APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD All committed inmates are, through suc- cessive interviews with the social-service unit, exhaustively investigated. Their entire lives are keenly scrutinized for incidents or trends of a revealing nature. Former em- ployers are contacted, relatives, Officials, wel- fare agencies, former wives—all of these are enlisted 1n the project of creating a complete understanding of the individual. To this mass of information is added the reports and opinions of the chief medical officer of the institution, the psychiatrist, the educational supervisor, and other specialists. All this data is assembled, welded into a coherent en- tity by the classification section, and present- ed, within a period of about 30 days, to the institutional classification board. The committee, composed of the warden, associate wardens, chief medical officer, psychiatrist, supervisor of education, chap- lains, and social workers, studies the dos- sier or admission summary, interviews the in« dividual, and decides upon a pattern of treatment that literally becomes the blue- print for the subject’s readjustment to so- ciety. Such a pattern is known as the in- mate’s program, and is not changed in any respect without recourse to the classifica- tion clinic. Factors which the classification board con- sider are: (1) Custody and supervision; (2) transfer to another institution more suitable to the inmate’s needs or requirements; (3) social service; (4) medical and neuropsy- chiatric treatment; (5) employment and vo- cational training; (6) education; (7) re- ligious training, and, (8) recreational pro- gram. For instance, it may be indicated that he be programed for a heavy course of edu- cation to develop abilities that appear to be incipient. Medical or psychiatric therapy may seem indicated. In these and many other details, the nature of the treatment to be accorded the individual is set up in this fashion and by this committee. From time to time during the inmate’s sentence, when changes of program are re- quired, reappearances before the board are scheduled. Reconsideration may obtain be- cause of the inmate’s request or upon the suggestion of one of the board members. Before such recommendations are made, a progress report, detailing information not developed at the time of the first hearing or a change in the subject’s attitude or status, is formulated for the use of the committee. Reclassification is frequently ordered after an inmate has applied for parole and been denied, EDUCATION No Federal prisoner needs to leave here unimproved mentally. There are day and evening classes, and vocational classes with opportunities for both theory and practice. And there are cell-study, or correspondence courses. The educational staff is made up of highly trained officers who are specialists in adult education, The civil-service standards are high for any Bureau of Prisons appointment, since leadership qualities are required in every phase of the work. University grad- uates are not uncommon among the cus< todial force and a goodly percentage of the new employees served as officers in the last war. The high standards set by the bureau are raising penology to a professional status. The major objectives of the bureau with respect to education of prisoners may be summed up as follows: (a) The education of illiterates and semi- illiterates. (b) Cpportunities for those who have had little formal education to make up for voids in their education background. (c) Practical trade training for the un- skilled. (ad) Provision for “special subjects” (lan- guages, commercial subjects, navigation, et cetera). ‘ (e) Correspondence courses for those who cannot attend classes or who wish to study technical courses not offered in the curricu- lum. Vocational training gained an impetus during the war and has hardly slackened. Men so assigned are given practical on-the~ job training, and have regular classroom work as well. A few of the subjects listed under this heading include carpentry, plumbing, electricity, machine shop, auto repair, baking, and cooking, And many sup- plement their work with correspondence studies. Visual education also has an im- portant place. Religious instruction and services are essential functions of the rehabilitation pro- gram. There are full-time Catholic and Protestant chaplains. The hobby shop affords an opportunity for avocational talents and has developed some highly skilled techniques. Fly tying is the most popular activity, and excellent work is turned out also in leathercraft, woodwork, and in plastics. The range of intelligence of Federal pris- oners parallels very closely that of civilians on the outside, and the ratio of mental dis- orders is approximately the same, about one-half to three-fourths of 1 percent; how- ever, the rate of subnormal in Federal prisons is about 18 per thousand, while the general population rate is 7 to 11 per thousand. Seven percent use alcohol to excess ax.d 5 per- cent are addicted to narcotics. In recent months music has played an increasingly important part in leisure-time activities. There are currently three organ- izations of this nature making use of the auditorium and stage in rehearsals for vocal and instrumental performances, and all are under the supervision of a correction officer who has a background in music. Debating and dramatics are also in a period of intensified expansion. For the most part, local talent meets local talent, but occa- sionally provision is made for visitors to come to the island of an evening to match talents with local boys. Under the jurisdiction of the supervisor of education also comes the administration of the library and the manyfold morale stim- ulative and recreational activities. RECREATION Wholesome, balanced recreation has a most important contribution to good morale, Every effort is made to afford prisoners with means and opportunities for healthy recrea- tion. The program is broad enough to cover the need of the younger, more active men, and still afford an opportunity for a variety of activities of a less strenuous nature. A spacious and well-equipped gymnasium affords opportunity for a multiplicity of activities, even during the winter months. A well-directed leadership insures partici- pation by practically all who so desire. Outdoor activities include baseball, soft- pall, handball, football, tennis, weight-lift- ing, bag-punching, basketball, horseshoe pitching, and many others. JOB PLACEMENT Realizing that a prison program of train- ing in preparation for release to a better life in the free world was useless unless the man was able to find gainful employment upon his release, the Bureau of Prisons in re- cent years has set up an employment-place- ment office 1n several of its institutions spot- ted in various sections of the United States. Since 1944, McNeil Island has had a unit of this service designed to assist into free- world employment men who were unable to make the proper occupational adjustment on their own initiative. The relationship between the job-place- ment service and businessmen or employers is one of frankness and hard-headed common sense. The prospective employer is offered men with qualifications that he can use, and A3039 is shown how these men could be valuable. With the inmate’s consent, the prospective employer is furnished a complete description of the man the placement bureau wishes to sell him, an abstract which includes his pic- ture, dressed in civilian clothes, and all de- tails of his training as well as the facts of his criminal career, The job placement bu- reau enjoyed immediate and growing success despite handicaps with which it was faced. Not in every case is the employment office able to secure satisfactory employment for releases, nor do a majority of the men re- leased seek the aid of this service. During the time this office has been in existence, complete authentic records as to the number of men who have sought its services is not complete, but records which indicate that in the five and a half years that this service has been available, a total of 637 men have had jobs secured for them immediately prior to their release to the free world. Keep the Air Waves Free EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 26, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is generally agreed by the Members of Congress that the ConGRESSIONAL RECORD should not be used by a party to a pend- ing law suit as a forum in which to pre- sent his one-sided view of the case. Yet we find in the Appendix of the Rrecorp on page A2826 the insertion of a state- ment by one Hugh Fulton, counsel for George A. Richards, who is currently involved in a hearing before the Federal Communications Commission on the matter of renewing licenses for three important radio stations owned by him. Needless to say, Mr. Fulton’s statement is nothing more nor less than a piece of special pleading without any pretense to objectivity or balance. It deprecates and disparages the testimony of the Govern-~ ment’s witnesses, reflects on the integrity of the Government’s counsel and it as- sails the FCC for having the temerity to bring charges against Mr. Fulton’s client. There is no doubt in my mind that if this hearing were judicial rather than administrative in character, Mr. Fulton’s conduct in preparing this statement for publication would constitute at least a violation of the code of ethics which Fulton, as a lawyer, is sworn to observe. More than that, in a judicial proceeding it would be contempt of court. In the interest of fairness, I am under- taking to present the real issues in the case which Mr. Fulton has deliberately evaded so that the account in the Con- GRESSIONAL REcorD will truly be balanced. In 1948, the Radio News Club of Los Angeles, a professional association of radio newscasters, filed charges against George A. Richards, owner of Station KMPC in Los Angeles, alleging that Richards had threatened to discharge mews reporters who refused to distort the news in accordance with his wishes and that on at least one occasion he did discharge a news reporter for fail- ing to present the news as directed by
A3040 Richards. After preliminary investiga- tion, the FCC ordered a hearing on the charges and directed its trial examiner to report on the following issues: 1. To determine the extent, if any, that G. A. Richards issued instructions or direc- tives to officers or employees of said licensees— (a) To present news broadcasts in a man- ner designed to give a biased or a one-sided presentation of the news; (b) To broadcast as news, items which were not known to have any basis infact esreceyime sortovlar issues or persons; .¢; 12 be.tde: ., editorials of daily news- papers as news items without identification of such editorials as such; . (d) To discriminate in news and other programs in favor of particular political eRuses, groups, or candidates as against the jaterests of other political causes, groups, or candidates; (e) To discriminate in any manner in the programing of Stations KMPC, WJR, and WGAR, in favor of the private, political, social, and economic views and interests of G. A. Richards. 2. To determine the extent, if any, officers or employees refused to carry out instruc- tions or directives, if amy, of the nature specified in Issue No. 1, and what disciplinary action, if any, was taken or caused to be taken by G. A. Richards against any officers or employees who may have refused to carry out such instructions and directives. 3. To determine the extent, if any, the facilities of said stations, or any of them, have been used to carry out said instructions or directives. , 4. To determine, in the light of the infor- mation adduced pursuant to Issues 1, 2, and 8, above, whether the licensee corporations are qualified to continue as licensees of sta- tions KMPC, WJR, and WGAR. Hearings opened in Los Angeles on March 23 and counsel for the Commis- sion presented 23 witnesses who testified that they had been ordered by Richards to slant and distort the news against political groups, religious groups, and one of America’s greatest families. There is no need to prejudge this evi- dence, but I cannot escape the feeling that if this evidence is, as charged by Fulton, thin and unsubstantial, Fulton would not be trying the case in the news- papers and would not be so worried about putting his own client and witnesses on the stand. I have confidence that the FCC will try this case fairly and decide it fairly, in accordance with its rules and the ap- plicable law. I should like to add as an example of objective analysis of the case the following editorial from the New York Times of March 18, entitled “Free- dom of the Air Waves,” and a news story from the Hollywood Reporter of April 4, quoting a resolution proposed by H. V. Kaltenborn and adopted by the Associa- tion of Radio News Analysts: FREEDOM OF THE AIR WAVES The Federal Communications Commission opened hearings in California this week to determine whether broadcasting licenses will be renewed for George A. Richards, owner of three of the country’s most powerful radio transmitters, Including KMPCO in Los An- geles, Mr. Richards is accused of ordering news broadcasts over KMPC to be so grossly distorted that doubt has been cast on his fitness to hold a license to operate a radio station. Judgment must be withheld on the merits of Mr. Richards’ case until all the evidence is in; suffice it to say that his attorneys deny the charge and maintain that he faces revocation of his licenses because of his anti- administration political views, The importance of the case lies in the question whether or not the FCC has the right to deprive Mr. Richards of his license, granting the assumption that all the charges are true. It lies in the question whether this would or would not constitute censorship over the expression of political views. This newspaper (which is also the owner of a radio station) believes that, 1f the charges are proved, the FCC would be justified in refusing to renew the license. Use of the airwaves for an expression of an opinion or any other purpose is funda- mentally different from the point of the printing press or of a soapbox on the street corner, because there is a definite physical limitation to the number of wave bands and the strength of transmitters which can be employed for radio broadcasts if hopeless confusion of sound is to be avoided. This is a unique characteristic of radio, as the Supreme Court has noted. It forms the proper basis for at least a minimum degree of Federal control. The question then becomes: to what ex- tent shall this control be exercised, partic- ularly in respect to political controversies? Broadly speaking, the FCO’s attitude is that radio stations have the duty of providing equal time for the presentation of both sides. That seems fair enough. But the Los Angeles case presents a new wrinkle, or at: least one that has not yet been jroned out. Here the broadcaster has been accused of presenting a political view- point disguised as news. While it has been clearly established that “opinion” on the air shall be answered with an equal amount of time for “counter opinion,” what does one do when it is offered not as opinion at all put under the cloak of news? ‘To us, the logic seems inescapable that the purveyor of this form of radio “news” is offering goods under false pretense and is not operating his station in the public interest, which is one of the standards established in the Com- munications Act, We see no reason why the FOc should not in such a case deny him a license, which could then be granted some other applicant more fit to hold one. Ob-~ viously the evidence would have to be unmis-~ takable that the deception had been prac- ticed willfully, It would be silly to deny that many news- papers are guilty of disguising opinion as news every day. Why, then, do we not advo- cate that they be deprived of the right to publish? We think the answer has already been given. While, of course, there are fi- nancial barriers, there is no insuperable physical barrier to the establishment of a newspaper, Anyone can start one if he has the capital, and if not he can publish a broadside or a pamphlet. But the radio waves are limited; and the licensee is of necessity not an entirely free agent but the holder of a special privilege which requires &@ corresponding degree of restraint enforce- able through police action on the part of the FCO acting under Federal statutes as interpreted by the Supreme Court. News Cius CoMMENDED ON G. A. RICHARDS . Sranp New Yorx.—A resolution proposed by H. V. Kaltenborn of the Association of Radio’ News Analysts was passed yesterday in praise of the Hollywood Radio News Club for its censuring stand against G. A. Richards’ Sianting of KMPC news, The resolution read: “We hereby go on record in support of the efforts of the Radio News Club of Hollywood in trying to secure the presentation of full unbiased news reports. We also endorse any action that will tend to preserve the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD right of competent news analysts to digest, and interpret the news.” Let me make this clear. I have no interest in this proceeding or in any other proceeding before the FCC. I be- lieve that the Commission was not only entirely justified in instituting that pro- ceeding, but was required by law to do sa, Freedom of thought and of expres- sion requires the elimination from among the radio licensees, of any person who is found guilty of the charges alleged. No one has the right or the privilege to use the CoNnGrESSIONAL REcoRD to browbeat, picket, or threaten any gov- ernmental agency while acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. No one should be accorded the priy- ulege of poisoning the air with opinions, good or bad, under the false guise of news. Keep the air waves free, free to broad- cast news and opinions, but honest and fair and free from poisonous propa- ganda. Marshall Plan Aid After 19527—Yes and No EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 26, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, Iam including as part of my remarks a statement by the distinguished Sena- tor from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG] and myself on the question: “Should Marshall plan aid be continued after 1952?” Both statements appeared in the New York Daily Compass on Monday, April 17, 1950: SHouLD Marsmatn Puan Aw Be CONTINUED AFTER 1952? YES: URGES FORMATION OF COMMISSION TO STUDY EXTENSION BEYOND 1952 (By Senator ARTHUR II. VANDENBERG, Republl- can, Michigan, Commitice on Foreign Relations) (Eprror’s Norr.—The following is the text of the widely discussed letter from Senator VANDENBERG to Paul G. Hoffman, ECA Admin~ istrator, which was released to the press a little over 2 weeks ago.) As you approach your second ECA anni- versary next week, I am conscious that you took this critical assignment, in part, as a result of my insistent urging. It is a source of profound regret to me that illness prevents my active participation in current decisions which mean infinitely much, in this con- nection, to American security and to free peace in a free world. The least I can do js to take advantage of this occasion to say that, in my humble opinion, you and your ECA associates, at home and abroad, have rendered incalculably vital service to our country and its indispensable leadership for liberty. You have paid off in current divi- dends of freedom. ECA was launched as an unpartisan en- terprise—established by a Republican Con- gress in full and free cooperation with a Democratic Executive. This working unity typified our finest traditions and our great- est safety In the presence of external hag- ards to all Americans, regardless of party. You have clung tenaciously to this unparti-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD san concept in your administration of ECA, As one citizen to another, I thank you for this service from a grateful heart. United, we stand. Divided we fall. I want America to stand. It was inevitable that there should have been disappointments in the evolution of these unprecedented programs—as you have been among the first to stress. There is understandable and legitimate debate in many of these aspects. It is our duty, under these programs of self-heln and mutual aid, to be as frank about the liabilities as we are about the assets. You would be the last to say that ECA is untouchable. Western Europe has not moved ahead ade- quately with the economic integration which is essential to its permanent recovery, in- cluding western Germany. There must be sharp improvement in these trends. We confront increasingly obvious limitations upon the domestic resources which we can safely and wisely commit to over-all foreign aid. Furthermore, these resources can no longer ignore or minimize the impact of Com- munist aggression in the Far East. This is not your problem, but the problem of Con- gress and the Executive. These are essential subjects for judicial congressional survey in that same factual spirit which must continue to strive to put our country first in our considerations. But it is equally true that our overriding need is to clearly understand the victories we have won in this cold war, and how we won them; to realize, thankfully, that we have succeeded in helping establish vital zones of freedom where independent govern- ments have survived aggression and subver- sion which, 2 years ago, threatened to isolate us in an ominously communized world; in a word, to avoid getting so close to the trees - that the forest is obscured. The ECA smoked out Soviet Russia’s sin- ister plan for world dominion—~always aimed finally at us. It set up a new type of peace- ful cooperation between independent peoples seeking not conquest but honorable survival for liberty under law and for the aspirations by which free men live. It built peaceful sinews into the precious hopes of the United Nations, and of the subsequent North Atlan- tic community and the peaceful dedications of America. It has made inevitable mis- takes which must be rectified. But its tre- mendous vindication stands clear as crystal on the 1950 map. In all candor can it be sucessfully denied that ECA has been substantially responsible for reversing the corroding gloom which theatened western civiliza.ion 2 years ago, and which might have brought the iron curtain to the very rims of the Atlantic but for this brave adventure? How much is that worth, in liberties and lives and dollars, to our own United States? How much? Let us not ignore any of the lessons we have learned—emphatically including the lesson that we, and our friends, are engaged in a struggle that is epochal in nature and global in design—emphatically including the lesson that free notions must continue as free nations to work together in closest, practical harmony for the effectual defense of their mutual heritage. I venture this suggestion. I was one of those who insisted that ECA had to be pre- ceded by the studies of the Harriman Com- mission, mobilizing the best brains avail- able for consultation, to determine what role is wisest and safest for America, for her own self-interest, in facing the threats of postwar erisis. The ECA was the result. As we approach the statutory end of ECA in 1952, I think it would be well for another such commission, equally unpartisan and equally impeccable in character, to resume independent, advisory studies of our new re- sponsibilities as the world’s largest creditor nation and the world’s spearhead in the quest of dependable peace. * * NO; ECONOMIC INTEGRATION MUST PRECEDE AD- DITIONAL UNITED STATES AID (By Representative Lawrence H. Smiru (Re- publican, Wisconsin), House Committee on Foreign Affairs) Senator VANDENBERG’S statement that Mar- shall plan aid should be continued beyond 1952 is premature and open to serious ques- tion. It is an invitation to recipient coun- tries to rely on the United States for assist- ance far into the future. It is bad advice. Advocacy of assistance beyond 1952 at this time creates a situation that will be embar-~ rassing to Congress when the present plan expires. Senator VANDENBERG has, in my opinion, rendered a disservice to the people of the United States by prematurely assur- ing European countries they may expect aid beyond 1952. When the Marshall plan was first adopted the theory was that our aid should be for the sole purpose of economic rehabilitation. There was a common desire to make the war-torn countries self-supporting by re- storing domestic economies to a level com- parable to that of the United States in 1952. That was the objective set out in the OEFEC report. The fact is that in 2 years of Mar- shall aid, all of the countries have gone far beyond their prewar level of production, to