APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD From humble beginning in Graves County, Ky., through his ambition, courage, and in- domitable determination he fought his way in early life in obtaining an education and in early life became interested in public af- fairs. He was first elected county attor- ney, conducting his campaign, it is said, on muleback or horseback in the raw and bitter weather of February and March. He was later elevated to the county judgeship, which position he filled so satisfactorily as to attract the attention of the First Con- gressional District of Kentucky and was elected a Member of the House of Repre- sentatives in 1912, succeeding the Honor- able Ollie M. James, who was advancing to the United States Senate. The services of our distinguished guest in the House of Representatives were outstand- ing, holding membership in that body for 14 years. He served on the Committee on In- terstate and Foreign Commerce and other important committees and was regarded as one of the ablest men in the House. He was elected to the United States Senate in 1926, serving in that body 22 years, and has grown more conspicuous, more popular, and more powerful with the passing years. He served with distinction as a member of the Com~ mittee on Finance and as both majority and minority leader in the Senate. He has be- come the perennial keynoter for Democratic conventions, serving in this capacity in 1936, 1940, and 1948. His selection by his party and election by the people to the Vice Presidency was a just reward for his service to his party and his country. His life of public service has been one of not only duration but of donation. His time and extraordinary talents have been given freely to the service of his fellow man. Through the years, from the Atlantic to the Pacific—from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico—no man has fought so effectively and valiantly the battles of the Democratic Party as our distinguished speaker of today. Neither a radical nor a reactionary, but an orthodox, Jeffersonian statesman—a wise, robust, powerful champion of the people. In the rough and tumble of debate he has no equal. In all my 39 years as Representa- tive in Congress I have known only one man whom I consider his peer as a debater. That was our own great and beloved Claude Kitchin, of North Carolina. Taken as a whole, covering so long a pe- riod of time, no one has fashioned a record of public service more useful, more brilliant, more outstanding, and I might truthfully say, Judging by his recent triumph in the matrimonial field, more romantic, than our distinguished guest and speaker. A great Kentuckian, a great statesman, a great Democrat, a great Vice President, who has breathed the breath of new life into that high office, a great American, one concern- ing whom it can truthfully be said, the sim- ple truth is the highest encomium. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure, an honor, and a high privilege to present to this large gathering my friend for 37 years and a true friend and faithful servant of all the people, the Vice President of the United States, the Honorable ALBEN W. BARKLEY, Adequate Funds for Veterans’ Administration EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include the following resolution of the Disabled American Veterans, Department of Massachusetts: Whereas Past National Executive Commit- teeman and Past Department Commander Anthony D. Tieso has requested the executive committee of the Disabled American Veter- ans, Department of Massachusetts, in meet- ing assembled, to give serious consideration to the loss of service and benefits to veter- ans and their beneficiaries because of the recent reductions in personnel in the Vet- erans’ Administration; and Whereas this committee, in executive session assembled, wishes to go on record as commending the Administrator of Vet- erans’ Affairs, Carl R. Gray, for the wisdom and sound administrative judgment which he has displayed in his recent decision as announced by the Associated Press, April 6, 1950, to defer, temporarily, at least, all re- ductions in force, insofar as the medical per- sonnel of the Veterans’ Administration are concerned; and Whereas it is the best judgment of the executive committee of this department, after a careful study of the situation pre- sented by the recent over-all reductions in force in the Massachusetts regional office and the subdistrict and suboffices coming under its jurisdiction as well as in the hospitals located in Massachusetts that service to the veterans and their beneficiaries, who are re- quired to come to these installations in the Veterans’ Administration for the various services and benefits to which they are en- titled by Congress, will be irreparably im- paired and such veterans and their bene- ficiaries subjected to great hardship and seri- ous loss of rights and benefits; and Whereas the Veterans’ Administration, un- der its present organization, is a cohesive whole, the loss of personnel in any important division such as the Contact Division, the Ad- judication Division, the Rehabilitation Di- vision, the Finance Division, and the various auxiliary and subordinate divisions, will sub~ ject the veteran to delays, possible injustices, misinformation, and lack of the efficlent serv- ice which is now being rendered; and Whereas the contact division in the Mas- sachusetts regional office, located at Bos- ton, has recently been subjected to a loss of contact representatives which, in our opinion, will result in a loss of service to the veteran throughout Massachusetts to the extent that the most liberal provisions of existing legis- lation relating to veterans and their depend- ents, which has been enacted by a grateful and benevolent Congress, may not be prop- erly enforced or administered; and Whereas the various divisions, both major and minor, which comprise the organiza- tional set-up of the Veterans’ Administra- tion, may be compared to a chain which is no stronger than its weakest link; and Whereas it is inconsistent to discriminate in favor of one division, such as the Medi- cal Division, over other equally important. divisions, all of which were created to serve the veteran; and Whereas to reduce personnel in any of the divisions of the Veterans’ Administration where such personnel are imperatively re~ quired to render the vital services to the vet eran in response to the mandates of Congress and the various laws which have been en- acted by the various Congresses, is insuffi- cient; and Whereas it has been said that the United States has enacted more liberal and bene- ficial laws for veterans than any govern- ment in the history of the world; and Whereas unless the Veterans’ Administra- tion is furnished with sufficient personnel to properly administer and enfarce the liberal laws enacted by Congress, the provisions of such laws will be violated and ignored, re- sulting in great hardship and sacrifice on the part of the veteran population which a grateful Republic intended to reward; and A3249 Whereas it is a solemn obligation of this organization to do all in its power to see that our comrades who are disabled and their de- pendents are adequately cared for and like- wise to see that the promises and pledges which were made by the people of this Na- tion, before, during, and after the last war, which pledges have been enacted into legis- lation, are kept; and Whereas, unless the Veterans’ Adminis- tration is permitted to retain adequate per- sonnel to enforce the liberal legislation which Congress has enacted, the results will be a mockery, savoring of tinkling cymbals and sounding brass: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Executive Committee of the Disabled American Veterans, Department of Massachusetts, in conference assembled, does hereby resolve that the reductions in the divisions other than the Medical in the Veterans’ Administration, Boston regional office and its subsidiaries, and in the hospi- tals throughout Massachusetts coming under the Veterans’ Administration should be de- plored and that immediate steps should be taken by the Congress of the United States to appropriate supplementarily cufficient funds to provide for the retention of all employees necessary to accomplish the pres~ ent high type of service to the veteran in Massachusetts; and be it further Resolved, That sufficient funds be appro- priated by Congress to provide for retaining the present number of personnel on duty n the Boston regional office and its affiliates and in the Veterans’ Administration hospi- tals in Massachusetts for the fiscal year of 1950-51; and be it further Resolved, That the number of such per- sonnel required, shall be submitted by the manager of the various installations in Massachusetts of the Veterans’ Administra- tion to the Administrator for final approval; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be filed with all of the Massachusetts sena- torial and congressional representatives for prompt and appropriate action by that body and that a copy of this resolution also be sent to the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs in Washington, D. C. Adopted by the Department of Massa- chusetts, Disabled American Veterans Exec-~ utive Committee on Saturday, April 15, 1950, while in session at the Chelsea Soldiers Home, Chelsea, Mass. CHARLES H. LITTLEFIELD, Department Commander. Tuomas J. KEATING, Depwrtment Adjutant. Tariff Rate on Rubber Footwear EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES T. PATTERSON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following letter and resolution: NavucaTuck CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Naugatuck, Conn., May 1, 1950. Hon. James T. Parrerson, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Parrerson: The purpose of this letter is to convey to you the attitude of the retail division of the Naugatuck Chamber of Commerce regarding any change in the pres- ent tariff rate on rubber footwear. The members of the retail division at their April 18 meeting voted unanimously to oppose any
A3250 reduction or change in the method of com- puting the import duty on rubber or canvas footwear. Not only are we deeply concerned because of the disastrous consequences such a change would have upon our community, but it is our conviction that the entire national econ-= omy would be threatened by any reduction in the present tariff duty. We urge you, therefore, to exert all possible effort to maintain the present rate of duty on all rubber and canvas footwear. Yours very truly, CLARENCE FREEDMAN, Chairman, Retail Division. Whereas @ bill is pending in Congress en- titled “A bill to revise administrative pro- cedures of the Bureau of Customs,” which would eliminate what is known as the American selling-price principle, specifically as it applies to canvas and waterproof rub- ber footwear; and Whereas the State Department has under consideration negotiations which would re- sult in reciprocal trade agreements lower-~ ing present tariffs on canvas and waterproof rubber footwear imported from foreign coun- tries; and Whereas any further reduction in the tariff rates applying to imports of canvas and waterproof rubber footwear would constitute a serious threat to the major industry of our community and to other local business firms and would result in the loss of jobs, wide~ spread distress, increase of relief rolls and increase of the tax burden of our citizens: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Watertown Knights of Columbus, Council No, 155, at its business meeting held on April 10, 1950, does hereby memorialize and petition the President of the United States, Harry S. Truman; United States Senators and United States Congress- men in New England to take necessary action to prevent any reduction in the tariff on im- ports of canvas and waterproof rubber foot- wear whether it be by legislative enactment abrogating the American selling-price prin- ciple, by negotiation under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, or otherwise; and be it further Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be sent to the President of the United States, Harry S. Truman and all the New England Congressmen, and that these resolutions be spread on the records of the Knights of Co- lumbus Council No. 155 in Watertown, Mass. Francois A, Morreun, Grand Knight. I, Giles A. Laughrea, Jr., recorder of the Enights of Columbus, Council No. 155, of Watertown, Mass., hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of resolution adopted at the business meeting, duly called and held on April 10, 1950. . Grizs A. LaucHrea, Jr., Recorder. Hon. Albert Engel EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES A. PLUMLEY OF VERMONT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, nobody is better qualified to talk about the Hon- ! orable ALBERT ENGEL than those of us who have served with him on the Appropria- tions Committee and sat at his feet dur- ing his membership there. “Au” as he is affectionately called is an indefatig- able w-rker. with. a memory. for. facts, figures, and what has gone on and at Committee which gift of God is not only remarkable but a capacity and a quality that few if any possess to the extent that does he. We have called him “the one- man legislative budget bureau,” “Mr. National Defense’ and a lot of other things, all intended to be complimentary. That it will be impossible to fill his place is no idle statement—nor flattery. Too well all of us know it is too true. Without regard io partisanship all of us on the Appropriations Committee and many others hope he will realize his am- bition to be governor of the State of Michigan. Its gain will be our loss but Michigan will never have had a more energetic, better qualified, more loyal, and faithful American as its chief execu- tive. Bon voyage and safe landings, ALBERT! A Glimpse of Life Behind the Iron Curtain EXTENSION OF REMARKS EON. GEORGE A. DONDERO OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Con- GRESSIONAL RecorD, I include therein a letter sent from Hungary by secret mes- senger through France. The writer is a member of the lesser nobility and consequently the family has been marked for particularly humiliating experiences by the Russians, The writer is highly educated, well grounded in political science, so the comments are not likely to be exaggerated. This letter gives a glimpse of what life is like behind the iron curtain. This is the kind of life some people in this coun- try want to substitute for our Govern- ment of freedom, incredible as that may seem. The letter follows: Bupargst, January 4, 1950. My DEAR : Tam sure you are won- dering why I am so silent since such a very long time. I am sending this letter by the French courier post, so I can write without trombling every moment, that they will come for me afterward and take me to the political police, which is very much worse than death. The truth is, that we are sim- ply terrorized. At every office, each first of the month, there come scores of letters, and those who receive them can go away at many instances w:thout a cent more. Men with two or three children, Just put on the street, because they are not politically reliable. And those who are sent away cannot get any other position. They live from hand to mouth, selling their last belongings, eating from the charity kitchens of the different churches. This would surely happen if these devils knew of my letters. This is one of the causes why I did not write. The other is that I hate sad letters, and do what I will, it is impossible to write a gay one. We are suffocating here in this land. Everyone, workers, peasants, not to speak of middle-class people. We have to cry, “Long live Stalin.” We have to decorate our homes for each Communist occasion. Some of their spies. come, every time there. is some~- thing happening in the world and ask our APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sincere opinion, and we lie, lie, he. If we do not, out we go and can hunger away with all our family. They wanted me to make a speech at one of their innumerable meetings in which I would have had to describe the sins of America. I begged off with being nervous of the crowd, not knowing enough of their ideas yet to be able to talk,etc. They gave me 2months. Either I shall talk, or I shall be marked for the next blacklist. Each of these little instances 1s a bitter drop, and our glass is overfilled already. And I can manage being silent, but I am sure it will be impossible for me to talk the way they like it. I have made quite a propaganda with the views yousent. (Note: The views were a set of View-Master pictures of United States in Kodachrome.) After having sent it to your other correspondent, and his having looked at them I gave it to everyone who is reliable at the office. Now they are again at the other owners, for he wants to show them to the nuns at the hospital. The hospital where he is, is a home for incurable sick, and it is the only place where there are still nuns, no one wanting their hopeless and troublesome work. We are all putting our hope in you Amer. icans. I wonder whether there will be enough intelligent people there to discover all those who, under different names and different creeds, are helping this communism to win its way. They are the worst enemy anyone can have, for they do not know what fair play means and that is why I am ter- ribly afraid that they will succeed in blind- ing you long enough to become so strong, that it will be impossible to hold them at bay. And if your government does not do something quickly I am afraid you will learn to know soon all the horrors of this slave life that we are leading now since five years. It is very much harder than the siege was. There are very few people who would not be-~ gin the whole horror of war again if they could get rid of this vermin, that is making life hell upon earth for millions of people. They are spoiling the children and the young people so that it will be very dif. ficult to repair the wrong they have done. They are taught that there js no God. They are made to betray unwittingly, their own parents. They are taught to adore Stalin like a divinity. A vanquished race from which one exacts admiration and love to- wards the vanquishers. I could run on for some time in this manner but it is night already. Of course I did not dare write this at the office. Thinking of you very often with the old gratefulness and friendship, I wish you a very happy New Year. Yours, The Strategy of American Defense EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN F. KENNEDY OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, for some months, a group made up in the main of members of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard faculties have been holding regular meetings to discuss urgent problems of American security. The group includes
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD scientists, economists, historians, -and political scientists; and many of its mem- bers, as a glance at the list of names will show, have had recent experience in the public service. The attached document sets forth cer- tain conclusions reached by the Harvard- Massachusetts Institute of Technology group relative to the question of the strategy of national defense. The main point is that our present overwhelming commitment to atomic weapons and strategic bombardment may leave us no alternative in case of war except the initiation of an atomic war to which, in the long run, we may ourselves be more vulnerable; and that therefore steps should be taken immediately to correct the present deficiencies in our ground forces, tactical air wing and other forms of conventional armanents. I believe that this statement raises issues of the utmost importance, particularly in view of General Bradley’s recent statement that the United States might perhaps have to scrap the theory of balanced military forces; and I earnestly com- mend it to your attention. THE STRATEGY OF AMERICAN DEFENSE This statement is the product of a deep apprehension over the present strategic po- sition of the United States. It is addressed to questions of military strategy and to these alone. We emphasize that we do not regard military defense as the only, or even the first, source of security of the United States. That security we regard, first of all, as de- pending on the economic strength and political cooperation of the free world, These latter are the first tasks of American policy. ‘We are concerned here with military policy, not as a means of preparing for war, but as a means of gaining time during which eco- nomic and political efforts may help create the situations out of which lasting peace may emerge. , We believe that our present strategic posi- tion is founded on a misplaced faith in atomic weapons and strategic bombing. This system of defense seems to us, for reasons ‘we shall set forth below, to impair the moral and political strength of the United States in the present period and to evade the true requirements of national security. We be- lieve that the United States must move be- yond its present central reliance on atomic warfare and must accept the costs in money and inconvenience involved in such a policy. These costs are to be measured against the loss of the American moral position in the free world, the invitation to limited aggres- sion inherent in the present strategy, ahd the possibly catastrophic dangers to our- selves and civilization in an atomic war. We believe that the civilian may properly speak to questions of national defense. While the plans for defense cannot be the property of all citizens, an important dis- tinction is to be drawn between essentials and details. It is the details that must remain secret. The fundamental problems are the proper concern of all; and it is to such fundamentals that this statement is applied. THE PRESENT STRATEGY The power which forces the United States to adopt a posture of defense is the Soviet Union. We make no estimate as to the im- mediacy of the Soviet threat to the security of the United States and western Europe. For present purposes we assume the danger, and the corresponding need for western mili~ tary strength sufficient to deter Soviet aggres- sion. The’ difference between a deterrent force and one that accords absolute security in the event of actual aggression must be emphasized. In case of actual war, the Na- tion can have only the single objective of overwhelming superiority; but the prevention of war is a different undertaking, and there is room for argument as to the size and nature of the effort required. The present defensive position of the United States depends heavily on its posses sion of atomic weapons coupled with faith in strategic bombardment. This has been made evident in the recent controversies over the roles of the several services and in the allocation of defense uppropriations. It is implicit in the size and distribution of our ground forces—the fact that at present the United States has about 10 divisions, few of which are fully manned and equipped—and in the subordinate role assigned +o tactical air power, This defense plan, with its emphasis on atomic weapons and Strategic air power, has been misleadingly attractive to the American people and Congress. It has promised us all great economies in financial outlay, in man- power, and in political inconvenience. We believe that this plan has been shaped less by a dispassionate view of the United States in the world than by political factors, includ- ing the ebb and flow of interservice rivalry. However, it is less important to allocate re- sponsibility for present strategy than to assess its consequences. These, we believe, raise questions which go to the roots of the position of the United States in the world. 