APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD buy the products or services of the favored interests or groups, the Government takes the money away from the citizens anyhow in taxes and makes the purchases. The United States Government has already taken away a large percentage of its citizens’ incomes in the form of taxes, thus depriving them of the freedom of spending their own money, and is demanding a larger share, for the purpose of looking after more and more of their affairs. It is not surprising that a large number of people have lost confidence in the Govern- ment, for the Government is conducting it- self in a manner which, if an individual so conducted himself, would be condemned as profligate and immoral. Nor is it any excuse to point out that some Government administrators and  policy- makers who commit these offenses may be well-intentioned and may sincerely believe they are acting in the best interests of the people. Others, we fear, and this goes for the practical politicians, are not always well- intentioned. Their promises, their deceit and their loose handling of other people’s money are deliberate, for the purpose of maintaining themseives in power. But they will not remain in power, we be- lieve, if the people insist that their Govern- ment adhere to the same standards of mor- ality which apply to individuals. Past and Future EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 26, 1950 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Record, I include the following editorial from the Wall Street Journal of May 1, 1950: PAST AND FUTURE This newspaper has occasionally drawn fire from critics by turning back to look at some of the blunders that have been made in the conduct of United States foreign pol- icy. The attitude of these critics is that what’s done is past and that nothing is served by raking over that past. Some of the same sort of criticism, we notice, has been aimed at former President Hoover for reminding the country that a great deal of the world’s present troubles stem from the mistakes of 1941-45. In those years, you will recall, the brave new world ‘was to be erected on the foundation of Rus- sian cooperation for peace. The attitude of these critics—who are usu- ally those who either participated or acqui- esced in that foolish course—is, Why bring that up now? What’s that to do with the present problem? We think it has a great deal to do with it. Knowledge of past mistakes, of course, is not going to guarantee rightness in the future. But until past errors are identified and the cause of failure analyzed there can be no wisdom from experience. Diagnosis must precede the treatment. Thus we share Mr. Hoover’s belief that “the American people ought to take a cold and objective look at this experience before we go any further.” - Well, a superficial look shows us that our foreign leaders misjudged the Russians bad~ ly. This error is not excusable on the grounds that “everybody did it” because it is a fact that not everybody did. Winston Churchill, as Mr. Royster remarks in an ad- jacent column, did not misjudge them; he AXCVI—App.——204 was simply drowned by the wave of pro- Russianism. But there is more to be learned from the past than how to judge Communists. Any-~ way, that error has been corrected; we no longer operate by that illusion. What is more important, it seems to us, is the illusion behind the illusion. Those people who misjudged Communists were not ignorant of the power juggling that fol- lowed all previous wars nor of the historical ambitions of Russia. They were simply un- der the impre.sion that they cculd ignore history, that with good intentions, hard work, and rhetoric they could make the world different from what it is. That illusion seems not yet dead. Cur- rently it takes the form of a belief that with enough good intentions behind them dollars can do almost anything; a belief that a great and strong United States can take on any burdens and defy the ills of extravagance that have ravaged other great and strong na- tions in the past. Experience, says the illusion, can be set aside. We are different; it can’t happen here. The illusion that harsh realities can be ignored led us back to a Second World War to once more save the world for democracy, and now it threatens a third war to save it thrice. If we do not look back at the past we are likely to find it is in the future. Lattimore and His Far-Eastern Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, so that Members of Congress and the people of the United States may appraise Mr. Lattimore’s position in far- eastern matters, I am including a copy of a Graft of his report to the State De- partment which appeared in the New York Times on April 4, 1950: TEXT oF LATTIMORE’S MEMORANDUM ON UNITED States Far Eastesn POLICY (WasHInctTon, April 3.—Following is the text of Owen Lattimore’s memorandum on United States policy in the Far East, drafted for a State Department advisory committee last August and made public today by Mr. Lattimore:) In clearing the way for a fresh approach to the problems of United States policy in the Far East, several negative statements can usefully be made. 1. The type of policy represented by sup- port for Chiang Kai-shek does more harm than good to the interests of the United States, and no modification of this policy seems promising. Chiang Kai-shek was a unique figure in Asia. He is now fading into a kind of eclipse that is regrettably damag- ing to the prestige of the United States, be- cause the United States supported him. His eclipse does not even leave behind the moral prestige of a good but losing fight in defense of a weak cause. . On the contrary, he put up the worst pos- sible fight in defense of a cause that was oyiginally strong and should have won. The kind of policy that failed in support of so great a figure as Chiang Kai-shek cannot possidly succeed if it is applied to a scat- tering of “little Chiang Kai-sheks’ in China or elsewhere in Asia. 2.’China cannot be economically coerced by such measures as cutting off trade. Noth- ing could be more dangerous for the Ameri- A3229 can interest than to underestimate the abil- ity of the Chinese Communists to achieve the minimum level of economic stability that will make their regime politically secure. Sound policy should allow for a cautious overestimate of the ability of the Chinese Communists in this respect, and avoid a rash underestimate. TWO ALTERNATIVES IN JAPAN 8. It is not possible to make Japan a satis- factory instrument of American policy. There are two alternatives in Japan. The first alternative 1s to keep Japan alive by means of American “blocd transfusions” of raw materials and credits. Under this alter- native, Japan can be made to put on the surface appearance of a strong ally; but the reality will be an overcommitment of Ameri- can resources to a distant and vulnerable region. Under the second alternative, Japan can Keep itself alive by coming to terms, eco- nomically and politically, with its neighbors in Asia, principally China. Under this alter- native, Japan cannot serve as a trusted American ally. Its own interests will com- pel it to balance and bargain between what it can get out of Asia and what it can get out of America. 4, South Korea is more of a liability than an asset to the interests and policy of the United States. It is doubtful how long the present regime in South Korea can he kept alive, and mere effort to keep it alive is a bad advertisement, which continually draws attention to a band of Httle-and-inferior- Chiang Kai-sheks who are the scorn of the Communists and have lost the respect of democratic and would-be democratic groups and movernents throughout Asia. 5. The colonial and quasi-colonial coun- tries of Southeast Asia cannot be forced to grant priorities to the economic and military recovery of Europe, at the expense of their own economic and political interests. In this region as a whole there is a rapid deve opment of combined political and .military resistance to coercion which can be indefi- nitely sustained by local resources. On the other hand, attempts at reconquest by European countries are so expensive that they defeat their own ultimate purpose, which is the strengthening of the country attempting the reconquest. JOINT BENEFITS SEEN NEEDED The situation can now be handled only by convincing the nationalist leaders in those countries that any sacrifices they are asked to make are matched by sacrifices made by their former or titular rulers, and are not designed to give priority to the interests of these rulers, but to bring joint benefits both to the ruling countries and to the colo- nial country, on terms that satisfy the colo- nial aspiration to equality. 6. The United States cannot assume that Russia will move in to take over direct con- trol in China, and will thus be subjected to heavy strategic and economic strains. It is dangerous to assume that there will be a diversion and commitment of Russian re- sources in Asia which will limit Russian abil- ity to maneuver in Europe. Recent develop- ments in the Far East have been favorable to " Russia, but not in a way that lessens the resources that Russia can deploy toward Hurope. Policy toward Russia and policy toward the Far East meet at the point where such a move as the imposition of an economic cor- don sanitaire around China is considered. Such a move would increase Chinese depend- ence on Russia; but it would probably not make it necessary for Russia to undertake a large-scale program in China. The Russians would get credit in Asia, multiplied by propa- ganda, for any grants they might make to China, but would probably not have to make granis large enough to distort or strain theix own resources.
A230 It would be pessible, therefore, if the mis- take ls made of waltzing for the Chinese Communists to come hat in hand to ask for American terms, for United States policy to encounter another set-back in Asia, with- out even the compensating advantage of hampermg Russi@’s ability to apply pressure im Europe. POSITIVE OBJECTIVES DIFINED The zor--ciee_ stetement defines negative aspects(. ‘¢-.' t+ -21n Asia, limiting the freedom of maneuver of United States policy. Within these limitations, it seems advisable that a number of positive objectives should be defined. 1. Policy in the Far East and policy toward Russia have a bearing on each other. It certainly cannot yet be said, however, that armed warfare against communism in the Far Bast, on a scale involving a major com- mitment of American resources, has become either unavoidable or positively desirable. Nor can it be said with any assurance that, in the event of an armed conflict, under- taken for the purpose of forcing Russia back from Europe, the Far East would be an opti- mum field of operation. There are still two alternatives before us— a relatively long peace, or a rapid approach toward war. If there is to be war, it can only be won by defeating Russia—not Northern Korea, or Viet Nam, or even China. Sound policy should therefore avoid premature or excessive strategic deployment in the Far East, If there is to be a long peace, the primary factor in making peace possible will be @ stabilization of relations between the United States and Russia. Sound policy should therefore maintain a maximum flexibility. If and when negotiated and mutually ac- ceptable agreements with Russia become pos- sible, American policy in the Far East should pe in a position to contribute to Russo- American negotiations. It should not he so mired down in local situations that direct American-Russian negotiations are actually hampered. 2. Any new departures in United States policy in the Far East must be able to fend off any accusation of appeasement of local or Russian communism, In view of the effectiveness of the Russian issue as a weapon in in-fighting in American party politics, it would seem that the advice of experts on domestic politics should be coordinated with the opinions of those who are consulted on foreign policy. The dilemma is simple, but not easy to solve; but unless it can be solved no success~ ful United States policy in the Far East is possible. Any United States policy that is interpreted in various countries in the Far East as pressure applied for the purpose of creating a league against Russia will merely increase the ability of those countries to orgain with both the United States and Russia. It will also increase the identification, in those countries, between local nationalism and local communism. On the other hand, any proposed United States policy in the Far East that is attacked in America itself as a bid for better relations with Russia runs the danger of being defeated: 8. The success of United States policy in the Far East will be measured largely by the contribution that it makes to the recovery of economic relations between the Far Hast and Europe. This recovery will be possible only if the assent and good will of the far eastern countries are won. Assent and real cooperation, in turn, can only be won if the representatives of the far eastern countries, including those that are still technically the subjects of European countries, are convinced that they have as direct access to the highest American au~ thorities as do the European representatives, andif they are convinced that their economic needs ard relitieal standards are not being given a tcco uh puicr’.y, lower than that of the European countries involved in the same negotiations. The two test cases in southeast Asia, on which the leaders of various nationalist move- ments will rate the difference between what can be attained through friendly association with representatives of the United States and what can be attained through outright de- fiance of a European country which has strong economic support from the United States are Indonesia and the Viet Nam regime under Ho Chi Minh. If the negotiations between Dutch and Indonesians hro-ish* ebout largely through tenevolent Unuicd Sta‘es pressure, eventuate in a settlement which seems, in Indonesia, to contain too much of hope deferred, while the resistance in Indochina under Ho Chi Minh achieves more and more of hope ful- filled, the results throughout southeast Asia will be adverse to the United States interest. INDONESIAN OPINION PUT FIRST Heavy and primary United States commit- ments in western Europe make it dificult to bear constantly in mind that when the Dutch-Indonesian negotiations are consum- mated, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of popular opinion in Indonesia will have wider repercussions than the satisfaction or dis- satisfaction of Dutch public opinion. It is a fact, nevertheless, that Indonesian opinion is more difficult to satisfy than Dutch opinion, and it is also a fact that the re- percussions will be more serious if Indosenian opinion is not satisfied than if Dutch opinion is not satisfied. These facts mark an im- portant difference between prewar and post- war colonial Asia. They are facts that Amer- ican public opinion has by no means fully accepted; but they are also facts that are critical for the formulation of an over-all United States policy in Asia. 4. The foregommg considerations indicate that the major aim of United States policy in the Far East should be to convince the countries of the Far East that they can get along well with the United States and with the countries of western Europe. They must be persuaded that they can get along well because of the mutual benefits to them- selves, to the United States, and to western Europe. They must not be made to suspect that the real aim of the United States is an ulterior aim of using them against Russia. To put it in another way, the aim of the United States policy should be to enable the countries of the Far Hast to do without Rus- sia to the maximum extent. This is a much more modest aim than an insistence on and organization of hostility to Russia; but it is an attainable aim, and the other is not. A few suggestions for implementation are appended. 1. Conferences with the independent gov- ernments of the Far East, on the basis of helping them to build their own economies, to revive their trade with Europe, and to expand their trade with us. Emphasis on positive steps that can be taken. No nega- tive conditions, such as prohibitions of trade with Russia or Communist China; no con- ditions that could be interpreted as Ameri- can regulation of their political parties. 2. Working relations, and a refusal to be bound by a protocol, with legitimate Na- tionalist leaders in countries whose full po- litical aspirations have not been met by their European rulers. 3. The United States should not allow any European country, in its relations with any country in the Far East, to state openly or to imply by propaganda that its policy is “back-~ ed by the United States.” European repre- sentatives, in negotiating with the represent- atives of countries in Asia, should be discour~ aged from stating or implying that they are authoritative interpreters of United APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD States policy, or intermediaries without whom the United States cannot be ap- proached. 4. It should be made clear that if there is delay or difficulty in establishing relations between the United States and Communist- controlled countries, such as China, the trouble comes from the Communist side and not from the United States side. FORMAL RECOGNITIONS URGED 5. It should be made clear that friendly and beneficial relations with the United States depend essentially on the inherent friendliness or unfriendliness of the nation concerned, and not on the formalities of dip- Jomatic recognition. In order to facilitate the contrast between countries which are on friendly terms with the United States and countries which are not, the number of coun- tries formally recognized by the United States should be increased. As a first step, the United States should accept the list of countries recommended for admission to the United Nations by Mr. Trygve Lie, Secretary General of the United Nations. In the first place, it would at this time be a gocd move for the United States to accept with good will an initiative from the Secretariat of the United Nations. In the second place, the list is on balance more favorable to the United States than to the So-iet Union. In the third place, and with particular reference to the Far Hast, the move would bring within the scope of United States diplomatic activity the Mongolian People’s Republic (Outer Mongolia), an in- creasingly important potential listening-post country in the heart of Asia. 6. The United States should disembarrass itself as quickly as possible of its entangle- ments in South Korea. . United States Financial Aid to Foreign Metal Development EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WILLIAM S. HILL OF COLORADS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, on March 29, I called the attention of Congress to the financial aid which is being given to foreign metal producers while we deny similar aid to American miners who are being deprived of jobs because of large imports of metals from subsidized for- eign competition. As further evidence of my contention, I desire to insert in the ConGRESSIONAL Recorp a release of the Economic Co- operation Administration, dated May 2, 1950, in which is shown that millions of dollars are being sent to countries like Algeria to develop the mineral produc- tion of that country while we in the United States are denied the same bene- fits. The release follows: WasHINGTON, May 2.—A new search for copper, manganese, lead and zinc now is being conducted in the desert and moun- tains of Algeria with the aid of Marshall- plan dollars. The Economic Cooperation Administration said discovery of the metals would give Al- geria a quick opportunity to earn badly- needed foreign currencies. Thus far, French geological crews, working under the supervision of the Algerian Min-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD eral Research Bureau, have been furnished about $1,140,000 worth of American equip- ment. The bulk of the equipment consists of mobile compressors, miscellaneous geo- physical apparatus and drilling machinery. The crews are at work in the Sahara Desert and the Atlas Mountains. French officials estimate that only about 10 percent of Al- geria—a country four times the size of France—has been prospected té any great extent. In addition, about $3,604,000 worth of Marshall-plan equipment is helping to mod- ernize existing Algerian munes. Algeria’s major lead mine is being converted from an under-ground system of mining to an open- pit operation, and the Quenza open-pit iron mune, Algeria’s largest ore producer, 1s be- ing modernized to boost production from a current 2,000,000 tons annually to 2,500,000 tons. Other mining programs, ixcluding elec- trification and rond buiklirg, are being financed with the eouivalent of $2,625,000 in counterpart Sur¢.