such au. extent that in some lines their in- dustrial products are highly competitive with our own. It cannot be denied that their goals have been reached. The ECA Administrators have always looked beyond the day when economic re-~ habilitation was an accomplished fact. They have contended that the western European countries should strive for economic inte- gration and for political unification. They have said there could be no real recovery in the absence of those goals. Mr. Paul Hoff- man will admit that Europe today is a long way from reaching those objectives. One would assume these countries would be anx- ious to work together, but even the future is not too hopeful. Nationalism is on the increase in Europe. That trend is rampant in England. The same is true in Italy and France. Advocates and supporters of the ECA program dreamed of great advantages to the countries of Eu- rope by making them into one big market. They are disillusioned when they view the spirit of nationalism that has developed. They saw the benefits of a vast commercial market where mass-production methods would increase output far beyond a prewar potential, with the result that standards of living would rise to a level comparable to our own. The present industrial patter, however, is based on nationalistic economies. Indus- tries are propped up to keep them going re- gardless of their inherent economic disad- vantages. Every country in Europe wants a modern sheet steel mill so that it can be self-sufficient in the production of steel goods for its national defense and domestic needs. Administrators of the present program know what should be done. Mr. Hoffman has spoken frankly about the problem. He wants an integrated economy, yet only a small measure of success has been achieved toward long-range objectives. The outline for in- tegration is clear. All restrictions on the movement of gocds and capital across na- tional boundaries must be removed or Gov- ernment subsidies must be eliminated. Finally factories must be built and operated by private individuals which will insure economy and maximum production. Political unity is an important part of the program but it is not the function of the United States to impose any such condition upon the ECA countries. The will to do so is up to them. It is clear to me that American dollars are not the solution to European recovery and integration. Before 1952, the recipient coun- A3041 tries must show that they intend to achieve the long-range objectives which they admit are necessary. In. the hearings before the House Commit- tee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Hoffman made it clear that certain things had to be done in western Europe before those countries could expect additional aid. In fact, he was so sure that a new approach was necessary that he had written into the law a provision to earmark $600,0C0,000, which sum would be set up as a fund to be used as an incentive for these countries in attaining economic in- tegration. He has called this fund the Euro- pean Payments Union and he says this about it: “To be successful you have got to bring these people along to where they finally make up their minds that this is hard to do but they are going to do it.” I repeat, assistance after 1952 must depend upon the accomplishments of the recipient countries toward economic and political in- tegration. The completing thought is that this is a job these nations must do them- selves; they cannot expect American dollars to do it. Senator VaANDENBERG has put Con- gress on the spot. The National Association of Evangelicals of the United States Organizes To Fight Communism EXTENSION oF REMARKS _ HON. HENRY J. LATHAM OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 26, 1950- Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I received an announcement from the Na- tional Association of Evangelicals, which I want to insert in the REcorp, to the effect that it is organizing to-fight com- munism. It is highly gratifying to know thai these splendid Americans have been aroused to action. I note also that Dr. Frank B. Gigliotti, a familiar figure in this city, is a delegate to the National Conference to be held in Chicago. Dr. Gigliotti has a long and honorable career in promoting Americanism, both in fra- ternal and church circles. He is tire- Jess and a crusader for truth, honesty and eternal loyalty to God and Country. The announcement follows: THe Nationa ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS OF THE UNITED STATES The National Asscciation of the Evan- gelicals of the United States, representing a constituency of more than 10,000,000 Protestants, met in Indianapolis, Ind., April 19, 20, 21. Upon its adjournment, the organization instructed its commission on Christian action, composed of Dr. Frederick Cc. Fowler of the Knoxville Presbyterian Church, Pittsburgh, Pa., national president of the National Association of Evangelicals; Dr. Frank B. Gigliotti of Lemon Grove, Calif., netional vice chairman of the cOmmission; Dr. Clyde Taylor, secretary of affairs, of Washington, D. C.; and Dr. Douglas Scott, of Washington, D. C., to take every means at the disposal of the commission to combat all forms of communism, regardless of the name it masquerades under, and to make proper representation in contact with other Chris- tian bodies and national patriotic groups to . eradicate this social cancer from among the children of men. The National Association of Evangelicals went on record sustaining he principle of
A3042 private property, and free enterprise. It turther instructed the members of the com- mussion on Christian action to carry on a program of education in the principles of Christian social and moral ethics so that the membership at large—who are members of the association, and other citizens through~ out the Nation—muight know of its position; for it was said, ‘“‘There is only one way given amongst men whereby they might be saved, and that 1s, Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things would be added.” The association went on record condemn- ing the pampering of those that would de- stroy tlus Na.:cn as a Christian sovereign people, and would substitute in its place an alien philosophy contrary to Christian principles. Dr. Fowler and Dr. Gigliotti were Gelegated to be the representatives of the National Association of Evangelicals at the national conference to be held in Chicago May 18, 14, and to cooperate with the 70 national organizations under the sponsor- ship of the American Legion in framing a program that would alleviate some of the problems that we're facing and work out methods to combat materialistic, atheistic communism that is attending to inseminate its doctrine among our people and the people of the world. Very truly yours, Crypz W. TaYLor, Secretary of Affairs Aprit, 26, 1950. Our Majority Leader EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 20, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include the following article from the Lynn Tele- gram-News, Lynn, Mass., Sunday, April 23, 1950: Leaver McCormack Leaps AGAIN House Majority Leader Jonnw W. McCor~ mack again displayed the same quality of leadership in the present Red Russia crisis as he has always shown in matters of legis- lation and other national emergencies. On Friday last, Congressman McCormack (Democrat, of Massachusetts) declared in Washington at a press conference that the United States should recall the American Ambassador to Moscow or break off diplo- matic relations with Russia in retallation for the insulting attitude of the Soviet Union. In a withering attack upon the tactics and attitudes of Red Russia toward the United States and its citizens, forthright leader JouNw McCormack blasted communistic, atheistic Russia in these words: “I have felt for a long while that the time was rapidly approaching when the United States and other free nations could no longer tolerate the insulting attitude of the Soviet Union and its complete disregard for inter- national*law. “Such constant disregard by the Soviet Union calls for firm action on the part of the United States. It seems to me that the time has arrived when we should either call back our ambassador for a long perlod of con-~ sultation or break off diplomatic relations with Russia.” The ringing words and the stinging rebuke that our Congressman McCormack adminis- tered the Soviet leaders for their arrogant rejection of the American demand for in- demnity for the loss of an unarmed United States Navy plane, reparations for the lives of 10 American fliers lost in this wanton Rus- sian attack, and proper apologies to this country for this needless attack upon Amer- ican sovereignty, brought pride again to the hearts of all true Americans, In typical McCormackian style, the House majority leader timed his blast so as to Ob- tain the greatest value from his speech. We, in Massachusetts, are proud of JOHN W. Mc- Cormack. His leadership is effective always. He is a leader who leads. He is a statesman who never fails to sense the need and the time for a statesmanlike utterance. As long as our Nation has men like Con- gressman McCormack in the pilot-house, we are confident that our Ship of State wull sail serenely through all the shoals and quick- sands that beset us through the trickery and treachery of Soviet Red Russia and her saiel- lites. The Orders of the Postmaster Genera! Cur- tailing Postal Service Should Be Re- scinded EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ISIDORE DOLLINGER OF NEW vorK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 26, 1950 Mr. DOLLINGER. Mr. Speaker, the orders of the Postmaster General, cur- tailing delivery and other essential pos- tal services, to take effect July 1, 1950, would completely demoralize the entire postal service, and are causing the Amer- ican people much concern, I sincerely believe that it is to the best interests of the Nation’s economy and our people, that the orders be re- scinded at once. I have accordingly written the President and the Postmas- ter General to that effect, urging such rescission. I am inserting copies of my letters in the Recorp, so that the Mem- bers of this House may know of my action. APRIL 25, 1950. The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mr. Presipent: I am very much per- turbed over the instructions contained in the Postal Bulletin of April 18. The orders of the Postmaster General, which I understand are to take effect July 1, 1950, would, in my opinion, have disastrous effects upon the people and the economy of our Nation. We have always looked upon our postal service with pride. It has rendered excellent necessary service through the years. It is the one governmental agency which has served all the people in such a way that they have come to rely upon it in their everyday lives. The Postmaster General’s orders would reduce the postal service to an inferior agency; delivery of mail would be restricted; business would .suffer; magazines, upon which our people rely and look forward to re- ceiving, would be delayed. Parcel post de- liveries will also be cut. We know that this program will also mean the reduction in force of postal employees. There seems to be no justification for this destruction of our fine postal system. Our postal employees deserve commendation— not threats to their livelihood, when we con- sider the fine record they achieved during the fiscal year 1949. A great many stayed APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD loyal to their post office Jobs during the war, instead of turning to private industry, where much higher pay was offered. The American people as a whole are aghast at the idea of curtailing the service in the Post Office Department. They are raising their voices in protest and are de- manding that the Postmaster General's or- der be rescinded. I respectfully ask that you jasten to their pleas, and that you will decide in their favor. With kindest personal regards, Sincerely yours, IstDoRE DOLLINGER, Member of Congress. APRIL 25, 1950. Hon. Jesse M. DoNaLpson, Postmaster General, Washington, D.C. Drar Mr. Donarpson’ I am writing to pro- test the instructions contained in the Postal Bulletin of April 18. Your orders, which I understand are to take effect July 1, 1950, would, in my opinion, have disastrous effects | upon the people and the economy of our Nation. We have always looked upon our postal service with great pride, It has rendered ex- cellent necessary service through the years. It is a coven mer ial agency which has served all the peop +1 such a way that they have come to rely wpon it in their everyday lives. Your orders would reduce the postal service to an inferior agency; curtailment of mail service would cause much hardship to people and business; our postal employees would suffer through changes in work and reduction in force. There seems to be no justification for this destruction of our fine postal system. Our postal employees deserve commendation— not threats to -their HUvelihood, when we consider the fine record they achieved during the fiscal year 1949. A grent many stayed loyal to their post office jobs during the war, instead of turning to private industry, where much higher pay was offered. The American people as a whole are aghast at the idea of curtailing the service in the Post Office Department. They are raising their voices in protest and are demanding that your order be rescinded. I ask that you reconsider, and that you retract the order which I feel is unnecessary, and which will cause untold harm. Sincerely yours, Istpore DoLLinceEr, Member of Congress. Common Sense About the Middle East EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER Or NEW YorRR IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 26, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago more than two score Members of this House extended greetings to the State of Israel on the second anniversary of its independence. Many of us, in our remarks, pointed out the serious and threatening situation in the Middle East which has arisen as a result of Britain’s arming of the Arab states and the recent actions taken by the Arab League in its efforts to undermine the peace of the area and renew its war on Israel. That same day King Abdullah of Jor~ dan defied the Arab League by annex-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ing the Arab section of Palestine, con- trary to the wishes of the Arab League. Only a few weeks ago King Abdullah was on the verge of signing a permanent peace agreement with Israel, when he was stopped by the Arab League through the use of threats and coercion. The Arab League is playing a nefari- ous role in the Middle East. I think it is time for the United States and Britain to bring an end to its discredited career in which it excelled as a complete failure and an instigator of bloodshed. I desire to draw the attention of my colleagues to an editorial in the Washington Post today, which is an excellent commentary of the situation in the Middle East, and especially the miserable role of the Arab League. The editorial is as follows: FULL CIRCLE It has always been our feeling that Jordan’s King Abdullah and the Israelis, if en- couraged to do so, would have been able to compose their dispute over Palestine. This at last has been accomplished by the two parties acting alone—but not before gallons of blood have been spilled, the United Na- tions undermined, Arab-Jews relations em- pittered, and nearly a million Arabs made homeless. The announcement has just come out of Amman, Jordan’s capital, that on Monday the King formally annexed Arab Palestine and the old city of Jerusalem. Thereby Abdullah thumbs his nose at two institutions: The United Nations and the ‘seven-nation Arab League. When the fight- ing over Palestine had subsided, with Ab- dullah’s Arab Legion and the Israelis shar- ing Jerusalem, the United Nations, which had let the two fight it out, blandly proposed an international regime as if nothing had hap- pened. As for the benighted Arab League, this group, at its recent conference in Cairo, sought to prevent any disposition of Arab Palestine. It threatened sanctions against any member that took over part or all of Arab Palestine. It further required a return to the partition boundaries of 1947—that is, the General Asembly’s resolution which it “has all along rejected—as the basis of peace ;talks with Israel. The decisions would be funny if they did not hide tragedy; time “doesn’t stand still with the Arab League, it *goes back, and the wonder grows that its antics are taken at all seriously. Yet this has always been the attitude of the nineteenth century British Colonial Office, to whose initiative the Arab League owes its creation. The league was supposed to be a bulwark of the British imperial in- terest against change as well as communism. It was always more myth than reality. Yet British agents continue to throw dust in the British Government’s eyes about its power and solidarity. In the very last debate in the House of Commons Mr. Bevin lavished praise upon this model of impotence and intransigence. The British temperament, however, is not given to treating fiction as fact, and the London Times has just ad- ministered a resounding rebuke to the Gov- ernment for impeding peace-making in the Middle East by shoring up-the pretensions and sharing the blind reaction of the Arab League. The only sensible policy, the news- paper says, is Jordan’s, namely, to reach a comprehensive understanding with Israel. And the only sensible policy for Britain is “to seek a real understanding among all the countries concerned—including Pakistan, Persia, and Turkey, as well as the Arab States and Israel—instead of looking to the Arab League alone to discharge responsibilities for which its narrow basis and restricted out- look quite unfit it.” Would that all this had been said a long, long time ago. Lack of attention to realities has characterized policy toward Palestine since the onset of the reference of the con~ troversy to the United Nations. The noxious Grand Mufti (who turned up as the evil genius behind the scenes at the Cairo Con- ference) was regarded as the spokesman for Arab Palestine, his Arab Higher Committee was treated at Lake Success as authority, and the Arab League was looked upon as a com- bination of martial nations capable of leading a jihad, or holy war. This is the policy that precipitated the blood bath in Palestine. And now the Arab League, flapping a whisk broom as ineffectual as Mrs. Partington’s, is gesturing to turn back the clock, and de- manding a collective peace with Israel on the basis of the United Nations partition plan of 1947. This it could have had in 1947, but the intervening war has created a new set of actualities, and peace terms, even the UN plan for the internationalization of Jerusalem, must correspond with these actu- alities. King Abdullah, long frustrated in world capitals in his quest for a practical solution, has now recognized them. His is an act of courage that should be backed in London by stopping its arms traffic (with which alone the Arab League retains the slightest prestige) and in Washington by ending its schizophrenia on the Middle East, and at Lake Success by a withdrawal of the resolution on Jerusalem. Address of Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOWARD W. SMITH OF VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, anniversaries of recent occurrence have recalled the name of Thomas Jefferson and his many services to the United States. The sesquicentennial celebra- tion of the establishment of the Library of Congress has stressed our continuing indebtedness to him for this great source of intellectual enlightenment. The cele- bration of Jefferson’s own birthday, April 13, 1743, elicited many tributes to the many facets of his genius. I know of no tribute that has so succinctly expressed our general indebtedness to this great American than the one paid by Hon. Louis A. Johnson, Secretary of Defense, at the founder’s day celebration of the University of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the University of Virginia is Jefferson’s own creation. He was its founder and its architect, and he remains . the inspiration for the progressive spirit not only of that great university but of other great universities throughout the Nation. Thomas Jefferson believed in education, because he believed that edu- . cation is a guaranty of democracy, and he believed in democracy because he hbe- lieved in the people. It was appropriate that Secretary Johnson, in whose able hands has been placed the responsibility for our national defense, should have quoted from a let- ter of Thomas Jefferson this statement: I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. , A3043 Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my great faith in the ability and the wis- dom of Secretary Johnson, faith indi- cated by the President himself in his selection of Louis Johnson for his tre-~ mendous responsibility. There are many who have attacked him and his pro- gram of economy, because they fear he has weakened our defense instead of strengthening it. It is my opinion that such detractors of Louis A. Johnson fail to understand his program of economy and of defense, and fail likewise to share his faith and the faith of Thomas Jeffer- son in the people. Our defense plans— Secretary Johnson said in his stirring address at the University of Virginia— are not rigid. They are not the laws of the Medes and Persians. They are fiexible and adaptable to changing conditions. They are under constant study and review. If we become convinced that our present means are insufficient to meet the exigencies of the day and the probable threats of tomorrow, we shall not be t60 humble to ask for more; and if we find them more than adequate, we shall not be too proud to ask for less. We shall always seek for truth and we shall take fitting means to meet the truth. Secretary Johnson is no advocate of a static defense, a static systcm of educa- tion, or a static democracy. The motto on the great hall of the University of Virginia, a verse from the greatest of all books, assures us that if we—‘Know the truth* * * thetruth shall make (us) free.” Secretary Johnson said: Today in a dynamic world we have reached the pinnacle among nations. We shall retain that leadership only so long as we use the brains and the brawn with which we have been endowed in a way so as to be fully prepared to deter aggression in the first place, to defend ourselves, if need be, and to defeat an aggressor, if he forces war upon us. Mr. Speaker, more significant, how- ever, than Secretary Johmnson’s state- ments about our military defense, and how we shall maintain it, are his words about the more inclusive defense we must maintain if we are to continue to enjoy our democracy in peace. It is in such words that he rises to the wisdom of Jefferson, and to the stature of states- manship. I wish to quote one more para- graph from this heartening speech that does so much to reassure us about the security cf the United States, and the strength of our democracy. Secretary Johnson’s words are: We shall win the struggle to rally hu- manity for freedom not by any matching of man for man, gun for gun, tank for tank, or plane for plane; not by playing our op- ponents’ game and wrecking our economy through spending ourselves into a depres- sion; and not by giving up our Cherished democratic institutions for reactionary mili- taristic experiments in the regimentation of society. We shall win by proving ourselves qualitatively stronger, in ingenuity, in spirit and in muscle, than any who may contem- plate to challenge us. We shall invest pru- dently in our defense and we shall make every dollar bring a maximum return in pro- tection. We shall stand by our friends over- seas. We shall give them economic and mili- tary aid to the fullest extent possible when there is a reasonable chance of some favor- able gain in the form of more effective mu- tual defense. We are determined to be strong,