1. United States strategy today is not well equipped to deal with problems of limited aggression. We accept the view that the essential deterrent to all-out Soviet attack is the conviction that such attack would pro- voke a general war with the United States. But there are degrees of Soviet pressure short of open Military aggression; and to this form of limited aggression—such as satellite guer- rilla warfare or “revolution” instigated from outside—the United States may have no ef- fective response except an atomic war. This condition may invite the extension of tech- niques of guerrilla warfare and internal re~ volt in marginal areas in the confidence that such local activity would incur only local risks. 2. The predominant reliance by the United States on atomic warfare may weaken the morale and confidence of our European al. lies. Unless we have substantial ground, naval, and tactical air forces available to sup~ ply immediate help in the event of Soviet aggression, our allies may be the less dis- posed to make the necessary efforts and sac- rifices to prepare for such an ordeal. Yet their present strength and their will-to-re- sist are important elements among the fac tors which can deter Russian aggression and avert war. Anything that weakens the will to resist of our allies therefore jeopardizes the peace we are striving to maintain. 3. The present reliance by the United States on the threat of the bomb is con- tinuing indication to the world that Amer- ican military strategy accepts the principle of mass destruction of human life. This can only lead to a damaging misconstruction of American motives and character and to re- sentment of American power. It has already contributed to the conviction that the United States is a dangerous ally and has strength- ened the search for neutrality or some other form ‘of immunity as between the United States and Russia. 4. To the extent that the United States has placed extensive reliance on the bomb, it has become more difficult for the United States to accept agreement restricting the use of atomic weapons. Such an agreement today would, in effect, constitute unilateral disarmament. 'To the degree that it hag liberated its own defense strategy from its present central commitment to atomic A3251 weapons, the United States will be the more free to press for international control of atomic energy as part of a general system cf disarmament. In the meantime, if control of atomic energy, with genuine inspection and safeguards, is impossible, the United States has no alternative but to continue to build up its atomic strength; for the certainty of retaliation is probably the major deterrent to atomic warfare. 5. The peacetime defects of our present strategy are matched by equally serious de- fects in tume of war. There may be the hope, however faint, that in case of war both sides may hesitate to initiate the use of atomie 7.F"cr- through fear of the inevi- table rej .lz oc os7 But there is not the slightest ground for hope that mutual fear may thus spare the world if either side is dependent on atomic weapons as its main instrument of war. Atomic war has no clear limits. If the battle should be joined in western Europe, the Red Army could be subjected to direct atomic attack only at the expense of blotting out the people and the cultural heritage which the North Atlantic Pact has com- mitted us to defend. The employment of the bomb on Russian soil, whatever its im- mediate military advantages, would compli- cate vastly any postwar rehabilitation of the Russian nation, And, now that the bomb is no longer a United States monopoly, Ameri- cans must recognize their own exceptional vulnerability to this weapon. Our popula- tion and our industry are highly concen- trated; oux main cities are easily accessible by air and water; we are dependent on in- tricate and fragile systems of communica- tion and transport; and as a people, we are not accustomed to the shock of military catastrophe. Moreover, where our vulner- ability is relatively great, that of Britain 1s virtually total. An atomic war would al- most certainly result in the obliteration of our closest ally. It is one of the tragic con= tradictions of our time that American strategy has organized the science and tech- nology of the nation around weapons, which, when imitated abroad, are potentially most dangerous to itself and its friends. From the standpoint of its desire to achieve moral leadership in world affairs, the United States can ill afford a strategy which com- mits it in advance to warfare of mass slaughter on both sides—which might doom it to the fearful choice between world-wide mass destruction, on the one hand, and out- right military defeat, on the other. THE ALTERNATIVES The emphasis on the weakness of the pres- ent strategy is justified if only to stimulate the search for alternatives. We assume that responsible members of our Military Estab- lishment have this problem constantly in mind; but, inasmuch as military decisions must be circumscribed by political consider- ations, we believe that the problem will bene- fit from public discussion. It seems clear that important alternatives have so far been set aside, not on their merits, but because of the strategic commitment to and the pop- ular faith in atomic weapons. The danger of exclusive or even predominant reliance on the atomic alternative must now be clzar. The question of the kind of conventiqnal military force which would supplement the bomb as a deterrent is one the American peo- ple must now face, The development of an adequate ground army, the strengtheniny of our tactical air wing, the supply and logistic components, including the provision for air transport, the development of antisubmarine and other specialized naval forces, ‘the use of the draft—all these problems pose questions not easily answered. But these questions, we believe, must be answered if United States policy is to be liberated from its present overwhelming dependence upon atomic war- fare. We call upon our political and mili-
A3252 tary leaders to explore these issues with the American people. Duncan S. Ballentine; Crane Brinton; McGeorge Bundy; Saville R. Davis; Martin Deutsch; John K. Fairbank; Francis L. Friedman; J. K. Galbraith; Myron P. Gilmore; Seymour Harris; William R. Hawthorne; John E. Saw- yer; Arthur M. Schlesinger; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.; Charles H. Taylor; Robert L. Wolff; Jerome B. Wiesner; Jerrold R. Zacharias, Address of Senator Russell B. Long, Democrat, of Louisiana, Before National Rivers and Harbors Congress, Wash- ington, D. C., on March 24, 1950 EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 27, 1950 Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Ap- pendix of the Rrecorp, I wish to include an address by Senator RusseLti B. Lone, Democrat, of Louisiana, before the Na- tional Rivers and Harbors Congress, in Washington, D. C., on March 24, 1950, as follows: ADDRESS OF SENATOR RUSSELL B. Lonc, DemMo- CRAT, LOUISIANA, BEFORE NATIONAL RIVERS AND HARBORS CONGRESS, WASHINGTON,.D. C., Marce 24, 1950 Mr. Chairman, members of the National Rivers and Harbors Congress, and distin~ guished guests: When your president invited me to speak on this occasion he assigned me the subject of Conservation and Development of Our Natural Resources. It later occurred to me that I had taken upon myself a rather large order, particularly in talking to you who have spent so many years in studying re- source development in all its complexities. Obviously, these few minutes here are all too brief for a discussion of all the broad phases of our natural resource development. Almost any one phase of it would in itself require much more time for a proper discus- sion. Already you have heard about our great reclamation program, and, just preced- ing me, you have heard Secretary Hutchinson elaborate on those of our resources which are under the’ guardianship of the Department ce? Agzios*irc. The list, no doubt, will be tetra it be.c'e you end your deliberations— power, minerals, forests, soils—all are a part of the richness and the greatness which are the blessing of America. Iam going to take a bit of liberty with my assigned subject and talk to you about some things we have accomplished in resource de- velopment and then talk awhile about what could happen if we fail to keep alert. Put another way, I want to talk about flood con~ trol and navigation on the one hand and the Hoover Commission on the other. Federal activity in flood control has just come of age. In 1928, Congress first recog- nized a Federal responsibility in protecting the lives and property of our people from flood when in that year it authorized projects on the lower Mississippi and Sacramento Rivers, Some 8 years later—in 1936—Con- gress took the next step and initiated a Nation-wide flood-protection program. On the other hand, the Army engineers have been at work on navigation improve- ments for more than a century. Robert E. Lee spent his early army years improving harbors on the Atlantic coast and attempt- ing to tame the Mississippi River at St. Louis. The fine city of Shreveport in my own State of Louisiana took the name of Captain Shreve who came to Red River more than a century ago to open it to navigation. Here we have two principal programs— one a lusty infant and the other a virile old graybeard. It is time to take stock of both of them to determine what they have cost on the debit side and what they have reaped on the credit side. The flood-control program on a national scale has only just begun. Construction, be- cause of the war, was interrupted and as a consequence, is just now in its sixth year. None of the great dams in the Missouri Basin has been completed. The works proposed jn the basins of the Arkansas and the Red are hardly beyond the planning stage. Cali- fornia, the Pacific Northwest, the Ohio Basin, New England—all of them have yet to see completed much more than local segments of comprehensive protection plans. We in the lower Mississippi Valley—because we started first—are somewhat ahead of the rest, for which we are very thankful—at least once every year. Our project is 60 percent com- plete and even though many vital portions of it remain unfinished and hundreds of square miles of fertile lands are subject to inundation almost annually. Thus far, in our general flood-control pro- gram, we have completed or have in opera- tion 250 projects in which we have a Federal investment of $600,000,000. In the brief time they have been in operation—for the most part less than a decade—they have prevent- ed flood damages of more than $700,000,000. ‘There obviously can be no monetary assess- ment on the protection of human life, the alleviation of misery and suffering, and the uninterrupted economic progress which has resulted. Last month, after visiting the flood-stricken Red River backwater area in my own State, I was convinced that these “byproducts” are more meaningful, in many cases, than the mere dollars we use as an economic criteria. Now to recapitulate, out of a total ex- penditure thus far of approximately $600,- 000,000 in flood control, general, we find that the benefits in the short period of time through June 30, 1948, approximately $700,- 000,000, or, in other words, we already have our investment back and have many, many years of useful life left in the various projects. The control of floods on the lower Missis- sippi is a much older activity, as I pointed out a moment ago. The tremendous volume of water—the drainage of 41 percent of continental United States—which it must carry and the hazard to life and property which is a corollary, have made it the Na- tion’s No. 1 flood problem. The length of time which the partially completed works have restrained large potential damage re- veal that its worth to the Nation is tre- mendous. The Army engineers a few days ago gave me figures which indicate that the benefits thus far accruing from the works on the lower Mississippi total approximately $5,000,000,000, or roughly seven times more than the $700,000,000 which has been invested in construction. Altogether on a grand total investment of approximately $1,300,000,000, direct flood damages of $5,600,000,000 has been prevented, or more than a 4tolratio. Certainly, these are convincing arguments that the program of flood control has demonstrated its eco- nomic worth without taking into considera- tion the very valuable other benefits which have resulted. I would like to turn briefly to the picture as it affects our river and harbor projects. At the present time, there are over 700 navigation projects completed and in opera- tion and they have cost us approximately $1,400,000,000, From this investment, we are reaping, day in and day out, tremendous returns. Maritime commerce using our APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD coastal harbors has increased from 232,000,006 tons in 1929 to a record 333,000,000 tons in 1948. ‘Traffic on the Great Lakes was 97,000,000,000 ton miles in 1929 and by 1948, had increased to 118,000,000,000 ton mules and had averaged over a 20-year period 84,800,000,000 ton-mules per year. The increase in our inland waterway traf~ fic has been even more phenomenal. In 1929, our inland waterways—including the Intracoastal Waterway—carried 8,600,000,000 ton-miles of commerce, while in 1948, that amount had more than quadrupled to 40,- 600,000,000 ton~-miles. Over the same 20- year period, inland waterway traffic averaged 20,100,000,000 ton miles per year. Here again, it is somewhat difficult to set the real worth of what has been done. Ob- viously, we can multiply the tonnage by the savings as between water transportation and other forms of transportation and come up with a very good figure, but that figure will not reflect the growth of industries which might otherwise have languished without cheap transportation. Nor will that figure show that these same waterways kept fac- tories going and homes heated and airplanes flying during the late war when the Nazi sub- marines had driven our tankers from the seas, our railroads were already overloaded, and the only means of transporting vital pe- troleum products to the north and east in many cases was by barge. For those who would term this entire pro- gram a pork-barrel proposition that needs the fat fried from it, I am going to make some concessions in arriving at the benefits which have accrued from our navigation projects. Iam going to lump together all of the funds which have been expended by the Army engi- neers, not only for construction, but for maintenance and for operation of all river and harbor improvements, which the latest annual report of the Chief of Engineers shows as being $2,445,000,000. When we remember that that figure goes back to our carly be- ginning as a nation, it is not a staggering one. As a further concession, I propose to accept as savings to the public only those which have accrued during the 20-year period 1929-48, and by multiplying the ton-mile- age, which I have outlined above, by the dif- ference between 9.3 mills por mile—which the Interstate Commerce Commission says was the expense of all class I railroads in the United States for the year 1948 for freight service—and the 4 mills per ton-mile which represent the Federal construction and maintenance cost plus the carriers cost for maintenance and operation of service, we ar- rive at a dollar saving of $5,4'78,000,000. Stated another way on this very Mberal basis upon which I have placed these figures, the Federal navigation improvements have returned to the Nation about $2.20 for every dollar expended by the Federal Government. It is my view that in these two items, the worth of the projects has certalaly been proved. Obviously, we might take sume few of the projects and, by using them as hor- rible examples, attempt to tear down the whole program. It is my insistence, on the other hand, that when we take all of tha improvements together—both flood control and navigation—and balance them on the scales of social and economic progress, we get a return which should make all of us proud of what has been accomplished. ‘We now come to the next and final propo- sition about which I desire to speak. It has to do with a subject which is familiar to all of you. A little more than a year ago, the Congress had presented to it a serles of recommenda- tions. They were portrayed as devices which could be put into being either by the exeo- ‘utive or the legislative branches of our Gov- ernment and result in tremendous economie savings and at the same time give us @ streamlined and efficient Government ore ganization,
APPENDIX TO TITE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In general, taken as a whole, I would be the last to quarrel with the report of the Hoover Commission. Many of the recom- mendations are eminently sound and no doubt will result in greater efficiency and perhaps bring some economy. On the other hand, there are some recommendations of the Commission that seem to be based on prejudice or propaganda, or, to say the least, on something besides fact, and which simply will not stand the penetrating searchlight of careful analysis. This one further statement should be made with reference to the Hoover Commis- sion report. It has been the subject of the greatest pressure drive that I have seen since becoming a Member of the United States Senate. There have perhaps been more mis- representations made about it than any other public question before us at the moment. Every time I pick up a newspaper or hear someone discuss it, the millions of dollars we are going to save each year always is increased. I believe the last figure I saw approached $6,000,000,000; whereas, I recall the original propaganda figure was $3,000,- 000,000. Just what the monthly rate of in- crease is, I have not discovered, but never- theless, it is substantial. Fairness dictates that I point out that the Hoover Commission itself very specifically avoided putting any dollar estimate on the amount of savings that would be forthcom- ing if their recommendations are placed into effect. When former President Hoover ap- peared before the Expenditures Committee in the Senate when I had the honor to serve on that committee, I pointedly asked him the question as to how much would be saved and, in substance, he replied that he felt there would be considerable savings, but that the most important thing was the in- creased efficiency that could be obtained by putting the Commission’s recommendations into our governmental structure. I propose now, as briefly as I can, to dis- cuss just one of the recommendations of the Hoover Commission. Certainly, the Hoover Commission made no greater error than when it recommended that we divest the Army engineers of its civil-works activities. In the first place, Commissioners Atcheson, Pollock, and Rowe didn’t like anything about the manner in which the rest of the Hoover Commission considered the public works and natural-resource programs, and submitted a separate report recommending a department of natural resources. Then, the late Secretary Forrestal, because of kis relationship to the Corps of Engi- neers as the Secretary of Defense, abstained from participating in the discussion and for- mulation on this particular recommenda- tion. Then I am sure most of you are famil- jar with the fact that Senator McCLELLAN, your president, and Representative Carter Manasco, filed a very vigorous minority re- port in which they opposed the recommenda- tion which would transfer flood control and river and harbor improvements from the De- partment of the Army to the Department of the Interior. So, in effect, we have before us @ recommendation which represents the thinking insofar as we can tell, of only 6 of the 12 able men who made up the Hoover Commission. I don’t believe that you as a citizen or that I as the representative in the Senate of a sovereign State should be asked to buy blindly and without question any recommendation which comes from a group so badly split as the Hoover Commis- sion was on this issue. This’ state of facts alone should give a thoughtful person pause and should call for the exercise of individual judgment if wise action is followed. But let us go just a step or two further. Who headed the so-called task forces whose reports served as the basis of the Commis- sion’s recommendations and—more impor~ tant—what fitted them to become the great emancipators? Well, the principal figure seems to be an individual named Moses whose chief claim to fame is as a playground and parkway plan» ner in New York City. In his contribution to the Commission effort, he had a lot to say about the military significance of the proposed change, but I can find no record of any military experience he has had, un- less we count the verbal warfare he carried on with former Interior Secretary Ickes in years gone by. He proposes to set up an engineering and construction agency for the Federal Government, but he isn’t an engi- neer and the only construction he seems to have engaged in is the building of play- grounds and hot-air castles. In short, there is nothing anywhere in Mr. Moses’ back- ground or experience which in any way qual- ified him fcr the task he undertook. Then, the second individual who proposes to tell us how we should run things, is the former Governor of Wyoming, Mr. Miller. I don’t know Mr. Miller, but I am sure he is an estimable gentleman to have been so signally honored by the electorate of one of our great sovereign States. Again, however, I am unable to find anything in his back- ground or experience which fits him for his self-appointed task of organizing the conser- vation development program of our Federal Government. From what I have seen in the magazines, he is a prolific writer, bu’ we al- ready have too many press agents in the Federal establishment and certainly can deny ourselves his services in that respect. The only things I can discover that he ever built are political fences. Speaking person- ally, I would welcome any advice and counsel he can furnish me in that regard between now and July, but in the meantime, I, for one, wish he would confine himself to that which he Knows and quit riding around the country astride his great white charger, Hells Canyon, telling the country a lot of half-truths. He’s about broken the old nag down and if he isn’t careful, the poor, tired, old horse will be left at the starter’s gate when the big race is run. Time will not permit me to go into a de- tailed analysis of the Commission’s recom~ menrdation. I have satisfied myself that the reasons advanved for the proposed change are not reasons at all, but the prejudices of those who, unable to control, would tear down and destroy. It may well be that some change is needed. Improvements always are to be