A902 The only way to make immediate savings is that of putting a flat ceiling on the budget just as the Republican majority is now pro- ceeding to do. Just tell the executive branch: “This is all you get. Now whack it up the best you can and the hell with the left-over parts.” But admittedly that is a poor way to achieve efficiency, That leaves the field wide open to the smartest conniver and the slick- est bureaucratic horse traders. Vital gov- ernmental services can well be lost and mere smart aleck outfits saved, because nobody knows the Government operation 1n full. The Lodge-Brown Commission could find out that operation and report on it in time for the next Congress to make the right changes for long-run efficiency and economy. That is what we all want and must have if we are to preserve useful Government and not go broke supporting wasteful Govern- ment. The Situation in Greece EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN J. SPARKMAN . OF ALABAMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 7 (legislative day of Wednesuay, February 19), 1947 Mr. SPARKMAN. Mtr. President, re- cently there appeared in the Anniston Star, of Anniston, Ala., an editorial en- titled “It’s Money Now or Bullets Later,” a very frank discussion of the present situation in Greece. We may not agrce with all the things said in the editorial, because it is quite provocative. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Appendix of the REcorpD. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: Ir’s MONLY NOW OR BULLETS LATER It may be calamitous for us if there is any undue delay on the part of the United States Government In accepting the proposal of the British Government that we take over the financial responsibilities heretofore shoul- dered by John Bull in the defense of the Mediterranean Sea against Russian agepres- sion. For if we fail to send our money now to bolster up the shaky ramparts of democ- racy in that area of the world, we probably will have to send our Army and Navy and Air Forces over there later in self-defense. The British now are in the midst of what is probably the greatest financial crisis in their history. They were bled white by the war, and what with strikes, storms of almost unprecedented fury, empire troubles all around the world, plus governmental changes at home, they have been unable to get back into peacetime production to an extent that would enable them to restore their prewar foreign trade, upon which the United King- dom has depended for centuries. Hence, they admit that they will be unable to keep their economic and military commitments to Greece and Turkey after March 31 of this ear. * The proposal from Downing Street is said to have been presented to a bipartisan com- mittee of the Congress at the White House last week, when a highly secret conference was held with the President, Secretary of State Marshall and Under Secretary Dean Acheson, Mr. Truman now is said to have the matte. under advisement and probably will communicate his decision to Marshall before the latter leaves for the United Na- tions meeting in Moscow. He is satd to have been assured of congressional support in whatever decision he may reach and may deal with the issue in the Texas speech he is to make after his return from Mexico. It is contended that our acceptance of the British responsibilities in the Mediterranean would constitute a departure in our foreign- relations policy. This, however, is not wholly accurate, as it will be recalled that we sent our ships into the Mediterranean shortly after the War of 1812 to rid those waters of the Bnrbary-pirate infestation that had been such a menace to the shipping of Britain and France for a considerable period. And did we not recently send the battleship Missouri to Turkey to let Russia know that we have interests in the Middle East? More- over, in World War II we assumed commit- ments that we now cannot afford to ignore. The alternative to our intercession in Greece and Turkey would mean not only that Russian influence would become predom- inant in those countrics, but in Italy, France, and Spain as well. Already the Communists are in control in all Balkan states other than Greece, as they are in Albania, which is working hand in hand with Yugoslavia to encompass the overthrow of the conserva- tive government of King George. Czecho- slovakia has attained some measure of inde- pendence, but is cowed by the shadow of the Russian bear, as are the Scandinavian states, which continue to be badly crippled eco- nomically as a result of the war. Nor is that all. Germany probably will go Com aunist unless we act upon the recom- mendation of ex-President Hoover, who has just returned from there, that we feed the people and help to restore their economic pro- ductiveness. Poland, of course, is bound hand and foot to the Kremlin, and Holland is fighting for her freedom from Russian control over her far-eastern colonies, upon which she so largely depends. France and Belgium are being attacked in this sume in- direct way, as well as by direct political action on the home front. Even at best, the fate of France may be decided at the next general election, Communist voting strength there now amounting to 30 percent. In the Far East it Is beyond the question that Japan and Korea would fall within the Russian orbit if we should remove our occu- pation troops. Manchuria already is largely dominated by Russian influence, and through propaganda und armed support to the Com- munists in the existing civil war the Kremlin is making a bold stand for control on the Chinese mainland. Let Russia succeed there, gain control of the Dardanelles and the Suez Canal—as she would if Greece, France, Italy, and Turkey came within her orbit—and she then would have access to India by both land and sea, The Anniston Star does not entertain any great fear of Russian penetration in the United States if we can maintain a stable economy. But we are by way of becoming encircled and forced to live within our own borders, as Russian influence also is making headway in South and Middle America. We are dependent upon practically every country in the world for our industiral and military effectiveness and if we stand by complacently and allow the Russians through their policy of aggression and expansion to come into con- trol of the high seas and the world’s natural resources, we could easily become a second- rate power, as England is about to become today. Heretofore, we have depended upon the British Fleet to protect our interests in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. But that day is no more; we now have got to assume the world responsibilities that Britain once " exercised if we are to maintain a dominant influence. For even in the Pacific, with Rus- sia now in possession of warm-water ports in Manchuria and in China proper, with dis- tance being in her favor, we can conceivably be outmatched if we continue to tear down the fighting forces we had during the war and sit back complacently in the belief that we APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD are secure by reason of our possession of the atomic bomb. But it still is not too late if we will but act with intelligence and dispatch. We are ina position similar to that of France and Eng- land when Hitler marched into the Rhine- land. Germany was not then ready to fight, and her bluff could easily have been called. Russia is not able to wage a successful major war today, due to her losses in World War II and the war-weariness of her people. We, too, are crippled, but we have a greater re- sillency; greater financial and productive capacity, But Russia does have greater re- sources and could win if we hesitate too long. War will not be necessary, however, if we will but use the advantages we now possess in a manner that will bespcak confidence, courage, and determination not to be driven to the position in which Britain finds her- self today. Our present debt is burdensome, to be sure; but it will be greater if we have to fight later on with military strength than it will if we venture our capital now in the interest of our continuing security and pros- perity. We believe, therefore, we should accept the British proposition and in the meantime continue to stand up to Russia in the councils of the United Nations in the interest of an eventual peace through inter- national collaboration. Activities of Congress Under Republican Leadership EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 7 (legislative day of Wedresday, February 19), 1947 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, there re- cently appeared in the.columns of the press and were heard over the radio misrepresentations with relation to the activities of Congress, and particularly regarding the actions of the majority party. Iam happy to say that last night in the Evening Star there appeared two columns, one by Gould Lincoln under the headline “The Political Mill,” and an- other by David Lawrence under the head- line “Democratic Recovery Laid to De- control,” which I think are fair presenta- tions of the existing situation. I ask that they be printed in the Appendix of the REcorp. There being no objection, the matters were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tue POLITICAL MILL (By Gould Lincoln) The Republicans, during the campaign of 1946 and after they had won control of the House and Senate, made three major prom- ises. They promised to reduce Federal ex- penditures, to reduce income taxes, and to pass remedial labor legislation. Because none of these things has yet been accom- plished, Congress having been in session 2 months, an open season has been declared by critics of the GOP for ridicule of the Re- publican leadership. If these critics are to be believed, the Republicans on Capitol Hill are shot to pieces with dissension in the ranks, and none of these objectives will be attained. That's not the way the Republican lead- ers regard the situation, however. And it is possible they may have a better angle than their critics. The Republicans say that they
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD have hnd to reorganize the entire machin- ery cf Congress, to meet the terms of the Legislative Reorganization Act. They point out that the pledges regarding the Federal budget and taxation are interrelated, and thet until steps had been taken regarding the budget, the Ways and Means Committee could not move on the matter of tax reduc- tion. Notwithstanding the charges of delay, con- siderable has been accomplished. The House voted to fix the legislative budgct at $31,- 600,000,000, which is $6,000,000,000 less than the President's budget. The Senate voted to fix it at 833,090,000,0C0, a reduction of £4.590,- 000,090 below the Presidential figure, and to use $2,600,000,000 ns payment on the public debt, now about $260,000,000,000, if there is an excess of receipts over expenditures during the next fiscal year. The concurrent resolu- tion fixing the legislative budget is in con- ference. The real cuts, if any, in Federal appropria- tions will be made in the appropriation bills themselves, and the House is about to tackle the first of the regular appropriation bills, that for the Post Office and Treasury Depart- ments. It has already slashed to pieces a deficiency appropriation measure. If this 15 a@ criterion. the House Republicans will lop hundreds of millions of dollars from the bills that are now expected to follow with consid- erable speed It would be a mistake to believe that the R:.publican leadership is backing away from the tasks it has set itself. In fact, Speuker Martin and Majority Leader HaLuecx are emphatic in their predictions that expendi- tures and taxes both will be cut. Speaker Martin insists that a tax reduction bill will have been reported to the House by April 1, and perhaps passed by that time—certainly within a few days thereafter. Nor does he believe that the House will turn down a tax reduction bill—or the Senate, for that mat- ter, although the Republican margin of control in the Senate is slim. Mr. MARTIN looks for hearings to begin before the Ways and Means Committee within a few days— perhaps even before the conferees on the legislative budget resolution make their re- port. The other Republican pledge, to pass leg- islation amending the Federal labor laws, also is on its way to fulfillment. The Sen- ate Committee on Labor is winding up on Saturday its hearings on the labor bills and will next week get down to the job of draft- ing a bill for submission to the Senate. The House Committee on Labor is expect- ing to conclude its hearings by March 14, although no hard and fast date has been set. This labor legislation will not go as far as some wish it to go, but the expecta- tion is that it will, when completed, con- tain many much-needed provisions. The Republican record, therefore, in the present Congress does not appear as lame as it has been made out to be. The Republican leadership hed to deal with the reorganiza- tion first. Legislation is written in com- mittees in the first instance, and hearings were necessary. Furthermore, when test votes have been taken in the House and Senate, the Republi- cans have shown remarkable cohesion. This happened in the House on the budget slash of $6,0°0,000,000, and in the Senate where only one Republican, Morse, of Oregon, voted against the #4,500,000,000 cut. It happened in the House when the bill attacking the portal-to-portal pay suit was passed. It happened, too, in the House on the two- term Presidential tenure of office constitu- tional amendment. The bill dealing with the portal-to-portal pay suits also was part of the program pledged by the Republicans. The time is about ripe for the Republicans to go forward with their program. Speaker MARTIN is confident they will carry it through at least to the White House. He believes Con- gress can and will adjourn about July 4. Democrats’ Recovery Law to DEcCoNTROL— Parry Come-Back, SHOWN sy PoLL, Oc- CURRED BEFORE CONGRESS MET (By David Lawrence) The latest Gallup poll affords an oppor- tunity for both Republicans and: Democrats to do a bit of self-examination. For it shows that the Democrats, if the Presidential elec- tion were held today, would get 51 percent of the vote and the Republicans 4). This shift from last Novemb-r, when the percentage was 45 Democratic and 55 Re- publiccn, is somewhat of a surprise to the Republicans, but it is even more surprising when it is noted that the climb upward occurred almost entirely before the Repub- licans took control o* Congress in January. Thus, the Democrats had the better of it on a 55-to-45 basis in February 1946 and gradually slumped downward to the low point in November 1946 when they had 45 percent of the vote, according to the poll. Then the Democrats regained thei. strength almost im- mediately after the election and by January hed reached a 650-percent figtre. Only one point has been added since the Republican Congress came into being early in January. The Democrats may see in this gain prior to January confirmation of the belief of some of their experts that the November election was a negative operation and that it was a vote against governmental controls and espe- clally against restrictions on the sale of meat which affected every householder. TRUMAN CORRECTED SITUATION It will be recalled that President Truman, in the middle of the campaign, began lifting controls but didn’t get them all lifted soon enough to turn the tide. He kept on remov- ing various controls in November and De- cember, and in this way corrected the situa- tion that was alienating many Democratic votes, But it is possible also to find another po- tent reason for the rise in Democratic strength Icst December. This was the time of the coal strike. President Truman han- dled the situation with a firm hand and filed court proceedings against John L. Lew.s, a step that undoubtedly increased Mr. Tru- man's popularity. In fact, everything that Mr Truman has done since the election in November has seemed to favor the conserva- tive rather than the radical side. This may mean that his gains are {rom the ranks of conservatives, Certainly Mr. Truman has not been giving much comfort to the left wingers either in his policies or his appoint- ments. The poll is by no means an indication of whet may happen in 1848, for, since the Democratic Party dropped from 55 to 45 points in the months between February and November during 1946, there can be equally wide fluctuations in the 21 months between now and the Presidential election. If there is an economic recession, for example, it will most certainly hurt the Tru- man cause. This is because the record of Truman encouragement to labor unions to demand the same pay that was paid for reguler workweeks plus overtime during war- time as compensation for less working hours in the postwar period, threw the whole eco- nomic system into its present imbalance. TEACHERS’ STRIKES A RESULT “More pay for less work” is an easily under- stood slogan. The revolt of the teachers and other workers today who are trying to meet with their meager fixed incomes the prices forced by labor-union leaders in 1945 and 1946 is going to be recognized as one of the many effects of our economic imbalance. The high price level can be traced directly to the impetus given wage increases immedi- ately after VJ-day by President Truman, who A303 urged that prices be held down while wages were Increased. The recession or depression, if 1t comes in 1947, us sv many of the eczno- mists are predicting. or even early in 1948, unquestionably will lead to a Nation-wide acbute as to the responsibility for the down- ward trend. Undoubtedly there wil] be some unemployment, too. The recession can, of course, be avoided. A substantial increase in productivity by labor and a willingness on the part of labor to help write fairness into the labor laws would do much toward creating a new spirit of enterprise in Amcrica. It is to everybody's interest to prevent an economic recession ard the country is not concerned with what fac- tion benefits politically by avoidance of an economic upset. The Democrats will derive the biggest advantage from such a contin- gency, but it remains to be seen whether 12 years of Democratic rule in the White House will of itself bring a demand for a change in November 1948. Congress Kills Rent Controls and What Is Left of the Veterans’ Emergency Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HELEN GAHAGAN DOUGLAS OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 4, 1947 Mrs. DOUGLAS. Mr. Speaker, Con- gress has seen fit to kill rent controls and what is left of the veterans’ housing program. In the letter from General Fleming to Scnator Brinces, which was included ir the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of March 5, 1947, page 1691, as part of the speech of Senator O’MaHoney, of Wyoming, we have the tragic story spelled out. April 30 will see the end of rent con- trols. March 31 will see the end of the limited program we are now operating in the interests of veterans housing. Mr. Speaker, what are the Members in this Congress thinking of when they remove rent controls and destroy the veterans’ housing program at a time when the housing shortage umounts to a national catastrophe for millions of American families? Certainly not of the people. Senators and Congressmen can talk about a 15-percent rise ir rents, but after the action they have just taken, nothing can prevent rents from rising 50 percent, 75 percent, 100 percent, or 150 percent. The final death blow has been dealt to the budgct of the American family. The unfortunate action taken by this House in the emergency deficiency bill strikes at the whole economic structure of the country. The American family’s budget is already bursting at the seams. They cannot stand enormous rent in- creases and live on what they are making. The action taken by Congress this week is not conducive to industrial peace, but is an open invitation to strikes. The same people who killed OPA have killed rcvt controls and the veterans’ housing piocicm.