A3044 for peace today can be achieved only through strength. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks and insert the text of this stirring address, so truly in the spirit and the tradition of Thomas Jef-~ ferson, in the ConcressIonaL RECORD. The address by Secretary Johnson is as follows: (Remarks by Hon. Louis Johnson, Secretary of Defense, Founder’s Day, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va., Thursday, April 18, 1950) About 10 days ago I flew back to the United States from the Netherlands. There, at The Hague, I represented the American people at the third meeting of the Defense Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, This was a meeting of equal partners with equal votes, each ready to contribute it. ac- cordance with his capabilities toward the strengthening of our common defense. As the strongest of the partners and the one in the best position to help in this vital need, the duty and the responsibilities of leader- ship in tuis undertaking on the request of all nations concerned devolved upon the United States, This trst we accepted whole- heartedly in the spirit of a brother more fortunately situated who was eager and de- termined to work to the utmost of his ability with the other members of the family toward the common aspirations of security, peace, freedom, and prosperity. : As I contemplate the present position of the United States as a leader in the family of nations, there comes to my mind a little known chapter of American history of a visit to the Netherlands in 1788 by the founder of our university whom we have come here to honor today. Then the situation was re- versed. The Netherlands nation was strong. We were woefully weak. We had come out of a victorious war with our economy crip- pled, our finances strained, and our credit shattered. We were operating under the loose Articles. of Confederation. The Federal Constitution had been framed but not yet adopted. Our power to raise money was not clearly defined. We desperately needed the sympathy and the help of the Dutch people. We needed funds to tide us ovr the next critical year or two. It was under such circumstances that Thomas Jefferson came to Amsterdam to negotiate a loan with the Dutch for 1,000,000 florin, or about $400,000 in the American currency of that day. It was not a big loan, not even for those days, but it was definitely needed by our young country. The Dutch listened to the sincere pleas of Thomas Jeffer- son and extended credit to our new Nation. About a month later our founder was able to write of his journey to the Netherlands in these terms: “I had the satisfaction to reflect that by this journey our credit was secured and the new Government was placed at ease for 2 years to come.” I sincerely hope that the results of our March meeting in The Hague in 1950 will give the Dutch people and all of our Euro- pean friends the same kind of strength, en- couragement, and faith that our infant Re- public gained as a result of the visit of Thomas Jefferson to Amsterdam in March 1788. Thomas Jefferson, the “father” of our uni- versity, was born on April 18, 1743. In com- memoration of that historic event which has meant so much to the hopes and the aspira~- tions of all of mankind, we, his song and his admirers, have assembled here on this Founder's Day agaii: to express our deep re- spect for him as a man, our abiding faith in him as a great apostle of democracy, and our heartfelt gratitude to him as an earnest and progressive college president. Thomas Jefferson, the man, was the Vir- ginia gentleman in the full sense of the word—human, gallant, gracious, generous, hospitable, tolerant, and courageous. He fully comprehended the true significance and the responsibility of noblesse oblige. He devoted himself wholeheartedly to the welfare of his fellow man. Of Thomas Jefferson the great liberal spirit, there is little that can be added by us to his own great expressions in the Declara- tion of Independence that he wrote, to the statute of Virginia for religious freedom that he sponsored, and to the Bill of Rights whose ‘inclusion in our Federal Constitution he in- spired. Thomas Jefferson believed in democracy. He knew “no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves.” Neither the excesses of the Shay’s Rebellion nor of the French Revolution shook his faith in the common sense of the common man. He fully understood the vulnerabilities as well as the strength of democratic govern- ment cnd democratic institutions, but in his sound, logical, and infornted way he never faltered in his firm conviction that the sur- est road to human happiness was paved with the inalienable rights of man. In times of stress, we find there is some- times a tendency on the part of some peo- ple to lose faith in the democratic process. They say that a democracy debates while a strong ruler decides. They point out that in the name of freedom of speech endless dis- cussion obstructs positive action. They maintain that under the cloak of a free press irresponsbile writers harass and abuse men in public life, and often thwart them in their honorable efforts. These criticisms of democracy are not modern twentieth cen- tury developments. Some of our own fore- fathers had similar misgivings, and par- ticularly about the ability of a democracy to face a grave crisis. It therefore is not surprising that some of their children may sometimes harbor similar doubts today. Astudy of American history, however, and, especially of our successful experience in World War II, should prove conclusively that @ democracy can act with vigor under stress and can come out victorious with its insti- * tutions unimpaired. Today we are engaged in what jis popularly described as a cold war, and I am confident that the same good sense of the American people under a leader in the Thomas Jeffer- son tradition, our President, Harry Truman, will continue to prove the innate strength of our American democracy in the face of any storm. We shall win the struggle to rally humanity for freedom not by any matching of man for man, gun for gun, tank for tank, or plane for plane; not by playing our opponents’ game and wrecking our economy through spending ourselves into a depression; and not by giving up our cherished democratic institutions for reactionary militaristic ex- periments in the regimentation of society. We shall win by proving ourselves qualita- tively stronger, in ingenuity, in spirit and in muscle, than any who may contemplate to challenge us. We shall invest prudently in our defense and we shall make every dollar bring a maximum return in protection. We shall stand by our friends overseas, We shall give them economic and military ald to the fullest extent possible when there is a rea- sonable chance of some favorable gain in the form. of more effective mutual defense, We are determined to be strong, for peace today can be achieved only through strength. But above the physical prowess of our arms there will always stand the innate spiritual APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD quality of our people and their faith in our democratic institutions. That faith wag pest expressed in a letter by Thomas Jefferson as follows: “Iam persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the pest army.” In the same letter that he expressed such faith in the American people, Thomas Jeffer- son went on to pay his respects to the freedom of the press. “The basis of our Government being the opinion of the people,” he wrote, “the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should re- ceive those papers, and be capable of reading them * * *” Such was Thomas Jefferson's faith in the free opinion of mankind. Coupled with this, he was a firm believer in extending and improving facilities for education. To the memory of Thomas Jeiferson, the educator, and the founder of this great uni- versity, we have around us physical testi- monials in brick and mortar that he per- sonally planned, and a liberal tradition of scholarship, honor, and truth upon which he so stanchly insisted. ‘ Were Thomas Jefferson to return to us today he would be pleased to find in Dr. Colgate Whitehead Darden, Jr., a worthy successor—an outstanding leader who ad- ministers this great university in the full spirit of its founding father. As for the students of our day, I doubt if Thomas Jefferson would find any to excel him in his capacity for work and play. He could read latin, Greek, and French. He was equally at home with higher mathematics and natural sciences, With it all, he always seemed to find time to ride, and dance, and sing. His versatility continued after gradu- ation and his all-around capacity gained him great renown. One of his early biogra- phers described him in his thirties as a gen- tleman “who could calculate an eclipse, sur- vey an estate, tle an artery, plan an edifice, try 4 case, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play a violin.” Nor did the education of Thomas Jefferson stop with his college days. In fact, it never stopped. He would have applauded the present educational program of our armed forces for we, too, work on the theory that study does not end with graduation from college, that a diploma from West Point or Annapolis is but the beginning—n first step to qualify a Junior officer for advanced train- ing and higher learning. Thomas Jefferson was deeply interested in the education of military men, and in a sense West Point shares with our own university the claim upon him as its founder. It was _ he who selected Jonathan Williams to head the institution when the Military Academy was only in the discussion stage. It was he who chose West Point as the site for the Academy. It was upon his insistence that the organic act setting up the Military Acad- emy was passed by the Congress. He inter- ested himself in the selection of the faculty at West Point and was responsible for the choice of Ferdinand B. Hassler, a distin- guished Swiss national, to head its mathe- matics department, Toward the end of his administration we find Thomas Jefferson pressing for an expan- sion of the Military Academy and considering its removal to Washington where he hoped “it may render its benefits common to the Naval Department,” Evidently Jefferson, even in those early days, was already think- ing in terms of cross-service between the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Army and the Navy, and perhaps even of unification itself. In later years when it was proposed to give to his portrait a place “among the bene- factors of our Nation and of the establish. ment of West Point in particular,” Thomas Jefferson modestly wrote as follows: “I have ever considered the establishment (of West Point) as of major importance to our country, and whatever I could do for it, I viewed myself as performing a duty only, The real debt of the institution 1s to its able and zealous professors.” In those days the defense of the United States was based on a series of strong forts commanding strategic approaches to our vital areas, and a small mobile force of foot troops, augmented by some cavalry and sup- ported by some artillery. The need for post graduate education either in civilian col- leges or even within the services was not fully recognized, though a beginning was made in 1824, 2 years before Jefferson died, when the artillery school was established at Fortress Monroe in our own Virginia. Today, life in our armed forces is a suc- cession of schools in army posts, on air bases and sh4orvd shins, Officers and enlisted men are cori ually studying the arms and equip- ment entrusted to them and learning how to use them to best advantage. The heart and the core of this educational system are the officers and the noncommissioned officers; and to enable them to teach others, they first must learn themselves. They must learn the tactics and techniques of their own services. They must under- stand their own capabilities and limitations and those of their sister services. Many of them must qualify for duties in the strategic field which are predicted on the ability to handle problems common to two or more of our services, and to carry out unification missions for the Army, Navy and Air Force. Above all else, officers must be leaders; and they are not always born. Courses in lead- ership, therefore, are given great emphasis. Our enlisted men with their innate intelli- gence and practical sense, with their loyalty and their spirit of bravery, are entitled to the best in leadership and we are determined that they will get it. Leadership in modern war is more than drawing sword and fearlessly galloping off at the head of a troop, though there still is no substitute for that type of courage when necessity demands it. Leadership normally begins with a sense of confidence born out of knowledge and experience, and our armed forces are engaged in seeing to it that its officers acquire both these prerequisites. Let us see, for instance, how the Army educates its officers. First, a new second lieutenant goes to a basic officers school for courses in subjects common to the Army as a whole. Then he goes to an Infantry, Ar- tillery, Armored Cavalry, or similar school to become indoctrinated in the basic subjects of his branch. Later he attend an advanced school. If he proves particularly outstand- ing, he may be selected to attend the ad- vanced school of another branch. Some- time between his 7th and 15th year of ser- vice he becomes eligible for a course at the General Staff College, and beyond that there is the War College. From then on, outstanding officers compete with other exceptional men for an opportu- nity to attend schools conducted on a joint Army, Navy, and Air basis. There is the Armed Forces College, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces and the National War College. The Navy and the Air Force provide simi- lar educational programs for their officers. All three services send a considerable num- ber of men to civilian colleges and universi- ties for specialized training where many of them qualify for masters’ degrees and some of them become doctors of philosophy or science. Right here at the University of Virginia there are 26 Army men studying medicine, law, nuclear physics, international relations, and military geography. There are eight air officers taking up law, political science, physics, and psychology. The dis- tribution among the universities is Nation- wide. Let me give a few examples. Navy men are studying engineering at Michigan, MIT, Princeton, Lehigh, and California. There are Army men studying communications at Illinois, electronics at Pennsylvania, guided missiles at Johns Hop- Kins, physics at Chicago, journalism at Mis- souri, law at Harvard, and public adminis- tration at Syracuse. And the Air Force has students at Ohio State, Stanford, Wisconsin, Washington, and Yale. These lists are far from complete. I would not have the time to give you all the colleges and all the courses. I hope I have given you enough, however, to indicate the scope and the va- riety of education followed by the men in the armed forces. Those who have graduated from the serv~ ice, GI alumni of the Army, Navy, Maries, and Air Force, are taking full advantage, by the thousands, of the opportunities offered them by a liberal and appreciative Govern- ment to continue their studies interrupted by war. There are many of them right here at the university. They will be found on the campus of practically every one of our colleges. Their experience in uniform has given them an added stimulus to learn and a@ deeper realization of the value of an edu- cation for service, both 1n war and in peace. There is one aspect worth especial men- tion at this time. Among those receiving specialized training there are 575 officers of the Army, Navy, including the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, attending business management courses in our universities, That fact illustrates our determination to train our officers to place our military pro- cedures on a business basis—to make every dollar of our appropriation bring us a dol- lar’s worth of defense, The sole justification for our armed forces is their ability to defend their country. Second only in importance is the require- ment that they operate on an efficient basis. Our educational program aims to train men toward the realization of both essential ob- jectives. Today, in a dynamic world, we have reached the pinnacle among nations. We will re- tain that leadership only so long as we use the brains and the brawn with which we have been endowed in a way so as to be fully prepared to deter aggression in the first place, to defend ourselves, if need be, and to defeat an aggressor, if he forces war upon us. I have every confidence in our ultimate success. We shall face facts as they are and shall fit our defense plans and our man- power and munitions requirements to meet them. Our defense plans, however, are not rigid. They are not the laws of Medes and Persians. They are flexible and adaptable to changing conditions. They are under con- stant study and review. If we become con-~ vinced that our present means are insuffi- cient to meet the exigencies of the day and the probable threats of tomorrow, we shall not be too humble to ask for more; and if we find them more than adequate we shall not be too proud to ask for less. We shall always seek for truth and we shall take fitting means to meet the truth. As an alumnus of this great university I have never lost sight of the quotation from St. John inscribed in Greek here above the columns of Cabell Hall. “Know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” A394 Address by William C. Bullitt at the Yale Law School EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. STYLES BRIDGES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, April 27 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp the text of an address delivered by the Honorable William C. Bullitt at the Yale Law School on April 18, 1950, under the auspices of the Pierson College International Re- lations Club. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Forty years ago when I was 4 student at Yale we were all obliged to go to compulsory Sunday chapel—which often meant return- ing to New Haven by the milk train from parties in New York. Our pain was eased, however, by President Hadley. The visiting preachers would invariably ask him how long they should preach. Hadley invariably would reply: “Your time is, of course, unlimited; put the oldest Yale tradition is that no souls are saved after the first 15 minutes.” At the risk of saving no souls at all, I shall take more than 15 minutes because I want to try to give you an over-all-picture of the world situation. When you complete your studies you will step onto a field of bat- tle. All of us wish that were not so; but it is so. And you had better know now what you will face. Why isn’t it reasonable to believe that if we display enough good will we can reach an agreement with Stalin that will give peace to the world? After all, the Soviet Union contains a sixth of the land surface of the earth. It is sparsely populated. It could be developed as our own country was de- veloped between the Civil War and the First World War—peacefully, with a constantly rising standard of living for all its inhabi- tants. Why doesn’t that happen? Isn’t the trouble with ourselves? Isn’t the Soviet Gov- ernment afraid of us—legitimately afraid of us? It is not. The Soviet Government knows better than any other government in the world the exact state of mind of the Ameri- can Government and the American people. It has plenty, of agents and sympathizers in our country to give it the facts, and there is no better informed group of men in the world than the Politburo. The leaders of the So- viet Union know as well as we know that we desire to live in peace with all nations. One day in 1934 when our Government was attempting to establish cordial rela- tions with the Soviet Government—hoping that a combination of the forces of Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union might prevent Hitler from making war in Europe and the Japanese militarists from pushing further into China—a number of commissars were having a drink with me at our embassy in Moscow. I showed them the Soviet second reader. In 1t was a chapter entitled “Amer- ica.” At the head of the chapter was a drawing of starving children working at fac= tory machines in a cellar, while on the floor above fat, bejeweled women and fatter men danced jazz. The text read: “America is a country where children of workers and peas- ants are forbidden to get an education. They
A3046 are forced to work all day at machines in dark cellars, and get nothing to eat but bread, while the rich dance over their heads.” I asked the commissars how they expected to educate leaders for the Soviet Union if they taught their children such lies? They laughed and one of them replied: “Have you ever found any one of us that doesn’t know the facts?” I answered that I thought they were better informed than the members of any government I knew. The commissar then went on: “It will always be so. We shall educate in special schools leaders who will know the truth, but as for the rest—we shall teach them exactly what it is in the interest of the Soviet Union for them to know.” Stalin and the members of the Politburo have no fear whatsoever that they will be attacked by the United States. They know the facts. The tremendous trumpetings of anti-American propaganda in Soviet schools, plays, movies, books, press, and radio are merely means to drive fear and hatred into the ignorant in order to make them docile instruments of Stalin. From 1941 to 1947 we tried to appease Stalin. Hopefully we gave him everything he asked. We failed. His appetite remained as great as ever. We failed to appease him then, and we would fail now if we should try again to appease him. We cannot devel- op friendly relations with the Soviet Govern- ment as we could develop such relations with a normal government because we are facing, not a normal government, but a clique of men who, by their own will, deliberately and consciously, have chosen to declare them- selves the enemies of all peoples that live in freedom, They are the high priests of a fighting faith which requires of its adher- ents conquest of the world. The Russian people, who capable of performing prodi- gies of good, are driven by that privileged and persecuting clique to prodigies of evil. In 1939, Stalin ruled 170,000,000 persons. Today he controls 800,000,000—more than a third of humanity. His objective is conquest of the entire human race. He will not stop. He can only be stopped. We cannot get off this planet. We shall have to stop him or submit to his rule. To believe that is still possible to appease Stalin, it is necessary to be ignorant both of Soviet history and of the doctrine which inspires the actions of the Communists. The Communist creed teaches that estab- lishment of Communist dictatorship throughout the earth and abolition of pri- vate ownership of the means of production will erase all envy, hatred, and malice from the human heart. It promises that the state will then wither away and that all men will live without a state in perfect happiness. In the name of science, the Communists teach this fantastically unscientific creed to the peoples they control. They educate their children to live by this faith and, if need be, to die for it. A large percentage of the young in the Soviet Union and the Soviet satellite countries have no other creed taught them. So they have faith in the Communist creed and give their lives for it, believing that they are fighting to eman- cipate all humanity from all evil. Since the Communists believe this, they are convinced that the highest present moral duty of man is to achieve Communist world dictatorship. This supreme end, they hold, justifies all means for its achievement—all means including the pledged word given and broken, character assassination, ‘torture, murder, and war. They revere the words which Lenin wrote: “Itis necessary * “ * to use any ruse, cunning, unlawful method, evasion, concealment of truth.” They hold as gospel truth his portentous statement: “x * + it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue for a long period side by side with imperialist states, Ulti- mately one or the other must conquer, Meanwhile a number of terrible clashes be- tween the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states is inevitable.” There is not the slightest evidence that Stalin disbelieves in this doctrine which now bears his name as well as the names of Marx and Lenin. Even if he should disbelieve in it, he could not abandon it. For the Marx- Lenin-Stalin creed is the fighting faith which holds the Communists together. Without it the Soviet Union and all other Communist states would disintegrate. Stalin must and will continue to try to conquer the world. No vice in international affairs is so fatal as the vice of wishful thinking. If we con~- tinue to believe that we can appease the unappeasable, we shall not survive. We can- not turn a tiger into a cat by stroking it. In our short history, we have never had to face any problem as complex as the prob- lem of this Communist assault. The western world once did face a similar problem. The fighting faith of Mahomet overwhelmed the Christian states of the Near East and North Africa and Spain, and the Moslem forces were not stopped until they reached Tours on the Loire not very far from Paris. I do not wish to compare the Moslem religion, which is a noble one, to the Communist ereed, which is satanic; but I do wish to point out that in the hundred years between Mahomet’s death in 632 and the defeat of the Moslems by Charles Martel in 732, coun- try after country fell before the fighting faith until it seemed that it was irresistible. The Communist attack is no more irre- sistible than was the Moslem attack. But to meet it successfuly, we shall need the same faith and courage that the Christians had at Tours. Furthermore, we shall need wisdom. We shall have to be wise in time. And there is not much time. We shall have to grow up quickly, for the burden of de- feating the Communist attack has fallen on us at @ moment when we are intellectually ill-prepared to carry it. We have always been so occupicd with our domestic affairs, so happy in our own continent, that few Amer- icans have taken any long-continued inter- est in foreign affairs. In consequence, our foreign policies have often been not expres~ sions of our vital interests, but mere spas- modic reactions to the demands of domestic political expediency. The few Americans who have devoted their lives to foreign af- fairs since 1914 are so exceptional as to be almost oddities. As a nation, we are ama- teurs in the foreign field. Our leaders play by ear or by hunch. Stalin sits in the Krem- lin with the members of his Politburo who compose his general staff for conquest of the world and plans his advances on a world scale as carefully as the commander in chief of an army plans his attacks. Our Gov- ernment has never prepared an over-all plan of political, economic, and military defense for ourselves and the rest of the free world. Indeed, our administration has not even understood that such a plan is vital. It is not so long ago that President Truman said “I like old Joe.” What should we be doing? Can we stop Stalin without war? It is not impossible but it will not be easy, For Stalin will not stop unless we keep him constantly confronted by superior force and ‘unless he knows that we will use that force against his direct or indirect aggressions. To stop Stalin without war we must, therefore, have both the superior force and the will, if necessary, to use it. Do we have the superior force? In 1945 we had the atomic bomb and the world’s greatest air force to carry it, Our indus- trial plant was intact. China, the key to all Asia, was our ally. Stalin had no atomic bomb and no long-range bombing planes. His industrial plant was, in large part, worn out or destroyed. Compared to the Soviet Union we were overwhelmingly strong. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Today Stalin has China as an ally. He has atomic bombs and at least 350 long-range bombers capable of carrying them to any spot in the United States. We have no radar warning net to detect the approach of his planes. We have only a fraction of the number of pursuit planes needed to make effective use of a warning net. The author- itative Finletter Commission in 1948 recom- mended as a minimum for national security 70 air groups. We have 44. Stalin’s total air force outnumbers ours by about 3 to 1. His annual production of war planes is about 3 to our 1. He has 125 army divisions to our 10—among them, 30 armored divisions to our 1. In addition, he has approximately 270 submarines—about 30 of which are of the latest type against which we have not yet produced effective counterweapons. Fur- thermore, thanks to his agent Fuchs who transmitted to him all our secrets for produc- tion of both A-bombs and hydrogen bombs, he may be ahead of us in production of H- bombs. Moreover, the whole of western Europe is without defense, and everyone in western Europe knows it. Its cities cannot be pro- tected against Soviet atomic bombs except by our Air Force, which today is not strong enough for the task. To oppose the 125 So- viet divisions, the French have 6, the British say they can furnish 1, the Belgians 1. To have a chance to stop the Red army for a few months, the European democracies would need from 50 to 60 divisions. Modern equip- ment for such a number of divisions would cost from $10,000,000,000 to $20,000,000,000, And military authorities agree that no western European defense system can be effective unless both the western Germans and the Spaniards are included in it. The balance of military force is swinging 60 rapidly to the Soviet side that some offi- cials in Washington who have access to secret information belleve that Stalin will attack us this autumn. They argue that by August 1950 he will probably have 650 A-bombs— enough to cestroy our great cities and our atomic production plants, and thus prevent effective American counterattack, But my belief is that Stalin will not launch shooting “war until he is certain that he can defeat us easily. He is a cautious and crafty leader who strikes only when he feels sure of quick victory. This autumn, his first surprise at- tack might not be successful. We would probably be able to strike back effectively, Therefore, it seems likely that he will not start bombing this year but will go on in- creasing his military strength faster than we are adding to ours, and seize more peoples, resources, and strategic areas, until he feels that his power is irresistible, We are allow- ing time to run on his side. And he knows it. Unless we strengthen quickly our own military forces and those of our allies and prevent further Soviet aggressions, we shall throw away our last chance to keep Stalin confronted by superior force—and shall throw away, therefore, our last chance to stop Stalin without war. We shall not even be able to defeat Stalin in war unless we build up our strength and that of our allles faster than Stalin is bulld- ing up the strength of the Soviet Union and its satellites, and unless we stop further di- rect or indirect Communist aggressions. At the present moment the Communists are advancing by open warfare in Indo- china. If we let Indochina fall, Burma, Siam, and British Malaya—with its vast pro- duction of rubber and tin—will also fall, Then it will be India’s turn. At another point, the Communists are mak- ing small attacks preparatory to a great attack. The Ohinese Communists for some time have been attempting to seize small islands on the way to the great strategic island of Formosa. Formosa is still being
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD held by the Chinese Nationalist Army which, some weeks ago, gave proof of its good mo- rale by seizing a port on the mainland. If the Chinese Communists should capture Formosa, Stalin’s forces would be within 250 miles of the northern Philippines. It was from Formosa that Japan attacked and cap~ tured the Philippines. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed by General Eradley, pleaded with President Truman to send munitions and equipment, as well as economic aid to Formosa, and a few American officers to ad- vise regarding defense. Secretary of State Achesen opposed our military leaders, and persuaded President Truman to decide that we would continue to do nothing to prevent the fall of Formosa. That is our present policy. For the Philippines, the Department of State is preparing another Bataan. In the Near East, Iran, with its huge oil preduction, which plays such a large part in British economic life, is again threatened by Soviet-directed revolutionaries of the Tudeh Party. They have a fertile field in which to work. The poverty among the peas- ants of Iran is so grinding that they are close to revolt. Unless the Government of the United States moves rapidly to alleviate the suffering in Iran, Stalin may soon add that ancient country to his long list of satel~ lites. These, for the moment, are the areas in Asia where Stalin is pressing his advance strongly. But even in western Kurope he is undermining our friends. In Italy, more than 20 percent of the work- men are unemployed, and the Communists, who gathered one-third of the votes at the last elections, are gaining in strength. In France, the government is far weaker than any French Government before the Second World War, and its entire apparatus is riddled with Communists. Even the head of French atomic research is a Communist. Great Britain is staggering toward another financial and economic crisis. Western Germany, under the pressure of unemployment, is beginning to listen to the Soviet propaganda which says: “Side with the United States and you will have unem- ployment, underfeeding, shortage of raw ma- terials, a divided country and, finally, Soviet atomic bombs on your cities. Side with the Soviet Union and you will have all the wheat and raw materials you want, no unemploy- ment, and a united Germany including the part that is momentarily Polish.’ Pastor Niemoeller, much admired by Americans, has now declared himself in favor of a united Germany even at the price of Communist rule: When we began to give Marshall plan aid, and when we signed the Atlantic Pact, our object was to make western Europe a strong ally. We have succeeded only in keeping alive 17 picturesque, competing countries which cannot feed or defend themselves, If they would unite their economies by enter- ing a European federation, they would be on the path to strength. But their govern- ments refuse to take any serious steps to- ward federation. And our Government is making no effective effort to move them toward federation. They feel confident that, even after 1952, we will not stop our doles to them. And, indeed, we do not dare to stop for fear that they will all collapse into the hands of Stalin and be organized as Soviet satellites for his final attack on us. What, then, is the real state of our defenses against Soviet aggression? Our own military strength is falling behind the growing mili- tary strength of Stalin. Asia is slipping into Stalin’s hands. Western Europe is defense- less. The Soviet atomic bomb threat to our homes, our families, and our country is in- creasing each day. The Communists are ad- vancing. We are retreating. They are on the Offensive. We are on the defensive. No war, hot or cold, was ever won by forces which remained on the defensive. Why are we on the defensive? Why has our Government failed to defend our vital interests? Because American foreign policy since 1941 has been a supreme triumph of Soviet psy- chological warfare. In 1941 our Government was bamboozled into treating the Soviet Union as a peace-loving democracy and the Chinese Communists as mere agrarian re- formers who have no connection with Mos- cow. Our Department of State forgot that the Soviet Government was a predatory to- talitarian tyranny and that the Chinese Communists were agents of Stalin. In 1941 the Soviet Government was in desperate straits. Thanks to our aid—$11,000,000,000 worth—it survived. Today, Stalin controls more than a third of the human race, and We are not sure that we shall survive. The measure of our foreign policy is the fact that in 1939 Stalin controlled 170,000,000 people, while today he controls 800,000,000. Apologists for the Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam agreements have used many words in an attempt to prove that what was wrong was not the agreements themselves but the failure of the Soviet Union to carry out the agreements. This is as if a banker, who had been appointed trustee of the fortune of a child, should place the funds entrusted to his care in a Ponzi get-rich-quick scheme and then, when the money was lost, plead that the trouble was not with the trustee— who accepted Mr. Ponzi’s promise to pay 200 percent per year—but with Ponzi’s failure to carry out the agreement. The people of the United States hire officials to work in the Department of State because they need ex- perts to handle complex world questions. The officials of that Department are trustees of the vital interests of the American people, and the most contemptible excuse that can be offered by or for them is that they meant well but were played for suckers. To explain the sacrifice of the vital inter-— ests of the people of the United States by our National Government, it is not necessary to conclude that our Department of State is filled with Soviet agents. We know that there have been some in influential posts. But most of the damage has been done by naive dupes of Soviet psychological warfare. We still have in office, in Washington and throughout the world, duped officials who have not been Soviet agents but have served the Soviet Government as effectively as if they had been Soviet agents. In our Army, a general who loses a divi- sion through incompetence is court mar- tialed. In our Department of State, men who throw away whole countries are pro- moted. They have a vested interest in their own mistakes. They cannot detach them- selves from their past or their friends—even though those friends turn out to be Soviet agents. In any parliamentary democracy a minister of foreign affairs who had tossed a great ally like China to Stalin would have been dismissed from his post. Mr. Acheson rernains Secretary of State. There is a great moral difference between traitors and Soviet dupes. It is the same difference that is recognized in law between a@ man guilty of murder and a man guilty of manslaughter. In the case of manslaughter, there is no intention to commit the crime. But in both cases the victim ends up dead. If our President continues to keep as ad- visers on foreign policy men who have played a part in the sacrifice of our vital interests from 1941 to the present time, we shall have small chance to survive. . Perhaps it is difficult for you to feel pro- foundly that all you care about may be de- stroyed. Have you ever thought how many great civilizations have been totally annihi- lated? Have you thought of the Athens of Pericles and of the Roman Empire? Of all the great cities of Syria and north Africa where today stretch only lonely sands? Have A3047 you understood that a similar extinction may come, and come soon, to the whole Christian civilization of Europe—and may come to us here? This is hard to believe, but it is so. Under these circumstances, what should we do? Let us remember two facts in ap- proaching the problem of our foreign policy: First, let us remember always to distin- guish between the Russian people and the Soviet government. There can be no peace on earth so long as the Russian people and the peoples of the Soviet satellite states are driven by men who prefer a murderous dcc- trine to the “plain exigence of charity.” In the year 1830 the Poles in revolt against the tyranny of the Czars inscribed on their ban- ners a phrase addressed to the enslaved Rus- sian people: “For your freedom and ours.” We should approach the Russian people in the same spirit. However hard it may be, we must make the Russians comprehend that we stand for their freedom no less than for our own, since in our battle against the Communist dictator the Russian people must be our final allies. We have had freedom for so Many years, we have lived so long in Chris- tian civilization under a Bill of Rights hon- estly enforced, that we are apt to forget that the idea of freedom is the most explosive force in the world of politics. Freedom is an atomic bomb in the field of ideas. All men hate to live under the eye and hand of an omnipotent secret police. Tyranny, whether it be called by the name of communism, fascism, or by any other name, is loathed by all normal men and women. And how- ever absolute may be today the grip of the Soviet dictator on his subject peoples, that grip can and will be ended eventually by the idea of freedom. Second, let us remember always that many years will elapse before the peoples of the Soviet Union and the satellite states achieve freedom and that, throughout those years, Wwe and the other free nations will be in danger of extinction unless we keep the So- viet Union constantly confronted by superior force. If any one of you is morally disturbed by that idea, let him remember that the most legitimate use of force on this earth is to hold the field to permit the growth of moral ideas. Within the framework of these general conclusions, what should be our foreign policy? 1. To build up our military strength faster than Stalin is increasing his military strength. 2. To achieve the federation of western Europe and give adequate arms to that fed. eration. 3. To stand-up with force to the threat of the Communists in eastern Germany who have announced that on May 28 they will march 500,000 youths from east Berlin into west Berlin. 4. To give far greater aid than we have been giving to resistance forces in all the Soviet satellite countries. 5. To help the Albanian exiles rescue Al- bania from the Communists, and thus give new spirit to all the enslaved peoples behind the iron curtain. 6. To give adequate and effective economic aid to Iran. 7. To prevent Communist conquest of Formosa, 8. To help the Annamites and the French throw the Communists completely out of Indochina, 9. To insist that the UN—now paralyzed by Sovirxt veto and boycott—function as if there were no Soviet boycott. — These are but a few of the obvious steps that we must take immediately if we are to wrest the offensive from Stalin. Won’t such a policy be terribly expensive? Of course it will be. Each one of us will have to make sacrifices—genuine sacrifices that will be hard to bear. We have allowed
A3048 Stalin to acquire such strength and to take over such races, resources, and strategic posi- tions that nothing short of the full efforts of the American people will suffice to stop him. We are not technically at war; but we shall have to live and work as if we were at war. We know what happens to a people that refuses to face—in time—a mortal danger. Yet today our Government is behaving as the French Government behaved from 1936 to 1939. In that period when the Germans were prepazing for war and working 60 hours a week, the French cut their working hours to 40 a week. When the Germans were pro- ducing 700 planes a month, the French cut their plane production to 50a month. They did this for the same reason that we are now reducing expenditures for our military forces and for aid to our friends throughout the world. The people of France, like all other peoples, wanted a higher standard of living and leisure. They did not realize that a higher standard of living and leisure would soon give them a higher rate of dying. In 1940 Hitler destroyed the independence of France. We restored the independence of France. There is no nation standing behind us to restore our independence. It may be difficult for us to persuade our Government to change its present policies. President Truman has staked his political future on a program of hand-outs for crop support, housing, education, and other proj- ects which appeal to groups of voters. To get more tax money for the hand-out program which produces votes, he has cut down the defense program which might produce sur- vival, Our tax money is being used to buy surplus potatoes instead of jet planes. It will not be easy for him to change his course; but our best hope lies in the fact that he is a patriot. If we can let him know that hence- forth we want to hear from him not what we can get from our country but what we can give to our country, we shall make it easy for him to take the course which will enable our Nation to survive. The burden of decision is on our President, He, by our Constitution, controls our foreign policy. He commands our armed forces, If he is to act in time to save our country from conquest by Stalin, he will have to change his thinking quickly. He will have to experi- ence something like the transformation which Saul experienced on the road to Damascus when “there shined about him a light from heaven,” and he became Paul the Apostle. We should hope and pray that a light from. heaven will fall on President Tru- man; but we should also try to shed upon him a light from the public opinion of Amer- icans who do not want to live soft for a few years and then be conquered, but do want to live hard and keep their country free, Seaway Project a Threat to Philadelphia and United States EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD MARTIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES \ Thursday, April 27 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorn an editorial entitled “Seaway Project a Threat to Philadelphia and United States,” pub- lished in this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer. It deals with the subject of the: St, Lawrence seaway. There keirig no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: SEaway PROJECT A THREAT TO PHILADELPHIA AND UNITED STATES In the light of the dubious over-all value of the St. Lawrence seaway project, to say nothing of the unquestionably bad effects on many sections of the country, including Philadelphia, Secretary of State Acheson’s statement that action on this scheme is overdue is wholly unconvincing. Acheson dutifully appeared before the House Public Works Committee to support President Truman’s plea for approval of the seaway project, and added that it was neces- sary from the economic and defense stand- points, and to improve harmonious relations with Canada as well. But Acheson, like so many others who have plugged this idea for more than half a century, failed completely to answer the ob- jections that it would be too costly, that its defense value would be negligible if it had any at all, and that it would entail inevitable dislocations among important segments of the American economy. It has been pointed out before that one bomb placed on one of the 50 proposed locks could bottle up the whole navigation system envisioned in these plans. ‘Yet the locks would be essential if the St. Lawrence River were to be opened to navigation so that oceangoing vessels could go all the way to the port cities of the Great Lakes. It has been shown, too, without successful contradiction, that this seaway would be shut down by ice for 5 months or more every year. And it has been demonstrated that the cost, now estimated at $800,000,000, would not end with the seaway project. Additional dredging of Great Lakes harbors would be needed, and there would be other costs. But the most important objection is the disastrous effect of this scheme on American seaports. Philadelphia, along with New York, Boston, Baltimore, and other cities, would suffer severe losses by the proposed diversion of freight. The Pennsylvania Railroad and other railroads would incur new hardships which might impair their effectiveness in times of national emergency. Acheson hasn’t met these objections. The only action which is overdue, in the opinion of most Americans, is a decisive vote by Con- gress to reject, once and for all, this peren- nial effort to commit the United States to a wasteful project whose damaging effects would far outweigh its claimed benefits. If World War III Comes, It Started With the Line That Chinese Communists Are Just “Agrarian Reformers” EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by Edgar Ansel Mowyrer: : Averacn Fettows Nor Worrren Over War} Experts TROUBLED (By Edgar Ansel Mowrer) All over our vast and flourishing country little groups of earnest people are talking about the possibility of war. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD This is not the kind of war scare which we have become used to since 1945 when the Soviet Union went berserk and started threat. ening the civilized world. Those scares af~ fected average citizens. Students of world affairs were skeptical. Even during the So- viet siege of west Berlin which we broke by the airlift, American officials, ex-diplomats and specialists were not alarmed. Now it is just the opposite. The average fellow does not seem to be much disturbed by the trend of international affairs. The specialists are worried. Recently one such specialist warned me to make no mistake, since we are already in a military situation, An American ex-diplomat of great ex- perience told me he was convinced that the Russians will never let us rearm western Europe. He thought they would force the issue in about 18 months. Another even higher ex-official, thought the show-down might come within 6 months. The reason, generally speaking, for this pessimism is the boldness of recent Soviet diplomatic moves and provocations of the latter. The shooting down of the American Navy plane over the Baltic was merely the latest. The tone of the Soviet diplomatic protest over the alleged establishment of a democratic naval base at Trieste is an- other. Another reason is the stubbornness with which the Soviet Union is now charging its adversarics with planning war. The latest of these made over the Soviet home radio service on April 18 charged the harmless Council of Europe with plotting aggressive war. The Soviet home service, be it noted, is addressed not to the outside world but to the Soviet peoples. This broadcast looked like part of a campaign to prepare the popu- lation for international trouble. All totalitarian regimes, from Hitler and Mussolini to Stalin and Franco, have a habit of accusing the adversary of preparing to do exactly what they themselves are planning. A-BOMB FEAR But behind the current uneasiness in the minds of those Americans closest to inter- national affairs is more than reaction to the Kremlin's latest outbursts, It is the conviction that the acquisition of the A-bomb and of vast China has for the first time give the lords of the Kremlin enough power to wage an offensive war if they choose. It has been known for some months—and repeated in these columns— that the Russians are rearming on a scale far larger than President Truman ond Secretary of Defense Johnson have planned for us— that they are, in sort, outstripping us. WAR NOT NECESSARY Personally, I do not believe that war is either imminent or necessary. The reason is that the non-Communist nations still have vastly greater potential strongth than the Communist bloc, provided we organize But one thing has to be admitted. With- out the A-bomb and China, the U. 8. 