- -.:a7c, deposited by the French Government to match ECA direct dollar aid. Conferring the Cross of the Eloy Alfaro International Foundation on the Hon- orable Karl Stefan, of Nebraska EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLIFF CLEVENGER OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, on April 30, the Cross of the Eloy Alfaro International Foundation was conferred upon our colleague the Honorable Karu Steran, of Nebraska, to whom I know the membership of this House joins me in extending our congratulations. The ceremony conferring this degree upon our colleague also included a radio pro- gram containing statements by the Hon- orable Eloy Alfaro, former Ambassador from Ecuador, and the Honorable Kari Steran, of Nebraska. By leave granted me, I include the transcript of this cere- mony as part of my remarks: ANNOUNCER. We have met here in the shadow of the Capitol to witness the cere- mony attendant on the conferring of the Cross of the Eloy Alfaro International Foun- dation upon the Honorable Karn STEFAN, Representative of the Third Congressional District of Nebraska and dean of the Ne- braska Delegation to the United States Con- gress. Congressman STEFAN has received many honors—from American institutions and from foreign governments. The National University of Washington, D. C., has con-~ ferred upon the Nebraska legislator the hon- orary Gegree of Doctor of Laws because of his tireless efforts in the interest of good govern- ment in this country. The late President Osmena of the Republic of the Philinpin-s bestowed the Medal of Military Mier on Representative Srmran for his broadcasts to the Philippines during World War II. It was said of Congressman SrEran’s broadcasts at that time that “they saved thousands of lives—the lives of Filipinos and of American fighting men.” The next voice you hear will be that of the Honorable Eloy Alfaro, son of the martyred President of Ecuador, former Ambassador from Esuador to the United States, and di- rector general of the Alfaro International Foundation. The Honorable Eloy Alfaro. Senor A.raro. Congressman STEFAN, and my other friends of the spiritually united Americas: It 1s the avowed purpose of the Eloy Alfaro International Foundation, which I represent at this ceremony, ‘‘to give honor and to pro- mote knowledge of the life of General Eloy Alfaro as a statesman and liberator.” The great ideal for which my distinguished father lived and died was the establishment of the eternal solidarity cf the peoples and the republics of the Americas. Although I am a citizen of another na- ticn, the traditions and the gallant history of the United States of America are as fa- military to me as are the traditions and the gallant history of my own country. My three sons, my brother, and myself have been cadets of your own United States Mili- tary Academy at West Point. The people of the United States are de- voted to freedom. They give their sincere admiration—a gift not given lightly—to the great liberators of other countries, other centuries. Gen. Hloy Alfaro has received, is receiving this sincere admiration. During his lifetume the forces of freedom were expanding. He furthered this expan- sion. Now, in the years of our lives, the forces of freedom have been ebbing. Only in the Americas has freedom made a fiercely de- termined stand. For the enduring good of the peoples of our sister continents, that stand must be maintained and strengthened. That is why it is more important than ever before to perpetuate the memory, the ideals, the accomplishments of Gen. Eloy Alfaro. Among the means by which the organi- zation which I have the honor to represent has chosen to accomplish this truly American aim, has been that of the bestowal of the Cross of the Eloy Alfaro International Foun- dation—a decoration which was created to honor any outstanding services toward the memory of Gen. Eloy Alfaro and the noble causes and ideals which he propagated as a reformer of the Republic of Ecuador, and as one of the statesmen and lberators of America. Congressman SrTzeran, it is my pleasure and my honor as the spokesman for my organi- zation and on benelf of its President—the Honorable Doctor Emeterio Santovena—to bestow this decoration upon you. During your nearly two decades of service as the Rep- resentative of the Third Congressional Dis- trict of Nebraska in the House of Representa- tives you have earned this accolade. You have helped to make your constituents in the State of Nebraska form ties of friendship and understanding with the peoples of the Amer- ican republics. You have been a foe of tyranny wherever tyranny existed. You have been a friend of freedom wherever freedom flourished. You have carried the cause of American solidarity into the deliberations of congressional committees and onto the flocr of the House of Representatives. Congressman Srmran, the Cross of the Eloy Alfaro International Foundation is yours. By bestowing it upon you we publicly honor an honorable man. We bestow it upon a fighting friend of the Americas. We bestow it upon a courageous advocate of the people. We bestow it upon a patriotic citizen of the United States. Congressman Stzran. Senor Alfaro, officers and members of the Eloy Alfaro International Foundation, and my friends of the Amer- icas—whether those friends live in Ecuador, Cuba, Chile, or in my home State of Nebraska, I accept the Cross of the Eloy Alfaro Inter-~ national Foundation which has just been conferred upon me. Mine are mixed feelings. Iam both proud and humble. I am proud because what I have said and what I have done has been rec- ognized by men whom I know to be lovers of A382: liberty. I am humble because there is much more I could have said, so much m¢ I could have done, had the awareness of t vital importance of hemispheric solidari come to me before it actually did. At this very moment of my receiving t Cross of the Eloy Alfaro International Fou dation, 1t 1s a matter of great satisfaction me to know that a statue of the brave soldie statesman has .. position of honor in tl State capitol of Nebraska at Lincoln. TI location of this statue in Lincoln 1s, indee poetic Justice since Gen. Eloy Alfaro was tl Lincoln of the other American republics. We citizens of the United States learn be: through the study of the example of other We could learn of Gen. Hloy Alfaro throug studying his victories on the land and on tk sea. We could learn of him by studying hv writings—lasting documents written on th hearts of men in letters of hberty. We coul learn of him by studying his technique as peacemaker between nations. We coul Jearn of him by studying his numerous bij ographies, the accounts of his tribulation and his triumphs. What I have learned about this distin guished American comes from studying hi example in the development of his ow: country. It 1s obvious, from such a study, that Gen eral Alfaro had determined from the outse of his career to make his country strong He wanted the people of his country to bi informed, to be healthy in body and mind, t be productive in industry, arts, commerce and the sciences. He wanted the means o communication and transportation to bt modernized so that they might strengther his nation. He wanted his country to be strong in its defenses against potential ag- gressors from within and trom w-thout But—above all—-he wanted his country to be strong so that it might take an equal place with other strong American republics around the international conference table. His concern with national strength paral- lels the erligh*ered reasoning which is gain- ing suppe-? iu The United States in 1950. Today—in the twentieth contury—-we who advocate the internal development of the United States believe sincerely that we are the rightful heirs-in-spirit of the powerful principles in which General Alfaro believed in the nineteenth century. Iam thoroughly convinced that the Alfaro way—the internal development of each American republic— is more than just a way to peace; it is the only positive way. - The best way for the people of the United States to demonstrate their faith in the Alfaro example is to put that example into practical operation. That can be done. Democracy, like charity, begins at home. What would the Alfaro example mean to my home State of Nebraska? Literally hundreds of new commercial uses have been discovered for agricultural crops, other than food. Through the estab- lishment, expansion, and growth of nonfood agricultural industries Nebraska could well take a prominent place in the ranks of our industrial States. Through an intelhgent national and international program what actual food-crop surpluses we have could be exported to our friends of the other Ameri- can Republics who have need of such focd. With th- advent of growing industry in Ne- braska, other developments would ensue. We would need more and better farm-to- market roads. We would need added pro- duction in other fields to cope with the in- crease in population. In other words, Nebraska, by observing the Alfaro example, would be made strong. Our State would be in a better position to meet on an equal basis, on a national scale, with the other strong States of the United States. Since we citizens of the United States learn by example, it is certain that
A3232 the Alfaro way would soon meet with al- most universal acceptance. Senor Alfaro, E am grateful to you and to your associates for this signal honor of re- ceiving the Cross of the Eloy Alfaro Interna- tional Foundation. But greater even than my gratitude to you is my heartfelt grati- tude to God that He, in His infinite wis- dom, gave us Gen. Eloy Alfaro to bring into being this solidarity between peoples, this solid.rity between repubtics. this solidarity between the peoples umd tna Republics of the Americas. Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rxcorp, I include the ninth article by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop on the infiltration of com- munism in our country: Biecrsr Story (By Frank ©. Waldrop) Tosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili, the czar of all the Russias, stood up before the Mos- cow crowd a couple of days ago and watched his eldest son’s plane roar overhead. He is an old man now, and also being a very experienced one, he knows that the world’s principal interest in him revolves around the question, “Who will be next?” Deep inside the stone and concrete beneath his feet as he watched lay the body of the man whose death had given Dzugashvili his own day of glory. At his back were the pink-white walls of a fort that has in one form or other ruled Moscow for more than 600 years. It is called Kremlin, and within the fort are three pal- aces, three cathedrals, a monastery, a con- vent, and a dozen more churches, halls, and offices. All of them are very, very old, a rich mix- ture of all the architectures of the eastern end of the world, and the very heart of their spirit is a door. It is a door so low and small that to pass through you must go down on your knees, and that is why the door is built that way, for it is the door to a room in which the czars once received their noble subjects and the ambassadors of nations beyond the steppes. . Whoever would see the czar first had to go down on his knees and approach, meek in body as well as mind. It was an ideal approach to the czar of those days, and it remains the ideal of today. The “science of Marxism,” through which the very old man, Dzugashvili, rules all the Russians and would seek to rule the rest of the world as well, provides an elaborate apol- ogy for the low door. More importantly, it provides the iron discipline that makes the door work. Iosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili, above mentioned, is better known by his alias, Josef Stalin, adopted half a century ago when’ he was train robber and gang leader in the Russian back lands. The dead man at his feet was christened viadimir Tyich Ulyanov, and he, too, had an alias. He called himself Lenin. The word Stalin is Russian for “steel.” Some say that Ulyanov took the name Lenin because it was used as an alias by his brother before him, but at any rate, 1t does not mean anything. Lenin’s corpse has lain in that mausoleum beneath Stalin’s feet since 1924. . As a firm and faithful believer in “scien~ tific Marxism,” Lenin livec by the faith that he was born of nothing but biological acci- dent, came from nowhere, and would be going nowhere when he died. Maybe it means something that the old man who still lives had Lenin’s body mum-~- mified and displayed in that mausoleum as a preserved symbol of that faith in ‘“dia- Jectical materialism,” the Marxists’ jargon for plain language meaning “we are animals and no more.” At any rate, Lenin lies there, and every day the long lines of Russians are herded past his casket to gaze on the small, round face, bald head and beard of the man who put them where they are today. They are required to do that as an act of faith. Stalin, like Lenin dead in the tomb, must also die one day. Who will succeed him in power? Will it be Vyacheslave, born Scria- bin, who now calls himself Molotov, mean- ing “hammer”? Or will it be that aviator son of Stalin at the head of the Russian air power, suddenly commanding all Russia to come to him qlrougl. unct low door in the Kremlin, by virtue of the atom bombs stolen with the help of traitors here? It is a matter of importance, and in doubt. And it is just one of many things unac- counted for in the works and thoughts of Lenin, so long gone to find out whether man begins and ends like a dog, as he contended. Before you make your own guess as to who will be the next czar of all the Russias, let us run through some of the trials and errors of Lenin’s career. He was the first real practitioner of “scien- tific Marxism,” which holds that the world must be conquered by socialism through force and violence so that, in the sweet bye and bye, all will be heaven on earth and even government itself will voluntarily wither away. Lenin was born April 22, 1870, at Simbirsk, far down the Volga River near the Black Sea. Simbirsk is today one of six towns and one mountain named in Lenin's honor, But Stalin has nine cities, plus mountains. What is more, Leninsk, formerly Simbirsk, is just an obscure whistle stop nearby the major city at Stalingrad, which is already a sacred place of worship for Communists. For the master practitioners of “scientific Marxism” though they have been actual rulers of men for now less than 40 years, and have been hideously inept at the job, still have discovered that men insist on having religion of some sort. So they are now busy in attempting to fix a mythology and system of hero worship on tne Russian people and all others they would rule. They are using Stalin as No. 1. It is not according to plan, as Lenin laid it out. Potato Shortage EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. CHARLES E. POTTER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. POTTER. Mr. Speaker, the De- partment of Agriculture’s administration of the potato program has been inex- cusably mishandled. Delta County in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is a great potato growing section. Last year they had an unusually high production of potatoes, At the present time, Esca- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD naba, the county seat of Delta County, is out of potatoes. I wish to insert at this point a news article and an editorial which appeared recently in the Escanaba Press: [From the Escanaba (Mich.) Press of April 27, 1950] Spup SHortTace Hrrs ESCANABA—GROWERS’ EXCHANGE SCRAPING BorTomM While the Federal Government has been burning thousands of bushels of potatoes to keep prices up, Upper Peninsula and Wiscon- sin housewives are facing a serious potato shortage. The local warehouse of the Michigan Potato Growers’ Association probably will be com- pletely cleaned out by Monday unless more potatoes are located, Manager Ivens said today. A national chain store, with a local outlet, called Ivens today and said if it could not obtain a supply of potatoes immediately some of its stores would be out by nightfall. “We have been delivering short <1l week and I don’t know of a single bushel of No. 1 grade potatoes in the county,” said Ivens. “St. Nicholas growers are at the bottom of their bins.” Ivens reported a critical shortage of pota- toes in Chicago, Milwaukee, and other mid- west areas. [From the Escanaba (Mich.) Press of April 29, 1950] Potato SHorRTAGE Is STaRTLING DEVELOPMENT If a threatened potato shortage in this area becomes acute, which seems possible, it*will be the result of the most ridiculous misman- agement of a record potato crop. Potato dealers report that the supply of potatoes in Delta County is virtually ex- hausted and that a critical shortage of spuds has already developed in the Chicago, Mil- waukee, and midwestern markets. This would be understandable perhaps if the 1949 potato crop had been a small one, but it was not. It was, in fact, the largest crop of potatoes in the Nation’s history. The crop was so large that the Government spent many millions of dollars to buy up the sur- plus, which was either destroyed or sold back to farmers at a ridiculously low price for livestock feed. The incredible mismanagement of the po- tato situation is bound to increase the anger of consumers, who have already paid heavily for a governmental program that failed to make much sense at any time. They have paid-through high support prices for potatoes they purchased at the store and in taxes that were used to buy the surplus to main- tain the high prices. And now consumers are told that there is a shortage of potatoes because too many pushels of the 1949 crop were burned or fed to livestock. If that development does not force a revision in the Government’s potato price support program, it can only mean that common. sense and reason are completely lost at the national level. Address of Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HUGH J. ADDONIZIO OF NEW JERSEY ' IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. ADDONIZIO. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include the brilliant
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD keynote speech delivered by my able col- league, the Honorable Peter W. Ropino, Jr., at the New Jersey State Democratic Convention at Trenton on Thursday, April 27, 1950. Those who were privi- leged to hear this eloquent address were stirred by Mr. Ropino’s able exposition of the great issues, both foreign and do- mestic, that confront America today. I take pleasure in inserting the speech be- low, and I commend its reading to thoughtful citizens everywhere: Members of the convention, I am grateful for the privilege of presiding as temporary chairman of this convention. I feel that, in granting me this honor, you are also honoring all the members of the Democratic delega- tion in Congress, those already in office and those whom you will help to elect in No- vember. Even, as we meet here in this convention, the frontier of freedom is under continuing attack. That frontier runs from the Baltic through the heart of Berlin, along the borders of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Albania, the northern border of Afghanistan, Pakis- tan, India, Burma, and Indochina. It sepa- rates the iron curtain from the rest of the free world. There is another frontier inside the coun- tries on our side—the free side—of the iron curtain. This second frontier of democracy is stronger now than it was 4 years ago. It is stronger now than it was 2 years ago when our Nation, under the leadership of President Truman and with bipartisan support, moved to the counterattack. The first frontier is holding b2cause the second frontier is stronger. The second frontier is stronger because of the implementation of the Truman plan in Greece and Turkey and the Marshall plan in the rest of Europe and in southeast Asia. With the munitions and know-how of defense we have helped to strengthen the first frontier. With the instruments and know-how of peace we have helped to strengthen the sec- ond frontier. Except in China, where the hope of free- dom has been pawned for the promise of food, and the will to fight weakened by corruption, the double frontier of freedom has bsen held. New frontiers have been established in southeast Asia that with statesmanship and with material aid will be stronger than was the fluid front in China. And as these two frontiers hold and strengthen around the world, a new third frontier will develop on the other side of the iron curtain, inside the enslaved countries of eastern Europe, inside China, inside Russia itself. Behind the iron curtain are outposts of freedom, pockets of resistance to totali- iarian slavery enforced by terror. While men live, the idea of freedom does not die. There are ears to listen and to hear the voice of America, the voice of freedom. We are pledged to battle any form of totalitarianism both here and abroad. We recognize that the Communist aim of Soviet Russia is, first to undermine, and then to destroy, the demo- cratic principles upon which this country has been built. . Steady nerves are needed in this cold war between the idea of freedom and the idea of slavery. They are needed now more than ever before. Last week the Russians shot down an unarmed American plane and mur- dered 10 American fliers. In that one cynical act of violence, they have taken the cold war out of the ice box and placed it nearer the stove. But no matter what the provocation, we must step cautiously. It should be remem- bered that the cost of winning a cold war is infinitely less in men and money than the cost of a shooting war. The danger is, not that we shall spend too much in winning it, but that we might be too late with too little. That mistake might cost us a contest that we can certainly win if we go at it in terms of rolling out the im- plements of peace as we went at the job of rolling out the munitions of war 9 years ago. To date, we have spent less than nine billions in Marshall-plan aid, and that over the protests of the Tabers, Tafts, and the Gabrielsons. We propose to spend a little more than $3,000,000,0C0 in the coming year, again over their protests. Since the war, we have spent in all forms of aid to other nations not more than $30,- 0C0,000,000. Much of it will pay—and is al- ready paying—dividends in economic health and security for our allies and ourselves. These figures sound like big sums. But we must think in terms of survival. What is survival worth? What is freedom worth? What are allies worth? What is it worth to keep war and mass invasion from our Jersey beaches? The out-of-pocket cost of the last war ran as high as $7,000,000,000 a month. The estimated final cost of that war—not counting priceless lives lost or maimed— will be $1,300,000,000,000—one trillion three hundred billion dollars. For the 44 mcnths of fighting, that means a final cost of $29,- 500,000,000 a month, $985,000,000 a day, or €41,000,000 an hour. Since VJ-day, 1945, we have spent to win the peace less than the cost of 33 days of war. Does anyone think the next war, if it comes, will be cheaper than the last one? If the last war was worth winning, then how much is it worth to win the peace? What price survival? What price tag shall be put on freedom— freedom for ourselves and for our allies? It’s not a long answer. Only three words: Whatever it takes. That is the answer I think this convention must give, the answer it will want to give to the leader of our party and our President, Harry S. Truman. Whatever it takes to win. We are moving into a new phase in the cold war. I think we are facing up to the fact that we are in this war for the dura- tion, that it is being fought for keeps, and that, if we step up our efforts, our produc- tion, our practice of the democracy at home that we preach abroad, we are bound to win. As we enter that new phase, this conven- tion and the Democratic Party in the com-~ ing campaign have an important function to perform. We can and we must dedicate ourselves and our party to an all-out program for the continuous full employment of all our hu- man and material resources. We must show that free men cannot only out-think, out-produce, and out-fight others in war, but that they can also out-think and out-produce others in peace. Against the propaganda and the promises of the Krem- lin—promises that are as deceptive as a string of baited fish hooks—we can and we must dramatize the daily facts of life in a free world. Facts will always beat propaganda—if the facts meet men’s needs and their aspirations for freedom. What are the facts? 1. We have supported—and will continue to support—. development of the United Na- tions into an effective international organi- zation to outlaw aggression and secure inter- national peace. 2. We have endorsed and will continue to endorse the North Atlantic Pact and the ECA program which has reduced so materially the threat of Communist expansion in western Europe. A8233 3. We urge international control of atomic Wweayons and other forces of mass destruction through adequate safeguards and inspection. 4, Without putting exclusive reliance on armed strength and turning ourselves into a permanent garrison state in which democratic rights would b2 suspended, we have kept our Nation militarily strong. 5. Simultaneously—there is no “either” “or’—we must continue to step up our aid to other nations less developed economically and industrially than ours, whenever possible through the United Nations. 6. By lowering international trade barriers, we have helped raise standards of living and freedom everywhere, so that the products of free labor will not face the unfair competi- tion of goods produced by coerced, exploited and sweated lakor elsewhere. 7. We have advccated continued assistance to, and encouragement of, the new State of Israel. Such actions constitute, I believe, the im- plementation of our total diplomacy that has been asked for by cur President and his Sec- retary of State, Dean Acheson. But these are not purely partisan objec- tives. To avoid a war that might disintegrate mankind, we must resort first to all the avail- able instruments of peace. We should avail ourselves also of the advice and counsel of the wisest minds in the Congress as well as in the State Department, At the same time we rec- ognize that the Communist cause is helped no little by head-line hunting Kepublicans in Congress. We believe in uprooting subver-~ sive elements at every level of government. But this should be done through proper channels and with a proper respect for rep- utations—not by a wholesale smearing of innocent public officials. In the words of our President: ‘‘We are not going to turn the United States into a right-wing totalitarian country in order to deal with a left-wing totalitarian threat.” But this technique of irresponsible attacks against our State Department is not the only weapon which the Republican Party has used to undermine our program. Time and again, they have formed an unholy coali- tion to block the necessary implementation of our foreign policy and commitments. Again and again, this coalition of special privilege, fear, and prejudice has commanded a@ majority in the Hightieth and Highty-first Congresses to keep vital domestic parts of President Truman's Fair Deal program on the shelf. Measures in line with the Employment Act of 1946, needed to expand production, main- tain purchasing power, and insure continued full employment have been rejected. ‘This coalition seems willing to risk chronic mass unemployment here at a time when the world situation calls for every ounce of pro- ductive strength we can bring to bear. It persistently ignores the fact that a depres- sion here is Stalin’s fondest hope, the secret weapon he believes will go off in our own hands to bring about our own defeat. This convention and the Democratic Party in New Jersey in the coming months can do something about that. We can strengthen the hands of President Truman and his Fair Deal administration. We can see to it that the issues—particularly domestic issues as they relate to the winning of the cold war— are brought to the voters of our State. If this is done, if the importance of this 1950 election is made plain, we can be sure that the people of New Jersey will reelect those who have supported the Fair Deal program down the line in both its foreign and do- mestic parts. On domestic issues, we have fought for repeal of the iniquitous Taft-Hartley law. And we have sought to reinstate the Wagner National Labor Relations Act, with amend- ments, to insure full protection for employer