A904 Visit by President Truman to Mexico EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. SCOTT W. LUCAS OF ILLINOIS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, in the New York Times of March 5 appeared an article written by Felix Belair, Jr., covering the recent trip of President Truman to Mexico. The article is beau- tifully written, a wonderful piece of re- porting, and since the good-neighbor policy as between this country and Mex- ico has now been solidified as a result of what the President did on his recent visit, I am sure Senators and the coun- try generally will be interested in Mr. Belair’s account of what took place dur- ing the President's tour. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mexico Is TOUCHED AS TRUMAN Honors HER Heros or 1847—PRESIDENT Moves HEarTS or FEor1e in UNEXPECTED HOMAGE TO Youtus WuHo FouGut UNITED STATES-—-AtE- MAN BESTOWS A TITLE—CALLS “tim “NEW CHAMPION OF AMERICAN SOLIDARITY’ —HUGE Fiesta THRONG HAILS HIM (By *elix Belair, Jr.) Mexico City, March 4.—President Truman touched the heart strings of the Mexican people today, and before sundown had been hailed by President Migue: Aleman as “the new champion of solidarity and understand- ing among the American Republics.” It was # short and simple ceremony not in- cluded on the program of Presidential activi- ties that endeared Mr. Truman to the Mexi- can people. He placed a wreath or the mon- ument to the youthful heroes of the Battle of Chapultepec, and thus became the first United States citizen to pav homage at the National shrine. In the unpredictable aftermath of the Presidential gesture, Mr. Truman was being hailed in the press and else'vhere as the most popular man in Mexico City, not excluding President Aleman. Throughcut the day peo- ple shouted his name, with the inevitable “viva,” wherever the United States citizens appeared on the streets or in cates, FANFARE IS LACKING The scene of what seems likely to become a celebrated incident was the obscure monu- ment to the “nifios heroes,” or child heroes, at the foot of Chapultepec Heights. The pause there had been added to the Presiden- tial itinerary at the last minute as a brief stop on his way to the national stadium to witness the people's festival. When Mr. Truman arrived with members of his party, a guard of honor was drawn up facing the monument. There was no fanfare nor playing of national anthems, such as have marked the President’s appearances in and around the city. Mr. Truman placed the wreath, turned around, and walked slowly back to his waiting automobile. Tears of emotion streamed down the faces of the honor guard composed of cadets of the Colegio Militar now housed in Chapultepec Castle and, as the President drove off, old men wiped their eyes. The incident was the more dramatic because !t had taken the local press completely by surprise. The official reception of the President's ges- ture in decorating the monument was ex- pressed by Foreign Minister Jaime Torres Bodet tonight. He said: “The highest kind of friendship between men and peoples is that which has the cour- age to base itself upon a feeling for the truth. President Truman, by rendering homage to the immortal glory of the boy heroes, in a gesture worthy of a gentleman and a frier.d, spans an abyss of the past by another bridge into the future.” ,HISTCRIC STAND RECALLED By nightfall, friendly citizens of the capital city were seeking out visitors from the United States to acquaint them with the story of the Nifos Heroes. The explanation, which re- called the War with Mexico in 1847, also helped explain why no one from the United States until Mr. Truman had decorated the monument. The United States forces under Winfield Scott had laid siege to the Fortress of Cha- pultepec after beating back the volunteer Mexican Army under Santa Ana. The for- tress, too, hud been hopelessly lost to the United States forces when the student cadets in their gray uniforms and tasseled blue caps entered the lost battle and, according to one United States account, “fought like tigers.” Disillusioned by their country's betrayal and ruin ky their elders, the 15-yeer-old cadets fought until all but seven had been killed by United States gunfire. Six of these stabbed themselves rather than face the dis- honor of surrender, and the last boy, after wrapping himself in the flag of his country, jumped from the precipice, shouting ‘Viva Mexico!" BACKGROUND OF INCIDENT The incident at the monument today had its background in President Truman's only major departure fiom his prepared text at the dinner in his honor at the National Palace last night. President Alemdn had referred in his remarks to the ‘unfortunate and tragic” clash of the two countries at Chapultepec, and Mr. Truman also recalled the incident. . President Truman's newly acquired title of champion of inter-American solidarity and understanding was conferred by presi- dent Aleman at a luncheon in the United States Embassy for the Mexican Chief of State and his Cabinet. At the close, Mr. Truman rose to propose a toast and said, “I can't tell you how very much the hospitality and the spontaneous approval of the people of Mexico have pleased me. This morning's exhibition was the most beautiful I have ever seen and the spontaneous way in which the people greeted the President of Mexico and myself 1s just beyond compare. “I told the President yesterday that one of the reasons for my most cordial reception was the fact that I had picked the perfect host.” President Aleman's reply was translated to the luncheon host by Finance Minister Ramon Beteta as follows: “President Aleman proposes a toast for your personal happiness, for the prosperity of your country and of your administration. He considers you the new champion ot American solidarity and understanding. He feels that this trip of yours to Mexico and your attitude are going to promote a better understanding and friendship between our two countries. “Finally, he wants you to know that all of us here in Mexico appreciate your visit and wish all possible prosperity to yourself and your great Nation.” A FRIENDLY FOUNDATION LAID It was becoming increasingly apparent through editorial comment and other ex- pressions of popular sentiment that Presi- dent Truman's visit to Mexico already had amounted to more than a prosaic extension of “hands across the border” and that a foundation for better understanding in United States-Mexican relations was being laid. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Before his visit to the Nifios Heroes monu- ment, the President laid a wreath at the In- dependence Memorial, Mexico’s equivalent of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Wash- ingion. . Farmer Cooperatives’ Views on Taxat‘on EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR CAPPER OF KANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I send to the desk and ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp the enclosed broadcast of Arthur Gaeth and Karl D. Loos over the Mutual Broadcasting System on Tuesday, March 4. 1947, in which they presented the Farmer Cooperatives’ point of view on the issue of taxation. There being no objection, the broad- cast was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: A representative of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives is here at the micro- phone with me today to reply to the charges of Fulton Lewis, Jr., against the “so-called danger from the consumer cooperatives throughout the United States.” Mr. Lewis maintains they are a new special privileged group which is mushrooming into a new and highly threatening big-business monopoly by virtue of exemption from income taxes. Mr. Karl D. Loos, counsel for several farmer cooperatives, is also chairman of the legal and tax committee of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. The national council is one of a number of national or- ganizations into which the 10,150 local and regional cooperatives representing about 4,000.000 mostly small farmers are grouped. Mr. GaETH. Mr. Loos, why have farmers organized cooperatives? Mr. Loos. Many smal] farmers, who operat- ing alone would be helpless, get together in a cooperative to give themselves an effective bargaining power in selling the products of their farms and in obtaining their farm production supplies and equipment. Mr. GaEtH. Now, do cooperatives pay taxes? Mr. Loos. Yes; all cooperatives pay real- estate taxes, social-security taxes, transpor- tation taxes, communication texes, excise taxes, personal-property taxes, and nearly all other kinds of taxes—local, State, and Fed- eral. The only important exception is that some of them are not required to pay income taxes, although many do. Mr. GartH. How many cooperatives pay Federal income taxes? Mr. Loos. There are cooperatives in many fields, other than agriculture, such as co- operative purchasing associations like the dealer-owned grocery and hardware whole- salers; and there are consumer cooperatives. All of these are subject to Federal income taxes. Of the 10,150 farmer cooperatives, only about one-half have elected to qualify for the tax exemption offered by the present income-tax law. So nearly 5,000 of the farmer cooperatives pay Federal income taxes. Mr, GartH. Why have the other coopera- tives been exempted? Mr. Loos. Congress has considered it in the public interest to maintain a financially stable agriculture and one of the means of accomplishing this objective was to bring about the organization of farmer coopera- tives—to help farmers help themselves. The tax exemption was granted to encourage
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the family-sized farms to organize coopera- tively and thereby obtain for themselves a bargaining power that will enable them to cope with the distributing and manufactur- ing business organizations of the country. Mr. GartH. Does that exemption mean a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Federal Treasury? Mr. Loos. No, indeed. It would be very little. The returns filed by the exempt farmer cooperatives show a total of only $12,000,000 in dividends paid on capital stock. At the highest prevailing corporate income tax rate, the total tax on that sum would be only $4,500,000. There are no available statistics for estimating the amount of other income that would be subject to tax if the exemption were repealed. I am sure it would be small. Mr. Homer Marsh, the research director of the National Tax Equality Asso- ciation, a highly vocul antagonist of the co- operatives, is authority for the statement that the repeal of this tax exemption ‘would add only a drop of refenue to the Treasury.” Mr. GArETH. Is the exemption fair? Mr. Loos. I think it is. It helps to overcome the disadvantageous position of the farmer in obtaining capital. Most farmers are in the debtor class; they do not normally have substantial resources in the form of free capital for investment. The tax exemption helps the farmers to overcome this difficulty of obtaining capital for their marketing and purchasing opera- tions. Also it simply serves to place the coopera- tives on a tax equality with individual pro- prietorships and pirtnerships. Numerically most of the business units in the field of distribution, the field in which the farmer co- operatives operate, are individual proprietor- ships and partnerships. Their incomes pay only a single tax—by the individuals entitled to the distribution of the earnings of those business units. Similarly the incomes of co- operatives, exempt from the corporate tax, pay only a single tax—by the individuals en- titled to the distribution of that income. Mr. GarTH. Mr. Lewis has made quite an is- sue of patronage refunds—what are they? Mr. Loos. Suppose a marketing cooperative makes an assessment of 10 cents a bushel for marketing apples, and at the end of the year finds that its actual cost of marketing has been 8 cents, The difference of 2 cents is re- funded to the farmer. That 2 centa js a patronage refund. Similarly a purchasing cooperative delivers feed to its farmer patrons at $4 per hundred. At the end of the year it finds that the actual cost of the feed plus a pro rata share of operating and distributing costs was $3.90. The difference of 10 cents is refunded to the patron. The 10 cents is a patronage refund. Mr. GartH. Now I understand. Does the cooperative pay any income tax on these patronage refunds? Mr. Loos, No; it does not, even though the cooperative is not exempt. Mr. GarrH. Why not? What's the reason for that? Mr. Loos. Those patronage refunds do not belong to the cooperative, they belong to the potrons. The cooperative has made a con- tract with the patron to refund to him the excess above cost. Therefore those patronage refunds are not income or profit to the coop- erative. Money received by one person with an obligation to pay it to another is not in- come to the person who so receives it and who temporarily holds it. That is a well- established rule of law which applies to other corporations as well as to cooperatives. As I understand his broadcasts, Mr. Lewis himself agrees that the cooperative should not pay a tax on those patronage refunds when they are actually patd to the patrons in cash, as many of them are. He differs with the existing rule only when the distribution of the patronage refunds is in capital stock or some other form of certificate or credit. Mr. GartH. How do you justify it when the patronage refunds are not paid in cash? Mr. Loos. The justification for this rule is based on the contracts between the coopera- tive and its patron. First, the agreement of the cooperative to refund to the patron the msrgins above cost. Second, the agreement of the patron to accept his refund, in whole o7 in part, in capital stock. Those agreements are expressed in marketing or operating con- tracts signed by the parties or they may be expressed in the by-laws which constitute a contractual obligation. So when the coop- erative distributes the patronage refund by issuing shares of stock the transaction is ex- actly the same as though the cooperative had paid the refund in cash to the patron and the pctron had put the cash back into the co- operative as an investment of capital. No corporation pays an income tax on a contri- bution of capital received from stockholders. By this method a large number of small farmers, each making a small individual con- tribution of capital out of his income, can build up capital adequate to the needs of their cooperative. Mr. Garrn. Is the privilege of paying pa- tronage refunds in capital stock allowed only to cooperatives? Mr. Loos. No. Any corporation has the privilege of operating on a cost basis and paying refunds in this manner in capita) stock or other form of certificate or credit. One of the earliest cases of this kind in- volving an ordinary proprietary corporation was that of the Paducah & Illinois Railroad Co., decided by the Board of Tax Appeals in 1925 (2 BTA 1001). There several railroads combined in the ownership of a bridge com- pany and under the operating contract any revenues which were paid by the owning lines to the bridge company, in excess of its expenses, were required to be refunded tu the owning railroad’ in the proportion in which each of them had contributed to the revenue of the bridge company. The refund was made in the form of preferred stock o! the bridge company. The Board decided that the excess revenues refunded in thir manner—in capital stock—by the bridge company to its railroad patrons did not constitute Income to the bridge company Mr. GaetH. That's interesting. In the last 2 minutes I'd like to tackle another subject. Mr. Loos, in his broadcasts Mr. Lewis has asserted that cooperatives are a menace to the profit motive and the free-enterprise sys- tem. Do you believe there is any truth in this assertion? Mr. Loos. I certainly do not. Nor does the National Association of Manufacturers which expressed itself on this subject only last Oc- tober. That report said: “A cooperative is a form of business enterprise that enables a group of individuals, partnerships, or corpo- rations, to combine together for the purpose of producing or buying or selling a commuod- ity or service. City consumers have gotten together to buy goods and sell them. Busi- nessmen hive formed mutual fire-insurance companies. Individuals join together to buy Nfe insurance through a mutual insurance company or merchandise through a mu- tual wholesale-purchasing association. Peo- ple who save money put their funds in a mutual savings bank. Farmers join together to buy the goods they use in production or to sell the things they grow. (And I'm still quoting.) All these are cooperatives, They are also legitimate forms of private enter- prise.” Mr. Gaeth, I have always considered the National Association of Manufacturers a thoroughly conservative group of American businessmen who at no time have ever been known to take a position opposed to the profit system or free enterprise. So, may I repeat the last sentence of the above quota- tion from the National Association of Manu- facturers: “Cooperatives are also legitimate forms of private enterprise.” A905 The National Council of Farmer Coopera- tives, itsel!, at its recent annual convention adopted a resolution saying: “This organiza- tion vigorously expresses its deep belief in the profit motive and its free play as being a basic force which can maintain permanently a@ great and prosperous Nation.” Mr. GAETH. Thank you very much for pre- senting the cooperative point of view on the issue of taxation Your speaking for farm groups which across the country have 4,000,- 000 members—largely small farmers—has in- dicated how vital a need is supplied by the cooperative. The farmer has always been behind the “eight ball” because he has had to sell at wholesale and buy at retail. Actually you are helping the family-operated farms to survive in a free society? And it’s always been interesting to me that your movement has been democratic and away from monopoly. The Song of the Cardinal EXTENSIO! OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM B. UMSTEAD OF NORTH CAROLINA {IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. UMSTEAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article en- titled “The Song of the Cardinal,” by the late Senator Josiah W. Bailey, and a statement by Dr. Clarence Poe. editor of the Progressive Farmer, one of the out- standing farm papers of the Nation, in which Senator Bailey’s article recently appeared. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Recorn, as follows: SENATOR BAILEY’S THE SONG OF THE CARDINAL When the cardinal’s high and joyous call breaks the winter’s silence in February I think of Shelley's line—“And spring shall blow her clarion o’er the dreaming earth"— and go to work on my hooks, lines, and rads. and am cheered to the heart. The winter is not over and gone, but I have token that spring is on the way, and that the pageant of color and music, of beauty and fragrance, has begun FEBRUARY 15-20 Already the first breath of spring is dis- tilling perfume from delicious chalices, and one may discover a dandelion in the grass like a star breaking through clouds. The white throat trills a wistful winter song. The Japanese quince is about to flame forth, a veritable burning bush, before which one might well take off his shoes, One may catch sight of ean adventurous bee. Wrens and bluebirds are calling. Frogs are piping in full chorus in the lowlands, MARCH 1-10 Tomorrow white butterflies will be dancing upon the kindly air. There is green along the willow boughs hard by swelling streams. And now the robins come in flocks and silent, shortly to pair off and sing their love songs before the break of day and far into the dusk. The dove is sounding his wooing call through the forest. There are violets. One may hope to find the elusive arbutus on remote hill- sides. The peach and pear trees blossom, and plums give forth fragrance. On the ridge and along the borders the redbud reminds us of its legendary part in the first Easter. Now crocus and lilacs, pansies, hyacinths,
A906 Jonquils, and buttercups, tulips, iris, and daffodils appear. Suddenly the sassafras and silver maples will be tipped with old gold, and the swamp maples with scarlet. Soon the white oaks will be clad in silver and gray, and the tassel- ing red oaks and elms in garnet. MARCH 20-25 The aspen also is decked in tassels. New Green is on the lawn and in the pine tops, studded with gold. Winter lingers in the birches and beeches. The crabapple bur- geons and blossoms and intoxicates the moist air, The mockingbird is singing. The blue- bird is nesting. There are lilies in the mea- dow and laurel on the hillsides, and azaleas in the thickets. We hear the field sparrow’'s evensong of praise, as simple and true as the prayer of a little child. MARCH 25-APRIL 10 Wistaria, woven moonlight, drapery of Fairyland, casts a magic spell in yards and gardens. The forests break out in floods of white—it is the dogwood making glad for the return of the sun. Down in the valleys there is woodbine in red, and the amorous Jasmine in pure gold filling the air with poignant fragrance. Apple trees take us cap- tive in delicate but irresistible bonds, and the cherry puts on a vell—the bride of the year. The paulonia blows 10,000 purple trumpets. New-turned furrows apparel the land in color, and the very earth is odorous. The Negro plowboy comes over the hill at night- fall yodeling a harmony of peace and content, the original of which is lost in African cen- turies, APRIL 1-15 The vireo comes, then the Carolina chicka. dee. In the skies swallows are racing and calling in sheer joy. We hear once more the magic flute of the wood robin. The silent kingbird ts once again building his nest above the water, ever watchful of the circling fish hawk. The pewee sounds his plaintive note. The heron takes his eastward flight at dawn and into the sunset's rosy depths at dusk. Blackbirds are chattering in the rushes. The family of warblers arrives. Over the ponds purple martins are dipping. Bob White is signaling to his nesting mate that all is well, else challenging any rival to pitched battle. The bass makes a mighty stir in the shallows. The dolorous whip- poorwill ts calling under the April moon, APRIL 20—-MAY 1 The catbird comes with gentle song and at. last the scarlet tanager with summer in his throat. The fields are sweet with clover blooms. The blackberry is out in white. The wild locust is festooned here in pure white and yonder in mauve. Honeysuckle on every roadside breathes forth sweetness and delight. The tall poplars lift aloft their golden-nectared cups. The trees are once again in full leaf. And now the roses, gor- geous and in infinite variety—and fairest of them the wild rose, sweet and fragile, an idyl in bloom. What with these and myriads of others— worm and insect taking wing, beetle and cricket, billowy clouds and bluer skies, purple horizons, lingering sunsets, long twilights, incense-breathing morns, sunshine and shadow, blasts and breezes, showers and storms, thunders and silences, and the bow once again in the sky—what shall be said? All is astir upon the earth, in the air above and the waters beneath. It is the pageant of awakening, of return, of revival, of pro- creation and creation. “Lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; the flowers appear on the earth; and the time of singing of birds is come.” And the cardinal is prophet, harbinger, and herald thereof, appropriately olad and fitting- ly equipped in voice and in spirit. He fore- knew it all in February, by signs familiar only to him and duly authenticated; and when others would not give voice to hope, he pro- claimed it in courage and joy. The fore- runner of the pageant, he will participate in all its progress. He will mate and build in his nest, rear his young and see them go their destined ways; day by day he will fiash through every vista, calling and singing from morn till night; he will see the trees bring forth their fruit in season, and the corn in serried shocks beneath the harvest moon; he will see the leaves take their passing colors; he will see his feathered fellows go; he will see the roses fall and all the flowers dying, and then be last to say farewell in “his most melodious sigh.” Just after I left the old home farm to begin work on the Progressive Farmer and he and I were very young editors (his was a church paper), the late Senator Josiah W. Bailey and I worked in adjoining offices, regulating the affairs of the universe in our conversa- tions and editorials, while for recreation we togethe: roamed flelds and woods, rode horse- back and fox hunted (yes, sometimes went to see the same girls), and sometimes fished on land and sea, After he turned to law I kept up horseback riding from my farm, he kept fishing—everywhere, Not only did he keep up his fishing, but he kept up his interest in all the glorious pageantry of the seasons—especially the sing- ing birds, opening flowers, burgeoning leaves (and returning fish) of spring. And as he heard the first notes of the cardinal or red- bird each February, all the colorful and ever- changing scenery of the next few weeks and months passed in magical review before him—as will appear in the accompanying article. It is an article he wrote for us years ago and I now take great pleasure in reprint- ing it as a tribute to his memory and to many @ pleasant recollection of other days. Incidentally, we may note that in this arti- cle Senator Bailey mentions by name 23 birds and 45 trees, shrubs, and flowers; why not count up and see how many of these 68 you recognize by sight or sound? And almost I am tempted to add, “Isn't it a pity that a man who could write like this decided to give up writing for the United States Senate?”