8. R. would not today be defying the armed might of the United States by shooting down our airplanes, Which brings me back to the drama that has been going on before the Senate com- mittee in Washington these last weeks. Owen Lattimore has taken oath that he is not and never has been a member of the Communist Party or a Communist sympa~ thizer. Louis Budenz, former editor of the Communist New York Daily Worker, has sworn that Lattimore had been described to him as a top American Communist author- ity on Asiatic affairs. He claims that Mr. Lattimore was a member of a Communist “cell” active within the Institute of Pacific Relations. I have never met Mr. Budeng and have only a casual acquaintance with Mr. Lattimore.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I do, however, know one thing which is to me more important than whether Mr. Latti- more is or is not connected with the Com-~ munist Party. That is, that both Mr. Latti- more and the Institute of Pacific Relations have advocated policies which, in my judg~ ment, have resulted in the Soviet acquisition of China that may be a cause of war. This policy, as Mr. Budenz pointed out be- fore the Senate, started with passing off the Chinese Communists as “Agrarian reform- ers.” A flat lie if there ever was one. A sec~ ond phase was designating the Nationalist Government of China—our wartime ally—as “feudalists” while painting the Chinese Com- munists as “democrats.” From this followed logically the policy of withholding arms from the “feudalists’ until they did what Washington wanted. A lot of bright Ameri- can writers fell for this line. By 1945, according to these people, the Nationalist Government was the “war party” and the Communists the “peace party.” What more logical than for General Marshall to try to compel the “war party” to form a coalition with the “peace party?’ Shortly after the Communists began to win the civil war, the line changed again. The “agrarian reformers” had to be acknowl- edged as Communists all right. But they were not necessarily the tools of Moscow. I actually heard a leading member of the council on Pacific relations tell an unin- formed audience at Cleveland, Ohio that if the United States would only be friendly to the Chinese Communists, sell them what they needed on their terms and break off relations with the Nationalists, these Com- munists would prefer us to the Soviet Union and in case of war, fight on our side against Moscow. The United States Government went some distance along this line in the blithe hope that Mao Tse-Tung would turn out to be a Chinese Tito. Mao didn’t. The Chinese Communists be- came Moscow’s right bower. They now con- trol all of China but two islands and Mos- cow becomes insolent toward the United States. Do the advocates of appeasement in the Far East change? By no means. Mr. Lattimore advocates our throwing South Korea to the Communist wolves and under no circumstances aiding the “feudalists” to maintain themselves from Formosa. Tomorrow some bright Amer- ican reformer may advocate letting Ho Chi- minh take over Indochina. : Why stop there? Why not help the Com- munist to liberate Thailand and Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines, Malaya, and even India? Aren’t there “feudalists” in all these countries? If the war that such expansion encourages then comes, we can console ourselves with the thought that it can be traced back to a policy that began by calling the Chinese Communists “agrarian reformers” and ended by giving them Asia. Or can’t we? Rent Control EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN or NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, April 26 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp testimony I presented this morning before the Committee on Banking and Currency on the subject of rent control. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: SvraTeMENT or Hon. HerperT H. LEHMAN, OF NEw York, ON RENT CONTROL BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CurR- RENCY As the members of this committee know, I have introduced S. 3464, a bill to amend and continue the present Rent Control Act for 2 years and to provide on orderly de- control procedure. With the permission of the committee, I propose to discuss the de- tails of my bill, but first I wish to make a short general statement on rent control. I would like, first of all, to make known to the members of this committee what I believe to be the wishes and the needs of the country today, namely continued pro~- tection against the possibility of unjustified rent increases and inflationary influenc€és on the national economy. The theory of rent control, as I understand it, is to protect tenants from unfair exploita- tion in the cost of shelter, while protecting landlords in their right to have an adequate rent, and, over-all, to protect the economy of the Nation from an inflation based on a shortage in rental housing. It is asked why we continue to control rents when controls over other segments of our economy have been eliminated. The answer to that question is not difficult. Rent controls are maintained because hous- ing is the one commodity people cannot do without—it is the one commodity for which people cannot find a substitute, and as a single commodity, it takes a larger por- tion of the average monthly wage than any other. Another argument advanced against rent control is that the landlord should be en- titled to a fair rent. I agree. But in the same breath, I want to stress that the his- tory of rent control shows that administra- tion policy has been to grant rent increases whenever justified and also to decontrol completely those areas in which housing shortages no longer exist. In support of this statement, the records of Housing Expediter show that during the past year, three out of every four landlords who applied for a rent increase received it. It has been said that anyone who could write could get a rent increase. I do not approve of that practice, but it has been rather gen- eral. The increases granted averaged 17.8 percent. During all this period, the Hous- ing Expediter has had landlord-tenant con- sultants available and on the job through- out the country. It was the duty of these consultants to provide information and as- sistance on applications for rent adjustments and to aid in the preparation of these ap- plications. It seems evident that all land- lords who could or can justify a rent in- crease neither were nor are handicapped in applying for an increase. My information is that too many increases were granted, although it is more than likely that some few landlords are still receiving rentals which are unjust to them. A third argument advanced against rent control is that it is socialistic and is con- trary to the American way of life. Those who advance this argument want to end rent control as of this minute, completely and conclusively, without regard to the untold suffering and human misery such a termi- nation would cause. I say that our present situation is not one which calls for such drastic and shocking action. I agree that we should bring rent control to an end as soon as possible, but we should not endanger the nationa] economic structure by doing this before the housing conditions are such that this can be done without inflicting severe hardships upon vast numbers of our people. A3049 NEED FOR RENT CON1RZ0L Mr. Chairman, your committee will un- doubtedly be told that rent control should be eliminated because the need for it no Jonger exists. The facts and figures avaul- able to us completely refute such a claim. At the present time, rent control affects the yents on 11,000,000 units and protects about 38,000,000 people. On May 1, 1950, the State of New York will assume State control of rents and before June 30, 1950, the States of Alabama and Virginia will no longer be subject to Federal controls. Parenthetically, I may say that I understand there 1s a deep ‘uneasiness over this situation in the county of Arlington and the city of Alexandria near Washington. In these areas live thousands of the employees of the Federal Government. Drastic rent increases will wipe out the bene- fits of recent salary increases granted to these Federal employees. It is my »~edictiom that even though rent control is Gte.1. v7 in these two coun- ties of Virginia, the District of Columbia will continue to have adequate protection. We will then find Federal employees work- ing side by side, earning exactly the same salary, one paying a fair rent and the other paying whatever the traffic will bear. Cer- tainly such a situation is neither fair nor in the public interest. On June 30, 1950, after the withdrawal of New York, Alabama, and Virginia, Federal rent control will still affect 8,375,000 units and protect some 29 million people. Certainly by reason of mag- nitude alone, this control can qualify as an urgent Federal responsibility to be met with Federal action. For the past year the decontrol of rents was possible by any city, town, or village, by any State, by any local rent advisory board and by the Federal Housing Expediter. . By these means a total of 791 decontrel actions have decontrolled 3,213,800 units since April 1, 1949. Almost a quarter of the total 16,000,000 units which were originally under control were decontrolled in the past year. Certainly this proves that the process of decontrol is progressing at a satisfactory rate. But as of June 30, 1950, there will still remain the major problem of rent control in each of 68 cities with a population of 100,000 or more, located in 40 States. I have been much concerned with the problem of rent control, especially in my own State. I have already said that the New York State law will go into effect on May 1, 1950. There are, however, certain aspects of that State law which to my mind are far from satisfactory. It was with those defects in mind that I planned the bill which I introduced on the 21st of this month. Moreover, it appears that there is some ques- tion of the constitutionality of the New York State law. To permit the Federal law to expire under such circumstances would be an offense against the people of my State. But I am also deeply interested in the wel- fare of all the people throughout the United States. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would now like to describe the major points of my bill, S. 3464, and give briefly the reason for the inclusion of those major points. I. S. 3464 extends rent control and the veteran’s preference provisions of the present law for 2 years. I have said that I am seek- ing an orderly transition from a system of controlled rents to one of uncontrolled rents, In our larger cities such as New York, Chi- cago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, such an orderly transition cannot be accomplished in 1 year. That fact is recognized even in the New York State law which also termi- nates rent control on June 30, 1952. Also I feel it is far safer to have at hand an au- thority which may not be needed than to suffer from lack of it. II. Section 201 of my bill provides that housing units completed on or before the date of enactment of this bill will be placed under controls. Maximum rents for these
A3050 units would be equal to rents on comparable controlled units, giving due consideration to the increased costs of construction, I recognize that this has the possibility of working a hardship on some landlords, al- though I think under the terms of my Dill, the Housing Expediter would be given suffii- cient discretion to prevent such hardships and to make due allowance for the increased costs of construction of these new buidings. I recognize also that these buildings were constructed on the basis of being exempt from rent control. Yet, 1t is likewise true that most of the older buildings were like~ ‘wise constructed on the basis of being exempt from rent control. The fact of the matter is that most of these units were built with Government FHA financing. I have read numerous re- ports and analyses indicating that excessive and even shocking rents are being charged in these new units. Since these units were constructed in large part with Federal funds, it seems perfectly proper for the Federal Gov~ ernment to move in at this point and insure that the owners shall not make excessive profits at the expense of the public whose taxes have made this construction possible. Nevertheless, I do not pretend to insist that this provision represents a black and white case. I think it is a desirable pro- vision. But I think a satisfactory rent con- trol law could be written without it. It has some features concerning which I am not comfortable, but I know of no other way to achieve the purposes which I have in mind. III. My bill provides for pegging rents at the level of March 1, 1949, and is, in effect, & roll-back to that level. Yet it is only a roll-back for rents which have risen grossly, unfairly, or improperly above the level of March. 1, 1949. Rents which have risen as a result of improvements in accommodations or services are approved. Rents which have risen as a result of decrease in net operating income are approved. But all increases in the latter category are limited to 15 percent. My bill also authorizes decreases in rents by action of the Housing Expediter, where gross inequities are found or where rent increases have been imposed through fraud or misrepresentation. IV. But while I propose to strengthen the controls on rents which should be controlled and to roll back rents which have improperly risen in shortage areas, I also propose new standards for the orderly decontrol of rental areas, and new inducements for decontrol in areas where control is no longer needed. Under the vresent law, the State, or the local government, or the Housing Expediter may decontrol areas under their respective Jurisdictions. But a State in whose rural areas control is no longer necessary has no means whereby it can practicably retain control in its larger cities. Most States thus choose to either continue to remain under Federal jurisdiction or to decontrol entirely, exposing the cities within their borders to unfortunate hardship. My bill permits the Federal Housing Ex- pediter to retain control over a portion of the units—the low-rental units—in any area in which the housing shortage in the other categories eases up. My bill permits a State to decontrol and yet retain Federal controls of the large cities within its borders. My bill permits a city, village, county, or any other local unit to be recontrolled, after being decontrolled, on a finding of hardship, or an application by the governing body of such a local unit. My bill authorizes the Federal Govern- ment to recontrol large cities which have passed under State control but which have subsequently been decontrolled by State ac< tion. In such cases, it would take an affirm ative request by the governing body of the city in question to authorize the Federal Government to recontrol. This provision is aimed at situations like the recent development in my own State. Under these provisions, States and local- ities will be quicker to decontrol, knowing that if hardship develops, they can again come under the protecting arm of Federal rent control. Altogether my bill presents a framework whose emphasis is on control but whose pur- pose is to encourage dencontrol in areas and for categories of rental units over which con- trol is no longer necessary. I cannot empha- size too strongly and too often that my purpose is to protect the groups and the areas which need protection and to see re- moved the hand of Federal controls from every area and every unit where it is not socially and economically essential that such control be retained. My bill provides criminal sanctions for vio- lation of the rent-control laws or regula- tions. My theory is—and it is supported by experience in a wide variety of fields—that a law without teeth invites violations. I think that our experience in the last year with the Federal rent-control law amply bears this point out. There are two other noteworthy provisions in my bill which I think should be retained in any rent-control law which is enacted by the Congress. One is a provision prohibit- ing the conversion of a rental dwelling unit to comercial uses, except where no rental dwelling shortage exists. Sufficient discre- tion is left to the Housing Expediter to make this provision flexible and practicable. The second is a provision which would pro- hibit the denial of unoccupied controlled housing to would-be renters on the sole ground that they have children. I think this is an important provision. I think that the present practice of denying rental ac- commodations to families with children is antisocial and deeply unfortunate. My bill provides sanctions to back up the intent of the law. I recognize that this provision will be difficult of enforcement. Yet I believe that it should and must be included in the law as a declaration of national policy. This, Mr. Chairman, sums up the more significant provisions of S. 3464. As I have said, I have no special pride in this bill. I prefer to regard it as my contribution to the consideration which the members of this committee are giving to the subject of rent control. My sole purpose here today Is to present to this committee my arguments for asking that a falr and reasonable rent-con- trol law be enacted and that tenants, especi- ally low-income tenants, be granted the pro- tection they so urgently need. Iam submitting for the record a copy of 8. 8464 with some minor substantive changes and clarifying amendments indicated thereon. I propose to introduce a clean bill today which will include these changes. Happenings in Washington EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. EDWARD MARTIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, April 27 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp, program No, 23 in the series “Happenings in Washington,” which I have been presenting from time to time. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, _ a8 follows: APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD My fellow Pennsylvanians, this is Ep Mar- TIN, speaking to you from the Nation’s Cap- ital, and bringing you another discussion of happenings in Washington. President Truman, recently back from his month-long vacation in Key West, is busily preparing for his forthcoming nonpolitical swing through many parts of the Nation, So, down here in Washington, the period between those two events seems to offer an ideal opportunity to take stock. It gives us a chance to weigh the admin- istration’s promises and the accomplish- ments of the Highty-first Congress. The Eighty-first Congress, you remember, came into power in January 1949. It is now more than half way through its second ses~ * gion. It has only about 314 months more to go before the adjournment date provided by law. It is a strong Democratic Congress. Let us see what it has done to redeem the promises of the leader of its party. But, first, I want to remind you that, in 1948, Mr. Truman called the kightieth Con- gress a do-nothing Congress. He said it was the second worst Congress in our history. You will remember also that he summoned the Eightieth Congress back into special ses- sion in the summer of 1948 and demanded that it put through a long lst of must legislation. The President said Congress could certainly put through all the bills in 2 weeks. It couldn't, and of course, it didn’t. In the elections of 1948 the people gave him a Democratic majority in the Senate and an overwhelmingly strong Democratic House. This Congress was in session for 7 months last year. It has been in session about 4 month of this year, so far. And, you will be interested to know, it has not accomplished in all those months what Mr. Truman insisted in 1948 any Congress should be able to do in 2 weeks. Let us look over some of the results. The President demanded higher taxes. He will not get them. Instead the people will get some reductions in the war-time excise tinxes we are still paying. The Democratic majority in Congress has rejected his tax-increase proposals and is sub- stituting the excise-tax reductions recom- mended and fought for by the Republican minority in Congress. One of the finest accomplishments of the Eightieth Congress was its enactment of the Taft-Hartley law. Let me remind you that it was passed over the President’s veto. Next to the fact that the Hightieth Congress gave the Nation its only 2 years of balanced bud- gets in the past 20 years—I am proudest of the fact that it passed the Taft-Hartley ct. President Truman called it a slave-labor law and promised it would be wiped off the books. He demanded its repeal in this Democratic Congress—but Congress, with a strong ma- jority of his own party, has flatly refused to obey his orders. Now the President has tried in another rey to circumvent this law and to cripple t. One feature of the Taft-Hartley Act is that it provides a strong, independent general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, so that the Board which sits as Judge and jury should not also be an enforcement and prosecution arm, The President sent to Congress a series of 21 reorganization plans, most of them in line with administrative recommendations of the Hoover Commission. One of President Truman's plans, No. 12, provides that the independent office of gen- eral counsel of the National Labor Relations Board be aholished and that its functions be transferred to the chairman of the Board.