A3716 the table has been made against amend- ments in the interests of, and proposed by friends of, the workers, without permitting even debate or a vote on their metis. Ib is clear that there is a solid bloc of Sena- tors, including members of both parties, de- termined to vote for almost any amendment restrictive of the rights of the workers. Of course, they urge that their purpose is to correct the excesses of labor unions, but that does not change the fact that their opposi- tion is against every man and woman who belongs to labor organizations or who may choose to joim them in the future. The at- mosphere of the Senate appears to be charged with a determination to pass legislation im. petuously and primarily for punitive ends. Calm and wise judgment has disappeared, As the roll is called, the question seems to be not so much on the merits of individual amendments but on a determined intention to classify Senators into two categories—one, the representatives of the employers, and the other, the representatives of the work- ers. By innuendo, if you happen to be a Senator championing the cause of the work- ers, you are a strike sympathizer and should receive the condemnation and contempt that some people hold at the present time toward John L. Lewis. Instead of the ordinary procedure of dis- cussing and analyzing the problems that af- fect labor and industry, of trying to prevent or remove the abuses that exist in both groups, the issue here jis to seize the pres- ent opportunity to curb and restrict the rights now enjoyed by the workers. Sena- tors who heretofore have boasted of their loyalty to the working class are gleefully rushing to vote for amendments that every man and woman in every labor organiza. tion in the country considers hostile and det- rimental to the rights of the working class, Senators who were elected as friends of labor have succumbed to the hysterical emotions of the hour, and have joined the procession supporting the antilabor amendments. For the first time I have witnessed an attitude of indifference, if not real hostility, toward any expressions of sympathy with, or sup- port of, the catises that Senators heretofore have been proud to advocate. There is a subtle attempt here to imply that those who speak against these repressive measures are either disloyal or wild-eyed labor agitators. It is to be noted that every amendment to place management and trade associations in the same status as labor organizations, in regard to management of their group funds or reports of their joint membership, has been rejected. It appears to be a deter- mination to punish labor, and labor only. In contrast with the situation in this Chamber in regard to the legislation at hand, I recall the long struggle of the workers for social justice, for the opportunity of obtain- ing a decent livelihood, for a fair and just gnare of the earnings resulting from their Oil. I recall that in my own State it took 60 years of agitation to enact reasonable child- labor legislation. . I can remember as a youth scenes in my own community where I saw young girls, 13 and 14 years of age, going out in the darkness of the early morning to work jin the cotton mills for 10 and 12 hours, re- turning in the darkness of the evening. I have heard from their lips stories of how they ran every inch of the way from their homes to the mill gates because they were fright- ened. Who brought about the changes that have resulted in today’s improved working conditions? Who has accomplished the shortening of work hours and the improve- ment of working conditions? Jt was done through the organization of the workers, through unions, and other associations that they set up for using their collective power to influence employers who were often of the absentee landlord class. I recall, in the eighties, the enthusiasm with which the workers received the estab- lishment of the organization known as the Knights of Labor, and their espousal, under difficulties and persecutions, of the cause for shorter working hours, better wages, and better living conditions. Much progress has been made, but the credit is due in large measure, if not in full measure, to the unions and labor organizations that the workers themselves set up. I recall witnessing—I can picture some of them now—many of them I knew by name— women 75 and 80 years of age—trudging the streets in summer and winter, year in and year out, from the mills to their homes, with bent backs and gnarled fingers due to cease~ less toil over the spindles, looms, and ma- chines in the factories and workshops of New England, Who lifted their voices and used their efforts to help bring about better living conditions, shorter hours of work, and the securing of safety appliances? The workers’ , organizations. I remember as a young lawyer prosecuting cases in the courts for damages sustained by employees—one @ young woman whose scalp was torn from her head because the hair became entangled in the machinery due to the lack of proper safeguards. I remember other cases seeking compensation for loss of arms, for loss of fingers, and other disabili- ties. In all of them I found raised in defense the doctrine of “assumption of risk’”—that the employees assume the risk involved in their work. These and other victims of in- dustrial injuries were often obliged to turn to public charity or to members of their families for support. Sometimes when a father was seriously incapacitated the chil- dren were forced to leave school and to go to work to support him. Who led the fight and brought about legis~ lation that eliminated the doctrine of “as- sumption of risk’ and made it possible for these victims of industrial life to become other than a public charge? It was labor, organized labor, union labor. The long and at times discouraging strug- gle made by labor organizations, against what seemed insurmountable obstacles, to elevate the workers from almost a state of servitude to the improved position that they now hold through legislation requiring safety appliances, better working conditions, and shorter working hours, is an inspiring one. It is indeed a story of the glorious victory of human rights. I inject a personal story about two fac- tory workers who had reached old age. I had forgotten them, though in my early youth I had carried a dinner pail to them from their homes to the factory gates during the noon hour. One day a few years ago a welfare agent called upon me to inquire about their needs. He expressed pity for their plight because they had once lived fairly comfortably on their meager income. He said, “I never knew till I met these ladies that it is a crime to live to an old age.” I asked, “What do you mean?” He said, “Why, these women have toiled for nearly 60 years, and they saved enough money in that time to take care of themselves and to provide for their old age, but they lived too long. Had they died a few years after ad- vancing age forced them out of the factory they would have gone to their graves with- out public charity. However, because they have lived too long, over 80 years, they are now experiencing the trials and tribulations of poverty.” He made another observation, “I never knew before that people could be poor and aristocratic as well. These ladies are aristocrats.” They were indeed, aristo- erats, sweet, kind, lovable characters; and there are hundreds of thousands of women, and men, too, who during our lifetime have experienced the same hardships I have just described. These are some of the types of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD people this legislation will affect by curtail- ment of the workers’ rights. The amendments before us affect every worker and every organization, the inno- cent as well as the guilty, if there are any guilty, of excessive and unreasonable de- mands and procedure. I am not defending John L. Lewis, but, Mr. President, I will not be a party, because of Lewis, to enact- ing laws which will restrict the rights of those honest working men and women who have labored so unceasingly during the war, who gave their sons to the service of our country in our hour of need. I shall not offend or shackle them by telling them that their bargaining rights are to be restricted, that they cannot be relied upon to carry on the candid and open relationship which should exist between employee and employer in collective bargaining. Mr. President, have we forgotten the ob- ligation, the great debt we owe to the work- ers of this country?, All the vast wealth we have accumulated has come from the toil, sweat, and blood of the workers. Their strength, their vigor, their health, their labors, have opened up the vast wealth that the Almighty planned in the bowels of the earth for our benefit. They have tilled the fields so that we might have the rich harvests with which we are blessed. They have exhausted themselves in the workshops, factories, and industries of the country, How meager has been their share of the prosperity that has resulted from their toil and sacrifice. Have they no claim to our sympathy and assistance? Must we be heedless of their social advancement and welfare because some leader may have misjudged his obliga- tion to them or his responsibility to the public? Labor leaders are not immune from the faults, failures, and mistakes or even the misuse of power which is observable in other phases of life. Even those in the public service, whom we sometimes call politicians, make scrious mis- takes and fail to promote the public welfare. I have witnessed the struggle of the work- ers for recognition of their rights up to this very hour, and I regret to see in this Cham-~ ber efforts to restrict the progress that has been made~—efforts that indicate a lack of sympathy, a distrust of the workers’ organi< zations, a hindrance to further progress— efforts to place limitations on their rights to organize and to engage in collective bargain- ing. Mr. President, I regret to see in this Cham- ber what seems to me to be a determination to turn back, an attempt to undo some of the helpful things that have been accom- plished through years of effort. Indeed, I think I observe here a spirit of passion, a spirit of intense hostility, a desire to get even with someone. We are acting as if we were looking for blood. I fear, instead of helping to end strikes and bring about peace- ful and harmonious conditions, we may be moving toward more turmoil, more strikes, and more hostility between capital and labor. There is a mistaken notion here that some of the amendments which are proposed will prevent or end the present strikes. Not one of these amendments which are being pro- posed here will affect John Lewis or the lead- ers of the Railway Brotherhood; but they will affect every man and woman who toils and who chooses to belong to a labor union now or in the future. It is to be noted also that workers who are not members of labor organ- izations receive benefits attained by the ef- forts of unions. You cannot get even with John L, Lewis or other strike leaders through these amendments. You can, however, break the spirit, dishearten the working class for a time, but their cause is so humane and just that, like a volcano, the eruption is only being postponed,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Mr. President, not all employers are peti- tioning for this legislation. There are many, very many who deal fairly and justly with labor. Many of them have a sincere and deep sympathy for their workers. Many of them have often voluntarily expressed this in bonuses, pensions, and in various cther bene- fits to the workers. Let us counsel with these representatives of the employers and we will find them ccoperative. Not one of them will ask us to repeal collective bargain- ing or the right of the worker to strike. Hundreds, yes thousands, of disputes and differences between labor and industry have been peacefully and successfully adjusted. Because there have been a few failures and hardships have resulted and the public in- terest has been jeopardized does not, in my opinicn, justify the putting of all labor ina strait-jackct. One would he led to believe, listenirg to the debate here, that there is no class con- sciousness on the side of management; that it is all on the side of labor. In my opinion, there is as much class consciousness on the one side as on the other, and in my opinion, some labor unions remain militant because, forced to deal with a hostile employer, they believe that the labor union can survive in no other way. In the final analysis, it is my opinion that the sympathetic attitude of management toward unions is the key to sound industrial relations, and, if the employers wholeheart- edly accept the philosophy of collective bar- gaining, our labor unions would rise to the responsibilities which they have and fulfill their rich promises. Uniess there is a sharp change for the better in industrial relations, I fear industry and labor will wake up some day to find a new philosophy, an extreme philosophy pro- mulgated through the Nation. In my opin- ion, radical economic changes will come if labor and industry cannot find a way peace- fully to adjust their differences. The suc- cess of the American way of life is not through extreme restrictive measures, but through management and labor solving their individual problems through self-govern- ment and through industrial democracy. The preservation of the American way of life depends upon their success in solving their mutual problems. Mr. President, let us think of the workers other than John L, Lewis’ as we discuss this legislation. There arc millions of them who are law-abiding and who seek and desire in- dustrial peace. Men are fallible and so are leaders, whether they are in the labor, the industrial, or in the political life. Rash and extreme measures that affect and injure the welfare of the people are taken even at times by men in public service. Let us remember there is another day com- ing when the present labor turmoil will have subsided. Industrial peace will come, and the workers, in my opinion, desire it and want it just as much as management. Let it not be said of us when our record is scanned that in the heat of passion we at- tempted to undo the progress that labor has made through its long up-hill hike for in- dustrial freedom, that we have in a moment of excitement sought to abridge and reduce the rights of workers. Let us consider these measures calmly. I cannot emphasize too strongly the fact that no amendment proposed here by the coali- tion can in any manner affect or change the present strike situation. Nor could these coalition amendments, were they the law today, have prevented the present strikes. The amendments are proposed now in the belief that the present hysterical state of mind will give the support that the amend- ments would not get in normal times. In fact, some of the proponents of these amend- ments privately concede this. * These proposals will result in arousing the antagonism and resentment of all workers, who are innocent parties to present labor disturbances, when they know the motive behind these proposals and their true sig- nificance. The Lincoln Star’s Accouxt of President Truman’s Visit to Lincoln, Nebr., en Tay 8, 1950 EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. EUGENE D. O’SULLIVAN OF NEBRASKA IN TEE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 16, 1950 Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, the Lincoln Star, of Lincoln, Nebr., a Demo- cratic daily newspaper, edited by Hon. James E. Lawrence, had this to say in a news item about President Truman’s recent visit to Lincoln, Nebr., on May 8, 1950: LINCOLN WELCOMING TRUMAN—PrzisiDENT RoLus WzastT—Wakns ISoLATIONIsSM RETURN Micut PROVOKE a THIRD Wonzr WaRr—Farmt Puan Toric or ADDRESS—First Masor SezecH To Br GIvEN HERE Nebraskans from surrounding areas were crowding into Lincoln today to hear the Chief Executive of the United States speak here on the topic which probably affects them most—farm income. And in the capital city of the State, all was in readiness as President Truman’s spe- cial train rolled across Iowa and into Ne- braska. The only thing undecided was the weather, and even that was as well prepared for as possible. At Seventh and Q Streets, where a plat- form has been erected for the President’s address, a canopy is ready to protect Mr. Truman and other dignitaries who will be with him on the platform. SIXTEEN STATES The address by the President here today is the first of nine major speeches he ex- pects to make during his swing across the country. During the trip he will tour 16 States. And in Lincoln he will tell what his administration thinks must be done for the farmer. His train is scheduled to arrive here at 6:05 this afternoon and will leave at 5:45. The President is expected to talk about 20 minutes. After that he is scheduled to use the time before the train leaves shaking hands with the party heads in the State and getting a slant or two from them on the Democratic picture in Nebraska. The President will be presented with a 50-pound red, white, and blue iced birthday cake in honor of his sixty-sixth birthday. Introducing the President will be Mayor Clarence Miles, a fellow Democrat, PARADE Before the President’s arrival there will be & parade, starting at 4:15 p. m. at Fifteenth and O, preceding down O to Ninth, then north to Q and west to the platform at Sev- enth Street. Among the group welcoming the Presi- Gent will be Democratic National Commit- teeman James Quigley, Valentine; and State Chairman Clayton Shrout, Omaha. County Democratic Chief Willard Townsend is in charge of arrangements for the Lincoln stop. In the welcoming parade will be the Uni- versity of Nebraska, Nebraska National A3717 Guard, Lincoln High School, Northeast High School, and Syracuse High School Bands, and the American Legion drum corps and color guard. PRESIDENT’S ESCORT Escorting the President from his train car will be Governor Peterson, Quigley, Chief Justice Robert G. Simmons, and Mayor Miles. On appearance of the President the unu.ver- sity band will strike up Hail to the Chief. The €0-immember reception committee will be seated immediately upon arrival at the platform, about 4:45 p. m. The National Anthem will open the program, followed by announcements by Chairman Townsend. He will hen present the Governor and Mayor Clarence Miles, who will then intro- duce the President, Members of the Presidential party in- cluded Mrs. Truman, Miss Margaret Truman, Mr. and Mrs. Mon Wallgren, Bill Bray, Dewey Long, Charles Ross, presidential press secre- tary, George Elsey, and Commander H. War, Members of the local reception commit- tee were: Gov. Val Peterson, Mrs. Grace Barmore, Clayton Shrout, Mrs. Grace Young, Gordon Preble, James E. Lawrence, Judge Delehant, Willard Townsend, Mrs. Essie Da- vis, Ernest Schiefelbein, Raymond McConnell, Jr., Neal Meisbach, Mrs. Frank Morrison, Mrs. J. P. Jensen, Mrs. Carl S. Gjerloff, Frances Zachek, Mrs. Florence Howe, Paul M. Dennis, Fred J. Sassidy, Michael McLaghlin, Leo J. Beck, Joseph T. Votava, C.arence Clark, Frank Sorrell, Mrs. Lenore Clark, Charles Barth, William H. Smith, P. J. Heaton, Dr. Leo Beattie, F. H. Chapelle, B, L. McMullen, Ceil Fitzgibbon, Edwin Dosek, James C. Quigley, Chief Justice Robert Simmons, Mayor Clarence Miles, Ted Sick, Bishop Kucera, William Meier, Mrs. Mary B. Allen, Hugh Riley, Rev. Thomas Barton, Frank Cronin, Mrs. Frank Sorrell, Kenneth Lewis, John T. Kerns, BH. C. Larsen, Lioyd C. Thomas, Robert Tondreau, Mrs. Mina Mc- Reynolds, Mrs. Alma Eitel, A. Clifford An- derson, Mrs. Marguerite Stubblefield, Thane Devis, Frank Golden, Joseph Boehler, Fred Deutsch, Otto Kotouc, Jr., J. B. Farris, Ed Moran, Robert Downing, Henry Ley, An= ton F. Murch, Sam Josephson, George O’Mal- ley, Charles Ledwith. It stated the following editorially: WELCOME, Mr, PRESIDENT The President of the United States came home to his own Monday in a trip devoted Jargely to the midwest. We chose Lincoln, the capital of Nebraska, for his major address. And as his train rolled westward, he was to stop at other Ne- braska points and to pass through the fertile fields which now in the first flush of spring are donning new coats of green. Great is the responsibility which rests upon the shoulders of President Truman on this, his sixty-sixth birthday. The head of no other government in the world daily car- ries such burdens, for here the hopes and faith of free peoples are centered. Here in America is the warming light, beckoning to all men and women. the world over who aspire to dignity, to the free conscience and heart that gives them their own self-respect, and enriches their lives with a sense of true, noble purpose. This paper, which has found much to com- mend in President Truman against the crit- icism hurled at him by loose and irrespon~ sible critics, takes this occasion to say to the President that it rejoices in his continued confirmation of the faith that his people have placed in him. There was only recently a striking example of his concern for the welfare of his people in his courageous veto of the Kerr bill. That act of his did call for the highest spirit of public service, and in terms of Nebraska, it may have saved this State large sums of money.