desired. Change should not be re~ sisted Just because it is change, but a pro- gram which has proved its value and which has been so well and faithfully administered through the years, should not be tinkered with just to satisfy the whims of professional planners and political has-beens. I, perhaps, could forgive a lot of the mis- takec which the Commission made, but I do not believe I could ever reconcile their proposal that all these functions—and there are others—be placed in the Department of the Interior. There is no more politicalized department of our Government than is In- terior. Its officials have done excellent work in some fields, but their success too often have been overshadowed by their lust for power, their scheming and intrigue and by their disdain for Congress as representatives of the people. I don’t want the lives and property and the social and economic prog- ress of my people in: Louisiana played with as political pawns in the hands of power- mad Washington bureaucrats. In the final analysis, this business of re- organization is up to you as citizens. I have tremendous faith in the people:of America. I believe they recognize truth and will accept it if it is pointed out to them. It is your job to see that the truth is ferreted out from the propaganda and that the facts are mdde known to the people. If that is done,’ we have nothing to fear. If you fail—well, it will serve you right. A3253 Correspondence Between Economic Co- operation Administration and Bates Manufacturing Co., of Lewiston, Maine EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MARGARET CHASE SMITH | OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 4 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Rrecorp the exchange of correspond- ence between the Economic Cooperation Administration and the Bates Manufac- turing Co., of Lewiston, Maine. This exchange of correspondence reflects some of the effects that the ECA is hav- ing on Maine industries. There being no objection, the corre- spondence was ordered to be printed in the RrEcorD, as follows: EcONOMIC COOPERATION ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., April 17, 1950, Mr. H. D. RuwM, Jr., President, Bates Manufacturing Co., Lewiston, Maine. Dear Mr. RuHM: We are writing to ask your cooperation in helping this administra- tion work out a program under the Marshall plan to assist one of the European Marshall- plan countries in developing plant productiv- ity in the cotton-textile industry. This pro- gram is being carried out by the Economic Cooperation Administration as part of the over-all effort to establish sound Buropean economy as an essential aid to world recovery. It is the desire to bring to this country a few small groups over a period of time. It is also our desire not to ask any one com- pany to accept more than one small group for a visit to observe plant operations in addition to seminars where information can be exchanged. We are certain they will ob- tain many ideas on materials handling, utilization of manpower, and methods and procedures which can be applied to their plants and bring greater productivity. We would also appreciate any advice, guidance, and assistance you would give us in working out the program for one of these groups. In making this request, may we point out that there has been only one textile team visit America, where other industries have had many teams from the different countries. Reports coming back to America on our over- all effort show that from their observation of operations and their discussions with man- agement and workers many techniques and procedures were obtained which they will use to a great advantage. It can also be said that we received some good advice from them. No date has been set for these visits and the schedule will not be developed until we are assured of sufficient industry acceptance. We shall appreciate hearing from you and again assure you that your cooperation and assistance will be most deeply appreciated. Sincerely yours, Srepuen R. MacRaz, Project Manager, Arrangements Branch, Technical Assistance Division. BATEs MANUFACTURING Co., Lewiston, Maine, April 20, 1950. Mr. STEPHEN R. MacRagE, Project Manager, Arrangements Branch, Technical Assistance Division, Eco- nomic Cooperation Administration, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. MacRaz: To reply in polite language to your letter of April 17, requesting
A3254 our cooperation in imparting manufacturing know-how to foreign competition is ex- tremely difficult. Textile exports are constantly being cur- tailed by quotas, embargoes, tariffs, and ex- change. Japanese coods are already be- ginning to come into the United States at prices about one-third of ours. A festival for reducing American textile tariffs still further 1s planned for England this summer. On top of all this, to help some fellow employing labor at wages anywhere from 50 to 90 percent less than we pay to become more efficient appears to us to be indiscreet, to say the least. Everyone in ECA and other parts of Wash- ington appears to believe that we must tm- port more if we are going to export more, and that a major portion of the imports must be textile. Your letter requesting cooperation in bringing about our own funeral is the first opportunity our company has had to say anything or do anything about our own textile fate. Our answer is a most emphatic “No.” We have built the American textile indus- try into one of the most efficient in the country. Our per man production is far ahead of any foreign country In my kKnowl- edge. You can rest assured that the textile industry will fight for its life; will fight to keep its employees’ wages from being forced to foreign levels; will fight to turn out ever better products; will fight to expand its own markets, and to expand and improve its own plant. To furnish our foreign competitors ammunition with which to hurt us more and faster is hardly the common sense used by our hardier forefathers who put this country together. Sincerely yours, H. D. Row, Jr., President, Bates Manufacturing Co. Threat to American Industry and Labor by Importations of Cheaply Made Commodities EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANDREW F. SCHOEPPEL OF KANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 4 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp an article by George Sokolsky which appeared in the Washington Times Herald of May 4, 1950, together with my remarks in ref- erence thereto. I feel that this article vividly focuses attention upon a serious situation which the executive branch of the Government has failed or neglected to comprehend. The importation of commodities and merchandise from for- eign countries, where cheap labor exists, is and has been a real threat to American labor and American industry. Now here is evidence of the importation of mer- chandise manufactured in the Soviet Union by slave labor. Mr. Sokolsky very properly suggests that American industry organize a man-~ agement labor committee representing the best minds of management and the labor unions to study this problem as it affects each individual industry. I heartily endorse this suggestion and feel it would be wise for that group to take this problem directly to the American people rather than waste time with some of the departments whose responsibili- ties it should be to follow this but have failed to do so. I know that labor al- ready has groups working on this sub- ject, I might also suggest that it would be well for the State Department to be giving serious consideration to this im- portant question rather than entertain- ing at cocktail parties for Members of Congress and their staffs by which they subtly attempt to influence the legisla- tive branch of the Government. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Washington Times-Herald of May 4, 1950] Turse Days (By George Sokolsky) I hold in my hand some linen napkins. On a yellow paper label, so made that it can readily be removed from the napkin, appears small, badly printed lettering, the words “Soviet Union.” The words, under our laws, should be “Made in the Soviet Union.” These napkins were picked up in a chain store in Miami, Fla. They can be purchased anywhere in the United States. They sell at three for $1. Identical napkins made in the United States sell at $1 or $1.25 apiece. The Soviet napkins are made by slave Jabor. The Russian Government can dump them into this country at any price. Our labor cannot compete with slave labor. If Americans buy this Russian~made goods, they are putting American workers out of work and closing down American factories. The best way is not to buy anything made in Soviet Russia or in any of the satellites. The retailer, jobber or wholesaler who sells goods made outside the United States which is not properly labeled, breaks the law. He should be reported to your chamber of commerce and to the labor union of the particular industry. Also, write to me. In the case of these napkins, they were labeled and therefore I am not citing the name of the seller. However, if you do not buy this stuff, he will not offer it. The 1948 revision of the tariff has hit American manufacturers of linen goods hard. Producers of flax towels, tablecloths, napkins, and such products are worried about the conference that is to be held at Torquay, England, beginning September 28. They fear that they will be put out of business, They fear that the new generosity will be used to close down American factories just to show how good natured and self-sacrific- ing we can be. A linen manufacturer writes me about the Torquay conference: “Under the Tariff Act of 1930, any lowered tariffs that these sterling negotiators work out to favor certain good neighbor countrics will give the same rate to that group of coun- tries that is giving our particular industry one of its biggest fights for existence, namely the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its satellites, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and now China.” This is something that needs immediate attention. May I recommend that each American industry organize a management- labor committee, representing the best minds of management and the labor unions, to study this proslem as it affects each indi- vidual industry? Certainly Americans need protection when the State Department is off on an internationalist binge. The same writer says: “We here in the United States have no conception of the wide wage differences paid APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to workers in foreign countries. The coun- tries affecting our industry most are the United Kingdom, with whom public opinion is certainly favorable; Belgium, of mixed feelings; Japan, now a practical ward of the United States; and the group of countries controlled both economically and politically py the U. S. S. R. In every instance, the wage levels of those countries are drastically below what has become known as the Ameri- can standard of living.” The greatest danger is that we shall all discover too late that our industries have been ruined by unfair competition; that our workers are living on relief because they could not compete with slave labor. Then we shall all have to be taxed heavily to solve the problem. The other day a woolens man came to see me about this problem. Wool has to a large extent to be imported. So the American manufacturer and worker are squeezed two ways: First, by governmental price fixing aimed to make America pay heavily in dollars for whatever raw materials it imports, and then by sending into this country competing finished goods at a price cheaper than the American manufacturer can charge because of his labor and tax costs. It is a squeeze play that can only produce wholesale bankruptcies and eventually a lower wage scale in this country. Wages can be lowered in two ways: (1) The wage is actually cut; (2) the value of the dollar is reduced. Hither way it means bringing down the standard of living of the American people. There is still time to fight this, but it can only be done by joint management-labor action with wide public support, The Kerr Natural-Gas Bill EXTENSION OF REMARES ‘HON. ROBERT S. KERR OF OKLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 4 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to have printed in. the Recorp two editorials relating to the so- called Kerr natural-gas bill. The first editorial is from the McAlester (Okla.) News-Capital of April 12, 1950, and is entitled “Kerr Bill in the White House,” and the other is from the Frederick (Okla.) Leader of April 17, 1950, en- titled “Adverse to Oklahoma’s Welfare.” There being no objection, the edi- torials were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the McAlester (Okla.) News-Capital of April 12, 1950] Kerr Bin, IN THE WHitTs House The natives of the Great Southwest have never been accused of being panty waists when it comes to sticking up for their rights. We have a pretty good reputation up and down the country for being able to take care of ourselves, That st.te of affairs is jeopardized at the moment by shenanigans afoot in connection with President Truman's action on Senator Bos Kerr’s amendments to the Natural Gas Act bill. The legislation—which guarantees a free market price for the natural gas produced in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and else- where—still must have the President's sig- nature before it becomes law.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Seldom has the Nation seen such a cleverly organized propaganda campaig:. against a bill in Congress. What does the Kerr bill do? It guarantees the producer of natural gas the right to sell his product in free and open competition, at whatever price it will bring. This is the same freedom the citrus grow- ers in Florida enjoy; the distillers in Sena- tor Douctas’ home State of Illinois; the shoe manufacturers in Senator DonNELL’s St. Louis; the dairy people in Wisconsin. But through some unexplainable reason- ing, the have-not States of the populous industrial North and East would like to have a bureau in Washington tell us just how much we can get for natural gas. Mind you, they wouldn’t for the world favor an across-the-board arrangement like that. Suggest for a minute that an FPC (Federal Pizen Commission) tell the distill- ers in Senator DovGLas’ home State of Illi- nois just how much they could charge for all the “hooch” trucked down to dry Okla- homa. Put the natural resources of all the 48 States in a Federal strait-jacket and listen to the foes of the Kerr bill come out squeal- ing like a pig under a gate. It’s high time Oklahomans took pen in hand or trotted down to the telegraph office to let Harry S. Truman hear both sides in this affair. It’s not Kerr-McGee, Phillips Petroleum Co., or the others, who have pioneered in pe- troleum development in the Southwest who stand to suffer single-handed by unfair Fed- eral Power Commission regulation. The folks back North and East have been spoon-feqd so much Drew Pearson propa- ganda they probably believe two or three oil companies own this part of the country, lock, stock, and barrel. They wouldn't believe it if they saw a grizzled Oklahoma farmer tracking red clay into the lobby of the first national bank to deposit a royalty check. That would be his one-eighth of the pro- ceeds from sale of natural gas which didn’t make a blue flame until it warmed the bot- tom side of a pot of borsch in an East Side Manhattan flat whose inhabitants still be~ lieve everything west of the Alleghenies is wigwams and wildcats. The little guy is affected by the Kerr bill at this end of the line, too, Mr. President. It-deserves your signature. — [From the Frederick (Okla.) Leader of April 17, 1950] ADVERSE TO OKLAHOMA’S WELFARE ' President Truman’s veto of the bill spon- sored by Senator Rozert S. Kerr to exempt Independent natural gas producers from Federal regulation came as a sharp setback to Oklahoma and Texas—major areas sup- plying the fuel affected. The action leaves with the Federal Power Commission the right to fix rates and make other arbitrary rulings governing natural gas as it flows thrcugh pipe lines in interstate commerce. Even here in Oklahoma the superb effort of Senator Kerr to secure passage of the measure that bears his name, has been grossly misunderstood in some quarters and roundly misquoted in others. It is compli- mentary to the State’s Junior Member of . the upper House that Senator ELMER THomas joined the author in his fight for the bill. The application of the rule involved is simple. Natural gas, as a heating and in- dustrial fuel, has long been sought after in the North and East. It is produced princi; pally in the Southwest, and has been car- ried to the more populous industrial centers through vast networks of pipe Lines. In this way, producers and owners in this area have been sharing one of the finest fuels ever known to mankind. Natural gas, as a mineral resource, is one of the chief industrial products of the State of Oklahoma. Aside from the yield of its soil, fuel ranks high in the dollar volume of income, insofar as enriching the econ- omy of the Sooner State is concerned. Now that it is being shared as a product, and now that the convenience, flexibility and utility of gas have been taken across State lines and into other areas, the Federal Power Commission claims—and has—the right to set its price and to issue other arbi- trary orders regulating its flow into com- mercial channels. It was this adverse status that Senator Kerr’s bill sought to correct for Oklahoma, and other major gas-producing States. Competitively with other fuels, the price of natural gas always has been extremely eco- nomical—particularly when the utility of its Service is considered. This same competi- tion will continue to govern its price with- out Federal interference. In the same vein, with regulatory barriers, the development of gas resources may become too risky a ven- ture in capital investment and adverse rul- Ings could choke off the enlargement of sources of supply. No Federal agency has the power to regu- late the prices of cars, implements, refrig- erators, radios and other manufactured goods coming out of the industrial North and East. Conversely, it is contrary to the interest and well-being of Oklahoma and her sister gas-producing States to leave with a Federal agency the power to regulate about the only major segment of interstate in- dustry that we have. Knowing Bos Kerr as we do, and with a consciousness of his varied abilities, it is safe to say that the battle in behalf of the independent producers of natural gas is not yet over. And up to now, it is an issue on which the powerful northern and eastern interests have outmaneuvered the people who own and produce natural gas for a great part of the Nation. The matter deserves more thoughtful at- tention than the people of Oklahoma have given it. And when it again becomes an issue before Congress it will be a matter that should be given forceful backing in behalf of a measure that is important to this State and its citizens. Effect of Rent Decontrol in Dallas, Tex. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARRY P. CAIN OF WASHINGTON IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 4 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, Dorothea Lyle, housing editor of the Dallas Morn-~ ing News, has recently written about what has happened in Dallas, Tex., since rents were decontrolled, some 11 months ago. Her report appeared in the Kansas City Star of April 30, 1950 and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, together with a brief article in the same news- paper which points out that rents are lower in Wichita, Kans., since that city was decontrolled. Both Dallas and Wichita are larger cities and the benefits which have come to them from the de- control of rents can, I believe, be ex- pected in similar American communities if the prevailing Federal rent-control law A3255 is permitted to expire on June 30, 1950, as the law provides. There being no objection, the matters were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Kansas City Star of April 30, 1950] Danas, TEX., UNDERGOES THE Test oF DECON- TROL OF RENTS—SINcE Criry First Took Action Last JuNz, ABouT 300 CoMPLAINTS oF UNrarr INCREASES WERE RECEIVED Froar Estimarep 60,0C0 TENANT-OccuPIzD UNITS Interest in rental unit decontrol over the Nation has grown in the last several months. Congress now is faced with a drop of controls June 30. The National Association of Home Builders foresees a compromise on rent-con- trol legislation. Tighe Woods, Housing Ex- pediter, says 8,375,000 rental units occupied by 29,000,000 persons would be subject to in- tolerable rent rises if controls are dropped. Realtors, home builders, and apartment own- ers reply “Nonsense.” At the present, there is little pressure in Kansas City for decontrol. The city council deferred any action on the subject following a report last October 17 by the city research and budget department, inferring a still critical situation here. One major city—Dallas, Tex. has tried decon- trol, however. The following is a report of what has happened in Dallas since decontrol, written by Dorothea Lyle, housing editor of the Dallas Morning News: “Dauuas, Tex., April 29.—Eleven months ago, this city of 500,000 persons was loosed abruptly from 6% years of Federal rent con- trol. Some 60,000 rental dwelling units went free on the market to command their own prices. “The spotlight of publicity will be on us,’ Mayor Wallace H. Savage told a tense crowd one June day last year in the city council chamber. ‘If you don’t make rent decontrol work here, then people won’t get it else~ where.’ “Seconds before, the eight city council- men had scrapped rent ceilings in Dallas by unanimous vote. Dallas was the first ma- jor city in the Nation to take this action after Congress left decontrol powers in the hands of city governments, subject to State approval. “What happened to rents of the 60,000 dwellings. “Mayor Savage maintains firmly that the majority of landlords kept faith with the city council by not raising rents unreason- ably, and by not bringing about an unusual number of evictions. “HEARD ABOUT 300 COMPLAINTS “Russell Stephens, former Dallas regional housing expediter, whose office administered the rent-control program, says: “ ‘after decontrol, our complaints from tenants about high rents totaled about 3800. The complaints came by telephone, letters, and personal visits from tenants. “ ‘Admittedly, that isn’t many. They in- dicate that general increases for older units Tun all the way from 5 to 50 percent.’ “The CIO, which bitterly opposed decon- trol, claimed that rents for inferior accom- modations soared in some cases up to 400 percent. “That is how organized labor’s spokesman, Don Ellinger, president of the Texas CIO council, feels about it: “‘Only the lack of organization among tenants, especially Negroes, who have been hit hardest, has prevented more effective protest. “Phe landlords have used freely their un- limited power to evict under Texas law to stifle objections and silence opposition.’ “D. A. Frank, veteran attorney who led the decontrol fight, declared he had con- tc sted literally scores of lendlords and found that they had not raised rents unreasonably.