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Now, many people have been led to be- lieve that this proposed change was recom- mended by the Hoover Commission. Actually the Hoover Commission made no such recommendation. And, recently, in a letter to a Member of the Senate, former President Herbert Hoover wrote—and I quote: “So far as I recollect, this subject was never discussed by the Commission. There Was no recommendation in the Commission’s reports to Congress.” That, my fellow Pennsylvanians, is in a letter from Mr. Hoover, himself, the chair- man of the Hoover Commission. He makes it plain that the Commission not only did not want the office of the general counsel abolished, but that it never even discussed the subject. Many who have been watching this situa- tion are under the impression that Presi- dent Truman’s political advisers sought to put one over on Congress and the Nation by slipping this scheme across with authentic recommendations of the Hoover Commis- sion. I don’t think Congress will let him get away with it. Mr. Truman’s Congress has refused to give him the Brannan plan which would place the farmers of this country under complete control by the Federal Government. Congress has pigeonholed the Truman de- mand for socialized medicine, the extrava- gant and discriminatory so-called middle- income housing measure, and the contro- versial Federal-aid-to-education plan which would result in Washington dictatorship over the State and local school systems. Mr. Truman demanded fair-employment legislation. Last January, you will recall, the Democratic leadership announced that the FEPC bill would be the first one to be brought up in the Senate this year. It wasn’t brought up then. Now, 4 months later, it still has not been brought up. But the House did pass an FEPC bill. That bill, the only legislation of its kind to pass either branch of Congress, is a Repub- lican measure, introduced by a Republican and backed by an almost solid block of Re- publican votes in the House. What is more, neither the President nor his Eighty-first Congress has made a single, genuine move to irim Government spending down to income or to prevent this Nation from plunging deeper and deeper into debt. In the last 20 years there has been only one Republican Congress—the Eightieth Congress. And in the last 20 years, during the lifetime of only one Congress—the Eightieth Congress—has the Federal Gov- ernment’s spending been kept down to the level of its income. And so, my fellow Pennsylvanians, I am moved to wonder about this: When Mr. Truman goes out on the road again in May, to tour the Nation and make speeches, will he denounce his Eighty-first Congress for its failure to give him the leg- islation he has demanded? Will he call it a do-nothing Congress and the worst Congress because it has failed to accomplish in a year and a half what he in- sisted the Eightieth Congress could do in 2 weeks? I wonder, my friends. Let us watch and see if he repeats on this nonpolitical expedition the same program and the same promises that he offered when his trip was frankly political. In my broadcast 2 weeks ago I discussed our social-security system. I explained how, as a member of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, I believed the system should be improved so that the wage earner would not be taxed twice for his old-age insurance benefits. Now, speaking again as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I think we should , - should not be required to pay a tax. provide a change inourtaxlaws * * a change to give substance to the constitu- tional provision that our taxes must be applied uniformly. I have in mind an elaborate function held not long ago in Washington—the Jefferson- Jackson Day $100 dinner of the Democratic Party—at which President Truman was the principal speaker. Five thousand persons paid $100 apiece to see and be seen at this dinner, at which the political speeches were intermingled with big-name entertainment by prominent figures in the theatrical world. Now, under our Federal law, dinners with entertainment for which an admission charge is made are subject to a tax of 20 percent—private dinners as well as those open to the public. By all the rules of the game, this dinner should have been taxed. The $500,000 paid for tickets to this dinner should have brought $100,000 in taxes into the debt-ridden Federal Treasury. Indeed, there was a strong precedent for it. Only a short time before there was a huge Lincoln Day affair in Washington, held, of course, by the Republicans. You may remember something of that affair. Intermingled with the speeches were several acts of big-name entertainment— just as at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner. Something else you may recall about the Lincoln Day affair was that the tickets cost $1 apiece. Box suppers were provided at a cost of another dollar each. That was all. But because of the entertainment the Bu- reau of Internal Revenue decided this dinner was subject to the 20-percent Federal tax. So, instead of $1, the admission price was $1.20, of which 20 cents went to the Govern- ment. But those in charge of the $100 Jefferson- Jackson dinner decided not to pay the tax. They declared that the dinner was free— that there was no charge atall. Instead, they claimed 5,000 men and women had gener- ously contributed $100 each to the party and had been invited to attend the dinner free. The Bureau of Internal Revenue accepted that tricky explanation with a straight face and handed down a formal ruling to the effect that the 20-percent tax need not be paid. That ruling cost the Nation $100,000 in taxes—but it did save the jobs of the top executives in our Federal Bureau of Internal Revenue. Therefore, I say we need a stiffening of our Federal tax laws to prevent discrimination of this kind. Just suppose, that some of you went out to a place to dine—a place which offered en- tertainment. Suppose you refused to pay the 20-percent tax on your check. Suppose you argued that the dinner was free and that you were merely contributing the price of the check. Suppose, even, that the proprietor of the restaurant agreed with you and said he gave you the dinner free. Do you believe the Bureau of Internal Rev-~ enue would believe either of you? Or would it serve notice on both of you—pay up in accordance with the law, or you'll both go to jail. The Constitution of the United States very clearly states that taxes must be uniformly applied. The avoidance of the tax in the $100 dinner indicates that there are discrepancies and favoritism. And you, as law-abiding citizens, should call upon Congress to correct this situation and to insist that the law be en- forced without fear or favoritism. I insist that if the man who can afford to go to a $100 dinner with entertainment need not pay a tax, then the man who goes out for a $4 or $5 dinner with ap echaamiaaeaatiid A3051 And the person who goes to a movie for entertainment should not be required to pay @ 20-percent tax either. This is Ep Martin, speaking to you from the Nation’s Capital. I will be with you again in 2 weeks. Thank you for your at- tention. McCarthy Versus Reds EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WILLIAM E. JENNER OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, April 27 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Recorn an editorial which appeared in the Lawrenceburg Press, of Lawrenceburg, Ind., on April 20, 1950. ‘There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Some Views on McCartTHy Versus REDS So much name-calling has taken place in the McCarTHy against State Department pinks campaign. It may be useful for us to discuss the situation without heat, as it ap- pears to. an observer only moderately in- formed about our Government, as most of us are. First, let us note that the argument for hushing up all public discussion of Reds and pinks in the State Department is far from the American ideal of citizenship re- sponsibility. It smacks of a taste for the secret conclave and dictatorial directness. Hitler and Stalin have given examples of certain practical advantages in this system, but this Nation has chosen another course. Senator McCartHy may have been much too far reaching in his original statements. At this time, before the show-down, it seems to be assured to the minds of most interested citizens that this is the case. His changes in position have given his opponents some comfort. Though the shocking degree of antiesplonage weakness first alleged may no longer obtain, the Alger Hiss conviction and other generally believed statements seem to lay bare a condition calling for some official recognition. Steps to reassure Americans at home and abroad, and even other nations, seem to be indicated. Little new danger to foreign policy lies in investigation and open discussion. There is a much more lively threat in the fact that those directly responsible for our policy on the highest level, loudly persist in shutting their eyes to any hint, or even proof, of Red infiltration among their own advisers. We have already seen the red herring sneer re~ buked by the sentence of Alger Hiss as a Russian spy. That experience alone should and would warn normally reasonable men against this peril. Though steps have been taken with pub- lic fanfare to clear out 4 nest of moral de- generates in the Department, the public has not been able to discern that any corrective action has been taken against subversives and unsympathetic helpers handling state secrets. The public in this representative Republic is entitled to that knowledge and assurance. Other nations with modern es- pionage must have known all along what is taking place, and a hush-hush attitude can confuse no one but a few million voters In the precincts far from Washington. State and other responsible administra- tive speakers have pointed out danger of
A3052 damage to our foreign policy from the give and take of American-type discussion on this subject. Of course, this could have been largely prevented by preserving the bipartisan foreign policy that President Tru- man sponsored in his first year or so, his honeymoon, before he swung into what be- came his stride. Even under the normal loyal opposition system which now obtains in foreign affairs, as well as internal matters, there would be much stronger policy in calmly facing what- ever facts are available and conducting a quiet house cleaning, than in risking the re- action of shouting down investigation and refusing information pertinent to it. (We refer to loyal opposition above as the duty of the minority in Congress loyal to our Government principles in general, but op~ posing whatever seems improper in the man- ner of their operation.) It seems to this writer after considerable weighing and balancing, that the State De- partment may already have done more dam- age than any such adverse publicity could cause (1) by acting on the advice of at least one fellow traveler; (2) by backing down from Commie advances within the Depart- ment and in China; (3) by winking at the theft of secret papers for Commie pay. Who is wrong, the erring officials who lay them- selves open to criticism, or the critic who seeks to correct the error in the orthodox Official way? While on this subject, it may be germane to consider a broader aspect of our foreign policy, for which are held fears arising from the McCarthy charges. It is generally be- lieved that the Marshall plan, expensive to every taxpayer, has helped to keep weak nations out of the arms of all-promising dictators. Our money is internationally popular. Our Nation and foreign policy are not thought to be so popular among other governments. Perhaps the State Depart- ment could better promote United States standing among nations than by publicly defending the records of its personnel, or bickering over who is paid to advise or who merely gives free advice that becomes policy. If we were Invited to prescribe for our ailing foreign policy (an invitation that we'll not sit and wait for) we’d suggest the need for making up again a working bipartisan team, and not just a token gesture. We need all the brains available, and in foreign matters there is a maximum number of votes in sim- ply the fact of success, by whatever process gained. The losing record in the cold war might be reversed if the United States played a more forthright if less agile part as one of the two great opposition powers. We have appeased begged issues, entered secret deals in violation of treaty, sold out small nations, ‘We have done everything but lay down prin- ciples and stand up to them. This course has been followed at least since Yalta and probably before. We have been represented by Tammany and Pendergast politician-type thinking instead of statesmanship. Our present international ills may be seen by the long view of history to be founded partly on the two decades of war by the administra- tive branch of our Government upon the leg- islative branch, and upon the responsibilities of the States and the freedoms of the citizens. Perhaps it would be well for administra- tion to seek less responsibility for legisla~ tion and judiciary, and try to concentrate on doing its own proper work with more finished grace. It conceivably could be that what this country needs now in its internal and external messes is to straighten up and fly right. The old recipe “treat ‘em rough and tell ‘em nothing” is poor policy in a represent- ative republic. We have about run out of emergencies to justify it, and in any case we are losing our taste for rough treatment. PMA in Farm Politics EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, April 27 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr, HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “PMA in Farm Politics,” written by Alfred D. Stedman, which appeared in the St. Paul Sunday Pioneer Press on April 23, 1950. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: PMA In FARM POLITICS (By Alfred D. Stedman) An editorial wave of criticism of the April 4 farm meeting in St. Paul goes rolling on. The charge is that a paid and captive audi- ence was assembled at public expense to hear political addresses by Senator Husrrt Hum- PHREY and Secretary Brannan. Up to 2 days of $8 per diem pay and travel were authorized for those who attended among the 4,500 Min- nesota community and county committee- men of the Production and Marketing Ad- ministration (PMA). Editorially alleged are evils of regimentation, propaganda, and pol- iticking at Federal expense, which is esti~- mated all the way up to $150,000 and which might run considerably under half of that. Does this criticism reflect genuine concern over a real problem and an aim to help the farm program avoid repetition of mistakes? No doubt some of it does, but that’s far from being the whole truth of it. For behind the present dispute there lies arn untold story that’s factual, fascinating, and full of meaning. It’s a story of experi- ence of the Federal farm program with pol- itics and safeguards, first under the old AAA and then under its successor, the PMA. The nature of the farm depression tended all along to push agriculture into politics in its broad sense. For the farmers found themselves an intensely competing group in a highly organized economy. The farm pro- gram’'s aim was to afford enough concerted action to prevent unbridled competition among millions of farming units from wreck- ing farm prices and ruining farm soil. In order to get thelr program, the farmers had to move up alongside of organized business and organized labor in the resort to political action. But a farm plan, when once adopted, doesn’t run itself. Until a system of admin. istration is created, plans of price and soil protection, acreage controls, grain storage, and crop insurance are just paper plans. So the elected three-member township and county committees were established. They have @ real, and not merely advisory job. They actually operate the program for the farmers who each year elect them. They pre the program’s administrative founda- on. And forces pulling these committees to- ward politics in their partisan sense became Increasingly apparent. These included busi- ness and later partisan attacks on the pro- gram. Backers in both parties were thrown on the political defensive. The dangers, including loss of public con- _ idence, of diverting the farm program into partisan or extra-legal byways became in- creasingly apparent. An early left-wing at- tempt to convert AAA into an instrument of social change was blocked by Administrator Chester C. Davis. The leftist coterie was APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ousted in the AAA purge. In 1935, a con- gressional storm over a farm committee. men’s march on Washington was ctilled by a full report to Congress and by the good con- duct and high caliber of the committeemen., In 1940, some AAA officials were fired by Davis, then War Food Administrator, for par- tisan activities. Into the farm laws and regulations that were drawn with advice of Congress and the farm organizations, went safeguards that stand today. Thus the annual elections of committeemen are without any party desig- nation. Acceptance by a farm committee- man of a political campaign post in any party requires his separation from the farm com- mittee. So farm committeemen cannot lawfully use their positions to play machine politics. And the farmers, through their voting power, have in their hands a weapon to stop at the grass roots any offensive poli- ticking. The fund: to pay for the holding of meet- ings, either local or State-wide, are appro- priated by Congress. Expense accounts must be submitted to the General Account- ing Office for audit before payment. Thus the actual cost of the St. Paul meeting can- not be known until the expense vouchers are in. The meetings are generally necessary in the big job of informing committee men and farmers about the program. Though the Humphrey and Brannan talks here this time were a basis of the political accusations, 11 other talks during the 2 days devoted to program details and the entire State-wide meeting in St. Paul in February 1948 drew no fire. The committeemen this time couldn't tell Brannan or Humphrey what to say, couldn’t know that Senator THYE would be unable to speak, and came as in the past to hear and consider whatever might be said. Yet it is evident that safeguards alone aren’t likely to solve what’s really a con- tinuing problem. For as this year, future speakers will be uncensored. The step from talking agriculture to talking polities will continue to be short. No matter what party is in power, the leaders will be tempted to play up to these committees. So farm pro- grari judgment and self-discipline will ever be a need. Alert and fair criticism from the press can be a useful spur to the program to watch its step. Taking advantage of such constructive criticism, the program can emerge stronger than before. So that would be O. K.—if it were all the story. But the crusade has now swept far beyond such aims. Attacks are centering increas- ingly on the coOmmitteemen, with fewer honeyed compliments tucked in. If pos- sible, the committezs are to be discredited and displaced. The Minneapolis papers, at the pitch of the assault, editorially compared the farm committeemen to the odorous, corrupt, and at times criminal Pendergast machine with its wardheelers and musclemen. The letters PMA, the editorial quoted, “really used to mean Production and Marketing Administra- tion, but now a better name for it 1s—Pen- dergast muchine in agriculture.” In the light of the truth, doesn't that rate as a most unfair and unwarranted slur upon the committeemen and the farmers who elected them? It goes along with a one-sided pres- entation of the farmers’ status as to income, which in fact has again sunk per person to less than half the average income of non- farm people, And now at last the Minneapolis papers have come to the point, That's a demand for » big shake-up in farm committee work. It revives an old scheme for stripping away the PMA committees’ soil-and-acreage job and transferring the remnants to the Soil Conservation Service’s slow and limited farm- by-ferm engineering operations. It is clear that if the PMA committees are discredited and their powers transferred or erased, the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD farm program’s administrative force will be hamstrung and that the program itself may fall. Thus a Nation-wide campaign that’s on right now in some magazines and newspapers for “necking out the farm program is be- ing helped along by the extreme phase of the anti-FMA crusade. If that should win, perhaps a parallel campaign to dispose of the cooperatives can also win. Then if the usual postwar conditions should bring farm depression back again, agriculture would be just about defeneless. The process of building immense city fortunes out of farmers’ helple-sness could be resumed. And the great political issue of the future could be once again, not the existence of a farm program but the lack of it, with oncoming farm controls making those of today look conservative. But maybe Congress, the farmers, and peo- ple generally won’t want to take the risks of this. Maybe they will want to keep and improve for future use the PM‘, the farm committees, and the farm program. The Meaning of the New Wage-Hour Rules EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CARROLL D. KEARNS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RecorD, I include an address delivered before the Detroit Bar Association and the Industrial Relations Institute of Wayne University by Howard J. Ander- son, assistant managing editor of Labor Relations Reporter, published by the Bu- reau of National Affairs, Inc., Washing- ton, D. C. Mr. Anderson’s talk is the best short treatment of the practical problems presented by the amendments to the Federal wage-and-hour law which has yet come to my attention. For many years, the Bureau of Na- tional Affairs has been publishing fac- tual reports and books for professional and business use. Mr. Anderson has spe- cialized in matters relating to the regu- lation of wages and hours and is well qualified to present an unbiased, author- itative and realistic analysis of the new rules. For nearly 12 years, the Federal wage- and-hour law has played an important role in the Nation’s business and indus-~ trial planning. After several unsuccess- ful attempts, the Eighty-first Congress succeeded last fall in rewriting—and I hope clarifying—some of the major pro- visions of that law. How successful we have been will be difficult to ascertain until the courts have interpreted some of the new phrases we used, A law which has as broad a sweep as this one may easily become quite complex. It is unlikely that any two industrial plants follow exactly the same practices with respect to wages, hours, and overtime pay. And it is difficult to establish any rule which may be applied Nation-wide without up- setting some practices of long standing. XCVI—App.——193 THE MEANING OF THE New Wact-Hour Runes When you discuss a subject as complicated as the Federal wage-and~hour law, it is diffi- cult to avoid becoming either an advocate or a critic. The long and bitter struggle which preceded the adoption of both the new white-collar regulations and the amendments to the law itself only mirrored the conflicting opinions as to the law and its objectives. To some groups, it represents a desirable and necessary part of the economic struc- ture. They view it as a shield against the blasts of a depression, insurance against unfair wage competition for the employer, and a guaranty of adequate wages for the employee. To others, the law appears to be a need- lessly complicated and harsh set of regula- tions—the bane of the small businessman and a booby trap whose hidden meanings often spawn windfall payments. But no mattter how you regard it, the Wages and Hours Act is an established law of the land—and has been for nearly 12 years. Its basic provisions have been sustained by the highest court. Its requirements are re- fiected in pay and employment practices throughout the country. It is my purpose, therefore, to shun the role of either an advocate or a critic. I shall concern myself only with the questions of who, what, and how—who is subject to the law, what its provisions require, and how these requirements are enforced. To para- phrase Tennyson, I shall not attempt to rea- son. “why.” RULES ARE MORE COMPLICATED But even forgetting questions of social or political desirability, the wage-hour law is still a difficult subject. The rules it im~= poses are far from simple. There are prob- lems within problems, exceptions to most of the rules, and exceptions to some of the exceptions. . The complexity is the result, in part, of difficulties inherent in any attempt to regu-= late wages, hours, and employment prac-~ tices on so broad a scale. Pay and em-~ ployment practices to which the rules must be applied vary from industry to industry and from plant to plant. A rule which may be applied with little trouble in one plant may upset practices of long standing in another. There is a second, and perhaps equally important, reason why the rules are compli- cated. Both the original law and the amend~ ments adopted last October are essentially compromise measures. The same is true, but to a lesser degree, Of the new white-~ collar regulations. No single group can take credit for all the provisions. It was a mat- ter of give and take all the way. Those who advocated a higher wage floor, for example, achieved their goal at the price of concessions on coverage. Those who wanted to clarify the requirements as to overtime pay had to accept hobbling quali- fications. At one point, the fate of the en- tire amending measure turned on a single vote in the House Labor Committee. ATTENTION NOW ON COURTS This necessity for compromising on key points led to the inclusion of many ambigu- ous words and phrases. The meaning of these will not become clear until the courts have had ample opportunity to construe them. Moreover, the obstacles encountered in reaching agreement on both the amend- ments and the white-collar regulations make it extremely unlikely that any further sub- stantial changes will be made for some time. Not a single proposal to amend the law has been introduced in the current session of Congress and, for the first time in several years, the Wage-Hour Administrator’s an- nual report to Congress contained no specific recommendations for changing the law. The rules which became effective on January 25 A3053 are the ones you will have to live with for many years to come. With these observations as a background, let us turr to the questions of “who,” “what,” and “how.” .I. WHO IS COVERED BY THE LAW In reaching a decision as to whether an employee is entitled to the minimum wage or overtime compensation required under the law, you should obtain answers to these questions: First. Is he engaged in interstate com- merce, the production of goods for interstate commerce, or an occupation or process closely related and directly essential ta such prod’ ction? Second. If so, does he come under any of the numerous exemptions from the act? The rules with respect to both of these q'lostions—general coverage and ezemp- tions—were substantially changed on Janu- ary 25. A new “closely-related and directly- essential” coverage test was adopted for “fringe” production workers. Several new exemptions were added; many of the old ex- emptions were revised. And more important for the great majority of employers, the rules which govern overtime-pay rights of five classifications of white-collar employees were altered in many important respects. EXEMPTIONS AND “FRINGES” While many of these exemption and cover- age changes are limited in their effects to a single industry, there are some which cut across industry generally. The most signifi- cant of these are the new rules for the exemp- tion of executive, administrative, and pro- fessional employees, and the new coverage test for fringe production workers. ‘These are the ones I will discuss. The new coverage test for fringe produc- ‘tion employees is one of the many ambiguous phrases included in the law by dint of a compromise. Its exact meaning will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and the number and types of employees who have been removed from the law’s coverage thereby will likely not be clear until many test cases have been carriec through to final settlement in the courts. Suppose we ex- amine this new test briefly before going on to the more important white-collar rules, Under the original wage-hour law, an em- ployee was covered if he was engaged in in~ terstate commerce, the production of goods for interstate commerce, or any occupation or process necessary to such production, This last, or necessary, clause has been deleted. Now, so-called fringe production workers are subject to the law only if they are en- gaged in “closely related processes or oc- cupations directly essential” to the produc- tion of goods for commerce. What did Con- gress mean by these terms “closely related” and “directly essential?” How do they nar- row coverage as interpreted by the courts under the old “necessary-to-production” test? Even before the new language was adopted there was disagreement among its congres- sional draftsmen as to its exact meaning. The two extremes in interpretation were presented by Senator PEprer and Congress- man LEesmnskr, on the one hand, and Con- gressman Lucas, on the other. WHO IS “DIRECTLY ESSENTIAL” According to the Pepper-Lesinski inter- pretation, the new “closely-related and di- rectly-essential” test does not radically re- vise the law’s coverage, as interpreted by the courts in the past. Except for the few groups of employees specifically named in the House Managers statement, they argued, the amendment does not alter the status of any employees who had already been held subject to the act. It merely draws a pre- cise line beyond which the courts may not go in determining whether additional em- ployees are covered,