A3234 and employee, and to prevent Communist domination of labor organizations. With the help of our votes, the Eighty-first Congress has enacted a program of slum clearance and housing for low-income groups. We favor additional Federal aid for middle- income housing. We reaffirm our support of a strong civil- rights program as adopted by the National Democratic Convention of 1948. We favor an expanded system of social security, Federal aid for education and a progressive, scientific national health pro- gram which will avoid socialization, and which, we hope, will attract the cooperation of the medical profession. I ask the convention to urge repeal or substantial reduction of wartime excise taxes, This should go hand in hand with a general revision of our entire income-tax structure, designed to distribute the tax burden more equitably among those able to pay. But the goal of sensible economy in Gov- ernment must not jeopardize our national security. Nor must it cripple our efforts to prevent future wars. And it cannot sacrifice these essential functions of government which provide for the welfare of the people. We pledge to continue our efforts for the preservation of veterans’ rights and benefits, including proper medical care and hospitali- zation for the disabled veteran. We advocate continuation of a reasonable farm price support program to insure a stable agriculture economy. We recognize that a collapse of our agriculture economy inevit- ably will result in a breakdown of our na- tional economic structure. We also recognize the important position of small business in the scale of a sound American economy. We must protect the small businessman from unfair competition and monopolistic practices. He must be given an equal opportunity with competing enterprises to expand his capital structure. We recognize the need for adequate merchant marine as a principal auxiliary to our na- tional defense program. And we pledge fur- ther to work for a plan that will insure that our merchant marine will be kept in first- elass condition through adequate appro- priations. On the vital question of housing, the Re- publican State legislature has shown that it cannot agree on an adequate State rent- control program. Therefore, we recommend that controls be continued at the Federal level until such time as the housing shortage is remedied. We demand that rent control be continued to protect our low and middle income groups. The failure of the Republican legislature to enact this and other necessary measures for the public welfare places it in a class with the “do nothing” Eightieth Congress. And I don’t have to tell you what happened to the Eightieth Congress. When you draw your platform, I ask you not to ignore the mistakes and errors of the Republican legislature. The rent control flasco represents only @ fraction of the sins committed in the name of the Republican caucus. They have failed to raise your unemploy- ment and cash sickness benefits to meet the rising cost of living. They have given you a major scandal in the administration of workers’ funds. And they have failed to enact legislation to pre- vent such scandals in the future. They have surrendered the legislative pow- ers of gOvernment and have given you gov~ ernment by authority rather than by law. They have made a patronage grab for Sandy Hook, which is supposed to be a@ State park for the benefit of all the people of New Jersey. In the name of economy, they have elim- inated the State board of tenement house supervision. This would subject supervision of tenements to local political pressure and place unnecessary burdens on the cities of our State. Yet they have failed to achieve the econ~ omy they promised through reorganization of State executive departments, Where now are the million dollar savings which were supposed to have been realized through this reorganization? Yes, they preach economy. But what happened when they were offered a real chance to economize by getting rid of New Jersey’s nineteenth century motor vehicle agency system? They didn’t do anything about it, because the agencies were a source of Republican patronage. So you stand in line now to buy your license plates, instead of mailing your application as they do in other States. In the Congress, we Democrats voluntarily undertook to liberalize our procedure for the introduction and consideration of bills. Not so the Republican caucus. The only way to rid yourselves of this evil is to rid your- selves of Republicans and elect a Democratic legislature. That you can—and will do— next year. In the meantime, we have a duty to per- form this year. We must elect—and re- elect—a Democratic delegation to represent New Jersey in Congress. The program we have laid out calls for more competition and less monopoly, for more opportunity for really free enterprise, for more practice of genuine democracy in the economic and political fields, for more income, wages and insurance and lower ex- penditures for doles and relief. The election of President Truman and a nominal Democratic majority in Congress was a great victory. But it was not a thor- ough defeat for the enemies of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. In electing Harry S. Truman we escaped Dewey and disaster. What did we win? We made important gains. Wewontime. We won time to carry on the foreign-aid program, to initiate the arms-aid program, to renew the reciprocal trade program, without cheese paring and outright sabotage by powerful leaders of re- action in the Republican Party. We won time to strengthen and consoli- date liberal forces in the country so that, this year, we have good reason to believe the usual apathy of off-year elections can be overcome and Falr Deal strength in- creased in the November elections. If we do our job in this convention and Jn the coming campaign, all the people of New Jersey will know who blocked major parts of the Fair Deal program, and why. The people of New Jersey will know the importance of the entire Fair Deal program to the winning of the peace. We have based our platform upon the Democratic platform of 1948, on the Fair Deal program proposed by our President, Harry S. Truman, on the program for which the American people voted in 1948. Let us have our own voice of America tell the truth to the people of New Jersey as President Truman has proposed to tell the truth to the people of the world. If we do that, and if our party does the work of promoting registration and getting out the Democratic vote and the independ- ent vote, New Jersey will send a strengthen- ing fair deal Democratic delegation to the Highty-second Congress. And we will have done our part in putting the Fair Deal, the whole Fair Deal, to work in time to prevent depression and, let us hope, in time to win the peace. Full production, full employment, more democracy, prosperity and international co- operation. By these facts, as we make them facts, shall we win a lasting peace among free men. This is our platform. This is our faith. So help us God! APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Dollars and Arms EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Myr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I wish to include an editorial which appeared in the Washington Post of May 8, 1950: DotiaRs AND ARMS The major tools of a foreign policy which seeks to dovetail strategy and statesmanship in the right proportions needed for the suc- cessful conduct of the cold war are simple to define. They are leadership and brains. This priority we have not yet acknowledged. The priorities have so far been given to dollars and arms, and on balance both have done as much harm as good. When, for instance, we shoveled dollars into the Philippines, in lieu of the materials we could not wholly deliver as promised for the repair of war damage, we insured the fiscal spree at Manila which has put our former ward on its back, and by the same token piven a great boost to the Communist- led Huks. Our dollars are fastening on the Asiatics the worst of all curses, 1. c., inflation. Inflation helps to enthrone the money lender and the speculator in Keeping the Asiatic enslaved. As for arms, these we put into the hands of the tatterdemalion traops of Chiang Kai-shek, and we thus helped to insure Chiang Kai-shek’s collapse, because those arms were regarded merely as counters in a game of panicky and fear-struck sur- render. Thus we ended up by, in effect, arming Communist China. No better work has been done by Congress than to deny an arms-crazy administration the authority to send our lethal weapons anywhere it wished. In Europe, where there is more sense of responsibility than in Asia, dollars so far have done more good than harm. So have the arms—in priming national self-respect and domestic and the general security. But the usefulness of hoth is beginning to intoxicate the policymakers and arouse the Oliver Twist instincts of the recipients to such an extent that huge levies are looming ahead on our exchequer and our arsenal. The tendency is to say if x dollars and x arms have been useful, then 2% dollars and xr arms will be even more useful. That doesn’t necessarily follow. Think of the small number of Germans that were re- quired to overrun the Maginot line and the French Army. It is time to think less in terms of dollars and arms and more in terms of policy and the nonmilitary needs of the Atlantic community. The serried might of Russia should not ke our preac- cupation. Our preoccupation chould be the listlessness in Europe. In Europe the ques- tioner is reminded that the United States is in danger of building up the military machines and the self-sufficient state sys- tems that on two occasions have been Europe's undoing. Humpty Dumpty simply cannot be put back again. The fact is that neither the east mor the west can be returned to the Old World system. In the east the age of imperialism is dead, and American support for any reestablishment of the old colonial system—as in Indochina for the French— is foredocomed to failure. As for Europe, the peoples are community-minded and non- militarist, and their contribution to defense will be nil if they are called upon merely to save their antiquated national state systems. If, therefore, policy making must start with
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the realities, here they are, and we ought to be taking a new look at the requirements of realizing such concepts as will fulfill the people’s aspirations. People only defend wholeheartedly what they believe in. Ferrero, the great Italian historian, con- cluded a study of foreign policy in the last century with this observation: “One of the gravest mistakes committed by human indolence is the belief that order is best preserved by keeping it as it stands. Te e-~ av “Qe preserved by continually re- ec soit: ait. The only real guardians ev. 7s reconstruct it. * * * Noth- ing is so rare as a great constructive mind.” Nothing is so rare as a great constructive mind! The truth of Ferrero’s observation is borne out by postwar history. Our re- cital 1s the proof. If in war the first prin- ciple is to impose your will on the enemy, the first princirle of peace is to discover a unifying idea, and pursue it. A unifying idea in the world of today would be a comprehensive emigration-immi- gration policy of relieving Europe’s popula- tion pressure and of resettling surpluses in such cpen spaces, as, say, Australia, Oceania, and Brazil. Here is something new, some- thing that could capture men’s imagination, something that would unify, something in which a host of nations east and west have @ common interest, something that would create a diversion from the present descent into war. All there needs to be is a favor- able climate for brains and the assertion of the statesmanship requisite for their mobili- zation. Any fool can throw dollars and arms around. Prompt Adoption of ITO Charter Essen- tial to Success of American Foreign Economic Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERMAN P. EBERHARTER OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the following editorial from the Christian Science Monitor of April 24, 1950, stressing the importance of adop- tion of the ITO Charter to the success of American foreign economic policy: Tue ITO mw Totat DiepLomacy Congress could do much, if it would, to strengthen American leadership im the world, to aid the economic unification of Europe, and to assure western prosperity by heeding Secretary of State Acheson’s plea for the ITO. ITO is the short name for the Interna- tional Trade Organization, the blueprints for which were completed in a United Nations conference in Habana in 1948. This was an American-sponsored project. Its central philosophy is 99.44 percent pure American. It aims to serve free enterprise as against state controls over trade. It as- serts American fajth in an expanding instead of a contracting world economy. Its thesis was accepted with varying de- grees of enthusiasm, some not far above freezing, among the governments represented at Habana. But after months of efforts the pasic ideas were preserved in a world trade charter. The approval of this charter for the United States now rests with Congress. Secretary Acheson urges adoption of the ITO project by Congress soon. We second the motion, There is nothing to be gained by delay. The ITO charter may he likened to a set of traffic rules for world trade. Today so many countries engage in protective devices, like tariffs (which are not the worst of them), and import quotas, evd moreyr con- trols, that it would be -ivs.x.-'3!e 2 in- dividual traders to reach agreements for increasing world trade. The individual’s in- terest is often thwarted not only by reason-~ able regulations but by a conflict among the aims which governments pursue. If this is understood, it will be seen that the ITO, so far from being “socialism,” as is sometimes charged, is really an effort to curb socialistic controls which arise at the na- tional level. The best attack on these now is through international agreement. Americans 1n particular—but all other peo~ ples with a stake in the ITO, too—should never miscontrue the charter as a body of rules designed to add new controls over trade. It is designed to reduce those now in existence. Where they cannot be reduced in the foreseeable future, the charter pur- poses to harmonize them. It would thus prevent the destructive effects of national controls which clash with each other, often unnecessarily, Yes, to be sure, Congress has other matters pressing upon it these days. But it always has. It should recognize that the ITO can play a big part in the “total diplomacy” now needed to unify the West against commu- nism. For that reason ITO deserves priority. Adoption of this program by the United States will go far to reassure other nations about the purposes of American economic policy. This should not be a policy of drastic global deflation, in which there -eo'er bord= est hit by war would be cuves .a in tb dt sacrifice to sacrifice interminably by cutting down living standards and reducing im»orts in order to keep world trade in bata:ce. Ty should help to balance world trade at a high level which will support maximum employ- ment both at home and abroad. A reliable sign that this is indeed Amer- ican policy would do much to offset the ap- peals of communism in Europe. It would help to heal the distrust which the working masses there sometimes show America, But even without this important recom- mendation, the ITO program justifies itself as a realistic adjustment between present trade realities and world hopes for more orderly trade practices and their benefits to workers and employers, producers and con- sumers alike. American Legion and the Hoover Commis- sion Relative to Reorganization of the Veterans’ Administration EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. NORRIS POULSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 20, 1950 Mr. POULSON. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Charles R. Tyson, legislative chairman of Los Feliz Post, No. 527, American Le- gion, Los Angeles, has prepared a very comprehensive report on the subject of the Hoover Commission Report relative to the reorganization of the Veterans’ Administration. Because of the pro- hibitive cost of extending this complete report in the Recorp, I have made a condensation of his summary in which he states that not all of the veterans are A3235 opposed to the reorganization of the Veterans’ Administration. The condensation follows: As you all know, I have served the Legion and the Disabled American Veterans con- stantly during the past 80 years. I have witnessed the growth of the Veterans’ Ad- munistration from its inception and have battled it successfully in behalf of the vet- eran and his dependents. I was in the fore- front of the most bitter battle during the Economy Act of 1933. At that time I was service Officer at the Veterans’ Administra~ tion Hospital in Tucson, Ariz., acting in be-~ half of the DAV and the Legion. I saw the havoc created by that infamous act. We had many deaths in Arizona brought on by despair, worry, and loss of income, which was too much for seriously ill veterans to cope with. At that time, during the spring of 1933, at my own expense, I went to Wash- ington, carrying with me a sultcase full of claims and cases. I appeared, person*lr, before the appeal group in beh. ¢. iresa claims and within 30 days had nearly all adjudicated favorably. Serving and believing in the cause of the war veteran I have come to the conclusion that something must be done to straighten out ."c w.ir'rs of the Veterans’ Admuinistra- tion. If experience is any indication of what we are to expect, then my 80 years experience tells me that we haven't seen anything yet, of the trials and tribulations of the VA and and veterans asa whole. It was 10 years and more, after the first World War until the peak load of disabled was arrived at. In my muind’s eye, I can picture what we can expect as to the possible peak load when 10 years have passed from the date of the Second World War. All veteran organization units are crying for more money, more men, and more space to carry the load of service. Year by year we are asked to contribute more and more and still it is never enough. The time has come when we must weigh the ultimate cost to ourselves and the country. We know now that the VA is not doing the right job. We also know that the Legion and other organizations are understaffed to maintain proper service. Because of these things the veteran is not getting a square deal, and many worthy cases are denied compensation and/or service connection because of these deficiencies. If the Hoover Commission's recommenda- tions are even partly right, then we should see to it that those parts are carried out. It is up to all of us, mdividually and col- lectively, to write our Representatives in Congress how we feel on the matter and not let hysteria sway our judgment. Final- ly, let me say that this is not a political issue. Our only ex-President, Herbert Hoover, was called to do this job by the President and Congress and he should not be maligned and held up to ridicule. He was only one of 12 outstanding men, evenly divided politically, and had the advice and help of 300 experts. St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES a Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Ap- pendix of the CoNGRESSIONAL REcorp, I
A3236 include a statement in support of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project made by Mr. J. Howard Marshall, presi- dent of the Ashland, Ky., Oil & Refining Co., and chairman of the board of the Ohio Valley Improvement Association. The OVIA is an organization of busi- nessmen in the Ohio Valley, including citizens of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky. At thew fifty- fourth annual convention in Pittsburgh on March 31 this organization for the first time went on record in favor of the St, Lawrence seaway. Mr. Marshall’s statement, printed in the association’s monthly news bulletin, gives the reasons for their position: Sv. LAwRENCE SEAWAY NeEcEsSITY, MarsHALL Houps The system of water facilities as provided by the Great Lakes and inland waterways which gave the great steel industry of the Midwest and other areas, as well, low-cost transportation for bulk commodities such as ore, sets the pattern by which the treasured “red dirt” of Labrador and Venezuela will be made available for the blast furnaces of mid-America in the future. This is the studied opinion of J. Howard Marshall, president of the Ashland Oil & Refining Co., at Ashland, Ky., and a chair~ man of the board of the Ohio Valley Im- provement Association, Inc. Marshall announced recently that the OVIA 1s definitely supporting the proposed creation of a St. Lawrence seaway as the primary means of bringing the Labrador- Quebec ore to the blast furnaces of the Midwest. With Mesabi ore resources Ciminishing and beneficiation of 80 percent 7.5" "ee 7a only apparent alternative in Minnesota, the puilding of the seaway appears to be essen- tial toward the protection of the vast steel~ making investments in this part of the con-~ tinent, Marshall asserts. As a shipper of petroleum products, Mar-~ shall has seen the consistent growth in use of the Ohio-Mississippi River system, as well as other inland waterways for the transpor- tation of not only bulky raw materials but distribution of finished goods as well. As a result he sees in the proposed St. Lawrence project the most reasonable method of br*-~in~ +- the already existing docks and oth: feel: .s of the Great Lakes the Lab- rador-Quebec ore for distribution to the mills of Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Wheeling, Warren, Sharon, Canton, Hamil- ton, Middletown and various other produc- tion areas. Various military men have pointed to the importance of the inland locations of the Nation’s large makers. of steel, so vital in time of war, and have emphasized the im- portance of inland waterways to maintenance of these locations. In some other respects these present loca- tions are advantageous, also, because most of the iron and steel producers are close to sources of most of the raw materials they need, including coal and fluxing stone. For nearly 100 years the Lake Superior region has produced most of the iron ore used in the United States. In this area are several large iron ore ranges, the biggest being the Mesabi, which has produced more than a billion and a half tons of ore. Most of this ore has been taken from huge open pits by mechanical shovels and shipped largely on Great Lakes ore boats. The average analysis of this ore is now 51 percent, the figure having dropped down through the years. Much of the high-grade ore has been used during the last century during which the Nation fought two major wars. If the coun- try should continue to consume or at the war rate, some writers estimate, the Lake Superior region may have sufficient high- grade ore for only 20 to 25 years. For this reason, Marshall holds, the St. Lawrence seaway seems to be a necessity. Heover UN Proposal Prompts Protests EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orp, I wish to include an article by Mary Hornaday, which appeared in a recent issue of the Christian Science Monitor: Hoover UN Prorosat Promrrs PROTEST (By Mary Hornaday) New Yorx.