A844 has been mismanaged by a politically-minded bureaucracy. It seems to me that the an- swer lies tin freeing the American economy of political and bureaucratic controls as rapidly as possible It became very evident upon the adoption of the steel-wage-price formula in early 1946 that there could be no effective stubiliza- tion of prices (prices reflect the value of our money) through the medium of price con- trols. Production costs would be inevitably pyramided upon prices, prices upon produc- tion costs, ad infinitum. The line was broken at a most inopportune time. The alterna- tive to price control is production and more production. This is as true in home butld- ing as in anything else. Congress realizing this developed a formula in the OPA exten- sion bill of last June, under which prices could be prevented from going unreasonably high, but at the same time assuring such adjustments in prices as to guarantee full and adequate production. The formula was sensible and workable. It provided in sub- stance that no maximum price should be set upon any commodity, of course including building materials, which did not reflect to the producer the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. Had this formula been enacted, today we would not be concerned as much as We are with the shortage of building materials at reasonable prices. Through production and competition, the price of an American home wou'd now be within reach of the average citizen, The President in his wisdom vetoed this bill. I have often wondered since then whether he would huve done so had he had it to do over again. The OPA bill which was finally enacted was one under which prices could not be controlled; it was a bill to con- trol production, not prices. The very at- tempt to administer it was bound to result in chaos. It was only when, because of these controls, the American economy was col- lapsing, that many of the controls were re- moved by Executive order. The bill which the President vetoed would have resulted in gradual decontrols, with little or no shock to our economy. It was very obvious that the bill which he attempted to administer could result in nothing but disaster. Let me call attention again to the fact that during the period in which this comedy of errors was operating, the American dol- lar dropped in value from 74 cents to 69 cents, and has undoubtedly been a deter- rent to the restoration of world peace and prosperity. We can profit by these experi- ences. They are valuable on! in the aca- demic sense that a study of them will pre- vent a recurrence of the mistakes made at that time. I know that you are interested primarily in what the Congress might do at this ses- sion to help you build sufficient homes to adequately house millions of our citizens who do not now have desirable shelters. I cannot speak for the House Banking and Currency Committee, of which I am chair- man. We have as yet had no hearings. We expect to start hearings at an early date, per- haps within the next 3 weeks. It is ex- pected that the committee will consider a bill dealing with both housing and rents. In discussing what the bill should con- tain, I speak only for myself. Some of the suggestions I know will meet with your ap- proval. Others may not. I know that you appreciate the seriousness of the problem, how necessary it is that we proceed cau- tiously; how disastrous it might be if major mistakes are made. It is my purpose to introduce legislation which will repeal, with two exceptions, the provisions of Public Law 388 (79th Cong.) sometimes referred to as the Veterans’ Emer- gency Housing Act of 1946. I believe that section 10 of the act, which continues con- struction under title 6 of the National Hous- ing Act, should be retained. It also might be found desirable to con- tinue some provision for veterans’ priorities for purchase or rental, but the time in which the priority must be exercised might well be substantially reduced. It is not contemplated that any authority to allocate building materials under the Sec- ond War Powers Act should be continued. Of course the bill will remove any author- ity to set maximum prices on new construc- tion. This has been one of the most serious deterrents to home construction and was ill conceived. It was reasonable to presume that builders would not build houses under a system by which materials were not con- trolled, where the price of the finished house was under very rigid control. The average builder gambles enough without being ex- pected to assume the obvious risks incident to this practice. It has been suggested that the Government continue to control the allocation of mate- rials to the extent that a certain percentage would Le allocated to commercial building, and a certain percentage to home building. We have hud manygconferences about this, and I have concluded that it cannot be ef- fectively done without seriously interfering with the free movement of materials which might prevent maximum production, the stock piling of building materials and sub- stantial increases in inventories which are decidedly advisable as aids to the lowering of prices. In addition to the suggestions which I have made, it also stems desirable to incluce in the bill a provision for the removal of rent controls on new construction. This can be accomplished without serious disloca- tions, and shovld encourage such an expan- sion in the building of rental properties as to mvke it possible to remove rent controls on all properties within a reasonably short time. The continuance of rent controls on exist- ing properties has given us no little concern. It was thought at one time that the admin- istration might take the initiative in this respect, but the President has advised the Congress that it must take full responsibil- ity for any gcneral rent increases on existing property. The Congress will accept that re- sponsibility It is my suggestion that rent controls be continued on existing properties until March 31, 1918, with uny clarification of the law that may be necessary to define the power of the President to remove any or ull controls before March 31, 1948, in any area if the need for continuing such con- trols is no longer required dur to sufficient construction of new homes, or when the de- mand has been reasonably met otherwise. There is another phase of this problem which is giving us in Congress a great deal of concern. It is in the field of appraisals. Frankly, we are becoming somewhat alarmed about the contingent liability of the United States Government resulting from financing of home construction at inflated values. We have not found an answer to it yet. I think your association can give us a great deal of help. It perhaps lies in the reduction of building costs of homes wherever it can pos- sibly be done and where it will not prejudice maximum production. I think we should be realistic about this. We are all taxpayers—we all realize the con- sequences of increasingly large contingent liabilities which might add materially to the national debt if and when real-estate values decline. It is not doing the veteran any service to encourage him to purchase homes beyond his means. Rental housing is the primary need of veterans at this time. It is likewise very bad practice for the Federal Government to make loans or in- sure mortgages on properties which, if they are liquidated before the equities are in- creased sufficiently to offset the value de- preciation, will result in prejudice to the national economy by an increase in the na- tional debt. The Government can get its APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD money to cover these losses only by issuing bonds. Increases in tre national debt may well offset in currency depreciation all reduc- tions in the expense of running the Federal Government, or efforts to reduce the debt and taxes. Having in view this major problem of economic and financial stability, the home builders, more than any other class, must take the initiative in removing the proba- bilities that our attempts to stabilize through the medium of curtailing Government ex- penses be offset by having to meet with actual cash a huge contingent liability. In conclusion, let me summarize our ob- jJectives. They are: First. To tree American industry from the shackles of Government control. Second. To encourage maximum prcduc- tion with full confidence that America's ca- pacity to produce js so great that free pri- vate enterprise may succeed in solving our economic problems, whereas the Government has failed to solve them through the control of our production and through the manage- ment of our economy. Third. That we realize our full responsi- bility as American producers, to prove to the world that under our form of government we can effectuate financial, economic, and social stabllity. Fourth. That by our examp]? we will en- courage other countries to emulate our free- enterprise system, to the end that the causes of world wars shall be removed and world peace shall be everlasting. The Wagner Labor Relations Act EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JAMES E. MURRAY OF MONTANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, the dis- tinguished senior Senator from New York Mr. WAGNER], in the March issue of Sign magazine, has presented a very brief and intelligent reappraisal of the act which bears his name. Before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee and the House Education and Labor Committee report a bill on labor relations, I hope the members of these committees will afford themselves an opportunity to digest this rare bit of wisdom on this vital problem. I want to take this opportunity to commend the editors of Sign magazine for the splendid public service and social good they are performing by publishing articles of such character. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Appendix of the REcorRD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE WaGNER ACT—A REAPPRAISAL (By Senator Ropert F. WAGNER) Congress is currently engaged in reviewing our national labor policy If this examina- tion is to be fruitful, we in Congress and the public generally must guard against being sucked into the swirling pools of misleading propaganda which have surrounded so fun- damental a measure as the National Labor Relations Act. In a democracy, where the ultimate sanction of any public policy de- pends upon public acceptance, an informed public opinion is of crucial importance. Yet, & recent Gallup poll disclosed that only 10
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD percent of ‘the people claim to know what the National Labor Relations Act provides. If we are to look about us for the blue- prints of a postwar labor policy, it is well that we examine critically the operation of our present policy. Not, mind you, to appro- priate the divine prerogative of looking upon our work and calling it good. But before we determine whither we go, it is well that we know whence we come and where we are. We may begin with a single fact: organized labor hag grown in membership from about 83,000,000 when the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935 to about 15,000,000 in 1946. This is a simple fact, but of elemental significance. It shows that as soon as the ob- stacle of employer interference was removed, American workers eagerly sought to exercise their right of self-organization. Moreover, all the propaganda to the con- trary notwithstanding. the phenomenal growth of labor organization has taken place without any diminution of the employers’ constitutional right to free speech in labor relations. The talk of restoring free speech to the employer is a polite way of reintro- ducing employer interference, economic re- tallation, and other insidious means of dis- couraging union membership and union ac- tivity, thereby greatly diminishing and re- stricting the exercise of free speech and free choice by the working men and women of America. No constitutional principle can support this, nor would a just labor-rela- tions policy result from it. The National Labor Relations Board under the supervision of the courts (whose chief duty ts to uphold the Constitution) should continue to accom- modate the right of the workers to organize and the employers’ right to free speech in the context of the circumstances of specific cases. Organization is the spirit of the times. I therefore consider as an attempt to turn the clock back any proposal which would completely eliminate any group of American workers from the protection of the act, whether by contracting the coverage of the statute or by excluding foremen and super- visors. The industrial “middle class” should not be denied the protected right to organ- ize which has been exercised by both rank and file workers and their employers. To clo so would be to invite industrial strife and to undermine the already precarious economic position of an important sector of the mid- dle class, one of the mainstays of a demo- cratic society. The grave forebodings now so widely broad- cast concerning the consequences of fore- men’s collective bargaining are contradicted by actual situations where such bargaining does exist, and will prove as groundless against the experience of the next decade as the equally dire prophecies of a decade xgo concerning the effect of collective bargaining generally. I am not among those who are frightened by the stresses and strains inci- dent to the adjustment of conflicting inter- ests. The orderly accommodation of con- fiicting interests is the peculiar genius of democracy. It is well to recall these dire prophecies now that collective bargaining has become accepted as our industrial way of life, as is evidenced by pronouncements of all political parties and business organizations. As collective bargaining grows in maturity, labor-management cooperation—to increase efficiency, reduce waste, and improve prod- ucts—grows apace. This is evidenced by con- tract provisions to that effect and by day-to- day industrial relations. Organized labor realizes that its share of the industrial in- come depends ultimately upon industrial productivity. Labor’s increasing interest in the operation and conduct of industry car- ries with it responsibility for results. Even in the few exceptional crafts and industries where make-work schemes, generally known as featherbedding. are practiced, labor's in- terest in productivity would prevail were the fear of unemployment banished. Til-advised as these practices are, their effect on our economy is insignificant com- pared to capital monopoly and cartel restric- tions of production and price-fixing. The ultimate solution for the elimination of make-work schemes lies in providing full em- ployment and adequate social security. By enhancing the worker's security through elimination of seasonal fluctuations of em- ployment, welfare funds, and through guar- anteed annual wage plens, collective bargain- ing can do a great deal more than it has already done to remove obstacles to indus- trial efficiency. But collective bargaining alone is inadequate to provide for full em- ployment and adequate social insurance in our complex society. That responsibility rests upcn the Government, This has been recugnized by our soctal-gecurity laws and the Full Employment Act of 1946. Our sys- tem of free enterprise and political liberty cannot survive withcut economic security for the mass of our people. Labor problems cannot be treated in iso- lation. They must be handled within the broad framework of our whole economy, Nevertheless, collective bargaining must re- main the chief means of working out the dclicate adjustment between the demands of industrial efficiency and the workers’ wel- fare and security. Cooperation between labor and maniuge- ment to promote industrial efficiency and employee security would be abruptly cut short by the incredible proposals to pro- hibit industry-wide bargaining. This type of bargaining, as in Great Britain and Swe- den, has characterized maturity in labor re- lations in the United States. Stabilization of business practices und the elimination of sweatshop wages and working conditions in the needle trades and other industries hav. gone hand in hand with the establish- ment of industry-wide bargaining. Industria! strife, chaos, and ruin would follow the out- lawing of industry-wide barzaining. It would bring back the cycle of wage and price cut- ting which was characteristic of the coal industry and other industries in the twen- ties and early thirties, precisely because there was no Nation-wide organization and collective bargaining. To apply the antitrust laws to business encourages competition in prices and is eco- nomically desirable. To apply the antitrust laws, however, to break up unions would promote competition to reduce wages and the purchasing power of the workers. The way to industrial peace is not through ren- dering unions impotent to raise and protect the standard of living and the purchasing power of the mass of consumers. That is the route t» ruin, not only for labor but for business as well. In still another sector of labor-manage- ment relations, collective bargaining can show a rich and varied experience. Griev- ance procedures to settle disputes that in- evitably arise under collective agreements have become commonplace. Under impetus of directives of the National War Labor Board, voluntary arbitration as the terminal point of grievance machinery is more and more coming in favor as a means of avoid- ing deadlocks that might lead to strikes or lock-outs during the life of a contract. The President's national labor-management con- ference of November 1945 included voluntary arbitration as a final step in grievance ad- justment among its recommendations. Giving point and emphasis to procedure for the settlement of disputes under Collec- tive agreements are remedies, sanctions, and penalties which are provided in case of con- tract violation by either party. Company security has become as accepted in labor re- lations vocabulary as union security. In case of an unauthorized strike, in vio- lation of the contract, sanctions and penal- A815 ties are provided against those who are re- sponsible or who participate in it, including the union, union leaders, and the employ- ees. Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees may be and have been dis- charged for violatic.: of an agreement. IT personally believe that as employers, union leaders, and employees gain maturity in the process of colicctive bargaining, the unauthorized strike will hav: gone out of existence irrespective of the presence or ab- sence of sanctions in the trade acreement. But I welcome, nevertheless, the variety OL practices that are being tested by the parties themselves to achieve mutual responsibility. I would not call a halt to this salutary devel- opment as would those who want to throw the settlement of labor disputes into the courts. Even now unions may be sued us entities in the Federal courts and 1n many of the States. Contrary to expectations, em- ployers would suffer most from court Itiga- tion because there are many more griev- ances of employees against employers than vice versa. More important, the courts Jack the time, expertness, and informed sympathy to be the proper forum for the settlements of labor disputes. This conclusion is abundantly demonstrated in the record of the courts in labor injunctions. Compliance with contract terms must ultimately depend upon the par- tles themselves, supplemented by expert and impartial arbitration. Collective bargain- ing, somewhat like marriage. is # social rela- tionship which depends upon continuity. It is a living together which cannot be safely interrupted while the bones of contention are being rattled in the courts. It is in the give and take of collective bar- gaining that frequently conflicting demands are made to serve common purposes. Thus it came to be recognized that it is only under @ union shop or maintenance of member- ship that union leaders can most effectively maintain union discipline, which is so essen- tial to avoidance of unauthorized strikes. Union security is not opposed to but, on the contrary, strengthens company security. Through impartial arbitration. provided for by contract, employers find that they can protect their work force against possible ur- bitrary expulsion from the union. Protection of the individual members against discriminating action by the union is not left entirely to collective agreements. A favorite and oft-repeated charge is that the National Labor Relations Act is one- sided because it imposes obligations on the employer without imposing corresponding duties on the unions, particularly for the protection of the individual union member against arbitrary union leadership. This claim ignores a whole body of cus8e law by the National Labor Relations Board and the courts, which constitutes an ever-growing system of union regulation having as its pur- pose responsibility by the union to the rank and file. The Supreme Court itself has declared that Federal protection of collective bargaining has imposed upon unions obligations anal- ogous to those of a legislature to protect equally those they represent. Unions may not discriminate egainst nonmembers whom they represent. They may not use closed- shop contracts to eliminate those who were formerly affiliated with a rival union. Col- lective agreements may not provide for job discrimination on account of race or re- ligion. Nor will the National Labor Rela- tions Board recognize a bargaining unit or- ganized along racial lines or certify a union which does not equally represent all workers irrespective of race. It may be inferred that political minorities would be held to be equally protected against discrimination by unions. Our constitutional system does not con- sist solely of the few pages of the written document, but of the whole living framework
