government's “set-aside” property for veterans only. However, on the following March 10, which was nearly exactly 3 months after the exchange of telegrams, the veteran timidly writes the WAA and reports he has never received the article purchased back in last November and requests information as to when he may expect to receive the ship- ment; his reply to that inquiry is immediate and reads, “please be advised that the office furniture covered by sales document No. 4955034, is located at the Higgins Plant, Michaud, La., and up to this time has not been released for shipment. Since there is no information as to when release of this material may be expected, it is suggested that you submit claim for refund in the amount paid for such material; unle&s you desire to await further developments. We regret any inconveniences caused you in this matter and trust that your needs may be filled in the near future.” Talk about finesse in keeping surplus property from veterans— isn’t this just too gorgeous! And brother, it is a profession pursued to perfection by the WAA. Do you think this veteran will ever get his piece of “set aside” (and how) surplus property if he refuses to withdraw his pur- chase order? And how many guesses do you insis. on taking as to what will happen to this plece of property and who will benefit if the veteran does release his purchase? What I and many other veterans think of the various agencies involved in, keeping veterans from purchasing Government sur- plus property could not legally be trans- mitted through the mails, but what is a thousand times worse is the lowering of our inherent respect for constituted authority and the realization that our elected repre- sentatives are too busy with “important mat- ters” to be interested in the world's greatest fraud. Sincerely, Cuas. B. Carter, Veteran World War I and II, Com- mander, Area B, the American Legion, Member Post No. 3615, VFW, Lincoln Parish Veterans’ Service Officer. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Needs Your Advice EXTENSION OF REMARKS Pr _ HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced House Concurrent Res- olution No. 38, requesting President Tru- man in the name of the American people, to invite Gen. Douglas A. MacArthur, United States Commander in Chief, Far East, to return to the United States for a period of at least 30 days. I am introducing this resolution be- cause I fecl that our country has been negiectful in failing to properly recognize and acclaim the accomplishments of a mighty military figure. As one who served under the command of General MacArthur in the Far Pacific in World War II, I join many others who know him as a military genius, a gen- tleman, and a statesman. While the Allies are at loggerheads in trying to administer the affairs of occupied Germany, General MacArthur has demonstrated his leadership and abil- ity by handling the Japanese situation in a superb manner. Truly he is the man of the hour despite the criticism of certain “pop-offs” in the fleld of jour- nalism. It is unnecessary to point to the fact that world conditions are alarming. Once again the American people are faced with a crisis as momentous as 1776. What better stabilizing influence would result to the benefit of the American people than the appearance of General MacArthur before a joint meeting of the Senate and House of Representatives, supplemented by Nation-wide radio ad- dresses to the American people? Gen- eral MacArthur could analyze world con- ditions in the light of our national se- curity, infiltration of foreign influences, and the decline in morality. His counsel and advice on these subjects is sorely needed at this time. “Mr. Speaker, in support of House Con- current Resolution No. 38 I am includ- ing as part of my remarks two newspaper articles, one of which is an editorial from the pen of Robert W. Boyer, editor, Al- toona Tribune, Altoona, Pa., and titled “Bring ‘Mac’ Back.” The other article is written by the well- known columnist, Henry McLemore, and appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer undcr the caption “Nation owes home tribute to MacArthur.” [From the Altoona (Pa.) Tribune] BRING “MAC” BACK This country has been strangely remiss in its duty to Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Every top leader of our fighting units has received high honors from the folks at home—all but MacArthur, We have heard a lot of criticism of him, during the war and since. None of it very serious, none that questioned his ability as a soldier or as a great leader, just little things, about how he was a tough disciplinarian, and