—Herbert Hoover’s plea for reor- ganization of the United Nations without the Communist nations has brought a vigorous join« -~-*-<+ *-om the American Association for i.” l:re« Nations and United World Federalists, Inc. While John Foster Dulles, Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, and others were blasting Mr. Hoover for his April 28 proposal to news- paper publishers that the western world withdraw into its own strong shell, Clark M. Eichelberger, AAUN director, and Alan Cran- ston, UWF president, announced that they would mobilize their approximately 100,000 members throughout the United States to fight Mr. Hoover’s suggestion. While praising Mr. Hoover’s integrity, Mr. Eichelberger said his proposal to “polarize” the UN, forcing countries like India and In- donesia to choose between eastern and west- ern ideologies was “brutal” and indicative of “smug self-righteousness.” HANDS JOINED FOR FIRST TIME In denouncing Mr. Hoover’s proposal, which they said might be a “trial balloon” for isolationism, the AAUN and United World Federalists joined hands for the first time. Mr Cranston said his organization, which heretofore has put major emphasis on a pro- gram for expanding the UN into a world gov~ ernment, is now turning its attention more to keeping the UN from going under entirely. The AAUN and the UWF in the past have been considered rivals for the support of American internationalists, but Mr, Hoover's attack, desoribed by the two men as the most serious yet made on the UN, brought the two leaders together at a press con- ference. Mr. Hichelberger said it was a “cruel thing for Mr. Hoover to believe that we can force the world to choose sides.” He added: “If ‘we can give the world the leadership it needs, we stand a much better chance of holding the moral leadership of the world.” He said further that he “did not like Rus- sia’s tactics any more than anyone else.” INCREASED WAR PERIL §EEN Mr. Cranston ventured the forecast that, if Russia “is driven out of the UN by the method Mr. Hoover suggests, it will increase the danger of war in the world.” Mr. Hoover said in his speech to the Ameri- can Newspaper-Publishers Association that his plan for a Russialess UN was “not a pro~ posed extension of a military alliance” but a “proposal to redeem the concept of the United Nations to the high purpose for which. it was created. It is a proposal for moral and spiritual cooperation of God-fearing free nations.” At the present time the UN is functioning to a large extent without Russia because of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD its dissatisfaction with the continued re- fusal of the majority to seat the delegation from Communist China. Mr. Cranston pointed out that Russia’s recent note in the UN changing its position on the internationalization of Jerusalem showed it was still participating and Mr. Bichelberger made the wild prediction that the Chinese delegation situation would be straightened out this summer and Russia would participate in next fall’s General As- sembly. MORATORIUM SOUGHT Both men said it was their personal view, not yet backed by their boards, that the UN should seat the Chinese Communists if and when their government became stable. A plea for a moratorium on all the rough talk between the east and the west during UN Secretary Trygve Lie’s trip to Europe and contemplated visit to Moscow was made by Mr. Eichelberger. Instead of following Mr. Hoover’s advice, he said, he would like to see the world turn to “total diplomacy based not on a cold war but on building up the United Nations. “Tf it had not been for the United Nations, the world today would have disintegrated peyond repair. We must somehow hold our forces together in conversation with the faith that agreement can be reached.” Canada Wants St. Lawrence Seaway EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. BLATNIEK. Mr. Speaker, the House Public Works Committce is now holding hearings on the St. Lawrence seaway and power project—House Joint Resolution 271—and I can say without qualification that the over- whelming majority of the American peo- ple are in support of this important proj- ect. The facts also indicate that the people of Canada are just as strongly in favor of its construction. In this connection, the March 1950 edition of the London Times Survey of Canada and World Trade carries an article by Cana- dian Minister of Transport, the Honor- able Lionel Chevrier, K. C., which points out the importance of the seaway to Can- ada’s future. Under leave to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rrecorp, I include this article from the London Times entitled “St. Lawrence Seaway Plans”: Sr. Lawrence Seaway PLans (By the Honorable Lionel Chevriér, K. ©.) The Gulf of St. Lawrence, the St, Law- rence River, and the Great Lakes provided the route for the early explorers of North America in their search for a passage to the western sea and the riches of the Far East, When, instead of this, they found the vast western plains extending for 1,200 miles to the foothills of th Rockies, little did they realize that the waters they had traversed would someday become the busiest inland waterway in the world, serving an area that would surpass in wealth the lands which they were seeking, and that the vast prairies beyond would within a few centuries be called the granary of the world, MOVEMENT WESTWARD The improvement of this inland route, which included the surmounting of the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD natural barriers to free navigation, was ac- companied by the steady movement of population westward, and the idea of a sea- way to bring the benefits of water transpor- tation into the very center of the continent stirred the imagination of men of vision many years befcre confederation of the Canadian provinces. The history of the en- largement of the canals ani the deepening of the navigation channels is a history of the industrial growth in Ontario and Que- bec, and without a doubt this growth, both in Canada and in the Morthern States south of the boundary, and the agricultural devel- opment of the West have been made possible only by the existence of this waterway. The improvement of the waterway has been carried on continuously until at the ‘present time a 35-foot channel is available throughout the 1,100 miles of the Gulf and lower St. Lawrence up to Montreal, a 14-foot canal system overcomes the obstructions to navigation in the 115 miles of river trom Montreal to Prescott, and a 27-foot depth of channel is available in the remaining 67 miles of river from Prescott to Lake Ontario. The barrier to navigation between Lakes On- tario and Erie presented by the Falls and rapids of the Niagara River is overcome by the Welland ship canal of 25-foot depth completed by Canada in 1932 to replace a 14-foot canal. Above Lake Erie the United States has deepened the rivers connecting the upper lakes so thit at the present time a depth of 21 feet is available in up-bound channels and 25 feet in down-bound chan- nels. LIFE LINE OF THE ALLIES The importance of these channels to the economic life of both Canada and the United States is obvious when it is realized that the annual tonnage carried between the upper lakes has been over 110,000 during each of the last 2 years and exceeded 120,000 in 1942. The larger part of this traffic is iron ore eastbound from the head of Lake Su- perior and coal westbound. These channels Were very aptly called the life line of the allies during the last war, as the production of the weapons of war in Canada and the United States depended to a large degree on the maintenance of navigation throughout their length. EARLY VISIONS The early visions of a seaway did not in- clude the development of hydroelectric power, but the growth of the industrial cen- ters adjacent to the Great Lakes on both sides of the International Boundary and the advent of the age of electricity drew atten- tion to the enormous rower potentialities of the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers. Just as the improvement of navigation facilities has been a gradual process, so it was with the power resources in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. At the present time the total installed capacity on the Canadian side at Niagara totals 1,230,500 horsepower. On the St. Lawrence River an installation of ap- proximately 1,100,000 horsepower is now availakle, of which about 1,010,000 is in Ca- nada. The present plan for a seaway may be said to date from 1920, when the Governments of Canada and the United States asked the International Joint Commission, a body set up under the terms of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, to recommend to the two Governments a plan that will secure from the waters of the upper St. Lawrence their maximum efficiency in navigation and power. The international commission re- ported in 1921 and recommended the con- struction of what has since become known as the St. Lawrence seaway. Since 1921 extensive engineering studies have been carried out and the plans proposed for ‘navigation improvement and power de- velopment has been changed many times. This has been necessary in order to keep pace with the continual change in the physi- cal conditions along the waterway and the growth in the demand for power. AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES In 1932 representatives of Canada and the United States signed a treaty providing for the construction of the seaway. Although this treaty received a majority vote for rati- fication in the United States Senate, it failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. In 1941 an agreement between the two na- tions was signed providing for the completion of the seaway from Montreal to the head of the Great Lakes and the development of the total power resources in the International Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence River— that section of the river which forms part of the boundary between the two countries. A bill is now before the United States Con~ gress which, if passed, will provide for the ratification of this agreement and the com-~ mencement of construction of a project which will, without a doubt, have far-reach« ing effect on the economy of our country. The project proposed contains provision for “navigation requiring a controlling chan- nel depth of 27 feet with a depth of 30 feet over all lock sills, from the head of the Great Lakes to Montreal Harbor.” The locks will conform with those of the existing Welland Ship Canal with chambers 859 feet in length and 80 feet in width. The depth on all lock sills and over all permanent structures will be 80 feet, which means that deepening in the future to that depth will entail dredging only. On completion of the proposed improve- ments the total length of canal navigation along the 1,200 miles from Montreal to the head of Lake Superior will be limited to about 48 miles and the number of locks will be reduced from 30, as at present, to only 15. The project for the improvement of the International Rapids Section of the St. Lawrence River is a combined navigation and power project which will result in a total power installation of 2,200,000 horse- power at one site. This will be equally divided between Caanda and the United States and will furnish approximately 10,000,- 000 kilowatt-hours of energy a year—more than that available from any single power development in the world. ADDITIONAL POWER In addition to the power to be developed in the international section a further 3,200,- 000 horsepower is available in the Canadian section of the St. Lawrence. Approximately 1,000 horsepower of this is already developed. On the completion of the seaway the Great Lakes will become directly connected to the open seas which constitute the world’s commercial highways. Deep-draft lake freighters will carry unbroken cargoes from the upper lakes for transshipment at Mon- treal and other tidewater ports, while ocean vessels will be brought directly to the cen- ters of production and distribution for a very large part of Canada’s foreign trade. The Great Lakes will become the Mediterranean of North America. The importance to British-Canadian trade of the present Great Lakes water route as a feeder to the St. Lawrence route to the Brit- ish Isles has long been established. The ex~ tension of this route for another 1,200 miles inland—one-third of the distance across Canada—must result in reducing transporta~ tion costs on commodities such as grain, flour, and coal, which now move between the two countries. COMMONWEALTH VIEW The world-wide units of the British Com~- monwealth are joined together by the oceans which have made possible the development of the various member nations by providing facilities for easy and cheap transportation. The external trade of these member nations can move only by the seaways of the world. It must therefore be readily appreciated how important it is to the promotion of interna- A3237 tional trade that deep-water access be pro~ vided to the great producing and consuming areas of central Canada. The British Commonwealth of Nations be- ing so dependent on deep-water transporta- .tion, it is obvious that the further develop- ment of the St. Lawrence seaway in the territory of a leading member nation, with a@ consequent reduction in transportation costs. is of great importance to a group of nations founded on and bounded by the seven seas. The supply of a large block of relatively low-cost hydroelectric power in the center of the industrial area of Canada will insure low production costs in the industries com- peting with similar industries throughout the world and will at least retain for Canada her envied position in the international trade world. Today’s World Must Be Christian EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HUGH B. MITCHELL OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, with her customary logic based on a sound fundamenial knowledge, our distin- guished colleague, the Honorable CHasz Goinc WoopHovse, of Connecticut, has made an outstanding contribution to contemporary social thought in an ar~ ticie, Today’s World Must Be Christian, published in the April 1950, issue of the Church Woman. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I includ? the article by Mrs. WoopbHowuse in the Rrcorp. Topay’s Wortp Must BE CHRISTIAN (By Congresswoman CHasE GOING Woop- HOUSE, Connecticut) The hydrogen bomb is only the latest step in the series of almost miraculous scientific Gevelopments which, in the last half century, have so radically changed the physical face of the Western World and raised our standard of living. These material results of the in- dustrial revolution engendered by the work of the natural scientists are very evident. We recognize them, accept their advantages, but to too large a degree we utterly fail to recognize or accept «heir social implications. These implications may be summed up very briefly in one sentence. Science has forced us to face a decision; either we really accept the Christian ethic and base our be- havior as individuals and as nations upon it, or we face the destruction of civiliza- tion. That is a hard fact and one we can- not dodge. There is no argument in saying we are already Christians. We are, but too muchinformonly. Today the outward form and ceremonial is not enough. Sect, doc- trine, dogma, theology, hierarchy—all these I am not discussing. I am discussing the full acceptance of the Sermon on the Mount, the brotherhood of man, the philosophy of brotherly love and of tolerance—in brief, the Christian ethic. Why is the full acceptance of basic ethic more important today than in previous dec- ades or previous centuries? It is because the scientists while unlocking great: poten- tialities for richer living have also made us highly interdependent. No one individual, no one nation is a free agent. No one indi- vidual, no one nation can live in isolation. We are all joined together in what must be a great cooperative enterprise if any of us are to kave the security of peace and plenty.
A3238 If we do not so join together, the results may be economic disaster and eventually war. Let us look first at the domestic scene. Not sO Many years ago the great majority of the families of this country lived on farms. Each family was more or less independent. Each grew and preserved its own food, spun its own wool, wove its own cloth, made its own clothes. There were very few commodi- ties which the farm family had to buy from outside. Each family more or less controlled its own welfare. The hard-working, thrifty family got on; the shiftless did not, In each case the results sprang from the family’s own attitude and effort or lack of effort. Today the situation is very different. The majority of families are supported by one or more wage earners. The wage earner is de- pendent on his job. The job 1s available only when economic conditions are good which means when other factories than the one in which he works are running, when other peo- ple have jobs and have money to purchase the many different commodities and serv- ices offered on the market. Even the farmer is no longer independent. He must sell his wheat, his muk, his eggs, his chickens, his beef, his cotton, or whatever he grows, on the market. Only when the urban wage earner has a job at good wages can the farmer sell at a good price. It takes only a most cursory view of our economic life to see to what a great extent we are all interrelated, to see how the well being of all determines the well being of each. There is no long-term cleavage of interest between labor and capital. Unless labor is Tully employed at good wages the produc*s of capital cannot be scid at a profit. On the other hand, unless capital makes a profit there will not be plant expansion and there wil not be jobs for the on-coming youth. There is no sense to labor-management conflict. Each side gains from working with the other. Only together can they move for- ward to real prosperity. Good wages, social security, provision for old age, decent housing, adequate health care, school] lunches—all the programs which make for healthy, vigorous happy workers aid not only the workers, but through larger and more efficient production, they ald manage- ment and the entire community. In our highly mechanized urban industrial society, where each worker is a specialist, we must work together in brotherly cooperation or else we fail, Economic depression, booms ana busts are not necessary. They bring misery to some, insecurity to all. Coopera- tion can bring stable prosperity and adequate security to farmers, industrial workers, man- ager and owners, The same situation occurs in the interna- tional field. Two World Wars in the past four decades should have taught us that na- tions too are interdependent. The United States had no desire to be embroiled in war, and yet twice against our will in the life- time of our adult population we have been drawn into conflicts. ‘ President Truman’s point 4 program rec- ognizes this brotherhood of nations. No country can be backward, its people hungry, sick, ill-clothed, ignorant without effect on us. Our only insurance against o fatal war with communistic totalitarianism is a pro- gram which will result in having the great majority of the nations of the world with sufficient economic development so that these people will have a decent standard of living and will be in a position to appreciate the advantages of democratic government. Tt will not be enough to send food for European recovery, to send technical experts under point 4 program to the Near East and other areas. We must understand that a free flow of goods from country to country is essential to sound economic development and economic stability. We will have to continue our reciprocal trade agreements policy. For- eign trade cannot be conditioned on a one- way street. We must permit goods to come in as well as to encourage our own exports. The nations of the world are working to- gether in a way never before known. We can be proud that it is our country which has taken the lead in this movement for world cooperation. We have backed the United Nations. We have shared our eco- nomic w2alth with other freedom- and peace- loving nations, and many of us feel we must go even further. In the Congress of the United States there are many Members and Senators who are working for an Atlantic union and, eventually, for a world federa- tion. Those of us in this group know that only by such close cooperation can the world have peace. Peace is the major concern of the world today. The alternatives are peace or destruc- tion, and peace can be achieved only through good will, only through a real understand- ing of the basic principle of the Christian ethic, only through making a day-by-day reality of the brotherhood of man, in our dealings at home between farmer and urban dweller, hetween labor and management, and in our dealings abroad with other nations. Today we must be practicing Christians or we must face the peiil of destruction. A Taxi Driver Believes in Peace EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- ORD, I wish to include an article by Joseph C, Harsch, which appeared in the Chris- tian Science Monitor of April 25. Mr. Harsch is chief of the Washington news bureau of the Christian Science Monitor. The article follows: Srare or re NaTIoN—A Taxi Driver Betinves In Prace (By Joseph C. Harsch) WasHINGTON.—Joseph Polowsky is a taxi driver in Chicago. He earns a living, but not exactly a princely one. Few taxi drivers do. He is like thousands of other young taxi drivers around the country in most respects, but he differs from most others in one re- spect. He takes what little money he can spare and does a curious thing with it. He pays for having an idea of his printed on paper, and he pays for mailing these sheets, on which his idea is printed, around the country to newspaper offices, and finally he comes down to Washington and spends his ‘ last penny trying to get newspapermen and Congressmen to do something about his idea on this day, April 25. He wants Congress and the United Na~ tions to pass resolutions that on April 25 appropriate cerernonies be held to commemo-~ rate the fact that on this day 5 years ago two things happened. One was the open- Ing of the San Francisco Conference of the United Nations, The other was the first meeting on the Elbe of Russian and Ameri- can troops, When Mr, Polowsky comes into your of- fice trying to persuade you to do something to help him get this day commemorated, you feel a bit embarrassed. He is so earnest. Yet, of course, he is unrealistic. Why bother to commemorate a day which so soon hag become tarnished and almost forgotten? Who wants to try to remember that 5 years ago Russian and American soldiers met each others as friends; met each other joyfully, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and thought that in their meeting might be born a new and happier world. These soldiers even took an oath on the Elbe. Let Joe Polowsky tell the circum- stances in his words: “The greetings took place in the midst of some 200 corpses of old men, women, and children. After the prelimina:: + 2¢t*" 7 the Americans and Russians 1.’ .ta ¢v at the bodies and fragments of bodies—espe- cially the body of a child with blue eyes and long brown hair clutching crayons in one hand and a doll in the other. At this historic moment * * ™“ the soldiers present—Americans and Russians—swore that they would do everything in their power to prevent such things from ever happen- ing again, swore that the nations would and must live at peace.” Joe Polowsky was just a private in that army. He was interpreter to Lt. Elbart L. Kotzebue. The lheutenant was the first man across. Private Polowsky was only the second. And perhaps his memory has over- dramatized the event. History does not re- cord that the soldiers did anything as sc- rious as taking an oath to try to prevent future wars. Private soldiers aren't sup- posed to bother with serious matters like that. And what good would it do, anyway? Since that day, everything has gone wrong with the hopes that did flicker at the time. Of course soldiers do sometimes think of an end to wars. There have been young idealists with illu- sions in every war. There was a League of Nations after 1918. Great hopes were placed in the League of Nations. They came to nothing, and then there was another war. After it Ulusions did not run quite so high. The memory of the old disillusionment was still strong. And this time the hopes have dawindled even faster than they did after 1918. Joe Polowsky is one person trying to walk up a hill while everyone else is going down it. He talks about commemorating the oath at the Elbe. The Russians aren’t thinking of anything as forgotten and out of step with the times asthat. They are trying to digest China, and planning ways of breaking Tito, and pinning medals on their fighter pilots who shot down an unarmed American plane over the Baltic Sea. The French are spending as much as we give them in Marshall aid trying to hold their colony in Indochina. The British are striving with us to keep the military power of the west abreast of the military power of Russia. Nothing could be more incongruous than to ask people to commemorate a few soldiers meeting at a river 5 years ago. I myself should be writing about matters of timely and serious import. I never should have let Joe Polowsky take up my time with his probably highly romanti- cized memories of the day he met the Rus- sians on the Elbe. Or should I? Old Stone House EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHASE GOING WOODHOUSE OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mrs. WOODHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I insert herewith two editorials regarding the Old Stone House in Georgetown. I have introduced H. R. 7722 to provide for the acquisition and maintenance of this historic structure by the Federal Government.