A846 of laws, court decisions, and political prac- tices. Similarly, the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as interpreted and applied by the NLRB and the courts, has, through the inner logic of its relationships, become a bill of rights for the protection of individual and minority rights. I welcome the deepening of this trend. Together with my fellow Americans I am, however, deeply disturbed at the rash of strikes which have occurred during recon- version from war to peace. It would be well, though, that in examining proposals dealing with this problem we should not mistake kysteria for statesmanship. The recent headline strikes have not been organization strikes but those arising out of differences over conditions of employ- ment, chiefly wages. The National Labor Relations Act has proved successful in its purpose of reducing to a minimum strikes arising over union recognition which in the past loomed largest and were the most diffi- cult to handle. In 1937 only 76 percent of Bstrike idleness was due to organizational strikes, while in 1945 such strike idleness declined to 29 percent of the total. It wouldn't do to take refuge in irrele- vant issues such as the proposals made in regard to picketing. The current wave of strikes, with a few minor exceptions, has been as free from violence as a Sunday- school picnic. The elimination of the labor spy, saboteur, and strikebreaker and the thorough organization of labor have elimi- nated violence and the sit-down as strike factors. There is little evidence that local authori- ties are unable to deal with picket-line vio- lence. The attempt to revive the labor in- junction might hamstring labor and result in bloodshed, but would contribute not an iota to reducing the number of strikes. Similarly lacking in reality are proposals that would make strike votes mandatory. The strikers are those who sustain greatest economic loss and risk losing employment through being displaced in strikes Despite this, strike leaders have had the unbroken support of the rank and file, in many cases the strike pressure coming from below. More in point are proposals dealing with the settlement of labor disputes and limita- tions on the right to strike. Here it must be emphasized that to the extent that we limit or eliminate the right to strike we must substitute for private collective bargaining the decision of a third party or the Gov- ernment, for otherwise the terms of employ- ment would be determined unilaterally by the employer. The proposal for strike limitation calling for the “cooling-off" perio? has been dis- credited by our war experience as a solvent of labor disputes. The incidence of strikes was greater after the passage of the War Labor Disputes Act than before, even though it contained a strike notice provision. Prohibition of the right to strike can be effective only in dictatorships under a sys- tem of industrial serfdom. Compulsory ar- bitration has not been successful in elimi- nating strikes where it has been tried in democratic countries such as Australia and New Zealand. There is no short-cut panacea for the solu- tion of the strike problem within the frame- work of a democratic system. Ultimate re- liance in industrial cemocracy, as in its political counterpart, must be placed, not on suppression, but on the willingness of the parties involved to resolve their differences by mutual accord. There has come to public notice significant evidence that labor and management are relearning the art of collective bargaining neglected during the war. The United Steel- workers Union and United States Steel have extended their contract for a few months while negotiations are proceeding for a new contract, thus in effect establishing a “cool- ing-off” period by voluntary agreement. In the building industry a labor-management agreement was just made for establishment of machinery for the voluntary settlement of disputes arising out of the interpretation of contracts as well as the making of new con- tracts. The wave of postwar strikes appeurs to have subsided as the reconversion period comes to its end. With the end of war fatigue and the quieting of war nerves, with the dissi- pation of inflationary pressures by full pro- duction, and with the bridging of the gulf between wages and the cost of living, we can expect more maturity in collective bargain- ing—if it is given a chance. With this will come an era of industrial peace and har- monious labor-management relations, ful- filling the objectives of the act of which I am very proud to be the author. Insuring Our National Security EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHAN GURNEY OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an address which I delivered on Tuesday, March 4, 1947, before the Overseas Press Club, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: I am honored to have the privilege of talking to you members of the Oversens Press Club tonight. During the war you reported directly trom the battle fronts. Now your millions of readers are eagerly seeking ac- curate information from the peace fronts. Yours is the rare opportunity to doubly serve. You have secn the horrors of conflict at first hand. ‘You possess that hatred of war which is seared in the minds of those who have witnessed destruction, carnage, and hu- man misery on a wholesale scale. The words you write and the words you speak are words of authority. Thus, it is a privilege to be here outlining my ideas on what can and must be done to insure our national security. To best describe in one word the feeling of peoples all over the globe in this year of 1947, I would select the one word “fear.” There is fear of war, fear of starvation, fear of the spread of tyrannical government. The world is stumbling through black clouds of fear for the future, generally. To disperse these fears the United Nations Organization was created. It was kindled from man’s innate desire for peace. True, it is as yet only a pale, white flame which often flickers, fitfully, under the pressure of unhealthy compromise and departure from principle. Still it is the only light in these fear clouds which engulf us. Our Nation alone can keep that ight burn- ing. Why the United States alone? The answer comes naturally. Because we have as a nation the will for peace as contrasted with an aggressive will elsewhere. Also we have that rare combination—industrial ca- pacity, natural resources, technical skill, a healthy free government and a large, strong, eager citizenry to maintain it. Ours is the responsibility. The fact that it is our re- sponsibility is underlined by events of the past few days. Great Britain's international influence and power is waning rapidly. Let's make the United Nations work. We can only exercise that responsibility if we are alert APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and strong. This, I feel, is our role in the world today. And it is not a role to be played by filnging from us our sword and shield and leaving ourselves standing im- potent and foolish in a world in which the forces of power are still at work. We cannot ask the nations of the world to follow the leadership of a military midget, an aerial ostrich, and a naval minnow. We followed such a course after World War I. We disowned the League of Nations, scuttled our Navy, and disbanded our Army. What international highway did we thus de- sign and where did it lead us? We designed the highway down which three power-mad dictators drove their panzer divisions, through the crossroads of Manchuria, Munich, and Pearl Harbor, into the blood bath of World War II. Le us for a moment take a look at the world conditions today which form the back- drop for the efforts to build a lasting peace. We are painfully reminded, first of all, that no major peace treaties have yet been signed. We know the embers of war smoulder in China. We know that Russia maintains a juggernaut of at least 4,000,000 soldiers which could overrun all of Europe. We Know that mass starvation—historically a breeder of wars—is prevalent in many parts of the world. We are also mindful of the fact that scientists everywhere are working feverishly to find the key which will unlock the secrets of atomic power. We know that our military forces are now pulled tight—like a thin cov- erlet of asbestos—over the inflammable areas of the world Against that panorama of uncertainty, fear, and suspicion, our national security would be jeopardized by disarmament. Tragic con- sequences for ourselves and for all peace- loving people of the world would ensue. The prodigious power and prestige of the United States is vital to the achievement of the United Nations’ objectives. Our challenge today is simply that we must maintain a strength suffitient to pre- serve the peace until such time as the Unitcd Nations can shoulder the burden. I beg your belief in my absolute sincerity and conviction when I say that that challenge is every bit as alarming in its implications, as the challenge presented by the late dic- tators. Now, I am not thinking of strength solely . In terms of military and naval might, meas- ured by mere numbers of ships, guns, planes, or men. I am thinking in terms of a united people 140,000,000 strong. I am thinking of the spirit of self-sacrifice displayed by these people in the days and months following Pearl Harbor. Iam thinking of the courage and determination which pervaded the pro- duction lines, the farms, and the firesides. I am thinking of the force which transmitted itself to our fighting men, and enabled them to crush the military strength of Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini. It was not the Army and Navy alone who won World War II—it was American resources and the stamina and unity of the American people. Our strength lay in our unity of purpose. Today we are fast losing that unity. We seem unwilling to face facts. We want na- tional security, but we won't pay for it. We want production, but we won’t work. We want statesmanship, but we settle for politics. No; I fear that in our precipitous dash to @ nebulous normalcy we are fleeing from a challenge as great, or greater, than we faced in December 1941. To me there is a heart-sickening parallel between our present national conduct and that which followed the First World War. We should have learned then the lesson that the luxury of continued peace cannot be had without effort, without plan, and without sacrifice. There is little today to indicate that we did learn that lesson. ‘We must take stock right now. We must reestimate the world situation in the light of winning the peace. We must revalue the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD means at our disposal for maintaining the peace. We must weld a national determina- tion to win and keep the peace, just as we welded a national determination to win the war. Perhaps you feel my formula too pat—my posing of the question oversimplified for easy answer, There are ramifications. I certainly am aware of the danger of bankrupting our- selves. I am aware of the danger of a mili- tary strangle hold on Government. No gain if either of these were to occur. But I am certain that we can be potent without be- coming slaves to our military. It will cost us money—year after year— but it will cost us as nothing compared to the loss of lives and substance and liberty which we will inevitably suffer if we fail to adopt and maintain a security program. What is the blueprint for American se- curity? It is simple in outline and practical in detail. In drafting the specifications for such a program, we must accept the possibility of a future war. Should it come—and God for- bid—it will be total. It will come with dev- astating swiftness. It will strike at our cen- ters of population, at our key industries, nt our vital communications, at the nerve cen- ters of Government. Neither the planning nor the execution of national security meas- ures adequate to combat this threat are tasks for our armed forces alone. We must be prepared to convert our total economy quickly to an all-out war effort. Therefore there must be a permanent agency of Government—a national security agency—above the level of our present War and Navy Departments—to integrate the mil- itary and foreign policy of the United States with plans for complete mobilization of our scientific, industrial, and manpower re- sources. This is the first necessity of a com- prehensive security program. The program must also include a world- wide intelligence system, a comprehensive plan for economic preparedness, supremacy in scientific research and devclopment, and @ properly unified Army and Navy. What then? Our National Guard, of course at least three times as large as it used to be. with a guaranteed plan for full strength through enlistments and a proper training program faithfully carried out, this for quick mobilization on danger day along with our organized and volunteer reser es. Now comes the test. Will our people sup- port the organization necessary to maintain these forces and back them up? If they will, then they must accept universal military training. Without it, our citizens’ army will not be in a state of preparedness. From the citizens training camps must come the an- nual increments to keep Uncle Sam's muscles strong. Let us look at it this way. The strength of our defense forces can be measured in terms of actual and potential. Today our actual defense establishment is but a fragile shell. And with each passing month, as World War II recedes into history and our veterans of that conflict grow older, our potential fighting strength dwindles accordingly. We simply must reinforce that fragile shell with an underpinning of young, vigorous, trained personnel who will be ready on'a moment's notice to man their stations. It would be suicidal to assume that in future wars as in past there will be time to train our men after the conflict starts. The Pearl Harbor of the future will be a fusillade of atomic bombs screeching earthward from planes traveling at supersonic speeds. We found, in the last war, that our recruits re- quired 17 weeks of basic training. Can any- one imagine that in a full scale atomic war an aggressor would allow us 17 weeks, or even 17 days, or 17 hours, to prepare and train a force capable of counterattack? It is foolish. We considered our preparation for the last war feverish and frantic. In the event of any future struggle, history will record that it was leisurely and deliberate. We simply cannot depend on covered-wagon methods in a jet-propelled world. Opponents of universa] military training have confused public thinking by taking vp side issues and attacking individual phases of the program. What they overlook, it seems to me, is the tremendous fact that a program of universal military training is a stark military necessity. That's all there is to it. That it ts a stark military neccssity can be reduced to a simple and unavoidable mathematical certainty. Consider these stubborn facts: The United Nations cannot now guarantee our security. If there is to be another war it will begin by a surprise attack on the resources of the United States. Atomic war- fare would demand large numbers of highly- trained men; therefore they must be trained in peacetime, starting now. We will not maintain a standing Army of sufficient size. Therefore, we must have compulzory peace- time training. T feel that our Congress tends to Irg behind the people on this vital issue. Every Gallup poll over a period of years has shown a ma- jority of more than 70 percent of the people squarely behind a proper citizens’ military training program. It must be borne in mind, of course, that universal military training is only a part of the over-all national security program. This comprehensive program requires not only the sacrifice of time and effort on the part of our young men, but will require sacrifices of industry in diverting part of its peacetime efforts to industrial preparedness. The same is true of science. In fact, we must all be willing to sacri- fice a part of our national income—of our standard of living—in order to guarantee to ourselves and our children the priceless liberties which are typical of America. We simply cannot remain an island otf well-being in an ocean of misery, and ex- pect to be both weak and unmolested. We consider it sound business to insure against fire, against theft, against floods and tornadoes, against recessions and inflation. We make a great study of these factors and invest against their risk. But do we realistic- ally evaluate the risk of war? If not, why not? It is the one catastrophe which hus occurred with greater regularity than any other. It is high time we face that fact and resolve to do something about it. In next year’s budget, 46 cents out 0! every dollar will go to pay for the cost of prior wars. We simply cannot afford another war. If we are unwilling to sacrifice a part of our money and a part of our energies until the United Nations can guarantee our safety, we are deliberately inviting the loss of all that we hold sacred. Those sacrifices—if it is proper to call them sacrifices—are trivial, alongside the fearful stakes for which we play. If these pittances can preserve a peace for us and for all the world, we should thank God that it has been so cheaply bought. And I am not alone in this feeling. The men who fought the last war agree with me. They prefer adequate defense appropria- tions—with the necessary high taxes—to the sickening prospect of again giving up their civilian pursuits and going off to war. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a cogent argument for the plan which I have out- lined here tonight. The boys who slept in foxholes and swayed in life rafts—the boys who saw their buddies blown to bits—have a better sense of real values than we have. I say that we can't let these GI's down. They fought valiantly on the battlefield to protect our country. Now the stewardship is ours. We must fight just as valiantly in the dalls of Congress, on our farms, in our offices and at our work benches, to protect the peace which they have given us. This year the course of action which we, as a nation, embark upon can well decide the A847 fate of the United Nations and the peace of the world. The American people will whole- heartedly back any practical program for the defense of our Nation—if they are given the facts necessary to understand it. You members of the Overseas Press Club have an unprecedented opportunity to bring home to your readers and listeners the facts of life in the world today. If you can some- how push through your typewriters and into the hearts of Americans the feeling that our country must remain vigorous, alert and pre- pared for any eventuality, then you will have made a monumental contribution to all mankind, lavolve nent of the United States in Inter- national Commitments EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. E. H. MOORE OF OXLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MOORE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcorD an editorial entitled “Our Feet Deeper Into the International Mire” from the Enid (Okla.) News of March 2, last. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recor», as follows: OUR FEET DEEPER INTO THE INTERNATIONAL MIRE Once more the United States is asked to get its feet deeper into the international mire, to take over the commitments and obliga- tions of the rapidly disintegrating British Empire, and inject itself further into the maelstrom of seething power politics. Un- less we immediately meet the British demand that we aid her in Greece with money and troops, and give Turkey the military and economic assistance which Britain grandi- osely promised her, then, we are told, Greece will fall to the Communists, Turkey will be unable to resist Red pressures and we may expect Russia to extend her power through- out the Mediterranean area and eastward to Asia. According to “sources close to Gencral Marshall,” Secretary of State, unless the United States does come to pul) Britain’s chestnuts out of this latest fire, then “with Greece under Soviet domination like her Balkan neighbors. Turkey and the oil-rich Middle East would be helpless to oppose Rus- sian diplomatic and military pressure.” Nobody seems to know exactly the extent of British “commitments” to either Greece or Turkey, but in the former it involves the maintenance of an extensive army to Keep the present Greek Government in power, and a minimum of ‘“$250,000,000 in aid to prevent an upheaval that might have dire consequences for the western democracies.” Or so the President told an extremely hush- hush conference this week, in which it 1s reported General Marshall asked for assured congressional backing in anything he might encounter in the forthcoming Moscow con- ference. The 8260,000,000 would be in addi- tion to the $60,000,000 we gave-loaned to Greece last summer; would only be a single yeur’s installment on maintaining Greece for British rule; would be in addition to a new $10,000,000 credit in our surplus commodi- ties overseas, plus the $45,000,000 credit al- ready granted, and in addition to our turn- ing over to the Greek government vast quan- tities of small arms and other military equip- ment without obligation,