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD how he liked to make showy speeches, and also was ready for the spotlight. Yet, this man who, so many said, yearned for the limelight, is the last great American leader to receive it, and as a matter of fact, hasn't got it yet. It is common knowledge now that General MacArthur drafted the Pacific war plan that put the Japs on the run, when other military men were scratching their heads over the problem of routing the Nips from hundreds of islands. While the Allies are making a frightful mess of the German occupation, MacArthur has Japan rolling, if not smoothly, at least steadily on the road planned for it. In every effort, he has demonstrated leadership and ability of the highest order. It is time he was brought home for the tribute he should have. [From the Philadelphia Inquirer] NATION OWES HOME TRIBUTE TO MAC ARTHUR It is time Douglas MacArthur came home for a few days to receive the tribute owed him by this Nation. He isn’t getting any younger, you know, and the strain he has been under since December of 1941 is enough to have killed a lesser man. It has been 10 years or more since he has been on the shores of the continental United States. All of our other mighty warriors of World Wer II, from privates to the shiniest brass, have had their moments in the sun. They have been huzzahed in the large cities and in their home towns. But MacArthur, the man who was once thought to be the biggest lime- light-seeker of them all, has yet to hear a single plaudit. He is still thousands of miles away, doing a job without parallel in history. I wonder how many Americans noticed the abrupt change that took place in Douglas MacArthur once victory was secured. Criti- cism and ridicule was directed toward his communiques during the dark days of the war in the Pacific. Scholars spoke of them as nothing but purple patches, and the man in the street said they were corny. And they were, but they served their purpose. Those were the Gaya when this country was giving his meager Army little or nothing to fight with, and so he fought back with dramatics, the personal pronoun, purple patches, corn, and anything else he could summon. Those who fought under him, and reached the Philippines with him, know why he used the much-ridiculed phrase, “I shall return.” It was the rallying cry of the Filipino gueril- las, and kept them armed and fighting when the cause appeared hopeless. Sailors sang ribald songs about him, but he must have managed to get along with Nimitz, because time and tide and distance didn't keep the soldiers and the sailors from hitting the beachhead on the split second. Soldiers had their jokes about him, too. We laughed about “Dugout Doug,” and how he flew a plane thousands of miles to get neon lights for his shoulders, but deep in our hearts we knew then, as we know now, that we couldn't tie his shoe laces as a soldier, and that we were under the leadership of a tremendous soldier. I myself, will never forget the sight of him wading ashore at Morota! when the buffaloes were still bringing in the early waves of as- sault troops, lemon-colored gloves in hand, and corncob pipe at a cocky angle; or at Leyte, walking about the beachhead ap- parently as unconcerned about personal danger as if he were in the dugout his GI's had talked about him staying in so much. Nor shall I forget his headquarters at Tacoban, Leyte. He chose the biggest house, as he would, in town. But it so happened that the biggest house was also the biggest danger spot, as it was situated halfway be- tween the two top Japanese bombing targets —the harbor and the air strip. Those who were with him there will tell you that ho never took the trouble to cover himself with & mosquito net at night. Since MacArthur stood on the deck of the Missouri, and accepted the surrender of the Japanese, just try to name one flowery speech he has uttered or one bid he has made for personal popularity. So, let's bring him home. Here's one former GI who'll borrow bus fare to help line the streets of whatever town is chosen for the parade. United Nations Status and the Truman Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL T. DURHAM OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Durham (N. C.) Morning Herald: UNITED NATIONS STATUS AND THE TRUMAN POLICY Charges that the contemplated United States action in Greece will subvert the United Nations have come about primarily as a result of the frankness with which Presi- dent Truman placed the problem before the Congress and the American people. It may well have been that if he had sim- ply asked for a loan to Greece as a