A3718 This paper hails Mr. Truman’s handling of foreign affairs in a period of great difficulty and danger, and assures him that it is grate- ful for his unwillingness to depart from true American tradition in combating a sanguine war against communism. Nebraska is a neighbor of Mr. Truman’s home State of Missouri. Stretching through years of territorial and State existence, warm have been the bonds and common interests between these good neighbors. It was from St. Louis from whence Lewis and Clark took forth for the first detailed survey of northwest territory; it was from Missouri points that the great overland trails took form and thousands crossed the plains, many to remain and to construct the founda- tions of this State. The President of the United States by the nature of his office, is a lonely man, hemmed in and cut off from the normal contacts hu- man companionship crave. So it is a splen~ did thing that the President of the United States can visit his people, and talk with his people, to become the better acquainted with them and with their problems. A happy birthday, Mr. President, and in neighborly spirit, Nebraska extends its arms to you in warm, neighborly welcome and greeting. On May 9, it also stated the follow- ing editorially: WHat Makes THE PRESIDENT Tick (By J. E. Lawrence) It was a drenched, bedraggled corps of newspapermen, who tumbled from Presi- dent Truman’s special train for a look-see at the crowds at the Burlington depot in Lincoln Monday night. The photographers swung into action but the best picture was not snapped. That could have been a shot of a bunch of cameramen trying to take pictures in the rain. One of the first to step off the train was an. old acquaintance, Bert Andrews, head of the Washington bureau of the New York Herald Tribune, the bible of the Republi- can Party. I asked Mr. Andrews about the crowds. He flicked a couple of raindrops out of his eyes, looked off into space, and said that he could not understand them. The President, he reported, had been greeted by huge throngs in Iowa, but had not been uproariously cheered. “It is that which I cannot understand. They come to see, and they listen to every word.” But as a news- paper veteran of many presidential cam~ paigns, Mr. Andrews seemed to feel that the spontaneity of other days was absent. Is that bad, or is it a part of the times? Another news man on Mr. Truman’s train, John Edwards, born and reared in Lincoln, a graduate of the Lincoln high school and the University of Nebraska, and a former member of the Star staff, now with CBS, was pumping hands of old-time acquaintances, who crowded around him at the depot. Mr. Ed- wards was Visibly impressed with the crowds through Iowa. <At Pacific Junction, he said, in a very informal fashion the President referred in homespun language to his sixty- sixth birthday and his words caught the fancy of the crowd. Is he doing himself good by this trip through 14 States? The answer naturally will lend itself to partisan interpretation. But Mr. Truman’s popularity with the crowds that gather to hear him is not difficult to explain. He is an unaffected, folksy, warm- hearted man—the kind of American who in simple, earnest, and sincere fashion, seems to be enjoying himself every foot of the way. He had a solid, substantial speech on the farm program here. The test of it can be made hy the reading of the complete text, Mr. Truman does not rely upon oratory to sway his people. There was a notable ab- sence of the sharp jibes that he tossed to millions of people in the campaign of 1948, but in his discussion of agriculture, there - was an apparent honesty in every word that his political enemies will find difficult to attack. What makes the President an effective campaigner? Chiefly the fact that he is always himself from his head to his toes— no politician in the orthodox sense with gifted political intuition, but a man who Obviously believes in the fight he is making and has a faith in the American people that when the facts are laid before them, they will go with him. President Truman’s Point 4 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY Or MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask permission to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a brief state- ment summarizing a speech made by Dr. Dewey Anderson, the director of the Public Affairs Institute, at the annual meeting of the Nation Associates in New York on April 29. Few Americans have done more constructive thinking in the field of national and international eco- nomics than Dr. Anderson. His recently published series of eight studies on point 4, the bold new program of aid to underdeveloped countries, has been widely acclaimed as a challenging pro- posal to eliminate poverty, and bring peace to the world. This speech sets forth that proposal in brief, readable terms. It is because it should be made available to Members of a busy Congress that I want it to appear in the Recorp. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Netion of May 20, 1950] A Reratty Bot New Procram (By Dewey Anderson, director of the Public Affairs Institute) When we speak of point 4—the bold new program. for technical and financial coopera- tion with underdeveloped countries—we are proposing to change the face of the earth with something other than the H-bomb. In addition to some $15,000,000,000 of our na- tional budget already devoted to military preparations annually, we are discussing with a dozen European nations a rearmament pro- gram for them calling for twelve to fifteen billion dollars to be spent in the next 5 years. But even a speeded-up arms race is pre- mised on some period of peace. Whatever its length, I submit that we had better fill that time with constructive efforts which will win us democratic allies, and by their peaceful nature, perhaps lead away from war. The underdeveloped countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are distinguished from other areas in that three-fourths of their working population is engaged in agri- culture, largely on a primitive, noncommer- cial, subsistence level. Twenty-eight of the fifty-three independent countries of the world are underdeveloped in this sense. Their per capita incomes average much less than the equivalent of $100 a year, with our own more than 10 times as great. They APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD form two-thirds of all the people on the earth. By the year 2,000 the world may have 3,870, 000,000 inhabitants, an increase of 1,490,- 000,000. Of this number 1,310,000,009 will have been added to the already dense popu- lations of the underdeveloped countries. This pressure of people on living space and food supply may well transcend in import- ance any single problem of the nex» 50 years. Are these people in the underdeveloped countries to become merely pawns in a world power struggle? Or are they to have an op- portunity under peaceful conditions to emerge from their blighted past? The an- swer rests largely with our own conception of point 4, how boldly we formulate it, and how cooperatively we put it into practice, A boldly planned point 4 is essential to the success and development of the United Na- tions. Only the United Nations can operate an effective program of investment for un- derdeveloped countries, for only there do ihe great and small sovereign nations meet to pool their strength and take action on a cooperative basis. American assistance sincerely given through the UN will be less subject to the charge of Yankee imperialism. World senti- ment Will rally to the support of such a posi- tion. The goal of an adequate point 4 pro- gram should be to raise the income and af- fect the standard of living of all the peopie steadily and rapidly for the next 50 years. This will be best accomplished by shifting about a fourth of the workers from primitive subsistence agriculture to industrial work, the professions, and other pursuits. At the same time the food base will be strengthened by improvements in agriculture. Our own experiences and those of other advanced nations indicate that the rate of population growth is slackened noticeably with the shift from primary occupations to industry and other services, and with the increase in living standards that results from this more productive use of manpower. Such @ change should strengthen the democratic forces in the underdeveloped countries and give them a greater stake in freedom and peace, We conceive of this bold new program as requiring a get-going period of 5 years, dur- ing which the volume of effort, beginning small, will expand as rapidly as projects are engineered, personnel chosen, and financing secured. Two sorts of technical aid are needed: 1. High-level technical aid. These are the technicians, scientists, administrators, en- gineers, teachers, cultural anthropologists, agriculturists, surveyors, and rescarchers working at the UN and in the field who can give advice and assistance to underdeveloped countries in formulating development plans for their countries, moderate intemperate enthusiasm, and project long-range pro- grams. We estimate that $600,000,000 would be required to finance the work of the several thousand high-level technicans who could become available during the first 5 years. We suggest that this be granted money— $373,000,000 by the United States, $227,000,- 000 by other United Nations countries. 2. Low-level technical aid. Of equal im- portance is technical help at a lower pro- fessional level which will give the masses of people more proficiency in their work and better living conditions. Specifically, we propose that 250 or more work centers be established in underdeveloped countries. Doctors and nurses, agricultural agents, and machine~shop foremen will start doing and teaching in the villages and the back coun- try. In 5 years a mass shift into more pro- ductive and healthful ways of living would oceur, and the march toward the goals laid down for the bold, new program would have started. We estimate that a reasonable ex- pectation of growth would require a total
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of $1,000,000,000 or more for the 5-year peri- od, to taper off thereafter as these centers accomplhshed their first major purposes. We suggest that this sum be provided as grants, half to come from the United States, half from other countries. No technical-aid program by itself will set in motion those desirable changes. Both public and private capital in large amounts are essential. Many needs can and should be met only through Government loans. Only when these investments result in social im- provements and increasing stability of gov- ernmenis, in wealth upon which to base other business venture, can it be expected that any large-scale private capital will find its way into the underdeveloped countries. We suggest several types of government loan funds, tailored to meet specific needs. 1. Across the globe one poor country after another has chopped down its trees for fuel and allowed its land to become barren. To create the basis for a decent life for the peo- ple a vast conservation and development program must be undertaken. We suggest the establishment of an International Re- sources Conservation Corporation with a capital stock of $2,000,000,000, half to be sub- scribed by the United States, the other half to come from other member countries of the United Nations. This Corporation would be chartered by the United Nations and oper- ated under its supervision. It should pro- vide government-to-government long-term loans for conservation purposes at the cost of money plus the cost of servicing loans. 2. Even in this country, with its numerous banking and lending facilities, vast areas have been in need of capital to launch prof- itable and much-needed enterprises. We suggest that the United Nations establish a cooperatives’ revolving fund to $2,000,000,000, half to be subscribed by the United States and the other half to come from other United Nations countries. Low-cost loans from this fund would be made to underdeveloped coun- tries upon certification by the FAO that feasible cooperative projects were at a stage requiring such capital. 8. The Export-Import Bank makes loans to underdeveloped areas. But its present prac- tices do not entirely fit the needs of these countries for long-term, low-interest-rate money. We suggest that the authorization of the bank be expanded by act of Congress by $2,500,000,000, specifically earmarked to meet these needs on terms calling for return of principal plus a modest servicing charge. This new authorization should be open to American private interests which wish to use it for productive purposes approved by the country of investment. Moreover, it is sug- gested that the bank participate in techni- cal-aid missions provided by the American point 4 program. 4. The International Bank for Reconstruc- tion and Development is a United Nations institution. Its strict banker attitude has ruled out any large volume of loans to under- developed countries. Its charter should be broadened to provide low-cost loans tailored to the needs of development projects. 5. American private investment in under- developed arcas has been running currently at about #800,000,000 annually, including re- investments. This will decrease as the oil companies, which account for a large share of it, finish their foreign developments. If the United States underwrites a bold new program of point 4 activity, it can be ex- pected that, even in the intial stages, an ex- pansion of private business investment will take place. If this basic underwriting is not provided soon, and in volume, then because of the unsettled condition of the world, no large amount of private investment in under- developed countries will be made. Point 4 will probably become law in the United States within a few weeks now. The legislation which is likely to be petred rill launch the new pregram, partly cs a Uv: td Nations enterprise, partly as a bilateral tech- nical-aid scheme conducted by the United States Government. But the measure will not provide the underpinning necessary to earry out the investment features outlined above. That essential part of the program will probably await action of the Highty- second Congress next year. The technical-aid bill will provide some funds for UN agencies, which should allow a@ small beginning after other nations have made their contributions. To this extent our action will implement point 4 at Lake Success. It will also provide funds for United States agencies operating in the same field. An attempt is being made by proponents of the program to provide the first machinery for cooperation and clearances between these two efforts. Most important of all, as this legislation passes and becomes operative un-= der the direction of the UN and the Presi- dent, we must make certain that we have launched an effort that is not prevented by law from advancing to fill the need in under- developed countries. But this will not hap-~ pen without much organized understanding and support within both the United States and the other members of the world family of nations. Address by Dr. Abba Hillel Sitver on the Second Anniversary of Establishment of the State of Israel EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT A. TAFT OF OHIO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to have printed in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp an address de- livered by Dr. Abba Hillel Silver on the second anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel. The address was delivered at Madison Square Garden, New York City, on May 11, 1950. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Appress BY Dr. ABBA HILLEL SILVER ON THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SrTaTe or IsRAEL, MaDISON SQUARE GaAR- DEN, New Yorw Ciry, May 11, 1950 Two years have elapsed since the reestab- lishment of the State of Israel. We cannot as yet have a true perspective on what has taken place and all of its tremendous im- plications, but enough has taken place to justify the joyous celebration here this eve- ning and simular celebrations throughout the world. It is customary and quite natural for us to think of what we have done for Israel. I should like to speak this evening briefly of what Israel has done, is doing, and will continue to do for us. American Jewry has, of course, done much for Israel. Without the decisive political mobilization and action of American Jewry, the State of Israel would not now be in existence. Without its large and sustained economic support, the de-~ velopment of the state, the absorption of im~ migrants, as well as its military defense, would have been nigh impossible. It will remain to {he everlasting credit of the Amer- A8719 ican Jewish community that the greatest challenge in Jewish history did not find it unprepared or reluctant to assume the bur- dens and responsibilities of leadership. But great as were the services which we rendered to the State of Israel, greater by far have been the services which the State of Israel has rendered to us and to all the Jewish people in the Diaspora. What has tran- spired in the last 2 years is not only an im- pressive chronicle, but an inspiring epic. Close on to 400,000 homeless, menaced or war-ravaged Jews have been given a home in Israel. The great nations of the earth in possession of vast and empty territories did not offer any sanctuary to them. Israel, and Israel alone, opened its doors wide and wel- comed these men and women, many of whom had languished for years in the concentra- tion camps and the hellholes of Europe. I recall that in 1943 at the American Jewish Conference I stated that the problem of Jewish refugees would never be solved until the Jewish State is established. There were practical men in those days and men of affairs who presumed to know better. They denounced us as political extremists for raising the issue of the Jewish State at a time when Jews should be concentrating all of their energies on the demand for admis~ sion of Jewish refugees to Palestine. They withdrew from and destroyed the American- Jewish Conference over thisissue, But these men, who now pride themselves upon being among the guiding spirits of the new State of Israel, were dangerously blind guides in those days, and it was fortunate that the Jews of America did not follow their leader- ship. The stone which they rejected, the Jewish State, has now become the chief cornerstone ir the solution of the world problem of Jewish refugees. In order to absorb these hundreds of thou- sands of immigrants who have poured, and are pouring, into that little state Israel has established 200 agricultural settlements, ex- panded its agriculture and industry, built tens of thousands of homes, and provided for them health, education, and social serv- ices, These immigrants, be it remembered, are our charge and the responsibility of Diaspora Jewry. It is we who placed this terrific economic burden upon the young republic, at a time when its resources were being heavily drained to maintain a large defense army, when it had to build from the ground up its administrative and parliamen- tary machinery, and wrestle with inflation, the high cost of living, and a most unfavor- able balance of trade. Israel gladly assumed the crushing immi- gration load, aware that it would force a lower standard of living upon its own people and a rigid regimen of austerity which would beggar even the austerity program of Eng- land during the war. In accepting this re- sponsibility in the face of these besetting hardships and sacrifices, Israel has rendered @® unique and unforgettable historic service to world Jewry. In 2 years Israel became the Eretz Miklat for world Jewry. It is prepared to continue to perform this service for still other Jews—Jews from Iraq, from Rumania, from Hungary, from Moslem countries where they are in imminent danger. Before 1948 there was no place for such Jews to go except to the gas chambers. To- day there is the free and welco’iing land of Israel. When, therefore, I hear American Jews say, “How long will Israel continue to ask us for help?” I counter by asking, “How long will world Jewry continue to ask Israel for help?” The Jewish people established the State of Israel not merely in order to have a state. This in itself is important—to restore to the Jewish people a normal national existence and international status, which it had lacked for 2,000 years. It established the state in
A3720 order that there might also be a place of ingathering for those of our people from all parts of the world who may have to go there or who may wish to go there. Having he-~ gun this tremendous and revolutionary en- terprise, we cannot now stop midway. We assumed tremendous commitments when we set in motion great forces which culminated in the establishment of the state. Because the men and women of Israel believed in the earnestness of our purpose not only to create a state but to help maintain and defend it, they fought so valiantly, inspired not only by the justice of their cause, but also by the knowledge that behind them, in reserve, were the vast material and spiritual resources of the great Jewish community of America, In the same manner, they welcomed the over- whelming number of immigrants and risked all the serious complications to their national economy not only out of a sense of Jewish loyalty and solidarity but because they relied upon our continuous support. The enemies of Israel are hopeful that we will now leave Israel in the lurch, that we will grow tired of supporting Israel. This would lead to a political collapse, and this is what they are waiting for. This is the reason why they are not now making peace with Israel. They are waiting for that dis- astrous economic and political debacle which would be for them the signal for a new at~ tack on Israel. In confident anticipation of such an eventuality, they are rearming them-~ selves to the teeth, with the aid of Mr. Bevin and with the quiet concurrence of our own State Department. However, if -I know my people—and I be- lieve that I know them well—they are too loyal, too resolute, and too wise to fall into suchatrap. They will not destroy with their own hands what they have so sacrificially and so lovingly built. On the contrary. Our people will help Israel to take care not only of these hundreds of thousands whom they have already sent there, but of the many hundreds of thousands more who are yet to come. They will want Israel to become eco- nomically sound, politically stable, and nu-~ merically so strong as to discourage for all time the annihilationist hopes of political adventurers in the neighboring Arab countries. There were three things which we Jews had to do in recent years. First, we had to show the world that we wanted the State of Israel. On a vast scale we organized and made vocal the will of our people and per- suaded men of good will everywhere of the sincerity and steadfastness of our purpose. Through many ways, athwart many obstacles, outmaneuvering many conspiracies, we pressed on indefatigably and relentlessly until the United Nations in November 1947 gave sanction to our historic claim for the reestablishment of the State of Israel. Our people then had to show the world that it was prepared to fight for the State of Israel. And so, unaided by any of the United Nations who sanctioned the establish- ment of the State, and serlously hampered by an arms blockade, our valiant sons and daughters in Israel for 8 months fought off and kept at bay and finally defeated deci- sively the armies of six invading Arab States. In the sacrifices and in the blood of these Israeli minutemen were the foundations of the state firmly laid. And now we must demonstrate to the world and to ourselves—especially to our- selves—that we are prepared staunchly, resolutely, and patiently to sustain that State in all the difficulties and dangers which beset every young Stcte newly come into be- ing, that we are prepared to help it with our resources both material and human. It was Thomas Jefferson who said: “We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to’ liberty in a feather bed.” Certainly we Jews are not to expect to be translated from home- lessness, to