A848 Thus do our international statesmen con- tinue to push us into the tangled and stran- gling affairs of a Europe steeped in age-old hatreds and jealousics. Thus are we being led away from the admonitions of George Washington to— “Have with them (European governments) as little political connection as possible” be- cause “it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations, collisions of her friendships or enemies,” for “there can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illu- sion which experience must cure, which a Just pride ought to discard.” Certainly our experience should have cured us of serving as the world Santa Claus, of hoping ‘that we can buy European friendship or even European agreement to peaceful procedure; and while it would be well for General Marshall, the one-worlders, and the Wall Street State Department boys generally to read more of the Farewell Address of Washington quoted above, there is every evi- dence that the administration ts-determined to push us still further into the morass of European entanglements. From that, there soon can be no turning back, but only fur- ther suction finally to drag us down and eventually destroy us along with Britain and the whole of the European Continent. Republican Dilly-Dallying EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Republican Dilly-Dallying,” from the Worcester Telegram of Febru- ary 17 last. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: REPUBLICAN DILLY-DALLYING It is high time an aroused public opinion again reminded the Republican Party why it was chosen at the polls last November to take over the legislative branch of the United States Government. In an atmosphere of political pussyfooting and sidestepping, the Republicans have been eyeing 1948 with more attention than they have paid to the mean- ing of the 1946 election. If they misinterpret or ignore the 1946 election, and continue try- ing to be a pale carbon copy of the New Deal, they will correct none of the Democratic fail- ures and will probably lose the Presidency next year. For it is certainly no exaggeration to state bluntly that if the Republicans do not stick fairly closely to their campaign promises and the election mandate, then they will lose the 1948 election—and justly so. An aroused public demand that the GOP hew to the line on its preelection pledges is plainly called for. Only if the Republican Party itself recognizes that the American voters meant business, and were not fooling when they voted against Democratic high taxes, intrenched bureaucracy, abuses of power by some leaders of organized labor groups, pressure and petty politics, will it justify public confidence, It was no perfunctory move when Post~ master General Hannegan chose February 6— a week before the Republican Lincoln Day dinners—to throw Mr. Truman's hat into the ring for 1948. Mr. Hannegan spoke as a growing disillusionment with Republican promises was beginning to take form in the country. Republican leaders, talking on every issue at once, had begun to backtrack on such vital matters as tax reduction, the firing of arrogant bureaucrats, and the fram- ing of adequate labor laws to give both labor and management an equality before the law to prevent a repetition of last year's disas- trous round of strikes. Ralph Coolidge Mul- ligan, Telegram Washington correspondent, reported a week ago that some Republicans are engaging in the standard patter of officeholders and officeseekers, in trying to vie with the Democrats in promises. Mr. Hannegan knew this, and knew also that Mr, Truman's popularity in the Gallup sur- vey has been rising recently, probably partly due to Republican ineptitude. Senator LEvERETT SALTONSTALL, in a speech at Los Angeles on Lincoln’s Birthday, gave a correct interpretation of the meaning of last November 5 avhen he said the election showed the people “want government out of our homes, out of our businesses. The vot- ers said in landslide terms that they wanted less bureaucracy, less restrictions and red tape coming into their homes and interfer- ing with their personal lives. We want to cut down some of the more than 1,039 Fed- eral agencies that make up our Federal bureaucracy.” The people did speak loudly and plainly for these things last fall. They have been disappointed at the fumbling going on in the Republican ranks in Congress. The peo- ple want the action they voted for. They don’t want politics as usual. The Republi- cans can’t afford to throw away their big opportunity. Nomination of David E. Lilienthal— Analysis of Evidence EXTENSION OF REMARKS F HON. JOHN J. SPARKMAN OF ALABAMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 3 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, in the Washington Post this morning there was printed a very fine and fair review of the testimony which has been ad- duced in connection with the confirma- tion of Mr. David E. Lilienthal, together with a list of the witnesses who have appeared for him and against him. I believe it would be well worth while to have this review in the Recorp, and I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the Appendix. I am informed by the Public Printer that this matter will occupy six pages of the Recorp and that the cost will be approximately $426. There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: AN ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE IN THE LILIENTHAL CONFIRMATION HEARINGS INTRODUCTION The hearings commenced January 27, 1947. There have been 22 sessions of the committee. Of the 55 witnesses called 25 have favored confirmation and 7 have op- posed, (See list at end of speech.) Other witnesses have expressed no opinion. The entire record comprises, 1,826 pages. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Testimony in opposition to Mr. Lilienthal has been developed almost entirely by Sen- ator McKELLar who, while not a member of the Committee on Atomic Energy, has under the rules of the Senate attended the pro- ceedings, caused subpenas to be issued for witnesses and documents, and examined wit- nesses frequently at length. Of the entire record approximately 20 percent is devoted to examination conducted by Senator Mc- Keyan. The record shows that Senator Mc- KE.1akR has in the past attacked Mr. Lilienthal Personally in speeches from the floor of the Senate. The hearings have been concerned with the nominations for all members of the com- mission and for the general manager. Only evidence concerning Mr. Lilienthal is re- viewed here. The following analysis first presents Mr. Lilienthal’s own testimony on the issues raised during the hearings. Con- sideration is then given to testimony of other witnesses bearing either way on these same issues. This approach will permit the reader to ascertain Mr. Lilienthal’s position on the various questions at the outset and then to test the other evidence developed to de- termine whether it supports or refutes his statements, EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MR. DAVID LILIENTHAL Born, Morton, Ml., July 8, 1899; graduated from DePauw University 1930; Law School of Harvard University, LL. D. 1923. Practiced law in Chicago from 1923 to 1931. Appointed a member of the Public Service Commission of the State of Wisconsin, 1931. Served until 1933. June 1933, appointed and confirmed for 3- year term as Director of Tennessee Valley Authority; reappointed and confirmed for 9-year term in May 1936; appointed Chair- man 1941; reappointed and confirmed by the Senate for a second 9-year term in May 1945. As head of the TVA, Mr. Lilienthal was re- sponsible for the administration of a Fed- eral corporation of great magnitude and complexity. During Mr. Lilienthal’s incum- bency the TVA carried on an extensive con- struction program, particularly during the war years, one of the largest projects of de- sign, construction, and operation in American history; it designed and operated a chemical plant and laboratories at Muscle Shoals, con- ducted research and development of natural resources, and conducted the largest inte- grated electric power generating system in the country. January 1945, named by the Secretary of State as a member and chairman of a Board of Consultants to the Secretary of State's Committee on Atomic Energy. This Board made a study of the technical problems in- volved in the international control of atomic energy, visited facilities of the Manhattan district, and prepared a report which was useful in the development of the American Proposals for atomic energy control of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, commonly referred to as the Acheson-Lilien- thal Report. November 1, 1946, appointed Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commis- sion (R. 5, 6). MR, LILIENTHAL'S OWN STATEMENT The functions and operation of the Atomic Energy Commission: Mr. Lilienthal has served on an interim appointment basis as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commiesion since November 1, 1946 (R. 6). On January 1, 1947, the entire atomie energy program in the United States was transferred to the Commission from the Manhattan District by Executive Order (R. 20). Consequently Mr. Lilienthal was able to describe policies al- ready established and in operation. The fol- lowing is largely taken by direct quotation from hia testimony,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The manner in which the Commission will be administered: “The Commission has adopted a fixed pol- icy * * * that the work will not be di- vided as to administration between mem- bers of the Commission and its chairman. We will act as a body to plan and evaluate programs, to determine upon policies, and to provide a means of execution through a gen- eral manager” (R. 62). The discussions, Mr. Lilienthal states, should be, and have been, informal, ideas can be suggested and criticized, and “deci- sions are reached without formal motions and seconds, but by realizing that one has come to a kind of sense of the meeting” (R. 63). He added: “Without that, and without the agreement that all executicn, without exception, shall be carried on through a general manager * * * Tdo not see how this vast business undertaking can be carried out” (R. 63). The general manager is a Presidential ap- pointee, “an extraordinarily wise provision” because he thereby has “dignity and prestige equal to the members of the Commission and its chairman” (R. 63). He will have a small staff (R. 63). The “divisions” created by the statute will be “in effect staff divi- sions to the general manager,” “so that the planning of this undertaking shall be carried on by a small group of men close to the gen- eral manager, execution carried on as nearly decentralized as possible” (R. 64). ‘We want to avoid a large Washington force” (R. 64). Relations with the Military Liaison Com- mittee The statute itself states that the Com- mission's functions should be “subject at all times to the paramount objective of assuring the common defense and security.” Mr. Lilienthal stated: that he approves of this and thinks “the statute is admirably adapted to that purpose” (R. 14). The Com- mission, among its first acts, conferred with General Groves, and has had “the benefit of a good many consultations” (R. 25) with him and with his deputy, Colonel Nichols R. 25). . ( There is no restriction on the ability of the Military Liaison Committee to acquaint itself fully with everything the Commission is doing (R. 29). “The Military Liaison Committee should be informed with respect to the entire operation from mine to active material” (R. 30). “It is up to the Military Liaison Committee to decide what it regards as an appropriate military field” (R. 30). They are not in attendance at all sessions of the Commission, and that is not contem- plated (R. 31). The Military Liaison Com- mittee should have complete freedom of access to all information, and as to what they want, “it is to be their judgment which is final” (R. 54). On the administrative question of how to maintain liaison and still permit the commission to operate, to make urgent decisions, and the like, it is impor- tant not to weigh the managerial set-up down with any avoidable paraphernalia (R. 55). “It would present a very great problem if we had so to formalize our meetings” (R. 56). Relations with the joint congressional committee Asked as to his personal attitude, Mr. Lilienthal stated: “IT, and I think almost any normal person, vested with this kind of a quite terrible responsibility, would be very disappointed if the joint committee function become per- functory or was not exercised regularly” R. 17). ‘ Several times Mr. Lilienthal reiterated the need for, and desirability of, frequent, pe- riodic discussions with the Joint Congres- sional Committee to coordinate administra- tive and legislative development (R. 69-70, XCIII—App.—— 54 17, 20); he “would welcome the closest liai- son and working relationships with the joint committee” (R. 18). The uses of atomic energy Mr. Lilienthal stated: ‘In the present state of international affairs, to in any way dis- regard this direction of policy of the Con- gress that common defense and security should be paramount, would be fool- hardy * * * It is my personal view and deep conviction.” (R. 14), However, the statute also has as an objective the develop- ment of peacetime uses. On this, Mr. Lili- enthal stated: “By setting up a military liaison committee and by providing for a division of military application, headed by an active officer of the armed forces, and by thus directing that the common defense and security of the country come first, and still directing the Commission to pursue vigorously a pro- gram for the beneficent use of atomic energy, we have as nearly a solution of this two- phased discovery as possible’ (R. 14), “I feel * * * that there are very great opportunities for the great develop- ment of the beneficent uses of atomic energy. * * * That it might be used for human welfare, it seems to me, is just as clear as that it may be used for destruction. That requires a great research program, and it is that to which we have directed a great deal of our attention” (R. 15). The development of private enterprise in the atomic-energy field Mr. Lilienthal was questioned directly on his temperamental suitability to restore the extraordinary grant of power, both operating power and patent power, to private enter- prise when it can be done consistently with national security (R. 38). He expressed his own belief in his fitness to do so (R. 88), and continued: “Somehow we must see to it, in respect of atomic energy that, to use a colloquialism, ‘There will be something in it for industry.’ We must see to it that there will be the same kind of incentive-to-devel- opment that has developed the automobile and many other things” (R. 28-39). Referring to the discussions in the Board of State Department consultants, Mr. Lilien- thal indicated that he had stubbornly in- sisted that the whole matter need not be a permanent material monopoly (R. 41). In terms of a philosophy, Mr. Lilienthal stated: “The purpose shall be, as soon as a field of activities is no longer dangerous in terms of the common defense and security, or health hazard, let us say, or some other thing we cannot foresee, just that quickly the Con- gress ought to provide that then shall become an appropriate field for private undertaking” (R. 42-43). Senator MILLIKIN asked: “Are we in agreement that it ts the intent of Con- gress that these monopolistic features shall be returned to private enterprise as rapidly as is consistent with the public welfare and with safety?” Mr. Lilienthal replied: “I un- derstand that to be the law.” The Senator continued: “And are you in sympathy with it?” Mr. Lilienthal answered: “I am in sym- pathy with it (R. 48-44). He also stated: “The reason I am so sure that this is right is that the story of TVA, the story of the development of the Tennessee Valley, is the story of the encouragement and stimulation of more and more private activity, with the help of Government, and especially the tech- nical help of Government” (R. 41). The international control of atomic energy On this issue Mr. Lilienthal stated: “I am in full, complete, and 100-percent agreement with the American proposal now known as the Baruch-Austin proposal” (R. 44). He also stated that, in his view, having in mind the paramount concern for common defense and security, “The statute is admirably adapted to that purpose” (R. 14). A849 Mr. Lilienthal’s political views Mr. Lilienthal was questioned at length by Senator McKE.iar on his political philosophy. He stated that he was not a Democrat, not a Republican, not a Communist, not affiliated with any political party, “I am an independ- ent voter” (R. 242), At Senator MCKELLAR’s request, Mr. Lilienthal made a full statement of his views (R. 325-327). He said: “Tradi- tionally, democracy has been an affirmative doctrine rather than merely a negative one. “I believe in—and I conceive the Constitu- tion of the United States to rest upon, as does religion—the fundamental proposition of the integrity of the individual; and that all Gov- ernment and all private institutions must be designed to promote and protect and de- fend the integrity and the dignity of the individual. * * * “Any form of government, therefore, and any other institutions, which make men means rather than ends, which exalt the state or any other institutions above the im- portance of men, which place arbitrary power over men as a fundamental tenet of govern- ment, or any other institutions, are con- trary to this conception; and therefore I am deeply opposed to them. “The communistic philosophy, as well as the communistic form of government, fall within this category, for its fundamental tenet is quite to the contrary. The funda- mental tenet of communism is that the state is an end in itself, and that therefore the powers which the state exercises over the individual are without any ethical standards to limit them. That I deeply disbelieve. “* * © It is important to believe those things which provide a satisfactory and ef- fective alternative. Democracy is that satis- fying affirmative alternative. * * * “One of the tencts of democracy that has grown out of this central core of a belief that the individual comes first, that all men are the children of God and their person- alities are therefore sacred, carried with it a great belief in civil liberties and their pro- tection and a repugnance to anyone who would steal from a human being that which is most precious to him, his good name; either by imputing things to him, by in- nuendo, or by insinuation. . * * tI » “I deeply believe in the capacity of democ- racy to surmount any trials that may He ahead provided only we practice it in our daily lives.” Questioned by Senator McKELLAR on whether he believed in a government of law, Mr. Lilienthal stated: “I think we must have a government by law rather than by hearsay and suspicion and innuendo and rumor, but that we also must rely upon men; I think there is a major fallacy in the aphorism that this is a government of laws and not of men, implying that by passing good laws, and not having men of integrity and judgment to administer them, we have thereby achieved sound gov- ernment” (R. 213-214). THE TESTIMONY AS TO MR. LILIENTHAL’S ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITY Statements as to Mr. Lilienthal’s admin- istrative ability fairly representing the posi- tion of the witnesses testifying on that issue are: Dr. Vannevar Bush: “He has demonstrat- ed a skill in public affairs and a skill in man- agement” (R. 446). Harry A. Winnie: “I understand it has been alleged that he is domineering and difficult to work with. As I say, my only experience in working with him was on this board of consultants. There he was far from domi- neering or difficult to work with. I believe he is an able organizer and administrator, and I believe that his TVA experience will be or great value as Chairman of the Atomic En- ergy Commission” (R. 1349, 1350).