—Clarence Poe, president and editor. Our Foreign Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OWEN BREWSTER OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an ad- dress entitled “Our Foreign Policy,” by Hon. Samuel B. Pettengill, formerly a Representative from Indiana. This ad- dress was broadcast on a coast-to-coast network of the American Broadcasting Co. system on March 9, 1947. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: OUR FOREIGN POLICY Since the start of these broadcasts I have not discussed our foreign policy. Like many others, I had hoped that those in charge of it might achieve results worthy of our immense sacrifice. Recent events, however, are so disturbing that one feels justified in bringing before the bar of common judgment and decision some facts long neglected, and others that have APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD been hidden behind our own iron curtain of official censorship. Conditions in Germany, as revealed by for- mer President Hoover have hit us with tre- mendous impact, and President Truman de- serves credit for sending Mr. Hoover to Ger- many to bring back the story. Add to that Russia's refusal to cooperate in outlawing the atom bomb, and the statement by the Under Secretary of State Acheson on February 10: “I am quite aware of the fact that Russia’s foreign policy is an aggressive and expanding one.” Add also the request to us by the British Empire to lift the white man’s burden from her tired shoulders. The meaning of this action is of staggering importance. It may mean that something 1s happening {n world history more momentous than any- thing since the Battle of Waterloo and the Declaration of Independence. The “hush-hush” and “papa knows best” policy has had a fair trial. Let our people now debate and degide their destiny in the light of facts disclosed, and many more yet unrevealed. In saying this, I recall that former Secre- tary of State Cordell Hull said that it is for the people themselves to determine the for- eign policy of the United States. That. colossal blunders have been made is becoming all too plain. As one example, in many, it has been estimated that American taxpayers have paid at the rate of $2,000,000,- 000 a year for the privilege of keeping the Germans and Japanese from going to work. This point is illustrated by ex-President Hoover's report: “The fishing grounds in the Baltic and North Sea are being limited against German fishing. As there are ample supplies of fish in these seas, it seems a pity that British and American taxpayers are called upon to furnish food in substitution for fish the Germans could catch for themselves.” This limitation is imposed by Russia. As another illustration of official blunder- ing. I give you the following: The American Mercury magazine tells us how UNRRA bolstered Tito. The article, supported by facts and fig- ures, is by an ex-State Department econo- mist who was in on the ground at Belgrade. Everyone should read it. The author says: “There can be no doubt that the whole of the Yugoslav army and air force were maintained on our supplies.” We built “twelve completely equipped and up-to-date radio stations.” We furnished 12,000 trucks (diverted in large part, to Tito’s army), tractors, and enough food to supply each Yugoslav with 160 pounds of food a year. At least $400,000,000 worth of UNRRA sup- Plies have gone to build up Tito. In money, this equals “three full years of Yugoslav national income!” Most of this was handled by Russian Com- munist administrators, and a large part of it was sold by Tito to his starving people and the proceeds used to equip his Com- munist army. Such are some of the fruits of this “papa- knows-best” conduct of our foreign affairs. After Hitler broke with Stalin, we began to build up Russian communism as a “democracy,” although it was, and is, “a dic. tatorship as absolute as any dictatorship in the world,” as Mr. Roosevelt correctly said in 1940, Having praised Finland as an honorable people, devoted to “free political institu- tions,” we severed displomatic relations with her. We then became not only a witness of, but actually defended, the fifth partition. of Poland, an ally—the most shameful act in our history. Power politics. We agreed to turn Chinese territory over to Russia without even consulting China. Power politics,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD To the task of drawing up the United Nations Charter at San Francisco, no in- vitation was sent to Switzerland, an honor- able republic which was chosen as the seat of the League of Nations 20 years ago. We did not invite Ireland, nor Finland, nor Portugal, nor Sweden nor Spain. Power politics once more. The idea seems to be that we recognize as “peace loving” natiohs only those who go to war, and as “disturbers of the peace,” all countries that stay at peace! Such 1s the intellectual dishonesty with which we have undertaken to solve the prob- lems of a sick world. Making full allowance for imperative mili- tary necessity, the end result is that we abandoned the principles for which we fought. The terrible dilemma we face today is due in large part to this fact that we sacrificed American ideals on the altar of power poli- tics. For a century and a half, our foreign policy was to be friends to those in other lands who struggled to be free, and not get into bed with despots or dictators. It has been said that every Nation begins to die when it abandons the principles which gave it life. We fought the war of 1776 for American liberty; we fought the war of 1812 for the freedom of the seas; we fought the Civil War to preserve the Union and to free our slaves; we fought the Spanish American War to free Cuba from the Spanish yoke; we fought World War I “to make the world safe for democracy,” by which we meant the right of all men to choose their own form of government. When the Constitution was written in 1787. Mr. Gouverneur Morris, 8 member of the Convention, said: “The whole future of the human race will be affected by the proceed- ings of this Convention.” Never was human prophecy better justified by the passage of time. Nation after nation modeled their form ot government upon our great charter of free- dom, which drew its breath from the noble words in our Declaration of Independence. The most recent of these is Turkey. It has been estimated that 400 constitu- tion: in our own States, in the provinces of Canada, and In foreign lands were modeled upon our Constitution. Jefferson, our first Secretary of State said: “The bal) of liberty is now so well in motion that it will roll around the world. * * © The holy fire is confided to us by the world, and its sparks will rekindle it in other quarters of the globe.” Such was our dream, such was our hope, and such was our policy. We welcomed the French Revolution, even as we regretted its horrors. When the countries of Latin-America won their independence under Simon Bolivar and San Martin, we put the weight of American arms behind them in the Monroe Doctrine, which said they were no longer to be con- sidered as subjects for future European col- onization. We bought Florida, the Louisiana Territory, Alaska, and the Philippines from despotic governments and made them the homes of free men. We were the friends of Irish freedom. Our sympathy went to the Boers in South Africa in 1899. We stamped the word “liberty” on every coin struck from the American mint. Upon America’s most sacred relic, the bell in Independence Hall, we inscribed the words: “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Such was our policy until recent years. It Was the policy of freedom. It was not the policy of power. We made no truck with despots anywhere, although we did not consider it our busine: : to shed American blood in order to settle their domestic affairs. My friends, we have been on a long detour from the course that made America great at home and loved abroad. Generous as we are—sometimes to a fault—the time has come to aid only those governments that are friendly to American ideals of liberty. We should befriend our friends and not aid our open or potential foes. In following the distorted meaning of the word “security,” individual security, pressure bloc security, and world security, we have lost the true significance of those ideals of liberty which have given Americans and people with like governments more actual security than the world hus ever known. In my judgment, nothing could safeguard our own national security more than to again deserve and have the friendship of every friend of liberty throughout the world. Let me illustrate that thought. I have mentioned the waste of American treasure in alding Yugoslavia, whose Tito is a communist stooge, who murdered our airmen on peaceful missions. On the other hand, there is the Turkish Republic whose recent history is too little known here. Turkey's great statesman, At- taturk, a profound student of Washington. Jefferson, and the other architects of our young Republic, and his elected successor, Inonu, remodeled an Oriental despotism in‘> a modern nation dedicated to American ideals of freedom. Tuckey is the only country which, since World War I, has bucked the world tide toward totalitarian tyranny and risen to freedom. Modern Turkey In the most reactionary area of the world today remains an island of freedom in a sea of slavery. It has no cen- ‘sorehip of press or radio. It has adopted the Roman alphabet. It has the two-party sys- tem with universal suffrage. It has emanci- pated its women, elected them to parliament, and given them an honored place in the pro- fessions. It defends private property and encour- ages work, thrift, and investment. In the last 25 years 1t has quadrupled its tools of production and transport. It is a free society and, to make her won- der more complete, it has a balanced budget. We might follow her example to our profit. When the history of this war is written, Turkey's notable contribution to its winning will be known. Cooperation with Turkey in building up her trade and commerce, rather than cooper- ating with men like Tito of Yugoslavia, would apply our traditional policy of friend- ship to those who want to be free. Her hand and heart are offered to us in friendship. We may need the friendship of freemen in the days to come. The choice today is big with destiny. It is the policy of freedom, or the policy of power. As against the latter, we recall the words: “For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and iron shard. Thy mercy on Thy people, Lord!’ Public Education EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REcorpD a very in- teresting and constructive statement A907 made by Mr. Fred Brenckman, Washing- ton correspondent for the National Grange Monthly, with reference to the situation in regard to public education. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: (By Fred Brenckman, Washington corre- spondent for the National Grange Monthly) From all sections of the country come al- most daily reminders that the public schools are in the midst of a crisis that is without Parallel since the close of World War I, 28 years ago, when somewhat similar conditions prevailed. Since Pearl Harbor, roughly a third of a million teachers have walked out of the school rooms of America, many of them with the firm determination to permanently for- sake teaching as a means of earning a liveli- hood. So great is the scarcity of competent teachers that approximately 100,000 schools are now being taught by instructors with emergency permits who cannot meet regular certification requirements. The morale of the members of the profession 1s at low ebb. A large proportion of those who remain in the schoolroom do so in the hope that remedial action will soon be forthcoming. LOW SALARIES TO BLAME The chief difficulty is that the cost of liv- ing has risen out of all proportion to the salaries received by teachers, and they are finding it increasingly difficult to make both ends meet. Financial rewards in the teach- ing profession have always been Jow in com- parison to the earnings of those in other walks of life when it is remembered that in order to qualify for a teacher's certificate the applicant must spend years in prepara- tion, besides investing a considerable amount of money. It is plain that if the children attending the public schools are to be taught by com- petent instructors, the salaries of teachers will have to be raised. According to the Bureau of Labor Statis- tes, the cost of living as of November 15, 1946. was 51.7 percent higher than the aver- age from 1935 to 1939, both inclusive. While salaries of teachers have been increased to some exient, these increases have fallen far short of keeping pace with the higher cost of living. A FEW COMPARISONS During the school year of 1942-43 total ex- penditures for elementary and secondary education, which includes the grade schools as well as the high schools, in the United States amounted to $2,107,899,000. During that same school year, taking the country as a whole, 2.14 percent of the total income of the people was spent on the public schools By way of comparison, the figures of the Department of Commerce show that during 1945 the people of the United States spent $3,000,000.000 for tobacco in its various forms, together with 87,770,000,000 for alco- holic beverages, making a total of 610,770,- 000,000 for these two items. That was more than five times as much as was spent on the public schools during the school year of 1942- 48. Moreover, last year cosmetics and toilet articles cost $875,000,000, while the beauty shops of the country did a business of $1,000,000,000 in round figures. Our public-school system, which in the older sections of the Nation has been in suc- cessful operation for more than a century, is at once the pride of our people and one of the strongest bulwarks of our frec institutions of government, Ways and means can be found of giving all the children that which is their birthright, a good common-school education, without working undue hardship on anyone or without asking the teachers to make finan- cial sacrifices to achieve the desired goal.
A908 DISTRIBUTING EDUCATIONAL COSTS It is true that there are many school dis- tricts, particularly in the more sparsely set- tled sections of the country and those having a relatively small amount of taxable wealth, that could not reasonably be expected to con- tribute more than they do now to the cause of education. The remedy for this condi- tion lies in more liberal appropriations for schools on the part of the State governments and distributing these funds in a manner Cal- culated to equalize educational opportunity throughout the entire State. In many States this equalizing principle has long been in effect and it has worked satisfactortly. What is needed under present conditions is @n expansion of this plan. All but 15 States have a county tax for schools that ts intended primarily to equalize educational opportunity within the county. The percentage,of school funds appropri- uted by the State *overnments varies widely throughout the country. Delaware contrib- utes the highest percentage, 91.7, leaving only 8.3 percent to be raised Jocally. In Ne- braska the State government contributes only 1 percent, which means that the other 99 percent must be raised by local taxation. Generally speaking, the State governments of the South lead those of other sections of the country in the proportion of school revenues raised on a State-wide basis. In Alabama the percentage jis 68; Arkansas, 54; Georgia, 56; Louisiana. 58; Mississippi, 47; North Caro- lina, 63. As a rule, higher State appropri- ations are usually accompanied by a greater measure of State control, thereby proportion- ately lessoning local initiative and control in school affairs The New England States, which have tradi- tionally been strongly in favor of home rule in local affairs depend mostly on local taxa- tion for school purposes. In Maine the State government contributes 21 percent of the cost of the schools. In New Hampshire the percentage is 7.3; Masachusetts, 8.7; Con- necticut, 5.9; Rhode Island, 5.4, and Ver- mont, 13.5. In Pennsylvania, State appropriations ac- count for 32 percent of the total school reve- nues. In New York the percentage is the same; Ohio, 44 percent; Illinois, 10.2; Jowa, 19.4; Kansas, 28; Wisconsin, 15. Going to the Pacific coast, the State government of Washington raises 73 percent of the money spent on schools; Oregon, 32, and California, 47 percent. FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS For many years certain groups have per- sistently advocated that in order to further equalize educational opportunity through- out the country the Federal Government should make large appropriations for the Public schools. Those who have opposed such a course have taken the position that each State is itself a large enough unit to make possible the application of the prin- ciple of equalized educational opportunity. They have expressed fears that Federal ap- propriations for the common schools might result in Federal control of education and thus destroy local control and initiative in school affairs. The committee on education at the recent annual convention of the National Grange, which was headed by State Master E. Carroll Bean, of Maine, had this to say on the sub- ject: GRANGE STATES ITS POSITION “Your committee does not believe that the remedy for our present difficulties in the field of education is to be found in securing Fed- eral appropriations for the support of the public schools. Our best hope of preserving American democracy lies in preserving the independence and sovereignty of the States. If the States want to remain sovereign and independent, they must perform the func- tions which naturally fall within their sphere. Education is one of those functions, “The Grange has always stood for local and State control of our public schools, be- cause in that direction only lics the path of true progress in educational affairs. In the long run, Federal appropriations for the pub- Jic schools and Federal control would go hand in hand. “Because we are against bureaucracy and all the evils that go with it, and because we are opposed to Federal control of education and in favor of continued State and local control of our nublic school system, we must oppose Federal appropriations for elementary and secondary education, except the already existing vocational educational program.” This report was adopted by the convention after full debate on the floor. The com- mittec report made it plain that the Granze is in favor of taking proper steps to mect the emergency which now confronts our pub- Me echools. It was pointed out by the com- mitiee that with most of the State legir'a- tures scheduled to meet this year, action shculd be taken to do justice to the terchers, who were classed as being among the most worthy of our public servants. CALIFORNIA TAKES LEAD California has taken the lead among the Staves in making provisions for more adc- quate salaries for teachers. At the election of last November the voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the State con- stitution making the minimum salary of ell regular teachers $2,400 a year. This will add $45,090,000 to the $93,000,000 that the State now appropriates for schools. In 1940 the average salary of all teachers in the United States was $1,441 It is estimated that the average as of today is about 82,000 a year. AS a rule, teachers in the rural dis- tricts are paid only half as much as is re- ceived by those in cities. Bscuuse experi- enced rural teachers can get higher salaries by going to neighboring towns and cities, the rate of turn-over in the rural schools has beon disconcertingly high.* Georgia has recently granted a 50-percent increase in its salary schedule for teachers. This has brought numerous native Georgians back home to teach. Tesxching salaries in Texas have been advanced from 25 to 30 per- cent within the last 3 years but have not kept pace with the cost of lying nor with the rise in wages and salaries paid in other walks of life. To overcome the shortage of qualified teachers which promises to endure for years because of the falling cff of enrollments in teachers’ colleges, the legislature of Florida is appropriating $400,000 a year for scholar- ships to 1,000 selected high-school graduates. It is reported that this program has greatly increased emrollment in teacher-training institutions. Reports from Minnescta indicate that the salaries of rural teachers in that State have practically doubled during the past 5 years. Before the war the average salary was about $75 per month. Now it is 8150. The examples that have been cited show that the States can handle the existing crisis in education where there 1s a will to do so. Before the final gavel falls in the legislatures that are now in session it is to be hoped that further effective steps will be taken to cope with the situation, thus vindicating the right of the States to be considered as going con- cerns in the American system of government. RAISING THE MONEY Judging from present appearances, it will do the teachers little good to appeal to the Federal Government for help toward increas- ing their salaries. The national debt is now approximately 8$265,000,000,000, which is the most colossal debt ever accumulated by any nation in the world. We have a new Con- gress that 1s pledged to balance the budget for the first time in.16 years, besides reducing income taxes. If thease pledges are to be APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD redeemed it stands to reason that the Fed- eral Government cannot assume any new financial responsibility of the magnitude which is here involved. On the other hand, the fiscal affairs of most of the States ure in good c»ndition. It is to the State governments that ths teach- ers must turn for a solution of their salary problems. In the meantime, America cannot safely allow any further deterioration in its school system. As James A. Garfleld so aptly cx- preszed it: , “A republic’ witnout intelligence. even a high degree of intelligence, Js a paradox and an impossibility. We must educate or perish.” Color Streamers of Confederate Regiments EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MILLARD E. TYDINGS OF MARYLAND IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “A Chance for Congress To Make a Graceful Gesture.” from this morning’s Baltimore Sun. It has to do with the carrying of battle streamers on the colors of regi- ments, There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: A CHANCE FOR CONGRESS TO MAKE A GRACEFUL GESTURE Senator Typinos has reintroduced in the Senate a bill which would permit existing regiments which fought in the Confederate Army during the Civil War to carry with their colors streamers indicating the battles in which they were engaged. That privilege is now reserved for regiments which fought on the Union side. It has been 82 years, short of a few weeks, since Lee's surrender at Appomattox. In the intervening period men whose fathers or grandfathers wore the gray have served loyally in three wars under the Stars and Stripes. That record should remove any incongruity in carrying with the colors bat- tle streamers indicative of service against, rather than in defense of, the flag. Of all the various units of which our Army is composed, the regiment thus far hes dis- played the greatest gift for survivul. There were divisions in the Civil War organization, but they iost their identity when it ended. The divisions we know by name today were creations of World War I and World War II. Brigades and corpe have had no continuity. On the other hand, there are a few regi- ments, including our own One Hundred and Seventy-fifth Infantry Regiment of the Eightieth Division, which trace their lineage all the way back to the American Revolu- tion. Battle streamers are, in fact, nothing: more than the visible evidence of a regi- ment’s history. When they are not author- ized for battles in which a regiment was engaged, the history of the regiment is incomplete. The underlying purpose of Senator Typ- inGs’ bill is, of course, not to revive sectional animosities but to build morale by remind- ing members of a regiment of the deeds per- formed by the men who served before them. But should any flickering animosity be left, @ graceful gesture by Congress would do