A3054 This interpretation had the backing of the Labor Department’s attorneys and will likely be found in the new interpretative bulletin on the law's coverage. This bulletin, I have been told, will be out shortly. At the other extreme was the view ex~ pressed by Congressman Lucas. The Texas Congressman, who was the original sponsor of some of the amendments which were finally adopted, told the House that the new words “directly essential’ connote “indis- pensable.” And he can find some support for this interpretation in the Webster Dic- tionary’s definition of “essential.” As one of the meanings of “essential,” the diction- ary gives “important to the highest degree; indispensable.” The only thing wrong with this view is that the words “directly essen- tial” were substituted for “indispensable” in the conference committee because they were believed to have a different meaning. With even those who drafted the new test disugreeing as to 1ts meaning, it does not appear safe to go beyond the specific guides set out in the House Managers State- ment—at least until the courts have handed down some rulings. The managers state- ment lists about seven types of “fringe” em- ployees who would no longer be covered by the act under the new test and five types who would still be covered. Among those still covered, according to the statement, are the following: 1. Maintenance, custodial, and clerical em- ployees of manufacturers, mining companies, and other producers of goods for commerce, whether employed by the company itself or by an independent contractor. 2. Employees who maintain or repair build- ings in which goods are produced for com~ merce. 8. Employees who make, repair, or main-« tain machinery or tools and dies used in the production of goods for commerce. 4. Employees of public utilities furnishing gas, electricity, or water to firms manufac- turing, mining, or producing goods for com- merce, The employees removed from coverage, ac- cording to the managers statement, are those engaged in a few very specific types of work such as providing residential, eating, or other living facilities for factory workers, cleaning windows or providing exterminator service in factories under contracts between their employers and the manufacturers, or pro- ducing fertilizer for sale to local farmers who also sell their products locally. The distinctions between those employees still covered and those removed from cover- age are difficult to perceive in some instances, It looks as if there will be a field day for the lawyers. WHITE-COLLAR EXEMPTIONS It is hard to overeniphasize the importance of the new white-collar regulations. Nearly 2,500,000 employees are potentially exempt under the rules they establish. And such employees may be found in all sizes and types of establishments from the largest manufacturing plant to the smallest local bank. To qualify for exemption under the Ad- ministrators regulations, executive, admin- istrative, and professional employees must satisfy requirements as to salary, duties, and responsibilities. One of the most frequent mistakes made by employers is to assume that an employee is exempt merely because his title sounds right and he satisfies the minimum-salary requirement. Tilles do not determine an employee's status under the regulations, and the salary requirement is only one of a series which must be satisfied before an employee may be regarded as exempt. HOW TO CHECK FOR EXEMPTION However, in checking an employee’s ex-~ empt status under the regulations, the logical starting point is his salary. For an exccutive, the minimum salary is $55 a week. For ad- ministrative and professional employees, the minimum is $75 a week. But if an employee in any of the three classifications is paid $100 a week or more, he may be qualified for exemption under new streamlined re-~ quirements. These streamlined requirements should make exemption much easier to support for high-paid white-collar employees. For one thing, they suspend the difficult and strict limitation on the amount of nonexempt work the employee may perform. An important point to remember, however, is that mechan- ics, craftsmen, and other non-white-collar employees cannot qualify for exemption, no matter how high their pay may be. In addition to receiving the minimum salary, an exempt executive must be paid on a salary basis. Administrative and pro- fessional employees must be paid on a salary or fee basis. The Administrator’s interpre- tation of the phrase “on a salary basis’’ poses some of the most difficult problems under the regulations. This phrase, the Administrator explains, means that the employee must receive his full salary—a predetermined amount con- stituting all or part of his compensatlon— for any week in which he performs any work, without regard to the number of days or hours worked. In other words, the prede- termined amount which constitutes his salary may not be subject to deductions, either for disciplinary or other purposes. In the ordinary situation, an employer will provide paid vacations and sick leave for executive, administrative, and professional employees. How does this rule apply in such a situation? May the employer penalize an exempt employee for excessive absences dur- ing a week by deductions from his paid-vaca- tion allowance? KEEP THESE POINTS IN MIND In answering such questions, you may find it helpful to keep the following rules in mind: First. The exempt employee must receive his full salary in any week in which any work is performed. There are exceptions to this rule only in the first and last weeks of em- ployment. Failure to pay the full salary in such weeks is not regarded as inconsistent with payment on a salary basis. Second. There is no requirement, how- ever, that the employee be paid his full salary, or any amount for that matter, in a week in which he does no work. Third. There is no prohibition on deduct- ing from an employee's vacation or sick- leave credits for absences. Just be sure the employee gets his full salary when he works during a week. Finally, if an employee is not paid his full salary in a week in which he does some work, even a few hours, the exemption may be lost for all woeks, not merely for the week in which the deduction is made. The practical solution to comp'lance with these rules would appear to be to make abso- lutely certain trat an exempt employee has no time off without pay 11 any workweek in which he does any work. If the employee works as much as at. hour, he will have to be paid the full salary to preserve the ex- emption. Perhaps a few examples will help in clari- fying the application of these rules. First. Suppose an employee is absent for 1 day during a week and tha employer makes a deduction of 1 day’s pay from his weekly salary. The exemption would be lost, since the employee performed work during the week and did not receive his full weekly salary. Second. Suppose the employee is absent 1 day and the employer pays him th» full sal- ary for the week but deducts 1 day from the 2 weeks of paid vacation to which he is en- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD titled. Since the employee receives his full salary for that week, the exemption would not be impaired thereby. When the employee later takes kis vacation, he would be given paid vacation of 1 day less than the full 2 weeks. But the exemption would still not be defeated c-1ring the short vacation week if the employer does either of the following: (a) Requires the employee to work 1 day during the week and pays him his full salary or (b) permits him to have the entire week off but pays him for 1 day short of the full week. In the first case, the employee would be paid his full salary for a week in which he worked 1 day; in the second, payment of the full salary would not be required, since the employce did no work during the week. Third, suppose an employee has exhausted the paid vacation and sick leave to which he is entitled and then takes a day off dur- ing the week. If the employer made a de- auction from his salary for the absence, the exemption would be impaired. To sum it all up, no deductions from pay should be made in any week in which the employee does any work. But deductions may be made from vacation or sick leave so long as you avoid a situation in which the employee gets less than his full pay in a week in which he works. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES After deciding that the employee meets the salary requirement for one of the three exempt groups, you should next examine his duties and responsibilities to determine if they jibe with the requirements of the regu- lations. The definitions of all three classifications— executive, administrative, and professional— now contain a primary-duty test. And an understanding of these tests may help you immeasurably tn distinguishing between the different exempt groups and in applying the other requirements for exemption. For an exempt executive, the primary duty must be the manngement of the enterprise or a customarily recognized department or subdivision. In other words, the exempt executive group is cumposed of bosses— those who manage and supervise the opera- tions of a plant or department, those who direct the work of other employees. For employees in the administrative class- ification, the primary duty must be the per- formance of offlca or munmantal field work directly related to munagement policies or general business operations of either the employer or the employer's customers. In addition, the exempt administrative employee must perform work of one of three specific types—first, the type performed by such employees as executive and administrative assistants to a boss; second, the type per- formed by such staff employees as tux ex- perts, Insurance experts, Investment consul- tants, wage rate analysts, and so forth; or third, the type performed by employees who perform special .ssignments such as travel- ing auditors, traveling inventory men, and certain types of field representatives. Finally, employees in the professional group must have as their primary duty the performance of work of one of two types— first, the type performed by employees in one of the traditional or new professions which requires knowledge of an advanced type such as is acquired by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study; or sec~- ond, work of an original and creative char- acter in a recognized fleld of artistic en- deavor—the theater, for example. If you keep these basic distinctions be- tween the various types of exempt work in mind, it will help you in applying the other tests with respect to duties and responsibili- ties. Of these other tests, the two which will likely prove the most troublesome are those relating to the discretionary powers of the employee and the sq-called nun-exempt-work tolerances.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD WHO EXERCISES “DISCRETION”? The test relating to discretionary powers is phrased differently for each of the three classifications. The executive must cus- tomarily and regularly exercise discretionary powers. The administrative employee must customarily and regularly exercise discre- tion and independent judgment. Finally, the professional employee must perform work which requires the consistent exercise of dis- cretion and judgment in its performance. The Administrator’s explanatory bulletin on the regulations may give you some valu- able guides for determining the degree of discretion and judgment which must be exer- cised to qualify an employee for exemption. It points out, for example, that the exercise of discretion and judgment must be distin- guished from the mere application of skill and procedures. And it gives several exam~ ples to illustrate the distinction. It points out, for example, that you have to distinguish between the application of skill and procedures by a grader of logs and the discretion and judgment exercised by a customers’ man in @ brokerage house. When it comes to what is meant by “cus- tomarily and regularly,” the bulletin appears only to compound the confusion. This phrase, the bulletin states, signifies “a fre- quency which is greater than occasional but less than constant.” TOLERANCES FOR NONEXEMPT WORK More exemption claims have been defeated because the employee exceeded the non- exempt-work tolerance than for any other reason. In brief, these tolerances impose a 20-percent limit on the amount of nonexempt work an exempt employee may do each week. The new regulations both clarify and liberalize these limitations, The changes made are these: First. What is meant by nonexempt work is clarified by relating it directly to the exempt work the employee performs. Non- exempt work for an executive, for example, is that which is not directly and closely re- lated to the performance of his exempt duties. More important, numerous examples are given of work which might be regarded as exempt for certain employees. You may find these examples in the explanatory bulletin. Second. The 20-percent limitation on the amount of nonexempt work which may be performed is now stated in terms of the em~ ployee’s own workweek, not the workweeks of nonexempt employees. ‘As a result, the amount of nonexempt work an employee in these classifications may perform will in~ crease as his weekly hours increase. If an executive works 40 hours, for example, his nonexempt work would be limited to 8 hours. At 60 hours, the non~exempt-work tolerance would be 12 hours. WATCH TITLES AND JOB DESCRIPTIONS It is no secret that these white-collar ex-~ emptions are difficult to apply. The variety of jobs within their range is almost endless. And the requirements are not simple. If, however, you are called upon at any time ' to check the status of employees under the new regulations, you may find the following suggestions of value. First. Be careful about titles. A title or classificaticn does not determine an em- ployee’s status. It is his work, responsibili- ties, and salary which are controlling. If you are an employer, however, do not bestow titles in such a way as to hurt you. If you have an employee with important responsi- bilities in the care of plant and grounds, call him a superintendent of buildings and grounds, not a head janitor. Second. Do not rely on a job description prepared by the employee himself. Duties or functions may be blown up or watered down, depending on the purpose. Third. Watch the rule on deductions from salaries. Avoid any situation in which an employee has time off without pay in a week in which he works. He must receive the full salary in any week in which he performs any work. Fourth. Don’t assume that an employee is not exempt merely because he does not sat~ isfy the exemption tests for one classification. Cneck his duties and pay against all the definitions. Finally. If you are given the job of check-~ ing the status of any substantial number of employees, prepare ¢ checklist of ques- tions to ask each employee with respect to his salary, duties, and responsibilities. And file the information you obtain. It may be valuable later on. Il. WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES Once you have determined that an em- ployee is subject to the law, it then becomes necessary to find out what it requires in the form of minimum wages and overtime compensation. So far as the minimum wage is concerned, the problems are not too many nor too diffi- cult. The minimum is a fiat 75 cents an hour. There is no escalator provision for raising it to higher levels. MINIMUM WAGE PROBLEMS When it comes to putting the minimum into effect in a plant, however, there are a few practical considerations to bear in mind. It is important, for example, to know whether compliance will be determined on the basis of each hour, each workweek, or some longer period. For employees paid hourly or piece rates, the single workweek will still be the stand- ard. If the average hourly earnings for non- overtime hours in the workweek are at least 75 cents, the minimum wage requirement will be satisfied for that week. The Ad- ministrator does not, however, permit any averaging of earnings for such employees over a period longer than a workweek. Nor does he permit an employer to set an hourly rate below 75 cents where the employee is paid solely on an hourly-rate basis. For salaried employees, there is an excep- tion to this rule. If the employee is paid a semimonthly or monthly salary, the Ad- ministrator will recognize a regular monthly salary of $180 or a regular semimonthly sal- ary of $65 as meeting the requirements of the act for workweeks of no more than 40 hours. If the minimum wage were to be applied on a strict workweek basis to such em-~ ployees, there would be some pay periods in which the $65-semimonthly or $180-monthly salary would not yield an average of 75 cents an hour, Suppose, for example, an employee working a 40-hour week is paid on the first and fifteenth of the month, For some pay periods, that salary will cover only 80 hours; for others, it will cover as many as 96 hours. Over the year, the payment of $65 each pay period would yield an aver- age of 75 cents an hour. But in a half month having 12 workdays, it would take a payment of $72 to net the employee 75 cents an hour. The Administrator’s special rule for such employees obviates this difficulty. Two other problems with respect to mini- mum wages deserve special attention before we leave the subject. First. The problem of fraining learners under the increased-wage floor is apparently more serious than had been anticipated, Nearly 3,000 special learner certificates per- mitting a training rate below the minimum have been issued since the first of the year. To obtain such a certificate, the employer should be able to show that experienced workers are not available for the jobs, that the minimum wage is so burdensome that learners would not be hired without an exemption, and that the job is a skilled one requiring a.definite learning period. A38055 Second. If you contemplate doing Govern- ment work, you should take inte account the likelihood that even higher minimum rates may soon be required for work on Govern- ment contracts. The Secretary of Labor has asked Congress for $536,000 to finance a program of revising minimum-wage deter- minations under the Walsh-Healey Act. And his goals are far above the 75-cent hourly minimum established under the Wages and Hours Act. . OVERTIME PAY Ever since the act was first adopted in 1988, the problem of figuring overtime pay has been particularly difficult. Now you have a set of statutory guides to assist you in making these computations. These guides may be found in a revised and considerably expanded section 7 of the act. Moreover, the Administrator has set out his views as to the meaning of the new provisions in a de- tailed bulletin covering nearly 50 pages. Under the revised section 7, as under the original law, hours in excess of 40 a week must be paid for at time and one-half the employee’s regular rate. According to a long line of Supreme Court decisions, this regu- lar rate must generally be figured by the averaging method. Total weekly pay, excluding true overtime premiums and @ few other extra paymeats, should be divided by the number of hours worked during the week. If the employee is paid a flat weekly wage ov salary for a fixed number of hours, the divisor shou:d be tie mumber of hours in the fixed or regular workweek. CHANGES IN AVERAGING RULE For the great majority of employees, this averaging rule, with some modifications, will still determine the reguiarrate. The amend~- ments do not rescind the rule. The changes they make are these: First. They considerably enlarge the cate- gory of payments which may be excluded before total weekly pay is divided by weekly hours to determine the regular rate. Second. They add to the list of true over- time premiums which may both be excluded in figuring the regular rate and deducted from the amount due as weekly overtime under the law. Now in this group are week- end, holiday, day of rest, and premiums for work outside certain clock-pattern hours— premiums which had been considered a part of the regular rate under the Supreme Court’s overtime-on-overtime decision. Third. They expressly sanction three ex- ceptions to the averaging rule—a so-called Belo contract, an employer-employee agree- ment fixing a regular rate substantially equivalent to the employee’s average hourly earnings, and an agreement to base the over- time pay of pieceworkers and employees paid more than one rate in a single week on the basic rate paid during the overtime hours, Fourth, They liberalize the requirements for obtaining partial overtime exemptions under so-called semiannual and annual wage agreements. The Administrator’s views with respect to these changes are set out at considerable length in the new interpretative bulletin and regulations he has issued. There are three points, however, which deserve special atten- tion at this time. These relate to what the Administrator describes as pseudo-percent- age bonuses, so-called Belo contracts, and premium payments for holiday work. BONUSES AND PEEMIUMS For some time, it has been the general impression that so-called percentage bo- nuses—those paid as a percentage of total earnings, including premium overtime pay— were safe. It was believed that they clearly included an overtime allowance and thus would have no effect on regular rate or overtime computations.