A3256 “A LANDLORD PLEDGE “Frank is chairman-emeritus of the Dallas Apartment House Owners Association, which pledged its 500 members not to raise rents without consulting tenants. The idea was to inform tenants of raises necessary for repairs and proper maintenance of rental property. “a¢@ I had been chairman of the renters jnstead of the other side,’ said Frank, ‘I would have to say in all fairness that I am more than delighted with the way decontrol is working out.’ “The Bureau of Labor Statistics sampled rents 1n 800 units 6 months after decontrol and came up with the statement that rents had gone up an average of 35.4 percent. The BLS index was much higher than a news~ paper spot check on selected biocks. It showed an average 11 percent over-all in- crease. “The majority of increases, said BLS, came in $30-and-under apartments. Seventy-five percent of these units went up an average of $10.95 a month, or 55 percent. “In the $30 to $4999 range, BLS said, 59 percent of the units were raised an average of $14.09 a month, or 36 percent. Increases of $17.14, or 26 percent, affected 66 percent of the units in the $50-and-over group. “Tn the 6 weeks after rent curbs went off, Dallas justice of the peace courts booked 301 eviction suits. Three of the courts said their filings were normal. The fourth reported filings had doubled. “Mayor Savage, pointing to the figures, de- clared ‘that the 300 evictions, when com- pared to the 60,000 units freed from con- trols, doesn’t sound like any mass wave of evictions.’ “PENALTY IN ‘WILLFUL’ CASES “when the city council took off controls, Savage recalled an old World War I anti- profiteering ordinance which he said would pe used to prosecute willful violators who raised rents excessively. Maximum penalty was a $200 fine. He named a three-man rent committee to keep an eye on the situation. “Organized labor complained bitterly be- cause the committee had only landlord rep- resentatives on 1t. CIO and A. F. of L. leaders formed a tenants rent committee and ad- vertised through newspapers for tenants to bring their complaints to the tenants com- mittee. “Two weeks later, the first list of 54 com- plaints went to Mayor Savage with the re- quest he investigate the situation, These were some of the examples quoted by ten- ants: “Rent on a two-bedroom apartment jumped from $4650 to $95 a month; a three-room duplex went from $35 to $45; a four-room partly furnished apartment from $55 to $80; a one-bedroom apartment from $46.50 to $59.50; a three-room unfurnished apartment in an old part of town from $25.20 to $65. “Highest raise on the list was for a three- room apartment which Jumped from $52 to $123 amonth. The smallest was a 45-cent-a- month raise on an unfurnished, one~bedroom apartment that had rented for $69.55. “The tenants committee list said an evic- tion sult was filed against one tenant who had four children, the youngest 8 weeks old. Another was filed against a blind Negro. “CHECK OF COMPLAINTS “Savage turned the list over to Frank's landlord committee that had agreed to bring about decontrol in an orderly manner, This was the result of their investigation in the 54 complaints: “In 24 cases, the raises were obviously Teasonable, Nineteen failed to list either the tenant’s or the landlord’s name, aad it was impossible to get both sides of the story. “Four apartments, raised from $25.20 to $65, were owned by a woman who had moved from Florida to Dallas, and who ‘probably was used to very high rentals.’ The commit-= tee said three of her apartments stood va- cant. “The biggest raise (from $52 to $123) was ‘a mere gesture by a man who sold his apart- ment house 1 month after decontrol,’ the investigators said. They reported no com- plaints about the new landlord. In many cases, the tenants had moved to other puild- ings and some had bought new houses. “The committee recommended action in one case, that of an aged widow whose rent went from $41.20 to $60 for a run-down, three-room-and-bath apartment. The report suggested that the mayor’s committee con- tact the landlord and persuade him to ease up on the rent. But the tenant reports today she still is paying $60. “On the brighter side, hundreds of land- lords dug into their pockets and started re- painting and redecorating apartments that had had little maintenance since rent con< trols were first begun. C. A, Farrell, build- ing inspector, said in July and August, his office set new records for building-repair permits issued. “Also, newer apartments that were not under rent control have begun to seek a lower level. Owners of five large projects have dropped rents substantially, some as much as $10 a month. One builder lowered rents twice, so that new one-bedroom apart- ments which were renting unfurnished for $85 now are on the market for $67.50.” Rents Down in WIicHITA—~CHAMBER THERE Reports Dectinge Since DEconTROL Wicnira, April 29.—Renits are lower since decontrol in this Midwest city of 215,000 (metropolitan area), the Wichita Chamber of Commerce says. In its weekly Wichita Magazine, the cham- ber of commerce said its own recent survey shows that one-bedroom apartments ceil- inged at $54 a month under rent control now rent for $47 to $49 a month. Two~bedroom units at a $70-a-month ceil- ing now rent for $62.50 and $65 a month, it added. Congratulations to the St. Louis Star-Times EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANK M. KARSTEN OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 4, 1950 Mr. KARSTEN. Mr. Speaker, I have just received the announcement of the decision of the University of Missouri to present to the St. Louis Star-Times its honor award for distinguished service in journalism. In selecting the Star-Times for its highest journalistic award to an Ameri- can newspaper, I believe the University of Missouri, long noted for the excel- lence of its school of journalism, is pay- ing a deserved tribute to an institution that exemplifies the best traditions of the independent and free American press. Under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include the text of the citation to be presented to Elzey Roberts, pub- lisher of the Star-Times, for his news- paper at special ceremonies climaxing Journalism Week at Columbia, Mo., Fri- day afternoon, May 5: APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The citation reads: To the St. Louis Star-Times in recognition of its editorial incisiveness, independence, and thoughtfulness; its alert news service, intelligently designed to serve the people of its city and region; and its outstanding rec- ord of enterprise in the production of a mod- ern newspaper. In announcing the award, Dean Frank Luther Mott pointed out that it is based upon records of performance over many years. I wish also to congratulate the four individuals chosen for special honors and the Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, chosen as the foreign newspaper to receive a similar honor. The individual awards will be received by Mrs. Oveta Culp Hobby, executive vice president of the Houston Post; Joe Alex Morris, former editor of Collier’s and now a contributor to the Saturday Evening Post; Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times; and James Todd, publisher of the Moberly (Mo.) Monitor-Index. Abrogation of American Treaty Rights in Morocco, and Morocco’s Embargo on United States Products EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. IRVING M. IVES OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 4 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. IVES. My. President, I ask unani- mous consent to have printed in the Ap- pendix of the Rrcorp the text of a state- ment of recent date by the committee on foreign commerce of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York concerning the abrogation of American treaty rights in Morocco, and also the text of a press release of the Textile Ex- port Association of the United States, dated March 30, 1950, concerning the ap- proval by the United States Department of State of Morocco’s embargo on many United States products. There being no objection, the state- ment and press release were ordered to be printed in the Rxcorp, as follows: ABROGATION OF AMERICAN TREATY Richrs IN Morocco New Yorw, January 25, 1950, To the Chamber of Commerce: The Committee on Forelgn Commerce of- fers the following: Assent by the United States Department of State to a French decree establishing em- bargoes and restrictions on the importation of American goods to Morocco, in contra- vention of long-standing treaty rights and privileges, presents a grave threat to the fu- ture of American foreign commerce and busl- ness enterprise on which so large a part of the well-being of our Nation, and the world, depends. THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE Since 1836 the United States has had a treaty with Morocco according Americans trading privileges equal to those of any other Christian nation.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The principles of this treaty were reaf- firmed in 1880 and 1906, when France and Spain also became signatories to the pacts of Madrid and Algeciras. All the terms of the 1836 treaty were recognized by the signa- tories in 1906. In 1912, France, under the terms of an agreement with the Sultan, assumed a pro- tectorate over Mcrocco, and undertook to provide certain administrative services and to exercise certain of the Sultan’s powers. Almost immediately thereafter, France be- gan to press the United States to recognize the protectorate and also to give up American treaty privileges in Morocco, which had been granted in 1836, and reaffirmed in 1880 and 1906. The United States recognized the French protectorate of Morocco in 1917. However, it is plain from the various communications of American Secretaries of State that recog- nition of the French protectorate did not abrogate, in any sense, the various interests and rights accorded to Americans by the treaties of 1836, 1880, and 1906. In the sub- sequent years, and particularly in the post World War IT period, a small group of Ameri- can businessmen settled in Morocco to en- gage in a thriving, useful, and profitable trade between the United States and that country. At the outbreak of the war, in 1939, cer- tain exchange restrictions were imposed in Morocco. The United States protested these until 1944, when under the pressure of the war emergency, and primarily to discourage the possibility of any flow of funds between Allied and Axis territories, we consented to their imposition. They are still in effect. On March 20, 1948, however, a decree of the French protectorate of Morocco pro~- vided that all goods, including American goods, could enter Morocco freely, under the terms of the historic treaties, where there was no requirement for the allocation of official exchange by the government. The United States maintained, and Mo- rocco agreed, that these restrictions could not prevent imports by United States citi- zens when no government foreign exchange was required. This partial lifting of trade restrictions was short lived, however. On December 80, ' 1948, a decree was issued by the French pro- tectorate which embargoed most United States products and restricted those not under embargo. There is no doubt that the purpose of the decree was to free from Amer- ican competition those French cartels and other interests which seeks to extend an economic monopoly over several lines of trade in Morocco. At that time the American State De- partment protested the decree, and our pro- test was fruitful in that, in May 1949, the onerous restrictions were lifted. Almost immediately, however, the restric- tions were reimposed, and this time the United States Department of State accepted the restrictions for a 3-month period. Sub- sequently, the temporary acceptance was extended four times. Finally, on December 31, 1949, our Department of State accepted, for an indefinite period, the restrictions im- posed by the French protectorate. A public hearing, of sorts, was held by the State Department on September 27, 1949, for the announced purpose of determining whether to accept or reject the decree. Al- though grievances of American businessmen in Morocco were presented at the hearing, they were ruled to be outside the scope of the subject under discussion, and these com~ plaints have received no official action on the part of the State Department. It is interesting to observe that Morocco’s dollar position actually improved during the period of relaxed restrictions and free com~ petition, while there was a deterioration in 1949 when the new embargoes were enforced. The Department of State had claimed that the restrictions to which it finally assented would improve Morocco’s dollar balance. An examination of the list of products under embargo and of those that may enter Morocco freely indicates that reasons other than those of economic necessity prompted the choices. As a result, some 40 Americans, many of them veterans of World War II, who have settled in Morocco to engage in trade with the United States, find that they are being denied the protection of the treaty between the two Nations, which is still in effect, and they are being forced to quit business and come home while their French competitors remain to take over the field. It is particularly irksome to these Amer- ican businessmen, inasmuch as France, which is thus acquiring an economic monopoly in Morocco, is receiving considerable aid from the United States under the Marshall plan. THE BROADER ISSUE But the issue goes far beyond what may happen to twoscore American businessmen in Morocco. It goes right to the matter of the sanctity of treaties, and to the constitutional require- ment that any change in existing treaties be- tween the United States and a foreign nation is a matter requiring action by the United States Senate. In that sense, what is happening to the American treaty with Morocco has a meaning that could profoundly alter our foreign com~ merce, programs for investment abroad, and the whole scope of our international relations and commitments. For if American busi- nessmen have reason to believe that our treaties can be abrogated by a foreign nation without any effective protest, and even with the acquiescence of our State Department, then an insuperable obstacle will be placed in the way of our foreign commerce and of our developing programs for increased invest- ment abroad. And profoundly disturbing is the sugges- tion that the State Department, without the consent of the Senate, can alter fundamen- tally our treaty relations with foreign powers. FIRM ACTION NEEDED In this situation we urge the State Depart- ment to recall its acceptance of December 31, 1949, of the restrictions imposed by the French protectorate of Morocco; and to pro- ceed without delay to enforce the rights of American businessmen in Morocco, as guar- anteed by the terms of the treaties that exist between the two countries. We urge, further, that the Committee on Foreign Commerce of the United States Sen- ate undertake an investigation of this in- fringement both of the rights of American businessmen in Morocco, and of the consti- tutional prerogatives of the Senate. Safe- guards must be provided to prevent a repe- tition of this kind of situation which seri- ously damages the influence and prestige of the United States, and impedes greatly prog- ress toward the goal of a better world through economic development and freer trade be- tween nations. Respectfully submitted. Sau F. Driessen, Chairman, WiLLiaM H. BaLpwin, Victor BOowMAN, Davin M. KEISER, Frreus F. WaLace, Oj the Committee on Foreign Commerce. TexTme Export ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, New York, N. Y., March 27, 1950. ‘The Textile Export. Association of the United States has complained to the Secre- tary of State against the Department’s ap- proval of Morocco’s embargo on many United States products, including textiles, accord- ing to Mr. John H. Judge, president of the association. Mr. Judge said that the associ- A5S257 ation has questioned the exclusion of United States goods from Morocco and the State De- partment’s abrogation of an existing treaty which assured an open door to our trade there. He added that they have not actively protested heretofore *»ecause the Secretary of State has insisted that the measures were necessary to conserve Moroccan dollars. Mr. Judge points out, however, that since the embargo began United States total ex- ports to Morocco have increased 33 percent and that on January 1, 1950, Morocco freed imports, including cigars of all categories, cigarettes, soft-drink ingredients, and radio sets while still banning more essential United States products, among them textiles. These facts, he asserts, indicate that the embargo is for some other reason than economic necessity. (American traders in Morocco have re- peatedly maintained that the embargo affects goods formerly sold in free competition by independent Americans, while most of the free list consists of products which French concerns control by exclusive agencies or otherwise.) Mr. Judge said that in 1948 when free com- petition prevailed in Morocco, the United States sold over $8,000,000 worth of cotton goods to that country and that sales were $600,000 in the month of January 1949 but became negligible thereafter when the em- bargo was applied. The potential market is estimated at more than 6,000,000 yards. Much of this business, which formerly went to the United States, has been given to Poland and Czechoslovakia whose bilateral trade agreements with France are observed while our treaties, of longer standing, are set aside. Smear Attack on Alfred Kohlberg EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH W. GWINN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 4, 1950 Mr. GWINN. Mr. Speaker, the smear attack against one of my constituents, Alfred Kohlberg, by fanatical friends of the State Department needs exposing. Kohlberg is a private citizen concerned over the security of our Nation. There is only one issue in the current charges against our foreign-policy advis- ers. That issue is: Is there a danger to American security from enemies with- in our Government? The State Department has taken the curious position that its duty is to de- fend itself instead of ridding itself of Communists. Never mind the grave danger to the Nation if only our office- holders can rid themselves of bother- some criticism. So they smear attack Senator Mc- Cartny. Just so they have systemati- cally attacked those private citizens who have tried for years to bring light into the dark places in our State Department. I refer especially to the rash of carefully timed attacks in the press on one of my constituents, Alfred Kohlberg, and on the American China Policy Association. THE AMERICAN CHINA POLICY ASSOCIATION The American China Policy Associa- tion is a private organization which has for years been warning the American people of Communist sabotage of our
A3258 foreign policy. Its directors are respon- sible citizens whose names and connec- tions I shall list at the end of this state- ment. Its president, William Loeb, is the son of the secretary of President Theodore Roosevelt, The program of the association is sup- port of the open-door policy in China, The open-door policy was announced by Secretary of State John Hay in 1899. It said that the United States was opposed to the conquest of China by any foreign power, even if China was as weak inter- nally as it then was, just before the Boxer Rebellion. Our open-door policy made possible the establishment of the Republic of China under Sun Yat Sen. The open-door policy is merely the extension to Asia of the Monroe Doctrine, enunciated by President Monroe in 1823. Then Russia was trying to seize our Pacific coast along what is now Wash- ington and Oregon. The Monroe Doc- trine says that the United States is op- posed to the conquest of any nation, especially a weak one, by rapacious stronger powers. The Communists and their dupes in our foreign-policy making have sold us a new foreign policy. Our old and great policy has not failed. It had succeeded too well. It stood as our promise to the people of Asia that we would not tolerate any new imperialism in the twentieth century. John B. Powell and Alfred Kohlberg were the founders of the American China Policy Association. Their offense con- sisted of their firm belief in the Ameri- can policy of justice to undeveloped na- tions threatened by the Great Powers. For that they were secretly denounced by those who wanted to sell out our couniry, and buried China on the worm- eaten timbers of the united front in place of the sturdy beams of the open door. MR. KOHLBERG AND THE INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS Mr. Kohlberg is accused of having waged an unsuccessful fight against the Institute of Pacific Relations. It is true that the open meeting of the Institute voted down his demand or investiga- tion—after the Institute staff had re- fused to let Mr. Kohlberg send his infor- mation to the members. But why did the Institute board suddenly clean house, right after Mr. Kohlberg’s charges were voted down? Why did E. C. Carter leave the Institute? Why did they fire Fred- erick Vanderbilt Field? Why did the Institute show a marked, though not complete, change of policy away from paralleling the Communist line just after Mr. Kohlberg’s charges were ‘dis- proved’? ’ Mr. Kohlberg’s critics complain that the Institute is highly respectable. It has a distinguished board of directors, and a well-established reputation for scholarly work. But where would the Communists want to put their hidden propaganda? In the columns of the Daily Worker? Where would they find anything better than a scholarly, sedate, technical journal which had previously been devoted to fact-finding, and which could be quoted by Communist writers for years before the public would know it had been pentrated? Mr. Kohlberg is charged with criticiz- ing the Institute’s acceptance of funds from Frederick Vanderbilt Field and from Communist fronts, whereas they really got most of their money from the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations. But what, may we ask, was the bias of the Carnegie Foundation when they were under the direction of Alger Hiss or the board members who picked Alger Hiss for their director? And why have both Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations now canceled their subscriptions? Senator McCarruy is accused of hav- ing parroted the charges of Mr. Kohl- berg. Apart from the smear word, is there any good reason why Senator Mc- CartHy should not want to see such charges aired? Mr. Kohlberg is also accused of hav- ing started the journal Plain Talk, For years it has been one of the very few publications in this country in which it was possible to tell such truths about the danger to American internal security. Their first issue described how the Jus- tice Department muffed the prosecution of Communist stooges in the Amerasia case. The recent article on the strikes in Hawaii shows Communist dress re- hearsals in the capture df an island—like Manhattan for instance. SIX LONG YEARS Mr. Kohlberg is accused of having made his charges as early as 1944. That, Mr. Speaker, is the most shocking thing of all. Six years ago, Mr. Kohlberg was spending his own time and money trying to warn American officials. He warned of the existence of cells of the NKVD or the Russian General Staff within our policy-making Government agencies. Was there something wrong with Mr. Kohlberg because he kept on fighting treason? But what shall we say, Mr. Speaker, of the State Department and the Presidential advisers who for 6 years could not hear the charges? They did not think they were important. They saw it as their duty to protect office- holders like Hiss rather than to protect our country. His critics say Mr. Kohlberg’s charges were not believed by a succession of Secretaries of State. But have we ever in our history had so fantastic a collec- tion of Secretaries of State? Mr. Hull, who had the confidence of the country, was bypassed for Sumner Welles, about whom we shall say no more. Harry Hopkins was virtually Secretary of State in wartime. Secretary Byrnes was sum- marily removed when he began to see through the veil and questioned some of the information his assistants gave him. General Marshall was a prisoner of the Communist cell in the Department who knew exactly how to feed him the right information and keep any doubters far from him. Acheson has been Under Secretary or Secretary almost continu- ously since 1941. His regime coincides almost exactly with the most shameful humiliation and the most disastrous re- treat in all American history. It would seem that a man might be honored to disagree with such a succession of Sec- - retaries of State. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD WHO IS PLANNING THIS CAMPAIGN? The attacks on Senator McCartTHyY and Mr. Kohlberg are obviously well-organ- ized and well-planned. All the charges and twisted lines of reasoning have been neatly assembled by someone for dis- tribution to those who will help to fool the public. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether by chance any of the paid employees of Government, the so-called public infor- mation specialists, have been helpful in disseminating any of this smear ma- terial. We know that Government em- ployees in high place, who are accused of collusion with a foreign power have the services of Government lawyers and publicists, while private citizens, patri- otically working for their country’s safety, have to pay the cost of their investigations out of their own pockets, Minor Government underlings, charged with petty theft, are imme- diately suspended. They do not have high-paid Government lawyers working for them, and publicity men trying to win a favorable popular verdict. THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT There was a time in this country when an individual could disagree with a Gov- ernment official as man to man. Today our administration officials have their retinues of lawyers, economists, public- relations experts, and the rest, clustered about them like the court followers of a petty noble. A plain citizen cannot dis- agree with the Government without hir- ing a lawyer and three publicity men to protect him. It is time we restored the balance in this country between plain citizens and officials who are supposed to serve them. It is time we gave the advantage to the plain citizens—including Senators—who must pay for their own investigating and hire their own lawyers, and took away the advantages of accused public officials and advisers, who have a corps of law- yers and public-relations experts paid for at public expense. It is Mr. Kohiberg who is the true pub- lic servant, not his detractors. We can- not in a free country permit such men to be smeared by the clever propagandists of the executive power. Congress is the defender of the plain citizens of the Na- tion, against executive arrogance. We must make it clear beyond any misun- derstanding that any executive depart- ment which comes to the aid of men ac- cused of near treason can expect no part of the public funds. DIRECTORS, AMERICAN CHINA POLICY ASSOCIATION, INC, Alfred Kohlberg, New York City, 34 years business in China, New York City, chairman. Marguerite Atterbury, of San Diego, Calif., former missionary in China. Dr. Alexander Baird, professor at Bradley University, Peoria, Ill. John Harl Baker, former director of Burma Road, Mill Valley, Calif. Maj. Gen. David P. Barrows, presi- dent emeritus, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. William E. Bohn, editor, New Leader, New York City.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Rt. Rev. John P. Boland, Buffalo, N. Y. Edna Lee Booker, author, long-time resident of China, New York City. Dr. Karl Brandt, professor of agricul- ture, Stanford University, California. William Henry Chamberlin, author, historian, Russian and Far East cor- respondent, Christian Science Monitor, Boston. Bishop Frederick Pierce Corson, Methodist Church, Philadelphia, Pa. George Creel, director, United States Government Information Bureau under President Wilson, San Francisco, Calif. Frank R. Crosswaith, labor leader, New York City. Dr. Benedict J. Duffy, Jr., former ma- rine medical officer, Pacific and China theaters, New York City. Hon. George H. Earle, former Gover- nor of Pennsylvania. Christopher T. Emmet, Jr., author, New York City. Rev. James W. Fifield, Jr., pastor, First Congregational Church, Los Angeles, Calif. Geraldine Fitch, YWCA leader in China, New York City. Varian Fry, labor author, New York City. Sidney Hook, professor of philosophy, New York University. Rev. J. C. Jensen, Lois Butler Jensen, former missionaries in China, South New Berlin, N. Y. Rear Admiral I. C. Johnson, retired, Laguna Beach, Calif. Representative J. LeRoy JoHnson, of California. William R. Johnson, former mission- ary in China, Polo, Ill. Representative Watrrr H. Jupp, of Minnesota. Alexander Kahn, editor, Jewish For- ward, New York City. Rev. William C. Kernan, Episcopal Church of Scarsdale, N. Y. Lucian S. Kirtland, former corre- spondent in China, Bronxville, N. Y. Irene Kuhn, former correspondent in China, New York City. Isaac Don Levine, editor of Plain Talk, New York City. wen Loeb, publisher, Manchester, . A. Edna Lonigan, author, Washington, D.C. Rev. Daniel A. Lord, S. J., St. Louis, Mo. Clare Boothe Luce, former congress- woman, Connecticut. Dr. Frank L. Meleney, Columbia Uni- versity, School of Medicine, New York City. Emma DeLong Mills, executive direc- tor, American Bureau Medical Aid to China, New York City. Mrs. Victor Morawetz, philanthropist, New York City. Hon. James R. Nolen, judge, Ware, Mass. . Rev. Ronald Norr’s, C. P., director, In- stitute of Chinese Culture, Washington, D. C. Liston M. Oak, editor, New York City. John O’Connor, author, Jersey City, N. J. F, Gordon O’Neill, editor, San Fran- cisco, Calif, John S. Potter, author, resident of China, Dr. Roscoe Pound, dean emeritus, Har-~ vard Law School, Los Angeles, Calif., now Visiting dean, Law School, UCLA. A. Philip Randolph, labor leader, New York City. Dr, Leland Rex Robinson, economist, New York City. Dean William F. Russell, Teachers Col- lege, Columbia University, New York City. Mrs. Joseph Schumpter, economist, New Haven, Conn. Dr. Aura Severinghaus, vice dean, Co- lumbia University School of Medicine, New York City. , Margaret Proctor Louisville, Ky. William H. Smyth, businessman, New York City. ane Stolber, author, New York ity. Dr. Fred J. Tooker, former missionary doctor in China. Ashley L. Totten, labor leader, New York City. Freda Utley, author, Washington, D. C. Dr. Donald D. Van Slyke, former presi- dent, American Bureau Medical Aid to China, New York City. hous Waldman, attorney, New York City. Dr. Jerome P. Webster, professor of surgery, Columbia University School of Medicine, New York City. Dr. Maurice William, author, authority on Sun Yet-sen, New York City. Michael Williams, former editor of America. Rev. Charles Ernest Scott, of Phila- delphia, retired missionary. Smith, author, Arming of Arab Nations EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHRISTIAN A. HERTER OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 4, 1950 Mr. HERTER. Mr. Speaker, in the light of the continuing reports that Great Britain is supplying arms to the Arab nations, the following news story, published in the New York Herald Trib- une of Wednesday, May 3, 1950, is of particular interest: UNITED STATES WILL REFUSE ISRAEL’S PLEA TO PuRCHASE ARMS—STATE AND DEFENSE DzE- PARTMENTS HELD AGREED THAT ARABS ARE Not PLANNING A WAR (By Homer Bigart) WAsHINGTON, May 2.—The State and De- fense Departments have come to the con- clusion that Israel is in no immediate danger of aggression from the Arab states and that the Israeli request for assistance in purchase of modern arms should not be granted at this time. This decision will not be revealed pub- licly. Instead, the State Department will continue to say that the request by Israel for the granting of export licenses for up-to- date weapons is still “under consideration.” At the same time, the Defense Establish- ment is defending the action of Great A3259 Britain in sending modern tanks, jet-pro- pelled military planes, and other equipment to Egypt. The Pentagon view is that the flow of arms from Britain to the Arab states is “in the strategic interest of the United States.’ This view, it was learned today, has considerable support in the State De- partment. The Pentagon argument is that renewal of Arab-Jewish warfare is unlikely now. It is stressed that this prediction is based on the Defense Establishment’s own intelligence sources and not on British intelligence. The Pentagon also insists that United Nations observers in Palestine are reporting that neither the Arabs nor the Israelis are in posi- tion to renew fighting and that there has recently been a lessening of tension. The military feels that Israel is stronger than any combination of Arab states and is perfectly able to defend itself with the arms in its possession. Moreover, the Pentagon says it is not fully informed on the total military strength of Israel because of re- luctance on the part of Israel to divulge figures. Claims that Israel enjoys military superior- ity over the Arab states were labeled ‘‘abso-=- lutely fantastic” this afternoon by a spokes~ man of the Israeli Embassy. “The records show,” he said, “that the Arabs have been getting modern equipment during the last few months and that they are in a far better position militarily than they were when hostilities began in May 1948.” He said no request for details on present Israeli military strength had ever been made Officially of the embassy here. Roberto Rossellini—Correspondence Be- tween Senator Johnson of Colorado and Gustavo Garzia EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON OF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 4 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Record an exchange of letters between Gustavo Garzia, of Italy, and myself, which may have some possible interest. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Rome, March 29, 1950. Senator EDWIN JOHNSON, United States Senate, Washington. Mr. Senator: He who writes to you is a Partisan officer, tortured by the German SS of Via Tasso, whence he escaped. A reward of 1,500,000 lire was offered for his capture and he was condemned to death in absentia, by a Nazi tribunal. Therefore, he has the right to write to you * * *, Not an hour ago I read in the journal, Paese Sera No. 75 of March 29, 1950, your false words to the detriment of an honest and honorable man of the Italian cinematog- raphy * * *, Everybody in Italy knows Rossellini, his hard life of work and his moral uprightness, which distinguishes him from you, and he is appreciated and esteemed by all gentlemen, by honest people. « * * T have known Roberto Rossellini for many years, his honest life as a wo. ker, his moral rectitude (which you lack); his
A3260 pure and calm life is an example, a spur to many. I am a journalist and live by my work. I have no interest in defending Roberto Rossel= Jini. 1 defend him as a Partisan officer, pe- cause I know I am right and you are wrong * * *. I await your reply: Gustavo GARZIA, Partisan Officer, Viale della Pineta 96, Lido di Roma, Italy. May 3, 1950. Senor Gustavo GaArRzIA, Partisan Officer, Viale della Pineta 96, Lido di Roma, Italy. Dear SENoR Garzia: You have indeed had a tragic war experience. I rejoice that you escaped from your Nazi persecutors, and I rejoice, too, that you had the courage and patriotism to undergo these terrible hard-~ ships for your beloved Italy. For inviting these dangers and making these sacrifices you have won my great respect and admira-~ tion. While you, in constant danger of losing your life, were waging this almost hopeless underground battle against great odds, an~ other of your countrymen was enoying the comforts and political security available to those who collaborated with the enemy. Roberto Rossellini joined the Fascists in 1942 and became a close friend of the Nazi gang- ster who directed the Nazi operations in Italy. Rossellini’s mistress was a German actress named Roswitha Schmidt, with whom he lived as late as January 1948. Roberto Rossellini has been incarcerated jin a mental institution in Naples at least twice. Furthermore, he was investigated re- specting narcotics in New York City on Jan-~ uary 17, 1949. Early in that same year he transported another of his women across State lines in the United States. In this country it is a violation of the Mann Act, commonly known as the “White Slave” Act, to transport a woman or cause her to be transported across State lines for immoral purposes. The punishment for this crime is a long penitentiary sentence. I shall be glad to furnish you further in- formation about Roberto Rossellini should you desire it. However, if this promiscuous male is your ideal, then any further exchange of notes would be a waste of time. Sincerely, Eowin C. JOHNSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, nn Production of Secret State Department Papers for Examination EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. KENNETH S. WHERRY OF NEBRASKA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 4 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I at- tempted earlier in the day to have placed in the Recorp an article by Bert Andrews in the New York Herald Tribune of today entitled “State Department To Let Service See Secret Papers Senate Couldn't.” This is a most interesting article. I would have liked to read it into the Recorp at this point, but in view of the fact that it is somewhat late, I ask unanimous consent that it be in- serted in the Appendix, There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: State DEPARTMENT To Ler SERVICE SEE SECRET Papers SENATE COULDN’T— WILL DECLASSIFY Some Documents To HeLtp Him PREPARE Derenss ror DELAYED LoyALTY HEARING (By Bert Andrews) WASHINGTON, May 3.—The State Depart- ment 1s declassifying certain restricted and confidential documents to make them avail- able to counsel preparing the defense of John Stewart Service, who will soon appear before a Department loyalty board. This is being done despite the fact that the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee, al- though authorized by unanimous Senate ac- tion to subpena the files in the Service ahd other cases, has been denied access to any and all information about the cases. These facts were learned today from sena~ torial sources and were confirmed by Charles E. Rhetts, of counsel for Mr. Service. Mr. Rhetts commented on a story in to- day’s New York Herald Tribune which point- ed out that the State Department hearing in the Service case had been postponed in- definitely at the request of Mr. Service’s counsel, although Mr. Service returned to the United States from the Far East 5 weeks ago yesterday. Mr. Rhetts assured this re- porter there was nothing mysterious in ask- ing the delay. Mr. Rhetts said he had advised Mr. Service to prepare as complete documentation and as comprehensive a statement as possible “‘so that these charges can be cleared up once and for all.” He said this necessitated the gathering of documents from many places and about many things. One of the things included the Amerasia case of 1945. Mr. Service was one of six arrested on charges of conspiring to violate the Federal espionage statutes through the theft of highly confidential documents. He was not indicted and was reinstated “for important work in connection with far- eastern affairs.” Mr. Rhetts said that some of the delay in gathering documentation resulted from slow- ness within the State Department. He ex- plained that some State Department docu- ments needed by Mr. Service’s counsel had to be declassified by the Department. This is a term used to describe the process by which high State Department officials, pre- sumably after close scrutiny, cross out desig- nations ranging from top secret down to confidential so they can be circulated freely without violating security rules. Mr. Rhetts was not sure just when the State Department hearing of Mr. Service would be held, The case will be considered first by a panel of three State Department employees. It will then be subject to review by the Loyalty Review Board of the Civil Service Commission, which is the top board. FOI FILES NOT INCLUDED Mr. Rhetts did not describe just what docu- ments were being received from the State Department. It was clear, however, that ‘they were not the loyalty or personnel files, which are gathered by the FBI and other investigating agencies. Presumably they were copies of reports sent in by Mr. Service and about him by diplomats under whom he has served. However, the blanket rejec- tion of the Senate subpena prevented the Senate subcommittee from gaining access to even that kind of information about any of the cases. Senator JoszpH R. McCarruy, Republican, of Wisconsin, said he had heard that Mr. Service’s attorney was being supplied with documents from the State Department. “T think it is a pretty shocking thing,” he said, “considering the fact that the State Department, by President Truman’s order, refuses to let the Senate Investigating Com- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD mittee see anything in the files. It is addi-, tional evidence of what President Truman meant when he said on February 23 that he would cooperate in every way possible to dis- prove ‘false charges.’ It is clear the Truman administration is not interested in trying to get at the truth.” Senator BourKE B. HicKENLOOPER, Republi- can, of Iowa, echoed Senator McCarrry’s statement. “It is absolutely appalling,” he said, “to think that documents are being de- Classified to aid Mr. Service when the Senate subcommittee can’t even find out whether there are any documents in the files which might prove the truth of Senator McCartry’s charges. I am going to ask the committee to investigate.” Tension in the Middle East EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 4, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, public opinion in this country is growing more restless by the day over the situation in the Middle East which continues to re- main tense because of the shipment of arms to the Arab states by Great Brit- ain, while arms are being refused to the State of Israel, The United States Gov- ernment has had under consideration for the past several months a request from Israel to purchase certain arms in this country for purposes of security in the event of an Arab attack, but to this day no decision has been reached. By such action, which is actually procrastination, our State Department is condoning the action of Britain in supplying armis to the Arab states and keeping the Middle East in a constant state of turmoil. I believe that all of my colleagues will be interested in reading a brief editorial, The Arabs and Israel, which appeared in one of the leading newspapers in this country the New York World-Telegram and Sun, on Wednesday, May 3, 1950. It ir as follows: Tire Arabs ann Israrn Britain's full recognition of the State of Israel and of the union between the King- dom of Jordan and those parts of Arab Pales- tine under Jordan control should relieve some of the tensions in the troubled Middle East. But the British policy of furnishing arms to the Arab states, while they remain in a technical state of war with Israel, ta subject to serious question. Specifically, Winston Churchill has asked the Labor government whether it feels that 110 jet planes allegedly sold to Eyypt are being acquired by that country sulely for defense purposes. The United States Government is con- cerned in this situation, both because we are furnishing arms to Britain and beewuse Israel has asked for licenses to purchase arms in this country. Until now these Ii- censes have not been granted. Spokesmen for the Israeli Government say they would prefer to spend their money for tractors and other peacetime equipment. But, they add, if Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria are permitted to buy arms from Britain, Israel should be allowed to obtain similar equipment here. Under the stated circum-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD stances, we do not see how our Government can deny Israel licenses to do so. It would be even better, of course, if the United States and Britain would try to con- vince the Arab States that they should use their money for the economic improvement of their respective territories. Since all of these Governments are looking to us for assistance under the projected point 4 program, we should be in a position to give them some advice. What Price an Expanding Economy? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KARL E. MUNDT OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 4 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, agree- able to the permission granted me by the Senate, I am inserting in the Recorp herewith a stenotypist’s report of an extemporaneous address which I deliv- ered before the national meeting of the American Retail Federation, which was held in the Shoreham Hotel on April 4 of this year. This address was my con- tribution to a panel discussing ‘‘What Price an Expanding Economy?” in which the preceding speaker was the senior Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Manoney]. | There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mr. Jonss. The next speaker on our pro- gram this morning is a man who has been known to me for many years, a man who has already, I think, made a very definite place for himself and his State in the Senate of the United States. Senator Kart E. Munpt was born 49 years ago in Humboldt, S. Dak. He was graduated from Carleton College, Northfield, Minn., and from Columbia University in New York. He has been a school teacher, a superin- tendent of schools. He has taught in the speech department of teachers’ colleges in the State of South Dakota where he made a great reputation. He was elected to Congress, first to the House of Representatives in 1938, and served in that capacity for 10 years, being elected to the Senate for the full 6-year term in 1948. Senator Munort is one of the best known conservationists in this country. He has beon national vice president of Izaak Walton League and a member of the executive board of that group. He has been widely read as editorial writer for Outdoor America. He has pioneered in Congress for some years for pollution-control legislation. He was district governor of Kiwanis Inter~- national in the Minnesota district of Kiwanis and he served as chairman of international committees of Kiwanis for some time. His hobbies are many: Hunting, fishing, as you might know, writing and travel, and he is a polished and finished public speaker. He has served on the following committees of the House of Representatives: Education, Irrigation and Reclamation, Indian Affairs, Foreign Affairs, the House Committee to In- vestigate Un-American Activities, of which . he was acting chairman during the Alger Hiss espionage hearings resulting in the dis- covery of the so-called pumpkin papers. He is now a member of the Senate Committee on XCVI—App.