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD much to relieve it. The occasions on which Northern States have returned captured flags to the South have Gone more to heal wounds than any amount of pious admonitions. Passage of the Tydings bill should have the same effect. Taxation of Cooperative Organizations EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN L. McCLELLAN OF ARKANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19). 1947 Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an editorial en- titled “Tax Those Giant Co-ops,” which appeared in the Arkansas Democrat of February 12, 1947. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: TAX THOSE GIANT CO-OPS Congress has taken action toward continu- ing about one and one-half billion dollars of excise taxes which were due to expire June 30. These excises are really Federal sales taxes at a high rate on a wide variety c: things. It is argued that the Government must have this revenue so income taxes can be reduced. If the Government is hard-pressed for reve- nue, why doesn’t Congress plug a huge leak in Pederal collections, which Congress itself created by exempting giant cooperative or- ganizations from the income taxes levied on corporations? The idea in exempting cooperatives from the income tax was thet they were service organizations, chiefly for farmers, which ac- tually have no profits to tax. They are sup- posed to pay their net earnings to members in patronage dividends. That would be O. K.—few would object to it—if the tax exemption were confined to amall, sure-enough cocperatives, which per- form a service for farmers not available to them before. The income tax could well e..ough be for- given o1. a cooperative, which, let us say, is formed by a group of farmers to provide a cannery, or a cheese or butter factory, in a neighborhood lacking such facilities. Their enterprise might logically be thus favored, for the plent would develop new income and employment, from which there would be wide m8, But when a giant cooperative, with profits running into millions of dollars a year, is excused from the corporation income tax, that's a horse of another color. These co- Operatives compete with private business, take away much of their patronage—and often a great deal of their profits ts not re- turned to their members. It ts plowed into expansions—used to build greater competi- tion for private business. And just recently, there was an example of how these enormous cooperatives can op- erate against the public interest. One of them, the Dairymen's League, in New York State, with 26,000 dairying members, was charged with spending a big sum to manipu- late the price of butter upward, as a basis for keeping milk prices higher. There is an ugty name for that sort of thing when a corporation does it. Many giant cooperatives exist. They have branched into manufacturing, banking, in- surance, and practically all business lines, Exempting them from the corporation in- come tax !s all wrong. It is leading some corporations to change to cooperatives, to escape the tax. That means more of the Federal taxes for other businesses and individuals to pay. Congress should redraft the tax laws, to ex- empt only real cooperatives, which perform some necessary service—and then only when they are small. Big business of any kind should pay a fair share of th> taxes. Permanent Secretariat REMARKS EON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS . IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a year ago, March 15, I told the House at some length that I thought it was vitally important for us to have a permanent secretariat, a secretary of Cabinet meetings; someone to sit in and take minutes of the Cabinet meetings and of meetings of the Army and the Navy. Iam delighted that one of the first things Genera! Marshall did was to appoint a permanent secretariat of the State De- partment, to take down minutes of all meetings of the State Department, the War Department, und the Navy Depart- ment. Iam also very glad that the Pres- ident has appointed Mr. Clark Clifford as his secretariat of the Cabinet meet- ings. I am not sure that legislation will be necessary to have that a continuing thing but I believe it may be. I am de- lighted that both the President and the departments have seen fit to follow the English custom, that has worked very successfully since 1916. That custom has been very helpful in protecting the British Empire. The custom should prove very valuable in protecting Amer- ica. Last year I said on March 15 in the Congress the following: SECRETARIAT SOR THE UNITED STATES Mrs. Rocras of Massacbusetts. Mr. Speak- er, I am preparing for introduction in the House a biJl that would set up a secretariat for the United States, very much like the secretariat which the British Government at the present time enjoys. When 1 think of the fact that there is no record of the Yalta agreement, except that which possibly is in President Roosevelt's papera, and when there is no record for his- tory of many important meetings, it seems to me something like this should be done. In Lincoln's time the only way any information was secured as to what went on in the Cabi- net meetings was taken from notes made by one of the members there. The United States ought to have a record of its Cabinet meetings. We ought to have a record of our foreign agreements. If our President makes commitments for us with foreign nations, we should know and history should know what those commitments are. In 1916 the British instituted a secretariat, and that secretariat has functioned with great success. At international conferences such as that at Yalta and elsewhere, one or more or all of the British Government's sec- retariat were present, while apparently our A909 only record is in the late President Roose- velt’s papers. The secretariat sits in and takes minutes of all cabinet meetings so there is a permanent and vital record kept of all of Britain’s procedure and progress during the moet critical days in her history. The record is kept for the present and for all time. The British secretariat consists of a per- manent secretary and secretary of war cabi- net and his private secretaries, a military sec- retary of the war cabinet and his private sec- retaries; thus under secretaries—senior, as- sistant, and military—are responsible for the teking of minutes and their preservation. There is an historical section, and tn that is the military histortan of the war. The British secretariat can well be copied in this country. It is time the United States woke up to the fact that this vital informa- tion is not available to us, and that impor- taunt records have never been kept for the present and future use of America. It is time the Congress acted. It is vital for the protection of the country thut some such thing be done. If we do not have such a record, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is great danger of our being in another war whether we want it or not. It is along the line of being able to give to the United States information as to our for- eign commitments, as to what is going on in foreign countries today. I remember very well when the so-called neutrality legisla- tion was before our Poreign Affairs Commit- tee, If information was given to the Foreign Affairs Committee and public at that time as to conditions in Germany, as to conditions in Japan, the Congress would not have passed so-called neutrality legislation. I voted against that legislation because I was con- vinced from my observations and informa- tion I had recetved from people I knew in the State Department and elsewhere that a very unwholesome condition existed in Germany, that Germany was arming as fast as she could, and that Japan was preparing as fast as she could to attack us. Had that Informu- tion been made public offictally, in my opin- jon, we would not have become tnvolved in war becuuse this country, too, would have prepared--there would have been no World War. With a strong and informed United States, Germany would not have dared to sturt another world war. Wake up, America, and ask for the record and the facts. De- mand a secretariat. [From the Washington Post of March 9, 1947] A GOVERNMENT OVERHAUL BEGINS (By Joscph Alsop) A significant but little-noticed event oc- curred in the Senate last week. Senator Lopce, of Massachusetts, delivered a well- weighed and carefully thought out speech urging early congressional action to rebuild the Government from top to bottom. He admitted the gross ineMciency and con- fusion of the present structure. What is even more important, he admitted the almost total ignorance now prevailing as to the Government's real problems of organization, personnel recruitment, coordination, and ead- ministration. And he asked for early ap- proval of the parallel bills offered by himself and Representative CLARENCE Brown, of Ohio, setting up 8 special commission to ascertain all the facts and propose a complete over- hauling of the Government, in structure and in detail. It showed the way the wind is blowing that such highly divergent Members of the Senate as Rosgrt A. Tart, of Ohio, and CLaupE Prprss, of Florida, joined in approving what Lonce had to say. The truth is that Con- gress, committed to budget cutting, is gradually awakening to its almost total ignorance of the governmental! facts of life. The budget cutters are like blind meu
A910 pruning a jungle. There seems to be a good chance, therefore, that the more Yealistic, long-range approach of LopGcE and Brown will be adopted at this session. NEW LIAISON MAN Equally important is the evidence that interest in the governmental facts of life is also growing at the other end of Pennsyl- vania Avenue, within the administration. It was extremely significant, for example, that one of George C. Marshall's first acts in his new office was to agree to the appointment of @ permanent secretary, who would attend and record the weekly meetings of the Secre- taries of State, War, and Navy. This has an interesting background. The Federal Government is now totally lacking any machinery to coordinate the making and administration of policy by all its many parts, except the person of the President himself. The need for such ma- chinery was first: pointed out in a confiden- tial report which the Joint Chiefs of Stuff were bold enough to prepare last spring. During the war, all the chiefs of the Amer- ican Military Establishment, including Gen- eral Marshall, had been rather enviously im- pressed by the British Government’s unity of action and purpose. At the suggestion of Navy Secretary Forrestal, the Joint Chiefs, therefore, explored ways and means to achieve the same unity of action and pur- pose here. They came out with the recom- mendation that a cabinet or executive secretariat broadly on the British model should be established without delay. The duties of this secretariat were to be coordination of the whole process of policy- making and administration, from securing studies of a new problem by all the interested governmental parties, through securing ap- proval of an agreed policy on the highest levels, and down to insuring parallel execu- tion of the agreed policy by all agencies con- cerned. This was to be done, very naturally, under the direct control of the President. It was, in fact, to be a much-needed elabora- tion of his functions, BYRNES WAS COOL The joint chicfs’ memorandum got no at- tention at the time, one reason being Sec- retary of State Byrnes’ doubt as to its value. But Byrnes has now been replaced by one of the originators of the memorandum, and Marshall has already acted to put a part of the memorandum's recommendations into effect. The weekly meeting of the Secretaries of State, War, and Navy is intended to coordi- nate foreign and national defense policy, It only lacked a secretarint to meet the whole requirement in this field. It is now to have a@ secretariat. Presumably, at the same time, steps will be taken to relate this new sec- retariat to the State-War-Navy coordinating committee, which has the same purpose but is on a lower level. At the White House, also, progress is being made. The President’s legal counsel, Clark Clifford, has informally been given the func- tions of secretary of the Cabinet. For many reasons, the title has not been accorded to him. Yet in view of the President's increas- ing habit of using his Cabinet as a genuine operative board of directors of the Govern- ment, the fact that Clifford has the func- tions of secretary of the Cabinet is more significant than his lack of the title. In short, the over-all Executive or Cabinet sec- retariat which the joint chiefs originally recommended is both growing down from the White House and up from the departments. NEW YORK PATTERN There is an enormous job still to do. Part of it is the job indicated by Senator Lover. No secretariat, no matter how effi- cient, can truly and fully coordinate the efforts of a government so insanely complex that 29 agencies lend Government funds, 34 buy land, 12 engage in home and community planning, 10 are interested in forestry, and 80 on, All reorganization bills of the past have been farces. There must now be honest root and branch reorganization, as complete and ruthless as the brilliant job Alfred E. Smith and Robert Moses did in New York State. Equally, reorganization and coordination of the Government will be useless until the problem of Government personnel has been solved. A $37,000,000,000 enterprise largely run by clerks is the height of folly and bad economy. But it is at least encouraging that realistic consideration is at last being given to the governmental problem in both inter- ested branches. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tlewoman from Massachusetts has ex- pired. President Truman’s Baylor Speech and the Proposed International Trade Or- ganization. REMARKS oF HON. NOAH M. MASON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, after making a study and careful analysis of President Truman’s Baylor University speech, and a study and careful analysis of the proposed charter for the Interna- tional Trade Organization, to be adopted at the forthcoming Trade Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, I am forced to con- clude that President Truman either has not read the proposed charter of the ITO, and therefore does not know what its provisions are, or he deliberately mis- represented its provisions and objectives in his Baylor University speech. The thesis of the President’s speech is abso- lutely incompatible with, and directly contrary to, the provisions of the pro- posed ITO charter. The President said that the ITO will protect freedom of enterprise. Quite the contrary, it will destroy freedom of enterprise. The President said: The pattern of trade that is least conducive to freedom of enterprise is one in which deci- sions are made by governments. Under such a system the quantity of purchases and sales, the sources of imports, and the destination of exports are dictated by public officials. In some cases trade may be conducted by the state. In others part or all of it may be left in private hands. But, even so, the trader is not free. Governments make all the im- portant choices, and he adjusts himself to them as best he can. The program described in those words by the President, which he says is least conducive to freedom of enterprise, is exactly the program that is proposed in the ITO; but an international! authority, the ITO, would be given the power to APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD control and regulate world trade instead of the individual governments. If a world economy is planned by an inter- national authority invested with govern- mental powers, then national economies will have to be planned to conform to the world economy. It cannot work in any other way. So we are simply transfer- ring the planning authority from a na- tional plane to an international plane. National planning does not force world planning; but world planning does force national planning, and therefore does away with freedom of enterprise. The power to produce, to create sur- pluses for export, inherent in America’s free-enterprise system, is both the envy of the world and the dread of the world, in peacetime. However, in times of war, such as World War I and World War II, America’s power to produce becomes the salvation of the world. This was dem- onstrated in both World Wars. Mr. Speaker, Will Clayton, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, in giving his blessing and O. K. to the proposed ITO, said: If the markets of the world are opened more freely to the products of various coun- tries, certain groups in every country, in- cluding the United States, may have to work harder, compete more intensively, and per- haps for a while accept smaller profits, But this is, after all, the American way. What Will Clayton really said, when stated bluntly, is: A planned world econ- omy, administered by an international authority under the UN, will bring about world competition between un- equal standards of living; it will mean that we will have to accept a lower standard of living in America in order that other peoples may be able to raise their standards of living. This is an ap- Plication of New Deal economy on a world scale—a redistribution of the world’s wealth in favor of the under- privileged nations, a plan to impose upon the trade of the world a collectivist system. American voters repudiated the New Deal economy for America. Must they—the American farmer, the Amer- ican laboring man, the American busi- nessman—now accept a program of New Deal economy on a world scale and have their standards of living lowered to fit such a world economy? The program, outlined in the proposed ITO, to socialize the wealth of the world, is based upon the theory that poverty anywhere in the world endangers pros- perity anywhere in the world; therefore prosperity, wherever it may exist, must be shared. Since American prosperity is the only prosperity in the world today, it follows that American prosperity is to be shared and distributed. The price we must pay, if we agree to this inter- national share-the-wealth program, is a lowered standard of living for our peo- ple. Do we want to pay the price? Mr. Speaker, Communist economic doctrine is summed up in the well-known phrase, “from each person according to his ability; to each person according to his needs.” It is a high-sounding, Christianlike phrase, a beautiful goal that can only be reached in some future
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD idealistic, make-believe world. Com- munism in theory is heaven on earth; communism in practice is hel] or earth. Now comes the proposed ITO and adopts.the same well-known Communist economic doctrine but expresses it in a new international phrase, “from each nation according to its ability; to each nation according to its needs.” “Well, what is wrong with that?” you Our answer is that we did just that during the war—even before we entered the war— in our dealings with our allies. The result was that we shaved with our allies our resources, our products, our food, in the amount of over $100 000.000,- 000; and while doing so mortgaged Uncle Sam to the tune of $280,000,000,000—a greater national] debt than the total] na- tional debts of all the other countries of the world put together. Shall we now in peacetime continue to hand out to all nations according to their needs, and load upon the backs of éur taxpayers additional world burdens? This, in substance, is what President Truman proposes to do. It is the exact program, the purpose, and the objective of the International Trade Organization that President Truman urges us to enter, to become a part of. He says, “The ne- gotiations at Geneva must not fai’.” I say the negotiations at Geneva must not succeed if the future of America is to be considered and protected. Relations With Russia EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “United States Is Making a Cru- cial Decision on Russia,” written by James Reston, and published in the New York Times of yesterday. I think the article will be found to be interesting reading by Members of the Senate. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recor, as follows: UNITED StaTEs Is MAKING A CructaL DECISION ON Rvuss1a—StTRoNGEr. STAND Is INDICATED aS RESULT OF IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS ABROAD (By James Reston) WasHINGTON, March 8.—It is always pru- dent to assume in Washington that things are never so good or s0 bad as they seem. In general, this goes for the current state of United States-Soviet-British relations over the atomic bomb and Greece. The situation in Greece was certainly not so good as Congress assumed during the last 5 weeks when it was preoccupied with David E. Lilienthal and the budget. Nor was the condition of Britain so good as the United States assumed when it passed the British loan with the notion that it would fix every- thing up, and then insisted that Britain pay half the enormous cost of occupying the dual zone in Germany. CHANGING RELATIONS But just because the Russians have re- jected the United States atomic-bomb plan and the British have told Washington some- what abruptly that they ure going to cut their losses in Greece, !t does not follow that the British are through and the Communists are about to take over the Mediterranean and the Empire. What is happening is what, since the end of the war in Europe, many persons have been predicting and observing and proposing that we deal with. British power is deciin- ing, and the United States and Soviet Gov- ernments, which do not trust each other as much as they proclaim, are maneuvering to prevent each other from taking over when the British lenve. This is « slow and natural enough process. In the opinton of the less-breathiess observers in the capital, it can be dealt with effectively, even by governments inexperienced in world affairs. if the problem is carefully analyzed and adequate measures are taken without fear of provocation. QUALIFYING FACTORS To analyse the situation accurately, these obeervers feel that certain facts must be acknowledged : First, that the British economic crisis 1s real. Britain is not just trying to unload her burdens on us. She has to choose be- tween cutting her overseas commitments ana cutting the standard of living at home even more than her present subwar standard She feels that she dare not try to cut the standard at home further. The British have for years been discussing this economic problem with American of- ficials. No one in our Government questions the seriousness of their plight; no one is surprised that they are cutting down abroad They gave us the shock treatment on the March 31 fiscal deadline on Greece and Amer- ican officials resent it, but these officials con- cede that probably nothing short of a shock would have persuaded Congress to act. The second point that impresses most o1 our officials is that the feared Communist menace to an unsupported Greece is real and has wide implications for the entire eastern Mediterranean and Near and Middle East. These officials have all the evidence they want, gathered by American sources, that. the Greek Communists are trained in Yugo: slavia and backed by Moscow, and the gen- eral assumption is that their objective ts to take over that country and make it part of & Communist Balkan federation. There is general agreement here that 11 that happens through the weakness of the British or the indifference of the United States, Soviet influence in Turkey and in the oll regions of the Middle East will rise ancl our interests will be affected. This, however, would probably be a slow process. The situation now, therefore, is merely a little more advanced than it was a year ago Then, as now, the central fact was that after two wars in two generations, the nations of western Europe were weak and their position of leadership in the world was challenged by the Soviet Union, a totalitarian state with contempt for individual liberty and with a militant anticapitalist philosophy. ISSUES AT STAKE The question, therefore, was, and is, not whether we are interested in backing up the British Empire (the British have not asked us to move into Greece; they have merely told us they are withdrawing their A911 economic aid) but whether we feel (a) that the expansion of Soviet influence is really a threat to our security and (b) that we wish to tuke the chances involved in blocking or ignoring that expansion. How we answer these questions is entirely up to us. We are free to decide that the Soviet Union is, in our judgment, a threat to our security. If we so decide, we huve the power to meet that threat. On the other hand, we are free to decide that Communist expansion is not a threat to us or to freedom, which presumably is still one of our con- cerns, and let the situation in Greece de- teriorate further. The one thing we cannot do is avoid u decision, for refusing to make a decision in the matter is iteelf a decision. ‘The executive branch of the Government has indicated that it thinks the expansion of Communist influence in the world ts against our interests and that it wants to take unprecedented action to meet that ex- pansion. but the technique by which the Government has "faced up to the problem,” as it 1s called, is highly instructive. Placing the problem squarely before the People. with all its implications, has been avoided. No official hus gone on record as connecting the Greek problem to the Russian problem. Instead, the State Department ar- ranges talks with the correspondents. SIGNIFICANCE OF TALKS The connection with the Russian problem is made clear in these talks, and the Gov- ernment thus avoids responsibility for ex- plaining the situation or for bringing the Russtans into it. These talks have been going on all week. The Russians know nothing about them. of course, except what they read in the papers or gather from their agents in the State Department press room. The seriousnees of the discussions in the Democratic caucus on Thursday on Capitol Hill, the bitterness and finality with which the Soviet delegate rejected the United States atomic-energy plan in the United Nations Security Council] on Wednesday. and Presi- dent Truman's decision to postpone his Car- ibbean trip all indicate the magnitude of the decision involved in the Greek case. Andrei A. Gromyko, Soviet. representative in the Security Council, was not expected to accept the American atomic-energy plan, but his description of it as being based on vicious premises and his sarcastic charges that the United States was seeking to intervene in the internal affairs o° other nations contributed to the feeling here that the United States could not afford to take any chances with Soviet expansion in Greece or elsewhere. RUSSIAN ACTIONS This feeling has been growing ever since the end of the war, mainly because of the generul belief that the Russians broke their promises on Iran, that they broke the spirit and the letter of the Yalta agreement and that they defied the terms of the Potsdam agreement. What is surprising is that the relations be- tween any two major countries could have degenerated so far and so fast. Despite the two countries’ break in diplomatic contact, from the Wilson administration until the Roosevelt administration, Russia and the United States have, with few exceptions, co- operated with each other to some extent through most of the critical events of the last century and a half. HISTORIC ALINEMENT When the Continental Congress appealed to Russia for help during the War of In- dependence, she took up a position of armed