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The editorials follow: [From the Washington Post of April 1, 1950] Otp STONE HovsE This is such a young country that any house as much as a century old has historic prestige. Even Washington, which many brash sightseers regard as an ancient city, has few remaining pre-Revolutionary build- ings. That is one reason why the Old Stone House at 3051 M Street NW. has such a strong hold on the affections of those familiar with it. Bills have now been introduced in House and Senate to have the Secretary of the In- terior acquire this landmark as part of the National Capital parks system. It would then be preserved as an example of the eighteenth century architecture and as a museum for relics and records pertaining to the early histqry of Georgetown and the city of Washington. Buut in 1764 by Christopher Lehman (or Layman), this quaint story and a half dwell- ing dates back to the days when George- town was a busy seaport and when Bridge (now M) Street was a bustling commercial thoroughfare. Many legends have grown up about it—that it was the headquarters for Pierre L’Enfant, as well as for Washington, while the Federal city was being planned, also the headquarters for the Commissioners who developed L’Enfant’s plans, that it was the model for Washington’s town house in Alexandria, that 1t was General Braddock’s headquarters. Historians discredit this last legend, argue about some of the others. But there is widespread belief that the Old Stone House was the structural birthplace of our great Federal city, that within its low- ceilinged rooms with their narrow sash window = +> Genet midwifery took place that »reaacca - “Tom Moore in 1804 called— “This embryo Capital where fancy sees Squares in morasses, obelisks in trees.” If this belief be true, then not only the Capital but the entire Nation has a vested sentiment in the Old Stone House that transcends even its architectural significance. [From the Washington Evening Star of April 19, 1950] A RELIc WorTH SAVING The little old house at CU51 M Street NW. may not have been George Washington’s headquarters while he was planning the Fed- eral city which was to bear his name. Some-~ how, it seems too small, too diminutive in its proportions, to have contained so great a man even for afew days. The same observa- tion applies to the legend that the place once sheltered Maj. Pierre L’Enfant while he was working on his drawings for the future Cap- ital. Conceivably it might have been an office for the first commissioners of the new city, but even this story fails of atiraction. Much more probably the structure was raised for and used by quite humble people. Such houses were common in the second half of the eighteenth century. Its design was standard among carpenter architects. Grace Dunlop Ecker, in her “Portrait of Old Georgetown” says the edifice in question was puilt in 1767 and was owned by Cassandra Chew. Sho cites a newspaper advertisement describing it as “the house where Mrs. Annie Smith lately dwelt, containing three rooms and a passage on the lower and three rooms on the upper floor, a large cellar and garret, a kitchen detached from the house, and a good garden.” No verification of the suggestion that Gen- eral Braddock stopped at 3051 has been found. He died as the result of wounds re- ceived in battle in western Pennsylvania in 1755 and thus antedated the little stone cot- tage by at least a dozen years. Other ro- mantic legends appear to be as inconsequen- tial. But the house still is worth saving. It has been Judged by the National Capital Parks authorities to be a relic worthy of ren- ovation, stabilization, maintenance, and preservation. Under the proper auspices it might be a museum of a sort, reflecting the common life of the period to which it be- longs. How Many Friends Do We Have? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICIIIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rzc- orD, I wish to include an editorial which appeared in the Detroit News of Satur- day, April 29, 1950: How Many Frienps Do Wr Have? Relations with Russia may well reach such a@ pass, perhaps soon, that the total break be- tween “two worlds” urged by former Presi- dent Hoover in his New York speech will have become inevitable. The fact that President Truman impul- sively phoned Mr. Hoover, presumably to con- gratulate him on his address, must be taken as significant. Russia’s boycott of the United Nations over the question of admitting Communist China already has created a situation in which the further utility of that once hope- fully regarded organization 1s open to dount. It was this perhaps that suggested to Mr. Hoover his proposal of a reorganized UN from which the Soviets would be excluded That situation itself, however, includes ele- ments showing why the course Mr. Hoover proposes needs to be examined with con- siderable caution. The democratic world is not a unit with us in our policy toward Communist China. India and Great Britain have recognized the Mao Tse-tung regime. India and Britain are important, both miltarily and politically, to our hopes of holding the Red tide in check If we are to initiate a total break with Russia before that step is made incvitable by events, it would be wise to discover first who would be with us. Mr. Hoover would leave the discovery to be made after the step has becn taken. In Western Europe, however, there is alreacy a feeling that our policy toward Russia has progressed too far beyond firmness toward belligerence. Wrong as that feeling may be, it would seem wise to take account of it. We have urgent need of the loyalty of our European allies. That loyalty cannot be purchased with dollars or guaranteed by our treaty of alliance. It will depend finally on the confidence of Europeans that our leader~- ship, steel-hard though 1t must be in op- posing Communist aggression, is nevertheless a leadership grounded on the desire for peace. The News thinks, with all due respect to Mr. Hoover, that it had better be left to Rus- sla to be first to blast the world’s hopes that peace yet can be achieved on some acceptable basis. Demonstrate Neighborliness EXTENSION OF REMARKS PF HON. JOHN J. ROONEY OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, Brooklyn, with its population of over 3,000,000 peo-~_ A8239 ple of every race and creed, is just as neighborly as any small town in the _ United States. Under the permission heretofore granted ms by unanimous consent of the House, I am proud to include the follow- ing editorial concerning some neighbors of mine which was published in the Brooklyn Eagle of Monday, May 1, 1950: DEMONSTRATE NEIGHBORLINESS Brooklyn can be proud of the Bay Ridge Rockets, a neighborhood football team which has demonstrated that 1t knows the meaning of both neighborliness and teamwork. Moved by the plight of an elderly Bay Ridge resident who has already had a score of transfusions and needs a great many more to withstand a major operation, the Bay Ridge Rockets arranged to donate their blood through the Brooklyn Red Cross Chapter. They went further and enlisted the Cronin- Leesha Post of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the lecal Knights of Columbus Council, and the Eighth Avenue Civic Association to join them in the mass donations. It is not the first time the Rockets have come to the aid of a neighbor. In fact, friends of Joseph Winn, the Norwegian hos- pital patient needing help so badly, turned to the Rockets for aid because last year the team made a mass donation for a 244-year-old leukemia victim about whom they had read in a newspaper story. Hugh Hayden, captain of the Rockets, the whole team, and all the neighbors who have joined them in their voluntary mercy project deserve a lot of loud, lorg cheers from their fellow Brooklynites. Effect of Imported Fuel Oil on the Coal Industry EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. M. G. BURNSIDE OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. BURNSIDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to exterd my remarks in the ReEcorp, I include letters from Mr. R. H. Smith, president of the Norfolk & West- ern Railway Co., Messrs. F. F. McIntosh, Jr., Bernard R. Hays, and R. U. Adams, the latter being persons prominent in the oil industry of my State. Norrotx & WESTERN RaiLway Co., Roanoke, Va., April 26, 1950. Hon. M. G. BURNSIDE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of April 21 relative to im- ported fuel oil and its adverse effect on the coal industry. American-produced coal is being displaced in large quantities by fuel oil, particularly along the eastern scaboard, and this situation arises principally as a result of imports of foreign oil now coming to this country at a tremendous and increasing rate. As a result coal mines are closing down, railroad traffic is falling off, and mining and trans- portation employees are out of work, The dislocations created by fuel-oil imports are weakening the fuel economy of the Nation which should remain powerful for security purposes. It is gratifying to know of your efforts to bring about remedial legislation. We, too, are doing what we can. Yours very truly, R. H. Surry, President.
A3240 McIntosH & GRIMM, Spencer, W. Va., April 29, 1950. Hon, M. G, BurRNs:Dz, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BuRNSIDE: It has come to our attention that there is a movement in Con- gress to curtail or tax the importation of foreign oil. We, here in this sec: on of West Virgimia, approve such a measure. Most people think of this State as coal producing throughout, but this 1s not the case, We aren’t in the coal mining section and can't speak for those who are. In this rugged part, we must rely on the production of oil and natural gas to sup- plement our livelihood and nearly every citi- zen is affected wholly or in part by its market and price. Nearly all of our present operations are now conducted by small independent pro~- ducers with little capital and meager reserves. Our wells are cither strippers or small pump- ers and the present price 1s about the divid- ing line between profit and loss. We can’t hope to compete with cheap foreign oils and don’t think we should be compelled to do so. Our West Vizzinie production is both oul and gas and when cr:il.* 5 a test well we don’t know whether to expect oil, gas, a little of both or, as rt yuite often happens, a dry hole. When the price of o1l is such that a profit cannot be shown from our operations, and any figure below the present price would be in that catagory, we have lost most of our incentive to explore for natural gas. There- fore the price of crude oil has a great bearing on the production of natural gas as well as crude oil. Ol and gas have not advanced with the other commodities during the past decade although drilling and producing expenses have doubled and tripled. Congress has seen fit to help other producers of natural re- sources and we appreciate that fact, but think the time is here now when we should get a lift too. Sincerely yours, F, F, McIntoswH, Jr. BeERnarp R. Hays. SISTERSVILLE, W. Va., April 25, 1950. Hon, M. G. BurNnsinez, Member of Congress, . Washington, D. C. Dear Bornte: As you well know the en~ tire county of Tyler is oil country. We pro- duce the finest quality of Pennsylvania crude oil. With the cost of material as it is, any cut in the price of oil makes it ex- tremely hard for us to operate. The unlimited importation of foreign oil would work a great hardship if not ruin us. I call your attention to the fact that ofl imports increased 23.6 percent in the last half of 1949 over the same period in 1948, I urge you to support any measure that will materially increase the tariff on oil imports. Sincerely yours, R. U. ADAMS. Arizona Admits Budget Opposes Project EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. CLAIR ENGLE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. ENGLE of California. Mr. Speak- er, the Arizona papers are extremely candid. In an editorial in the Phoenix Gazette of April 28, 1950, regarding the Central Arizona project, it was plainly stated that the Bureau of the Budget is definitely unfavorable to the central Arizona project and, more sig- nificantly, that it was only by the in- tervention of Arizona’s Senators at the White House that an adverse report was averted. The Arizona editorial further stated that the Bureau of the Budget had prepared an adverse message on the project but modified it at the Presi- dent’s request to generalities. The edi- torial in full is included for the RrEcorD and the attention of our colleagues is particularly directed to the third and fourth paragraphs. The editorial is as follows: Srt-Back FoR THE PROJECT The set-back which the Central Arizona project bill has received in the House could be serious. Delaying the vote of the Public Lands Committee until June 15 and pos- sibly later means that the project will be up for consideration at a time when Con- gressmen. are looking longingly toward home in an election year. The House calendar will be jammed and the pressure for adjourn- ment will have started. Moreover, the Public Lands vote is not the only step before the bill reaches the floor of the House. The measure must be approved and scheduled by the Rules Committee, which is dominated by economy-mindedness to an unusual degree at the present time and would thus be vulnerable to California propaganda about the cost of the project. On top of these complications is the like- lihood that the Bureau of the Budget will return a definitely unfavorable report on the project in answer to the resolution which California’s Representative ENcGLE maneu-~ vered through the Public Lands Committee yesterday. Only by the intervention of Arizona’s Sen- ators at the White House was such a report averted earlier this month. Washington sources say that the Budget Bureau had pre~ pared an adverse message on the project but modified it at Mr. Truman’s request into generalities which could be interpreted as favoring either side in the controversy. Rep- resentative ENncLe’s resolution, confronting the Bureau with a number of specific ques- tions, is cbviously an attempt to force a re- port which will present the Bureau’s origi- nal reaction to the project. The Engle resolution was passed blindly by the Public Lands Committee. Not until after the vote had been taken was a request made that the full draft be read. It is im- possible to say whether revelation of the extent of delay, contained in the last para- graph, might have altered the vote enough to kill the resolution. There is no doubt, however, that California has struck a tricky and upsetting blow, A Needed Move EXTENSION OF REMARES OF HON. FREDERIC R. COUDERT, JR. OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. COUDERT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include an editorial appearing in the New York Herald Tribune of March 24, 1950: A NerEDED Movr Nothing can grow up more irrationally and with less conscious purpose than a tax sys- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tem. As needs arise new fiscal devices are resorted to: one expedient is piled on top of another, until the whole structure can oppress and overwhelm a free people. By the same token, no complex of measures is so difficult to unravel and to reduce to lucid and manageable proportions Representa- tive FrepEric R. CoupErt, Jr., has announced that he will move in the House for a non- partisan commission to study and recom- mend a plan of revision for the Federal tax structure. It is a project which deserves en- couragement. Mr. CouverT is particularly concerned with the tendency of the Federal Government to monopolize the taxing power, turning back to the States sums which have been to a measurable degree eaten away in the process of handling. With the return to the States of their traditional taxing authority goes a return of the powers of Government which have been surrendered or usurped; and serv- ices, as he says, are then performed locally under the eyes of the citizen and the voter, and * * * are bound to be more effi- ciently administered.” Unfortunately there are some who disagree with this eminently sound analysis and objective; yet with.1 both parties there are surely men who will be ready to get back to tax fundamentals. Such a nonpartisan commission as Mr. Counrrr is proposing could form. the basis of a fresh ap- preciation of what constitutes efficient and responsible Government in this country. We hope that he finds stanch allies in his work, Business, Not Government, Kills Free Enterprise EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. RAYMOND W. KARST OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. KARST. Mr. Speaker, my atten- tion has been called to an editorial in the Machinist of April 13, 1950, which I am extending below. It is too bad that every large- and small-business man in our country does not have the opportu- nity to read this article, which portrays the attempted movement of big business against small business to hinder free en- terprise by attempting to place the blame on the functions of our Government. The editorial follows: Business, Nor GOVERNMENT, Kitis Free ENTERPRISE There are two ways to keep prices within reason. One is Government control; the other, free competition, We in America be- lieve in free competition or free enterprise, as a lot of people call it. Back before the be- ginning of our century, Congress passed an anti-trust law to protect our free-enterprise system by preventing industry from falling into the hands of a few giant corporations. The anti-trust laws were supposed to pro- tect small business and to give the maximum opportunity to new firms entering any in- dustry, Today, these anti-trust laws are dying. Big pusiness—including most of the men who talk loudest about protecting our American way of life—are killing free enterprise. In the past 3 years, big business in the United States has made every possible effort to stifle price competition and to free itself from the antitrust laws, This postwar drive by the big corporations began in the Eightieth Congress. When the
. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD smoke cleared, two giant industries had won complete exemption—insurance and trans- portation. It is now legal for insurance com- panies and the railroads to agree among themselves to eliminate competitive prac- tices. In industries which are supposedly still covered by the anti-trust laws, violations are common. The Department of Justice does a gocd job with the tools it commands. However, the penalty is small for a business firm convicted for destroying competition (and our free-enterprise system). Price fix- ing agreement and illegal suppression of competition add millions to corporation profits. The fine, when the company is caught, amounts to only a few thousand dollars. Even here, in many cases, the fines are imposed, not on the officers of the com- pany, but upon the corporation itself and are charged off as a business expense. Notwithstanding, the big corporations are not content. This week they hope to jam through the Senate the O’Mahoney bill which if passed will virtually finish the job of free- ing big business from the antimonopoly laws. This bill in substance wipes off the statute books a law intended to protect small busi- mess from price discrimination. Several hundred thousand small businessmen have fought this bill. Organized labor, including the IAM has backed their fight. If the free-enterprise system is disappear- ing in this country, big business and its sup- porters in Congress, who are amending away the anti-trust laws, are responsible. It is the same old story of greedy men killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Cincinnati First in Fire Prevention EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES H. ELSTON OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. ELSTON. Mr. Speaker, the thir- ty-eighth annual meeting of the Cham- ber of Commerce of the United States, currently under way here in the Nation’s Capital, included in its program today the cenferring of a significant honor upon the people of Cincinnati. I know that the Members of this body will join with me in recognizing that honor as a singular achievement in civic Cincin- nati’s great history. Of all of the cities in the United States participating in the fire prevention con- test of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the record achieved by Cincinnati in 1949 was judged outstand- ing. At a general session of the annual meeting this morning the grand award in fire prevention was presented to repre- sentatives of the people who merited this honor. Last year, therefore, Cincinnati was No. 1 in fire prevention in the Nation. Let me say that I consider it a great privilege to live in a community that has so ably demonstrated its awareness of a problem that grows with each passing year. Fire losses over the Nation are mounting and the annual toll in lives and property damage is staggering. An ef- fective fire-prevention program is the one defense that can stop the havoc wrought by fire. Quite obviously the people of Cincinnati are aware of the problem and with expert leadership they have carried on the most skillful kind of fire prevention program. Fire prevention in Cincinnati is a co- operative civic effort. Through the ef-~ forts of the city’s fire prevention bu~ reau and the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce Fire Prevention Committee, clubs and organizations, schools and churches, and newspapers and radio sta- tions, each and every resident is invited to participate in a program to reduce fire lesses. The honor being given them to- day recognizes this achievement, and I am privileged to bring it to the attention of the Congress and the country. Jomt Committee on Fuel Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, con- tinuing my efforts to assist the coal in- dustry in regaining its lost markets, I have introduced this date the following House concurrent resolutions which are self-explanatory. The Joint Congressional Committee on Fuel Policy to be created by this leg. islation is in no way related to Presi- dent Truman’s proposal for a congres- sional investigation of the coal industry, particularly its labor-management af- fairs. My resolution is designed to provide a national policy on the use of all fuels including coal, oil, and natural gas, and at the same time to determine our na- tional reserves of such fuels. A study will also be made by the Joint Congressional Committee on Fuel Policy of the Government’s policy of subsidiz- ing fuel substitutes such as hydropower projects as well as the importation of foreign oil. The resolutions are as follows: House Concurrent Resolution — Concurrent resolution to establish the Joint Committee on Fuel Policy Resolved, etc., That there is hereby created a joint congressional committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Fuel Policy (here- in referred to as the “committee”’) which shall be composed of the members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the Senate and the members of the Com- mittee on Public Lands of the House of Rep- resentatives. The committee shall select a ‘chairman from among its members. Src. 2. The committee is authorized and directed (1) to make a full and complete in- vestigation and study of the available fuel reserves of the United States and the present and probable future rates of consumption thereof; (2) to formulate a national fuel pol- icy to meet the needs of the United States in times of peace and war, such policy to include the use of all fuels and energy re- sources except atomic energy; (3) to study and recommend methods of encouraging de- velopments to assure the availability of fuels adequate for an expanding economy and the ‘security of the United States; and (4) to report to the Senate and to the House at the earliest practicable date, not later than Sep- ‘tember 15, 1950, the results of its investiga~ A3241 tion and study together with its recom- mendations. Src. 3. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this resolution, the commit- tee or any subcommittee thereof— (1) is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times and places within or outside the United States, whether or not the Congress or either House thereof is in session, has adjourned, or has recessed, to hold such hearings, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, corres- pondence, memoranda, papers and docu- ments, and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary; and subpenas shall be is- sued over the signature of the chairman of the committee or by any member designated by him, and may be served by any person designated by such chairman or member; and {2) may utilize the services, information, facilities, and personnel of the various de- partments and agencies of the Government to the extent that such services, information, facilities, and personnel, in the opinion of such departments and agencies, can be fur- nished without undue interference with the performance of *"1e work and duties of such departments and agencies. House Concurrent Resolution — Concurrent Resolution to provide for the expenses of carrying out House Concurrent Resolution — Resolved, etc., That the expenses of car- rying out the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution —, incurred by the Joint Com- mittee on Fuel Policy, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, not to exceed $100,000, in- cluding expenditures for the employment of experts, assistants and other employees, and all expenses necessary for travel and sub- sistence incurred by members and employ- ees while engaged in the activities of the committee or any subcommittee thereof, shall be paid one-half from the contingent fund of the Senate and one-half from the contingent fund of the House of Representa- tives on vouchers signed by the chairman of the committee. Disbursements shall be made by the Clerk of the House of Representatives out of the contingent fund of the House of Representatives, such contingent fund to be reimbursed from the contingent fund of the Senate in the amount of one-half of the dis- bursement so made. Small Business Conventions—Big Busi- ness Often Masquerades as Small Busi- ness—Small Business Is Not Neces- sarily Independent Business—Small Business Concerns Often Dependent on One or Two Customers, or One or Two Suppliers—Decline in Number of Small Manufacturers—Article by Ernest H. Gaunt EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WRIGHT PATMAN OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ‘ Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, Wash- ington has been witnessing recently a number of small business conventions. It might be indelicate for me to mention the names of the “small business” or- ganizations which have sponsored these