——206 Executive Expenditures and the Rules Com- mittee of the Senate. The articles by Mr. Munpr have had wide distribution in many types of publications, In 1945 he made an extensive trip to 20 countries of Europe and spent some time in Russia studying the situation there. Mr. Munpt has made many trips to Europe which have broadened his outlook until today I am sure that you will find him a polished and a well-rounded public servant in the Senate of the United States. I value him as an old friend of mine and my family, and it is with particular pride that I introduce to you today Senator Kari E, Munopt, of South Dakota. [Applause.] Senator Munor. Mr. Chairman, Rolly, thank you for that friendly introduction. Rolly and I stop to talk and pat each other on the back every opportunity we get, and I am certainly not going to be derelict by failing to state that I recognize Rolly as one of the great advocates of free enterprise and one of the splendid constructive representa- tives of business here in the city of Wash- ington. He has been here a long time, and he came to the position of business representative, which is the $4 word that we call lobbyist down in Washington—he came to that posi- tion honestly by running a private enterprise of his own up in the city of Gettysburg, S. Dak., a drug store which still exists, which still operates in the black, and which demon- strates that he knows how to Keep a bal- anced budget insofar as his personal busi- ness affairs are concerned. I always enjoy the opportunity of ad- dressing a group of businessmen because I am one of those who believe that the future of this country depends primarily upon what businessmen such as you do, or fail to do, within the next 5 years. I don’t think we have forever in which to solve our problems, and I don’t believe that we are going to get the problems solved through the machinations of politicians like me operating down here on the wrong side of the Potomac River. I think you can pick up any daily balance of the United States Treasury and recognize that until and unless folks like you do some- thing somehow different from what folks like you have been doing in the past 5 years, until you do something different in the next 5 years I am afraid that we too are going to suffer this socialization of enterprise and this nationalization of industry which has come to plague and perplex most of the rest of the civilized world. ‘You are visiting in a community which, as you know, is comprised of very, very important people. Everybody in Washington is either a mighty important person or else thinks he is, and it amounts to about the same thing. [Laughter.] You can hop in a taxicab, to come up and visit us on the Hill, and ask the taxicab driver any kind of profound question, and he will give you a ready answer before he gets you up to the Capitol. Our Washington cab drivers are authorities on. every conceivable subject, and they speak with great authenticity and no skepticism at all. Every Member of the House of Representa- tives is an important fellow and is a candi- date for the Senate. Every Member of the United States Senate and every member of the President’s Cabinet is an important fellow who is a candidate for President. And these days every President somehow seems to think he is entitled to a lifetime lease on the White House. [Laughter.] So, you understand, we are a city of im- portant people. But, important as we are or as we think we are, I am one of those, I say, who believes that you are the important segment of the body politic; and if we are going to do any- thing about this expanding economy, which A3261 we recognize is essential and which I salute you as having adopted as the theme for our discussion this morning, I think it is going to have to be brought about primarily by what you do rather than by what we do, because we are going to do in large part those things that you would make it possible for us to do, or that you prod us into doing, because left alone and judging the future by the past—and I know of no other criterion to follow—leaving us alone, we are going to continue to take from you your money and your power and your rights of decision and your freedoms of operations because, strange- ly enough, we in the political profession have concluded we are able to spend your money more wisely than you are and that we can exercise your free decisions more judiciously than you can and that we are men of purer motives than the business colony of America. I don’t believe in that philosophy myself, but it.is generally and widely and afirmative- ly expressed here in Washington, and I am woefully in the minority in feeling somehow that the men of my profession lack this Olympian judgment which so many of my colleagues somehow feel they have. So I am going to suggest to you some things this morning that I think perhaps . as business people you should do—and, after all, while I did teach school out in South Dakota in the colleges of that State for some 12 years, I was in business all the time I taught schools—in the investment business and in the insurance business; and during the interim between the time I taught school and the time the people of South Dakota exercised the rare good judgment to send me down to Washington, I was exclusively a businessman. I know something of the problems you con-~ front, something of how you feel when you run into competition with Government, be- cause I was in competition with Uncle Sam for several rears in the business of loaning money to farmers with which to improve their farms, in the business of loaning money to householders, to those who wanted to construct homes for themselves and their families, and I even was bold enough to be in competition with Uncle Sam for a while in the insurance business. €o I discovered even before I got to Washington that as a competitor with Uncle Sam I was a com-~ plete failure. I didn’t have resources enough. I couldn’t compensate for my bad judgment, and my losses, by taxing the people of the com-~ munity to replenish the reservoirs of finan- ces with which I dealt; and so I was hav- ing difficulties backing my own judgment and having to pay for my mistakes when I was also having to pay for my share of Uncle Sam’s mistakes as he went into com- petition with me, I certainly agree with Senator O’MaHoNEeY when he said a few minutes ago on this panel that facts produce movements. But I think there is also a corollary to that statement. I think it can be demonstrated with equal validity that movements produce facts; and I want to take that side of the discussion for a while this morning, because down here, you see, we have discovered that nobody can make a pancake so thin but that it has two sides, and that pancake has two sides, too, because movements have produced a strange series of startling facts all over this world today, facts which in my opinion primarily are involved in curtailing our economy rather than helping it to expand. I think if we are going to discuss how to expand our economy we must first of all analyze those things which are tending to curtail it or to constrict it or to hold it down because certainly we don’t want to have the experience that Great Britain is now having. I heard Senator O’MaHONEY say, and I agree with him, that a big reason why na- tionalization has come to bring almost eco- nomic ruin to Great Britain was the finan- cial condition of its treasury. The greatest
A3262 nation of private tradesmen that the world has yet produced; who because of their un- canny business ability were able to parlay a little group of islands into a mighty world empire, a nation which in the hour of its perils triumphed over the forces of tyranny and fought back the Hus, after having stood up against the blitzkrieg, after having demonstrated that their tight, strained little island could defend itself against the forces of nazism, after having been joined with us as partners in a mighty successful war, at that hour of purple triumph, the British discarded the formula of private enterprise, discarded the formula of individual initia- tive which made it an empire and adopted instead the formula of failure that brought Hitler to his knees, because national so- cialism, stripped of all its phony language, js exactly the same formula that Hitler em- ployed in bringing himself into authority in. Germany. We Americans forget so easily. Sometimes we don’t recognize the fact that the word Nazi is simply a German contraction mean- ing national socialism and that what the British have produced is an imitation of the German national socialism devoid at the mo- ment of the strong tyrannical leadership of somebody ruthlessly willing to crack down on every dissident factor in the economy. Now history has been going on for a long time, and a lot of different people in a lot of different eras of history and 4 lot of different areas of the world have tried national so- cialism, always and inevitably with one of two outstanding results: Hither they have found as we Americans discovered, for ex- ample, early in our history after the signing of the Mayflower Compact, up in that cold New England climate, that it would not work in a climate of freedom, when the voyagers on the Mayflower decided in order to meet the vicissitudes in a foreign life with In- dians and blizzards and lack of conveniences, they should collectivize. : ‘They adopted on American soil as the first government in this country after the Indians the theory that they should take from people according to thelr ability and give to people according to their needs, which is the essence of socialism, which is the essence of a planned economy, which is the essence of government running your businesses, and which is the essence of theoretical communism, fascism, and nazism. So they said, “We will send everybody out into the woods to shoot the wild turkey, shoot the bear, and cut down the timber, They will bring it back into the common stockade and we who run the colony will parcel out the produce according to the needs of the people here who came over on the Mayflower.” And history records what happened. Peo- ple starved to death that first winter. Before we could commemorate the first bountiful Thanksgiving Day on American soil, we discarded the system that the Brit- ish now adopt—national soclalism—and started out with a theory of private enter- prise which we have clung to tenaciously from that day until now and which has made us the envy of the world, Now it has been said this morning, with considerable veracity, that one of the rea- sons why the British have discarded that success formula and adopted national social- ism is because Federal spending through one cause or another has placed their fiscal situ- ation in such a desperate condition that they had to collectivize the industries of Britain in order to try to meet that challenge. I have said that and accept that as one of the reasons. I accept that as one of the reasons also why we are approaching na-~ ,tional socialism in America today, because ,our Federal budget is out of balance much more seriously than was the British budget and js considerably more out of balance today than are the budgets either of Great Britain, France, Belgium, or Holland at this very moment; and the politicians there as the politicians here reasoned, with consider- able merit, I think, that when you have such @ terrific overload of Federal taxes and Fed~ eral spending and deficit financing, that if you can’t exact from the tazpayer in pros- perous times like these enough money to keep the budget in balance, that certainly you are never going to find the time in your national history when you can balance the budget, that a continuation forever of fis- cal deficits means economic disaster, and so they adopted national socialism. Unable to tax the coal industry sufficiently to balance the budget, unable to tax the transportation industry sufficiently to bal- ance the budget, unable to tax the electrical industry sufficiently to balance the pudget in Great Britain, they said, ‘We will nation- alize the industry and use all of the profits therefrom to help support the financial struc- ture of the country.” It has failed because putting politicians from various precincts of any country in positions of economic control does not pro- vide the efficiency and the good managerial ability required to make an enterprise suc- cessful. Immediately, employees of enterprises who have become employees of public property begin through lobbying techniques and power of collectivized voting a propaganda campaign to increase their take in the na- tional production to the point that industry itself soon starts running into the red; and so socialism has to start reaching out for some- thing else: It grabs the medical profession; it grabs, as it has in Britain today, eight different types of industrial enterprises; and, still running into the red, says “In order for us to succeed, in order for us to produce economically as business managers sufficient profits so that we can put the Government into the black, we must take over the stecl industry,” and that is the next thing which they propose to take over in Great Britain. I think, however, it is only half the story to say that in Great Britain the condi- tion of the Federal budget made it attrac- tive to experiment with national socialism. I think that ignores the side of the pan- cake which I described as the record that movements also produce facts as well as facts producing movements. I think it ignores entirely the fact that a movement began in 1848 in Germany, launched by Karl Marx and Dr. Engels, called communism, which, in just a century, just 100 years, has come to influence the lives of as many people in the world today as Christianity has come to influence in 20 centuries. I think that movement there has produced these facts. I think in analyzing the situation in Great Britain simply on the basis of believing that the financial condition of the country pre- cipitated Britain into national socialism and began to spell its doom, another fact is ig- nored, and that was that in 1883 on the shores of Britain itself there developed a movement called the Fabian Movement, which began preaching a philosophy of na- tionalization, which began a very skillful and bland and predetermined basis of work- ing its way into the schools, into the labor unions, into the farm organizations, and into the Government itself of people who believed that only politicians are smart enough to run an enterprise, of people who believed that private enterprisers left alone are bare-teeth wolves, and that only poll- ticlans have the rectitude to do things al- ways honestly. Those Fabians developed such ® powerful propaganda campaign, such a skillful tech- nique of indoctrination and such a well- heeled political machine that their succes- sors in line, the Labor Party——-so-called, but the Soclalist Party, in fact—the Fabian So- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cialists of Great Britain came into control in Great Britain today as a movement pro- ducing the fact of national socialism in that country. Now I think that in considering an ex- panding economy in this country, conse- quently we have to recognize that we are threatened not only by facts but by move- ments—a movement in the form of com- munism which has become an international conspiracy, a movement in the form of com- munism which one of our great Americans, Gen. George Marshall, said yesterday, pro- vides the greatest peril to freedom that this country has ever known. And that movement is rather easily de- fined: Communism is not an economic the- ory. Communism is not a political party. Communism in no one of the 13 countries which it has conquered and in no area of the world which it today controls, operates jn conformity with an economic theory such as is expressed in the theoretical writings of the early Communists. Communists have discarded entirely the concept of taking from people according to their ability and giving to people according to their needs. They found it wouldn’t work. So they have substituted a form of tyranny, one-man control or one-group control over every enterprise, over every movement, over every segment of the population. I think the best proof that communism is not a political party is the fact that in none of the countries it now controls did it attain its authority by operating after the formula of a political party. We know what a political party is. We know how it operates; it hus a modus oper- andi. A political party has candidates and campaign funds and chairmen and commit- tee work and platforms and conventions and campaigns. But primarily a political party achieves its objective at a voting booth, and unless @ movement does achieve its objec- tive in the voting places of the land, what- ever else in the world it is, it is not a political party. Neither in Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Es- tonia, Albania, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, castern. Germany, or China, the countries that the Communists now run, has any Communist leader ever achieved his authority by a vote of the people; and in none of the countries has he ever continued to stay in authority, once he achieved it by a coup d’etat, by a voto of the people in which they were given a choice between two different sets of principles or two different sets of candidates. So they aid not have an election because the word “elect’”’ means that you can elect to take one choice or another. Under communism that Js not the procedure, I remember the last visit I had coming out of Moscow, leaving Russia in 1945, After having spent about a month in 1945 studying conditions In Russta and behind the jron curtain, after having celebrated Vd- day on the Red Square of the Kremiin, we were flying out of Baku, down on the Caspian Sea, and our committee had been royally en- tertained by the mayor of Baku, a friendly little Astatic who spoke a Uttle English. That particular morning for a send-off party he was giving us a typical Russian breakfast comprised primarily of vodka and caviar, In South Dakota, where Jones and I came from, you don’t get that kind of breakfast very often and our stomachs weren’t just acclimated for it, and so I was trying to make a lot of big talk so I wouldn't have to partake very heartily. I proceeded: “My, Mayor, you have been a very gracious host, taken us down to the oil fleld here in Baku, shown us how they extract caviar from sturgeon. You have shown us the old part of the city and the new part of the city and great statues erected to Stalin and Lenin, Fut, tell me—I want to ask you a personal
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD question: How did you get to be mayor of Baku? “How? How? The people. The people elected me to be mayor of Baku.” I said, “That is wonderful. That is how I got to be a Congressman from South Dakota.” I said, “Tell me, did you have much oppo- sition in the election, have much difficulty?” He said, “I have no opposition at all.” Well, that was the answer to a Congress- man’s prayer. We gathered around like foot- ball players around the quarterback. We said, ‘Tell us—how did you do it? How did you work that out?” And he said, “It is very simple. Very simple. In Russia, when the Politburo in Moscow nominated me I was the only can- didate that they nominated, and then the people—the people they voted for me.” He thought it was democratic. He thought it was an election. He thought it was act- ing like a member of a political party. But it was acting like the finger of a great tyran- nical machine, What is this great movement that has produced a §$20,000,000,000 fact — commu- nism? Communism is a way of life, a godless way of life, that holds that all of the economy of a country, the means of production, the farms, tractors, mills; the means of dis- tribution, the railroads, the ship lines, the telegraph companies, the retail stores; and all of the flow of capital, building and loan associations, insurance companies, loaning agencies, the whole economic fabric, shall be controlled—it doesn’t say owned, shall be controlled—in the capital city of the land by one group resisting all opposition and joining with others around the world in pro- moting and supporting a creed having as its goal the development of a world-wide dicta- torship under the control of the Kremlin. I don’t think in America we are ever going to quite recapture freedom as we used to have it until we understand what commu- nism is, what Fabian socialism is, and how the related ideologies and creeds and pro- grams of that central ism affect our daily lives and our daily jobs. Let me repeat this definition of commu- nism which has been demonstrated to be 100 percent accurate in every single section of the world that the Communists control and by every single activity of those supporting communism here: ‘ It is a godless way of life, denying God simply because the people in the country cannot serve two masters—a godless way of life which holds that the entire economic pattern of the country shall be controlled in the capital city of the land by a selected group permitting no opposition, and believ- ing in the internationalization of the world under the dictatorial leadership of the Kremlin. And every American Communist supports that kind of program, every French Com- munist supports it, it is supported by all Communists in every part of the world today. Eighteen months ago when the Kremlin in- sisted that the people loyal to it speak out and declare themselves, Togliatti in Italy, Jacques Duclos and Maurice Thorez and the Communist leaders of France, Earl Browder and Gene Dennis, the leaders in America, and W. Z. Foster, speaking within a short span of 72 hours said, “In the event of a war, in the event of a war between commu- nism and our respective countries, of course we are going to be fighting on the side of the Communists.” So only those who refuse to face the facts need have any skepticism about what the Communists propose in America, and they propose it with equal vigor whether it is a Communist like Gene Dennis operating in the open or a man like Alger Hiss working as assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in the State Department and having more to say about the final determinations at Yalta, probably, than any other English- speaking citizen. The Communists subscribe to this theory and operate on it whether they operate in the capacity of the 11 Communists convicted under the mighty fine judicial environment established by Judge Medina in New York or whether they operate like Carl Aldo Marzani now in the Federal penitentiary whose last position was in the State Department in the code room interpreting secret codes from our foreign embassies, or whether it is a Henry Julian Wadleigh who confessed that he had delivered hundreds of,secret American docu- ments to Russian agents in this country. We are faced with a situation which is serious hecause most of us recognize it but fail to strike out against it. That kind of movement left unchallenged and unexposed and not corrected in America can ruin any dream that any man here has about producing an expanding economy on our shores because it simply can’t operate under communism. Now I said something about communism and its related ideologies, its associated creeds, its fellow-workers and its fellow- wanderers, and its fellow-travelers who move in the direction in America of placing in the hands of men like me, in jobs like mine, increasingly the money which you silly people think belongs to you and would give to us with our supreme holy wisdom increasingly the power to exercise daily judgments that you can’t be trusted to exercise in your own interests and in the public w.lfare. That is the basis of the theory followed by many politicians who say they are going to solve the problems of America, On any other basis, certainly a man would be stupid indeed to say, “Create this regulatory body, enact this piece of legislation, impose this extra tax, nationalize this new industry.” You do or permit those things only be- cause you must believe in the superior ca- pacity of politicians and in the ignoble pur- poses of private citizens. At least, Commu- nists believe in that. They demonstrate that in every area. Many non-Communists, too, have accepted this Communist doctrine that big government