A912 neutrality that assisted our cause. When Britain and France threatened to assist the Confederacy during the Civil War, she dis- patched warships to New York and San Francisco to warn London and Paris to stay away. Similarly, the United States, despite ideological differences before and after the Soviet revolution, usually did not take up a position hostile to Russian aims. Now, how- ever, mainly because of the growing activity and strength of world Communist activi- ties, this Government is solemnly meditat- ing a major decision to use its resources to block Communist expansion not only in Greece but also in every area we consider of primary interest to peace and security. ON EVE OF CONFERENCE One of the remarkable aspects of this sit- uation is that such a policy could be under serious consideration on the very eve of a conference in Moscow to discuss peace with Austria and Germany. An equally surprising fact is that, despite all the public discussion of the problem of Soviet-American relations, the heads of the two states have not yet made any detailed effort to negotiate a general settlement of their outstanding differences on such things as the security of the eastern Mediterranean, the activities of the Comintern and the cam- paign of recrimination over the Moscow radio. All possibilities for reaching an accommo- dation, therefore, have not been exhausted. Secretary of State Marshall may be in- structed to make a try at a general settle- ment direct with Premier Stalin, but if this cannot be arranged, the policy of meeting Soviet power with American power will un- doubtedly be expanded and Russia will be confronted with American and British power not only at the Dardanelles, where the Brit- ish have opposed them for a century, but wherever they seek to enlarge their influence. Government Subsidies EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to have printed in the ap- pendix of the Recorp a very excellent analysis prepared by Miss Segrid Arne of the Washington Associated Press staff with respect to the various kinds of sub- sidies being paid by the Federal Govern- ment. Miss Arne has, in my judgment, used a great deal of ability in a factual and in- telligent discussion of this most com- plicated matter. There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Byrn’s COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL EXPENDITURES Gors ALL OuT IN Suss1DI£8 INVESTIGATION WaSHINGTON, March 8.—President Truman asks for $37,500,000,000 to pay the Govern- ment’s way through the year starting next July 1 (the fiscal year 1948). Some in Congress say this can be cut to $31,500,000,000 by eliminating nonessential expenditures. They are giving subsidies to farmers and business special attention. An attempt to pick subsidies out of the budget is a little like blind flying. None of the Government departments can agree on what a subsidy is. The Budget Bureau draws sparks out of the Agriculture Department by some of its decisions. The Maritime Commission sends in a report on subsidy operations that doesn’t make sense to the Budget Bureau. The Treasury De- partment bickers with the Bureau. And they all turn on the committee that Senator Harry F. Byrp, of Virginia, is direct- ing, the Joint Committee on Nonessential Expenditures, which is currently trying to sleuth its way to some notion of Federal subsidies. LIST OF 31 SUBSIDIES The Budget Bureau, on request from Sen- ator Byrp, has worked out one list of 31 subsidies. But no one agrees with it. To thicken the fog, there’s a baker’s dozen ways to pay subsidies. Some keep prices up. Some keep them down. Some mail checks directly to people. Some the Federal Gov- ernment shells out to States and the States in turn shell out to both agencies and people. Byrp’s committee experts have arrived at some over-all figures, but to do it they had to be arbitrary about “what is a subsidy?” This must be kept straight: Subsidies are not relief in Washington thinking, al- though both are Government hand-outs, Subsidies go to various financial ventures, whether they are farming or running a ship- ping company. Relief, of which there has been very little since the war, goes out to keep persons alive and eating. Incidentally, the outright relief measures of the thirties spent a good deal less than the various subsidies to business in the years 1934-45, All told, relief cost about $8,600,000,000. Subsidies to business totaled $12,000,000,000. Items in the President’s budget that can be identified as subsidies totaled $2,500,000,- 000 for the 12 months ending last June 30. That figure dropped off to 718,000,000 for the current 12 months, and the budget calls for $442,000,000 in the next 12-month period. Most of that drop is due to the lapse of war- time payments to keep prices on an even keel. What's left is mostly continued benefits to farmers who got most of the subsidy money throughout the thirties as well. Here's how some subsidies work, and one of the reasons Byrd’s investigators feel like Alice in Wonderland: 1. By far the largest subsidy is through the soil-conservation program. Farmers get Gov- ernment checks for planting less of certain crops and for using modern planting meth- ods. It was devised to balance the farm- er’s income with the city, while getting him to stop the old soil-wasting methods he used to employ. The President’s budget shows that in fiscal 1946 some $273,000,000 went out for conserva- tion practices, but it took $41,000,000 to ad- minister the plan. 2. Parity payments. Through these the Government makes up the difference when farm prices drop below a set formula. 8. Through the war there was a compli- cated set of subsidies devised to keep prices down for the housewife, to prevent union restlessness and thus to prevent strikes, CONDITIONS OUTLINED Farmers and livestock men complained they couldn't make a profit under some of the ceiling prices. So the Government paid the food processors (mostly canners, pack- ers and cheese makers), certain sums of money that actually made up the difference. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD It helped them to sell at ceiling prices and yet puy the farmers enough to keep him happy. Government analysts say this program cost about 81,700,000,000 but that it saved the housewife about $2,300,000,000. Here's more of the subsidy wilderness: Through the war livestock men were paid not to rush their cattle and sheep to the mar- ket until they had enough weight on them. Cheddar cheese: The Government bought it at a high price and released {1 at a lower one to keep prices low. The same system was used for Cuban and Puerto Rican sugar, peanut oil, prunes, milk, and soybeans. ° In the metais field, subsidies were used to keep prices down. The idea was to get all possible mines working. But in some it’s cheaper to bring out the ore than in others. So coiling prices were set to cover average costs. To bring out the higher-costs ore the Government paid the mine owner the difference between ceiling and his costs. That saved millions on the war budget be- cause an “across the board” increase in ceil- ings would have meant the Government was paying high prices to even the low-cost min- ing operatiorts. That type of subsidy continues on copper, lead, 2inc, tin, and antimony. Argument rages here over justification for subsidies. Here are some of the questions: Is it necessary to pay farmers parity prices? If they can't sell their product at a profit, shouldn't they find some other living? Why should taxes be used to keep farmers on their farms when the Government takes no step to keep the nail manufacturer in his factory? Why should farmers be paid now for con- servation practices? Haven't they learned, after 12 years, it’s good business? Why pay construction subsidies to shipping companies when the United States already has the world’s largest merchant marine? Here are some replies: The farmer's income must match city in- come or he won’t buy what the city turns out, The merchant marine is part of our defense system. And some more questions: Isn't a tariff a subsidy to che manufac- turers which all consumers pay? Don't all of us pay to keep silver mines going by the silver price-support program? Should the Government bail out the avia- tion industry with the air-mail contracts? Why should the Post Office Department set such low rates for publications? Why subsidize certain communities through the millions spent on rivers and harbors, and on highways? The whole subject is so foggy that no President’s budget has ever sorted out sub- sidy items into a special section. The only available official list was put out by the Budget Bureau because the Byrd committee asked for it. Reconstruction Finance Corporation-—sub- sidies for losses on purchase and sale of rubber and rubber products and other ma- terials; direct subsidies on butter, coffee, flour, livestock, petroleum, petroleum rrod- ucts, copper, lead, zinc, and other materials. (Subsidies on the food products were dropped recently.) Commodity Credit Corporation—subsidies (many recently dropped), to dairy produc- tion, fluid milk, beef production, sheep and lamb, cheddar cheese, fruits for processing, oilseeds and products, sugar, vegetables for processing, wheat for alcohol, wheat for feed, and other products. Department of Agriculture—subsidies for conservation and use of agricultural land re- sources, parity payments, advances by the Secretary of the Treasury for AAA expendi- tures, sugar act payments, exportation and
APPENDIX domestic consumpt’on of agricultural com- modities. Treasury Department—subsidies through reductions of interest rate cn farm mort- gages. Maritime Commission—payments for op- erating subsidies and for construction cost absorption. Quotas and Export Subsidies EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. REID F. MURRAY OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the following is a letter and official report from the Bureau of For- eign Relations: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF FoREIGN AGRICULTURAL RELATIONS, Washington, D. C., March 7, 1947. Hon. Rei F. Murray, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. Murray: This is in answer to your request for a list of foreign-trade re- strictions placed on agricultural products by the United States in the past 15 years, other than war measures. You will find attached a statement out- X TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES IMPoRT REGULA= TIONS AND ExPporT SUBSIDIES ON AGRICUL- TURAL PRODUCTS (EXCLUDING Wak MEASURES) IMPORT REGULATICNS The United States has regulated imports by the means of absolute quotas, tariff quotas, and sanitary regulations. Absolute import quotas Absolute import quotas (i. e. quotas that limit all imports of a certain Kind of rrod- uct to a certain maximum) have been im- posed under section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1633 (as amended), the Sugar Act of 1937, the International Coffee Agreement of 1941, and the Philippine Trade Act of 1946 (see table 1A). Under the authority of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, abso- lute quotas have been established on cotton and cotton waste and wheat and wheat flour. This stutute provides for the imposition of quotas on imports that interfere with certain programs of the Department of Agriculture. The quotas may not be less than one-half of the average annual quantity of the product Imported trom any country in the years 1929 33. The Sugar Act of 1937 established an im- port-quota system for sugar. In 1942, due to the emergency situation, these quotas were suspended, subject to reinstatement if con- ditions warranted. The Sugar Act reserves to the United States producers 55.59 percent of the domestic need, us determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. The balance is to be imported on the basis of the following allocation: A913 The Philippine Trade Act of 1946 guar- antees to the Philippine Islands absolute quotas on sugar, hard-fiber cordage, cigars, scrap tobacco, coconut oil, and rice. The act provides that beginning in July 1955 the quotas on cigars, scrap tobacco, and coco- nut oil will be diminished at 5 percent per annum. These quotas replaced the tariff quotas under the Philippine Independence Act of 1925, Tariff quotas Tariff quotas (1. e. quotas that limit im- ports ut a reduced tariff rate but permit unlimited imports at the general rate of duty) have been established in a number of cases by reciprocal trade agreements, (See table 1 B.) Sanitary regulations Sanitary regulations have been placed upon imports of certain agricultural products under the Plant and Animal Quarantine Regulations and Federal Seed Act of August 19.9. Becuuse of the special nature of these Measures, they have not been included in the appended tabular list of import regulations, EXPORT SUBSIDIES Subsidies on exports have been authorized under section 32 of the Agricultural Adjust- ment Act, as amended. This statute makes 30 percent of the gross receipts from tmport duties available to the Secretary of Agri- culture for encouraging the exportation of agricultural commodities and for other pur- poses, Use was made of this authorization in the instances indicated in table 2. At present, only exports of cotton are being suksidized. Section 21 of the Surplus Property Act lining the principal acts and agreements Aree nilippine Islands P a 1G of 1944 (Public Law 457) authorized the under which such measures have been tuken, Cuba 64.41 Commodity Credit Corporation to dispose of together with a list of the specific quanti- Other countries corrercee oe a9 agricultural products for export at competi- tative import regulations and of the subsi- dies granted to promote exports. Sincerely yours, L. A. WHEELER, Director. Under the International Coffee Agreement of 1941, quotas on coffee were in effect up to 1945, At present, the quota provisions of the agreement are suspended. tive world prices, even though these prices should be below domestic market prices. Use was made of this authorization in the case of cotton from November 1944 to April 1946. Taste 1.—United States import regulations on agricultural products Commodity Cotton and cotton waste (caception 1714¢-inch cotton). Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (as amended ) sec, 22 A. ABSOLUTE IMPORT QUOTAS Authority Date inaugurated Fept, 6, 1980 (amended Tee, 18, 1946, Mar. 31, 1242, and June 29, 1942). Apr. 13, 1942 (amended May 28, 1943)_ Present status ee Continues in effect. Do, Basar naan ee een nn nn nena nnneweneee Sugar Act OF 1987.00... ewe eee ee eee n ee Sept. 1, WS87 eee Suspended Apr. 12, 1942 (may be reine stated under the act), Coffee. ee eee eee nee eee ee Inter-American coftee agreement, Feb, | Feb, 3, 141. ......0.0.2--------- eee eee Suspended Apr. 11, 1946 (may be reine 3, 1041, stated in case ofe mergency). Sugar... -- VPhillppine Trade Act 1 C untinues in elect, Hard-fiber cordage...-.---2 202 cee ee eee see e ee ee eee eee ns fee eee NO ooo eee eee eee ee fee ee De Cigars..... .. Do. Ferap tobacco Jo. Coconut oll, ..-.-----ene eee n eee ennn ene en cence nee ee [ann WO eee weer cree ee ren ne nen een nn|aenee Do. To. nd Whole milk, fresh or sour. -- 193 g qd Cream, fi Tesh or sour... mda d - DD dock, hake, hollock, cusk, and cosefish. Red-cedar shingles ees ee White or Irish potatoes, certified seed and othor...----|-.. Cattle: ne iene Ce a ieee Ce ¥ s: £00 nr tCACh. ..-- cece ene |-ueee Cn Sr WO. ccecec ccecececeeeccccecnnncceee- Unrestricted entry during the emer- Weighing ess than 200 pound: cach. ....---------|--- pency. However, Mealeo imposed quota restrictions on exports of live. stocker and feeder cattle. Present quarantine of Mexican border be- cause of foot-and-mouth disease out- break prohibits importation of all livestock. Weighing 700 pounds or more cach........------5+ Trade agreement with Mexico .......- Jan. 30, 1943... .--- wena eee eee eee ee ee Do | Silver or black fox fur.........2.--.- ---| Trade agreement with Canada. __.._.- Dec, 20, 1940. ---{ Continues in effect. Molasses and sugar...........-.....- we eneneneceenewene Trade agreement with United King- | Jan, 1, 1989... ........------- eee neces Do. om, Fillor tobacco. ....ssecceccecencncceee wenececeaccencnes Trade agreement with Cuba........-- Jan. 5, 1942-02052. woreeenseceeenseen- Do, XCITI—App.——58 /
A914 Commodity Raw cotton (for export to the northern part of the Western Hemisphere, not effective until Sept. 11, 1989). Raw cotton, Canadian program. ....--------.---------|--- Raw cotton, general... oo... eee eee eee ee , Cotton products (for export to northern pact oi the Westorn hemisphere, nut eficetive until Fept. 11, 1¢ Q Pecans, unstell¢ (stelled alro subsid.rcd in the tater years). Prunes (substandard). 2... 20... eee e eee eee nee e nee e fone Tobaceo.....-------++ Wheat flour: To Philippines. General 1 Date suspended, After reading these lists one would not think this administration was opposed to quotas and export subsidies. You will note that this very day export subsidies are being paid on cotton. Also note that even tobacco has had its export subsidy program. Did you ever hear of export subsidies before the New Deal came into power? Party Status Gains Six Percentage Peints Since Recent Lew EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. C. JASPER BELL OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to revise and extend my remarks in the Recorp I include therein first, a clipping from the Washington Post of March 5, 1947, setting forth a report of the most recent Gallup poll, disclosing the sharp rise in popularity of the Democratic administration, as follows: Party Status Gains 6 PeRcENTAGE POINTS S1nNcE RECENT Low (By George Gallup, Director, American Insti- tute of Public Opinion) Princeton, N. J., March 4.—Republican leaders who have been viewing the 1948 Pres- idential election picture with rose-colored glasses had better take them off. For the swing of voters’ sentiment in recent weeks has been back toward the Dem- ocratic Party—sharply. In fact, if a Presidential election were being held today 51 percent—a majority— say they would prefer to cast their votes for the Democratic Party, 49 percent the Re- publican Party. This means that the Democratic Party has regained in Presidential party support, 6 percentage points from its post-Roosevelt low right after the November elections. A lot will, of course, depend on the can- didates, both the Republican and the Demo- cratic, and the question of candidates was not a part of today’s survey. HAS SLIGHT MAJORITY The facts in today’s story are based on a question dealing with party preferences in a Agricuttural A tnstment Act, 1983 (ag amended) rec. 32 eeeee O.- nnn e nee nw en semweccesenceene Burpiai Property Act of 1944, sec, 21 Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1933 (as ended) set . 32, Authority July 27, 1939. May 1, 1946. July 27,1939. Presidential election today—aside from who the candidates may be. Research experience during the past 11 years indicates that polls of this kind pro- vide the best index of party strength through- out the Nation. Democratic party strength to its lowest point in a poll by the Institute right after the November elections. At that time 45 percent said they would prefer a Demo- crat in a Presidential election then. From that point on Democratic Party strength has been climbing. These facts are shown in the following table giving replies in periodic surveys on the ques- tion: “If a Presidential election were being held today, which party would you vote for—the Democratic or the Republican?” Majority party vote Pereent | Percent Demo- | Repub- erat. Jican 1944 election...........--.--------- t4 46 August 1045. _ 58 42 February 1946. 55 46 May.. 5214, 47): Jaly... 4u ol Septem £0 aw October. - 47 58 November (postelection) 45 55 December... -...-.-...-- - 47 f3 january 1947_ @ £G Today... 2-2. .eenceennnnnennnnnnes 4 4g Certainly one of the contributing factors (but not necessarily the primary one) in the Democratic recovery as shown above is the rising popularity of President Truman, who was found at an all-time low in popularity before the November elections. From a low in October of 32 percent ap- proving the way Mr. Truman was handling his job, the President's rating soared 16 per- centage points—to 48 percent. This rise was reported by the institute in early February. Whether the movement toward the Demo- cratic Party will continue 1s a question which only the future can answer. Meanwhile, the Democrats find themselves in a vastly different position today from what they were a few short months ago, when some observers were handing the Presidency to anyone the Republicans might choose to pui up. Readers should be reminded that it is not popular votes but electoral votes which elect Presidents. Because of the peculiar situa- tion which exists in the South, where the overwhelming majority of popular votes go to the Democfatic candidate, the Democrats normally need slightly more than 50 percent of the popular vote for the Nation as a whole Date inaugurated April 1936... oon ween eee en ewee Sept. 18, 1941--- 222. eee November 1944.......s-.-c.--ccceecsee APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD TaBLx 2.—United States export subsidies on agricultural products Present status August 1938,! Jan. 30, 1940,! Mar. 31, 1942.1 Apr. 31, 1946.! Continues in cffect. Dec. 19, 1641,! 1988-39, April 1043.1 Jan. 1, 1£45.! in order to win enough electoral votes to elect their man. Also, a clipping from the New York Times under date of February 28, 1947, entitled “Mr. Truman Grows,” which clipping follows: MR. TRUMAN GROWS This newspaper has already expressed its congratulations to Mr. Lewis W. Douglas on his nomination as Ambassador to Great Britain. It is not amiss, it seems to us, to express our congratulations to President Truman as well on his ability to recognize Mr. Douglas’ qualities and to summon them to the public service. This one appointment will further add to Mr. Truman's standing, which has unquestionably been growing measurably in recent weeks from the low point which it reached in the course of the distressaful summer and fall. Ding’s cartoon, appearing in an adjoining column, reflects a certainly widespread sense that Mr. Truman has dug up from under the rubbish of new dealism a certain long-for- gotten simplicity and honesty which people can understand and to which they are in- clined to give their confidence. Mr. Truman himself has tended to develop under ad- versity. He is no longer the provincial poli- tician, confined to the horizons of the Mis- sour! gang; and his successful encounter with the formidable John L. Lewis in early De- cember indicated a greater sureness of touch in dificult moments than had been apparent earlier, And he is no longer merely a lieu- tenant for the memory of Franklin DN. Roose- velt; new problems are producing new, and characteristically Truman, policies. All of these tendencies are symbolized to some ex- tent in the Douglas appointment, and they all point to the probability that Mr. Truman will be much more a factor to be reckoned with in 1948 than seemed likely on the mor- row of the Republican sweep of the congres- sional elections. ‘This newspaper, for one, is glad of it. The illusion that the Republicans could elect a dog catcher to the Presidency next year was benefiting neither the country nor the party. To have a man of stature in the White House during the coming difficult months is not only essential to the national interest; it will also demand of the Republican Party that it must develop a man of stature to oppose him and develop policies of consist- ency and coherence to replace those of the crumbling Democratic coalition over which he jes. The abler the President shows himeelf, the better the quality of men and statesmanship which the Republicans must offer. That will be good for the country; and it will be particularly good for the Re- publicans.