distressed nation, without going into the politica] con- sideration involved, there would have been ttle complaint. Perhaps also there would have been no loan. The President obviously felt that frankness was in order, that he must take the Ameri- can people into his confidence if he was to expect their support. Perhaps he felt that the American people must be shocked into a realization of the tremendous factors in- volved. But through his frank appraisal of the situation in Greece, he brought upon his head the charge that such action as he pro- posed would be a body blow to the United Nations and an indication of a cynical lack of faith in its effectiveness as a world organi- gation. Our contemplated action in Greece does not imply any lack of faith tn the ultimate effectiveness of the UN. But the Organiza- tion is as yet an infant. Its development is not complete. It has not yet realized its pos- sibilities. And certainly no nation in the world has done more to contribute toward the realiza- tion of those possibilities than the United States has done from the very beginning and will continue to do in the future. No other nation in the world is more concerned that it become an effective force for world peace. Some have charged that Greek aid will set ® precedent for unilateral action which may Plague us in the future. This argument seems powerful at first but does not stand up well. Those who advance it lose sight of the fact that this is not the first time that a member of the United Nations has indulged in unilateral action, but that it is the first time that such unilateral action has been taken in the very spirit of UN, for it ts action to preserve liberties, not to suppress them. We are not contemplating action to over- throw or otherwise suppress a government but to preserve it against force. It is one thing to attempt to upset a gov- ernment, to suppress the liberties of a peo- A1255 ple, to deny them the right to settle their own affairs through free elections. It is quite another thing to try to assure those liberties, to try to assure them their right to the kind of government—and economic system— which they wish. We are not going to tell the Greeks what sort of government they must have or what sort of economic system. We want them to be able to say themselves. The administration hopes that the Greek problem eventually can be taken over by the United States, which could be done now, Certainly the course which we have been called upon to take in Greece is one which even the most democratic among us under- take reluctantly. If the UN could handle it we should be giad to turn it over. And that the UN is not at present able to handle it indicates the job which is yet to be done. The UN must be made sufficient for such problems. The need for strengthening the organization is now more apparent than ever. And for this reagzon it is possible that our action in Greece, far from being the body blow to the UN that some picture it, may give to the member nations the impetus needed to make it the effective and powerful organization that it must be. Sugar Rationing EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALVIN F. WEICHEL OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. WEICHEL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orp I am including herewith the peti- tion of William H. Emerine of Alvada, Ohio, and other Ohio residents, concern- ing the rationing of sugar: STAMSOGAR A conspiracy intent on controlling all peo- ples of the earth by controlling the avail- ability of these nine basic products: 1, Steel. 2. Tungsten carbide. 3. Aluminum. 4. Magnesium. 5. Sugar. 6. Oil. 7. Gas. 8. Alcohol. 9. Rubber. Whereas in this day and age all mankind cannot for very long do without any or all of these basic products; and Whereas it is now known that 23 power- fully rich men of earth are bent on gaining control of these basic products; and Whereas those 23 men are determined to control] the people of all earth by control- ling these nine basic products; and Whereas sugar affects all of us directly through our diet; and Whereas sugar is necessary to our diet: Therefore, be it Resolved, That we, the undersigned, ask that you, ALVIN F. WrIcHeL, introduce a res- olution in Congress to remove sugar from all rationing and to investigate as to why not sufficient sugar is being imported into the United States from sugar-producing countries. William H. Emerine, Mrs. Orie Bard, Mrs. Merritt Milbourn, Mrs. Dorothy Eagleson, Mrs. H. L. Church, Mrs. Prank Phillips, Mrs. L. Wagner, Vern McEwen, Max Shaffer, Louis Lockmiller, Edward Lockmiller, Alexander Gross, Bert