A850 Charles A. Thomas: “Certainly he never tried to impress his views or arguments on any of us, and he, at the same time, was very cooperative and impressed by views con- trary to his own on these matters of the con- trol of atomic energy” (R. 1412). William L. Batt: “I want to testify to the very high opinion which the businessmen in the War Production Board formed of Lilien- thal's ability. We found him a man of ex- cellent management perception” (R. 1796). Former Congressman J. Starnes: “Second- ly, as a public official I regard him as an able administrator, a good executive, conacien- tious in the performance of his duties, and a man with vision and character, energy and realism” (R. 453). Dr. Karl Taylor Compton: “Mr. Lilienthal IT came to know slightly during the opera- tion of the Science Advisory Board, back in 1983 and 1934. I was very much impressed with his ability and energy, his efficiency. I didn’t know enough about that organiza- tion and its problems to have any opinion other than that which I have stated. “As far as I knew the situation, my opinion of Mr. Lilienthal was entirely favorable. And for a short time before his appointment as Chairman of this Atomic Energy Commis- sion I have heard a good deal of discussion of Mr. Lilienthal, As you probably know, every little group of people interested in this thing over the country was busy select- ing its own commission, and I saw a lot of those amateur selections, and Mr. Lilienthal was some place on every list that I saw. “I have been very much impressed with the policies for the operation of this com- mission, as I have heard them briefly out- lined on one occasion by Mr. Lilienthal. They seemed to me to be very sound; par- ticularly his policy of keeping the Commis- sion together as a unit, so that they will continually work as a team on problems, rather than subdividing them up into a series of individual responsibilities that might lead to eventual conflict between the group” (R. 533, 534). Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson, in response to an inquiry from the chairman whether he had “any difficulties either with the TVA management or with Mr. Lilienthal as chairman of TVA * * * during the war,” replied: “No difficulties at all. We had fairly fre- quent contacts during the war, on account of war work carried on down in the TVA area. I cannot recall] any friction at all. I always had excellent cooperation” (R. 786). Bernard M. Baruch: “The chairman of the Commission, Mr. Lilienthal, I have known for some time, and I think he is a well-qualified man. He is a man of prodigious energy, of driving force. I think sometimes that in his conception of his duty he drives exceedingly hard; and sometimes he perhaps makes en- emies or creates misunderstandings. He never had any with me. * * * Mr. Lilien- thal is thoroughly qualified, a good manager, knows his subject. * * °* He has as full knowledge of atomic energy and its prospects in future, I suppose, as anybody else. I would say he is & man of integrity and a man of ability, and I think a fine public servant” (R. 257, 258, 278). Owen D. Young: “I wish to say that he is a man of clear vision, of executive ability, of firmness and unquestionable loyalty, and in @ unique position to serve effectively in the position for which the President has nomi- nated him” (R. 1814). John M. Hancock: “I have seen a good mental capacity, and ability to get hold of dificult problems. So far as his dealings with us have been concerned, he has been very open-minded and very fair-minded” (R, 206). L. J. Wilhoite: “After 14 years’ experience as chairman of the Power Board, as a native of the Tennessee Valley, as a businessman representing eastern capital in the Tennessee Valley, I can say that I regard him as one of the finest, one of the best, and one of the most capable administrators it has ever been my privilege to know” (R. 1511). Fred C. Schlemmer: “He in my judgment, is a leader and administrator, a coordinator of the effort of others, of the uppermost fiight. He can and has furnished inspira- tion to others to dp things thought to be im- Possible. He is a practical individual who approaches and solves problems in a prac- tical manner. He assembles the facts, eval- uates them, and then acts with confidence, determination, and intestinal fortitude” (R. 1493). A. E. Walthall: “Mr. Lilienthal is a very capable businessman” (R. 1628). 8. R. Finley: “My observation is that he has at all times been honestly and sincerely devoted to carrying out the policies of Con- grees es he conceived them to be laid down in the act creating the TVA. He has at all times been most approachable and willing to sit down and discuss thoroughly points upon which there might be differences of opinion” (R. 1582). H. Lane: “I think he is an extremely capable administrator, because I believe the TVA has been well run within the limits of what a Government agency can do; and it has limitations” (R. 1480). Three witnerses took a contrary position, Dr. A. E. Morgan, former TVA chairman, who admitted he had prejudiced feelings (R. 953). Mr. L. B. Bolt, Jr., a former employee on the legal staff of TVA from 1935 to 1946, who had been dismissed on the excuse that a veteran was returning (R. 566), and Frank M. Farris, president, Third National Bank, Nashville, Tenn. Dr. Morgan: “As I worked with Mr. Lilien- thal I found him to have very excellent abilities in some ways. He had quick intel- ligenoe, and in handling business matters or matters of administration, where his personal interests or desires were not involved, he was quick to get to the point at issue, to brush aside nonessentials, and I should say was an exceptionally suitable person for adminis- trative relationships—where he had no con- trary purposes. * * * The difficulty that I found in dealing with Mr. Lillenthal—the dificulties—were of two kinds. One arose out of his personal desire to be irresponsibly in power. I think I could have gotten along, so far as that was concerned. But I was known to the world as chairman of the TVA, and representations were made to the public by the TWA as the TVA, which I considered to be, to use a short word, dishonest” (R. 801, 802, 803). Dr. Morgan stated that his specific charges had all been presented before a joint com- mittee of the Congress at the time of his dismissal (R. 834, 855). These charges were not supported by the findings of the joint committee (R. 855, 856). Mr. Lilienthal was thereafter confirmed by the Senate to ap- pointment on the TVA Board (R. 6). Mr. Bolt: “He was not accepted by Tennes- seans, He made a strenuous effort, in other words, to get around. Tennesseans had never accepted David Lilienthal. He imme- diately became a recluse. He saw no one except a very few people in the organiza- tion * * * he made a very pretty speech before this committee the other day about democratic principles and fair play and due process. It was an excellent statement. But to my knowledge, Mr. Lilienthal does not practice what he preaches” (R. 545, 546). Prank M. Farris: “I believe that the gen- eral attitude of buginess and industry as I know it will agree that Mr. Lilienthal is not the sort of man who could best serve the in- terests of the United States as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Such feel- ing is based primarily on Mr. Lilienthal’s general reputation for contentiousness and arbitrariness in his administration of the Tennessee Valley Authority, on the record of the TVA as a harbor for Communists and Communist sympathizers, and as an agency APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that tends to ride roughshod over local ten- timent of the people brought under its con- trol. “I believe that if the primary purpose of the TVA under Mr. Lilienthal’s management had been to serve rather than td regulate, a far better relationship would have existed be- tween the people of the region and the Au- thority” (R. 1074, 1075). THE TESTIMONY AS TO MR. LILIENTHAL’S ATTI- TUDE TOWARD PRIVATE ENTERPRISE The question was raised whether Mr. Lilien- thal will foster private enterprise in the field of atomic energy in the manner suggested by the statute. This point was not explored to any great extent in the hearings. In addition to Mr. Lilienthal'’s own testimony, statements ‘were made by some witnesses on the subject which are fairly represented by the following excerpts: Charles A. Thomas: “Certainly he never tried to impress his views or arguments on any of us and he, at the same time, was very cooperative and impreased by views contrary to his own on these matters of the control of atomic energy. “I give my judgment on my whole ac- quaintance with the man, his statements, his attitude entirely. I think I can illustrate that point, because in our report we made it, I think, very clear to a careful reader that there must be an opportunity for industry to have a role tn this new development, be- cause we feel that with industry, universities and Government together, we will have a three-horse team. “Now, Mr. Lilienthal subscribed to that point of view repeatedly. Therefore, I an- swer your last question by saying that in my opinion of him, my opinion is based not only upon his verbiage, but his attitude and his conduct” (R. 413). A. Winne: “I believe it has been argued that the United States proposal in- volves too much interference with our nor- mal economy. We recognized the danger of this and did our best, and when I say ‘our best’ that includes Mr. Lilienthal, because he was tn entire accordance with us every step of the way through this report: To keep this influence to a minimum” (R. 1345). Joseph H. Lane: “I think that everything that has been done there has been done with an attempt to foster private industry, and I think they have been most cooperative with the Valley” (R. 1481). L. J. Wilhoite: “Further, as a businessman I have found him extremely understanding and sympathetic with the struggles of pri- vate enterprise, with the efforts of men and women in their business ventures to suc- ceed” (R. 1511). Mr. Bolt stated that Mr. Lilienthal sang a “hymn of hate" against the private power companies (R. 545). This was the only testi- mony to the contrary. THE TESTIMONY AS TO MR. LILIENTHAL’S LOYALTY Statements of witnesses on the question of Mr. Lillenthal’s loyalty are set forth below: Congressman Starnes: “There was not one sceintilla of legal or credible testimony that would support a statement or a charge that Mr, Lilienthal was a member of the Com- munist Party, active in its councils, or sympathetic with its program” (R. 462). Dr. Conant stated he had not the slightest “doubt of Mr. Lilienthal'’s loyalty” (R. 293). Dr. Vannevar Bush: “Mr. Lilienthal I have known for about 15 years. I regard him as a great American, and I am proud that he is my friend. * * * He has ably demon- strated that he is a great American and a loyal one. * * * I have absolutely no qualification in my belief in this man’s sin- cerity, his integrity of character, and his pa- triotism and loyalty to the Untted States of America and its institutions and public” (R. 447, 446, 504).