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Military Budget Caution EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article en- titled “Military Budget Caution,” by Hanson W. Baldwin. The article was published in the New York.Times of yes- terday, and I think it will be of great interest to the Senate. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorpD, as follows: MULITARY BuDGET CAUTION—-CUTS ARE EXPECTED But THE NEED To PROTECT RESEARCH AND SounD DrrenseE Is STRESSED (By Hanson W. Baldwin) Congress in recent debates has served notice that a considerable cut in the military budget faces the armed services during the 1948 fiscal year. Reductions in the national budget are not only inevitable politically but advisable economically and militarily but in consid- ering the military budget Congress should hold high the goal of a sound military policy. And a sound military policy—no matter if it should be well formulated and thought out at this session of Congress—cannot be achieved if the budget for one fiscal year is attacked with a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel. . There {s undoubtedly some waste in the armed services, und there are consolidations and eliminations that cun efficiently be made. But the waste must be excised from the budget—not chopped uway—or highly im- portant branches of the services will suffer with a consequent weakening of the country's security. The combined budget of the military serv- ices for the 1948 fiscal year, as submitted to Congress, 1s $11,256,000,000. The average strength of the armed forces during this next fiscal yeur is projected as 1,640,786. The average cost per urmed man, therefore, will be $6,790, which includes not only clothing, food, shelter, etc., but all arms, equipment, bases, ships, panes, etc. But the Committee on Postwar Tax Policy, which has recently issued a workmanlike analysis of the budget in a pamphlet entitled “A Tax Program for a Solvent America,” finds that this average cost is only slightly lower than the $6,960 average cost per man during the war. RISE IN ARMY'S COSTS The Navy costs have dropped from a $10,029 average per man in 1945 to $7,919 in the pro- jected 1948 budget, but the Army costs have actually risen from 85,911 per man to 86,190. Moreover, these costs contrast somewhat startlingly with prewar averages, which stood at $2,240 per man in the Army in 1939 and 4,801 per man in the Navy in the same year. Food and clothihg prices and maintenance costs have risen greatly since then, but, as the tax study points out, of the $6,790 the 1948 budget earmarks for each man in the armed forces, only $3,100 goes for pay, food, clothing, subsistence, travel, medical care, and welfare, and more than $3,600 goes for ‘weapons, ships, planes, etc. These are significant and important figures, and reasoning from them and from others which it analyzes, the Committee on Postwar Tax Policy believes that “one or two billion dollars can be squeezed out of the (military) budget without real damage to the services.” Senator Byrp is another who believes the service budgets can be cut. The Army and Navy had on December 31, last, more than 1,000,000 civilian employees, as compared to about 222,000 in 1939. Senator Byrn sees in these civilian employees a great fleld for retrenchment. DANGER IN GENERALIZATION There ts no doubt that there is basic truth in noth the tax study and in Senator Byxrp’s contentions. But it would be dangerous and harmful to a proper consideration of the budget to gencralize. Two statistics indicate why. Not only food, clothing, and maintenance costs have increased tremendously since 1939—something which the tax study pvuints out—but costs of equipment also have sky- rocketed as labor costs have increased. For instance, it has been estimated by service sources that the average cost of an experimental aircraft (and in time of peace if we are to keep abreast in the technological race there must be many of these) has in- creased from about 830 per pound of weight before the war to $275 now, while the cost of a proved service plane has increased in the same period from $10 per pound to about $25 per pound. Some new jet aircraft are costing as much as $60 per pound for proved service types. Moreover Senator Byrp’s figures on civilian workers, which show a many-fold increase between 1939 and 1947, must be gauged against the yardstick of the compuarable strength of the men in uniform in the Army and Navy in those years. In 1939 there were a total of 334,000 officers and men; at the beginning of this year there were some- what more than 1,850,000. The ratio of civilian employees to armed personnel is thus smaller now than it was in 1949. It must. be remembered, too, that the serv- ices now have relatively greater need for civilian personnel than they did in 1939. During the war great new militury labora- tories, testing stations, and proving grounds were developed, old ones were greatly ex- tended, and it is these stations that are now the incubators of our technological developments, The laboratories at Edgewood Arsenal, Wright Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir, Patuxent, and a score of other places sre manned and operated partly by military personnel, but chiefly by civilians— technicians, scientists, and other truined re- search workers who provide a continuity of effort and a skill which few military person- nel can match. Moreover, many of the special posts in the country, like the Navy’s Dahlgren Proving Ground, which ts staffed by 1,000 civilians as against 59 officers and 110 enlisted men, are operated almost entirely by civilian employees. Wholesale slashes in the num- ber of civilian employees permitted the armed services can cripple these highly important posts, proving grounds, and laboratories. Research and development is one part of the budget which ought to be approached with the utmost caution. The limiting fac- tor in the amount spent on basic research ought to have no relation whatsoever (in peacetime) to the size of the armed forces; the only rational limiting factor should be the number of good scientists available to expend basic research funds to best ad- vantage. PRUNING ON RESEARCH FEARED Moneys up to that limit ought to be ap- propriated and there should be no cuts. Yet there is considerable reason to fear that basic research funds, as well as funds for development, may be cut. The moneys ear- marked for research and development (for both War and Navy Departments) in the 1948 budget total something over $500,000,- 000 before the congressional pruning knife A915 has been applied; yet service experts believe about 8600,000,000, possibly more, should be appropriated each year. All this is not to suggest that the service budgets ought.to be inviolute. On the con- trary, they should be cut, for both the Com- mittee on Postwar Tax Policy and Senator Byrp are right; places will be found where cuts can be made without danger to our security. The proportion of officers to enlisted men — and particularly the lurge numbers of gen- eral and flag officers, colonels, and Navy cap- tains, offers one field for investigation, and there are countless others. The services can and must accept some part of the cut in the national budget. But it must not be a crippling cut and the congressional scalpel teen than the congressional cleaver must be used. Japanese Peace Treaty REMARKS HON. NORRIS POULSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. POULSON. Mr. Speaker, I am to- day introducing a House resolution re- questing that the Department of State make immediate preparations for an carly negotiation of the Japanese peace treaty. I am making this request as a result of a recent conference with Gen- eral MacArthur in Tokyo. where it was my privilege along with Hon. Ciarr ENGLE and Hon. JOSEPH FARRINGTON, to discuss this matter with him during our recent rip. General MacArthur was most em- phatic in his contention that the Japa- nese peace treaty should not be held up pending the final settlement of the Ger- man peace treaty and offered many con- vincing arguments in substantiation of this and his belief that there should be immediate negotiations toward the sign- ing of the peace treaty between Japan and the Allies. He compared the background of Japan to the hereditary hatreds of Europe and stated that Europe is like a mun 50 yeurs of age who is not likely to take advice from someone whom he considers knows no more than he, whereas Japan is more like a young person who can take advice from an older person of experience. . He further explained that Europe has had many wars and many and various alinements of allies and the hatreds of Europe are hereditary, whereas the Japa- nese people have had all of their ideals and hopes shattered and are now living in a vacuum which must be filled. Their religion and their national life centered around their belief in the in- fallibility of their Emperor and unless we fill that vacuum soon it will be filled by the philosophy of their neighbor, Russia. I have asked— He said— both Catholics and Protestants to send mis- sionaries and where they now have one, to supplement that one with one thousand— And he explained that he was asking his Government and people to furnish the
A916 Japanese with the teaching and the sup- port to set up a true democracy. With Christianity and democracy— He contends— Japan can become a bastion against the threats of communism and can accomplish far greater results than all of the armies. Genera! MacArthur further maintains that we should also have an immediate Peace so that these industrious people can became self-sufficient and not be a drain upon the American taxpayer, but that if we wait too long, that industrious trait might be blighted as it has been in other parts of the world. To me this was a very significant state- ment since we have found people right here in the United States who have lost their industrious habits and are now looking to the Government as their sole provider. General MacArthur also expressed his approval for the granting of statehood to Hawaii. He recalied that we kept our word and gave the Philippines their inde- pendence which was the only step we could take since the economy of the Phil- ippine IsJands was tied up with that of the Orient, but Hawaii. in his opinion, presents an entirely different question since it is definitely a part of the economy of the United States and if Hawaii has met the qualifications of statehood, it should be admitted immediately. Hawaii, he told us, is not only part of the economy of the United States, but it is definitely one of the key points of our national defense. He feels that we should keep the key islands of the Pacific and the Alaskan areas not from a nega- tive but from a positive standpoint and that it is a “must.” Por the logical reasons which he ad- vanced, therefore, I am asking that this House of Representatives go on record as requesting the Department of State to Proceed immediately toward the early negotiation of a peace treaty with Japan. H. R. 2157, Regulating the Recovery of Postal-to-Pertal Pay EXTENSION OP REMARKS or HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF MEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 4, 1947 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the Recoap, I include the following mi- nority report on H. R. 2157, regulating the recovery of portal-to-portal pay: The bill as reported is a rather poorly Grafted mixture of a number of items, all of which will give rise to substantial con- fusion and unnecessary litigation. In its entire impact the bill as reported wil! seri- ously weaken the enforcement of ome of the most important pleces of humanitarian leg- selation on the books of this country; namely, the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is par- ticularly inappropriate that we take action at this time to weaken the Pair Labor Stand- ards Act when there je actually such a crying need for its improvement, for raising the obsolete 40-cent per hour minimum now pro- vided, for extending its protections to many underpaid workers not now covered. There has been substantial comfueion thrown into the discussion of this bill as a result of the so-called portal-to-portal pay issue. It should be remembered that this jis not a bill which confines itself to the problem of the presently extsting accumu- lated! Diabilities, so widely discussed, as a resuit of the portal-to-portal pay situation. This bill makes very basic changes for the future as well as the past im the general enforcement and cperation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bad cases make bad laws. Some of the so-called portal-to-portal claims should not have been brought into court, but many of the cases are justified. But there has de- veloped a great hysteria over these suits. Some of the adverse criticism against these suits is justified. but much of it is unjustified. There are gocd and bad employers. All are not Mly white. Some af the sutts brought against chiseling employers for labor spent in their behalf ere eminently sound. The bill reported casts a shadow. if it does not actually prohibit many of these suits bon- estly and justifiably brought. In ocder to proscribe the bad caset, » sweep- ing remedy % proposed that not only for practical purposes bans portal-to-portal suits, the good and the bad. but s’so ema:culates the Bacon-Davis Act, the Walrh-Healey Act, and the Pair Lebor Standards Act. The obrase “porta! to porte!” is a bed iabel to designate to a)) these suits, suits which are for “time worked" as m the following: ress Checking mschinery. (b>) Adfusting and reedfusting equipment. (c} Repairing, oiling, washing machines. (d) Checking and sharpening tools. (e} Rest periods after arduous tot. (1) T-King inventory. (g) Submitting to a feriodic physical (h) Trave} time within the plant or mine, which sometimes consumes as much as a balf hour. (:) Cleaning and washing off the body grease, soot, and tcxic matter. A wide veriety of activities which employ- ers have always compensated, not unlike the portal-to-portal claims, cecur in the build- ing trades, longshoring, petroleum, news- paper editorial and photogripbic work. In the American Federation of Labor uniom, time spent im from Gesignated bases to the work site, by collective bergain- ing, is considered worktime and paid for. In carpenters’ agreements, tool sharpening is considered worktime during working hours and peid for. In street and bus transporta- tion getting the car ready for servicing and returning it to the barn is considered time worked and paid for. It is quite apparent that the magnitude of the so-called safety not provide an excuse for weakening labor laws that have -aised the standard of the worker over the years. Prankly, as a result of the recent decision mm the Mount Clemens Pottery Co. case, many, if not most, of the claims will be thrown out. It was held therein that neg- ligible inconsequential time spent ts not compensable under the de minimis doctrine. For clarity in considering our reasons for disagreement with the majority of the com- ques- tion of the dangerous effects which this bill carries for the future of the entire Pair Labor Standards Act. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (1) THE PROBLEM OF EXISTING LIABILITIES UNDER PORTAL-TO-PORTAL CLAIMS the course of the past few months @ substantial number of lawsuits have been filed in the courts of the United States against a number of major corporations. In substance these suits are based on a claim that the employees bringing action have been required by their employers to perform- duties or engage in activities prior to the scheduled starting time of their shift and subsequent to the scheduled quittmg time it is the elaim of these employees sppar- ently that the hours devoted to this extra work have heretofore not been counted by their employers as part of the workweek, so that actually more than 49 hours has been worked im various weeks with no compen- sation peid for the overtime work. The issue arises in the first instance out of the fact that the Fair Lakor Standards Act 2s passed in 1938 did not spell cut a full definition of what was to be rerarded as “work” and did not give to the Admin- istrator any power by regu!ation or similar action to develop such a definition with. any legal effect. Since it thus became the duty cf the courts to define the term in their decisions, the Supreme Court of the United States over a number of years developed a set of criteria as to what must be regarded as constituting wo-k which must be counted as part of the workweek. The Supreme Court's bes'c con- clusions may be summarized in the following gtoiation from the decision wh‘ch it ren- dered in 1944 in the case of Tennessee Coal, Tron and Rativcad Company v. Muscoda Loe? No. £23 (321 0. 8. 50): “But these provisions like the other por- tions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, are remedial and humanitarian in purpore. We are mot here dealing with mere chattels or articles of trade but with the rights of those who toil, of those who sacrifice a full meas- ure of their freedom and talents to the use and profit of others. Those are the rights thet Congress has specially legislated to pro- tect. Such a statute must not he interpreted or epplied in a2 nerrow, grudging manner. Acccrdingiy, we view section 7 (a), 3 (g7, and 3 (f) of the act as neccessarily indicative of a congressiona] intention to guarantee etther regular or overtime compensation for all actual work or employment. To hold that an employer may validly compensate his em- Ployees for only a fraction of the time con- sumed in actual labor would be incons‘stent with the very purpose and structure of those sections of the act. It is vital, of course, to determine first the extent of the cctual work- week. Only after this is done can the mini- mum-wage and mexitmum-hour require- ments of the act be effectively app'ted. And, in the absence of a contrary legislative ex- pression, we cannot sssume that Congress here wes referring to work or employment Other than as those words sre commonly used—as meaning physical or mental exer- tion (whether burdensome or not) controlled or required by the and necessarily and primarily for the benefit of deliberations to any definition of the word “work.” On the contrary, so far as we can determine, the major issues arising under the portal-to-portal pay prob'em are not based on aby demonstrated inadequacy fn the definition set forth above. The major problem—and it is a real one worthy of can- gideration—arises out of the fact that ap- parently there is a very large number of em- ployers who have permitted as substantial om to accumulate until it bas seemed to them that the burden of making adequate _eusation now will be overwhelming. This fear bas been built, in the main, on
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD there various suits. On that basis we have been asked to enact legislation calculated retroactively to wipe out the obligations and liabilities presently existing. Our attention has been directed to a sub- stantial number of opinions issued by the Administrator over the years since 1940 which have given to industry substantial notice that preliminary activities, oiling and adjusting machinery, make-ready time in general, and other similar activities outside of the regu- larly scheduled shift hours were, in the opin- jon of the Administrator, work requiring compensation under the law. We have noted court opinions containing similar indica- tions, such as those rendered by the district and circuit courts in the Tennessee Coal & Tron c2se (49 Fed. Supp. 4 and 135 Fed. (2) 820); Sunshine Mining Co. v. Carver (41 Fed. Supp. 60 (1941); Travis v. Ray (41 Fed. Supp. 6 (1941)); Walling v. Blue Mountain Logging Co. (D. C, U. D., Wash., 6 Lab. Cases par 61, 466 (1942)); Philpot v. Standaid Oil Co. (53 Fed. Supp. 833), and others. This background gives at least substantial indication that there are many activities in- volved in the current dispute which should properly be compensated under the law. These are the issues which are now before the courts for decision. We do not wish, however, to close our eyes to any real threat, if such exists, of substantial disruption to our economy re- sulting from an overwhelming volume of ob- ligations imposed on American industry. However, we feel that it cannot in good con- science be said that such has been at all demonstrated to be the fact. On the con- trary, the Supreme Court in its decision in the much-discussed case of Anderson v. Mount Clemens Pottery Co. specifically indi- cated that collection would not be permitted for any claims based on periods of time so slight as to come within the doctrine that the law does not concern itself With trifles— the doctrine known in law as de minimis hon curat lex, Pursuant to this declaration of the Supreme Court, Judge Picard, in his subsequent anal- ysis of the facts in the Mount Clemens case, dismissed in full the claims there involved. Insofar as legislation is proposed on this subject today, it seeks to do two things, both of which we feel are extremely dangerous, (a) It undertakes a retroactive reversal of a decision of the Supreme Court; and (b) It undertakes to decide by legislation issues which are now pending in the Court, We have grave doubts as to the constitu- tionality of action along these lines, More importantly, however, we believe that there are very grave issues of policy which should restrain any Congress from taking action alo1.g these lines in the absence of the most irrefutable demonstration of pressing na- tional emergency. We feel that it is danger- ous for Congress to enccurage litigants in existing lawsuits to seek from Congress a de- cision in their favor on the existing claims involved in the lawsuits. It is the province of Congress at all times to legislate for the future. It is not appro- priate for Congress to legislate for the past, to decide existing lawsuits. There is a danger of a serious infringement upon the province of the judiciary and of a serious undermin- ing of the integrity of the doctrine that law- suits should be decided by the courts and not in the political arena. There is every indication that the final decision to be rendered on the scope of the de minimis doctrine will substantially elimi- nate the major bulk of the current liabilities. It is perfectly clear that the amounts named in the complaints in these lawsuits—no more than in any other type of lawsuit—cannot be accepted as an indication of the true scope of ultimate liability. Problems of proof, cov- erage, statutes of limitations presently in operation, and many other factors apart from and in addition to the de minimis doctrine will reduce the total collections. Under these circumstances it is our judg- ment that the problem of existing liabilities should be left where it belongs, in the hands of the courts, and should not be made the subject of legislative action. The more im- portant and thoroughly legitimate sphere for congressional action is a determination of various issues for the future, and we now turn to that problem. (2) PROVISIONS AFFECTING FUTURE OPERATION OF THF FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (a) Statute of limitations . The bill now reported proposes as to past claims a 6-month statute of limitations, and a 1-year statute of limitations as to ull future claims and actions under the Fair Lebor Standards Act, Bacon-Davis Act, and the Walsh-Healey Act. We are in favor of the establishment of a uniform Federal statute of limitations for actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act; but we feel that it is extremely inequitable, unwise, and unjustified to place the figure at anything less than 3 years. A l-year statute of limitations as con- tained in the reported bill would be grossly discriminatory against the rights of the workingman. In almost all transactions in which the businessman, the manufacturer, the employer, engages, the governing statutes of limitations range for periods from 3 yenrs upward and most frequently are in the neigh- borhocd of 6 years. In our Federal jurisprudence almost every statute of limitations is set at 3 years or more. Suits for infringement of patent rights are limited only by a 6-year statute. Suits unde: the Federal Employers’ Tiability Act are limited only by a 3-year statute. The Fair Labor Standards Act is presently governed by those State statutes in each State which are deemed to affect rights most closely unalogous to those involved in the act itself. The applicable State statutes, thus representing the judgment of the various States on an appropriate period for the nature of the