nationhood, from servitude to freedom in a feather bed. Never in all our history was our lot an easy one. We may be God's chosen people, but we are certainly not God’s pampered people. Our ancestors under Joshua had to conquer Palestine foot by foot. Under Zerubabel they had to re- puild Judea, with one hand laying the stones and the other holding the sword. Spiritu- ally our history has always been one of con- flict and struggle—a life of swords. To wrestle with gods and men and to prevail— that is the very meaning of the name, Israel. We are not to be pitied because of this. The nature of our experience through the ages has toughened us. It has made us the “am k’she oreph,” the stiff-necked people. It is that quality which enabled our people to rise from the ashes and ruins of two world wars which wrecked and ravaged European Jewry and destroyed one-third of our people and undefeated triumphantly to build in the midst of chaos and terror and battle a new state. A few days ago, on the occasion of its second anniversary, the Government of the State of Israel issued an independence day proclamation in which, after recounting the truly remarkable and magnificent achieve- ments since the establishment of the State, it declared: “However, the road ahead is still long and hard. Our enemies continue to threaten us, our very existence, our inde- pendence, and the borders of our State.” The existence of the State of Israel is still peing threatened. There is no peace on the borders of Israel. The majority of the Arab States have not yet reconciled themselves to the existence of the State of Israel. What is being done today by the unreconciled Mr. Bevin is shipping military aircraft—108 jet planes, more than half of them already de- livered—gunhboats, tanks, and other military supplies to Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan, and to Syria with which Great Britain has no treaty obligations and in refusing to supply arms to Israel until—and here is the bitter jrony of it all—until Israel is at peace with the Arab States,” is not only not contributing to the reconciliation of these countries to the ineluctable fact of the existence of the State of Israel, but is encouraging among them desperate hopes for a renewed offensive which might yield them now what was de- nied them a year or so ago. One wonders why the Security Council of the United Nations was so precipitous last August in lifting the arms embargo in the Near East after the victories of the Jewish forces when it had so stubbornly refused to lift the embargo when Israel, dangerously unarmed, was fighting against the Arab armies who had invaded Palestine bent upon undoing by violence the resolution of the United Nations. If pacification of the Near East was the real objective, why was not the embargo kept in force until peace treaties were finally concluded? And why did the United States support Great Britain in rush- ing through, against the earnest solicitations of the State of Israel, a premature abandon- ment of all restrictions on the shipment of arms to the Arab countries? Was not the covert intent to change radically the military balance between Israel and the Arab States? No foreign armies were threatening the peace and security of the Arab States. These states do not today need jet planes, bombers, and fighters, tanks, heavy guns, and warships to maintain domestic peace and security at home. Does anyone perhaps imagine that these arms are intended and will be used by the Arab States to defend democracy and free- dom in the Middle Hast in any future emer- gency? Only purblind statesmen of short APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD memory who have already forgotten the ex- perience of the Allied Nations with these same Arab States during the last war will per- sist in entertaining such bizarre hopes. These states who welcomed the Fascist and Nazi enemies of the democracies and were the centers of revolt and sabotage against Al- lied military operations in the last war, will prove broken reeds indeed for a free world to lean on in any future conflict. These arms are being assembled against Israel. Mr. Bevin is blunderingly helping to prepare the next war against Israel. Our State Department, by withholding a reply to the request of the Israeli Government to acquire arms in the United States is helping to keep Israel weak in the face of the mount- ing rearmament threat of the surrounding Arab countries, and is encouraging, witting- ly or unwittingly, their intransigence and their refusal to conclude an honorable peace with Israel. There are forces in the State Department which have not reconciled themselves to the establishment of the State of Israel. It was these same forces which were responsible for the astounding reversal of our Government in March of 1948, when after having voted for the partition resolution of the United Nations, it suddenly announced that it was no longer prepared to go along with it and requested a special session of the United Na- tions to nullify that resolution. It is these same forces which are now supporting and justifying the supply of arms by Britain to the Arab States. It is the same forces which have been responsible for the ominous si- lence of our Government on the request of Israel to acquire arms in this country. The explanation given by our Government spokesmen is specious and artful. It is maintained that the security of Israel, sur- rounded as it is by neighbors which refuse to make peace, which are heavily rearming themselves, which are maintaining a block- ade against Israel, and which are propagat~ ing for a second round, is really not being threatened. Similarly disingenuous was the reply given by the State Department to the suggestion of 51 Congressmen that aid under point 4 be extended only to those Arab States which have reached peace settlements with Israel. The State Department believes that it would be undesirable to use this program as an in- strument of political pressure. In God’s name, since when is the withholding of aid to states which refuse to make peace an un- desirable and unjustified form of political pressure? Is our Government not using its financial and material aid in other parts of the world at this very time to exert political pressure? What government in the world to- day dissociates aid from forelgn policy? Will the United States of America, which was the first country in the world to give official recognition to the newly established State of Israel, stand idly by and see this menace of war mount and magnify until it is beyond control? Is it to the best interests of America to see the young state, which everyone recognizes as ah outpost of free~- dom and democracy in the Near Hast, weak- ened and endangered? Does the United States favor a continuation of the present policy of Arab rearmament by Great Britain? This rearmament could not go on without its tacit approval. Does it wish the eco- nomically hard-pressed State of Israel to continue to drain off so much of its limited resources on arms instead of using them for its economic reconstruction and the pressing human needs of its vast immigration? Do the American people really want it? Ought not rather the power and the prestige of our Government be used in such @ manner as to insure that the Arab States shall nego- tiate a peace settlement with Israel forth-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD with by bringing about a cessation of arms shipments ’9 these Arab States, or by making it possible for the State of Israel to acquire arms in this country, thereby serving notice on the Arab States that any new military ad- ventures on their part will find Israel fully prepared and would prove no more successful and no less costly to them than their earlier futile attempts. We owe it to Israel and to our own beloved country to make our voices heard so that an end may be put to this dangerous policy which is now being pursued by our Govern- ment. Bevin’s way has always been the wrong way in Palestine, the stupid and bloody way. Our Government should not follow the lead of this embittered politician whose Palestine policies have been so thor- oughly discredited. On this second anniversary let us give evi- dence to the fine men and women of Israel that we are not unmindful of the problems which beset them, that we are determined to stay with them through all their political and economic vicissitudes until security and peace finally come to them abidingly. Let us tell them of our gratitudes for what they have done in such a generous and sacrificial manner for our fellow Jews from so many parts of the world and for what they are pre- pared to do. Let us tell them of our grati- tude for what they have done for us—for the new dignity which they have brought into our lives. Who can estimate the worth to us and to our children of the new pride which has come into our souls? What is it worth to us that after the silence of the cen- turies, the voice of Israel can be heard again, free and authentic, speaking in the council of: nations? We are movirc vroudim and hopefully into a new day iecr ise Larsel is there. The road may be long, but it is the road which leads away from darkness to light, from debasement to dignity, and from insecurity to peace. Persons Naturalized in Fiscal Years 1948 and 1949 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN OF RHODE ISLAND IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a copy of table 44, sent to me by Hon. Watson B. Miller, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, list- ing by States the number of persons who have been naturalized and have become American citizens during 1948 and 1949, This table, I know, will be of interest to Members of the Congress. In order to fulfill their obligations as American citizens these peoples should register so that they may participate in our National, State, and local elections. Let me give an illustration. To vote in Rhode Island, one must register before June 30 of an election year. My col- league the junior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Leany] and I are stressing very strongly the importance of regis- tration, not only by our new citizens, but also by all the voters of our State. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: TaBLE 44.—Persons naturalized, by States and Territories of residence: Years ended June 30, 1948-49 State of residence 1948 1949 Total. __.---.-------------- 70, 150 66, 594 Alabama... 2 eee eee eee 102 109 Arizona._ - 305 329 Arkansas. 30 60 California. 9, 194 9,370 colorado... 243 32 Connecticut. 1, 987 1, 861 Delaware. _ 7 85 District of C 350 430 Florida..... $23 1, 069 Georgia__ 62 157 Idaho. -_. 125 76 Minois.._ 8, 259 3, 297 Indiana__ 505 418 Towa... 245 224 Kansas... 159 159 Kentucky... 68 55 Louisiana... 342 273 Maine..._. 517 556 Maryland... 589 509 Massachusett: 4,618 5, 024 Michigan... 3, 665 3, 301 Minnesota... 560 669 Mississippi. 47 69 Missoul-_- 413 483 172 193 148 135 116 71 322 371 4,114 3, 448 9 117 25, 238 a1, 174 103 12 148 141 1,848 2, 285 110 129 482 301 2, 698 2, 685 59! 650 55 69 65 46 &8 92 784 1, 122 124 105 283 277 208 331 1, 445 1, 345 168 166 741 726 51 46 105 87 1, 442 1,362 9. 73 Virgin Islands... -- 19 37 All other... 022 -- oe eee ene 7 7 Source: U. 8. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service. Invocation by Rev. George G. Higgins EXTENSION OF REMARKS oO HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp the invo- cation delivered at the National Conven- tion of Americans for Democratic Action in Washington on April 1, 1950, by the Reverend George G. Higgins, assistant director of the Social Action Department of the National Catholic Welfare Con- ference. A3721 There being no objection, the invoca- tion was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: INvocatIoNn DELIVERED AT THE NATIONAL CON- VENTION OF AMERICANS FoR DzErMocnraTic ACTION, WASHINGTON, D. C,, AFRIL 1, BY THE REVEREND GEORGE G. HicGiNs, ASSISTANT Dmector, €ocia, ACTION DEPARTMENT, Na- TIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. O God, the Father of all men—the Father of Jew and Gentile, of Negro and white, of Americans and Russians, of all men every- where—we dedicate this convention to Your honor and glory. We need Your divine assistance. We need it desperately. Witness the cold war. Wit- ness the hydrogen bomb. Witness 5,000,000 unemployed and other millions working for substandard wages. Witness the scandal of racial injustice. We need Your divine as- sistance, and we are not ashamed to say so publicly and in the open. Help us then to be better men and better women—men and women of personal honor and integrity. Help us to be better husbands and better wives, better fathers and mothers of families, But help us also jointly and cooperatively to build a better society, a society more in keeping with the dignity of man, who is created in Your own image and likeness. Help us to have the courage of our religious convictions in the field of race relations. Help us in particular to look upon our Negro neighbors and our Negro fellow citizens as our brothers in Christ, equal to all the rest of us in every last respect in human dignity and worth. Help us to’realize that racial dis- crimination is a sin in the theological sense of the word—a serious sin against the virtues of justice and charity, a grievous insult to our common Father. Help us to be tolerant, but help us to be more than tolerant. Tol- erance is negative. Tolerance is neutral and indifferent. Tolerance is sometimes super- cilious. Help us to be positive and construc- tive. Help us to do more than tolerate one another. Help us to love ome another as brothers and sisters of one common family. Help us to be sensitive to the rights and the needs of the poor and the underprivi- leged. Give us the moral courage to con- tinue to work for the economic betterment of the masses of men and women who make up the backbone of American society. We pray for the coming of a better day when organized labor will be permitted to sit down with management as an equal partner in industry and, together with representatives of the public, plan intelligently for the gen- eral economic welfare—for the common good. To this end we pray for the organization of the unorganized workers of America. We pray for the coming of economic democracy, We ask You to bless our Chief Executive, the members of his Cabinet, our legislators, our judges, and our administrative officers. Theirs is a noble vocation. May they carry it out with honor and unimpeachable integ- rity and may the public, in turn, accord them the cooperation and the respect to which they are entitled. Give our Senators and Representatives the wisdom and the courage to legislate effectively and without unneces- sary delay for the economic betterment of those hundreds of thousands of American workers whose incomes are still at substand- ard levels—for decent and adequate housing, for civil rights, and for greater economic and social security for all our citizens. At the same time give them the humility and the common sense to realize that legislation ‘is not the only answer, and not always the best answer, to our problems. Help them to real- ize that individual freedom must be regu- lated in the interests of the general welfare,
A38722 but help them to realize, too, that freedom is as fragile as it is indispensable for the welfare of individual men and women and for the welfare of society. Help them to strike the proper balance between security and freedom, and help them to see the im- portance, in a democracy, of voluntary asso- ciations—the importance of unions and co- to cite but two examples. 1. oy, we ask You, Lord, in fear and trembling, to bless the efforts of our Nation toward the establishment of a just and last- ing peace. Help us to be humble in the presence of the hydrogen bomb. Grant that we-may not give to either appeasement or aggression. Protect us against the spirit of pessimism and despair and against the spirit of hysteria. Help our representatives at the United Nations and the representatives of all other nations to strive with constancy and courage for the establishment of an inter~ national order which will be founded on jus- tice and which will guarantee to the suf- fering peoples of the world economic and political security, together with that full measure of freedom to which every human being, as a child of God, is entitled and with- out which life is hardly worth living. Help us to be as wise as serpents in our dealings with the enemies of our Nation, but help us also to be as simple as doves—~prepared, if mecessary, to defend ourselves and other na- tions against aggrossion, but prepared also to conciliate our differeices whenever this can be done without sacrificing our own free- dom or the freedom of any other nation. Help us to be generous in our financial assist- ance to less fortunate nations and much more generous than we have been thus far in welcoming displaced persons to our shores. These people are Your children, our brothers and sisters. Grant that we may treat them accordingly. We ask these favors and these blessings in the name of Thy Divine Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, who Himself taught us the perfect prayer: “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name; Thy kindom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. Amen.” In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. emer tinct Use of the Atom Bomb When Not Necessary EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT A. TAFT OF OHIO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an address en- titled ‘“‘The Horror of Having Used the Atom Bomb When It Was Not Neces- sary,” published in the Ashland Daily Press for May 11, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Ashland (Wis.) Daily Press of May 11, 1950] THe Horror or Havine Usep tHe Atom Boma WHEN Ir Was Nor Necrssary “I would use the atom bomb again if I have to.” These words, spoken yesterday, could have been used by only one man in the whole his~ tory of the human race, for only one man authorized the use of the atom bomb. That man was President Truman. Upon his conscience must be a nightmar- ish, soul-tormenting weight, for one by one the authorities close to the war are confess- ing that the use of the atom bomb was not necessary at all. Admiral Leahy, our own Ashland High School graduate, and Ashland’s leading na- tive son, was the first to honestly and pub- licly state the facts. In his book, I Was There, on page 441, he states: - “It is my opinion that the use of this bar- barous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.” Admiral Leahy goes on to say: “It was my reaction that the scientists and others wanted to make this test because of the vast sums that had been spent on the project ($2,0C0,000,000) .” Admiral Leahy continues: “‘Bomb’ is the wrong word to us for this new weapon. It is not an explosive. It is eo pists thirs that kills people by its Geti, tae. .. . reaction, more than by the explosive force it develops. “The lethal possibilities of atomic war- fare in the future are frightening. “My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had edonted an ethical standard common to the barvuuans of the Dark Ages. “That is why I come to the end of my war story with an apprehension about the fu- ture.” Hanson W. Baldwin, military expert for the New York Times, who received a Pulitzer prize for his reporting of World War II and is considered an authority on modern war- fare, writes in his book, Great Mistakes of the War: “The blockade alone could have defeated Japan. * ™“ * Admiral Leahy was right; invasion was not necessary. “It is therefore clear today—and was clear to many even as early as the spring of 1945— that the military defeat of Japan was cer- tain; the atomic bomb was not needed. “It ls my contention that in the eyes of the world the atomic bomb has cost us dearly; we have lost morally; we no longer are the world’s moral leader as in the days of the Wilsonian 14 points.” Retired Admiral Ellis M. Zacharias for- mer Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, this week added his testimony by stating that he and other Government officials had definite information that Japan would have surrendered before the bomb “if we only had given her a chance.” The United Press dis- patch, quoting Admiral Zacharias, adds: “He blamed the White House and other leaders for not seizing the opportunity.” What the ghastly, horrible blunder of au- thorizing use of the first atom bomb in human history meant—and doing this when its use was of no material assistance in win- ning the war—is most graphically described in John Hersey’s book, Hiroshima, which by its stark simple realism forever scars the conscience of everyone who reads it. “A year after the bomb was dropped,” he writes, “Miss Sasaki was a cripple; Mrs. Nakamura was destitute; Father Kleinsorge was back in the hospital; Dr. Sasaki was not capable of the work he once could do; Dr. Fujii had lost the 80-room hospital it took him many years to acquire, and had no prospects of rebuilding it; Mr. 'Tanimoto’s church had been ruined, and he no longer had his exceptional vitality. The lives of these six people, who were among the luckiest in Hiroshima, would never be the same. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “Mr. Tanimoto wrote in a letter to an American some words which expressed this feeling: ‘What a heart-breaking scene this was the first night. About midnight I landed on the river bank. So many injured people lie on the ground that I made my way by striding over them. Repeating “Excuse me,” I forwarded and carried a tub of water with me and gave a cup of water to each one of them. They raised their upper bodies slowly and accepted a cup of water with a bow and drunk cve*"r card. spilling any remnant, gave ivek © cv.) * ‘yh hearty ex- pression of their mV tak and said, “‘I couldn’t help my sister, who was buried under the house, because I had to take care of my mother, who got a deep wound on her eye, and our house soon set fire and we hardly escaped. Look, I lost my home, my family, and at last myself bitterly injured. But now I have gotten my mind to dedicate what I have and to complete the war for our country’s sake. “ * *“ Next morning I found many men and women dead to whom I gave water last night.’ ” The man who authorized all this, when it was not necessary, is the man who is now saying to us, “I would do it again if I have to.” Proposed Transfer of Watson Laboratories EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp three sep- arate communications which have re- cently been sent me urging the transfer of the Watson laboratories from Red Bank, N. J., to Rome, N. Y. One com- munication is from the American Legion post at Clark Mills. The other two com- munications are from local 907 of the National Federation of Postal Employees at Scotia, N. Y., and from the Syracuse Chamber of Commerce, also outlining reasons why the laboratories should be moved to Rome. In addition to these communications, the Rome Daily Sentinel carried an ar- ticle on April 29 quoting at length from a Nation-wide broadcast by Cedric Fos- ter over the Mutual network in which this noted commentator stated that the laboratories should be located in Rome for reasons of both economy and effici- ency. I ask unanimous consent to have the article from the Rome Daily Senti- nel inserted in the Appendix of the RECORD. There being no objection, the com- munications and article were ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: NATIONsL FupERa'rion er FrorraL EMPLOYERS, Scotia, N, Y¥., May 1, 1950. The Honorable Hersert H. LEHMAN, Washington, D. C. Honorasie Sir: The membership of Local 907 National Federation of Federal Employees respectfully request that you fully support the move to transfer the Watson Laboratories from Eatontown, N. J., to Rome, N. Y. and oppose any liquidation contrary thereto.