is the only solution to big problems. And so every time we move increasingly in the direction of spending, we move in the direction of a totalitarian state. You can read the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD if you will—most of you unhappily won’t, and because most of you don’t .the things that Iam about to report do occur in the Con- GRESSIONAL Recorp. If most of you read it more regularly, you could take care of this problem at home, making sure that this kind of thing wouldn’t happen among those representing you in Washington. But if you will take the ConGrRESSIONAL Recorp for any year of the last 10 and ex- amine the roll-call votes on any issue in which there was a question of whether or not we should increase the power of politi- cians here in Washington, every Congressman - that you suspect of having an affinity for communism will be recorded in that roll- call vote as voting “aye,” put the power in Washington; give it to the politicians. Does that mean that everybody who votes for a concentration of power in Washington is a Communist? Let me make it clear, it does not. But it does mean that everybody who has an affection for communism in every vote has always voted for concentra- tion of power in Washington. There are no exceptions to that. You can check those whom you suspect the most. You will find it 100 percent an accurate prediction. If you will check the roll-call votes, when- ever there has been an issue down here in the last 10 years of whether we should break , down the right of a State or the rights of an institution or the authorities of an in= A3263 dividual, on every single roll-call vote, those associated with communism, those belong- ing to the greatest number of so-called front organizations, those who for want of a@ better term we call the “extreme leftists” in America, without exception have voted to break down the rights of States, have voted to cripple the function of an institu- tion, have voted to decrease the authority of an individual. Why? “No Communists are voting in the Con- gress of the United States of America today,” you say, and I will agree. But because since 1848 Communists have been studying the catechism of how to get control of a country, they know the first and essential step in a great commonwealth of States like ours is to put the power into one central place so that when at long last you can have a coup d’etat and a bloody or a bloodless revolution, once you have taken over the control spot, you have the entire country in an iron grip. . Communists understand that so much het- ter than we do. We go along distressed .and disturbed by world-wide problems and local conditions, a little bit here, a little bit there, depriving ourselves of the dignity of human beings and of our importance as individuals, of the sanctity of States’ rights, and the validity of an institution, decreasing our functions and our importance and sending all this power and authority down to Wash- ington for politicians, either elected or ap- pointed, to exercise and operate for us. Thus we are the careless architects of our own destruction and distress, Every time we do it, we move in the direc- tion of the Communists. They comprise the one group that in a propitious moment of a depression or a war, steps in and takes con- trol, and like the people of Czechoslovakia, we discover it too late. Ever since we were school boys, you and I have studied in our economics and political science books about the great check-and-bal- ance system of America, about the balance of powers in our Government. Unfortunately, most books on economics were written by people who never have made very much of an economic success in life themselves, and most hooks on jurisprudence are written py theorists who don’t know much about practical problems, and so they have talked almost exclusively about the checks and balances which exist between the judi- ciary, the legislative, and the executive branches of government. I agree it is tremendously important to maintain that equilibrium. I think it has become lopsided today, but something has become much more lopsided than that in our check and balance system. The check and balance system, which has contributed fully as much to our success as a country, in my opinion, as a balance of pow= ers within our Government, is the check and balance system existing between the politi- cian and the individual, between the Gov- ernment and our economic system. When individuals practicing this private economy have worked the people too hard or too long or have beaten them down too much, a law has been passed to keep the economy in balance and politicians have helped pull up the behavior of. the individual entrepreneur and the individual industry. Likewise when the politicians, smacking their lips because of the good taste of the . new power, have gone too far, individuals have gotten together and thrown that out- fit of politicians into the discard and put in @ system, a new principle, a new party, or a new President. And that kind of check and balance for over a century and a half has kept us dedi- cated ‘to private enterprise. It is a new philosophy, and it is a new con- ” cept—and it ‘doesn't'come out‘of the machine shop—it comes out of a conspiratorial source,
A8264 which now holds we should discard our Amer- ican kind of check and balance system en-~ tirely and trust everything and everybody to the decisions of a little group of politicians here in the Capital City of the land. If and when we do that, we discard our concept of freedom for the concept of communism. The Spence bill, which I hope you have all read, which you should read because there isn’t any use even talking about an expand- ing economy if the Spence bill passes—the Spence bill was introduced on the 15th of February 1949 by BRENT Srencz, of Kentucky, a man with whom I served in the House of Representatives for 10 years, a good Ameri- can, He has no part in anyone’s conspiracy, but as chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, one of the six most important committees of the House, he was asKed by someone on top to introduce the Spence bill as an administrative measure. If you haven’t read it, before you leave Washington get a copy of it. In part it says: In event of an emergency—it doesn’t say war, it doesn’t say an atomic attack, it doesn’t say a revolution—in the event of an emergency—and I dare say, Rolly Jones, you haven’t got a member of your organization so old he can remember back so far that we haven’t had a national emergency in govern- ment, but the bill says, ‘in the event of an emergency to be defined by the Chief Exec- utive,” whoever he may be at the time, that Chief Executive after making that finding shall then have the power, no other bill, no new appropriations, no new appeal to the people required—he shall then have the pow- er to take over, to operate, to own, or to build any enterprise in America essential to our national defense. And in an atomic age, I think that includes everything except the manufacturers of pin- pall machines, and it might include them, pecause up to now the Pentagon hasn't pro- duced any better plan than hiding under pinball machines. We don’t know what we are going to do if they drop those bombs on us, That isn’t in Britain; that isn’t in Czecho- slovakia; that is a hill produced by the chairman of the House Banking and Cur- rency Committee 20 days after our Presi~ dent, talking to a joint session of the Senate and House, wrote a footnote to American history by becoming the first Chief Executive in the land to tell Congress, as he told us, that the time may come in the United States when it is necessary for the Government to take over the steel mills in the interests of security. Let me tell you as a private enterpriser who knows something about competition with the Government, out of an experience of 12 years in that capacity, let me tell you as an ex-student of economics who has studied this problem in 27 different countries of the world, {f our Government or the British Government or any other Government takes over the steel industry; you might just as well kill the canary and throw the cage away, there is no private economy left, because steel is the basis to our whole modern industrial enterprise. We have had another balance in this coun- try I would like to mention briefly. We have had the greatest balance tn America, main- taining equilibrium between a security state and an opportunity state, that the world has ever seen, There are people and areas and regions where folks have more security than they have under our American system of govern~ ment now, and I am talking about Ameri- can conditions today in April 1950, not the way somebody would make them over; as of now, we have all the security in our sys- tem that any good man should want, not as much, aS we can get, but an adequate status of security which can and should continue to evolve and improve as the years go on, But there is more security, certainly, for @ political prisoner in a salt mine in Siberia than there is for a retail merchant in America today. No question about that. Uncle Joe takes care of his security. He won't let you freeze the man in the salt mine because a frozen corpse can mine no salt; and he won’t let you starve to death pecause if you starve, you are no longer & productive agent. You have security there certainly against being struck down as a pedestrian by a° drunken motorist because you are never going to get out on the high- way. You have security against any vicissi- tude of life overtaking you as you move around freely in the country because you are going to stay in the salt mines and die. The prisoners in Alcatraz have more security from disaster and difficulty than you, better security in old age, better medical security; some doctor takes care of them every time they get ill; a better and more permanent guaranty of food and clothing and housing than any of you can expect to have. Two or three bad buys in a depression and you move from your aristocratic home into a soup line, if you go broke, as many busi- nessmen have. No guaranty in your ad- venturesome lives. But you do have it in Siberia and in Alcatraz. We don’t propose to provide that degree of security in America, or at least we never have, nor are we going to give people unlimited opportunity. If it is completely unlimited opportunity you want, go down to the Caribbean; you can get it on the islands of the Caribbean. Go down to the West Indies—you can get it there. Go to any semicivilized area of the world where there are no codes of ethics, no laws, and no business standard or ethics and there you can practice the law of the fang, the tooth, and the claw. There you can have opportunity—unlimited, uncon- trolled, and probably unrewarded. We have declared for a long time in America that government exists to prod and to penalize the people who need prodding and the peo- ple against whom a penalty should be at- tached. Such a rule of reason provides the maximum in opportunity dividends with just government supervision to provide a fair chance for a free people. Aside from that, there is opportunity enough, there is security enough, and no other country has been able to establish that balance and that equilibrium of human objectives that we have in our American opportunity, and those who would now cen- tralize all authority in Washington would destroy that. To get an expanding economy, I think we are going to have to increasingly move in the direction of flexibility of decision on the part of the citizen. There are at least 10 things now which are operating in your lives which tend to put in a strait-Jacket your capacity to provide your share of an expanding economy. You have a minimum-wage law. You have &® maximum-hour law. We have price floors in certain. phases of the economy. We have standardized, legitimized margins of profit in certain economic enterprises, We have established rules of competition in many areas, like transportation. We have been confronted with a salary limitation that anybody making over $25,000 a year must be considered a second cousin to Hitler. That bill didn’t pass Congress, but it may come up again, and it could pass at that time. And you have it in fact, if not in substance now, in the income tax which makes it al- most impossible, beyond a certain level, to acquire any wealth. We have a Fair Dealers’ theory of equaliza- tion of wealth and income as s new concept of taxation, the old theory being that taxes were levied primarily to support the Gov- ernment, Now taxes are used to punish the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD wicked and reward the jfust—an equaliza. tion trend operating increasingly in America today. We have allocation of materials in ccr- tain areas. We have the concept that the Government should establish a yardstick so holier-than-thou politicians can take crooks like you, in the minds of lots of people, and establish a yardstick to dcter- mine how you should operate and what you can do. Finally we have outright Govern- ment ownership in certain areas and moving rapidly in the direction of Government own- ership in insurance, in medicine, in steel, and in many other areas, including the functions of banking and construction. Now I submit to you that in my opinion those facts are the results of movements, movements which have been running around in the world for at least a hundred years and from which we have not been immune. Movements, if you please, which we are still importing from Europe. In America we describe them mostly as part of a planned economy. In essence what does a planned economy mean? Those favoring a planned economy believe poli- ticilans can plan more wisely and equitably than individuals in private business, that is all. A planned economy is, in my opinion, the most gratuitous Insult ever thrown to the businessman, because it assumes the people you elect are so much abler or ethical than you that they alone can arrange it; and a planned economy is committed to failure unless it has authority in the hands of the planner to compel the people to go along. ‘What good is a planned economy if each of us is still going to follow the inclination of our own nose? Why give fellows like me in the United States Senate the authority to plan your lives if some of you can still Jead your own lives? Why permit us to pass laws and establish bodies determining how you can mark up and where you can advertise and how big you can grow, and so forth, if we are still going to permit exceptions? So you have to put in our hands the police power they placed in the hands of Adolf Hitler and they placed in the hands of Joe Stalin. And when you fail to put that police power in the hands of the planners, you get the catastrophe that happened in New Zea~ land and the chaos that fell upon Australia, and the sorry situation prevatling in Great Britain. Too many cooks spoil the broth—a lot of plans and nobody operating them so as to get efficiency, economy, or sustained dircc~ tion, Consequently a planned economy al~ ways leads to tyranny where there is but one plan, and one man or group with power enough to make everybody conform with that plan. Thus you get communism, nazism, fascism, or national socialism, Same differ-~ ence either way, Let me suggest in my concluding state~ ments some things that I think you must do if we are going to expand the economy and restore the areas of freedom to the American business colony, because I think it can be demonstrated by the book that the areas of human freedom all around the world have been shrinking startingly for the Jast 20 years. With the sole exception of Turkey, the areas of human freedom have been growing smaller, and that inclhides the United States of America. The first thing I think you have to do is this: I think businessmen have got to get into politics. I know from experience that politicians have gotten into business, and by the way, we have some great plans we haven’t talked about yet. I think unless business gets into politics, the labor organi~ zations which are in politics, the farm or- ganizations which are in politics, the pressure groups which are in politics—those big and brave and bold enough to make thelr influ.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ence felt on election day—are of course going to continue to determine the trend of our economy, and it isn’t going to be an expand- ing one. If you get into politics, you are the most influential people in your craft and in your community who can help determine the trend of destiny in America, and that pretty well, in my opinion, predetermines the trends of world affairs. There is always a choice in your home dis- trict between two candidates. It doesn’t mean you are always going to vote for a Republican against a Democrat or a Demo- crat against a Republican, but there is al- ways a choice. You seldom find two fellows equally dedicated to the principles of pri- wate enterprise, equally articulate, equally influential, and equally supported by a vot- ing record demonstrating where they stand when the chips are down. Get on the side of the fellow fighting your battles whether he is a Democrat or a Re- publican, whether it is in the primaries or the fall election. If you don’t support him, he may not win and cannot support you. So I say, first of all, that this thing is go- ing to be determined in large part in Amer- ica at the polling places by what people like you do or do not do. Secondly, I submit there might be a place for your organization in a great new move- ment which in America we hope is going to produce another fact. I refer you to the All-American Conference to Promote Free- dom and Defeat Communism, called under the auspices of George M. Craig, holding its first meeting in the Astor Hotel in January, its second meeting last Sunday, and there is to be a big meeting in Chicago in the La Salle Hotel come next May 13 and 14, in which we propose to organize into one great phalanx for freedom, all of the organizations’ in America of good repute wanting to do something except grumble about what is happening to their freedoms and about the threat of communism here at home. I am sure your organization is an organi- zation. of good repute. We have been able to bring the American Federation of Labor into this new conference along with the Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Kiwanis Clubs, the Lions Clubs, the National Grange, the Jewish War Veterans, the VFW, the American Legion, and many others, We now have organizations representing some 50,000,000 Americans we hope to unite in a program in Chicago to do something at the grass roots level to protect the free- doms which we have, to fight for them again the way Americans have done repeatedly in times past to make them work. A third thing I think you can do, I think you can get behind legislation—and I am not going to press this point, because I didn’t come down here to lobby. . But there happens to be a bill on which my name is associated with Senator Frr- Gcuson, of Michigan, and Senator JouwnsrTon ' of South Carolina, but it is a significant bill, one time called the Mundt-Nixon bill, now called the Mundt-Ferguson-Johnston bill. It should more significantly be called by its title which is the Subversive Activities Con- trol Act of 1950. The Senate Judiciary Com- mittee brought it out of committee with a favorable vote of 12 to 1. What does it do in essence? In essence, it denies Communists the privilege of hold- ing a job in the Federal Government, and if they sneak their way in it puts them in jail. And it also puts fh jail the Government offi- cial who knowingly appoints them to the job. It doesn’t outlaw the Communist Party. I wouldn’t outlaw it. I want to permit them to circularize and hold their campaigns and stand for election because not many people are going to vote for them. But our bill would prevent them from getting jobs like Hiss got his, by appointment, like Wadleigh and Noel Field and Judy Coplon, . Also, it makes the Communists register themselves and operate in the open; and if they continue to sneak-thieve their operation in positions of importance it puts them in jail for violating a law which says, “You have got to operate in the open. You are not going to get into politics secretly.” You register if you vote in the primaries. You have to register your party literature in all States under the Hatch bill. Those things we are going to require the Commu- nist Party to do. And, fourthly, may I suggest the great educational .opportunity that you confront if you really want to do your part in help- ing to keep America American? May I show you just one’ exhibit here? If you think that the so-called Mundt-Fer- guson-Johnston Act isn’t going to stop this Kind of Communist conspiracy in this coun- try take a look at the Daily Worker pub- lished March 2, every page devoted to opposi- tion to the so-called Mundt-Ferguson Act. They are working. They claim they are rais- ing a million dollars to keep it from Con- gress and off the floor of the Senate. At least, the Communists know this bill will expose and curtail their racket. If you feel as we do, and as the 12 Mem- bers of the Senate Judiciary Committee feel, that the time has come to deny Communists the right to represent us in appointive jobs, I believe men like you can offset this kind of attack which comes every day from the Communists. Now, about your education opportunities in a broader challenge. I don’t know any group of Americans in any line of activity that have contact with more individuals than you have. I think you can do a great job of educating your employees, your customers, and the general public against the growing tendencies toward collectivism here. That is part of the program we hope to undertake in the All-American Conference. But think of the things you can do in- dividually. Think of the great Job General Motors has done by publishing this -book Something To Think About, which records facts for everybody in the employ of Gen- eral Motors to read and understand, simple facts about what private enterprise means in America, simple facts pointing out the difference between life under socialism and life in the United States, facts no American should ever forget. It says that in Russia for example, the average worker with a week’s salary can buy 17 pounds of sugar; 500 pounds of sugar in America, in Russia 17 pounds; under social- ism in Great Britain 282 pounds—all with the same amount of work at exactly the same type of job. ; Those are the facts that mean things. Take-home pay. That’s what employees are interested in. They want to know what our badly inflated 59-cent dollar will buy and how many we must stack up on a counter some place to buy what we need compared to the purchase power of similar work under communism and socialism. General Motors is telling its employees the lesson you could tell all the people in your community in a full-page ad, in a little mes- sage inserted some place on the batk of a sales slip, in the material that goes out to the customer, and as you talk to people in the associations you belong to in our Amer- ican towns and cities. In April 1950, in the United States, one worker in a week can buy 276 quarts of milk, under socialism in Great Britain, 133 quarts of milk; for the same amount of labor in the same kind of job in Russia, 25 quarts of milk. Page after page of facts and charts and diagrams like that, General Motors has sent to every employee of its groups, facts that you can get, facts that you should use. _ If you haven’t the book, you can write for it. General Motors will be happy to send it to you because they are working to protect A3265 an environment for all of us—Something To Think About, that is the name of this monograph. Jobs such as Spiritual Mobilization is do- ing in California should be encouraged by you all. A great American, Donald J. Cow- ling, who has associated himself with great educators and preachers, is working with Reverend Fifield on this great project. You should help. For what would they defend freedom? For you to have the freedom. For whom? For you to fight politicians looking for more power and for you to continue as independent, respectable, and respected busi- nessmen. I am for you because I have been down here 12 years, and in that length of time I have yet failed to see any politician, execu- tive or legislative, Democrat or Republican or independent, civil or not civil service, so good and so wise and so important that I for one am willing to turn over to him my America. And I have known them all, most by their first names. They are some good and Some bad. We are doing pretty well in Con- gress, you know. We have two of our boys in jail, one in the White House. We have got them moving in both directions. “We are interested in helping the move- ment,” you can write to Spiritual Mobiliza- tion, if you want to do something effective to strike back against communism and its collateral creeds. The address is: Title Guarantee Building, Los Angeles, Calif. I wonder how many of you have circular- ized the book you helped to pay for? The chamber of commerce helped to get out a book Socialism in America, It is a fine thing to distribute. Don’t ever think politicians are going to distribute it for you. It is some- thing you can distribute in the community, to the kids in schools, to the youngsters home from college, to offset the movement kee pisnly financed by the sources from the eft. Let me point out to you what some Amer- {cans are doing individually; it is what I think has to be done generally as an educa- tion process if we are going to organize America within 5 years to defend the sys- tem which I think can collapse within 5 years if we continue to reward the apostle of collectivism and to defeat the fighters of freedom, which we are apt to do unless folks like you somehow can change the trends. “Socialism, brother, you don’t know the half of it.” This is a Standard Steel Spring full-page advertisement. It tells in lay- man’s language exactly what is wrong with state socialism and a planned economy. . If you write to this company at Cora- opolis, Pa., they will send it to you so you can make it available, too, to the folks of your community because it is important, The same company has run many similar advertisements. It is encouraging to know that we are getting some individual support, at least, for this great system which protects the individual. Here is one from the McGraw-Hill Co., manufacturers of, producers of, a great many periodicals a great many of us have read: “Give us the tools, your only chance of getting ahead.” It points out the only safe national policy is to make it possible for American industry to do its job, not to terrorize private busi- ness by political proposals and threats of ruinous taxation and take-over programs, put to defend it and give it a chance. How are you going to expand our economy if the reward for expansion is a Government pen- alty? How are you going to change the atmosphere without making the people of your community for whom expansion means the nost—the employees, the customers, the housewives, the farmers, the workers— realize that their eggs are in the same basket and their chips are in the same game along with yours? What are you doing’ to bring this realization home to them? —