rights involved, range as high as 6 years in a number of industrial States, and averaze some 3.7 years. In a number of instances where States attempted to set up special, short periods of limitation the courts have declared such action invalid, pointing out that such a statute discriminated against a piece of Federal legislation by apply:ng to it a shorter Hmitation period than is provided in those States for analogous rights under the common law or under other statutes. (Fullerton v. Lamm, 8 WHR 1175; Kappler v. Republic Pictures Corp., 8 WHR 183, 9 WHR 119; Clarke Lumber Co. v. Kurth, 8 WHR 1214; Rockton & Rion Railway v. Davis, 6 WH Cases 481.) Yet in the bill now reported we have the spectacle of a Congress itself being asked to enact such a discrimination. A 1-year period, moreover, would be ex- tremely harmful to the enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act itself. This is pe- cullarly a law which requires a longer period of limitation, It deals with the rights of working men and women. Many of these workers are not fully informed of their rights under the law. Frequently they have to de- pend on discovery of violations by the Wage- Hour Administrator before they are aware of their rights. Most workers are unorganized and are not really as informed of their rights as are union workers. Due to limitations of staff the Wage-Hour Administrator not only is unlikely to get around to any given establishment within 1 year of a violation but, in fact, it is doubt- ful whether he would be able to make such an inspection within 10 years. It is esti- mated that there are approximately 550,000 establishments subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Administrator is able A917 to make an average of Jess than 50,000 in- vestigations each year. This, in fact, does not include the circumstance that approxi- mately 50,000 new enterprises are established each year. Thus the Administrator, with his limited staff is not even able to keep up with the rate at which new enterprises come into being, let alone conduct sufficiently fre- quent inspections of existing enterprises. It js further a relatively well-estublished fact that many employees fear to bring suits against their employer because of their ap- prehension that they may thereby lose their job, They are, however, relieved of this ap- prehension when they transfer to another employment, and then proceed to assert the rights theretofore violated. A l-year statute of limitations, therefore, is outrageously discriminatory against the laboring man. It seriously an. adversely affects the right and ability of the laboring man to assert his rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Since the civil action for recovery of damages ts one of the most ef- fective of the enforcement devices provided in the law, a l-year statute on such actions seriously endangers the basic enforcement of this vital piece of legislation. (b) Reliance on administrative decision as a defense Section 2 (e) of the proposed bill permits an employer to free himself completely from any civil liability for failure to comply with the law if he can claim to have relied on any administrative regulation, order, ruling, and even enforcement policy or practice. The language permittirge full absolution to any employer relying on administrative action is objectionable. It is not even limited to action of the Administrator him- self. It refers to nny administrative action. This could mean that employees would find their rights to collection barred simply by the willingness of a minor regional official to express his personal opinion as to an em- ployer'’s Hability. We must remember that the Fair Labor Standards Act as presently written, except in a few specialized connections, does not establish a formal provision for the issuance of interpretations, rulings, or opinions by the Administrator. All of the Administra- tor’s acts in this respect are tuken as in- formal expressions of viewpoint, frequently contained merely in an exchange of corre- spondence with an employer. There is no provision for hearing. There is no provision for notice to the employees or their repre- sentatives. There is no provision for any opportunity for presentation of facts or viewpoint. This ts not the fault of the Ad- ministrator, There is simply no provision for it in the statute. Under these circumstances it is grossly unfair to the workingman and it is extremely bad practice and precedent in the admin- istration of the law to say that any and all of these activities of the Administrator or of his staff may constitute a complete defense for the employer and bar the employee from recovery. The proposal contained in the bill goes even further. It establishes as a complete de- fense not merely an administrative opinion, ruling, interpretation, regulation, or order but also even something called enforcement policy or practice. These refer to things which are known usually only within the confines of the administrative office. They may or may not become known by public an- nouncement. Frequently an enforcement policy may include a decision not to act in certain types of cases only because of lack of funds or because it is decided that other cases fre more urgent. It is at least debatable that the proposed bill would make even such an enforcement policy a complete defense for the employer,
A918 The richts of workingmen under a law of the United States should not be made to dcpend on things so vague and indefinite as “enforcement policy” or “practice” of an ad- ministrative agency. We have heard much discussion of the evils of bureaucracy We can conceive of nothing which smacks more completely of the true evil of bureaucracy than a system under which rights are de- termined, not by carefully defined and care- fully Mmited administrative action but by such inchoate things xs “enforcement policy” and “practice” of an administrative agency. If it is desired that the Adm.nistrator have certain specific powers to issue opinions, rul- ings, regulations, and other matters which are to have legal effect, then we should have @ specific declaration outlining the exact scope of his authority, the standards which are to guide him, and giving to his acts epe- cific legal effect, binding equally on both par- ties. That would be the sound, lawyerlike method. (c) Watver, compromise, and settlement A law which declares that private parties may enter into a contract to violate it is not likely to be a very effective law. That is puar- ticularly true of the Fair Labor Standards Act—especially so among the large body of unorganized workers for whose protection the act ‘s most tmportant. It Is because of these ccnsiderations that it has been accepted doc- trine that an employer should not be rer- mitted to absolve himself from any legal! lia- bility under the uct s!mply because he is eb'e to secure from his employee a signature to a release or reduction of Ifability. Even without those elements which could constitute legally proven duress, it is un- fortunately true that apprehensions nor- maliy present in the mind of an employee could result in the signing of such docu- ments at the request of an employer and under circumstances constituting in effect an agreement to accept violation of the law. Can we affoid to say that an employer may pay his employee 30 cents an hour instead of the legally required 40 cents and then free himself from legal liability for his law viola- tion simply oy securing from his underpaid employee a signature on a waiver of release? Any claim or cause of action for wages or for liquidated damages may be compromi:ed or settled. The liquidated-damages provi- sions of the act are intended to have the salutary effect of discouraging what otherwise might be a tendency on th~- part of an cm- ployer to resulve all doubtful questions against his employee. Clearly, if the only lability which might ultin.ately arise would be lability for that which the employer 1s required in the first place, then even without bad faith an employer would have abso!utely no reason for resolving any possible question in any way other than against payment. A provision permittin,, compromise of the Nquidated-damages portion of the employee's recovery is particularly indefensible when considered in conjunction with the provision in this proposed bill which makes such liqui- dated damages recoverable only on proof of bad faith. What the bill then says, in effect, is that in order to recover the extra amount provided by the statute in the form of dou- ble damages the employee must prove the employer's bad faith. Yet even the product of the employer's bad faith, the proposed bill would permit the employee to com- promise away. (a) Requirement of proof of bad faith for recovery of liquidated damages Under the present Fair Labor Standards Act an employee deprived of his rights under the law may sue for and recover the amount of his loss plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. The proposed bill would make such liquidated damages recov- erable only on proof that the employer acted in bed faith and without reasonable grounds, The Supreme Court of the United States has pointed out that the liquidated-damages provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act is not intended as a punitive device. Its pur- pose is not to punish the employer but rather to make more effective the enforcement of the act. Where there is truly willful viola- tion of the law, this statute, like most others, provides criminal penalties. The liquidated-demages provision as we have already noted is essential for a special reascn. If an employer is faced with the con- sideration that the most that may b2 recov- erable against him will be that which he is required in the first instance to pay, there is absolute:y no incentive to indu-e him to comply with the law wherever he feels there is the sligitest possibility of avoidance of the law. It is extremely d Mcult to prove bad faith in these and in most other circum- stances The net effect, however, will te a substantial lessening of the enforcement value of the civil-action provisions of the act. If, as we have suggested in another portion of this report, provision were made to rermit. the Administrator to act with Iegal effect to render interpretations and rulings, both the employer and the employee would be g.ven adecuate safeguards and arsistance tn the resolving of doubtful questions. Given this assistunce, there is absolutely no reason why the employer who does engage !n a violation of the act shcu'd not be called upon to pay the full compensation now provided in the statute. (e) Compcnsatton tarred by custom or practice The bill reported favorably by th2 majority proposes to bar for the pust and the fu.ure any action based on the failure of an em- Ployes to pay legelly requ rcd compensation for any specific activities if those ectivities fre not required to be ccmpcnsated by the “custom or practice” of the employer or by agreement between the employer and his em- ployee or between the emplorer and a col- lective-barguining egent. In our judgment the proposal to make the law depend on the cu3tom or practice of the employer accom Ueh~s a virtual dzstruct.on of any standards ui d2r an act which by its title is supposed to set standards, namely, the Fair Labor Standards Act. The bill proposes that the question of whether certain activities are or are not re- quired to be compensated under the law is to be determined *y the custom or practice of the employer. This means that a new employer sctting up his business for the first time is free to write the law for himself. He will determine what is his custcm or practice and that will determine what is the lew as far as he is concerned. Even among employers already in buast- ness, the proposed bill means that instead of setting any uniform or even any minimum standard the law will vary from employer to employer. Those employers who have been more liberal and decent and who have com- pensated their employees fully for all activ- ities engaged in for the benefit of the em- ployer will be penalized. For them the law will be quite stringent, based on the decent practices they have followed. On the other hand, the employer who has cut corners, who has given the most re- stricted possible interpretation to his duties under the law, who has paid his employees as little a8 possible, who has required his employees to engage in a substantial amount of work without compensation, is to be fa- vored under the proposed bill. He is to be rewarded for his sweatshop conditions. The more vicious his practices have been the more he is rewarded since the law, for him, will set standards as low as those he himself has set. In our judgment such a proposal is com- pletely indefensible. It hits hardest at those employees who most need the protection of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the act—the unorgani7:d. Remember only some 14,000,000 are organized. Most of the workers are not in unions. Among thoee, it hits hardest at those who most need the setting of standards in tle act—thoce in in- dustries or establishments where the em- ployer has operated under eubstandard con- ditions. Those conditions the law would now accept and actually embody in the law itself. In our Judgment, a sound legislative policy requires that we take appropriate action now to establish an appropriate definition of the term “work.” But we favor a prccess of definition, not a process of affirmatively en- acting an absence of definition. We favor the establishment of uniform standards for all emplovers within appropriate clacsifica- tions. We oppose the enactment of laws which permit employers to write their own ticket, to change the law from yeer to year, and which reward chiseling and penalize decency. We would favor a prov-sion writing Into the law a definition of “work.” Such a pro- visicn wouid require that 1: order to be deemed compensrble under the law activities must be conducted under the control, direc- tion, or requirement of the employer and must be primarily for the benefit of the em- ployer. If it be celi that a uniform defini- tion for all employers in all industries 1s not desirable. we wuld favor a provision em- powering the Administrator by appropriate proc.dures, including proper investigation. notice, and hearing, to formulate definitions for various industries and classifications con- forming to standards which could be written into the law. Either of these alternative methods of procedure would establish uni- form standards, standards supported by con- siderations of common eense and the realities of ‘ndustria) operation, standards which would apply equally to all employers within the same classificaiion. (1) Constituttonality The reported bil] permits employers for all time in the future to continue to refuse compensation for activities which’ the Su- preme Court found to constitute “work” and to be free from any suits for compensation. (See Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Com- pany v. Muscoda Locai No. 123 (841 U. 8. 590, supra).) Over and beyond that, the bill wipes away retrcactively many pending ruits and many accrued claims not in suit. Whether Con- gress can reach back and say, “Although rights have accrued, those rights are now null and void,” is open to serious doubt. Can Congress relieve employers of liability for past violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act? That is highly doubtful. If workers’ claims can be erased, then let businessmen beware lest Congress thereby gain precedent, per- mitting it to wipe out their past claims. An individual may not under due process of law be deprived of previously vested rights. Claims for overtime compensation and liqui- dated damages under the Fair Labor Stand- ards Ac. constitute property of which no employee can be derrivcel without due process of law (Retd v. Solar Corporation (6 W. H. cases, 508, 518)). Congress can redefine a day's work or a week's work, but only cs to the future. Con- gress can delimit claims for the future but not for the past. Under this bill there is taken from the em- ployee the right to compensation for work as authorized by a former act of Congress, the Fair Labor Standards Act. This right can be taken away from the worker by a col- lective-bargaining agreement or the claim can be compromised with the worker him- self. In other words, the employer can com- promise his own violation of the law. Congress can change any act, but it cannot blanket out claims that have accrued. Con- gress cannot even do this under the guise of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD its right to broaden or narrow the judicial process or procedure. CONCLUSION Because the bill under consideration says that worktime is that which is governed by collective-bargaining agreements, custom, or practice of the employer or the employer's good faith (1. e., operation of the employer's mind—at best most difficult to prove or dis- prove) and because all these factors are the ‘gBuideposts for pay work, the bill repeals provisions in the wages-and-hour law with respect to hours of employment and com- Pensation. This the majority would do un- der the subtle maneuver of outlawing so- called portal-to-portal suits. By adopting the pending bill Congress destroys the stand- ard of hours and wages set by the Fair Labor Standards Act for public health and safety and substitutes standards set by agreement, custom, and practice. Why do not the pro- ponents of the bill honestly say they want to kill the Fair Labor Standards Act? EMANUEL CELLER WiILuiaM T. BYRNE THOMAS J, LANE MARTIN GORSKI MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN. Economical Security EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JACK Z. ANDERSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. ANDERSON of California, Mr. Speaker, Secretary of the Navy Forrestal has recently issued a directive to the Navy Department which in my humble opinion is an inspiring and timely docu- ment. Instead of screaming to high heaven that the efforts of Congress to reduce the Federal budget will result in scuttling the Navy and sabotaging na- tional defense, he cautions the Navy to spend its every dollar wisely. The atti- tude expressed by Secretary Forrestal might well be emulated by the heads of all other Government departments and agencies. As a businessman, the Secretary knows that our country cannot maintain a strong Army and Navy unless our in- ternal economy is strong. Of particu- lar significance is his statement: The Navy knows that no enemy forces could ever deal the Navy a more serious blow than would result from domestic fiscal and economic instability. What a pity it is that more of the heads of departments do not view our fiscal policies in the same light, No Member of Congress is going to de- liberately vote this country into a state of impotence. However, we are faced with the very real and practical neces- sity of eliminating every single unneces- sary expenditure in every department, including the War and Navy Depart- ments. In this connection I earnestly commend Secretary Forrestal’s directive to my colleagues. The statement is as follows: The economic, business, and governmental task which the United States Government faces in the years immediately ahead is one of enormous proportions, Our national debt exceeds $260,000,000,000. Interest charges of $5,000,000,000 on this debt are a fixed expenditure. So, too, are $7,000,- 000,000 for the care and benefit of veterans. Eleven and a half billion dollars for the Army and the Navy plus the expenses of running the rest of the Government bring the ex- penditure total to 837,000,000,000. This is the basis of the budget the President sub- mitted to Congress, The raising of funds to support such a budget and to provide for some reduction in the national debt is a great burden. All officers and employees of the Federal Gov- ernment must cooperate with the President and with the Congress in reducing expendi- tures to a minimum. The Navy knows that no enemy forces could ever deal the Navy a more serious blow than would result from domestic fiscal and economic instability. The Navy must help to forestall such in- stability by proving itself the most efficient and economically operating organization in America. No question {s pending in the Congress as to the actual need for strong and capable military and naval establishments to in- sure our national security. Differences of opinion have arisen as to the degree to which our military and naval appropriations can safely be reduced. This constitutes no valid ground for criticism of the efforts of Mem- bers of Congress to achieve their broad econ- omy objectives. Only by proving to Con- gress that we are making every possible ef- fort to spend appropriated funds wisely and carefully can we obtain our minimum re- quirements. The entire Naval Establishment—officers enlisted men, and civilian personnel—must accept the responsibility of making every effort to eliminate all unnecessary spending and to achieve administrative effi€iency in dealing with the appropriated funds. All hands should bear in mind that examples of waste, carelessness, or inefficient use of pub- lic moneys do great damage to the interest of the Navy as a whole. Even a single case of negligence can be used as a powerful argu- ment against the validity of our entire sched- ule of requests from Congress. We can best insure obtaining the funds we need for a strong and vigorous Navy by demonstrating our ability to make wise and careful use of every dollar that is entrusted to us. Veterans’ Housing EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HELEN GAHAGAN DOUGLAS OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 4, 1947 Mrs. DOUGLAS. Mr. Speaker, the men who are now called veterans pro- tected us in the hour of America’s great- est danger. Will we now protect them in their hour of need? That is the ques- tion now before us. This letter from a veteran in Los An- geles is an example of what we may expect the country over if what remains of the veterans’ emergency housing pro- gram is scrapped March 30. Los ANGELES, CALIF. Dear Mrs. Dovaias: ,Congratulations on your strong stand in behalf of better hous- ing program for veterans. I do not believe veterans should be catered to forever, but in such essential things as a home, a job, and an education I believe the veteran should be given all the breaks possible. A919 Tam about to purchase a house built on priorities issued for vets’ building and it has a ceiling price on it. The seller will not con- clude the deal until the last moment, pos- sibly hoping that the ceiling price will be removed. I am glad there are people such as you representing us and doing their best to protect us on such things. You have my complete backing—little that it is. Best of luck and good wishes to you. Larry HapsE.u. Reciprocity With a Small “r’—Is the Trade Agreement With Argentina of Benefit to the American Users of Linseed Oil? EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. REID F. MURRAY OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, we hear much these days about world agriculture commerce. The fol- lowing is from the recent issue of the World Report. Here is an example of reciprocity with a small “‘r.” The chart that accompanied this article showed that the price of linseed oil was 934 cents a pound in 1944 and 1945, and up to Au- gust 1946 when it was increased to 25 cents a pound. In February 1947 this was again increased to 30 cents per pound. The article is as follows: HicH Prices FIxep BY GOVERNMENT PERIL ARGENTINE LINSEED INDUSTRY—WoRLD CON- SUMERS OF THE SCARCE OIL ARE DEVELOPING SUBSTITUTES AND INCREASING LocAL Pro- DUCTION Argentina may be pricing herself out of the world market for linseed oil. The Gov- ernment monopoly in Buenos Aires is setting prices so high that former customers are turning to substitutes and are increasing local production. Normally, Argentina accounts for 80 per- cent of world exports of linseed oil—essen- tial in the paint, linoleum, and printing industries. As the accompanying chart shows, the Argentine monopoly has doubled the price of linseed oil in the last year, although produc- tion has climbed steeply at the same time. United States consumers are likely to feel the pinch in the form of higher prices for paint. Until recently American dealers in linseed oll were deadlocked with the Argen- tine Government for several months as the Argentines held out for higher prices and a bulk sale. Now, Argentina has agreed to ship 40,000 tons of oil purchased by the United States Commodity Credit Corporation at a stiff increase in price. Because of the high price, industries in the United States are willing to take only slightly more than half the share of Argen- tine linseed oil allocated to them by the International Emergency Food Council. Chances are that the United States will buy no more of the oil from Argentina this year after the 40,000 tons have been delivered. WORLD MARKET The abnormally high price charged by the Argentine state monopoly is having two effects on the world market that, in time, may deprive Argentina of much of her lucra- tive trade in linseed oil. Search for substitutes is being hastened both in the United States and in Europe.