A1256 APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Smith, Mrs. E. A. Rose, Mrs. Mary E. Schreiner, Lettie Roux, Mrs. Earl Sewell, Mrs. David Mankin, Mrs. B. F. Mankin, Mrs. Frank H, Barnhart, L. R. Graham, E. L. Nungester, Mrs. Harriet Nungester, Mrs. Henry Flores, Mrs. Marie Flores, Richard Flores, Henry Flores, Mrs. Harold Daniels, Eliza- beth Laws, Mrs. R. J. Rosendale, R. Snyder, Mrs. Grace Daniels, Mrs. Claud Barringer, Henry J. Jones, Mrs. Ladonna Hummel, Mrs. Fred Kinker, Howard Hummel, Mrs, Donald Turney, Cloyce L. Mincks, Mrs. Helen Husek, Mrs. Vevah Donaldson, Mrs. M. J. Franks, Mrs. W. H. Purkey, J. L. Van Ewan, Mrs. Avery Kepp, Arma Simon, Mrs, Norman Barringer, Mrs. Cecil Messner, Mrs. Elwood Jones, Mrs. Ida Brandeberry, George E. Clapp, Mrs. Paul E. Butler, Mrs. Anna Milecko, Mrs. Lucille Simon, D. O. Simon, Merle W. Santmire, Howard H. Campbell, Pearl Barringer, Carl Barringer, Mrs. Cecil P. Henry, Cecil P. Henry, Mrs. Herbert Sewell, Amanda McGrain, V. S. Feasel, E. E. Feasel, W. 8. Barnkisel, Harry I. Matthews, C F. Heminger, G. E. Dennis, Clara Dennis, J. Riley Metz, Mrs. Earl Gooch, M. C. Ziegler, Mrs. Chas. Gobel, Carl Gobel, Mrs. Mary 8. Barnhisel, Mrs. Emmett Campbell, Forrest Loe, Stanley Stransbaugh, Mark H. Leathers, Herbert Brooks, Mr. and Mrs. C. F. Mogar, Mrs. Mark Simon, Mrs. Fred Barnhisel, Mrs. Clarence Loe, Mrs. A. D. Ziegler, Mrs. Sylvia Feasel, Mrs. Fred Baird, Mrs. Alice Sisinger, Geo. Walters, Mrs. Geo. Walters, Mrs. Merle Crawford, Mrs. Floyd Swartz, Mrs. J. E. Barbour, J. E. Barbour, Floyd Swartz, James Milliron, Mrs. Vaughan Wonders, Mrs. R. Miller, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Baker, Mra. Robert Householder, Mrs. F. P. French, Mrs. E. Wright, W. C. Eishen, Alice E. Dennis, J. A. Carter, Sarah Hines, Harold Wright, Mrs. H. B. Russell, Ira Besarcan, Floyd  Brandeberry, Kathryn Hamlin, Mary Pierce, Mark Pierce, Marville Spearman, Allie Miller, Mrs. Lester Swartz, Mrs. Ervin Billingsley, Mrs. Charles Griffith, Linda Ickes, H. D. Miller, Mrs. A. E. Rosendale, D. C. Fast, H. W. Leathers, Naomi! Bassler, Ernest Bassler, Fay Leathers, Mrs. A. Lynn Leathers, Mrs. J. W. Arent, Mrs. Vance Easley, Mrs. John Beard, John A. Beard, Mrs. George Beard, Karl Matey, Mrs. John Biller, Mrs. Bert Webb, H. D. Bill- ingsley, T. J. McAllen, Lester Coppler, Mrs. Betty Lanning, W. C. Anknog, Mrs. Harold Drake, Mrs. N. R. Weller, Mrs. Anna Louchs, Mrs. E. Drake, Roy Oswald, Glayds Oswald, Mrs. John Macias, Cody Markle, H. O. Rosendale, Mrs. Rella Glass, Mre Floyd Cline, Mrs. Kenneth Cobb, Guy Babcock, Avery Rosendale, B. O. Russell, Norma Russell, Mrs. Lowell Stearns, Mrs. Mark Gardner, Arma Cotant, Edith Fry, Wayne Fry, Mrs. Fred Lavery, Fred T. Lavery, Vernon K. Fred- erick, Reed Nelson, Gilbert Pilton, Mrs. Celesta Pilton, Mrs. Melvin Huff, Mrs. Flo Linhart, Fred H. Rainey, Mrs. Henry Stewart, Mrs. L. F. Whipple, M. H. Shanklin, M. J. Smith, L. C. Benjamin, Mrs, Benjamin, Mrs. Rolla Rosendale, Bessie E. Leathers, J. 8. Krenyner, Mrs. Walter Ebler, Mrs. W. W. Swartz, Mrs. C. C. Craley, W. 8S. Rosendale, Mrs. Cora Mouris, Mrs. Guy Lindquist, Mrs. Hernon Ebler, J. W. Taylor, Mrs. W. G. Leathers, Mrs, Virgil O. Miller, Mrs. Charles Taylor, Mrs. E. A. Flowers, Mrs. Robert Buckingham, Mrs. William Rosendale, William Rosendale, Mrs. Chas. Leslie, Frank Leslie, Mrs. R. G. Little, Mrs. Mabel Zieg- ler, Mrs. Eldon Elder, Mrs. C. C. Elder, George F. Smith, Mr. and ‘Mrs. Porter Davis, C. D. Feasel, Mrs. Merritt Smith, Mrs. Arvene Graham, Mrs. Fred H. Brandeberry, Mrs. N. H. Holt, Mrs. Clara Stilwell, Mrs. W. E. Donnelly, Harry E. Baker, Albert ™. Kuhill, Mrs. H. W. Worstell, Mr. and Mrs. Jack Rager, Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Pésel, Mrs. Belle Bellers, Mrs. Gerald Hardy, Mrs. Ralph E. Purkey, Mrs. E. A. McCullough, Harle Basbrun, Alton E. Starmon, Mrs. Frank J. Phillips, Mrs. C. H. Pendleton, Mr. and Mrs, Clyde Echelbarger, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hennings, Mr. and Mrs. Cc. K. Haughawout, Mr. and Mrs. N. C. Long, Mrs. L. R. Good, Mr. and Mrs. H. D. Lanning, Jr., Harley Lee, P. M. Lee, Mr. and Mrs. N. J. Bockbrader, Mr. and Mis. Howard Dunn, B. B. Blackburn, F. O. Den- nis, Mrs. Harold Miller, Clayton Scottback, Mrs. Norman Marsh, R. A. Buckingham, Mrs. R. A. Buckingham, Mrs. Joe Young, Mrs. Jemes P, Holmes, Almon W. Long, Mrs. E. H.’ Wright, Mrs. J. E. Gooch, J. E. Wood, Mrs, Obei Weiker, Simon Welker, Mrs. Charles Weiker, Mrs. A. F. Apple, Mrs. Estel Lee, Mrs. Arthur Nelson, Ward Frederick. Republican Taxes EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. AIME J. FORAND OF RHODE ISLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. FORAND. Mr. Speaker, the Providence (R. I.) Evening Bulletin of March 22, 1947, in an editorial, sets forth very forcefully pertinent objections to the Knutson tax-reduction bill, H. R. 1, as amended, and under leave previously granted to me I extend this editorial as @ part of my remarks: REPUBLICAN TAXES It is a serious and ill-considered responsi- bility that the House Ways and Means Com- mittee has assumed in adopting Mr. Knur- son’s plan to cut individual income taxes. If approved by Congress, it would reduce taxes 20 percent across the board for the majority of taxpayers. The limitation of 104% percent reduction for incomes above @302,000 is added evidence of the unscien- tific manner in which this vastly important economic problem has been handled. The last-minute decision to give 30 percent relief to persons of less than $1,000 net income must be considered, in the fiscal circum- stances now confronting this Nation, more in the nature of a political sop that an in- telligent economic judgment. Thus the committee moves to forfeit tax income that represents about two-thirds of the amount by which the House has recom- mended that the Truman budget be reduced, This revenue loss comes within less than three-quarters of a billion dollars of equal- ing the amount that the Senate voted to cut the President’s budget. In the light of the performance of the Republicans to date in scaling down that budget, the tax loss would exceed their economies. It is a curl- ous condition in which to find the leader- ship of a party that, during the spendthrift era of the New Deal, kept preaching the doc- trine of responsible fiscal stewardship. Indeed it is a singular fact that Republican leaders in the House who started promising tax reduction early last fall had to delay re- porting a bill because they could not make up their minds regarding the scope and char- acter of tax relief. Even Mr. Knutson, whose flat 20 percent reduction proposa) has de- servedly drawn sharp criticism, found him- self in a quandary as the Ways and Means Committee which he heads was about ready to report its measure to the House. Someone on the committee—it could hard- ly have been the voice of conscience after all these long months of cogitating—per- suaded him at the last minute that the small taxpayers ought to get a better deal. But the gentleman from Minnesota would not harm his brain child, come what may. He accepted the suggestion to give some pref- erential treatment to the little fellows. But whatever the concession might cost the Treasury, it had to be handled on a 20-per- cent-plus basis. It is extraordinary when the Republican Party gives its attention so exclusively to tax reduction. It is unmindful that a bal- anced budget and reduction of the public debt would both have priority in its plan- ning if it were true to its past traditions and principles in fiscal affairs. There is no conclusive evidence yet from any quarter, Republican or Democratic, that the budget will be balanced either this year or next. Yet Republicans who have been clamoring since 1933 for a balanced budget are now, in the presence of their golden op- portunity, more intent on fulfilling an ill- considered political promise about tax re- duction than in taking the Government out of the red. It is strange, too, to find such national business groups as the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce supporting the Knut- son proposal for a 20-percent-tax cut across the board. For more than 165 years, except- ing naturally the war period, they have been insisting on a balanced budget. Yet they must know now, on the record of House appropriations to date for the next fiscal year, a 20-percent-tax cut and a bal- anced budget are hardly reconcilable. With a third of the 1947-48 appropriations al- ready voted by the House, the slimly balanced Truman budget has been cut only about 7 percent. And most of that cut is not likely to stick. Since when has it been sound Republican policy to be for deficit financing and indiscriminate tax reduction at the same time? Reduction of Income Taxes EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES B. DEANE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 25, 1947 Mr. DEANE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include therein an editorial from the Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, N. C., published on Monday, March 24, 1947, and pointing out the fact that the House should not vote a cut in taxes before it ascertains how much money the Federal Government will need for the next fiscal year.