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The membership feel that the interests of national defense and of economy should pre- vail over private interests. JOHN PALMER, President, Syracus—E CHAMBER OF CoMMERCE, Syracuse, N. Y., May 2, 1950, Hon. Hersert H. LEHMAN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. GC. Dear Senator: Rome’s neighboring city of Syracuse is concerned about what we believe is a development in Congress contrary to the best interests of the national security. We refer to the pending congressional ac- tion on the proposal of the Department of the Air Force to transfer its electronics re- search and development installation, known as Watson Laboratories, from Eatontown, N. J., to Griffiss Air Force Base, Rome, N. Y. Details of the proposal were sent to you by Mr. James M. Kennedy, president of the Rome Chamker of Commerce, in a letter dated May 1, 1950, and in a copy of the ma- jority report of the subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee support- ing the Air Force plan to move Watson Laboratories to Rome, N. Y. In view of the fact that the transfer has been approved by the Senate in the muli- tary public works bill and that the sub- committee of the House Armed Services Com- mittee, after investigation of the Air Force plan for the moving of Watson Laboratories to Rome, N. Y., also fully supported the trans- fer, the Syracuse Chamber of Commerce con~ curs with Rome in urging carrying out of the plan. Our reasons are substantially the same as Rome’s and are based on need, suitability of the Rome location, economy, and the fact that we believe, as apparently did the Senate and the House subcommittee, that the Air Force is in a better position to know its own needs for research and development than employees of Watson Laboratories or private citizens concerned only with keep- ing the installation in its present location. We believe we have another important reason. Syracuse, only 40 miles from Rome, is the home of Electronics Park of General Electric, the country’s largest electronics producer, and Syracuse University, with its famous industrial-research facilities. We understand that Watson Laboratories plan to do considerable business with both Elec- tronics Park and Syracuse University. We believe that we cannot permit national defense or the safety of our Nation to he jeopardized by a group of private citizens whose thinking is contrary to that of the Department of the Air Force, the Senate, and the House subcommittee who have carefully studied the matter. We earnestly advocate the transfer of Watson Laboratories to Griffiss Army Air Base in our neighboring city of Rome, N. Y., as being in the best interests of national security. Cordially yours, . Freperrcx E, Norron, Secretary. AMERICAN LuciIon, Cuark Mitts Post, No. 26, Inc., Clark Mills, N. Y., May 4, 1950. Hon. Herspert H. LEHMAN, Senator from New York State, Washington, D. C. Dear SENATOR LEHMAN: At our regular meeting held on May 1, 1950, at Memorial Hall, Clark Mills, N. ¥., the following reso- lution was adopted: “Whereas the best interests of national economy and defense would be served by moving the Watson Laboratories from Eaton- town, N. J., to Griffiss Air Force base at Rome, N. Y.; and “Whereas nearly 1,000 veterans, most of whom have purchased homes and have fam-« ilies in this area, would be seeking employ- ment on an overcrowded labor market in the hea this move is not effected: Therefore 21 “Resolved, That the Clark Mills American Legion Post, No. 26, go on record as favoring this move; and be it further “Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to our two United States Senators and our local United States Congressman, and that said Senators and Representative be and are hereby respectfully requested to use every effort at their command to have this move effected.” Very truly yours, . Epwarp J. SPrLLMaN, Commander, [From the Rome (N. ¥.) Daily Sentinel of Apr. 29, 1950] FosTER UrcEs LAB TRANSFER IN NatTIon-WDE BRoOaDcAst The Watson Laboratories transfer situa- tion was carried to millions of listeners yes- terday over the Nation-wide hookup of the Mutual Broadcasting System. In his 1 p. m. broadcast, Cedric Foster, Mutual news commentator, speaking from WKAL, said a tour of Griffiss Air Force Base “left no doubt in my mind as to why Watson Laboratories should be moved from New Jersey to this upstate New York city. * * * In the interest of economy and efficiency it is the logical thing to do.” TOURED BASE Mr. Foster told his listeners from coast to coast: . “Here in Rome, N. Y., I visited Griffiss Air Force Base, which is one of the outstanding Air Force bases in the world, in a tour of in- spection which left no doubt in my mind as to why Watson Laboratories should be moved from New Jersey to this up-State New York city. “Griffiss Air Force Base was originally con- structed as an aircraft maintenance and supply depot at a cost of about $36,000,000. The replacement cost is estimated at sixty- six million. “The base comprises an area of five square miles. The buildings are of permanent con- struction and they are in excellent condi- tion. They are air conditioned, centrally heated, and extremely well lighted. They are surrounded by excellent concrete high- ‘ways and the base is amply served with rail and truck terminals, IN POOR BUILDINGS "In addition to this, the base has a first class airport with runways and aprons. The air base is complete with administration building, signal tower, hangars which can be used in connection with the type of work done at Watson Laboratories. The hangars are right now being used and they are hous~ ing the experimental type of aircraft which are necessary to the work of the Watson Laboratories which are in New Jersey. “The Watson Laboratories in Eatontown, N. J., are housed in temporary quarters . built during the last war, made out of wood siding and tar paper construction. There is no landing strip at the Watson Laboratories so you have to drive 40 miles to McGuire Air Force Base * * * if you want to engage in active test work. “It is no wonder the majority report of the House Armed Services Subcommittee recommended that Watson Laboratries be moved to the Griffiss Air Force Base here in Rome, N. Y. A3723 “In the interest of economy and efficiency it is the logical thing to do. “What will be the work that is done here * * * electronics. At this magnificent field the Air Force can concentrate its elec- tronics experimentation work and it is to be hoped that the Congress will see to it that this work is carried out at Rome, N. Y.” Foster ArrS WaTSON SITUATION Cedric Foster told his Mutual Broadcasting System listeners from coast to coast yester- day the Air Force should be permitted to transfer Watson. Laboratories to Griffiss Air Force Base at Rome. Mr. Foster is a news commentator who knows from personal knowledge the dangers that face this country. He is an impartial observer in this Watson controversy. His only interest here is in the welfare of his country. His opinion coincides with the judgment of the Air Force and the majority report of the House Armed Services Commitee, which made a full investigation of Air Force plans. Mr. Foster’s opinion is not based on sectional prejudice or selfish interest. The only consideration in this Watson transfer situation must be that of national defense, economy, and efficiency. The Air Force must not be handcuffed by localized pressure so as not to be able to accomplish its mission—the defense of the United States. Two Worlds?—Or One? Or None EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. STYLES BRIDGES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BRIDGES. Mz. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “Two Worlds?—Or One? Or None,” by Betty Knowles Hunt, which appeared in the New Hampshire Morn- ing Union of May 13,1950. This article deserves the thoughtful reading of every American. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Two Worups?—Or Onz?—Or NonE (By Betty Knowles Hunt) Herbert Hoover has taken a cold sober look at our globe, and noted that we do not have one world, but at least two, and that these two are utterly and hopelessly incompatible. Most of us agree with him, but somehow, it is disturbing to hear it said right out loud. So we pretend that the one world of our palmy, wartime marriage to the Soviet Union still exists. To be sure, every speech and act on both sides advertises our mutual hatred. We shout and scream and shake our fists. We have discarded our Cupid’s arrows for planes and bombs, and each of us watches the other with undisguised antagonism. But when Herbert Hoover calmly suggests a& clean-cut divorce, our leading spokesmen shudder and sputter in alarm. They insist that we must keep up the pretence of this mock-marriage at any cost, and that we must preserve the fictional One World United Nations no matter how futile it is. If Russia blocks all constructive action by vote, or walks out whenever she is outvoted, then we
A3724 must dicker and compromise, wheedle and bribe, and otherwise beg her to rejoin a family in which she does not belong. If children acted like this, we would think they were idiots. If the neighborhood bully persisted in heaving insults and rocks at the other kids, and stalked out of the yard when they demanded he quit, would we expect the kids to plead with him to please come back and play some more? We would not. But isn’t that exactly what we keep on doing with Russia? What solitary shred of evidence is there that the Soviet Communists will discard their inhuman slave system, or desist from trying to impose it upon the rest of the world by deceit, infiltration and force? What solitary shred of evidence is there that they will ever have the slightest regard for liberty, de- cency, or human dignity? What solitary shred of evidence is there that they would keep a@ promise, even if we could persuade them to make a new one? And if there is no evidence of these things, then what sense is there in more debates, or negotiations or treaties between us and them? Since VE-day, Russia has gained control over 4,197,340 human beings. As Jan Ciecha~ nowski, former Polish Ambassador, says: “Surely there is no chance of any participa- tion by the United States and its allies in the organization of the Sovietized portion of the globe. * * * Why then should the United States and its allies continue to in- vite and urge totalitarian Communist Rus- sia to participate in organizing what still remains of a free and democratic world merely for the sake of keeping up the pre- tence of a one-world UN?” Our diplomats are imprisoned, our citizens are convicted of phony crimes, our property is confiscated, our unarmed fliers are shot down in neutral territory, and a once-proud America is reduced to sending futile notes of protest, knowing in advance that they will only be ridiculed and ignored. Herbert Hoover is right. We must face the obvious realities of the world as it is. To all those who frantically shout: “It will mean. war,” I can only ask: “Can an impotent UN guarantee peace?” Besides, it is already war, and people have died and are dying in it. To those who crave peace at any price, I can only say: “The issue is far greater than peace or war, the issue is liberty or slavery, human decency or human degradation.” I have three Uttle girls, 9,-7, and 6 years old. A war with atom bombs, which might obliterate the lives of these three innocent, beloved children, is so ghastly as to be un- thinkable to me, And yet, even this is preferable to seeing them become the living slaves of anything so beastly and godless as Soviet communism, I love life, but I would rather die fighting for the things in which I believe, than to trade them for peace without Mberty or justice. I love America, and all it has been and still hopes to be, but I would rather see America wiped out in a noble and honest de- fense of its ideals, than to see it grovel and sell its soul for mere existence. The lights of hope are going out all over the world. China and half of Europe are APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD already lost. Next on the Soviet schedule are Germany, Indochina, Burma, Formosa, Japan, India, the Philippines. Does anybody know what we intend to do—or when—or how? And isn’t it about time we did know? Or will we just go on shouting peace, when there is no peace, and playing the game of United Nations, where there are only dis- united nations? Flood Control, Irrigation, and Power Projects in Oklahoma EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ELMER THOMAS OF OKLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma, Mr. Pres~ ident, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a statement relating to flood control, ir- rigation, and power projects in the State of Oklahoma. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Statement relating to the present status of flood control, power, irrigation, domestic and industrial water-supply projects located tn the State of Oklahoma Project County Purpose Status Cost Delaware and Ottawa... -| Hydroelectric power and flood control.| Completed and in operation... $22, 0100, 000 Now being surveyed........ 137, 100, 000 Practically completed... 49, 900, 000 Now being surveyod.... a -| 78 percent completed_... -- 24, 250, 000 Now being surveyed.....-.... - 4% Survey practically comploted.. e--} © 130,000, 000 Completed and in operation......-...-| 61, 595, 000 9, Oologah........--- Plast ecrtrat ew. 2 nee | weeeeee -- Now under construction. ...---.----+- 38, 760, 000 10, Keystone. - EL st ee lt Te Ot a lors ¢ Now being surveyed.....-.... _- 89, 500, 000 and industrial waicr supplics, 11, Hulab.. -| Osage... Flood control 12, 221, 000 12, Heyburn -| Creek... do 2, 830, 000 18, Wister... -| LeFlore. do. 11, 055, 000 4. nO @) veyed. WO ramenaen we nwaceenee wnavnneenee ae WO. ennenennnnncnennnnnnee anegne.| Survey being completed.......--.....- 121,300, 000 oa eee do... awewea-.| Authorized—survey incomplete... 2) a WO. ee enn nnn nen een n een e wae} COMPICLOU. 2... nee nen nner enenewe mene 4, 842, 000 Flood control and irrigation... ...| Survey being completed. --| 418,540,000 Flood control......-----e0s-nen-neenne Completed....-...-..... a 7, 835, 600 Flood control, irrigation, and domes- |...... Oo nen e nnn een ene nene mene mm 10, 640, 000 tie water supply. Flood control and irrigation........-..] Smever rreettedly completed... () Irrigation, flood control, and water | Bc. vsttey ud. owe eee - - @) supplies, Trrigation. ..---n------n-+---neenennee [onee = 0. @) aps. flood control, water sup: | Completed. ~ 18, 205, 000 es. 25, Mangum... -ennnennnnnenncncenenne Greor.. 1.0 -enenennnonneencennceneeene-| Flood control and irrigation... w---| Being surveyed a 3. Englewood... Harper and Beaver... Trrigation and flood control, = |anene oemeneverns . ¢ + FOSS. new e wenn ane namennnewenensnnne| CUSLOD. 0. nnnennnenneennnnmnnemnennn [onan One ener een cen neem eneeennnnnn [peers On ~ — a 28, Union Olty nn nnnnmennenncenmnnnnn Grady and Canadian. Flood control, irrigation, and water |----- 0. nena niente nenenenaenaenaneen Q supplies, 29, Bradens Bond .........--ueenneoun o~| Sequoyah...-nnnnecnan wanennewnne Provact river bank. .......----sess2---| Money being appropriated........-... 1, 421, 000 an Poe Onnav enn nnnnnnnennenanserennmeyenn [o5en WO nanan snare enanenaquannenwaneennn 252, 400 Flood Control... nne-aeeanevnenenoee.| Construction authorized and appro- priation made to start work; Oulshowie Giiyec aa "tu 000 ahoma City 2 (HM), ( . Band Springs levee.......--..eceae= Work completed. 6, (100), 000 i. yeaks anaennennene: wegunannnes Project completed, ty he y- wanna en enemennan ee eeanennnen fenwnn - Being surveyed... 3 a, OF ergk ae aeneennennnes Ready for constructio ’ #6. Kingfst ae ssrorsesresonen| King fs C ae ween wneenwawe|annen! Project being surveyed... a . — aenewueen aces wane racwnn peepee cqneennaenmans jeanne! wuneemannewecaneggeus [ennne Oa menam estes erent tees — 88, Little River... ssnnwneeuenewene= Cleveland, Seminole, Hughes.-.-...--|---.. AO. anennneeennnnen eee nnanene ori 2.| Project under consideration _.......... (o ' Estimated, 8 Not yet determined, 3 No money appropriated.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD To complete the program for flood con- trol, hydroelectric, irrigation, domestic and industrial water-supply projects will cost a total of some $500,000,000. To date the Congress has appropriated and expended over $225,000,000 toward the construction of the several projects as item- ized above. To finish the program it will require addi- tional epnreprintions in the sum of ap- prexime¢e*cly 275,000,009. At the present rate of construction, it will require some 15 years to complete the pro- gram. Civil Rights EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article by Mr. Murray Kempton which appeared in the New York Post of May 8, 1950. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: TWUA Icnores Ricuts Barriers (By Murray Kempton) Boston, May 8—Very few major unions hold conventions these days without passing a resolution to support the President’s civil- rights program. The CLO Textile Workers passed one here last week, but before they were finished it had become an action that was a little more than routine. No other union of substance has to be quite so concerned with the mores of the South as the textile workers must. The South is an occupied country they have to conquer. It has 625,000 nonunionized tex- tile hands, a figure larger than the union’s entire membership. And most of them are white. A convention committee drew up a reso- lution pledging the union’s support to a fair employment practices act, an anti- lynching law, and repeal of the poll tax. Sol Stetin, a TWUA vice president, pre- sented the resolution in a speech fully con- scious of the democratic verities. But Stetin is from Pennsylvania, and what he said was hardly unexpected. Then to protest there rose up Ed Kirkland, of Columbia, 8. C., who said that the CIO’s stand on Negro rights was its major handicap in the South. So far as he and his local were concerned, he declared, even if an FEPC law were passed, “where I come from, we would probably defy the law.” When Kirkland was finished, there was a slightly embarrassed silence as TWUA Presi- dent Emil Rieve recognized “Delegate No. 2.” Delegate No. 2 was as southern as Kirkland, He was C, L. Ross, of Rome, Ga., and his speech was very short. Ross admitted that civil rights were a controversial issue in his part of the country and that some south- erners might defy any law that was passed to assure them. “But the things that bring that about,” sald Ross, “are not going to be corrected by overlooking them. There will be some type of battle from now on until we see workers all over the Nation treated the same. XCVI—App.——235 “As a member of the Textile Workers Union interested in organization, I feel that cer- tainly this body owes a vote of thanks to the colored people in the South. Every time a ballot is taken for a union or no union you can count on the colored vote before it starts. They're solid. “It would be well for all of us to recognize that those who have the least—those who need help the worst—are those who have the Tight to our first consideration.” Rieve spoke next and said that if the union had to organize the South “at the expense of humanity,” then “I don’t want that type of organization.” Then George Baldanzi, TWUA’s executive vice president and director of the CIO’s southern. drive, spoke for the resolution and the southerners came back. «Lloyd Gossett, of Atlanta—yes; Atlanta— got up to say, “Let’s practice this resolution and put it into effect.” C. M King, of Rome, Ga., rose and said: “The children, if they are not taught, would not feel any racial differences. I see white boys and Negro boys in Rome, Ga., playing football together, but we have laws and until those are broken down there is nothing. we can do about it. We must all resolve in our hearts to support this type of resolution—this type of legislation.” Howard Robinson, of Danville, Va., told how he was raised in a county where no Negroes were allowed to live. Then he went in the Army and lived with Negro troops, “And I found out that they’re good, They’re as good as I am or anyone, The only thing 1s they’ve got to have equal rights.” When he had finished, the civil-rights resolution was adopted without dissent. That was Rome, Ga., and Atlanta and Dan- ville talking. The next time anyone argues that any part of the country isn’t just a little better because there’s a union there just tell him that story. International Affairs Platform of the American Veterans Committee EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the ConcressionaL Rec- orp the international affairs platform of the American Veterans Committee. I call attention particularly to the section headed “Free flow of information,” which supports point No. 1 in Senate Resolution 243 calling for a Marshall plan in the field of ideas. Point 1 calls for maintenance, through the United Nations and through our own diplomacy, of a steady and steadily increasing pres- sure in behalf of world-wide freedom of information. There being no objection, the platform was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS PLATFORM PREAMBLE We of the American Veterans Committee believe in the coming victory of world democracy. A3725 We believe that world democracy can and must be established without world war. We believe that the way to resolve con- flicts is to promote economic, social, and po- litical democracy throughout the world. In holding these beliefs, we support the following basic principles: STRENGIHENING WORLD ECONOMY A continuously rising standard of living among all peoples is the best means to world democracy. It demands these actions of America: Carrying out the European recovery pro- gram in full and without reductions, pro- vided it not be used as a coercive measure to direct the political or economic character of the recipient nations. Expanding point 4 into a majer nrc---™ of technical assistance including + fY ouecl private investment in underdeveloped areas, chiefly through the United Nations. Increasing American imports by cutting tarifis and extending the reciprocal trade program. Integrating the economics of the demo- cratic nations through greater freedom of exchanges, investment, and immigration, and expanding world trade with all nations. STRENGTHENING WORLD DEMOCRACY The survival of the democratic nations de« pends upon an ever-increasing degree of co- operation. This cooperation demands of the United States: Encvuregexrext of European federation. Erco regemcrt and support of democratic forces throughout the world. STRENGTHENING WORLD SECURITY Negotiations with Russia, directly or through the United Nations, to prevent an uncontrollable armaments race are impera= tive. Nevertheless, action for adequate de- fense of the United States and other democ- racies should continue to the extent that such negotiations do not succeed. This pol- icy requires: Negotiation with Russia, directly or through the United Nations, on the basis of equality, to secure a convention outlawing the use of atomic weapons, and the creation of effective world control of atomic energy and weapons of war. The preparation and implementation of a unified strategy for the common defense of the democracies. STRENGTHENING WORLD ORGANIZATION We reaffirm our conviction that lasting peace in the world can be achieved only through the establishment of a genuine fed- eral world government, and we continue to work for the development of such a world government. However, until the establish- ment of such a world government, the United Nations Charter is the one code of international conduct that all nations must recognize. The well-being and growth of the United Nations require: Full United States support of the United Nations as the invaluable meeting ground where conflicts can be resolved without re- sort to force. Full United States support of the sub- sidiary organizations of the United Nations. The creation of a United Nations police force, Revision of the veto power, looking toward its eventual abolition. RESOLUTIONS North Atlantic Pact We endorse the North Atlantic Pact. ‘We believe it to be a necessary adjunct to the Marshall plan and to the movement for the-unification of Europe. We urge that the pact be administered democratically and that all Fascist elements, such as Franco Spain, be kept out. We deplore the inclusion of Fascist Portugal.