A3242 conventions. The Select Committee on Small Business recently issued a study cn small-business organizations indicat- ing that often they are in the pay of big business—including at least one of the organizations which recently met in con- vention. However, I would like to refer to an article published in 1938 entitled “Hiow Independent Is Small Business?”, writ- ten by Ernest H. Gaunt, a sincere friend of small business. With the change of a few words the article might have been written in April 1950. The article fol- lows: How INDEPENDENT Is SMALL BUSINESS? (By Ernest H. Gaunt) Very few of Secretary Roper’s “700 Dwarfs” who met in Washington on February 2-3, seemed to lay much stress on the need for independence in their business. Many ¢x- pressed the sentiment that all they needed was to “make a profit.’ Some asked to be ‘Jet alone” but almost in the same breath asked for Government loans or tariffs. The result of the Washington conference was not “the voice of smaller business.” Because there were many minds there were many voices—some the voice of big business speaking through minnows who wished to become pike, as in Jerome Davis’ story. And those who went to Washington were not typi- cal or representative of the 1,800,000 small businesses 6° the country. Retailers, who have the largest number of small establish- ments in the country, were not adequately represented. There are more retail establish- ments than all others combined—manufac- turers, wholesalers, service establishments, places of amusement, hotels, and construc- tion industry. Some people look upon re- tailers as the “real” small-business man. This view, while not strictly true, is worthy of consideration by those accustomed to think in terms of manufacturing or whole- saling or construction where business runs in big dollar volume, even in “small” busi- ness. There are 10 times as many retailers as manufacturers, 10 times as many retailers as wholesalers. Although one-half of all re- tailers employ no other person or only part- time workers, their total employees are more than one-half the employees of manufactur- ing establishments and more than three times the employees of wholesalers, Eighty-seven percent of retailers still re- main independent, and these independents employ almost twice as many workers as the stores which are not independent—the chains, utility operated stores, direct selling, commissaries, and other types. The multi- unit independents have half the number of stores that chains have, and employ one third the number of persons. The Washington gathering was not rep- resentative of geographical sections. Despite all of the above-mentioned lack of propor- tional, typical or geographical representa~ tion, the conference was of great significance in American economic history, It was the first political recognition in our history of small-business enterprisers as a separate class. It is now being followed by economic recognition, because small-business men are the majority in numbey of all businessmen in the United States. Ninety-seven percent of the business organizations in our country employ less than 250 people each. Sixty~ eight percent of manufacturers employ less than 20 each. Forty-five percent of inde- pendent retailers employ 15 persons or less, The big-business man and the “minnow” now say: “Then why all this disturbance and rabble-rousing?” The answer is that the 8 percent (in number) of businesses employ- ing more than 260, have been dominating the American business system for 50 years with increasing control—making its cus- toms, and making the Nation’s laws affect- ing business, including taxation and bank~ ing and credit, and finally making the mess into which all of us were brought in 1929, Will this 3-percent tail continue to wag the 97-percent dog? When the French small-business men of 1789 (the bourgeoi- sie) who were almost entirely retailers, bec me class-conscious and organized, the economic and political royalty and big busi- ness of that day took them into camp. But something yet remained seriously wrong in the French economic system. The French small-business men stopped their broader thinking when their own wants were tempo~ rarily satisfied, and they left the workers and consumers as the forgotten men. The Fronch workers and consumers took the play away from the small-business men. Then followed the dictatorship. This bit of history may not be repeated in the United States because the smaller-busi- ness men of the United States in 1938 are better educated than were the French smaller-business men of 1789. But on the other hand, even if farmers are counted as businessmen, and most certainly they should be, today probably as big or even a bigger percentage of all citizens in the United States are dependent upon a centrally controlled economic system, as were the French citi- zens of 1789 dependent upon a centrally controlled political system which messed up the economic system of that day. Much depends upon the degree of inde- pendence of small business in the United States. Many small manufacturing concerns are so dependent upon some one or two large customers as practically to belong to those large customers. Seven thousand small manufacturing concerns are said to depend almost entirely on the Ford Motor Co. for orders. Many small manufacturing com- panies sell a large part of their product through agencies owned or controlled by their big competitors; other small manufactur- ing enterprises depend upon patents owned by their big competitors; some small manu- facturing establishments must buy nearly all their raw materials or goods from one or two large suppliers; and many depend for credit or loans upon one source. No accurate- study has been made of the growth of dependency of small manufactur- ing companies. The United States census classifies as “independeats” and “other inde- pendents,” the retailers, wholesalers, service establishments, places of amusement, hotels, and consiruction industry. It does not so classify manufacturers, , Possibly one result of the coming investigation of monopoly by the Senate Judiciary Committee will be to disclose this dependency. But this growth has been apparent, without statistics, within the past 50 years. One who has been in close touch with many manufacturers for 40 years, and who has studied this question for 25 years, believes that perhaps one-half of our manufacturing establishments are so greatly CGcpendent upon big business for existence as virtually to be branches of big business. No Jess than 45 years ago, when this coun-~ try had a population of only 64,000,000, there were more than 855,000 separate manufac- turing concerns in existence in the United States, and nearly all of them were independ~ ent, Today, with a population that has nearly doubled, there are less than 210,000 manufacturing establishments in this coun- try, and perhaps one-half or more of these are not independent. Moreover, although the bulk of small manufacturing establishments still employ less than 20 persons, there has been a great loss in recent years in the number of these smaller establishments employing less than 20, and a gain in proportion to the total of those employing more than 20. The United States Census formerly listed small hand and neighborhood industries, These are APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD peing revived in many parts of the country, with the use of modern, small, electric ma- chinery, and are a household capital-gocds industry which should have more attention— not only more attention, but possibly most attention, as a possible solution of our cen- tralization mess. Many who have knowledge of what Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Borsodi have done 1n Suffern, N. Y., to develop and dem- onstrate the possibilities of the home and homestead as a productive and ercative in- stitution, believe they have the answer as to the contribution which decentralized self-sufficient living in the country may make to redress the economic and psycho- logical insecurities of our industrialized civilization. The startling and rapidly accelerating trend away from independence has been partly sensed, but not fully realized, by small-busi- ness men who do not want to become de- pendent. The Washington conference gave them an opportunity to express their emo- tion. In the next 18 months it is possible that this emotion will be translated into an intelligent, purposeful study and even a re- hellion against economic dependence upon big, centralized, business and financial and credit control. Big business, labor, agriculture, and even consumers, are already organized and have started research on their particular prob~ lems as well as action in the political Meld to advance their economic class interest. Big business, though actually possessing very few votes, is closely organized for group action through its large corporations: Its 7,000 trade associations of which about 3,000 are State, interstate or national; its 4,000 chambers of commerce; its several thousand technical associations (crectit, ete.) ; bureaus, commodity and stock exchanges; its colleges of business administration. Big business had a brain trust of lawyers, accountants, sta- tisticlans, economists, professors, researchers, and others dependent upon it for fees and salaries—long before the name was invented to describe a similar group, far less well paid, of the Government. So it has been that big business has “earned” certain advantages over small business not only in the economic fleld but in the political field. And thus it hus come about that there has been big business in government, making laws, taxcs which helped big business over small business. Laws .gainst monopoly have been emas- culated in administration, so that during the past 50 years monopoly and chain stores have grown in economiic power while inde- pendent small businesses were decreasing in number and economic power. The small-business men, being rugged in- dividualists, have been slow to join together and organize their cconomic puwer—and because many of them wanted to become big, they have not rebelled against many business customs which promoted bigness and penalized smallness, such as quantity and cumulative discounts, patent control, higher rates of interest for small loans, higher cost of floating small capital issues, higher cost for small buyers of vartous kinds of insurance, lower freight rates per mile for long hauls (thus killing local, neighbor- hood, independent, small businesses) . The whole business system, with the aid of small-business men themselves, has been. rigged to strangle or starve independent small business. The business papers and newspapers and the magazines, being de- pendent upon advertising and especially national advertising—-and themselves wish- ing to become big, have catered to big business and have not published articles or made studies to enlighten small business on how to stay small and independent and yet remain profitable. Certain big business groups are now set, in 1988, to fight even the investigation of monopoly by the Sen~ ate. It fears the facts and doean't want the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “rabble” or small-business men to have those facts. Small business has been trying to play @ game under rules which favored large play- ers. It has been infected with the bigger- equals-hetter complex, and ashamed to play its cwh game. Efficiency has net been the main facior, nor quality of product, nor bene- fit to worker or consumer. But the Washington conference of small- business men and women started a new trend. Small business has in recent months organized 12 national groups, out of which will probably come one or two strong na- tional groups. Many regional, State, and local groups of small business have sprung up since the Washington conference. These grours are “-~"~--‘~7 to see clearly those in- terests of ~.. ; !+.+ which are not iden- tical with those of big business. Soon small business may have a brain trust of its own, rultiestion of 1ts own, and schools and re~ ote te. .. to Its interest—if, and only if, small-business men discover the prime im- portance of worwinr ie doeereen* or re gaining theis 2 ..‘“ineséc Sri" busi- nesses dependent for their existence upon large companies and not wishing to remain dependent, will have no interest im nor need for any knowledge except that provided for them by their big providers. All that such small companies will need will be to do as they are told. But mere organization will not accomplish this regaining of control by independent small business. It will need to know its own mind, in too many cases the minnow-to-pike mind, or one with a philosophy of central- ization. Everything bigger was thought to be better. The story by Jerome Davis is that the slow-thinking minnows who lived in a pond with cannibalistic pike finally discov- ered that their number was rapidly being de- pleted by the quicker-thinking and quicker- acting pike. So the minnows organized, called a convention, and appointed a commit- tee to call on the pike. The pike heard the committee and said: “All right. We'll make an agreement with you that we will allow one out of every thousand minnows to become a pike.” The committee was overjoyed and so were all the other minnows. But the slow- thinking minnows again woke up to the fact that they were not pike. The story does not tell what the minnows finally did about it. In our human world, maybe organized small business will have an answer. Those who want to be independent will be given moral and political support by workers and consumers who believe that big business, and too much dependence on it, has brought about our bitterly needless ugly civilization, our centralization of population and wealth with its resulting slums and recurrent boom and bust, our scarcity in the midst of easily potential plenty. The majority of workers and consumers, when face-to-face with the evils of concentration and loss of economic freedom, as now, will realize that economic independence goes hand in hand with economic freedom. The rapidly grow- ing number of consumers’ cooperatives in the United States are fully awake to this truth. The organized workers are studying eco- nomics as never before, and are partly awake to this truth. The habit of political action and the pleasure of it as a game is strong among small-business men, and the groups now or- ganizing have thought first of political ac- tion as an answer to their problems. But except for repeal of such laws as have placed artificial economic hobbles on independent small business—in taxes, credit, and en- couragement of monopoly—the small-busi-< mess man who wants to be really inde- pendent will not lean on Government nor upon big business. The new associations of small business have a tendency at present to political, top- down, national action. But there are a mumber of thinking small-business men who believe that stable prosperity will be best promoted from the bottom, by demon- strating in the economic field in their own localities how small business may he kept or made independent, stable and prosperous. For example, if local banks are sending their funds to big cities where they are loaned to big business at low rates, while loans to local independent small businesses are not made on sound collateral, including char- acter, or if made, are at much higher rates than to big business, often twice or three ‘times as high—cannot local independent small-business men and their friends start a new local bank to serve local small busi- ness? Consumers and workers have shown the way to do this by starting their own credit unions. Big business could not con-~ tinue its banks 1f it had only its own money in them. Big business uses other people’s money, the deposits of small-business men, of consumers and workers. Local groups of independent small busi- ness can also study why certain industries once existing in their locality, including wheat and corn growing and milling, butter and cheese making, have passed out. If the reason for the disappearance of these small neighborhood industries was an artificial one, a return to sound, natural conditions would bring the return of these local in- dustries, more employment, and more local trade. This return of employment to localities and small industries could solve the unem-~ ployment problem, and permanently. Big business, even 1f operated at 1928-29 capac- ity, could only scratch the surface of unemployment. Such a study can best be made in a small locality, and the remedy is often to be found by local cooperative action of the inde- pendent individuals and businesses con- cerned. Too much looking to large groups or whole industries for facts and the cure is like “letting George do it,” when it can best be done in small units, and by eco- nomic action rather than political action. If the action required is State-wide or na- tional, or if political, then the best action for each locality is a common understand- ing in that locality as to what is best for small independent business in that locality, and an organization for economic purposes of these independents. A firm and unmis- takable and organized pressure on the political representatives of that locality in State or national legislatures, to work for remedial legislation, requires a local organi- zation of independent small business. Congressional Subpena Upon the President EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD BOLLING OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, in the March 1950 issue of the Journal of the Missouri Bar, there appears a very ex- cellent article entitled “Congressional Subpena Upon the President.” The au- thor of this very important study of a fundamental principle in American gov- ernment is the Honorable Rufus Burrus, a distinguished citizen of Independence, Mo., and the president of the Missouri bar. A3243 Under the unanimous consent granted me I include the article herewith: CONGRESSIONAL SUBPENA UPON THE PRESIDENT (By Rufus Burrus, of Independence, presi- dent of the Missouri bar) A school boy in America is first taught in study of his country’s government, that the powers of government are separated and jealously guarded in the Constitution of the United States. They are termed legislative, judicial, and executive. It would seem that the Senate of the United States would be the last to fail to recognize this fundamental principle. It should also be the first to guard against encroachment of one on the other, even if it be the legislative upon either one or the other. Senator Homer Fercuson, of Michigan, however, proposed an amendment to a reso- lution pending before the Senate pertaining to investigations by one of the Senate com- mittees, which is in clear violation of the independence of each of the three separate branches of the Government. The language is as follows: “In the conduct of this study and investi- gation, the committee is directed to procure, by subpena, and examine the complete loyalty and employment files and records of all the Government employees in the Depart- ment of State and such other agencies against whom charges have been heard.” (ConGRESSIONAL RECorD, Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2144, column 1; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2148, columns 2 and 8, and p. 2149, columns 1 and 2.) “Is not that the committee should make a request, but that it is authorized to issue asubpena.” (CONGRESSIONAL REConD, p. 2145, column 2.) Senator Knowranp had said just before that discussion that the Ferguson amend- ment was being pressed “so that we can find out whether the executive branch of the Government 1s going to comply with the sub- pena of the United States” (p. 2143, col- umn 3). If, said Knowtanp, the executive branch does not comply with the subpena, “then the Congress of the United States, in the exercise of its responsibilities under the Constitution, may be forced to take such other steps as are necessary with the power it has under the Constitution.” . There is abounding precedents in the ac- tions of the highest authorities, beginning with President Washington, that the incum- bent of the Presidency cannot be forced by the legislative through the means of a sub- pena, or otherwise. No President can obey his oath of office if he casts aside all prece- dents, obeys such a subpena as proposed by the Senate, in the face of an abundance of legal opinions to the contrary. Such opin- ions have been penned by the greatest of American lawyers and have been adhered to by the greatest of our Presidents. That such @ subpena is unconstitutional is demon- strated by the following excerpts: PRESIDENTS WHO ESTABLISHED THIS DOCTRINE IN THE FIRST CENTURY OF OUR NATIONAL EXIST= ENCE 1796: George Washington refused papers to the House (Richardson, Messages and Pa- pers of the Presidents, vol. 1, pp. 194, 196—. hereafter cited simply as Richardson). 1825: James Monroe refused papers to the House (Richardson, vol. 2, p. 278). 1833: Andrew Jackson refused papers to the Senate (Richardson, vol. 8, p. 36). 1885: Andrew Jackson refused papers to i) (Richardson, vol. 3, pp. 182 and 133). 1843: John Tyler refused papers to the House (Richardson, vol. 4, pp. 105-106, 221— 223). 1886: Grover Cleveland supported his At- torney General’s refusal to comply with Sen- ate resolution calling for papers.