A3056 But the Admunistrator’s new overtime bul- letin and profit-sharing regulations do not go this far. While the Administrator rec- ognizes that percentage bonuses ordinarily will not increase overtime habilities, he points out that there are certain pseudo- bonuses which must all be regarded as regu- lar wages, even though paid as a percentage of total earnings. As one example, he cites an hourly rate plus group commission pay plan for sales- men. The commissions are part of the regu- lar rate, he states, and the fact that they are paid as a percentage of total earnings will not alter the situation. Although it is not specifically so stated, it does not appear likely that the Administra- tor will recognize an overtime allowance in a percentage bonus paid under a so- called cost-saving, production-saving, or Scanlon type of plan, such as was upheld in the Macklin case before the amendments were adopted. The amounts paid under such plans are directly linked to group produc- tion and for that reason may be regarded as part of the regular rate. GUARANTY WAGE CONTRACTS Although the type of guaranty wage con- tract which has become known as a Belo contract was twice upheld by the Supreme Court, the Administrator has always re- garded the Court’s ruling as a narrow pro- nouncement limited to the exact facts in- volved in the Belo and Halliburton cases. Under the new section 7 (e), express sanc- tion is given for contracts of the Belo type, provided they meet very specific and strict requirements. The requirements are these: First. The contract must be either a bona fide indivicual employment contract or a collective-bargaining agreement. It necd not be written. Second. The duties of the employee must necessitate irregular hours of work. Third. The contract must specify a regu- lar rate of pay not less than the 75-cent hourly minimum and compensation at not less than one and one-half times that rate for all hours above 40 in any workweek. Fourth. The contract must provide a weekly guaranty which covers not more than 60 hours based on the regular and overtime rates specified in the contract. There is a feeling around Washington that few contracts will get by under the interpre- tation the Administrator is giving to these requirements. In his overtime bulletin, for example, he emphasizes that the regular rate specified in the contract must actually op- erate as a regular rate. In other words, the employee will have to get more than the weekly guaranty in a substantial portion of the workweeks so that the specified regular rate may actually be used to figure pay. Moreover, he adds, the weekly guaranty must be a real guaranty—it must be paid in full in all workweeks, however short, in which the employee performs any amount of work for the employer. In a brief filed in the Antonio Roig case now pending before the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the Administrator points out that the rules must be applied on the basis of the hours, duties, and pay of each individual employee. If you plan to use a Belo contract, there~ fore, the best advice I could give you would be to make absolutely certain the contract is in exact accordance with the standards specified in the law. Moreover, the guar. anty should be set low enough that the em- ployee’s pay will exceed it in a substantial portion of the workweeks. There are, how~ ever, many good reasons for avoiding such contracts entirely. HOLIDAY PAY Among the new overtime premiums— those which may be excluded in figuring the regular rate and, in addition, offset against overtime pay due under the law—are pre- muiums of at least an extra half time paid for work performed on a holiday. In applying this new provision, you must ignore the pay which an employee receives for the holiday whether he works or not. Payments for time not worked are not part of the regular rate and, in addition, cannot be credited against overtime pay. If, for example, the employment contract provides for 8 hours’ pay for an unworked holiday plus an additional straight-time pay for each hour worked on the holiday, you would ignore the 8 hours’ idle-holiday pay in cp- plying the new rule. Since the employee receives only straight-time pay for working on the holiday, there could be no credit against statutory overtime. The first straight-time pay—that the employee would get even if he didn’t work—would be ex- cluded in figuring the regular rate as pay for time not worked. The extra straight time for working on the holiday would be included in figuring the regular rate. Neither could be credited against overtime. The rule is different, however, where the exr'svren* contract and practices make it eon lic ea entire holiday payment is com- pensation for working on the holiday. In such an event, the initial straight time would be included in figuring the regular rate. Any amount of an extra half time or more paid in addition to the straight time could be excluded in figuring the regular rate and credited against overtime pay due under the law. The point to remember is that the holiday payment which may be excluded from the regular rate and offset against overtime due under the law is a premium of at least an extra half time paid for working on the holi- day. With this brief review of a few of the key overtime problems, let us go on to the final question of how the law is enforced. Il. HOW THE LAW IS ENFORCED When the amendments to the law were adopted last October, the Administrator gained his long-sought express authority to collect back wages owed to employees under the act. The authority was hedged with so many new restrictions, however, that it is not certain that the Administrator actually ‘gained much. As thus amended, the law now provides for the following legal actions to enforce its requirements: First. The Administrator may sue to col- lect unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay due the employees, provided the em- ployees request the Administrator in writing to bring the suit and the case does not in- volve an unsettled issue of law. Second. The Administrator may sue for an injunction to restrain an employer from vio- lating the law. Third. The Justice Department may bring criminal actions against “willful” violators. Fourth. Employees themselves may sue to recover back wages due them under the law plus an equal additional amount as liquidated damages. No change was made in the good-faith defenses or 2-year statute of imitations for wage suits, as provided for by the Portal-to- Portal Act, WATCH HOW POWERS ARE USED As is often the case, the exact enforce- ment powers which the Administrator has may not be nearly so important as the man- ner in which he exercises them. Some hints as to the Administrator’s plans may be found dn the budget requests for the coming fiscal year. To enforce the new minimum wage and overtime requirements, the Administrator is asking for additional funds totaling nearly $3,000,000. This would permit an estimated 60,000 or more irspections during the 1951 fiscal year. In other words, the Adminis- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD trator plans to inspect 1 out of every 10 establishments covered by the act during the course of the year. This is almost double the number inspected last year. And inspec~ tions by the Division often bring a flood of employee-wage suits in their wake. A FEW SUGGESTIONS With these increased cnforcement activi- ties 1n prospect, it 1s more important than ever for the employer, the attorney, and the union officer to know the answers to the questions of “who” and “what” under the law. I have tried to focus your attention on a few of the problems you will encounter, There will be many others, and few of them will be simple. In dealing with these problems on a day- to-day basis, you may find it helpful to keep these suggestions in mind: First, If there is some doubt as to an em- ployee’s right to the minimum-wage and overtime payments under the law, check his status both under the rules governing basic coverage and those for the specific exemp- tions. Second. In applying the most important of the exemptions—those for white-collar employees—remember that exemption de- pends on the salary, duties, and responsi- bilities of the employee, not on his title or salary alone. And don’t forget the rules on deductions from salaries. Third. Remember that earnings of hourly paid and picce-rate employees may be aver- aged over a workweek—but no longer pe- riod—in determining complance with the minimum wage. Finally. Be wary of any painless rigs for complying with the law's overtime require- ments. The overtime provision is now long and detailed, and methods of payment not specifically sanctioned may be very costly dn the long run. ANIA Our Confused Present and Uncertain Future EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM E. JENNER OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, April 27 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. JENNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial appearing in the April 22, 1950, issue of the Ave Maria, the publication of Notre Dame University. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: For some time now the people of the United States have been worried about the confused present and the uncertain future of our country. There seems to be lack of stability and definiteness in the direction and management of national affairs. Our leaders seem less concerned with the people who make up this Nation than with projects that will likely assure political continuity in public office. And you are not at all sure that some of the projects will assure continuity. We the ,eople are often referred to as dumb by men who affect penetration and a far-seeing vision. As a matter of fact the American pe ple are not dumb. They are miraculously patient with sometimes very muddled situations, Were they not they might start a revolution. But they still think that America is the people's country and ex-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD press their revolution constitutionally at the polls, Why did 1’t they in a few recent elections? Because the two major political parties that selected can lifates for the top office in Gov- ernment did not offer them a very wide margin of choice in candidates and in the national and international politicies which these candidates announced and defended at the hustings. There was not much of a convincing nature about meeting the problems of the home- land; not much emphasis on lessening the load of taxation; or if there were, it was for- gotten after the election. There were rumors about socialized medicine and socialized projects under other heads. Communism was challenged somewhat but not as a seri- ous threat—at least not here. One candidate ran for President as a more or less Com- munist suspect. That was one definite issue—one of the few—which faced the vot- ers. The returns showed definitely that the American people of both parties do not want either an all-out or a modified communism. You do not know just how factually Pres- ident Truman, the House, and the Senate have returns on the outlooks and feelings o* the American people at this moment. But they should know, and perhaps they do know, that not within the memory of anybody now living has the down feeling been so apparent and so persistent as at this time. The people are not just angry, although they are angry too. They are men- tally and emotionally depressed. And no funny story is successful in lifting the de- pression. Frankly, they do not know where the country is going or why. They were dan- gerously near a complete coal shut-off. They had to beg for rationed coal at a price higher than the present high price. Coal dust be- came as precious as gold dust. Coal op-= erators and John L. Lewis got into a strangle hold and would not untie. And Washington told the country there was no coal emer- gency. People began to wonder when an emergency is not an emergency. Communist spies in and out of Govern- ment are discovered and brought to trial. They and their lawyers are challenging and arrogant; men high in Government station, paid by the people to maintain the America of tradition, appear in court to testify to the good characters of Known spies; a Cabinet member asserts boldly he will not turn his back on a former Government employee ac- cused of perjury to conceal his subversive activities. The effort to discover and prose- cute spies was classified under the red her- ring trope. Taxes, taxes, taxes; projects, projects, projects; and money loans to Communist Tito who persecutes, jails, and kills people because they believe in one God the Father” Almighty. At this moment people are con- vinced that American political planners should give much more thought to American homesteading. The Workings of Governmental Agencies EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA ° IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, April.27 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, during the past several months I have received countless communications from our people living in Minnesota and the upper Midwest desiring to know some- thing about the workings of our Govern- ment agencies. In an effort to supply this information I enlisted the help of the Minnesota Ar- rowhead radio network and Mr. George E. Reedy, well known radio personage, and the Washington representative for this network, in airing a program called Know Your Government. This program featured heads of a number of Govern- ment agencies who carried the story of their agency’s functions direct to these people via the Arrowhead network. The response has been excellent. Sev- eral inquiries have been received from radio stations throughout the United States expressing a desire to carry a like program. Several Senators and Con- gressmen have asked me for informa- tion concerning this series of programs with the idea of using the same idea in their localities. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp, an article on the subject which appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on Satur- day, April 22, 1950. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: : Sratre Arra Tonp How UniTep StTaTrs OPERATES WAsHINGTON.—Senator HumMpHrREY, Demo- crat of Minnesota, is aroused by what he calls criticism of Government agencies and the people who work for them. He’s trying to do something about it. As a member of the Civil Service Commit- tee, he says he’s learned that hundreds of Americans don’t understand why the Fed- eral Government is as big as it is and in- cludes so many different branches. (On March 2, the Federal pay roll con- tained 1,948,900 employees, not counting the military, the lowest it’s been since 1942.) OFFICIALS SPEAK HUMPHREY says the American people should have more chance to get educated on Government activities. So he and George E. Reedy have worked out a “know your Government” radio pro- gram. Reedy is Washington representative of the Arrowhead radio network, serving northeastern Minnesota and western Wis- consin. Every Saturday afternoon people in that area can tune in on the 15-minute program. They'll hear people like Dr. Roy Peel, head of the Census Bureau; James Mitchell, pres- ident of the Civil Service Commission; Ray- mond Foley, Federal Housing Administrator. The series of broadcasts, recorded in Washington, started April 1. They will probably stop some time in June, when school lets out, and take up again in Sep- tember. “People have a right to know where their tax dollar goes, end why. This may help them find out,” HUMPHREY says. After delivery over the Arrowhead net- work, the discs are available to schools and colleges. They are in the form of questions and answers, with Reedy asking and a top Gov- ernmert employee answering. They don’t avoid controversial issues. TIME IS FREE Du-irg Mr. Peel’s broadcast, for instance, Reedy asked why the census takers had to go into the question of personal income. The income question has been called an in- infringement on liberty. Dr. Peel replied “that information is of vital importance to business in serving mar- kets. The answers measure purchasing power.” A8057 The program is billed as a public service and the time is free. Humphrey gets a note of thanks for his help in making the program possible at the end of the 15-min- ute show. Humphrey’s secretary, Bill Rasch, who helped work out the details, said response to the program has been very good so far. He said a couple of other Senators have already asked about the idea. Next winter, Rasch said, “Reedy hopes to get Secretary of Defense Johnsen, Secretary of the .aterior Chapman, and FBI Director Hoover on the air.’ Tribute to Lt. Gen. Alvan C. Gillem by Hubert Lee EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. KENNETH McKELLAR OF TENNESSEE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, April 27 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I ask permission to have inserted in the ReEcorD an editorial paying tribute to Lt. Gen. Alvan C. Gillem, a Tennessean, who will retire as Commanding General of the Third Army in September. The editorial was written by Hubert Lee, and appeared in Dixie Business, published at East Point, Ga. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: THIs WEEK (By Hubert Lee) Lt. Gen. Alvan C. Gillem, Jr., commanding general of the Third Army, will retire in September at Fort McPherson where, 40 years ago, he served as a buck private. The Nashville, Tenn., born soldier played a@ major role in winning World War II just as he did during the First World War. General Gillem is known over the world, wherever military men gather, as the sol- dier’s general. In all the years he has never forgotten that he was 2 buck private. His own idealism and pelief in the dignity of the profession of army, whether the lowest recruit or high rank, has been an inspiration to many men in the Army. The welfare of the men in the ranks comes first with General Gillem, for he knows his officers and noncoms can look out for their own welfare. Such a sol- dier, too, was Gen. John J. Pershing, known affectionately as Black Jack. And Gen. J. Lawton Collins, who hails from New Orleans, and many another. It took him 30 years to reaco the rank of brigadier general and with the one star on July 12, 1941, the veteran infantry officer was given the command of the Third Ar- mored Division. On January 17, 1942, less than 2 months after Pearl Harbor, General Gillem activated and took command of the famed Second Armored Corps. From Au~ gust to October 1942, he commanded the Desert Training Center and General Gillem directed the first United States Army ma-~ neuvers held solely for armored and mecha- nized troops. Sewanee’s gifted soldier found his training and leadership in great demand, for on May 14, 1948, he wan placed in command of the armored force and became commanding general on July 2, 1943, of Armored Com-~ mand. In 1945 he was promoted to leu- tenant general. General Gillem commanded the Thirteenth Corps in the European theater of operations.