A3726 Atomic energy Negotiations for the international control of atomic energy have been at an impasse for 3 years. The UN majority proposal, which we have consistently supported, can~ not ge. 2 o"'tiec’ acceptance in the world as mow c 7. -".a.¢cd. We therefore call upon President Truman to create a new commis- sion with the broadest terms of reference to reexamine the American position in the light of the present deadlock. We endorse the efforts of General Romulo and the smaller nations in the UN to effect a truce in the atomic armaments race. We urge that negotiations be undertaken in the United Nations to reach an acceptable com- promise agreement. Germany The problem of Germany can be fully solved only in the ultimate integration of Germany into a peaceful Europe. The econ- omy of Germany must be exploited in the interests of the general economic develop-~ ment of Europe as a whole. Germany must remain unarmed. We disapprove of the armies of German police maintained by the Soviet Union as we would disapprove any plan for the use of Germans in the western zone as mercenaries. We further recognize the importance of giving encouragement to those democratic elements in Germany upon which the future of freedom in Germany and perhaps of the world depends. We urge Congress to make a complete and thorough investigation of the present de- nazification and decartelization in Germany and to make public all reports of such in- vestigations, and to correct any attempts to weaken the original intentions of the Pots- dam agreement in this regard. China If in fact the Communist regime is the Government of China, we urge recognition of that Government and the establishment of normal trade relations. We take this stand not because we condone the armed seizure of power by the Communists, but because we believe that in the long run our most effec- tive method of helping the truly democratic forces in China is by showing our good faith to all of its Chinese people. International resources development (the point 4 program) We endorse the concept of international resources development, through the United Nations, and we call upon the United States Government to draft plans for both a large- scale program of technological aid and public investment in the under-developed areas. Four principles must be borne in mind in preparing the program. 1. Scope: The contemplated program must be world-wide, geared to the needs of the under-developed areas, and must concern it- self with the further development of the United States. 2. Relation to the two-power blocs: The program cannot succeed if it becomes merely another instrument in the existing negative power struggle. Work undertaken in the under-developed areas, especially in Asia, must not be controlled by considerations rising out of the European cold-war alliance. The success of the program as a whole will be dependent largely upon its adoption being coincident with a conscious shift of empha-~ sis in present United States foreign policy. 8. Channeling of the program: The pro- gram cannot be planned or permitted to dc- velop through uncoordinated private initi- ative. It should be channeled through the United Nations. , ; 4, Method of financing the program: Germinal funds for carrying out the program must be public funds. Public investment will stimulate and provide the atmosphere for private investment. Such private in- vestment, however, must also not be per- mitted to create social, economic, or political conditions which run counter to the over-all cooperative plan or to the interests of the peoples concerned. The same safeguards, of course, must apply to public investment as well, Spain The concepts of justice, human dignity, and freedom are utterly rejected by Franco Spain. Franco’s government is economically, socially, politically, and morally bankrupt. The constitution of Franco Spain specifically prohibits the introduction of democratic rights and procedures in Spain. All efforts to come to terms with Franco for reasons of military advantage or private profit will be interpreted as an abandonment of western Europe and a betrayal of demo- cratic principles. We deplore the actions of Americans who advance Franco’s cause. We applaud our Government for refusing to grant public loans to Franco and for op- posing his efforts to gain admission to the specialized agencies of the United Nations, but urge that it also oppose the granting to Spain of private loans. We urge on our Gov- ernment a policy of no retreat in insisting on friendship only with a democratic Spain. Israel We believe that as a prerequisite to any permanent settlement of the outstanding differences between the State of Israel and the Arab countries of the Middle East, the United States and the United Nations should provide technical and financial assistance to the peoples of Israel and to the other countries of the Middle East. We call on the United States Government to reject the proposed plan of the United Nations Palestine conciliation commission which would cut off Jerusalem from the State of Israel as being impractical, totally unjust, and as endangering the security of the State of Israel, the only democratic has- tion in the Middle East. We recommend the preservation of the international character of the holy places in Jerusalem by placing them under the super-~ vision of the United Nations with the neces~ Sary agreement and cooperation of the State of Israel. We recognize both the urgent problem of the displaced Arab population of Palestine and also the dangerously serious problem facing the State of Israel by forcing upon it large numbers of these refugees. We there- fore recommend that the United States Gov- ernment support, as Just and reasonable, the present offer of the government of Israel to settle the refugee problem. We call on the United States Government to oppose any move intended to alter the “present boundaries of Israel. Free flow of information A free flow of information among the peo- ple of the world is requisite to the compe- tition of ideas in the market-place of thought and thus to the possibility of hu- man growth. We therefore urge the United States to use all powers at its dispcsal to facilitate the unimpeded movement of ideas expressed through the press, radio and movies, and unhampered travel and access to information of writers and journalists. Human rights We reaffirm our opposition to totalitarian- ism in any form, whether of the left or of the right. We urge United States support, consistent with the United Nations charter, of policies toward each country which will help to maintain or bring about a genuinely democratic government. We believe that the dignity, freedom, and equality of the individual are the founda- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - tions of democracy. This concept is of uni- versal application and we condemn any vio- lation of 1t whether in the form of religious or racial discrimination in this country, or political, ethnical, or class suppression in others. We support the universal declaration of human rights and accept it as a standard to judge every government’s relations toward its people. We condemn the use of forced labor and the class and religious persecution now being carried out by several eastern European governments in violation of their solemn, international obligations. We urge prompt Senate ratification of the United Nations covenant on genocide and of the proposed United Nations covenant on human rights, and we urge prompt enact- ment of effective legislation to implement these covenants and to secure to all persons under the jurisdiction of the United States the realization of the rights contained therein. Japan To achieve a democratic Japan, we advo- cate: 1. Continued vigorous implementation of the 1946 land-reform program. 2. Nationalization of the heavy industries formerly controlled by the Zaibatzu. 8. Complete support of a democratic labor policy which will embrace collective bar. gaining including the rights of all labor and government employees alike. 4. More emphasis on the functions of the allied council for Japan. 5. The maintenance of the demilitarized status of Japan. 6. The making of a peace treaty with Ja- pan which will assure a democratic political system and the perpetuation of the Japanese constitutional reununciation of war as an instrument of national policy. 7. The substitution in the occupation of civilian for military control. Colonial peoples We urge immediate political emancipa- tion of colonial peoples. UN trusteeship affords opportunity for such emancipation. We urge such trusteeships until the time when these colonial peoples choose for them- selves the manner in which they wish to govern themsclves. Adopted by fourth annual convention, Chicago, Ill., November 1949. The St. Lawrence Seaway EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a statement prepared by me relating to the proposed St. Lawrence seaway, a statement by Mr. George M. Humphrey, president of the M. A, Hanna Co., on the need of the American steel industry for new sources of iron ore, an editorial from the April 1950 issue of Great Lakes Outlook, and a list of American leaders who serve in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Asso- ciation. There being no objection, Mr. Wriy’s statement and the other material were
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Far.ure To Pass Sr. LAWRENCE SEAWAY LEGIS- LATION Is A DISGRACE, OUTRAGE, AND INSULT To AMERICA (Statement by Hon. ALEXANDER WruEy, of Wisconsin ) Mr. President, I should like to state that the failure of this Congress and of previous Congresses to ratify St. Lawrence seaway leg- islation is a national disgrace, outrage, and insult to the American people. The ability of a sinister combination of blind, selfish, obstructionist interests to sabotage this leg- islation is a shocking commentary on the congressional process. The refusal of other areas of our Nation to recognize the legiti- mate interests of the 50,000,000 people in the valley of the Great Lakes—this refusal is one of the most colossal, selfish, and unfair atti- tudes ever adopted by other sections of the Nation toward one particular geographic region. Mr. President, the Middle West has always battled for the Great Lakes waterway be- cause it knew that its economic future de- pends on the seaway. But it knew that far more important than its interests alone were the national interests involved. The Middle Western States have always been lax and apathetic in organizing for their own self-interest, while other States of the Nation—the Mississippi Valley States and other geographic units—have zealously or- ganized to secure billions of dollars of appro- priations for their area. I am not, of course, suggesting that the Middle West organize for a raid on the Treasury. I would fight against such a move with all the power at my command, but I do issue an appeal to every governor, every legislator, every trade association, every chamber of commerce, every union, every veterans’ organization, every farm group, every women’s group in the Middle West to mobilize together in a midwestern regional council to battle for the national interest and for the consistent regional interest in a project such as the St, Lawrence seaway. This waterway will not cost the American taxpayer a single red cent. It is self-liqui- dating through ship tolls and power revenue, The Northeast is starving for electricity. The Middle West is starving for expanded commercial traffic with the deep-water ports of the world. The Middle West must or- ganize, organize, organize, if we are to avoid the continued rebuffs by a disinterested Congress. All of us, Mr. President, must share the blame in this staggering defeat of the na- tional interest which is involved in the fall- ure to ratify the seaway resolution. Those of us who are proponents of the bill have not done all that we could to mobilize sentiment in the Senate and House. Those who are opponents of the bill will, I believe, receive @ verdict from history of colossal and monu- mental negligence in meeting a national need. Blame must also be shared by the execu- tive agencies of the administration. It is a bitter fact that the State Department, the Department of Commerce, the Maritime Com- mission and other agencies which bat 100 per- cent in requesting the passage of certain bills in the Congress which are in turn almost im- mediately passed invariably—that these agencies should somehow he so unsuccessful when they appeal for the seaway. I say, Mr. President, that these agencies are either not trying and are pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people, or the personnel which they have assigned to the seaway are horribly inefficient. Whichever of these al- ternatives is true, I say the time has come to correct that situation. If the adminis- tration actively believes in President Tru- man’s endorsement of the seaway, then it is up to the administration to show the goods. Moreover, I say very frankly to my own Re= publican party that while this is a nonparti- san issue, the effects of continued failure on the part of certain Republicans to recognize an. historic fact is proving of serious disad- vantage to the party’s interest. I think that my party, generally speaking, has a splendid record in promoting the waterway, but it too must share a part of the collective blame. I do not want to point an accusing finger but it is merely citing a fact when I state that the business groups of America have not united, the labor groups have not united, in promoting the seaway. Fortunately, the great farm organizations of America have a splendid record of unity and cooperation for the seaway. Now, Mr. President, I do not mention this as &@ mere academic matter. I have in my hand a brilliant statement by one of the great industrial leaders of our country, Mr. George M. Humphrey, president of the M. A. Hanna Co., on the subject of the imperative need of the American steel industry for new sources of iron ore. This statement has together with it certain maps which I wish could be reproduced in the Recorp, but even though we are unable to do so, I think that the clarion facts presented in this statement will be of tremendous interest to the Nation. I ask unanimous consent therefore that the text of Mr. Humphrey’s comments be printed in the Appendix of the ConcressionaL Recorp. I ask unanimous consent that there be printed with that statement a hard-hitting editorial published in the April 19560 issue of the Great Lakes Outlook, published by the Great Lakes Harbor Association, and edited by one of the mst ¢ eutctavdir sc no75 authori- ties in the Ur te. S$ : =, Yr. Hoy Brock of Milwaukee, and that there be appended to it a list of some of the great American leaders who serve in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Association, located in the Mayflower Build- ing, Washington 6, D. C., which is spear-head- ing the fight for the seaway. This group, composed of leaders in both political parties, bespeaks the eloquent support of the seaway among all segments of our society. The iron ore statement by Mr. Humphrey supplements the comments I made on the national defense aspects of this situation in the ConcrEssIONAL Recorp of March 16, 1950. New Sovurczs oF Iron ORE FoR THE AMERICAN STEEL INDUSTRY (Statement by George M. Humphrey, presi- dent of the M. A. Hanna Co., on iron ore reserves, benefication, new discoveries in Labrador and Venezuela, the St. Lawrence waterway, and the national defense.) About 75 percent of the blast furnace ca- pacity of the steel industry of the United States lies within the area from Buffalo and Pittsburgh on the east through Ohio and Indiana to Chicago on the west. This area is the center of the greatest manufacturing re- gion in the world, which lives on steel as its principal raw material. The principal raw material of the steel in= dustry, in turn, is fron cre—a ton of ore for every ton of steel produced. The steel in-~ dustry of this region gets more than 95 per~ cent of its iron ore from the ranges of the Lake Superior district, from which 2,500,000,- 000 tons have been mined and shipped. We have already entered the period when the steel industry serving this great manu- facturing area can no longer look solely to iron ore from the Lake Superior district for its ore supply, and thus cannot continue to fill the ever-expanding requirements for steel unless new low cost sources of iron ore can be developed. The great ranges of the Lake Superior dis- trict have already passed their prime. Their total reserves are variously estimated at from A38727 1,300,000,000 to 1,600,000,000 tons as against 2,500,000,000 tons already shirncd. Amnual shipments reached a peak c. Cai ot ¢.0 tons during the war, and average more than 74,- 000,000 tons a year from 1946 through 1949. Even these over-all figures do not tell the whole story. The backbone of the Lake Su- perior ore supply has in the past been the open-pit ore found mainly on the Mesabi range in Minnesota—ore that could be stripped and mined by power shovels. To- day the open-pit reserves of Minnesota are 584,000,000 tons, according to the records of the Minnesota department of taxation. Five hundred and eighty-seven mullion tons of open-pit ore have been shipped from the district since January 1, 1940, and shipments from open-pit mines are continuing at the rate of 50 to 60 million tons a year. New discoveries ora mrocers improvements will probably th, 1 anerease ultimate re- coveries of < a2 em over rreses esti- mates. Evewic cr oct erse re : how- ever, it is certain ‘that the open-pit reserves of the district will continue to decline. This situation is not new. It has been foreseen for years by those in the steel and ore business, and they have been engaged in seeking solutions for it along two main lines—heneficiation of lower and lower grades of iron-bearing material, and world-wide search for high-grade ore. Although the M. A, Hanna Co. and its associates have sub- stantial reserves in the Lake Superior dis- trict, we have been active for years both in research for improved beneficiation and in the search for new sources of ore. We now operate fifteen heneficiation plants employ- ing every presently known commercial proc- ess, and are constantly engaged in advanced research in our laboratories to discover new methods of beneficiation. We have also ac- tively participated in the far-flung search for new sources of iron ore. Beneficiation: Many methods of benefi- ciating lower-grade ores are now in operation. There are in the Lake Superior district large reserves of taconite, which cannot yet be commercially used in steel production. Re- search on taconite, in which we are partici- pating and which we think is vital, has been going forward for a number of years and will ultimately, we believe, be commercially pro= ductive. However, the processes required are costly and will require expensive beneficia=- tion plants, now estimated to cost from $10 to more than $20 per ton of annual produc- tive capacity. It is highly desirable that these experiments be continued; but the most optimistic estimate from informed sources now is that, in the normal course of development, production of ore from taconite Will not exceed 10,000,000 tons per year by 1960. Other estimates are considerably lower. Nothing indicates that the require- ments of the ever-expanding steel industry can possibly be met by beneficiating the taconites of the Lake Superior district. Other sources of ore: On the North Ameri- can Continent several deposits outside the Lake Superior district have been known for many years: in Newfoundland, where the lower grade Wabana ore extends out under the sea; in the Adirondacks, where about 2,500,000 tons a year are beneficiated to usable form; in northern New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which produce about one and a half million tons a year; in Alabama, where lower grade deposits cam be locally used; relatively small or lower grade deposits in Texas, Missouri, southern California, Colo- rado, and Utah; and possible showings in Mexico which so far have not been commer= elally developed. These deposits, however, all involve either physical or commercial complications which make it desirable to have some better source to fill a gap created by a decline in shipments from the Lake Superior district.