A920 Until quite recently almost no satisfactory substitute for linseed oil existed. But the shortage and high price of the commodity are bringing many other types of oils into increasing use. Improvements are con- stantly being developed for such substitutes as oiticica, tung, soybean, and fish oils. 4s the pinch in linseed oil continues, re- search laboratories are developing alternative substances that actually are superior to lin- seed oll for certain types of paint. Some manufacturers are intensifying the search for a completely synthetic substitute. At least one already has been developed, but it must be blended with natural oil to give satisfactory results. Competition for Argentine linseed ofl is springing up in other countries. World con- sumers have been treated to a good lesson in the dangers of overdependence on imports of the of]. Now they are urging their gov- ernments to encourage a degree of self- sufficiency. What is happening in the United States is @ good example. The United States may be- come nearly self-sufficient in linseed oil this year as the result of Government efforts to spur domestic production. The Department of Agriculture has set a new floor of $6 a bushel as the price to be paid to United States farmers for linseed. The previous price was $3.60. The premium price is expected to double output and bring the United States close to independence of Argentine production. Nor- mally, the United States is Argentina's best customers for linseed oll. The United States 4s the world's largest consumer of the com- modity. The stimulus already is being felt in the flax-growing areas of the United States. In California, for example, some farmers sre Plowing up land sown to barley and resow- ing it to flax. This year’s crop of Hnseed in the United States may be as much as 50,000,- 000 bushels, compared to last year's 23,000,- 000. In Argentina, the trend is just the oppo- site. While the Argentine Government is raising its prices to world consumers, it is cutting prices paid to its own farmers. The Government recently reduced the price it pays to growers from $1.30 a bushel to $1.10. The American farmer, on the other hand, is guaranteed $6 a bushel. Actually, he may get more. Short-term profits made by the Argentine Government in this way are tremendous. But signs are increasing that President Peron and his financial advisers may be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The Vital Force EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KARL STEFAN OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most progressive cities in Nebraska is the city of Ashland. It boasts of one of the most progressive weekly papers in the State, the Ashland Gazette. Mr. M. C. Howe is the owner and publisher of this fine weekly newspaper. He has written an editorial on the matter of freedom. Because this editorial conveys most of the ideas of the freedom-loving people of my State, I include it in the extension of my remarks in order that other Mem- bers of the House of Representatives may Tread it: To an American, steeped in ideals of lib- erty, the most appalling trend in the world today ts the growth of collectivism. Practi- cally all of the nations of the Old World have turned their backs on freedom and accepted, willingly or otherwise, the cruel ideology of the superstate. Under collectivism the indi- vidual is nothing, except insofar as he can be used to serve the purposes of the govern- ment. The state is all. This leaves the United States almost alone as the citadel of a tradition of freedom which goes back to the Magna Carta, And this im- poses on the Government and the people of the United States an enormous obligation to prove that the dignity of the individual still lives, that the rights of man are a fact and not a myth, that freedom is a vital force that will not be denied. This obligation can be discharged in only one way—by resisting every encroachment by the state upon the privileges, the rights, and the prerogatives of individuals. If we per- mit government to dominate us in our eco- nomic life, we will eventually have Govern- ment domination of all other facets of: exist- ence. Freedom js an absolute; once we tem- porize with it, we pave the way for its de- struction. Those nations which wis: collectivism are entitled to it. But it myst never be con- fused with freedom or allowed a foothold here, Subsistence Payments to Veterans Receiv- ing “On-the-Job” Training REMARKS HON. GEORGE A. SNATHERS OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked and grieved to read in the Washington Times-Herald on Friday past, a news article which stated in sub- stance that the bill which raised the ceiling on subsistence payments to vet- erans who were “on the job training” or in school, was to be pigeonholed by the Republican leadership; because that leadership knew the bill would pass, and if it did, it would upset the GOP economy plans. Inflated prices are already making a hollow promise of the GI bill of rights, and today a veteran with dependents or a family cannot work and go to school under the present ceiling of $200 per month. My information is that hun- dreds are now being forced out of school and to give up training. We can be assured that the men who during the war years sighted down the barrel on this Nation’s enemies are to- day sighting down the barrel on the congressional leadership, observing whether or not that leadership, in an effort to live up to its promise of a 20 percent tax cut, is going to sacrifice the soldiers in order to give millions to mil- lionaires. Let us hope this newspaper article is unfounded: Pay Incegase yor Vererans Faces Sune Derzat in House The House Republican leaderahip was re- ported yesterday to have clamped down on a veterans’ bill costing an estimated $150,- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 000,000 to $200,000,600 in an effort to avoid a break in the GOP economy program. Target of the leaders’ opposition was a measure sponsored by Representative Krarnay (Republican), of New York, raising the ceilings on wages and allowances payable to veterans receiving training on the job. TO PIGEONHOLE MEASURE The measure has been reported out by the Veterans’ Committee, but must receive the approval of the Rules Committee before the bfll can be cajled up in the House for a vote. Passage of the measure, whenever it came to a vote, was apparently assured and the leadership was reported to have decided to Pigeonhole the bill in the Rules Committee. The leadership was fearful that if the Kearney bill was permitted to go through, it would be the signal for other Members to push special legislation and the entire GOP economy program might be endangered. Kearney said he had heard of the plan, but declined to say whether he would attempt to force the issue. The Kearney bill would increase the monthly ceiling for on-the-job training from $175 to @250 for single veterans. The present ceiling of $200 for veterans with dependents would be boosted to #325 for a veteran with one dependent and $350 for a veteran’ with two or more dependents. $149,000,000 cost Veterans’ Administrator Bradley has in- formed the Veterans’ Committee that the estimated cost of the increased ceilings, which would include both private compensa- tion and Government subsistence allowances of $65 to $80 monthly, would be $149,688,000 for the 1948 fiscal year beginning July 1, pro- vided there was no increase in the number of trainees, which Kxaanry said totaled about 66,000. Other estimates placed the cost much higher. Attention, Managers of the Campaign To Sugar-coat Conscription: Here Is a Japanese Trick You Can Use EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOWARD H. BUFFETT OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. BUFFETT. Mr. Speaker, not be- ing acquainted with the managers of the campaign to sugar-coat conscription, I must use the Recorp to get this message to them. I have watched with interest their clever and energetic efforts to put a heaven-home-and-mother frosting on that European product—conscription. To confuse the people, the President’s Universal Training Commission, a good- name jury for a “fixed verdict” on con- scription, was sly propaganda. The much-ballyhooed “umtees” whose choco- late-soda pictures fill the press, are also clever work. In addition to these, I am wondering if an extremely cute Japanese device might also be used. In the off chance that this Tojo trick has been overlooked, I am in- cluding it herewith. No acknowledg- ment is necessary. I am sure the managers of ‘the CTSC will agree it does a masterful job of sugar-coating the ugly truth about conscription. Of course, it must not be used ver- batim as I reproduce ‘t. But I am cone
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD fident the managers of the campaign to sugar-coat conscription can make the changes necessary to adapt it to the CTSC. Likewise, I am sure the Japs no longer have any use for it. JAPANESE LETTER SENT TO NEAREST RELATIVE OF MAN TO BE CONSCRIPTED Greetings to the father and elder brother: We have learned that your son and brother will shortly experience the greatest joy and satisfaction possible to one of our nation by joining soon our second company. We congratulate you. When your son and brother enters the barracks, the officers of the company will take your place in looking after his wel- fare. We will be to him «es a stern father and a loving mother. We will always be concerned with his two-fold training, body and mind, so that in belonging to the army he may become a good soldier and a loyal subject of the Emperor. We want to be able to teuch him in such a way that he may be able to realize the highest hope of a member of our race. With the company and your home forming a complete circle we wish to cooperate with you to the fullest extent in order to ad- minister his education and guidance along the most rational lines. In order to do this, we wish to learn as much as possible from you with reference to his personal history and character and the environment of his home. This information will be kept in con- fidence. If you have any misgivings, fear it will be difficult to learn your son's exact condition after his enlistment, or that he will not be able to advance in rank, or any other misunderstandings, rest assured we will be glad to discuss the matter with you. That our efforts to guide the young man will not be hindered, we beg you to fill out the enclosed form with the greatest cure and return it to us as soon as possible. The regiment, however, is not concerned entirely with the past life of your son, but in guiding his development—wishing un- selfishly to emphasize his good points and strengthcn his weak points—to develop all his powers to the end that he may become a good and faithful soldier, maintain a first- class record in the army, and put his whole heart into fulfilling the mission of the imperial army. On the day your son enters the barracks, we trust that you will accompany him in order that we may meet you and have an intimate talk with you. Respectfully yours, CoMMANDING OFFICER, Imperial Japanese Army. Removal of Rent Ceilings Will Affect 50,000,000 Families EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HELEN GAHAGAN DOUGLAS OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOT'SE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 4, 1947 Mrs. DOUGLAS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to include an article from the Christian Science Monitor of February 24, 1947, on the action taken by Congress to destroy rent control. The Christian Science Monitor sug- gests that if Congress wants to end rent control why does it not do it in such a way that the 50,000,000 American people whose lives will be affected will know what is going to happen to them before it is too late to make their voices heard. SIDE DOOR TO INFLATION If Congress wants to kill the Office of Price Administration finally and wholly, it should do so frankly. If it wants to abolish rent ceilings and sugar rations, it should vote straightforwardly to do so. If it has a han- kering for further inflation, it should not slip in the side door but march honestly up the front walk. Ax we see it, the move to starve OPA is neither frank, straightforward, nor honest. The vote in the House of Representatives, not merely denying a deficiency appropria- tion but demanding the return of 89,000,000 already allotted to OPA, appears vindictive and irresponsible. The price controllers have made mistakes and they may have wasted some public money, but there should be other correctives short of destroying rent controls. . There may be some vague plan to transfer rent controls to some other agency, and the House may be confident that between them the Senate and the White House will find ways of preventing the immediate demise which OPA rather excitedly predicts. But on the House's own action rent controls wou'd end without any real debate or any direct vote on the merits of ending or keep- ing them. The question deserves frank and full dis- cussion. Landlords all over the Nation have been squeezed between rising costs and frozen rents. Many have had to stop making re- pairs; some have survived only by obtaining lower interest rates and having their prop- erties fully occupied. The OPA has figures showing that in 63 cities landlords had by such ingenuity gained a 28-percent tncrease in net revenue over 1939. But many have been in a most unfair position, and about 1,000,000 have had to get adjustments from OPA. Certainly other hardship cases should have relicf, and it should not be delayed. But to remove ceilings at this time would be to squeeze a larger number of tenants—most of them in the low-income or white-collar group which has already been hit hard by rising prices. It would be to incite new wage demands and give a very sharp boost to inflation, If this is to be done it should not be through the side door—by depriving OPA of the funds necessary to keep alive. Recent Polls on Trade Policy REMARKS oF HON. ESTES KEFAUVER OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Speaker, in as- suming to express the policy of this House on reciprocal reduction of interna- tional trade barriers, some Members of the majority party seem to have lost touch with the views of the folks back home who send them here. The folks back home do not see eye to eye with the majority members of the Committee on Ways and Means, and are several jumps ahead of those who are against reciprocal trade-agreements when it comes to the facts of international trade and its effect on our own economic walfare. Last November right after the election, the American Press, a newspaper trade Journal, took a poll among the country editors of 1,000 weekly papers in as many A921 counties of the United States. It asked for the editors’ opinions on various pub- lic questions, including foreign relations. One of the questions asked was: Would you favor a return to the high-tariff policy once practiced by the Republicans? Of the editors replying, 69 percent said “No’’—and many of them underlined the answer or added an exclamation point. Only 9 percent said “Yes”, 4 percent of the editors favored protective tariffs, “but not high enough to fence America in” and the other 18 percent was undecided. On February 23 of this year the Na- tional Opinion Research Center at the University of Denver published the re- sults of a poll on the subject of tariff reduction. Almost three out of four per- sons interviewed favored reduction of United States tariffs if other countries reduced their barriers against our goods at the same time; the exact percentage was 73. And when it comes to making a statement about the policy of the ma- jority party in the House, it would be well to remember that 72 percent of Republi- cans favored reciprocal tariff reductions on the basis of the present program, as against 74 for Democrats. Partisan poli- tics did not seem to play much part at the grass roots and policy announcers had better wake up to the fact that they heve only 28 percent of their own party back home behind them when they come out against reciprocal trade agreements. This is not a sudden switch. This trend of opinion at lea t dates back to November 1946 when the same National Opinion Research Center conducted a poll on the basic issue—which is the real issue involved in the controversy over trade agreements—“In general, do you think we need to buy goods from foreign countries in order to sel] goods to foreign countries, or isn’t it necessary?” From a scientifically stratified cross-section of the Nation came back this answer: “It is necessary,” 76 percent; ‘it is not neces- sary,” 18 percent; “undecided,” 6 percent. On party lines, according to the Ci- cago Sun (November 3, 1946), there was a slightly higher percentage of Republi- cans than Democrats who thought we needed to buy in order to sell. In the same poll it developed that 55 percent of the people questioned felt that increased imports are very important. The economic foreign policy of the United States is no longer something that a little group of politicans here in the Capitol, meeting behind closed doors can rig up to suit their own ideas, political oreconomic. It isa matter on which the people of the United States have in- formed opinions. The Tobacco-Seed Embargo—Where Is the Good-Neighbor Policy in This? EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. REID F. MURRAY OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, during the past 14 years we