A3266 That is an educational program. It has to be undertaken somehow by folks like you. Are you doing your part? Or are you trying to hitchhike a free ride on the freedom train? Hats off to the Texas and Pacific Railroad Co. for its series of ads: “Because I don’t want to move,” the lady says in this adver~ tisement. “Too bad,” the article says, “but you are going to have to move.” A Govern~ ment bureaucrat runs your home and tells you you have got to move out. All the dividends from public housing are not tile path tubs! A lot of them are unhappy people pushed around by arrogant politicians who become the landlords. I have spoken my allotted time. I don’t want to talk any further, but I do want to urge you, in concluding, that there is a job in America to be done, to save this coun- try. I see nothing wrong in the formula which built us as great as we are. What we need is the will and the courage to de= fend it. I see nothing in the technological foray of new inventions in machine shops that makes it essential for us to discard the formula of freedom. Ours is a political challenge not a mechanical one. I see nothing in the atomic bomb or tele- vision which has glorified the politician to make us so wise that a few of us know s0 much more than all the rest of you in Amer- ica. I think it is just time that the Individuals to whom this country belongs do something to protect it and to build it and to support it. I have suggested at least a few ways in which you yourselves can join in a fight for freedom to preserve it here in its last great bastion of the world. The movements of collectivism everywhere else have concen- trated power in the capital cities of the land to the distress and despair of the people gen- erally. In America, let us continue the for- mula that has made us great. [Applause.] Mr. JONES. That was South Dakota that was talking. Thank you, Karl, very much for that mes- sage. I knew this crowd would like it, and I think you have done us a great service. Since the hour is growing late, are there any questions that we can have very quickly? Dr. Nystrom. Dr. Nystrom. Mr. Chairman, this is not a question to Mr. MUNDT. I am asking for the privilege of address- ing our President, Mr. MuNnT, so if you care to sit down while I complete this. I would like to offer three resolutions, either together or to be handled separately, as you may think best. The first resolution is a thanks and deep appreciation to Senator Karu Munor for tak- ing time out of his busy days in the Senate and coming here and making a highly in- spiring, stirring address that will move us to action. Of that I am sure. That is my first suggestion. I would move that resolution. FROM THE FLOOR, Second. Mr. JONES. All those in favor say “aye.” (Chorus of ayes.) Opposed? (No response.) The motion is carried. Dr. Nysrrom. Mr. President, the second resolution that I would like to offer is some- thing that I think that we need to take in the way of implementation of the suggestions that Senator Munpr has made here today. They are ideas about which we have been thinking, but he has given them an enor- mous spur by what he has said here this morning. . One of the things we can do is to get the American public to get out and vote and to start with ourselves first of all. I have been amazed and shocked at, ashamed, over the fact that in the last presi- dential elections only ‘between 45 and 50 percent of the voters of this country actually voted. I would like, therefore, without any argument, any further than that, to offer this rero.uion: Resolved, That the members of the Federa~ tlon be urged to use their influence to carry out the following program so far as possible: 1. Speaking to ourselves, to register and vote in all elections. 2. To see that all members of our families who are qualified to vote also exercise their franchise. 8. To urge our employees and their fam-~ ilies to register and go to the polls and ex- ercise their right to vote; and 4. To urge others among our friends and their friend’s families to vote. I would like to move the adoption of that resolution. Mr. Jonss. Is there a second? FROM THE Fioor. Second. Mr. Jones. Any discussions? All those in favor say “aye.” (Chorus of ayes.) Opposed? (No response.) The motion is carried. Dr. Nystrom. Mr. President, I offer a third resolution. I think we have done something of which we have a right to be proud, pro- viding we do something about it, and the third resolution that I would like to offer is that you as President of the American Re- tail Federation designate a suitable com- mittee for the implementation of this resolu- tion—the appointment of a committee to consider all of the things that may be done in the way of a program for getting out the vote in this coming election, both for the registration for the primary election and the general election that will come next fall. Jf there is any one thing that we ought to do, ladies and gentlemen, as business people confronted by the facts as presented here this morning, it is getting out the vote; and I would move the adoption of a resolu- tion asking our President to name a rep- resentative committee from the respective retail trades to work out the ways and means by which suggestions can be made on what can properly be done by retall trade. That is my motion. From the floor: Second. Mr. Jonzs. Any discussion? All those in favor, say “aye.” (Chorus of ayes.) Opposed? (No response.) The motion is carried. Thank you, Dr. Nystrom. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to direct a question to Senator Munnpr? Mr, Harman, Harman is my name, from Delaware. I would like to ask the Senator a ques- tion. The former speaker in effect said spending is necessary to keep the standard of living expanding. How would you sup- Plement the economy if it were not for Gov-~ ernment spending? I would like to ask him if he thinks—-and, in effect, he said if we keep on spending it will wreck the economy now-—is Government deficit spending neces- sary to advance the standard of living or can We progress under a balanced economy? Senator Monor. Of course, I very much dislike getting into an argument with a col- league who is absent, but since you have asked the question—— Mr. Harman. Would you pardon me if I Just make one statement? He did not say that Government deficit spending was nec- essary. Senator Muwnor. Let’s assume the state- ment then read Government spending is essential to prosperity. I would like to call attention to the fact, which I think is so equally overlooked both in public and private life, that I find noth- ing in my study of economics either from the books or from experience at home or APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD abroad which points out any place anywhere that Government produces any new wealth. I think we have got to recognize it is just a question of who is going to handle the dollars which are available. Are they going to be handled by people engaging in businesses, permitted to use the larger por- tion to put a new wing on the factory or a new floor in the store, or are we going to take the money from the people increasingly in the form of taxes to give the politic.ans in Government to turn back to the pylic in the form of subsidies or benefits or pro- grams that Government operates? The wealth of this country comes from one place, and that is pumping it out of the soil somewhere. New wealth has to be produced from the soil or from the water in the form of raw foods or fibers or from the timber industries or metal industrics or oil or coal. That new wealth is processed and turned over in the march of trade and pyramided up so that almost inevitably the national income is seven times, every ycar——good years or bad—the total amount of the price paid for the raw materials produced by new wealth in this country. The Government is simply ahandler. It is the turnover and processing of each year’s production of new wealth that brings our annual national) income to seven times the value of the raw materials. The Government itself produces nothing. So to my way of thinking, the less Govern- ment expense the more money for the people to spend in productive enterprises and in the expansion of new wealth, and consequently the greater is your expanded economy. The private dollar always buys more for America than the public dollar buys. Mr. Prererson. I want to say, first, Mr. President, that as one who was born and raised in the State of Alabama, it encourages me to hear a Republican from South Dakota defend States’ rights and decentralization of power. The comment I wanted to make, Mr. Sen~ ator, was this: You spoke of the conditions in England. England, of course, went social~ ist because the majority of the people who voted voted for socialism. Isn’t it because the people were led to vote for socialism by the promise of the government for increased allotments and increased security, and aren't we moving down that same road very fast when we constantly increase our social~ security benefits, when we lengthen the time of the unemployment compensation, when we give the farmer more and more Dillions for his potatoes and other products? Aren’t we moving down the same road that the English travel, buying the votes of these people for the purpose of perpetuating an administration that is moving more and more toward socialism? Senator Munpr. I want to say to my good friend from Alabama that I think the ques- tions on that answer themselves: I think we are, and that was the basis of my obser~ vation that creeds and movements tend to produce facts. What we see is the result of an organized movement, I know you people in business have been 80 busy you haven't had time, I imagine, to read the entire Communist creed. But I have studied that now for 20 years, I know what they planned and what they proposed, and this business of holding a carrot out in front of a horse, the long promise, {s part of the program, of course, of every collectivist movement. But since you are from’ Alabama, may I say something else? I have been trying to discuss these prob- Jems which confront us now for a period of years, and in the last 2 years have had the termerity as a Yankee to go down into the deep South once or twice. I spoke down jn Charlotte, N. C., 2 weeks ago today and Priday night to approximately 2,500 business- men in Memphis, Tenn., in the city audie
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD torium. My theme there was this: That time is moving mighty fast; that if we are going to stop this drive toward centraliza- tion, I think there are three things—three possible things—that might be done and which should be done in the very, very early future. No, 1, I think, sir, that if your great Demo- cratic Party of the South could recapture its party and rededicate itself to the prin- ciples of individual and State rights, nomi- nating a candidate of the capacity, let’s say, of Harry Byrrp, of Virginia, that all kinds of Republicans in my area would be delighted to vote for that kind of candidate. That would stop the current crusade toward col- lectivism. Or, if that can’t be done, I think if the Republicans were to nominate a presidential candidate who would make a fight for the American way and make it clear that he went straight across the board with that concept and avoided putting into his plat- form and program a few minor proposals which understandably are insulting to the South, I think there are hopes, perhaps, that the South for the second time in his- tory might break its solid phalanx and vote for a principle instead of a prejudice. If neither one of those two things hap- pens, I think the tremendously significant analysis that Raymond Moley made of the British election in Newsweek is then in point. I think all of us should read and read again that significant report by Mr. Moley in the last issue of Newsweek. Moley pointed out that the forces against social- ism in the last election cast 3,000,000 more votes than the forces of collectivism, but the forces opposing socialism were divided between Conservative and Liberal. And, as Moley said, “that is the trouble in America.” More people believe in the system that has made this country strong than the theory that politicians can make the country great- er, but they are divided, unhappily, by a historic, imaginary boundary drawn some place called the Mason and Dixon’s line. If there could come about a political re- alinement so that the forces believing in this system could make their influences felt on election days for President, I think you would see that well over 50 percent of all Americans, if they could vote in unison for the same candidate, would vote for a pres-~ ervation of State and individual rights and for defeat of those who would glorify poli- ticilans at the expense of the private citizen. I think those are three possibilities; none of them are very easy to bring about, but all of them are possible. Any one of the three, in my opinion, will rededicate Amer- ica to the faiths of its fathers. I sincerely lhepe we shall not permit devotion to the Mason and Dixon's line in America to cause us to fall completely victim to those devoted to the Communist line in Russia. Mr. Jones. Since we are running right close to our lunch hour and we have an- other very fine speaker, I think we will bring this session to a close. I would like to say to Karl again, thanks very much for being here, An announcement or two: This afternoon we have two very fine speakers on the pro- gram that will have something to say that I know will be interesting and informative. First, Mr. Denham, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board who is now more of a controversial figure than he has been in the past, because of Reor- ganization Plan No. 12. We also have Senator Brien McMahon, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, who has consented to talk to us in a closed meeting and off the record on the subject of atomic energy and defense. I think that is a full program for the afternoon, and tonight, of course, is our annual dinner at which Senator Tarr will speak on the subject, Are we heading toward financial disaster? That speech will be broadcast coast-to-~ coast with the Columbia Broadcasting System. The last count is that we still have nearly 300 Senators and Congressmen on hand, and I am sure that it will be an evening which you will all enjoy. So please don’t any- body try to catch the Congressional today, and stick it out with us. We will adjourn for luncheon in the same room we met yesterday. (Whereupon at 12:20 p. m., the morning session adjourned.) Equality of Treatment an Opportunity in the Armed Forces EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JACOB K. JAVITS OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, there is appended the extensive text of a text and picture story in a leading national maga- zine, Our World, of June 1950, entitled “United States Armed Forces, 1950.” It is regrettable that the pictures cannot be shown here and it is to be hoped that Members will take occasion to review them as they are just as important as the text. The story is the culmination of a monumental project for this maga- zine, having required the work of 6 mem- bers of its staff working around the clock for 294 man-days, and who traveled 34,- 500 miles by plane, car, jeep and foot and shot 3,600 pictures in 10 military installations. Such a story and the pictures accom- panying it are most valuable to show the progress which has been made in elim- inating segregation in the armed forces and encouraging equality of treatment and opportunity regardless of race, creed, color or national origin in response to the Presidential Executive order of July 6, 1948, and the directive of Secretary of Defense Johnson of April 6, 1949. I introduced House Resolution 328 seeking an investigation of this whole sit- uation by the Armed Services Commit- tee at the opening of this session. At that time I said “Certainly our consti- tutional democracy cannot tolerate dis- crimination or segregation among men who wear the uniform of the United States and have sworn to uphold its na- tional security at the cost of their very lives.” I pointed out, too, the damage that had been done to us in the use by Communist propagandists of race rela~ tions policies, particularly in our armed forces. The appended article shows that much progress has been made, but that much still remains to be made, particularly in the Army where due to the numbers con. cerned and other conditions progress has not been as rapid as in the Navy and the Air Force. This summation of the whole situation is put into the Recorp in a spirit of helpfulness as a progress report and also to show the area in which further progress is required. It is written with considerable objectivity and contains nu- A3267 merous facts which should be of in- terest to every Member concerned with the effectiveness of the National Military Establishment. UNITED STATES ARMED Forces, 1950—EQUALITY oF TREATMENT AND OPPORTUNITY IN ARMED Forces Is No Hoax BuT a WorswING PoLicy OF UNITED STATES The Executive order of President Truman calling for “equality of treatment and oppor- tunity for all those who serve in our country’s defense” works. It works because Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson has made it clear to all branches of the armed forces that with- in the immediate future he intends to ac- complish complete integration of Negroes into all of our services. It works because tens of thousands of white and Negro boys and girls in all branches of the service—and from all sections of the country—have shown the democratic will to work, eat, sleep, play, and if need be, fight together in the service of their country. Not every intention of the Truman order has been accomplished. The Department of the Army has only had an “acceptable” plan since January 16 of this year. Cther branches of the armed forces have been at work implementing Defense Secretary John~ son’s policy less than a year. There can be no doubt until every all-Negro unit is com- pletely abolished full equality will not be achieved. But the degree of opportunity open to Negroes in our armed forces today is a far cry from those dim days 20 years ago when Negro cavalrymen were used as “offi- cers’ grooms” and Negro seamen were re- stricted to duty as mess stewards. Pictorially this story is limited to 10 major defense installations in the zone of the inte- rior (continental United States). But it gives a fair picture of the degree of Negro integration in all our armed forces. It is limited also to men and women in uniform. But it reflects the growing favorable treat- ment accorded a vast army (about 70,000) of Negro civilians who serve under the flag in United States and overseas. Today in our armed forces roughly 100,000 Negroes are in uniform: 60,000 in the Army, 25,000 in the Air Force, 15,000 in the Navy and Marine Corps. Many of these troops re- main engaged in service units. However, increasing numbers of them are in training in tactical units for combat duty. In all armed-forces schools of whatever branch of the service—the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Marine Corps—the training pro- gram is carried on with no separation based onrace. For all Negro personnel the integra- tion program spells greater freedom. ARMY'S OLD QUOTA SYSTEM WHICH ONCE STYMIED INITIATIVE Is OFF—HOW FAR NEGROES GET NOW IS UP TO THEM The Negro soldier stands today strictly upon his own merits so far as promotion and advancement in the Army are concerned. How far he can go no longer depends on Army quotas. That is borne out by the integration policy. And to understand how sweeping it is, it becomes necessary to sum- marize the Army policy on the use of Negro manpower, announced January 16. The Secretary of the Army, North Caro- lina’s Gordon Gray, reiterated the Truman order of equality of treatment and oppor- tunity. He made Army commanders respon-~ sible for the unreserved acceptance of the policies by all personnel under their com- mand. He made them responsible for the execution of the policies. A board of senior Army officers was named to make a periodic review of the utilization of Negro manpower. Processing of raw recruits, training in Army schools, eligibility for promotion and as- signment to military occupational special- ties were all placed on an Army-wide non- segregated basis. Selection and assignment of officers was also freed from any restric- tions based on race.