A3728 Outside North America and available for shipment to this country 1n relatively limited tonnages, there is ore from Sweden, Chile, northern Africa, and Cuba. Brazil is known to have large reserves, and there are other large reserves in even more remote locations; but commercial and transportation problems have so far prevented their development on any substantial scale. Exploration for new ore reserves is a tedi- ous and costly job, in which success comes only to a few. All the work and all the money expended over the last several years have so far developed only two new major sources of ore supply: one on this continent, in Labrador and Quebec; and the other in Venezuela. In Venezuela United States Steel Corp. has announced the discovery of new ore de- posits, where it is said that by early 1949 about half a billion tons had been proved by drilling. Bethlehem is opening a smaller de. posit not far away, and Hanna has conces- sions adjacent to those of Bethlehem dis- covered nearly 20 years ago. In Labrador and Quebec, the Hollinger in- terests of Canada and Hanna had by the end of 1949 proved, by drilling, reserves of over 350,000,000 tons of open-pit ore, 10 per- cent higher in grade than standard ores now being shipped from the Mesabi. Only a small fraction of the area has yet been ex- plored. Recently a group of midwestern steel companies, including Armco, National, Republic, Wheeling, and Youngstown Sheet & Tube, have joined in further exploring this region and preparing for commercial produc- tion. An initial production of 10,000,000 tons per year is planned. Both the Labrador and the Venezuelan ores are adequate in quantity and quality to serve as substantial supplementary sources to the steel industry of this country as shipments from the Lake Superior district decline. The main problem for both of them is transporta- tion to the mills where steel is now made. TRANSPORTATION It is 2,206 statute miles from Trinidad to Baltimore, and 2,229 miles from Trinidad to Philadelphia. It is clear that Venezuelan ore will be cheaper at seaboard ports than if delivered by rail to inland steel plants. United States Steel Corp. has recently an- nounced the acquisition of a site for a steel plant on the Delaware River near Trenton. Seven Islands, the St. Lawrence port for Labrador ore, is not as far as Trinidad is from. these coastal ports, being 1,550 statute miles from Baltimore and 1,366 miles from Philadelphia. In the other direction, how- ever, via the St. Lawrence and the Great Lake, Labrador ore is only a little farther than Lake Superior ore, in terms of water transportation distance, from the steel mills of the central region running west from Pittsburgh and Buffalo. The map indicates that the port of Ashtabula, Ohio, is 876 miles from Duluth and 952 miles from Seven Is~ lands. The St. Lawrence trip can be made at present through a canal system accom- modating boats of only 14-foot draft, which substantially limits the tonnage of iron ore that can now move over this route. How- ever, the entire route is now available for use by the largest lake ships except for a dis- tance of about 100 miles just west of Mon- treal. If the St. Lawrence seaway at this point is completed to a channel depth of 27 feet, any of the boats of the present Great Lakes ore fleet could go to Seven Islands and return, taking any required quantity of Labrador and Quebec ore to Lake Erie ports, from which it would move to the mills of the central steel-producing area over the same loading facilities and railroads that are now handling ore from the Lake Superior district. There are two other routes by which Lab- rador ore could move to the central con- suming region. The first is from Seven Islands by ocean freighter to an Atlantic seaboard port such as Baltimore or Philadelphia, and thence in- land by rail. The water distance from Seven Islands to Baltimore is 1,550 statute mules, and to Philadelphia is 1,366 miles, as com- pared with the Seven Islands-Ashtabula dis~- tance of 952 miles. Because the sea voyage would be made at higher speeds in larger boats, the cost per ton of transporting ore from Seven Islands to Atlantic ports should not greatly differ from the cost of transpor- tation from Seven Islands to Ashtabula. From the standpoint of the blast furnaces located directly on the lakes, which had a 1948 capacity to melt 19.9 million tons of iron ore, the seaway route would deliver ore directly to their docks, whereas the ocean route would involve an additional rail haul of from 480 miles (from Baltimore to Erie, Pa.) to more than 625 miles (from Baltimore to Detroit). This same rail haul would be required for Venezuelan ore. For furnaces located in the valley district, with a 1948 capacity to melt 13.5 mullion tons, the seaway route would require a rail haul of about 70 miles (Cleveland or Ashtabula to Youngstown), whereas the rail haul from Baltimore to Youngstown 1s about 400 mules. For furnaces in the southern Ohio district, with a 1948 capacity of 3,000,000 tons of ore, the seaway route would require a rail haul of from 180 to 250 mules, as against a rail haul of 450 to 580 miles from Baltimore. To the Pittsburgh district, with a 1948 capacity of 27,000,000 tons of ore, the rail haul from Lake ports is 126 miles, and from Baltimore it is 328 miles. To eastern points, both Labrador and Venezuelan ore will move cheaply via seaboard ports. The other route is from Seven Islands to Montreal (a distance of 484 miles) by water and thence by rail to consuming centers. The rail haul required by this route is about 700 miles to Pittsburgh and is for the most part the same as that over which beneficiated ore now moves from the Adirondack district. WATIONAL DEFENSE The construction of the seaway should also be considered indispensable as a meas- ure of national sccurity and defense, to give access through protected waterways to the only substantial source of high-grade open- pit ore on the North American Continent outside of the Lake Superior district. In the past, the open-pit ore of the Lake Superior district has been the only reserve from which production could be quickly expanded to meet a national emergency. In a few years (probably not more than five and certainly less than ten) the capacity to expand this open-pit production substan~ tially in an emergency will be greatly cur~ tailed. Production of the Lake Superior ranges was Just over 64,000,000 tons in 1940, of which about 19,000,000 were from underground mines, and about 45,000,000 from open-pit mines, most of it from the Mesabi Range. In 2 years, under the stress of war demand, the total production of the Lake Superior dis- trict was raised from 64 to 93 million tons. Ninety percent of this increase, as a matter of necessity, was from open-pit production. Underground mines cannot be quickly ex- panded; in the peak war year of 1942 they bettered their top peacetime volume by only 3,000,000 tons, Taconite production, like underground mining, cannot be relied upon to provide the necessary expansion in an emergency even after a successful standardized process has been worked out, because of the tremendous plants and facilities which it requires. To add 20,000,000 tons of capacity would take 2 or 3 years, during which plants would have to be built at a cost of from 200 to 400 mil- lion dollars, with all that this implies in consumption of critical materials and man- power during the emergency. Moreover, be- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cause three tons of taconite would have to be mined and beneficiated to produce one ton of ore concentrate, actual production re- quires several times as much manpower as the equivalent open-pit tonnage. The nearest available deposits in Chile, Venezuela, and Brazil are far away and in- volve political and transportation problems which may make them again unrehable in time of war, as they quickly proved to be in the last war. Fortunately, the large reserves now proven in Labrador and Quekec are minable by open- pit methods, so that the presently planned production of 10,000,000 tons per year could quickly be doubled or tripled in an emer- gency by adding more trucks, shovels, and transportation facilities. However, without the St. Lawrence seaway, most of this ore would have to move by sea more than 1,350 miles through the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Ocean to east-coast ports. With the seaway, all of it could move from Seven Islands westward to Great Lakes ports through what are designated by the military authorities as protected inland waterways. The comparative cost and burden on the national economy of expanding these two routes in time of war involve a number of factors, some of which are easily evaluated and some of which only the military estab- lishment can appraise. In peacetime, the transportation of 10,000,- 000 tons of ore per year from Seven Islands to Baltimore or Philadelphia would require from 10 to 12 oceangoing ore ships of 33,000 tons capacity each. This fleet would have to pe doubled or tripled to accommodate a cor- responding increase in ore production for an emergency and might have to be still further expanded to allow for convoying and sink- ings. The military authorities can best de- termine the degree of needed expansion and the expense and difficulty of protecting the traffic under wartime conditions. The added ships to carry larger war- emergency production, and to allow for con- voying and attrition, would have to be con- structed under wartime conditions, again at the expense of other needs for critical ma- terials, manpower, and seacoast shipyards. On the other hand, if the seaway were then available for use, the present Great Lakes ore fleet, which has carried over 90,000,000 tons of ore in a single season of lake naviga- tion, would be available for carrying Labrador as well as Lake Superior ore. Moreover, ship- puilding facilities of the Great Lakes would pe available to supplement the ore fleet. Protection from submarine attack, if required at all, would be Umited to a short distance west of Seven Islands, and casualties, if any, would be relatively far less important. The seaway is obviously the only satis- factory way of assuring in peacetime the major part of our needed wartime expansi- bility of ore production with the least bur- den on the wartime economy. The United States share of the cost to complete the navigation facilities for a 27-foot channel is estimated at less than 8400,000,000. The seaway will be of major use in peacetime, and with it in existence, expansion of Lab- rador ore production involves relatively Mt- tle effort and cost in time of war. To se- cure equivalent expansibility with taconite means either the construction of stand-by plants costing from $200,000,000 to 8400,000,~ 000 which would lie idle except in wartime, or, in the alternative, their construction under wartime conditions with an immense burden to an already overstrained economy. Reliance on ocean transport of Labrador ore would be just as inefficient; it means either a stand-by ocean-going ore fleet almost as expensive as the taconite plants, or the con- struction of such a fleet under wartime short- ages of men, materials, and shipyards, plus in either case a tremendously increased war- time burden on the railroads to transport the ore from seacost ports to steel mills in the Great Lakes basin.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD LETTER TO SENATOR WILEY On February 19, 1949, Mr. Forrestal, then Secretary of Defense, in his published letter to Senator Winry, referred to the advan- tages of access through the seaway to Lab- rador iron ore, which, he said, “may soon be a vital source of iron ore to the Lakes steel industry to supplement or replace in part the ore now being supplied from the rapidly @owic*-1r ssurces in the Lake Supe- rior distiivs.” "slau time is now here. As President Truman said in his budget message on January 9, 1950: “I repeat most emphatically my previous recommendations for approval of the St. Lawrence waterway and power project. Au- thorization of the seaway, with its related power facilities, is a matter of urgency for our peacetime industry and our national security. In particular, each succeeding year reduces further our domestic reserves of iron ore and increases correspondingly the importance of the seaway as a means of economical access to the proven ore de- posits in Quebec and Labrador.” [From the Great Lakes Outlook of April 1950] THE Coto Harp Facts Important and possibly revolutionary changes are confronting the steel industry. The facts are that without the St. Lawrence seaway cost of iron ore will be much higher in the Middle West than on the east coast, and, therefore, there will be strong tendency for steel n~-duct'e facilities to move to the coast. ‘1° eu. . effect of this will be to put the Middle West through the same kind of economic squeeze as suffered by New Eng- land when the textile mills moved South. This can be prevented by the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and the improve- ment of Great Lakes harbors for deep-draft navigation. Why have we not made more progress on getting national approval of the St. Lawrence seaway project? Every time an impartial congressional committee has held henrines on this subject, in 1933, 1941, 1916. and 1947, it has been approved overwhelmingly on its merits. But as soon as the legislation gets to the floor of either Senate or the House all kinds of discredited arguments are made against it; and even thouch opponents know better, they are .vrced to vote against the measure because of “home” pressures. These pressures are strongest in the East and South, but they are also prevent ir the Middle West and the Plain and Muountuin States of the ‘West. A persuasive case for the seaway has been made effectively in Washington. We have failed to withdraw the opposition, or to counteract it. The principal opposition to the St. Law- rence seaway and power project comes from the eastern railroads and electric utilities. Starting with this handful of business enter- prises, the opposition spreads through affili- ated interests in banking, insurance, sup-~ pliers, holding companies, and trade associa- tions to all parts of the country. The result is that whenever the St. Law- rence matter comes before Congress, railroad presidents and workers, coal operators and miners from every district of the country swarm the halls of Congress, buttonholing their Congressmen and Senators. Bankers and chambers of commerce executives from Seattle to Houston, from Los Angeles to Bal- timore, write, wire, phone their Congressmen pleading against the project. As against the Nation-wide organization and personnel and resources of a powerful seaway opposition, the movement for the. seaway has been powered almost by a one- cylinder engine with small resources of money and manpower. We have made good use of those limited resources. The seaway has been twice successfully steered through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The project has been kept before the public. The seaway has earned the support of many farm and labor organizations, and they have been kept interested, but the seaway move- ment has lacked sufficient resources to pub- lish literature, to send speakers into the hinterland, and to make new converts. The seaway project must succeed on its next congressional drive. The southern Democrats, who control the committees of Congress, will take every measure to pre- vent congressional action in this closing ses= sion of the Highty-first Congress. Our sights must be set on 1951-52. The plans must be drawn now for final victory in the Eighty- second Congress. No effort must be spared to build up public opinion in the crucial States which will decide the destiny of the project. Public opinion throughout the United States and Canada is overwhelmingly in favor of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. President Truman and high leaders of both political parties have repeatedly urccet “he mvoject upon Congress. Insofar as -: 'e er ais concerned, his vigorous en-~ dorsement of the seaway project is being sabotaged by members of his own party The vast ground swell of American public opin- jon for the seaway is being thwarted by a small but well-financed opposition. The friends of the seaway must marshal their vast resources in the way of public opinion, press support, and legislative leadership to a degree sufficient to swamp the opposition. Public opinion inevitably prevails in a democracy. It has many times been said that the St. Lawrence seaway project is an inevitable fact of geovraphy. Even the enemies of the proj- ect are beginning to concede its inevitability. The Workboat magazine, mouthpiece for the inland waterway interests of the Mississippi Valley recently warned its readers that, “the St. Lawrence * * * ultimately will be carried through; it will be just too hard to kill in the long run.” The Workhboat ad- vised its readers to plan quietly and thor- oughly as to what may be done after the sea- way down the St. Lawrence is finally ap- proved and in operation; the thought may not be pleasant, but some timely planning at the present may more than make up for that ultimate defeat. We are glad to have the assurance of the Workboat that the seaway must inevitably be built. As to the Workboat’s thought that this happy event may have urnvieasant con- sequences for the Mississippi Va'lev, we hasten to reassure the Workboat’s editor and the entire Mississippi Valley that the St. Lawrence seaway can have nothing but the most pleasant and beneficial consequences for the Great Lakes region, the Mississippi Valley, and all of the United States and Canada. Great Lakes-Sr. LAWRENCE ASSOCIATION, MAY- FLOWER OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C. Executive committee: Lewis G. Castle, chairman; Julius H. Barnes; F. Hugh Burns; Walter Olen; N. R. Danielian. Committee on the treasury: Walter Olen, chairman; Henry Laliberte; Foster Winter. Directors: Julius H. Barnes, chairman of the board, Klearflax Linen Looms, Inc., Du- luth, Minn.; Harry Brockel, director, Port of Milwaukee Commission, Milwaukee, Wis.) F. Hugh Burns, director, Northern Federation of Chambers of Commerce, Ogdensburg, N. Y.; Harry Bullard, president, Northern Fed- eration of Chambers of Commerce, Potsdam, N. Y.; Lewis G. Castle, president, Northern Minnesota National Bank, Duluth, Minn.; W, C. Cowling, director, Port of Detroit Author- ity, Detroit, Mich.; John Cowles, publisher, Look Magazine, Minneapolis, Minn. N. R. Danielian, executive vice president, Wash- ington, D. C.; Harlan Hatcher, vice president, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; Dan- A3729 iel Hoan, attorney at law, Milwaukee, Wis.; Henry Laliberte, president, Cutler-Magner Co., Duluth, Minn.; Julius Meltzer, Spring~ field, Mass.; Tom Moore, president, Coca-Cola Co., Minneapolis, Minn.; Walter Olen, presi- dent, the Four Wheel Drive Auto Co., Clin- tonville, Wis.; O. S. Warden, publisher, Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls, Mont.; William L. White, author eid wvticiew, Emporia Ga- zette, Emporia, K.. * ics .° Winter, treas- urer, J. L. Hudson Co., Detroit, Mich. Apprentices in Government Service to Veterans EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, on May 4 I submitted minority views on S. 3050, now on the calendar of the Sen- ate. In thal connection I made it clear that the bill would drastically interfere with and seriously hamper the Govern- ment apprentice programs. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp a letter dated May 3 which I have received from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics expressing disapproval of S. 3050. I should like also to have printed the names of the distinguished members of this committee. There being no objection, the letter and names were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: NatIoNaL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS, Washington, D. C., May 3, 1950. Senator Husrert H. HUMPHREY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear SENATOR HumpHrey: H. R. 7185, to limit the appointment of apprentices in the Government service to veterans, has just passed the House, and an identical bill, S. 8050, has been favorably reported in the Senate. If enacted in its present form, this bill would immediately impede and, in a few years, terminate our apprentice-training pro- grams that are essential to the staffing of the fine trades and crafts in our scientific re- search laboratories. There would be no com-~ pensating advantage to veterans as a class, nor to the public service generally. This is because: Apprentices are usually hired be- tween the ages of 18 and 22; the average age of veterans is now about 32 years, with only about 4 percent under 23; there is no new supply of young veterans coming along; and older veterans cannot be expected to make good apprentices, nor to accept the low start- ing pay of an apprentice. It is strongly recommended in the public interest that the bill be not approved. The Bureau of the Budget advises that its en- actment will not be in accordance with the program of the President. If nevertheless it be the wish of the Sen- ate to approve the measure, it is urged that it ‘be amended to provide that it shall have no application with respect to apprentice positions under the National Advisory Com- mittee for Aeronautics. J. F, Victory, Executive Secretary.