A3244 QUOTATIONS OF VIEWS EXPRESSED BY VARIOUS PRESIDENTS WHO SERVED PRIOR TO THE CUR- RENT PERIOD George Washington: “The nature of fore eign negotiations requires caution, and their success must‘often depend on secrecy; and even when brought to a conelusion a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated, would be ex- tremely impolitic; for this aight have a per- niclous influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers. * * * To cdmit, then, a right in the House of Representatives to demand and to have as a matter of course all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power would establish a dangerous prece- dent. * * * As it is essential to the due administration of the Government that the poundaries fixed by the Constitution be- tween the different departments should be preserved, a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office * * * forbids a compliance with your request.” (Rich- ardson, vol. 1, pp. 198, 194, 195, 196, Mar. 30, 1796.) George Washington, Farewell Address: “The habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine them- selves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the pow- ers of one department to encroach upon an- other. The spirit of encroachment tends to, consolidate the powers of all the depart- ments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a repeal despotism.” (Richardson, vol. 1, p. 211.) John Tyler: “A mass of vague, incoherent, and personal matter would be made public at a vast consumption of time, money, and trou- ble without accomplishing or tending in any manner to accomplish, as it appears to me, any useful object con~ected with a sound and constitutional administration of the Government in any of its branches. “In my Judgment a compliance with the resolution which has been transmitted to me would be a sutrender of duties and pow- ers which the Constitution has conferred ex- elusively on the Executive, and therefore such compliance cannot be made by me nor by the heads of departments by my direc- tion.” (Richardson, vol. 4, pp. 105-106.) Wiliam Howard Taft (after his Presidency, and before his Chief Justiceship): “The President is required by the Constitution from time to time to give to Congress infor- mation on the State of the Union * * *, But this does not enable Congress or either House of Congress to elicit from him confi- dential information which he has acquired for the purpose of enabling him to discharge his constitutional duties, if he does not deem the disclosure of such information prudent or in the public interest.” (The Chief Magis~ trate, published In 1916, p. 129.) VIEWS OF A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE In 1879, the House Judiciary Committee reported to the House supporting the consti-~ tutional doctrine here under discussion, saying: “Fhe Executive is as independent, as either House of Congress is independent of him, and they cannot call for the records of his action or the action of his officers against his consent, any more than he can call for any of the journals and records of the House or Senate * * *, “This mischief of the House calling for documents miight easily be a very great one * * ¥*, Somebody must judge upon this point. It clearly cannot be the House or its committee * * , The head of the executive department * * * must be the judge * ” . ATTORNEYS GENERAL HAVE CONSISTENTLY TAKEN THIS VIEW AND SO ADVISED HOUSES OF CON~ GRESS AND THE PRESIDENT The following include distinguished hold- ers of the chief legal position in the Govern- ment, including Republicans of stature, and two Democrats of conservative reputation, one of them (McReynolds, of Tennessee) subsequently a Justice of the Supreme Court, and the other (Gregory, of Texas) one of the greatest holders of that office throughout the Nation’s history, particularly for his support of the Constitution and the American pohti- cal system. 1904: Knox to the House (April 27). 1908: Bonaparte to the House (April 18). 1912: Wickersham to the House (March 18). 1914: McReynolds to the President (Au-~ gust 28). 1915: Gregory to the Senate (February 23). 1926: Sargent to the House Judiciary Com- mittee (June 8), (The above citations besides appearing in the CoNGRESSIONAL REcorD and committee hearings appear in Opinions of the Attorney General, vol. 40, pp. 47-48.) COURT DISCUSSION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS 1. United States Supreme Court in Kilbourn v. Thompson (108 U. S. 168, 190): “It is be- lieved to be one of the chief merits of the American system of written constitutional law, that all the powers entrusted to gov- ernment, whether State or national, are di- vided into the three grand departments, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. That the functions appropriate ‘to each of these branches of government shall be vested in a separate body of public servants, and that the perfection of the system required that the lines which separate and divide these departments shall be broadly and clearly defined. It is also essential to the suc- cessful working of this system that the per- sons entrusted with power in any of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers ce:liaed to .he others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be limited to the exercise of the powers appro- priate to its own department and no other’.” 2. State courts agree; e. g., Pennsylvania court in Appeal of Hartranft (85 Pa. 483, 445, reading: “* * * We had better at the outstart recognize the fact, that the execu- tive department is a coordinate branch of the Government, with power to judge what should or should not be done, within its own department, and what of its own doings and communications should or should not be kept secret, and that with it, in the exercise of these constitutional powers, the courts have no more right to interfere, than has the executive, under like conditions, to interfere with the courts.” AMERICAN WRITERS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WHO EXPLAIN AND APPROVE THE DOCTRINE, 8. Willoughby, The Constitutional Law of the United States ((1929), p. 1488 et seq.) Mason, Congressional Demands upon the Executive for Information, 5 Papers of the American Historical Association ((1891), p. 83). Eberling, Congressional ((1928), p. 282). Finley and Sanderson, The American Ex. ecutive and Executive Methods ((1908), pp. 199-200, 246-265). Corwin, The President: Office and Powers ((1941), pp. 218-214, 281). Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America ((1829), pp. 171~- 172). Luce, Legislative Problems ((1985), pp. 466-467) . The following is quoted from American Executives and Executive Methods: Investigations APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “The President has always exercised a dis< cretion as to giving or withholding informa- tion. upon the request of either House for it. Thus, President Washington declined to communicate to the House of Representa- tives the correspondence relating to the British treaty. President Jackson, in 1833, withheld certain pending matters relating to the Maine boundary dispute; President Tyler, in 1842, declined to lay before the House of Representatives the condition of the same affair. President Polk, in 1845, in like manner withheld information from the Senate as to the pending proceedings for the annexation of Texas, and in 18438, de- clined to lay before the House the instruc- tions given as to the negotiations of the treaty with Me:ico. President Fillmore de- clined to comply with a request of the Senate made in legislative session for information as to negotiations with the Sandwich Islands. President Buchanan declined to lay before the Senate the correspondence relating to the slave ship Wanderer, and President Lin- coln, likewise, declined on March 26, 1861, to communicate Major Anderson’s dispatches from Fort Sumter. These instances are re- ferret)» cs examples of & general practice.” The American Executive and Executive Meth- ods. Finley ((1908), pp, 199, 200). Also, chapter XVII, “The Civil Service” (pp. 246 to 265). “Official communications made by a head of departments when made in the discharge of duties imposed upon him by law, are privi- leged on grounds of public policy * ™* *” (Spalding v. Vilos (162 U. S. 483 (1890))). “Heads of departments, in the exercise of @ sound discretion, may decline to furnish communications or papers in their custody in response to legal process; they would be justified in representing to the Court that upon public consideration they decline to furnish them. The administration of jus- tice is only part of the conduct of the affairs of any State or nation, and is, with respect to the production or nonproduction of pa- pers from the files of an executive depnart- ment, subject to the general welfare of the rt aaa (Devens, 15 Atty. Gen. Op. 15). And Executive regulations prescribing rules as to the production or nonproduction of such doctmnents have been sustained (Booke v. Commingore (177 U. 8. 459 (1899))). Page 264, American Executive and Execu- tive Methods, Finley. This action of the Ferguson-Knowland- McOarthy group in demanding all the files of the President and the State Department, pertaining to so-called loyalty investigations is especially a violation of the precedents above set out. Further it would seem that even without this authority the legislature should, for the sake of secrecy and interna- tional security roasons, refrain from open- ing up those flles to anyone. Would the Senators think of subpenaing the files of a fleld commander in command of an army, and ask to see his plans of bat- tle or defense, or the records of traininy of his command, or the data concerning those in lesser commands? While our country io not at war, in the sense we are in hot combat, the Senators as well as all others recognize we a > in a cold war which is of necessity largely carried on by the State Department under the direc~ tion of the President. The President should be at liberty to say what information will or will not be pro- duced for an investigating committee, so as not to disclose those secrets that would ha @ & pernicious influence on future negotia~ tions, or create a situation of danger and mischief, in relation to other activities which are contemplated or being carried on.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Prospecting in 1950 EXTENSION OF REMARKS KON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orD, I wish to include an article by Har- lan Trott, which appeared in a recent issue of the Christian Science Monitor. PROSPECTING IN 1950 (By Harlan Trott) WASHINGTON.—Lately there’s been a lot of talk about the Nation’s dwindling natural resources. We seem to be overtaxing our mineral wealth. Two costly World Wars have brought an ominous scraping sound on the bottoms of a number of different barrels, Known oil and gas reserves are said to have shrunk to 20 or 80 years’ remaining supply. The shining metropolis of Manhat- tan has taken to water rationing within the last year. Again Uncle Sam’s insatiable scoop is grat- ing on the bottom boards. Right now it’s iron. The Celler committee’s monopoly study is currently focused on testimony by major steel interests showing that there’s only enough high-grade ore left in Minnesota’s famous Mesabi Range for another 10 years at the present rate of depletion. According to these steel experts, industry must develop other sources of iron ore before 1960 to keep steel output going. Minnesota’s failing supply of rich iron ore imposes some tremendous decisions on the steel industry, and on Congress, too. The big steel companies have acquired large tracts of excellent iron ore in Venezuela and Labrador. Proven deposits in Labrador amount to 400,000,000 tons. The Venezuelan deposits mount up to at least a billion tons. In both countries the ore is said to assay higher than 50 percent iron. But the trans- portation problem is terrific. American steel interests want Congress to authorize the $400,000,000 St. Lawrence sea- way project to provide the cheapest trans- portation link between these two iron ore regions and the iron and steel mills in the Great Lakes area. The Venezuela deposits are 2,400 miles away; Labrador’s are 800 miles nearer. Steel spokesmen say they must build a railroad in Labrador before the ore can be developed. It will take $200,000,000 and 5 years to build. The problem does not stop there. Minne- sotans are asking what about their tacon- ite—the low-grade ore assaying about 85 per- cent iron—which is more abundant than the dwindling wealth of the Mesabi Range? Concurrently in another House hearing room, a subcommittee on mines and mining was urged this week to enact a bill intro- duced by Representative Frrp MARSHALL, Democrat, of Minnesota, providing a modest sum for research and development of peat. Fuel and power’ technologists testified that the peat bogs of Minnesota offer a practical source of fuel for local power plants. Development of Minnesota’s taconite de- pends on cheap electricity. Leopold Pisner, St. Paul power-plant builder, testified that taconite requires extensive grinding for proper separation, which means using enor- mous quantities of power. He said it is not economically feasible to grind a low-grade ore with coal shipped to Minnesota from the eastern bituminous fields. The original mine cost of coal multi- plies several times over, due to the long rail and water shipment and rehandling. XCVI—App.——205 The feasibility of drying and processing peat for use under power-station boilers is tied in with the development of peat by- products. Dr. Derso Shybekay, a peat tech- nologist, listed synthetic rubber, acetates for nylon, and hydrogen and newsprint among the latent chemical values of peat. The ramifications brought out in these - current congressional hearings are fascinat- ing. They dramatize the technological chal- lenge confronting us if we are to surmount the complex problems posed by our waning natural resources, The big decisions facing industry and Con- gress demand big imaginations and the same Kind of daring as that which lured the pio- neers and prospectors into having a first look at the Nation’s untapped natural re- sources a century ago. The New England Economy—1950 Model EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following address by Joseph A. Erickson, president, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, at the New England congressional dinner of 1950, Washing- ton, D. C., May 2, 1950: Tue New EnGcianp Economy—1950 MoprEn I am going to give you tonight another chapter in the continued story of New Eng- land's economic progress. New England, like the Nation, reached its first postwar peak in 1948. We lost ground from the latter half of 1948 until the middle of last year, when recovery got under way in the nondurable goods industries which had been the first to slip down. Recovery began later in the durable goods industries. At the bottom, we had gone a long way down. in our manufacturing industries, but we have now recovered much of the ground that we lost last year. During the last 3 months, new orders received by manu- facturers have increased, and especially in. the durable goods industries. The pickup in new orders has been espcially pronounced in television and other electronic apparatus. Construction is booming—the value of contracts let in the 3 months ending in February was more than 75 percent higher than it was for the same 3 months last year, and contracts let last year amounted to 6 percent more than they did in 1948. Department-store sales so far this year are at about the same level as they were last year, but because prices are lower this year, the volume of goods being moved must be above last year’s level. New England depart- ment-store sales last year were better main- tained in comparison with sales in 1948 than they were in the Nation, and this better per- formance has continued so far this year. New England’s shoe production has shown its heels to its national competition. Last year our production ran 2 percent ahead of that in 1948 compared with a loss of 1.5 percent in the Nation. So far this year, New ‘England production is ahead of that for the same period last year and continues to gain at faster than the national rate. Nonmanufacturing industries continue to hold up well, employing about as many as ‘they did in 1948. The growth of new manufacturing firms ‘in New England during the past 5 years has been large. There were 5,000 more manufac- A3245 turing firms in business in the spring of 1949 than in the spring of 1944, a gain of 23 percent. Lest you be misled by the optimistic fig- ures, however, let me hasten to point out that recovery is not complete. As of Feb- ruary of this year, New England manufactur- ing, while it had gained since the low point of July 1949, was short of the February 1948 peak by 14 percent, or about 220,000 jobs. New England’s position in manufacturing has worsened relative to the Nation; our posi- tion, 14 percent below the February 1948 level in employment, contrasts with a national figure which was lower by 8.7 percent. The difficulties experienced by New England industry during last year’s recession give new interest to a longer-range look at the pros- pects for New England’s economy. If past trends indicate growth—and I think that they do—then we can proceed with greater confidence to the tasKs we must undertaxe to bring about a continuing expanding regional economy. A glance at past trends is indeed reassur- ing. New England’s population has grown between 1920 and 1949 at an average rate of about 62,000 per year. Another good measure of the trend of the whole economy is the amount of income re- ceived by all its people from all sources. When we express the total income of the region in dollars having the purchasing pow-~ er that they had in the period 1935 through 1939 we find that the long-term trend of New England’s income from 1920 through 1948 represents an average gain of $153,000,- 000 per year. Examinations of the trend in retail sales, of bank deposits, of workers gain- fully employed, and other measures all point to this same conclusion: New England re- mains a growing economy with prospects for further growth. The events of last year, by showing up some obvious weaknesses in the New England economy, have had a most stim- ulating effect upon community and State groups throughout New England. There is a greater stirring to remedy our weaknesses and to seize our opportunites than we have had in many years. In the State of Maine representatives of banks and other financial institutions have organized and set up for business a unique corporation designed to finance new busi- nesses unable to obtain funds from conven-~ tional sources. This new corporation, the Maine Development Credit Corp., is financed by loans to it by member financial in- stitutions to an amount expected to be approximately a milhon dollars, half of which is already committed, This institu- tion with its limited lending power cannot be expected to revolutionize the economy of the State of Maine, but it nevertheless rep- resents a genuine achievement by its finan- cial institutions in attempting to provide within the State a lender of last resort to give careful review to new business projects. Its worth has already been shown by its placement of several loans with member in- stitutions as well as by a half dozen direct advances just made. In New Hampshire a special committee on industrial development appointed by the Governor has been hard at work appraising the State’s past, its prospects, and what might be done to promote its industrial growth. A similar committee is at work in Connecticut. In Rhode Island a State agency has been making similar studies, and in addition a special committee of representatives of finan- ‘cial institutions has recommended the estab- lishment of an industrial building corpora- tion to finance new plants in the area. In Massachusetts a representative group of manufacturers has agreed to cooperate with a study leing made by the special committee _on taxation of the question whether the bur- den of taxation in Massachusetts in com- parison with that in other competing States
A38246 puts Massachusetts manufacturers at a com- petitive disadvantage. According to a survey made by us, the proportion of manufacturers in Massachusetts who report that the State and local taxes put them at a disadvantage is larger than the proportion in any other New England State. Vermont continues to push its program of management and engineering services to new or small manufacturers. In numerous communities throughout New England groups of local businessmen and bankers have been meeting to seek means of obtaining new factory buildings and new in- dustrial employment. Such groups are at work im so many cities and towns that I shall name only a few examples: Portland, Belfast, and Waldoboro in Maine; Berlin, Na- shua, and Laconia in New Hampshire; Law- rence, Worcester, and Ware in Massachusetts; and Danbury:and New London in Connecti- cut. These groups, by raising from the com- munity a part of the capital required for a new factory building, may succeed in tapping other sources of funds which would not otherwise be available. These are encourag- ing signs indeed that New Englanders are facing up to their problems and are turning to methods of meeting them which are con- sistent with our traditional principle of self- reliance and local control. New England’s economic problems, how- ever, like its economic opportunities, are not entirely of its own making. I have become convinced on the basis of the evidence that New England has a peculiar problem in its relation to the Federal Government. Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that the Federal Government is a far more important agency for determining our des- tiny now than it has ever been before in peacetime. I am impressed with the extent to which the Congress has the control of our future opportunity within its power. This being a problem relatively new to an area which has ordinarily taken pride in its self- reliance and secured appeals in its own in- terest to the Congress, what Senator SaALTON- STALL said recently about the ‘need for some form of unity in the New England congres- sional delegation deserves the most careful attention. Senator Sauronstaun said: “We have got something in New England. But we can’t sit back and expect our industry to stay with us. We have got to fight to keep it and to get more. We have got to have unanimity to fight other sections of the country which are getting greater help from the Govern- ment than we are and who are getting our business away from us.” However much some of us may deplore the state of affairs under which we must fight in the National Congress to retain our industry and to grow, I believe thas those views are correct. In view of this situation, may I as a novice suggest a nonpartisan economic platform for New England? It is a platform based upon what appear to be economic policies within the control of Congress which would be bene~ ficial both to New England and to the Nation, There are five planks in this platform, each of which requires some explanation. First, let me give them to you in summary form. 1. New England’s interest would be served by reducing Federal expenditures. 2. New England would be benefited per-~ haps more than other reglons by revision of certain Federal tax laws on business, particularly those relating to depreciation and small business. 8. New England has suffered from the in- creased tendency of Congress to pass spe- cial interest legisiation. 