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Reverend Thomas E. O'Connell: “The Catholic Committee of the South believes that the eminent qualifications of Mr. Lilien- thal which brought such great success to the TVA and such a bright new outlook to so many people of the South are exactly those needed by the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission” (R. 1069, 1070). Bishop E. H. Hughes: “As for this com- munistic business, I know of nothing in what David Lilienthal has written or said that can with fairness be interpreted as an offense against our country's theory of democracy * © when President Truman announced his commission, I felt that he was acting wisely and broadly; and when I knew that David E. Lilienthal had been nominated as chairman, my nonpartisan and noncom- munistic mind and heart rejoiced” (R. 1229, 1240). Bernard Baruch: “I would not say that he was friendly to the communistic cause, Sena- tor, from what I have seen of him” (R. 278). Owen D. Young: “I wish to say that he isa man of clear vision, of executive ability, of firmness and unquestionable loyalty” (R. 1814). Harry A. Winne: “I understand Lilienthal is accused of communistic leanings. Cer- tainly I saw nothing in his conduct in our work on this committee that gave any indi- cation at all of any liking for communism or anything approaching it” (R. 1349). Charles A. Thomas: “During that 38- month period I came to admire the man. And I feel that as far as the charges are con- cerned that have been made against him as to Communist leanings, I saw nothing of that at all. On the contrary, I think Mr. Lillenthal’s views as to the dignity of the in- dividual are quite contrary to any arguments that he is a Communist, or has communistic leanings” (R. 1412, 1413). Fred C. Schlemmer: “He has no glorified concepts of fanciful uplift. He 1s not a ‘do- gooder’, nor is he a Soclulist, as I understand socialism to be. He believes inherently in the individual. To say that he is an appeaser of any foreign country is beyond my imagination to believe. I have heard too many expressions from him indicating his high degree of Americanism und his belief of the principles of our Republic to believe any such innuendo” (R. 1493). Henry Fowler: “I unqualifiedly would sup- port the observations that have been mude before this committee: That he is an ex- tremely able and in my judgment an ex- tremely loyal American” (R. 781). The only statement directly implicating Mr. Lilienthal to the contrary is found in a letter of Judge Asu K. Owen introduced by Senator MCXELLAR. The letter in part stated: “When we had him here in Wisconsin, I, for one, became convinced of his Red leanings. I never met him, and never had any dealings with him but so frequently read of his views, expressed in the State press, that I was convinced that he was unsound and unsafe” (R. 212). Mrs. Worrell, of the Woman's Patriotic Conference on National Defense, stated: "We are here to oppose the appointment of David E. Lilienthal to the Atomic Energy Commis- sion and of any other man against whom the finger of suspicion has been or can be pointed” (R. 1766). OTHER EVIDENCE BEARING INDIRECTLY ON MR. LILIENTHAL’S LOYALTY No witnesses were produced who testified that Mr. Lilienthal is a Communist, nor were any excerpts from his voluminous writings introduced to support such a suggestion. All of the testimony bearing on this issue elicited from people who have known and worked with Mr. Lilienthal was expressly to the contrary as was his own categorical denial. Senator McKex.ar, however, sought to show that the TVA under Mr. Lilienthal employed Communists who had a strong influence in the personnel and other policies of that agency and that Mr. Lilienthal was sympa- thetic to Russia and Communist dominated groups. This charge was never seriously urged in all the prior congressional hearings involving the administration of the TVA, its appropriations, or Mr. Lilienthal’s con- firmation to positions in the TVA. Such testimony bears only indirectly on the issue of Mr. Lilienthal’s own beliefs. It will now be considered. Attitude toward Russia The charge was made again by Senator MCKELLaR that Mr, Lilienthal is friendly to Russia, the inference being that he will give atomic secrets to Russia. Direct testimony on this issue follows: “Senator McKetiar. As a matter of fact you feel exceedingly friendly to Russia, do you not? “Mr. LILIENTHAL. I have the greatest feel- ing of sympathy for the Russian people, and not in order to be confirmed to this post or any other would I utter irresponsible expressions of hatred against the people of Russia, “I say ‘sympathy for them,’ because I think they are going down a road of governmental institutions which is the road, the historical road, of tyranny. And I have nothing but the most profound sympathy for those peo- ple who are caught in that web of tyranny. “Senator McKELLaR. Well, do you admire the Russian Government, the present form of the Russian Government? “Mr. LILIENTHAL. I have already expressed my profound disagreement with the funda- mental human principles of that form of government. “Senator MCKELLAR. Agreement, did you say? “Mr, LILIENTHAL. Disagreement. “Senator MCKELLAR. I misunderstood you” (R. 348). Mr, Lilienthal’s statement is supported by other testimony concerning his beliefs al- ready reviewed and by a significant conver- sation which he had prior to his nomina- tion as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Com- mission with Chester I. Barnard, president of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. and member of the State Department's Bourd of Consultants on Control of Atomic Energy. Mr. Barnard testified to a conversation which took place in January 1946, as follows: “I then said to Mr, Lilienthal: ‘What I am afraid of is that the atomic bomb will destroy the liberties of the American people; that it cannot be controlled except by a totuli- tarian regime.’ He then said to me, with the utmost vehemence, ‘If it requires a totalitarian regime to control atomic energy and the atomic bomb, I hope one drops on me and my family. I do not want to live, and I want no descendants of mine to live, in a totalitarian society’ (R. 1009). The record also shows that Mr. Lilienthal was never in Russia (R. 303), has never had correspondence with Premier Stalin or any Russian commissar (R. 346). The evidence does show that certain Russian movies, the nature of which were not disclosed, were exhibited at TVA (R. 1083) and that on one occasion during the war Mr. Lilienthal had some contact with the Soviet Purchasing Commission in connection with the trans- mittal of engineering data to Russia, acte ing at the direction of Mr. Stettinius, Lend- Lease Administrator (R. 343). As far as the international atomic energy policy is con- cerned, the record discloses that Russia op- poses the Acheson-Lilienthal Report on Atomic Energy (R. 736, 747) and that Mr, Lillenthal endorses the political implementa- tion of the report represented by Mr. Ba- ruch’s provisions for maintaining the veto. In this connection Mr. Lilienthal testified: “t am in full, complete, and 100-percent agreement with the American proposal, now known as the Baruch-Austin proposal” (R, 44). A851 THE EMPLOYMENT OF COMMUNISTS IN TVA Southern Conference for Human Welfare It was established that Mr. Lilienthal along with several hundred other persons, including William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, sponsored a convention of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare held at Chattanooga, Tenn., in 1940 (R. 875). An unsuccessful effort was made to estab- lish that this organization was a Commu- nist front organization. The record shows that the conference was promoted by Dr. Frank P. Graham, president of the Univer- sity of North Carolina and Mr. L, J, Wilhoite, a Chattanooga ice cream manufacturer (R. 376). Congressman Starnes, former vice chair- man of the Dies committee stated that that committee never officially found the organi- gation to be a Communist front organiza- tion (R. 469). He further testified: “Unquestionably there were Communists in that movement. There is no doubt about that. But at the same time there were many of the finest citizens of your section of the country and mine and all over the country, who took an active part at one time whom we can’t question as to their Americanism” (R. 469). The record establishes that Mr, Lilienthal never attended any meeting of the organiza- tion (R. 377). Senator McKetuar asserted throughout the hearings that there were from 55 to 65 Com- munists employed in the TVA. This charge was never substantiated. The record shows that a thorough investi- gation of TVA personnel was conducted by the Dies committee in 1940. An undercover investigator for that committee was sent to the TVA area and after he had gathered evidence, hearings were held at Chattanooga and in Washington. Congressman Starnes, vice chairman of the Dies committee was responsible for this in- quiry. His investigation established that there were upproximutely 55 Communists residing in the Tennessee Valley area but only a few of these persons were employed by the TVA. Congressman Starnes testified that “legal and credible testimony” established that there were three Communists employed by TVA at the time of the investigation (R. 459) in 1040. Two of these were clerks and the other a stenographer (R. 460). The Dies committee seized written reports prepared by the secretary of the Communist Party in the Tennessee Valley area. The secretary’s most optimistic reports indicated that there were seven members of the Communist Party employed by the TVA 3 years prior to the investigation in 1937 (R. 460). Mr. Starnes iturther testified: ‘With all the em- phasis at my command I want to say that at no time during the course of this investi- gation was there a charge that Mr. Lilienthal was a member of the Communist Party, had participated in its activities, or was sym- pathetic with its program. The same can be saidof * * * every other man in high responsible, administrative, or policy-making positions” (R. 462). On the basis of this testimony there is reason to believe that Senator McKELLAR based his accusations upon evidence relating to the number of Communists in the entire Tennessee Valley area, overlooking the fact that only three of these Communists in 1940 were employed by the TVA. As far as Mr, Lilienthal’s responsibility for employment of Communists in TVA is con- cerned, the evidence shows that TVA regu- larly had from 18,000 to 18,000 persons on its staff (R. 329), and that during the period that Mr. Lilienthal was a member of the Board of Directors of the TVA there were lit- erally hundreds of thousands of persons em- ployed by reason of personnel turn-over (R. 991). As a member of the TVA Board of Di- rectors, Mr, Lilienthal was not generally con- sulted concerning employment, particularly
A852 of clerical and steongraphic personnel (R. 396). This was left to subordinate officers. Mr. Lilienthal was interested in the employ- ment of certain key personnel (R. 11). No key employee is shown to have been a Com- munist or sympathetic to communism (R. 462). When the findings of the Dies committee were brought to the attention of the TVA Board, hearings were held with respect to the three individuals named by the committee as Communists, One resigned, one was dis- missed for disloyalty and the third employee, a Mr. Hart, was retained on the TVA pay roll (R. 463). The evidence shows that Mr. Hart joined the Communist Party at the age of 19 and voluntarily resigned at the age of 21, 6 months prior to the Dies investigation when he became disillusioned at the time of the Russian Pact with Hitler (PWR. 49). Mr. Hart occupied a minor clerical position. His father was a professor at Vanderbilt Univer- sity (PWR. 39). It was decided by Mr. Clapp, chief of TVA personnel, that Mr. Hart should be retained, that he was a “fuzzy, idealistic youngster” (R. 331). Mr. Lilien- thal does not recall this decision having brought to his attention but it may have come to the TVA Board (R, 331). Mr. Hart subsequently was drafted into the armed forces and 18 no longer with the TVA (R. 1162). In addition to the three TVA Communists specified by the Dies committee, Senator McKELLAR sought to prove that other TVA employees were, at different times, members of the Communist Party or fellow travelers. Two of the witnesses called for this pur- pose—Messrs. Smith and Bolt—based their testimony upon the information contained in the Hart letter, discussed below (R. 915, 916; R. 619, 620). Their testimony conse- quently has no more probative value than the letter itself, The other witnesses—Mrs, Parris, Mrs. Wil- lMiams and Mr. Comer—named various TVA emp!oyees whom they considered Commu- nists (R. 1628; R. 1771; R. 562). The wit- nesses did not agree among themselves on who were and who were not Communists. None of the witnesses implicated Mr. Lilien- thal in any way; one specifically stated that Mr. Lilienthal had no knowledge of the ac- tivities of such Communists as they believed there were in TVA (R. 1775). In general, the testimony of these witnesses corresponded with the testimony which they gave before the Dies committee in 1940, as a result of which that committee concluded that only the three employees already mentioned were members of the Communist Party. Charac- terizing their testimony at the Dies commit- tee hearing, former Congressman Starnes stated at this hearing: “Much of the testimony was wholly hear- say. A lot of it, it was apparent to the most casual observer, was hearsay and based upon wounded and piqued feelings, on the one hand, and strife between the two labor or- ganizations on the other” (R. 459). The testimony before the Atomic Energy Com- mission was not substantially different. Considerable testimony was taken concern- ing the loyalty of one former TVA employee, Mr. Herbert Marks, now general counsel of the Atomic Energy Commjssion and a friend of Mr. Lilienthal. In view of his present position it should be noted that the evidence wholly fails to support the charge that he is a Communist or has Communist sympa- thies. Hits loyalty is certified in the strongest terms by Under Secretary of State Acheson, Hon, John Lord O’Brian, Col. Walker Cisler, with all of whom he worked on close terms, and by Philip D. Reed, chairman of the board of General Electric; Donald Nelson, president Society Independent Motion Picture Pro- ducers; William L. Batt, president, SKF In- dustries; Ernest Kansler, formerly vice presi- dent Ford Motor Co.; C. H. Matthiessen, jr., vice president, Hawaiian Pineapple Co.; Amory Houghton, president of Corning Glass Co., and others familiar with his work and beliefs (R. 689, 759, 762, 763). Other evidence introduced by Senator Mc- KELLAR pointing to communistic activities in the TVA consisted of a statement by a Dies committee investigator that copies of the Daily Worker were distributed to certain TVA employees. This was based upon his observa- tion through field glasses from a room across the street from TVA offices (R. 1118). There was also evidence that Russian motion pic- tures were shown in the TVA auditorium (R. 1083). Finally, there is the evidence rep- resented by the so-called Hart letter. The facts as to this letter are in sharp dispute and will be reviewed separately. THE HART LETTER The so-called Hart letter is a mimeo- graphed copy of a missing photostat of a missing original that is represented to have been a letter dated January 31, 1939, writ- ten by Henry C. Hart, then a clerical em- ployee of the TVA, to Robert Hall, identified secretary of the Communist Party in Bir- mingham, Ala. (letter appears at R. 367). The letter describes a successful Communist plot to oust James L. Smith from his position as chief of the TVA central files. Smith was dismissed from his position after a hearing on complaint of a TVA union shop committee (PWR 59). The work of various minor TVA employees, who are called comrades, is described in the letter and the letter men- tions the cooperation of another comrade whose name will not be mentioned becuuse of the high position he occupies. Two questions are presented: First, is the letter genuine; and, second, are the facts rec.ted in the letter true or false? Mr. Hart has readily admitted he had been a Com- munist earlier (R. 1178, 1200), but has cate- gorically and consistently denied writing or signing the letter (R. 1185). Substantial evidence was presented indicating that the facts recited in the letter, whatever its au- thenticity, are inaccurate (R. 166 et seq., 1193 et seq., PWR 49). Testimony concern- ing the genuineness of the letter will be con- sidered here. It should be noted, however, that there is no evidence from any witness identifying the name of the comrade in high position mentioned in the letter, and that there is no evidence establishing that Mr. Lilienthal had Knowledge of the Communist plot described (assuming it to have existed), participated in it, or gave it support and assistance, Mr. Lillenthal does not recall ever having seen the Hart letter (R. 367). The genuineness of the Hart letter is sharply disputed and complete proof that Hart wrote such a letter was completely lack- ing. The testimony of witnesses supporting the letter was in several respects discredited. Mr. Barker testified that he discovered the letter on April 9, 1940, when, in his capacity as an investigator of the Dies committee, he made a raid with a Birmingham police detec- tive named Ollie Osborne on the Communist Party headquarters in that city (R. 960). Barker arrived in Birmingham on April 9 and got the keys to the Communist headquarters from Osborne, who had taken them from the person of a man who had been found by Osborne in the party offices to which he forced entry, and who was then placed in the Birmingham jail when he refused to answer Barker's and Osborne's questions (R. 1091- 96, 960). Barker was conducting an investi- gation into TVA personnel for the Dies com- mittee (R. 1088). He testified that he per- sonally found the letter in the files at the Communist Party headquarters; that he caused two photostat copies of the letter to be made along with a number of other docu- ments, and returned the originals to the Communist Party files (R. 1096). Osborne confirmed this testimony (R. 960). The original of the Hart letter was not pro- duced at the confirmation hearings and its APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD absence is not accounted for. It was not sub- penaed. The only copy of the Hart letter made available at the hearings was what pur- ported to be a mimeographed copy of one of the photostats prepared under the circum- stances noted above. Neither of the photo- stat copies was produced before the confir- mation hearings, and the absence of the photostats was not accounted for. Thus the Hart letter purports to be a mimeographed copy of a photostat of an original, and neith- er the photostat nor the original was pro- duced. There is no explanation as to why mimeographed copies of the letter were pre- pared, by whom they were prepared, or how they got into the Dies committee files. The mimeographed copy, of course, con- tains only a typewritten signa.ure. There ‘was no prooi of any kind as to the genuine- ness of the signature on the original or the photostat from which the mimeographed copy purported to have been made. Barker testified that he never compared the signa- ture on the original or the photostat with Hart's signature (R. 1110). There is some discrepancy in the evidence as to whether the signature on the letter was Henry C. Hart or Thomas E. Hart, Jr., the former being Hart’s true name, the latter being the name of an unidentified person (R. 675, 1192). Barker testified that one photostat copy of the Hart letter was given to Osborne at the time the letter was seized (PWR, 560, 661, 579; R. 1100, 1140), but this Osborne denies (R. 963). Barker stated that the other copy was delivered to Congressman Dies and that he discussed it with him (R. 1101). Congressman Dies does not recall ever having seen the letter (R. 1735), and Mr. Stripling, technically in charge of evi- dence in the Dies committee files, testified that he never saw the letter in original or photostat form (R. 998). Osborne’s testi- mony that he subsequently talked to Dies and Stripling about the letter when they were together in a Birmingham hotel (R. 965), is denied by Stripling, who stated he was never in Birmingham with Congressman Dies (R. 997). Barker was engaged upon an investigation of Communist activities in the TVA and the letter, if genuine, is incriminating. It was never produced at the subsequent hearings involving TVA personnel (R. 488, 1110, 1132). Its existence was not known to Congressman Starnes, conducting the investigation, and none of the witnesses, including Hart or the other individuals mentioned in the let- ter, were ever questioned concerning it (R. 4665, 495, 488, 1193). Barker explained that this resulted from the fact that the letter had been illegally seized and that Congress- man Dies did not wish it used or even dis- closed to other members of the committee (R, 1106-9, 1144). It would have been possi- ble to question witnesses concerning the substance of the letter without revealing its illegal seigure, but this was not done (PWR 3). Congressman Dies’ dental that he ever saw the letter is not consistent with Barker's statement. A witness also testified that Mr. Dies told him that the fact the letter was seized illegally “would have no bearing on using it, because half the stuff we had used was gotten illegally” (R. 1756). The letter was first made public by the Knoxville Journal on June 27, i943 (R. 1187). Barker testified that he did not give a copy of the letter to the Knoxville Journal (R. 1159-60). Two representatives of the Knox- ville Journal state that Barker gave them a mimeographed copy of the letter from which the article was prepared (R. 1751). It was established that Barker was in Knoxville shortly before the letter was made public and that he had the Dies committee files with him (R. 1158, 1751). Sometime later an- other paper in Tennessee published the text of the letter stating that its existence hed been established in Washington through Mr. Stripling, of the Dies committee (R. 1189).