A3739 The names cof the members of the com- mittee are as follows: Jerome C. Hun- saker, Sc. D., chairman; Alexander Wet- more, Ph. D., vice chairman; Hon, John R. Alison; Detlev W. Bronk, Ph. D.; Karl T. Compton, Ph. D.; Edward U. Condon, Ph. D.; James H. Doolittle, Sc. D.; Ron- ald M. Hazen, B. S.; William Littlewood, M. 0.; Rear Adm. Theodore C, Loun- quest. U, S. N.; Vice Adm. John D. Price, U. S. N.; Maj. Gen, Donald L. Putt, U.S. A. F.; Arthur E. Raymond, Se. D.; Fran- cis W. Reichelderfer, Sc. D.; Hon. Delos W. Rentzel; Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, U. S. A. F.; and Theodore P, Wright, Se. D. Address of the President at Sandpoint, Idaho EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. COMPTON I. WHITE OF IDAHO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, it is a privilege to insert the address made by the President of the United States at Sandpoint, Idaho, on the occasion of his recent western trip: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I ap- preciate this privilege. I have just received the finest welcome I think I have had any- where in my whole career, during this trip; in Iowa, in Nebraska, in Wyoming, in Idaho, in Oregon, and in Washington. Now I want to thank you very much for this fine recep- tion. You have given me the same kind of welcome I had yesterday morning when I made a number of stops in southern Idaho. I traveled all along the Snake River, and now it is grand to be up here in this rugged country around Sandpoint. I have just been watching the scenery, and I never saw any- thing more beautiful in my life, and my whole staff feels the same way. I am sorry it will be dark when this train goes through Cabinet Gorge. I would certainly like to see that. I have been reading about it all my life. I have celebrated two birthdays on this trip across the country. My own—for 66 years—was last Monday. Today is the fifteenth birthday of the Rural Electrifica- tion Administration. I helped to celebrate that by dedicating Grand Coulee Dam—a wonderful project which is already supply- ing tremendous quantities of cheap elec- tricity to thousands of users. Here at Sandpoint you have the head-~ quarters of the first REA-financed coopera~ tive in the Rocky Mountain region. This was the second cooperative west of the Mississippi, and it is nearly as old as the REA itself. I hardly need tell you what benefits cheap electricity means to a region. In addition to making life easier in homes and farms, it brings new industries and lets old ones expand. One of the industries in this part of the country that needs a great deal more power is phosphate mining. There are tremendous phosphate resources down south of here in Idaho and Montana. Farmers all through the West and Middle West need lots more phosphates. The power that can be brought into this region through great Federal proj- ects like Grand Coulee and Hungry Horse should make it possible to develop a big phosphate industry. I have been greatly impressed on this trip by what I have seen and heard about the wealth of mineral resources in Idaho, Mon- tana, and Washington. These minerals aren’t important just to you people, they are important to the national economy as a whole, and to the whole world. There was a time when big-time operators stalked through the Northwest, exploiting the cream of our mineral resources. They were men who exploited for their own profit, without thinking of the generations to come after them. I have always maintained, and I always will fight for the policy that natural resources must be used so as not to destroy their value, and they should be used for the benefit of the Nation as a whole and not for any special individual. In order to supplement our resources of critical minerals, we must take vigorous steps to add to our supply. The stockpiling pro- gram is designed to meet our national de- fense needs. Other measures are equally necessary. We must expand research to make better use of submarginal mineral de- posits. We must search for new deposits of minerals. We must avoid waste in the mining, production, and use of minerals. We must find ways to use substitutes for critical minerals. I have been greatly encouraged by the development of the cobalt-copper deposits here in the forest areas of Idaho. We have not had nearly enough cobalt production in this country. You know, we get most of it from Africa—most of the cobalt comes from Africa, and I would like very much to see some prospector find enough ore for use here at home. It is important to national defense for us to speed up the development of new sources of cobalt in the district just north of here. When we get more power into this area, and when we begin to develop the mineral resources here in the Pacific Northwest as they should be, there will be a tremendous industrial expansion. When we get low cost power in greater quantities into this area, it will aid the metal mining industry through the establishment of lead and zinc smelting plants. You know, there was a time when Mis- souri was the greatest producer of lead and zinc. That is not true any longer, because those mines are exhausted. The mines in Oklahoma are almost exhausted, so it is up to you to see that we have plenty of lead and zinc. It will be carried out in coopera- tion with the producers throughout Idaho, northeastern Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska. This will mean new prosperity and new wealth for all of you. It will mean @ more prosperous and a stronger nation. We need both prosperity and strength if we are going to keep our position of leadership in the world, so that we can work for world peace. You know, there are people in the world who do not appreciate our viewpoint, they don’t understand how we can live as a great country and still let the individual be his own boss. They don’t understand that our democracy is one which comes from the peo- ple up and not from the top down. What I am trying to do is to keep our economic situation in such a condition that we can remain strong enough to show those people that our plan is much better than any other plan in the world. We are for the welfare of the people of the whole world. We have no desire to exploit anybody. Wewanttohelp people. We want to make the world a better place to live in. We want to give everybody an opportunity to live as a man, and to live with his neigh- bors amicably. And that will make for peace ih the world. That’s all I am working for. h I appreciate very much your coming out ere. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The President Visits Montana EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. MIKE MANSFIELD OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 16, 1950 Mr. MANSFIELD. My. Speaker, I am happy to call to the attention of the House, editorials on President Truman’s visit to Montana carried in the Montana Standard, of Butte, the Great Falls Trib- une, of Great Falls, the Daily Missou- lian, of Missoula; and an article by Joe Harsch in the Christian Science Monitor. It is a source of personal pleasure and pride to me that Montana extended such a spontaneous and wholehearted wel- come to our President. The man of the people reported on the state of the Union to his constituents—and they liked it. [From the Montana Standard, Butte, Mont., of May 12, 1950] As Butts WELCOMES PRESIDENT Harry S. TRUMAN The friendly and hospitable people of Butte will turn out today to welcome their President. Perhaps remembering the most generous reception the people of the mining city accorded President Harry S. Truman on his last visit here in June 1948, the Nation’s chief executive again chose Butte as one of his major stops on a tour of 16 States along the northern tier of the Nation. The present tour of the President has many striking resemblances to the one just short of 2 years ago when he launched the spectacular drive which won him the Presidency in his own right. So there is no doubt that the people of Butte are linked in happy associations in the presidential memory. Mr. Truman had come to Butte previously as a candidate for the vice presidency on the Franklin D, Roosevelt ticket. One of Mr. Truman's notable char- acteristics Is that he remembers his friends. Local committees, under the cochairman- ship of Lt. Gov. A. Cannon and William A. Curran, have prepared a sparkling reception for the Nation’s chief executive in kceping with western hospitality and friendliness. Led by Gov. John W. Bonner, dignitaries from the far reaches of the Treasure Etate will be in Butte to take part in welcoming the Presi- dent, Mrs. Truman, their daughter, Margaret, and other members of the presidential party. Most of Butte will knock off for a time at midday to take part in welcoming Presi- dent Truman. When the President steps to the platform erected in front of the Northern Pacific depot to make one of nine major ad- dresses scheduled on his 6,500-mile tour, he will look out on a colorful and friendly crowd. The Butte High band, which drow from him words of high praise 2 years ago, will sound off with the famillar Hail to the Chief. As President Truman leaves, he will bear away numerous gifts and mementos which have special significance relative to this mountainous and mining region. The presidential visit will stand as another memorable day in the long and colorful his- tory of the mining city. [From the Great Falls (Mont.) Tribune of May 12, 1950] MONTANA WELCOMES PRESIDENT TRUMAN Montana today bids proud and enthusl- astic welcome to President Harry S. Truman, In his trip across the country the President has been talking to the people about gov- ernmental relations with which we are most vitally concerned. He has been talking di- rectly and quite informally to the people
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and that is the way this western region likes to talk. Here in Montana we are naturally con- cerned about the farmer and about the con- tinuing stability of farm markets. We are concerned also about the wage and salaried workers in our cities and towns; in the mines and processing plants and in our other en- terprises President Truman has demon-~ strated his concern about these things and his determination to put into operation Government programs to protect both the farmer and the consumer. Some critics have been crying it can’t be done. Eut President Truman believes there is a way to combine farm production and market stability with a fair deal for the Wwage-earning consumer. He believes such @ plan should be made a part of the national farm program. The Tribune heartily en- dorses the President’s conviction that this can be done. President Truman has shown himself to be @ sincere and understanding friend of both reclamation and conservation, and of that Montana and other Western States are right- ly appreciative. Just before he started on his cross-country tour the President gave Congress a plan to stimulate small and independent business and asked for its passage at this session. At Cheyenne Mr. Truman talked about this pro- gram. His recommendations rest on three simple principles—that the small-business man needs long-term credit, he needs ven- ture capital, and he needs technical assist- ance. The President believes that “if we are to have an expanding economy small business must provide its share of additional jobs needed’-——and that proper government meas- ures can assist. The Tribune says “Amen” to that. The President takes no stock in the belief of some that a boom-and-bust pattern is inevitable in American economy. And he has been proving that it is not. He deserves a large measure of credit for that, as he would get a large measure of blame if the reverse were true. Montanans, along with the millions of other Americans, are concerned about national se- curity and world peace and about the Com- munist menace to free nations and free peo- ples. We are cheered by the President’s ex~ pressed conviction that elsewhere in the world the goals of stability and peace are “clearly within reach.” We are quite willing to accept the Presi- dent’s further admonition that there is no quick or easy way to end the present world difficulties. The way to win, Mr. Truman says, is for the world’s free nations to “‘clearly demonstrate the superiority of freedom over the iron hand of tyranny.” President Truman has refused to be stam- peded or discouraged. He comes to Montana with a report that is both encouraging and inspiring. The Tribune is proud and happy to be numbered among the ardent supporters of President Harry S. Truman and to bid him welcome to the Treasure State. [From the Daily Missoulian, Missoula, Mont., of May 12, 1950] ‘WELCOME, Mr. PRESIDENT Western Montanans, regardless of political affiliations, welcome President Truman and his entourage and regret that their visit here this morning cannot be more extended. We have high respect for the Office of Chief Executive and admiration for the grim de- termination with which Mr. Truman fought his way to election in 1948 in a campaign in which the prophets didn’t give him a chance. As the President makes his way across Montana he will find typical Treasure State welcomes at every stop. It is Missoula’s rare privilege to be host to the President this morning. Welcome, Mr, President, and come again. [From the Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Mass., of May 15, 1950] STATE oF THE NaTIon HARRY TRUMAN, TOWN BOOSTER (By Joseph C. Harsch) Cricaco.—Speaking of President Roose- velt, Republicans used to say: “You can’t shoot Santa Claus.” Today it should be rephrased to read: “Nobody boos the town booster.” That is, I think, the most accurate way to describe the Harry S. Truman who has joined forces here in Chicago with the big and little leaders of his party for the openly political climax of his cross-country tour. Victor A. Johnston, official Republican ob- server of this tour, has labeled it a “traveling medicine show.” Mr. Truman himself invariably has called it a “report to the people.” Those designations best suit the views of the individuals making them. But they equally miss, or obscure, what actually has happened. Mr. Truman started the trip preaching “growth, expansion, and progress.” In varying forms he has preached it all the way across the country and back here to Chicago. He has made himself the town booster of every town in the country and of the whole country put together. And there hasn’t been a boo in the whole trip—with one exception, to his advantage. That was in Madison, Wis., where a dozen shabby and obviously very left-wing pickets paraded in front of the university field house, where he was speaking, with placards objecting to Mr. Truman’s foreign policies. It has been an exercise in town boosting from cold-war victory without war and end- less prosperity without loss of freedom to protection of pitchfork handles from grass- hoppers. It has been one of the smoothest dress rehearsals of all political time. The train has been on time at every stop. A smooth- working presidential staff, which makes it a business to know the interests of every community before it is reached, has a speech ready and keyed to local interest. As the train rolls on the mimeograph machines do, too, and within an hour every correspondent has a true copy of what the President had said, including the extemporaneous remarks, Even the weather seemed to be under the town-boosters’ control, for drought turned into rain and winter into spring in the path of his progress. The Truman manner is easy and natural. At Spokane a prize-winning 4-H sheep wait- ing to be beribboned by the President made loud disapproving noises. “That must be a Republican sheep,” said Mr. Truman, and everyone laughed. Harry Truman is the genial town booster. He is Rotary, Kiwanis, and Lions Club rolled into one. He preaches progress like a man who believes. He preaches it in the vernacu- lar. “That’s a mighty pretty pig you raised.” And when he says reservoir it comes out “reservoy.”’* He doesn’t high-hat anyone. He doesn’t show annoyance, if he ever feels it, but he can be firm. At Great Falls, Mont., the train pulled a car’s length beyond the pand and reception committee. It was or- dered back and went back. How does one campaign against the town booster? America believes in growth, expansion, and progress. America is made up of Rotarians, Kiwanians, and Lions—of people who make @ religion of preaching a better and safer and more prosperous tomorrow and of going out and trying to do something about it. Mr. Truman has tuned himself to the gospel A3731 of every chamber of commerce in the coun- try. You can’t be against what he is for without being against the chamber of com- merce and the American dream of wider horizons and happier people. You can call it pie in the sky and a traveling medicine show, but you can’t be against it. And it would be hard to preach it with more con- viction or confidence than does Mr. Truman, At Pasco, Wash., Vic Johnston watched the crowd watching Harry Truman. “Nobody hates him,” he observed. That’s about it. The Argument About Socialism EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “The Argument about Social- ism,” written by Walter Leckrone, which appeared in the Indianapolis Times on May 14, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE ARGUMENT ABour SOCIALISM (By Walter Leckrone) Perhaps without meaning to, President Truman last week got right at the root of the argument about socialism. The President recalled that away back in 1887 somebody proposed that the Federal Government give each State $5,000 with which to set up an agricultural experiment station. One Kansas Senator who opposed the idea, charged that it was interference with local government and would lead to de- struction of individual freedom. The bill passed anyway, the State got the money and many of them did set up their experiment stations, and nobody lost their freedom because of it, the President said. And that, he went on, is just the same argu- ment he gets today, whenever he proposes any “bold progressive measures.” The oppo- sition just yells “socialism.” There are, though, some thoughtful citi- zens who believe today that the Kansas Sen- ator was more right than he even realized himself back there in 1887. Anyway the President did point up rather graphically the fact that only sixty-odd years ago it was considered a pretty radical move for the Federal Government to give a State even a little bit of cash for any purpose. Few would pay any attention to a $5,000 hand-out today, of course. Now it hardly rates a headline unless the hand-out runs into the billions. From giving a little money to each of the States the Federal Govern~ ment today has taken to handing it out not only to States, but to cities and villages and even millions upon millions of individuals. SMALL START From that little $5,000 start for an ex- perimental farm in 1887 the Federal Gov- ernment has gone on to giving money for highways, schools, healta services, poor re- lief, house building, retirement pensions, oid- age assistance, airports, to start new busi- nesses, to expand old businesses or to bail out failing businesses, and to pay for potatoes and butter and other crops that nobody
A3T732 wants to buy, so the prices won’t come down, and Mr. Truman wants to give more. The point 1s it didn’t all begin at once. It started with just a little hand-out, as little as $5,000 to a State, for a purpose that seemed worthy. Soon there was another purpose that also seemed worthy, and another, and a lot of others. So many that at length Con- gress barely raised an eyebrow at $25,000,000 to finance a venture as wild as Lustron Homes, or to put a new automobile on the market or to pay a crowd to attend a pouitical speech by a Cabinet member. After all, it had been done before. Once the States had their $5,000 for their experiment stations it was just a matter of amount, and not of principle any more. Of course any one who stopped to think at all knew quite well that there is no such thing as a gift or a grant from the Gov- ernment to the people. The Government has no money of its own. All it has it gets from the people as a tax on what they earn or what they have. All it could ever give them back would be part of their own money, less, of course, whatever it costs to collect and pay out that money. As President Truman says, it isn’t likely anybody lost his freedom just because each of the States got $5,000 out of the United States Treasury back in 1¥87, or at least not enough freedom that he could miss it. The States, though, pretty soon found out that thelr own freedom of action began to be limited when they received Federal funds. The Federal Government that gave cash 10 a State for relief, for instance, soon began to tell the States just how it should be spent and if the State didn’t obey the money was cut off. When a Federal bureau didn’t like a county welfare director, right here in In- dianapolis, it ordered him fired, and held up the grant of money till he had been fired. The people of Indianapolis hadn’t much to say about their county welfare director. MANAGING FARMS The farmers who get Federal hand-outs now are beginning to run into the same thing as individuals. The government that guarantees them a high price for their po- tatoes or their eggs also tells them how many potatoes they can grow, and how many hens they can have, and year by year reaches further into the managing of their farms. The government which pays a worker a retirement pension (out of his own money, of course) already tells him how much he has to be paid and how much of it he can keep for himself. Every time, indeed, that anyone—State or city or individual—has got a grant or a gift or even a loan from the Federal Gov- ernment he has got a directive, too, that tells him just what he can or cannot do, and to some degree limits his freedom. So he has by now lost quite a lot of the freedom of action he once had. Just a little at a time, of course, so gradually that already he finds it hard to understand what the Senator from Kansas was talking about back in 1887. And the more he gets the more he loses. No matter what the men in Federal Gov- ernment want to do, this is what they must do—it can’t be handled any other way. The government which guarantees a worker a pension or a doctor bill has to decide what he does with his time and money. The government that guarantees a farmer a cer- tain price for his crops has to decide how much of a crop he can grow. President Truman objects to folks calling this socialism, and we agree that it doesn’t much matter what you call it, although socialism is what they call it in England and in Russia. MORE MONEY FROM PEOPLE The issue is the same, under any name, and President Truman’s speech about the grants to the States back in 1887 has helped to make the whole thing clearer, His administration proposes to take more and more money from the people who earn it and give more and more money back to them for what the Government feels they need, imposing whatever controls over their lives this makes necessary. His opposition proposes that the people just keep their own money in the first place and spend 1t the way they want to spend it, with- out making all this Government control of their lives necessary. That, mostly, is what the election is about. Effect of Proposed Tariff Reduction on American Leather-Glove Industry EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I have in my hand a very terse and hard-hitting analysis by the National Association of Leather Glove Manufacturers located at 52 South Main Street, Gloversville, N. Y. This statement very clearly points out the grave implication of proposed tariff reduction on the American leather-glove industry. ‘ I should like to ask unanimous con- sent now to have this statement repro- duced in the Appendix of the CoNGREs- SIONAL REcoRp. This supplements my previous comments on the Senate floor pointing out the damaging impact of tariff slashes on the Wisconsin shoe in- dustry and to Wisconsin tanneries, as well as other industries. As I have pre- viously emphasized, I believe that our greatest obligations are to our own Amer- ican people, to American businesses, and to American workers. We cannot build the prosperity of the world on the basis of destroying the prosperity of our own country. We cannot create jobs abroad by closing factories here at home, be- cause in the long run, reduced purchas- ing power on the part of the American people will inevitably be reflected in de- pression abroad. We want to promote world trade and commerce, but not through the crucifixion of vital Ameri- can industries, I appeal, therefore, to those gentle- men of the State Department and of the Tariff Commission to consider very care- fully the results of actions which they may choose to take at the tariff confer- ence table. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the RECorD, aS follows: Errect oF Prorosep TaRIFF REDUCTION ON THE AMERICAN LEATHER GLOVE INDUSTRY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LeaTHER Grove Manuracrurgrs, INc., Gloversville, N. Y., May 5, 1950. This brief statement has been prepared and approved by the employers and em- ployees of the American leather-glove indus- try and civic leaders in the communities where leather-glove plants are located. It is prompted by the fact that the State De- partment has placed men’s and women’s leather dress gloves on the bargaining list for further tariff rate cuts this year. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 1. Employment: In Fulton County, New York State, one of the principal manufac- turing areas, we have at the present time almost 7,000 people unemployed out of a 9,000 working population. Of these, 1,328 have exhausted their unemployment bone- fits, which means that they have drawn the full 26 weeks of benefits permitted by law. Of this group 78 percent are directly em- ployed in the glove industry and the bal- ance are dependent upon the industry for a livelihood 2. Unemployment trend: During the past 3 years, monthly Fulton County unemploy- ment has averaged: 2,476 in 1947; 1,726 in 1948; 3,715 in 1949; and 5,615 to date in 1950. The current claims are 1n addition to the 1,328 exhaustions for the benefit year 1949-50, which will end in June. 3. Earnings: Male workers in the leather- glove industry average $1.60 per hour and female workers 92 cents per hour. This is in sharp contrast to the rates paid in Eng- land, which is one of the highest-cost leather-glove-producing areas in Hurope. There male workers are paid 33 cents an hour and female workers 20 cents an hour. In addition to this, the English Govern- ment recently negotiated an agreement with a glove manufacturer in England, giving him exclusive rights to glove production on the Isle of Malta for 10 years. No actual wage schedule exists; however, the manu- facturer estimates that it will amount to about 25 percent of the labor rates in Eng- land; or, stated in another way, male work- ers would receive approximately 9 cents an hour and female workers 5 cents per hour. It should be noted that the production of gloves on the Isle of Malta is being devel- oped primarily for the United States market. 4 Conditions of manufacture: Leather, the raw material used in making gloves, is a product of nature and varies in size, shape, texture, and weight according to the animals from which it is taken. Consequently, the cutting of gloves must be a handcraft opera- tion, the same the world over. This state- ment is made to describe briefly the opera- tions in the industry and, at the same time, to eliminate any misunderstanding that might arise when we speak of a handcraft industry. The word “handcraft” should at no time be associated with inefficiency. 5. Industrial comparison: American leather gloves are the product of a factory indus- try, which operates at a higher unit cost of production than is necessary abroad, be- cause of our higher wages, overhcad, and social benefits for the workers. American factory standards cannot be compared with foreign “factories,” which are merely raw- material depots and. collection and distribu- tion points for home work. Glovemeking has been known traditionally as a cottage industry throughout Europe. 6. Subsidy: Apparently, also, the American worker is competing with a subsidized for- eign industry. Gloves that French manu- facturers quoted at $15 per dozen in 1930 are quoted at the same price in 1950. As that is patently impossible, it seems that they must buy their raw materials with ECA credits or funds, and sacrifice the price of the finished product to earn dollars. This is obviously unfair competition with the prod- uct of American labor. It raises this ques- tion: when does a forelgn price reflect true cost, and when is it merely a merchandising price? 7. Constant tariff reductions: Since pas- sage of the Tariff Act of 1930, when rates on imported leather gloves were calculated to equalize the difference between costs of production here and abroad, United States labor costs alone have increased more than 114 percent, while our measure of tariff pro- tection was lowered in the French agreement of 1936, the United Kingdom agreement of 1939, and again at the Geneva Conference in 1947,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 8. Hidden tariff cuts: In addition to tariff- cut concessions given by the United Statés, currency devaluation abroad has already added directly to the tariff cuts this industry has suffered. Further currency devaluation, which is predicted, will only tend to aggra- vate the tariff rates already cut, without granting any further concessions this year. 9. Foreign monopoly: Consideration of any further tariff cuts will only displace more workers and, in practical application, give European producers a monopoly in the do- mestic glove market. American industry would be so hopelessly out of competition that only foreign merchandise would be salable. 10. International contribution: American leather-glove manufacturers purchase 95 per= cent of the raw skins used in the manufac- ture of leather gloves from foreign countries and make a substantial contribution to inter- national trade. A dislocation of the Ameri- can leather-glove industry will only reduce this expenditure and, if anything, widen the dollar gap. At present an average of $50,000,- 000 a year is spent in the purchase of raw skins in the backward countries, which have little other capacity to earn dollars. The transfer of the American glove-manufactur- ing industry to Europe would eliminate the dollar earning power of these areas, as their customers would be the soft currency coun- tries of Europe. 11. No export market: The American leather-glove industry is primarily prevented from exporting due to our higher costs, caused by the differential in labor rates and factory overhead in this country, versus the lower labor rates and lower overhead in for- eign countries. In addition to this, under customs regulations in most foreign coun- tries gloves are barred from importation, be- ing classified as aluxury item. These are the same countries which are interested in gain- ing a market here and asking for broad tariff concessions, while refusing us a market in their own countries. Consequently, the ex- ports of American-made gloves have amount- ed to only a fraction of 1 percent of production. 12. Tariff no barrier to imports: To date, present and past tariff rates have only tended to keep the labor cost of imported gloves somewhat in line with American labor costs. At no time have our tariff rates proven a barrier to imports. Last year the ratio of imported women’s leather gloves to domes- tic-made gloves was 27.1 percent, while before the war foreign countries sent us more than double our production under tariff rates that were higher than those rates which prevail today. Why, therefore, is it proposed that . the rates be again lowered? 13. Business mortality: According to ac- tual figures in glove-preducing areas, 78 con- cerns have gone out of business since 1946. Any prolonged continuation of present con- ditions can only mean that others will have to consider a similar move before the end of this year. Therefore, any unwarranted concessions given to foreign producers can only aggravate a situation which is already critical. 14. National defense: The threat to the continuance of this industry which is in- herent in further tariff cuts must be con- sidered in the light of its importance to the national defense. All armed services pro- curement officers have unequivocally stated that food and clothing are of the first im- portance in arming our Nation. Even now, gloves rank No. 14 on the quartermaster’s priority list of critical items. During the last war, the services procured over a half a billion pairs of gloves from the American industry. It would, therefore, seem that this is no time to jeopardize the life of an industry so important to our national defense. In conclusion, the issue may ultimately be defined as whether or not the glove indus- try is to remain in this country. Past expe-= rience has proven that we cannot consist- ently concede the major portion of our do- mestic market to imports. We have no ex- port markets in which the reciprocal lowering of tariffs by other nations might benefit us. We must, therefore, look to our own market; and, if our portion of it is so reduced in size that the small volume remaining pre- cludes payment of overhead, we must accept extinction. Radio Broadcast by Senator Taft—Do You Want Rubber Stamp Congress?— Reply to Truman’s Socialist Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, on Tuesday night, May 16, one of the finest addresses it has been my privilege to hear was broadcast over the major radio networks of the Nation by that great American statesman, the Senator from Ohio [Mr, Tart]. The content of that address formu- lated a message of great importance to the American people; it exemplified the principles of my party, principles which I have always supported, and which I will continue to support. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the address printed in the Ap- pendix of the REcorp. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE PRESIDENT DEMANDS A RUBBER-STAMP CONGRESS Fellow taxpayers, the President of the United States has just completed a 6,000- mile trip at our expense and made 57 speeches, most of them political. He must have had some very important purpose in mind, for there was plenty to occupy him in Washington. He left Congress in session rejecting administration plans of vital im- portance, at least to him. Most of the prin- cipal railroads of the United States were closed down while his train ran on. The Foreign Ministers in London are considering the most vital decisions of recent years in foreign policy. But the President’s purpose is now clear. He admits that he has been on a 10-day crusade to elect an Highty-second Congress in November which will do his bid- ding in every respect. Every “obstructionist” is to be removed from Congress, True, we already have a Democratic Con- gress today, but it won’t pass the socialistic measures which Mr. Truman has long advo-~ cated. He bitterly criticized the Eightieth Republican Congress because it did not agree with his CIO-PAC philosophy of govern- ment. He treats the Eighty-first Congress more tenderly—for the present—but prom~ ises criticlsm in the future. But the fact is that the Democratic Highty-first Congress, except for the spending of money, has re- jected the Truman program as definitely and conclusively as the Republican Eightieth. I don’t believe for a moment the people of this country approve the Truman program. I don’t believe for a moment they want an Eighty-second Congress subservient to Mr. Truman, prepared to rubber stamp that pro« gram. A3733 TO ENACT A SOCIALIST PROGRAM What is that program as shown by the speeches of this past week? A part of it, of course, is Just irresponsible promising. Our annual output of goods and services is to be $350,000,000,000 by 1960. Every American family is to have an income of at least $4,000 a@ year. Everyone is to be healthy, and rich, and happy as Harry. Of course, this kind of thing is bipartise2 n~ier. In fact, I don’t see why the itr... ot". be $5,000 a year. I don’t know about these greedy, self- ish reactionaries that the President talks of, because I have never met them. The Presi- dent is always imccininzg bogymen under every bed. I do :tnow skazt every Republi- can Congressman is just as anxious to reach these goals as the President himself. There is no particular reason why we shouldn’t reach them, for they do not reflect any greater rate of growth and improvement than we have had since this Government was founded in 1789. But common sense tells us we can only count on the same rate of improvement if we follow the same prin- ciples of liberty and rewards for ability and hard work and genius, the free life, on which American progress has always been founded, But that’s not Mr. Truman’s program. He wants to bring the Government into every field of individual and community and na- tional life. Our governments are already spending more money than we have ever spent in peacetime, more than 25 percent of the national income. We all are working moore than one day in four for Government and less than three for ourselves. The Fed- eral Government is the biggest monopoly and the biggest spending institution in the world. The public debt stands at $256,000,000,000 and is increasing at the rate of $6,000,000,000 a year. Every time the sun sets our Govern- ment is $15,000,000 deeper in debt. How long can it last? But that is just the beginning of the spending. The President insists on the Brannan plan to pay the farmers 100 per- cent of parity and sell the crops for any- thing the consumers will pay for them, the difference to be charged to the taxpayer. If we do it on the same scale as Great Britain, it will cost us $5,000,000,000. And who is the taxpayer? Why, of course, the farmer and the consumer who are supposed to get the benefits. Do you want a Congress which will spend that $5,000,000,000 more? Then we have the program of socialized and nationalized medicine, on which the President is treading pretty lightly on this trip. But he has heretofore endorsed it three times enthusiastically, and we can as- sume that if he ever gets a Congress which will do his bidding and that of the CIO-PAC that he will return to his first love. He proposes that we levy another $6,000,000,000 of taxes, set up a vast Federal bureau to em- ploy all the doctors and all the hospitals in the United States to give medical care to 150,000,000 people, including all those who are perfectly able to pay for it themselves, It would destroy the freedom of the medical profession and supersede the tremendous system of community and charitable health service which has given this country the best health of any comparable country in the world. Do you want a Congress that will go out and spend that $6,000,000,000 more? And then we have the field of Government controls. To carry out the Brannan plan, the Government must limit the production of corn and wheat and cotton and every other crop. In England they even regulate the number of chickens. As Senator Wuerry, the Republican floor leader of the Senate, said Monday, “Under the Brannan plan producers of perishable commodities would become wards of the Government, The Government would manage their farms, and tell them what to plant and how much. Then it carries fines and jail sentences for
A3734 farmers who refuse to goose-step upon com~ mand of Washington bureaucrats.” Under the medical plan, every family must be told by detailed regulation just what kind of med- ical service they can get and what they can’t get. Mr. Truman attacked the Eightieth Congress because it refused to give him power to fix prices and fix wages and allo- cate and ration commodities, all the old OPA powers of wartime—‘“police state controls,” he called them himself. Prices have been going down so we haven’t heard much of these lately. But the Spence bill is still pending and a $6,000,000,000 deficit is bound to bring inflation again. Do you want a Congress that will bring back the OPA? Combined with the Brannan plan, the Spence bill would give Washington bureaus the job cf regulating in detail all commerce, industry, and agriculture in this vast coun- try. It could not be effective without regu- lating all wages also, telling every workman for how much he shall work, and every housewife what she shall cook. And last year the President asked for power to put the Government into any business, like the steel business, where some Govern- ment economist told him the industry wasn’t expanding fast enough. Of course some things can only be done by the Government like the construction of huge dams on navi- gable rivers. But if we are going to keep free industry, the Government can’t get into competition with its own citizens. No one can compete with the Government, prepared to lose all the taxpayers’ money necessary. The labor leaders are powerful. There- fore, Mr. Truman proposes to repeal the Taft- Hartley law and restore a condition of the most complete special privilege the law has ever given in this country. Before that law, union officials were not liable on their con- tracts. They weren’t liable for the acts of their agents. They weren't liable for dam- ages to those they injured or put out of busi- ness. They were not liable to their cwn members. Those workingmen who defied them could be driven from the union and from their jobs. They weren’t liable to the Nation itself—for strikes which crippled the economy and threatened the safety and health of 150,000,000 people. The President sabotaged the law in failing to deal effectively with the coal strike. He only appoints members of the National Labor Relations Board if they are approved by the CIO and A, F. of L., and he refuses to accept the principle of the law that the Government shall hold the scales of justice even between labor and management. The Department of Justice fails to enforce the anti-Commu- nist oath provision. The Taft-Hartley law is based on free col- lective bargaining and freedom to strike. It protects the workman against arbitrary treatment by his labor union bosses. It is wholly wrong to say as the President said last night that the Taft-Hartley law infringes the basic freedom to bargain collectively. Of course no one will believe his claim that it has undermined the strength of labor unions. Do you want a rubber-stamp Congress which will restore those special exemptions of labor leaders and their power to dominate their men, and all but the most powerful employers? The general program of the Truman cru- sade is clear. Promise everyone everything and back it up with Government money. Every American knows in his heart that such @ policy will wreck the United States and reduce it to bankruptcy. It will bring, first inflation, and then depression. The President asks how your liberties have been limited or the country socialized. Of course the first answer is that since Mr. Truman was first persuaded by his left-wing followers that his political future depended on accepting the CIO policy on every major issue, both the Republican Hightieth Con- gress and the Democratic Eighty-first Con- gress turned down all the principal features of his program, except the pleasure of spend- ing which the first session of the Eighty-first Congress could not resist. YOU PAY FOR IT ALL IN TAXES AND HIGH PRICES But your freedom has been limited by a huge taxation. Just add up the money de- ducted from your pay over the year, and then remember that when you buy food or clothing or shoes or anything else, the price includes about 20 percent of taxes paid along the way by the farmer, the railroad, the manufacturer, the retailer and all the rest of them. Altogether the governments take more than 25 percent of the national income in taxes, and most of this is passed on to the poor old consumer. The Gov- ernment is taking from you the freedom to spend the money you earn by the sweat of your brow. You've lost about a quarter of your freedom if we go on with the present spending program. In England they have already lost 40 percent of their freedom to spend their own money. If we go on spending Fair Deal, we will all soon lose most of our freedom. I don’t know any better way to deprive a man of all freedom than to take over for him the spending of practically all he earns. The people can’t hope for any real in- erease in their standard of living on this kind of program. Every increase in wages is balanced by higher prices and higher taxes. It’s all done with mirrors. Something for nothing to everyone. Parity prices to the farmer, unlimited loans to little business, free medicine to all, unlimited power to labor to obtain any wage they desire, free gifts to the entire world. Even the tax- payer can’t stand it in the end. It can only ke done by printing money and killing the value of the dollar. No people in this world ever got something for nothing. And the present annual $6,000,000,000 defi- cit is bound to bring inflation, reduce the value of savings and insurance and savings bonds, and lead to a false boom and a de- pression. This is not all the false glitter of the Fair Deal or of this nonpolitical trip. The political immorality of the Truman admin- istration has shaken the confidence of the people in their Government. It has shocked the sensibilities of Americans who have always belicved in law and order, in jus- tice, fair play and equality, and in hard work and thrift. The President says the Democratic Party today still believes in giving the facts to the people. But do they? Not a word was said by the President of the delivery of top secret State Department documents in the Hiss case or the Amerasia case in which every effort was made to suppress investigation amid Presidential shouts of “red herring.” Every file and every fact which reflects on the past policy of the administration is ruthlessly suppressed and refused to Con- gress. Every kind of civil-rights measure is prom- ised by the President knowing that half his party bitterly fights his program. And he supports a Democratic candidate for the Senate in Missouri who is openly hostile to civil rights. He accused his opponents indiscriminately of greed and privilege, but he said not a word about greed and privileg- in his home bailiwick of Kansas City or in the White House itself. Mr. Truman himself spoke in behalf of Mr. Tom Pendergast on the Senate floor after Mr. Pendergast’s conviction in a Federal court, as Senator Fercuson pointed out this week in the Senate. Senator Fsr- Guson inquired also regarding the privilege represented by Mayor Curley of Boston, par- doned by the President for mail frauds, of those four members of the Capone gang pa- roled from the penitentiary, or Mr. John APPENDIX TO’ THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Maragon, the friend of General Marry Vaughn. What about the vote frauds and ballot-stealing cases in Kansas City quietly passed over by the Department of Justice? The President busily told the people in the West of the tremendous progress made in that section in the 17 years since 1932, From Mr. Truman’s western speeches, one would think that the West began 17 years ago. But as Senator MILLIKIN said this week, “The President neglected a g-eat opportunity to pay deserved tribute to the free American, men and women who made their danger- ridden trek to that part of our country, whose unsubsidized bivouacs and pioneer cabins were the citadels of their dauntless hope, courage, and independence, who settled the lands, utilized the waters of the stream, built up their herds, opened the mines and oil fields, and developed a superior civiliza~ tion long prior to 17 years ago.” It will be hurd to persuade the West that it was New Deal handotts rather than liberty and self- reliance which laid the basis for their progress. Until Mr. Truman attempted to make a political issue out of reclamation, it was a bipartisan policy, founded by Republicans when they were in power. And the Re- publican Eightieth Congress actually appro- priated 50 percent more money for reclama- tion than any previous Congress. It is somewhat hard to see why the Presi- dent wants all the additional spending and power he demands, for he tells us that the country today has reached a prosperity be- yond the dreams of avarice, and that he and his friends created this prosperity. One would think that he would leave well enough alone. But he knows as well as anyone that there is something false about the economic prosperity resulting from war, inflation, and a@ huge debt. The 10-year improvement in income of which he boasts came about not from the New Deal but from the war. In spite of their present income, the peo- ple are full of fear and apprehension abort the uncertain basis of their prosperity. Even more, the people are concerned with the threat of a third world war. I am my- self hopeful that it will never occur, but it js the foreign policy of the Democratic ad- ministrations which has made it possible. By our constant building up of Russia, by the pro-Communist attitude of Wallace and Hopkins, culminating in the secret agree- ments of Yalta, confirmed at Potsdam, we have placed Russia in a position where it is a threat to the world. By the pro-Com- munist policies of our State Department, we have permitted Russia to take over all of China and threaten to absorb the entire Far East. By the time Senator VANDENBERG was able to reverse that policy in Europe, the Russians were established in Berlin and Prague and Vienna whence they could shut us off from eastern Europe and threaten the safety of the west. Our foreign policy is still full of contradic- tions. We loan money to Tito, and we re- fuse to loan money to Franco. We defend Indochina, but we do not defend Formosa. Our taxpayers feed Germany while we dis- mantle their plants and create unemploy- ment. The President talks glibly of peace being assured by the reduction of tariffs and the International Trade Organization. This last ITO agreement is opposed by nearly everyone who knows anything about it because it re- duces our tariffs and ties our hands, but gives every other nation countless loopholes through which it may avoid its obligation to admit American goods. But certainly the administration free trade policy is no insur- ance of peace. The Democrats came in in 1913 and passed the Underwood tariff for revenue only. Within 4 years we were in the First World War. In the thirties we adopted the reciprocal trade agreements