4. New England’s ports suffer from dis~ crimination in land and ocean freight rates subject to the control of national regulatory bodies, 5. New England’s future economic prog- ress depends greatly upon preserving our , chinery manufacturing plants. raw the importation of advantage in materials. There are other planks that might be added to this platform but for the time being let us consider these 5 in more detail. New England’s interest would be served by reducing Federal expenditures not only because reduced expenditures would make possible reduced taxes, which in turn would stimulate economic expansion. New Eng- land’s peculiar position with respect to Fed- eral expenditures is that the areas of greatest increase 1n Federal expenditure are areas in which New England tends to be hurt more than she 1s helped. The enormous Federal expenditure for the benefit of agri- culture costs us far more than we gain from it. Similarly, vast expenditures for power, navig:tion, flood control, and reclamation projects almost invariably are made in other p rts of the country which then use the argument of cheap power as an inducement to attract our industry. Even national de-~ fense expenditures now seem to have turned strongly against our region. So long as we had a heavy naval expenditure we were in a position to get a considerable share of that expenditure in our region, but the shift to greater emphasis upon the Army and the Air Force has inevitably resulted in direct- ing that type of spending away from New England, These are but samples of the way in which growing Federal expenditures operate against New England’s interest. The proof of the pudding is to be found in the rela- tionship of Federal tax collections in New England to direct expenditures of the Fed~- eral Government in this area. Direct ex- penditures of the Federal Government which we can measure include all payments directly to in lividuals (salaries, interest on the public debt, pensions, unemployment insurance, crop support payments to farm- ers, etc.), all direct grants to State and local governments, and all payments on Gov- ernment contracts of the type subject to the Walsh-Healey Act. On this basis New Eng- land received about as much as it paid in taxes in 1929, got back about $4 for every $3 it paid in 1940 (probably because of the defense program), and got back only $3 for every $5 it paid in 1948. We paid to the Federal Government a billion dollars more than we received in direct expenditures in 1948. These figures understate the burden of Federal taxes because taxes collected else- where are passed on to us as part of our costs to a greater extent than taxes paid here are passed on to other areas. For ex- ample, the excise taxes on automobiles are paid largely from Michigan, but are passed on to us whenever we buy new automobiles. When we take account to the burden of taxes in this way, we find that in 1948 we had a burden of $2 in taxes for each $1 returned here. Obviously, these figures alone do not tell the whole story, but they do indicate that our financial relationship with the Federal Government has deterio- rated badly in the postwar period. To move on +o the second plank in our economic program, it would be of interest to the whole economy and of special inter- est to New England to have liberalization of the rules relating to depreciation of new machinery and equipment. The machinery industry is a very heavy employer in our region. Its market depends upon the ability of its customers to pay for the prod- ucts that it sells. Restriction of allowable depreciation to unrealistic levels which per- mit neither the recovery of replacement cost nor in many cases recovery of original cost within a reasonable period of time obviously must depress the market for our machinery producers. Liberalization of depreciation would increase the employment in our ma- Moreover, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD New England probably has a higher propor- tion of overage plant equipment than most areas; liberalized depreciation would give our manufacturers a special incentive to modernize. New England also has a peculiar stake in tax relief for small corporations. A study of the sources of growth in our manufactur- ing industries in New England, for example, shows that we must rely very heavily upon the establishment of new, small firms within the region and upon their growth to larger size for expansion of our manufac- turing activity. Although our present cor- porate income tax makes some special con- cession to small firms by imposing a lower rate on corporate net income below $50,000, there is need for further tax concessions to assist small businesses to grow. Now to the third plank which deals with special-interest legislation. The price-sup- port program for agriculture raises our food, feed, and industrial raw materials costs far more than it helps our potato and other farmers. 'New special-interest legislation may raise our fuel costs. It is well Known that New England’s fuel and power costs are high- er than the national average of such costs. The shift in the source of the supply of oil to the Venezuelan and middle eastern oil fields has presented to us an opportunity to reduce our fuel and power costs. By virtue of our transportation advantage in importing this foreign oil, we have had an improve- ment in our fuel cost position. Domestic oil producers (and some ovhers with a special interest in coal) are pressing for an increase to the tariff or the imposition of a quota on foreign oil, either of which would work ma- terlally to New England's disadvantage. And here again what is to the disadvantage of New England is clearly to the disadvantage of the country and to our whole foreign economic program. I do not wish to give the impression that I believe the only way to reduce our power costs lies in the direction of securing cheaper fuel. We have, even on the minimum esti- mate, a sizable potential of undeveloped water power, and I belicve that it is in New England's interest to encourage the de- velopment of as much of this potential as can be economically justified and as it can be utilized. We should not, however, sacri- fice the bird in hand, which is reasonably priced foreign oil, for the bird in the bush, which is undeveloped hydroelectric power, which will take up some years to harness and which would probably not reduce our average costs nearly sO much as a continued supply of reasonably priced foreign oil. New England can also benefit from unre- stricted imports of foreign copper to supply its brass industry. <A tarlff will be restored on copper after June 30 unless the legisla- tion keeping it on the free list 1s renewed. New England has long depended upon com- merce for the livelihood of an important pro~ portion of its people. Our fourth plank deals with the disadvantage which we suffer in our foreign commerce through conditions not of our own making. You are all familiar with the fact that foreign commerce at the New England ports is primarily a one-way traffic. For example, at the port of Boston, import tonnage is eight times the export tonnage. Lack of export tonnage discourages sailings from New England ports and the lack of sailings causes most of our export cargo to be shipped from other New England ports. Examination of the history of ocean and rail freight rates discloses a major reason for the continued decline of our ports. Be- cause New Englanda’s ports are nearer to all European and Mediterranean ports and to India than other competing ports, for a great many years ocean freight rates to those ports were lower from Boston than compet- ing ports. To compensate for the geo- graphic advantages enjoyed by Boston, the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD railroads over the years reduced their ex- port rail rates in favor of inland rail ship- ments to the ports of Baltimore and Phila- delphia and later New Orleans and Montreal. However, after rail freight rates had been adjusted to equalize the advantages of other ports with those of New York and Boston, ocean freight rates came to be equalized. Presently, therefore, the New England ports are denied their geographic advantage by equalized ocean freight rates, whereas at the same time they remain penalized for that geographic advantage in the rail freight rates from interior points. We are now seeking to restore our geographic advantage in the case of grain. The history of this subject convinces me that New England’s ports are discriminated against either by the commis- sion of acts or the omission of acts by regu< latory agencies of the Federal Government. On this matter as on others New England is not demanding preferential treatment but only recognition of its natural economic advantage. It has become commonplace to say that New England is at the end of the trans- portation line. For many of our raw ma- terials and for many of the finished products which we buy this is true. However, changes are in the making which may put more of New England’s industries at the beginning of the transportation line to the advantage of the region. We see that now in the case of wool, jute, and oil, and we will see it in the case of iron ore. “We have fought our last war from the Mesabi ranges of Minnesota,” said the presi- dent of.a large steel company recently. The Nation’s iron ore supply is shifting radically to points around the Atlantic Basin. Enor- mous new discoveries of iron ore have been made in Labrador, in Venezuela, and in Li- beria. Cheap, waterborne iron ore plus cheap scrap and a flourishing market for finished steel products open up to us the possibility of establishing an integrated steel mill in New England. The establishment of such a mill would give a strong stimulus to our metal fabricating industries, which have been the fastest growing industries in the region. This . stimulus would be felt throughout New England, and is the best argument for regional unity in support of this project. Careful studies have shown that this possibility for New England is in- deed a real one. Since New England began to study the possibilities of establishing an integrated steel mill, the iron ore discoveries in Labrador and Venezuela have become known and two of the major steel companies have announced plans for expansion on the east coast. Events have surely confirmed our supposition that in this direction there was opportunity for New England. Unlike other regions, I do not think that we need to argue for special legislation which would help us to realize this great new op- portunity. In this matter, as in so many others, the real threat to New England lies in legislation which would favor other regions a our expense. From time to time, I am sure the Congress will be presented with re- quests for appropriations to dredge rivers and harbors, to construct waterways, to au- thorize the lending of money—all in the interest of steel mills some place other than New England. In these matters, as in others, it is obviously not in the interest of New England to help provide the money to deny itself a new opportunity. I trust the New England delegation will keep a wary eye on proposals to use our taxpayers’ money to help the steel industry to locate in some other part of the country. Now to sum up in a few words: 1. New England has had more than its share of economic trouble in the last 18 months. 2. New Englanders are exerting themselves to remedy the causes of their economic ills so far as these causes lie within their control. 3. Many of New England’s troubles are the direct or indirect result of Federal policies. We need, and we are going to make, a careful study of how those policies affect us. 4. We, the business people of New England, are Willing to do our part to keep New Eng- jand expanding and prosperous. We are con- fident that our delegation in the Congress can and will work together for that same objective. Mother, Can You Spare a Dime? EXTENSION OF REMARKS F HON. JAY LeFEVRE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. LEFEVRE. Myr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Rrcorp, I include an edi- torial taken from the Chatham Courier of Chatham, N. Y. Mr. Speaker, I think this editorial gives the American people plenty of food for thought. As a matter of fact, the result of yesterday’s primary election in Florida proves to me that the American people already are caught up on the spending spree promoted by the present adminis- tration and those who have stood by the New Deal and Fair Deal policies. To me, the election of Grorcze SMATHERS in Flor- ida is a forecast of what will happen in the general elections this fall. Grorcr SMatTHERS is a fine, clean young Ameri- can and won this primary election on what is practically a Republican plat- form. A good many of us on the Republican side have supported the European aid program from the beginning. As time goes on and we learn more about the tac- tics the British are using in their inter- national trade policies, one begins to wonder if it is not about time to call a halt or else have an understanding which will protect some of our own leading industries. MorHer, Can You Spare a DIME? Two very interesting sets of financial fig- ures have recently been released. As of July 1, the United States of America will show a Treasury deficit of approximately $6,000,000,000 with likelihood that in 1951 this will rise to seven billions. In other words, the expenditures of the National Gov- ernment will be that much greater than it is able to receive from all sources. The other’ was the announcement that Great Britain would, at the end of its fiscal year, be able to meet its expenses and bal- ance its budget. Yet the Congress has béfore it a request from England that this country provide her (or in other words, give her) $687,000,000 for the ensuing year, under the Marshall plan, Of course, we imagine Great Britain can use this money and Clement Attlee and Staf- ford Cripps can probably find means to spend it for further socialistic schemes, but what about the American taxpayers who have to put up the cash? As Senator Roperr A, Tart said this week: “The time has now come to cut these Mar~ shall-plan funds and if we do not do this, we can hardly hope to reduce our domestic expenditures.” A3247 To those who can only see unlimited amounts flowing from this country to all parts of the world, this may sound like rank heresy and a desire to let down what they like to term the “Mother Country.” But we are commencing to wonder if, when the child is apparently broke, if it wouldn’t be nice for Britannia to begin handing over a few Millions of those billions we let her have when she was much worse off than she ap- parently is now. Low-Rent Housing for Portland EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUGH B. MITCHELL OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, on May 19, Portland, Oreg., voters will de- cide whether or not the city is to enjoy the benefits of the Public Housing and Slum Clearance Act passed by the Highty-first Congress. The Honorable Phil Dreyer, a member of the Oregon State Legislature and a candidate for the United States Congress from Multnomah County urges Portland citizens to ap- prove the proposed agreement between the city of Portland and the Portland Housing Authority. The agreement pro- vides for the city to furnish civic services in return for payments in lieu of taxes. Phil Dreyer is president of the Port- land Housing and Planning Association, He knows Portland problems. He ably represented his legislative district during his term of office in the Oregon State Legislature and J. am certain his training and experience would assure equally ef- fective representation in the National Congress, should he be elected. Following is a speech titled ‘Public Housing for Portland” delivered by the Honorable Phil Dreyer before the Guild’s Lake Community Club of Portland on April 12, 1950: Pusric HousiIne FoR PoRTLAND LET’S VOTE “YES” FOR PUBLIC HOUSING On May 19, Portland voters will decide whether this city will have 2,000 new low- rent homes. . The United States Government is putting up the money, but the people must vote “yes” to approve the agreement between the city and the Portland Housing Authority. WE NEED THE HOMES Oregon is the fastest growing State in America. But we do not have the place to house the half-million people who have come here. They are living in trailers, in shacks, and in temporary houses. To house the war workers who flocked to Portland, the Government built 18,500 units of temporary housing. But most of these units have been torn down. Thou- sands were destroyed by the Vanport flood. Only 6,500 remain, and these must be torn down. by 1951. Shall we ignore the plight of the flood vic- tims, or shall we welcome low-rent housing for 2,000 families which the United States Government has offered to provide? YES, PORTLAND DOES HAVE SLUMS You do not have to go to Chicago or New York to find slums. Go out Williams Avenue, or look up the river from the Ross Island
A38248 Bridge. You will see shacks and eyesores that are the shame of our city—decrepit structures not even fit for cattle. There is nothing more un-American than a slum. And the number is greater than you think—23,000 Portland families live in dwell- ings which menace their health and safety. That is the official report of the 1949 Port- land housing survey. Nearly 100,000 people of our city are crowded into dangerous, sub- standard clapboard tenements. SLUMS ARE COSTLY TO YOU Portland slums are social cesspools. They breed crime, disease, and delinquency. Tu- berculosis in slums is almost twice as preva- lent as in public housing, and it costs Ore- gon taxpayers $3,000 a year to care for each TB patient in our State hospital. Remember the headlines: “Seven perish in slum fire’? Slum homes are firetraps. And fire protection costs four times as much for.slum areas as for public housing. And the risk to Portland firemen is correspond- ingly greater. SLUMS ARE TAX EATERS Shacks and shanties pay very Mttle in taxes. They are depreciated eyesores that bring in very few dollars. A study of 24 American cities shows that city services to slum areas cost three to eight times as much as the tax revenues those areas pay. Portland is asked to vote “yes” to provide city services to the 2,000-unit public-hous- ing project. In return, the city will receive specific “payments in lieu of taxes.” NO HIGHER TAXES Public housing will not raise taxes. It will merely replace slums which pay little taxes and absorb much of our city treasury. Post- war studies of the entire country show that slum districts take 45 percent of the cost of city service, but provide only 6 percent of tax revenues. Payments in lieu of taxes will range up to 10 percent of rental charges. These pay- ments will be four to eight times as much as the taxes now paid on undeveloped prop- erty. PUBLIC HOUSING CREATES JOBS Two thousand new homes will mean busi- ness and jobs for a large number of Portland people. It will take up the slack in employ- ment and help many of the 96,000 men whom. the Governor’s committee reported jobless in February. George Brown, of the CIO, estimates it will take 320,000 man-hours to produce lumber alone, to build 2,000 homes, AFL leaders point out 2,000 new homes will provide employment for carpenters, painters, electricians, plasterers, and other skilled mechanics, PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE Two thousand units of public housing will build up property values. For every unit of public housing built, one slum dwelling will be destroyed or repaired within 5 years. Public housing will provide homes for steady workers and attract even more indus- try to Portland. Industrial planners always ask: “Is there housing for labor?” And this influx of employed people will provide a market for new home building. Renters be- come home owners; that is the history of Ore- gon development. BEWARE THE PROPAGANDA BLITZ Why should the voters turn down the United States Government’s appropriation to puild decent housing that will replace the fire traps and health traps that blight our city? Only short-sighted and selfish groups which profit from slum misery oppose this humanitarian program. But the selfish interests have money to launch a scare campaign to tell you public housing will raise taxes, that it is socialistic, etc. Their full-page ads deceived the people of Seattle. Let’s not fall for their propa- ganda. PUBLIC HOUSING HAS PROVED ITSELF Public housing is not new to Portland. Columbia Villa and Dekum Court provide examples of the 2,000 permanent low-rent housing, this program will bring. New low-rent housing must be found for the fastest-growing city in this part of the country. Otherwise Portland will slip back into its old lethargy. We can build a great community of clean, decent homes, where every child will have a chance to grow to maturity in a fine American environment. Let us stamp out slums in Portland—and the crimre and poverty and disease they breed. Let us vote “yes” on May 19 for the 2,000 low-rent public-housing units. Address of Hon. Robert L. Doughton, of North Carolina, on Boone-Barkley Day, at Salisbury, N. C. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HAROLD D. COOLEY OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on Mon- day afternoon, May 1, under clear Caro- lina skies and before a magnificent audience, our distinguished and beloved colleague, Hon. Rosert L. DoucutTon, in appropriate fashion and with becoming dignity presented a great American to the people of Rowan and adjoining counties in the district which our col- jJeague has so well and ably represented for more than three decades. The oc- casion wes known and dedicated as Boone-Barkley Day in honor of Daniel Boone, of historic fame, and AuBen W. Barkuey, the greatest of all of our Vice Presidents. : The city of Salisbury in Rowan County was selected as an appropriate place for this great meeting because it was in this part of my native State that the Boones and the Barkleys and forebears of our present Vice President settled in the early days of this Republic and made their great contributions to the cause of freedom. The Vice President, therefore, was received with a warm and cordial welcome, not as a stranger or an alien, but rather as one who had returned to the home of his ancestors and to the household from which he sprang. Neither in all of the Vice President’s long line of noble ancestry nor in the ancestry of any of those who today direct the affairs of this great Nation has there been a greater champion of the cause of the common man and of the free- doms which he has a God-given right to enjoy. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I present for the record the intro- ductory speech of that great American, the greatest living North Carolinian, our beloved friend and colleague, Bos DovcHTon. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice President, dis- tinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, since entering public life I have had many pleasant duties to perform but none that I could possibly appreciate more than the high distinction of participating in this THarkley-Boone celebration—a most momen- tous and historic occasion. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Today we honor and pay tribute to two great Americans—one a famous frontiers- man, pioneer, and adventurer of almost two centuries ago, Daniel Boone, and the other an outstanding American statesman of our own day, ALBEN W. BARKLEY. In a way my assignment is a dual one. I am to present our speaker to this large gath- ering and to this community, and also to present Rowan County and this community to him. Mr. Vice President, Salisbury, Rowan, and Yadkin are names rich in history and tra- dition—and much of the history and tradi- tion is associated with your people, your State, and yourself. I bring to your atten- tion a fact with which, of course, you are familiar—that three of your ancestors, Henry Barkley, Alexander Cathey, and William Stevenson, all settled here in Rowan County. Many of their descendants, your forebears, are buried at Thyatira Church and in the cemeteries of Rowan County. So, in a man- mer, we welcome you, Mr. Vice President, home. Our distinguished speaker does not come to us as a stranger. The ancestors of many of the early settlers of Kentucky were North Carolinians. Some of them, ike some of you, were veterans—young veterans of the Revo- lutionary War, who, at-its close, turned their faces from Kings Mountain and Guilford Courthouse and, following Boone, sought new homes farther West. Ever since that era the people of North Carolina and Kentucky have been linked by blood and by a common heritage of be- liefs and faith. We have generally the same aspirations and objectives, the same passion for liberty and for justice. Kentucky has, through the years, enriched the Nation with the services of many great men and has played an important part in national and world affairs from the begin- ning. It is significant that President Abra- ham Lincoln, and the President of the Con- federate States, Jefferson Davis, two adver- saries in the great crisis of our country, were both born in Kentucky. Kentucky has been famous in the Congress of the United States in the person of such renowned men as Henry Clay, who served in- termittently in Congress and who, in differ- ent Congresses, served as Speaker of the House of Representatives and was also Scc- retary of State to John Quincy Adams. Another celebrated Kentuckian was John G. Carlisle, Speaker of the House of Repre- sentatives in three Congresses—the Forty- eighth, Forty-ninth, and Fiftieth—and later Secretary of the Treasury in the Cleveland administration. Ollie M. James, also of Kentucky, and predecessor of our distinguished Vice Presi- dent in the House of Representatives, was a confidant and adviser of President Wilson. Tam pleased also to mention the splendid services being rendered by the Honorable NosLe GREGORY, a present member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who repre- sents the great First District of Kentucky. In more recent years Kentucky has made ® greater contribution to the highest Court of the land, the Supreme Court, than any other State in the Union; having today as its Chief Justice the Honorable Fred M. Vin- son, an eminent jurist, an outstanding leg- islator, my friend and colleague on the Com- mittee on Ways and Means for many years— also Mr. Justice Stanley Reed, and Mr. Jus-~ tice Louis Brandeis, and the late Mr. Justice Wiley Rutledge, and Mr. Justice James Clark McReynolds—all distinguished Kentuckians who have served on this high Court, One might recite the deeds of Kentuckians for a long and indefinite period, but none of the renown which has accrued to Ken- tucky as a result of the services and con- tribution of those who have been mentioned or those who could be mentioned can ex- cel the illustrious record of Aunen W. BARKLEY.