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Mr. Stripliug states he did not authorize the publication of the letter or admit its exist- ence, and that he was out of town at the time he was supposed to have talked by telephone from Washington with the news- paper in question (PWR 1000). When the letter was first made public in the Enoxville Journal, Hart, who was then an employee of the TVA, submitted through TVA channels to Congressman Dies a de- tailed affidavit which statcd, among other things, “I never wrote or signed such a let- ter. If such a letter does exist signed with my name, it is a forgery.” (R1167-1191). In the affidavit and in subsequent testimony, Hart disclosed w» number of circumstances tending to indicate that he could not have written the letter in question. His state- ments under this heading are plausible and suppoited by testimony of Mr. Clapp and others concerned in the Smith case who point to other reasons tor Smith's dismissal (PWR 59). Smith never referred to the al- leged Communist plot against him in any of the protracied hearings before the TVA pre- ceeding his dismissal (PWR 357). The testi- mony of the post-office box holder for the box given as the return address on the Ictter denied that Hart had access to the box or used it for correspondence, and Hart denied knowing the owner of the box (R. 1185). There is no evidence that Hart wrote any letters to Hall. Hart further stated that by January 1939 he had resigned from the Com- munist Party (R. 1181). A Mrs. Partis, of a Fountain City garbage disposal company, testified that Hart was still » member of the party at this time. Wer testimony does not indicate on what basis this assertion is made (R. 1628). WITNESSES TESTIFYING IN 5UPPORT OF CONFIRMATION (In the order in which they appeared before the comunittee) John M. Hancock, New York, N. Y. Part- ner, Lohman Bros.; director, varicus large Corporations; associated with B. M. Baruch on atomic-energy plans, Bernard M. Baruch, New York, N. Y. In- dustrialist and financier; United States rop- resentative to United Nations on atom c- energy control. Dr. James Bryan Conant, Cambridge. Mass. President, Harvard University; special con- sultant on Manhattan district prolect. Dr. Vannevar Bush, Washington, D. C. President, Carnegie Institute of Washington; director, Office of Scientific Research and De- velopment; chairman, Joint Research and Development Board of the Army and Navy. Congressman Joe Sturnes, Guntersville, Ala., former Member of Congress, Fifth Con- gressional District, Alabama; member throughcut its existence, Special House Com- mittee on Un-American Activitics. Dr. Karl Taylor Compton, Cambridge, Mass. President, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology; chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Evaluation Board, atomic-bomb tests. Henry H. Fowler, Washington, D. C. Prac- ticing attorney, former attorney, TVA staff. Hon, Robert P. Patterson, Washington, D. C., Secretary of War. Chester I. Barnard, Newark, N. J., President, New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.; member, State Department Board of Consultants on Atomic Energy. Rev. Thomas E. O’Connell, Richmond, Va. Past president, Catholic Committee of the South. Bishop E. H. Hughes, Chevy Chase, Md. Senior bishop, Methodist Church; formerly president, De Pauw University. Harry A. Winne, Schenectady, N. Y. Vice president in charge of engineering policy, General Electric Co.; member, Board of Con- sultants, State Department Committee on Atomic Energy. Charles A. Thomas, St. Louis, Mo. Vice president in charge of research and develop- ment, Monsanto Chemical Co.; member, State Department Board of Consultants on Atomic Energy. Barrett C. Shelton, Decatur, Ala. lisher, Decatur Daily News. R. W. Bishop, Guntersville, Ala. Louis A, Eckl, Florence, Ala. Editor, Flor- ence (Ala.) Times and Tri-Cities Daily. H. E. Monroe, Huntsville, Ala. President, Chamber of Commerce. Thomas McCroskey, Knoxville, Tenn, Re- tired farmer. Joseph H. Lane, Chattanooga, President, Cavalier Corp. Fred C,. Schlemmer, Chattanooga, Tenn, Peerless Wooley Mills. L, J. Wilhoite, Chattanooga, Tenn. ern Dairies, Inc. George H. Wright, Sweetwater, Tenn. Vice president, Tennessee Retail Hardware Dealers Association. A. E. Walthall, Athens, Tenn. Athens Rolling Mill and Taylor Implement Manufac- turing Co. 8S. R, Finley, Chattanooga, Tenn. superintendent, Chattanooga. William L, Batt, Philadelphia, Pa. Presi- den B SKF Industries, former Vice Chairman, WPE. WITNESSES TESTIFYING IN OPPOSITION TO CONFIRMATION (In the order in which they appeared before the committee) I. T. Bolt, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn, Practicing attorney, formerly attorney, TVA staff. Jack Comer, Knoxville, Tenn. Practicing attorney, former TVA mimeograph operator. Dr. Arthur E. Morgan, Yellow Springs, Ohlo. Former chairman, TVA, retired. Agnes Waters, Washington, D. C. House- wife, Pub- Tenn, South- Gencral Electric Power Bourd of James L. Smith, Knoxville. Tenn. Former Chief, TVA Central Files Section, Frank M. Farris, Nashville, Tenn. Presi- dent, Third National Bank, Mrs. Margaret Hopkins Worrell, Washing- ton, D.C, Woman's Patriotic Conference on National Defense. The Budget Mystery EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON, BURNET R. MAYBANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March § (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the REecorp an editorial entitled “The Budget Mystery,” from the New York Times of today. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: THE BUDGET MYSTERY The Senate has now voted to cut the Presi- dent’s budget by four and a half billion dollars. The House of Representatives holds out for its own -proposed cut of six billion, The matter now goes to conference. But the most remarkable thing about the whole congressional handling of this important question is that there has been no authori- tative public statement thus far from any quarter as to how either the four and a half billion cut or the six billion cut would be achieved. By how much, if at all, 1s it proposed to cut expenditures for national defense? How about the so-called interna- tional budget? Is anything coming off the President's estimates for veterans’ relief? A853 For public works? For conservation? For law enforcement? The public does not know the answers to these questions. Neither dues the great majority of Members of Congress. And if the budget committees themselves know the answers, they have thus far kept them secret. * The new rules under which the budget committees are now operating (as the result of reforms in congressional procedure which were adopted at the last session) direct these committees "to meet at the beginning of each regular session of Congress and after study and consultation, giving due considera- tion to the budget recommendations of the President, report to their respective Houses u legislative budget for the ensuing fiscal year, including the estimated over-all Fed- eral receipts and expenditures for such year.” Despite these explicit instructions, all we have had thus far has been the over-all Neures, and not the legislative budget on which thece figures are, or should be, based. There has been no legislative hudeet. So far as the public record is concerned, a blinds folded Congress is picking figures from a hat. Momination of David E. Lilierthal EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HEN. CHARLES W. TOBEY OF NEW HAMPSIIIRE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, Fcbruary 19), 1947 Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a very timely editorial entitled “A Question of Confi- dence,” from the Christian Science Monitor of March 3, having to do with the Lilienthal appointment, be printed in the Recorp. The editorial contains much food for thought, and I commend it to my fellow Senators as they ap- proach consideration of Mr. Lilienthal's nomination. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: A QUESTION OF CONFIDENCE We hear frcm several sides opponents of the Lilienthal arpointment saying that the chairmanship of the Atomic Energy Com- mission should go to somebody else who can command the confidence of everybody. United public support for any nominee to such an important office is highly desirable. But it is not the only question to be con- sidered. And it is something some of the best public servants have had to win after they took Office. That has been true of course with several Presidents, and some did not even have a popular majority, It was true of Chief Jus- tice Hughes—if strong oppcsition in the Sen- ate is to be taken as indicating lack of con- fidence. He was confirmed in 1930 only after a bitter fight and with 26 votes against him. The Senate battle over nomination of Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme Court was similar. Moreover, this business of confidence cuts both ways. How far should Congress go in destroying public confidence? William L. Batt, able and respected business leader, made a pertinent point when he declared that such attacks as have been heaped on Mr. Lilienthal threaten to undermine the morale of the civil service. He spoke of “great numbers of public servants who literally have had their hearts broken” and
A854 have retired because of the abuse and ob- stacles encountered in Government work. Along the same line is the statement of Dr. Karl T. Compton, who reports a “uni- versal feeling of disillusionment and disgust” among nuclear scientists over the attacks on Mr. Lilienthal. He declares that there is a shortage of competent men to carry on atomic development, that most of those who have stayed in Government service have done so from a sense of duty and will either quit or loge heart if the anti-Lilienthal campaign succeeds. That there has been such a campaign is evident from the fact that when he was last nominated as head of TVA he was quickly confirmed in the Senate by a voice vote. And when President Truman named him for the work he has been conducting for some months as Chief of the Atomic Energy Com- mission there was general acclaim. His con- duct of the office is not the basis for present opposition. Most of it seems to come from a calculated effort to destroy public confidence in en able and loyal officia). How far can America go in that direction and maintain an effective public service? ° Government Spending and Dairy Prices EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. E. H. MOORE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MOORE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp three edito- rials from the Daily Oklahoman, the first entitled “Spending Imaginary Money”; the second, “A Strange Incon- sistency”; and, the third, ‘“Monkeying With Dairy Prices.” There being no objection, the edito- rials were ordered to be printed in the REcorpD, as follows: SPENDING IMAGINARY MONEY Will the United States have a total national income of $167,000,000,000 in 1948? Nobody knows for sure, but Patrick Henry spoke wise- ly when he said that past experience is the best lamp whereby footsteps may be guided. So let’s look at the record. Quoting Senator Byrn’s official report, the Oklahoma Public Expenditures Council points out that President Truman's estimate of $28,800,000,000 tax receipts for 1948 is based upon a hypothetical $167,000,000,000 national income. The President asks for $37,500,000,- 000 for the budget, and apparently his re- quest is based more upon what he thinks the people can pay by squeezing out every possi- ble cent, rather than upon actual needs of government. Senator Byrp further points out that if the national income should shrink to $150,- 000,000,000, the tax collections would amount to only 832,000,000,000, so, in the face of what would still be considered prosperity, and with people taxed to the bled-white limit for peacetime government, we would still have a@ deficit of $5,509,000,000 for that year. However, the more ominous question is: Can we be reasonably certain of having a national income of even as much as 6150,000,- 000,000 in 1948? In 1929, the biggest boom year after the First World War, the total national income was $83,283,000,000. We have no more pro- ductive land than in 1929—in fact soil ero- sion has washed away several billion dollars’ worth of soil since then, and that is our basic wealth. Our mineral wealth, according to New Dealer Harold Ickes, has been tremen- dously depleted since 1929. In 1981 the national income slumped to €54,431,000,000, and in 1933 to $42,280,000,000, or about one-fourth of the figure upon which Mr. Truman bases his optimistic imaginings. In 1938, when things began to look com- paratively healthy again, the national in- come was only $64,184,000,000. In 1940, when the European war was on in full fury and our industrial production was called upon for munitions and supplies in vast volume, the national income was only $77,185,000,000. In that year we really had a boom Not a healthy one, because war booms are never healthy, but a boom nevertheless. Yet the figure was less -han half of what Mr. Truman is talking about. Even if we disregard the foregoing figures, which we cannot safely do, we must 1ecog- nize that heavy taxation is an instiument producing poverty. It is a dead drag on all industry and prosperity. There ts no logic, common sense, or precedent that justifies the enormous budget. A STRANGE INCONSISTENCY In a general and yet definite way, the element in the national government which insists upon a huge governmental spending Program is the same element that is con- tinually removing large sections of our taxing base from the tax rolls. This is noticeably true with regard to TVA and similar power projects, which are grant- ed large immunities from taxation, in com- petition with private enterprise, and also with regard to certain cooperatives, which call themselves “farmers' organizations” to get under the law. The two classes of industry, which make it more and more difficult for private enterp:ise to carry its share of the general tax load, are favored by the lavish spenders. So the matter of Federal solvency is being cut down from both ends—by extravagant spending and by reducing the tax base. MONKEYING WITH DAIRY PRICES Price supports for dairy products are a headache to the Government. Alreacy a support for dry milk powder has been an- nounced, and next will probably be a floor under butter. Secretary of Agriculture An- derson fears a milk shortage. Undoubtedly the milk producers hdve had a hard time making both ends meet, but indications are that Government monkeying with the law of supply and demand on many fronts is at the bottom of the whole difi- culty. Under such monkeying, no economic problem ever stays solved. Eight Hundred Thousand DP’s EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF ° HON. FRANCIS J. MYERS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “Eight Hundred Thousand DP’s” by Daniel A. Poling, from the Philadelphia Bulletin of March 3, 1947. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: AMERICANS ALL EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DP’S (By Daniel A Poling) . England's labor shortage, her idle coal mines, and silent industries again remind us that in the DP camps of Europe are hundreds of thousands of eager workers waiting to go to work In a remarkable letter, Jacob Billikopf calls attention to the fact that 800,000 men, wom- en, and children are now confined in these camps. It may surprise you, as it did me, to know that nearly 600,000 of these are Chris- tians. Right now France refuses to return 600,000 war prisoners that the American Army captured, because France needs the man- power. Our own Department of Labor re- ports crucial shortages of agricultural and construction warkers, as well as domestic help. The Department tells us that the shortage in the West is severe enough to vacate farms. Dr. Earl G. Harrison, former Commissioner of Immigration, one of the wisest of our pub- lic servants, has opened a campaign to per- mit 400,000 of the displaced to enter the United States during the next 4 years. Even this number would not fill the regular un- used quotas of war years but Dr. Harrison affirms that they wou'd relieve the shortage of farm labor and domestic help. Equally important is the fact that admitting them would relieve a social pressure as dangerous to us as to Europe—and surely there is some- thing more. Here is a human problem so poignant that the heart of the world can hardly contain it. Eut while the innocent cry to heaven, thus far only hernven seems to have heard. The hands of the Nasis are red with blocd but regarding the fate of these 200,000 our hends are idie. We have given bread and shelter (behind wire and barricades) but unless we do more we shall pass on to our children a sin of neglect that will hinder and burt un- born generations, Role of United States in Winning the Peace EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WAYNE MORSE OF OREGCN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp three editorials from the Christian Science Monitor of February 28, 1947, There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the Rrc- ORD, as follows: {From the Christian Science Monitor of Feb- ruary 28, 1947] How Far 1n a GENERATION? Have you read The Troubled Outlook of the Hour in a neighboring column? Does it sound both familiar and timely? It was written 27 years ago by the late Prof. Stephen Leacock, an able scholar in the fleld of po- litical economy (although more widely known through his spare-time humorous writings). The passage comes from the first chapter
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of his book, The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice. And that title should be as chal- lenging today as it was in 1920. Looking back over the intervening years, it is interesting to note that Professor Lea- cock thought then that the choice lay be- tween socialism and capitalism; that through socialism (he envisioned the Marxist, Rus- sian kind) runs the path to slavery; that the only workable solution in the world to- day Mes in a social-minded—not a social- istic—free-enterprise democracy. It is en- couraging to realize that considerable prog- ress has been made. But, having taken this much into account, we are back where we began: The picture Professor Leacock sketched a generation ago applies specifically, disturbingly, accusingly today. What has America done and failed to do that history should seem to come full circle back to the riddles and frustrations of 4 quarter century past? Why should strike again be following upon strike? Why should the wage-price, price-wage spiral have us asking again. Is it wealth or is it poverty? Why should the gulf between the palace and the slum still yawn so omniously when the capacity to produce since Professor Lea- cock wrote has probably more than doubled? What could America have been doing in the years since 1920 so that it might not now be seeing fierce eyes over the rim of the Russian horizon?” History does not repeat itself—completely, absolutely. But when a Nation can see so close a parallel between the pressing prob- lems—and the background of those prob- lems—of its present und its past, it is time to do some heart-searching. America still has democracy—in some ways, more. America still has free enterprise— tainted somewhat with giantism and monop- oly, to be sure, but not with outright social- ism. How much social-mindedness 1s it practicing? How much is it willing to tem- per acquisitiveness and drive with more awareness of one community and one world? Perhaps in these last two questions Mes the key. [From the Christian Science Monitor of February 28, 1947] FIGHTING FOR AND WINNING THE PEACE DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD (By Erwin D. Canham) It's good to be back in the United States after 5 weeks in the Orient. I want to tell you the most significant thing I saw on the trip. It was not in Tokyo, nor in Korea, nor in China, nor in the Philippines. It was last Monday afternoon, at the Fairfield Airport, in California. It was a sign, reading: “‘Wash- ington, D. C., 2,400 air miles.” The fact that botween the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts there is a Nation spanning over 2,400 miles—a nation with a standard of living and an economic and political power and civilization and a way of life and an out- look on the world which is ours—that was the most significant fact I observed. The richness and luxury and comfort of America compared to the Orient are, of course, very striking. But these things are not very important—not a very good guar- anty of permanent values. It’s well to re- member that the Orient had such richness and luxury long before we had it. In Japan and China they produced glowing silks and delicate lacquers and exquisite china and carvings when America was a howling wilder- ness and our ancestors in the Brtish Isles or northern Europe were in the dripping forests painting themselves blue. Yet these rich elements of civilization passed away. It is important that we preserve what lies in those 2,400 miles between Fairfield and Washington, It is important that what lies in those 2,400 miles does its part to extend and to preserve civilization in the world. The world cannot long exist both slave and free. America has a great historic oppor- tunity to save itself by saving its fellow man. I do not return to tell you that Uncle Sam must always be Uncle Santa. I simply point out that our welfare is inseparable from the welfare of others, and that beyond our bor- ders tonight are millions upon millions of our brothers, men and women and children, who do not enjoy whut we have in these 2,400 miles and whose standards and outlook must be brought to share in what is right and good and sound in what we have. We must not seek to impose our pattern rigidly upon others. What we must share is the op- portunity to achieve a pattern for these na- tions and peoples. In that way we will fulfill and safeguard our own destiny. The needs of our brother men are very urgent tonight. Herbert Hoover returned to the White House today end told President Truman that conditions all over Europe are the worst in 50 years. “Everybody is cold in northern and central Europe,” the former President said. “Germany must be permitted to develop manufacturing industries for ex- ports,” suid Mr, Hoover. When he was asked if the development of such industry might not involve imperialistic dungers Mr. Hoover said: “There is no imperialism left there now.” He added that the proposals for developing manufacturing would deal with light indus- tries to help Germany to become self-sup- porting. He said American taxpayers are now footing the relief bill and indicated they still will have to carry the burden until Germany is put on a more self-sustaining basis. Mr. Hoover said Americans and British in their Tespective occupation zones are working umi- ably together and doing a good job. He added that if people here could see them working in rooms at near-zero temperatures their efforts would be appreciated more. In Washington, the Federal tax structure continues to hang in the balance. The Sen- ate’s cut in the House sponsored economy from $6,000,000,000 to $4,500,000,000 was de- layed while freshman Senator KNOWLAND’S proposal to earmark $3,000,000,000 of the saving for payments on the national debt was considered. Senator KNOWLAND’s plan puts added pressure on the House, which went all out for cuts in taxation without much provision for debt reduction or a balanced budget. However, the Senate’s action seems to indicate that a compromise 1s certain—a compromise, it is likely, that will not cut so deeply into national-defense expenditures us the House bill threatened to do. Having just seen a great deal of national- defense activities in the Pacific, I can wel- come the Senate desires not to cut too deeply. Nevertheless, there are many ways in which the armed services could save money. There are still a great many dupli- cated facilities. I flew to Korea and back on the Army's Air Transport Command. Al- most an identical service is maintained by Naval Air Transport, Sometimes we landed on the same small island, on parallel fields a few hundred yards apart, yet with identical and superfluous facil.ties. This may be an extreme instance of duplication, but any- body who knows Army and Navy knows that a good deal of economy can be attained if there is a strong enough desire to do it. Having said this much, I revert to my former conclusion that only reasoned econo- mies, not much below the $11,000,000,000 al- located by President Truman, should go for national defense. Particularly there should be no serious cuts in occupation costs, either in Japan or Germany. These occupation costs are among the best investments for insurance—insurance against future wars, insurance in democracy. I can assure you A855 that these investments are paying good divi- dends in Japan. According to the evidence, the return will be longer in coming in Ger- many, but the investment is just as essential. America must keep right on fighting for the peace—and winning the peace. [From the Christian Science Monitor of February 28, 1947] THE TROUBLED OUTLOOK OF THE HOUR These are troubled times. As the echoes of the war die away, the sound of a new conflict rises on our ears. Al) the world is filled with industrial unrest. Strike follows upon strike, The laborer will not work because the pay is too low and the hours are too long. The producer cannot employ him because the wage is too high and the hours are too short. If the high wage is paid and the short hours are granted, then the price of the thing made, 80 it seems, rises higher still. Even the high wages will not buy it. The process appar- ently moves in a circle, with no cessation to it. The increased wages seem only to aggra- vate the increasing prices. What is the meaning of it? Is it wealth or is it poverty? . Worse portents appear. Over the rim of the Russian horizon are seen the fierce eyes and the unshorn face of the real and un- doubted Bolshevik, waving his red flag. Vast areas of what was a fertile populated world are overwhelmed in chaos. Over Russia there lies a great darkness, spreading ominously westward into central Europe. All over the world the just claims of or- ganized labor are intermingled with the underground conspiracy of social revolution. The public mind is confused. To some minds the demand for law and order overwhelms all other thoughts. To others the fierce de- sire for social justice obliterates al] fear of a general catastrophe. Riches and poverty jostle one another on our streets. The palace is the neighbor of the slum. An acquired indifference to the ills of others is the price at which we live. We feed well while others starve. We muke fast the doors of our lighted houses against the indigent and the hungry. What else can we do? If we shelter one, what is that? And if we try to shelter all, we are ourselves shelterless. The essential contrast lies between the vastly increased power of production and its apparent inability to satisfy for all humanity the most elementary human wants. But the contrast thus presented is one that has acquired a new meaning in the age in which we live. The poverty of earlier days was the outcome of the insufficiency of human labor to meet the primal needs of human kind. It is not so now. We live in an age that Js at best about a century and a half old—the age of machinery and power. Never was there a moment in which there was greater need for sane and serious thought. If we do not mend the machine, there are forces moving in the world that will break it. While admitting all the shortcomings and the injustices of the regime under which we have lived, I am not one of those who ure uble to see u short and single remedy. Many people when presented with the arguments above would settle it at once with the word “socialism.” Here, they say, is the imme- diate and natural remedy. I confess at the outset, and shall develop later, that I cannot view it so. Socialism is a mere beautiful dream, possible only for the angels. The at- tempt to establish it would hurl us over the abyss. Our present lot is sad, but the frying pan is at least better than the fire. (Stephen Leacock, in the Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice, 1920.)
A856 Executive-Legislative Statement EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL A. HATCH OF NEW MEXICO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the present confusing situation which seems to exist in the Congress, many people are puzzled. They do not understand ft. I wish to call attention to an article entitled “Executive-Legislative State- ment,” by Marquis Childs, appearing in the Washington Post of this morning. One paragraph of the article reads as follows: Mr Truman is doing the very best he can. But under the division of powers, he ts threatened with defeat on almost every ts- sue. And his defeat is our defeat, since the end is inaction and delay at a time when sure, swift decisions are absolutely impera- tive. I ask that the entire article by printed in the Appendix. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: WASHINGTON CALLING (By Marquis Childs) EXECUTIVE-LEGISLATIVE STALEMATE Underlying nine-tenths of the confusion and conflict in Washington today is one cen- tral, paramount fact that almost na one speaks about or thinks about. It is almost as though a deliberate conspiracy existed to prevent us from considering it. When the two corollary powers, executive and legislative, are divided between oppos- ing parties, the machine of Government stalls. This has happened again and again and again. Yet we register a kind of puzzled and hurt surprise that all is not harmony and progress on the Potomac. In the landslide of last November the Re- publicans won majorities in both Houses of Congress. If the Presidency had been at issue, a Republican would be in the White House today. Mr. Truman is doing the very best he can. But under the division of powers, he is threatened with defeat on almost every issue. And his defeat is our defeat, since the end is inaction and delay at a time when sure, swift decisions are absolutely imperative. The controversy over the confirmation of David Lilienthal is only one example of what the division means. It happens, for a variety of reasons, to be a conspicuous example. No one has raised any serious question about Lilienthal’s ability or his efficiency. Ignoring the savage personal animus of aged Senator KENNETH MCKELLAR, you cannot escape the conclusion that the opposition to Lilienthal is almost wholly political. It is intended to embarrass the President. But at the same time it is embarrassing the whole Nation. And as the atomic scientists have made abundantly clear, the whole atomic energy project ts rapidly deteriorating for want of leadership and direction. With a Republican in the White House— either Gov. Thomas E. Dewey or Senator Robert A. Taft, to name two obvious possi- bilities—Lilienthal would never have been appointed Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, A Republican President would have appointed a man acceptable to the Re- publican majorities, and after a routine in- quiry, the nominee would have been con- firmed This is not a matter of the wickedness of one party or the other. The situation was reversed in 1931 and 1982. Then Herbert Hoover was Chief Executive and the Demo- crats hed captured control of the House. That, too, was a time for swift and sure de- cisions. The Democrats, however, were out to make political capital at Mr. Hoover's ex- pense. They used the tactics of a matador with a bull. Mr. Hoover never developed a comprehen- sive program for checking the headlong de- pression. He clung to the belief that it must somehow cure itself with as little Govern- ment intervention as possible. The Recon- struction Finance Corporation, to shore up the banks and the railroads, was about the extent of Mr. Hoover's willingness to resort to Government intervention. But it is obvious that if he had had the most perfect program in the world, handed down from heaven on tablets of gold, the Democratic House would have riddled it or thrown it out entirely. They didn’t want the Republican President to succeed. Be- cause they wanted to come to power after a long, lean period out of office, they set out to destroy Mr. Hoover and they very nearly succeeded. Those were 2 years the locusts consumed. Industry slowly ground to a standstill. The toll of suffering, fear, insecurity, was incal- culable. Finally it was too late for the moderate measures that might have checked the decline toward disaster. Americans today have a clearer understand- ing of the importance of the decisions taken by government. They are likely to be less Patient with the tactics of obstructionism. If the Republicans persist in those tactics, they can throw away the victory that seemed so surely in their grasp last November. While it seemed inconceivable on November 6, it is not impossible for Mr. Truman to be reelected. But that will be no solution for the stale- mates that have occurred, on the average, in 1 out of every 3 years. There can be no solution so long as most of us seem to prefer to ignore the source of the trouble. It lies in the rigidity of our system of fixed elections, and the irony is that the only measure with a chance of passage at this session of Congress would make it more rigid—limiting the Presidency to two terms. The Government machine needs a thorough overhauling to bring it up to date with the power age. Meanwhile, the men in the en- Gineer’s cab who are contending for author- ity get the blame. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OWEN BREWSTER OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a state- ment dated July 23, 1940, entitled “The Basic Policy Declaration of the Govern- ment of the United States” regarding Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; a state- ment, under date of October 12, 1946, by the Honorable Carroll Reece, chairman of the Republican National Committee, which was the basis of a statement by APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD myself at that time; and a further state- ment by the Honorable Carroll Reece, under date of February 12, 1947, dealing with Lithuania. There being no objection, the deciara- tion of policy and statements were or- dered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Department of State Bulletin of July 27, 1940] THE BASIC POLICY DECLARATION OF THE GOV- ERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES Jouny 28, 1940. During these past few days the devious processes whereunder the political independ- ence and territorial integrity of the three small Baltic Republics—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—were to be deliberately annihi- lated by one of their more powerful neigh- bors, have been rapidly drawing to their con- clusion. Prom the day when the peoples of these republics first gained their independent and democratic form of government, the people of the United States have watched their ad- mirable progress in self-government with deep and sympathetic interest. The policy of this Government is uni- versally known. The people of the United States are op- to predatory activities, no matter whether they are carried on by the use of force or by the threat of force. They are likewise opposed to any form of intervention on the part of one state, how- ever powerful, in the domestic concerns of any other sovereign state, however weak. These principles constitute the very foun- dations upon which the existing relationship between the 21 sovereign republics of the New World rests. The United States will continue to stand by these principles, because of the convic- tion of the American people that unless the doctrine in which these principles are in- herent once again governs the relations be- tween nations, the rule of reason, of justice and of law—in other words, the basis of mod- ern civilization itself{—cannot be preserved. STATEMENT BY CARROLL REECE, CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN WATIONAL COMMITTEE Ocronzr 12, 1946. As chairman of the Republican National Committee, I believe that peace to be perma- nent must be based on the principles of jus- tice and right enunciated in the Atlantic Charter and proclaimed by ag eement of the Allies, including the Soviet, in a joint decla- ration of the United Nations. Enslavement of small nations by large na- tions is not conducive to a permanent peace. The situation now prevailing in eastern and central Europe is actually endangering the peace, in that three sovereign, peace-loving, and law-abiding nations, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and their helpless people, have been enslaved by the Soviet Union. Ag- gressive and predatory acts against these small nations by any dominating power should be condemned, particularly if those acts have been banned by treaties with those nations, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia should be restored to their former status of freedom and independence. The Soviet Army and the Soviet police occupying these countries should leave. Refugees of those countries should have the opportunity to be repatri- ated without fear of Soviet persecution and thereafter should have the right of a free and unfettered election, The Republican Party believes in fulfilling to the greatest possible degree its war pledges to small nations that they shall have the right to choose the form of government under which they will live and that sover- eign rights and self-government shall be re-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD stored to those who have been forcibly de- prived of them. The party would deplore any desertion of these stated principles. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 12, 1947, On February 16, 1947, Americans of Lithu- anian origin throughout the United States commemorate the twenty-ninth anniversary of the independence of Lithuania. This anniversary is not a happy one, be- Cause today Lithuania is not a free country. It is a victim of the devastation of World War II. Lithuania's people have undergone and are now undergoing such suffering as comes to few people in the world. First, in the year 1940 the Russian Army marched across their country, then in 1941 the Nazis battled on their soll to drive out the Russians. Then back came the Russians to fight the Nazis and expel them. Each time Lithuania’s people were in the middle of the terrible cross-fire of invasion and battle—forced to serve the conqueror as prizes in victory and tortured by the van- quished in defeat. Through all this terror under the rule of two military dictatorships the people of Lithuania have remained loyal to the princi- ples of representative governnfent in their hopes for the restoration of the independence of Lithuania. There is special significance in this anni- versary to all Americans, because the hope for independence of Lithuania 1s based on the same principles of justice and right which are close to the hearts of every free- dom-loving American—principles which in- volve the rights of all peoples to liberty and their own way of life and the rights of all nations to self-determination. ° We Republicans support these principles, not only because they would bring happi- ness, security, and freedom to the peoples of Europe, but because American security would be strengthened if American ideals of representative government are upheld throughout the world. In this light it is appropriate that all Re- publicans join with Americans of Lithuanian origin in the commemoration of Lithuania’s Independence Day. The Budget EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANCIS J. MYERS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REcorD an editorial entitled “Senate Aid for Services,” from the Philadelphia Bulletin for February 28 last. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: SENATE AID FOR SERVICES The Senate has deserved well of the coun- try by restricting the cut in the Presidential budget to $4,500,000,000. The difference be- tween this and the House figure of §6,000,- 000,000 would have been taken out of the $11,500,000,000 allotment for the armed services. Such a course was strongly opposed by Secretary Marshall, General Eisenhower, and all who realized the blow which would have been dealt to this country’s safety, influence, and interests by a marked diminution of its forces at this critical time. It is just quibbling to assert that some cuts might safely be made in the allotment for the services, Such trimming as the budget could safely have stood would be inconsequential in comparison with the sum which those who wanted to put the ax to the allotment intended and needed to ac- complish a $6,000,000,000 reduction from the Presidential budget figure of 837,500,000,000. The 66,000,000,000 really would have had to be taken out of the $32,500,000,000, since the untouchable allotment for interest on the public debt runs to 85,000,000,000. It is not creditable to the Republican Party, and it is mortifying to its Senate lead- ers, that a majority of the GOP Members, 24, voted for the greater slash. It was thwarted by « bipartisan coalition to which the Republicans contributed 21 votes. The majority showed an irresponsibility that is disturbing at this juncture of international affairs. Old-Age Security EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOMER D. ANGELL OF OREGON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 4, 1947 Mr. ANGELL. Myr. Speaker, on the opening day of the Hightieth Congress I introduced H. R. 16 which is a bill the purpose of which is to provide every adult citizen in the United States with equal basic Federal retirement insurance, per- mitting retirement with benefits at age 60, and also covering total disability, from whatever cause, for certain citizens un- der 60; to give protection to widows with children; to provide an ever-expanding market for goods and services through the payment and distribution of such benefits in ratio to the Nation’s steadily increasing ability to produce, with the cost of such benefits to be carried by every citizen in proportion to the income priv- ileges he enjoys. The following Members of the House are sponsors uf this bill: Homer D. ANGELL, Third District, Oregon. Epwin ARTHUR HALL, Thirty-seventh District, New York. Homer A. Ramey, Ninth District, Ohio. J. Harry McGrecor, Seventeenth Dis- trict, Ohio. Ciatr ENGLE, Second District, Cali- fornia. WALTER E. BreHM, Eleventh District, Ohio. GerorcE H. Benner, Representative at Large, Ohio. ALFRED J. ELLioTr, Tenth District, Cal- ifornia. Wr11aM S. Hitt, Second District, Colo- rado. Frank A. Barrett, Representative at Large, Wyoming. JosePH P, O’Hara, Second District, Minnesota. MicwHaEL J. Kirwan, Nineteenth Dis- trict, Ohio. GeorGcE W. GituiE, Fourth District, In- diana. A857 Marion T. BENNETT, Sixth District, Missouri. Witt1am =LEMKE, Large, North Dakota. Georce P. Mi1ter, Sixth District, Cali- fornia. Gorpon L. McDonovugu, Fifteenth Dis- trict, California. RicHarpD J. WELCH, Fifth District, Cali- fornia. FrancK R. HAVENNER, Fourth District, California. JOHN PHILLIPS, Twenty-second Di's- trict, California. Harcxp C. Hacen, Ninth District, Min- nesota. Nosie J. Jounson, Sixth District, In- diana. CHET HOLIFIELD, Nineteenth District, California. Emory H. Price, Florida. J. HARDIN PETERSON, First District, Florida. Georce A. SMATHERS, Fourth District, Florida. BERTRAND W. GEARHART, Ninth District, California. HENDERSON H. Carson, Sixteenth Dis- trict, Ohio. Topsy Morris, Sixth District, Okla- homa. Ray J. MApDDEN, First District, Indiana. Rosert L. F. Srxes, Third District, Florida. Joe HENDRICKS, Fifth District, Florida. CHARLES R. Ctiason, Second District, Massachusetts. Raymonp H. Bourke, Third District, Ohio. WALTER B. Huser, Fourteenth District, Ohio, CuEsTER H. Gross, Twenty-first Dis- trict, Pennsylvania. JaMES E. Van ZanpdT, Twenty-second District, Pennsylvania. TuHor C. To.uerson, Sixth District, Washington. ALVIN E. O’Konskl, Tenth District, Wisconsin. Ear, Witson, Ninth District, Indiana. Dwicut L. Rocers, Sixth District, Florida. W. M. (Don) WHEELER, Eighth Dis- trict, Georgia. Ceci R. Kinc, Seventeenth District, California. Joun A, CARROLL, First District, Colo- rado. Barre, J. JONKMAN, Fifth District, Michigan. Tuomas D’ALESANDRO, JR., Third Dis- trict, Maryland. James H. Morrison, Sixth District, Louisiana. Joun R. Murpock, Representative at Large, Arizona. Paut W. Suarer, Third District, Mich- igan. Georce G. Sadowski, First District, Michigan. P, W. Grirritus, Fifteenth District, Ohio. On February 28 I called a meeting of the sponsors of this legislation and other Members who are interested in old-age security. At this meeting the merits of the bill were discussed and a program outlined for its consideration. Attention Representative at Second District,
A858 was called to the great interest through- out the Nation for the enactment of old- age security legislation. A recent poll taken disclosed that this program was approved by 39,432 of those polled with only 1,912 in the negative. At this meeting I called attention to the great contribution that has been made by Dr. Francis E. Townsend, founder of the Townsend program, to the advancement of social security for old people in America and in recognition of his service I proposed the following reso- lution, which was adopted unanimously: Inasmuch as there was no such thing as a@ Federal old-age pension law 14 years ago when Dr. Francis E, Townsend startled the Nation with the first draft of his Townsend plan; and inasmuch as since that date, with the friends and workers for the Townsend plan constantly keeping their objectives be- fore the Congress, the first Social Security Act was enacted and amendments in two other Congresses have liberalized its provi- sions—it seems fitting that this group of congressional friends of the Townsend plan here and now go on record as complimenting the 80-year-old father of old-age pensions in America, Dr. Townsend, for his activity and integrity and continuing fight in the cause of America's senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, the basic principles un- derlying the Townsend national recov- ery program in the main have been ap- proved by the Social Security Board. On July 16, 1946, the functions of the Social Security Board and its chairman were transferred to the Federal Security Administrator, under the President’s reorganization plan No. 2, and on the same date the Social Security Adminis- tration was set up as a branch of the Federal Security Agency. In a final re- port the Board, which was the policy- making body, made a number of far reaching recommendations which, if adopted, would put into force in our social-security program many of the pro- visions of the Townsend national recov- ery program. During the war many social-security programs were put into operation as emergency measures to alle- viate distress and provide social security for the families of America. We find, however, that in the postwar period. although we are at peace with high levels of employment and earnings. many of our people are in distress, particularly those in the old-age groups. It has come to be realized by all forward-look- ing citizens that disability and old age, as well as unemployment, are hazards in our modern society against which provi- sion must be made. The Social Security Board in its final report, to which I have referred, made the following recom- mendations: A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF SOCIAL SECURITY The Social Security Board recom- mends the eStablishment of a compre- hensive basic national system of con- tributory social insurance, covering all major risks to economic independence and all workers and their dependents threatened by such risks. The program would include insurance against wage loss in periods of disability and against costs of medical care, for which no gen- eral provision now exists in the United States, as well as old-age and survivors insurance and unemployment insurance, with benefits related to past earnings and with provision for additional bene- fits for dependents. It would be de- signed to close existing gaps in the cov- erage of both persons and risks, to re- move present inequities in the protection of workers and the financial burdens of employers, and to provide a consistent re- lationship among insurance provisions for the various risks and between pro- visions of the basic system and of sup- plementary special systems for particu- lar groups. As compared with separate programs to meet particular risks, such a system would reduce administrative cost and reporting burdens and simplify arrangements as they affect workers, employers, and public agencies. OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE The Social Security Board recom- mends: Coverage of all gainful workers, in- cluding agricultural and domestic em- Pployees, public employees and employees of nonprofit organizations, railroad em- ployees, and self-employed persons, in- cluding farmers and smal] businessmen. Legislation to prevent servicemen from losing the protection of the old-age and survivors insurance system because of service in the armed forces. Reduction of the qualifying age for all women beneficiaries from 65 to 60 years. Changes in the average monthly wage and benefit formula to increase benefit amounts, particularly for low-paid work- ers. Increase from $3,000 to $3,600 a year in the maximum amount of earnings which are subject to contribution and counted in computation of benefits. Increase in the amount of earnings a beneficiary may receive in covered em- ployment without suspension of benefits. Greater uniformity in defining, for purposes of the insurance system, family relations and conditions of dependency that qualify members of a worker’s fam- ily for benefits. Benefits during periods of extended or permanent disability, like those for old- age retirement. Provision for insuring uniformity in coverage decisions relating to liability for contributions and eligibility for bene- fits, which are based on identical lan- guage in the Social Security Act and In- terna] Revenue Code but are made by two separate Federal agencies—the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Board. Adoption of a long-range plan for financing old-age and survivors insur- ance which looks toward an eventual tripartite division of costs among em- ployers, employees, and the Government. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Deletion of the Federal matching maximums for individual payments of aid to dependent children, and deletion or increase of such maximums for old- age assistance and aid to the blind. Abolition of State residence and citi- zenship requirements as a condition of eligibility for assistance under State plans approved under the Social Security ct. Elimination, as a condition of Federal grants, of State requirements for trans- ferring title or control of property by an applicant or recipient to the State or APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD locality. This action would not preclude any agency from claiming from the estate of a deceased recipient recovery of assistance formerly paid. The Board in discussing social security in a democracy said: In the opinion of the Board, no time should be lost in taking every feasible step to extend the present protection of the soctal-security program to all households in the United States, and to wipe out limitations and in- equities that can no longer be justified by logic or necessity. For a people, as for an individual, it is prudent to provide in good times against adversities that almost surely will arise sooner or later. An examination of this comprehensive report of the Social Security Board and the recommendations made by it dis- closes that the advanced steps in social security recommended are in keeping with much of the program of the Town- send old-age security plan. At the be- ginning of the 1946 nearly half of all civilian jobs were excluded from cover- age under social security, and two in five of all persons employed were neither fully nor currently insured. At best the social- security law we now have is a haphazard program which, in effect, is largely financed by the public generally. but the benefits of which are shared in by only a few selected groups. It encourages in- flation by collecting a huge fund cur- rently used for deficit spending. These difficulties would be overcome by the adoption of H. R. 16, which would cover all citizens falling within its provisions and the obligations and benefits of the program would likewise be shared by all. It would be all-inclusive in its provisions and therefore would obviate the neces- sity of continuing many social-security laws now in existence and would for the first time set up in our country an old- age security program which would in- sure all of our elderly citizens 60 years of age or over against the hazards of old age. It would build up no reservoir for deficit spending, but the moneys col- lected would go back into the channels of trade each month, providing local mar- kets for American production and buying power for aged citizens. I respectfully urge that all of my colleagues interested in a solution of the old-age security pro- gram join with us in urging early con- sideration of H. R. 16. Tribute to Hon. John Sparkman, of Ala- bama, by the Montgomery Advertiser EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. LISTER HILL OF ALABAMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March § (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. HILL, Mr. President, in the Mont- gomery (Ala.) Advertiser for March 4, 1947, appears an editorial entitled “Hon- or to a Statesman.” The editorial is a very fine and deserved tribute to my col- league the junior Senator from Ala- bama [Mr. SparKMAN], and I ask that it
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD be printed in the Appendix of the Rec- ORD. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ; HONOR TO A STATESMAN Alabama’s Senator JoHN SPARKMAN in a speech in Chicago Friday night said that the United States must assume world-wide moral, economic, and political responsibill- ties if American boys and girls are to be spared the fighting of another war. SPARKMAN spoke before the Pi Kappa Com- mittee on Distinguished Achievement Award, at which time he was honored by selection as the outstanding member of the Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity for 1946. The award was made on the basis of Senator SPARKMAN's achievements as majority whip of the House, his record as 8 member of the House Military Affairs Committee, his active support of legis- lation for Federal aid to education, the physi- cally handicapped, and veterans, and his elec- tion to the United States Senate. In his Chicago speech SPARKMAN pointed to all the suffering in the world today due to hunger, fear, and cold. In Europe and in Asia a whole generation has been stunted and maimed in mind and body, he said, yet armed confiicts still prevail and the world remains heavily armed. One way to assume the responsibility of world leadership, he pointed out, is to con- tinue a trade policy that will enable goods to move freely from nation to nation. If we hope to sell our agricultural and manu- factured goods to other peoples of the world we will need to buy their products so that they can pay for what we sell them. We can’t sell our surplus to bankrupt nations. Another way to prove our willingness and desire to help rehabilitate the world is to do all in our power to strengthen and per- fect the United Nations, Senator SPARKMAN said. We cannot follow a policy of isola- tion and at the sume time maintain the position of world leadership thrust upon us. If we permit the peoples of the world to exist on insufficient food, and to see their children die of malnutrition and disease, they will turn to other places for leadership. SPARKMAN emphasized also that until world peace is assured we must maintain a strong Army, Navy, and Air Force. The Federal budget, he stoutly maintained, must carry adequate funds for this purpose. Alabama may well congratulate Pi Kuppa Alpha on having a member so distinguished, and Senator SpaRKMAN on another of his statesmanlike utterances which are a credit to the State and Nation. Radio Regulation EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. GLEN H. TAYLOR OF IDAHO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, I think the Members of Congress should be in- terested in a brilliant article on radio regulation, by John Crosby, which ap- peared in the New York Herald Tribune of February 6 and 7, 1947, I ask unani- mous consent to insert excerpts from this article in the Appendix of the Rrcorp. There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Rapio IN REVIEW (By John Crosby) THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND THE FCC About a year ago (March 7, 1946), the Fed- eral Communications Commission issued a report on the public service responsibility of the broadcasters, a document which al- most immediately became known as the Blue Book. The Blue Book clearly showed how radio had become increasingly commer- cial in the 5 years of war and went on to re- mind the broadcasters they had made spe- cific promises in their applications for li- censes. When the time came to renew those licenses, the Federal Communications Com- mission warned that the promises would be compared with the actual performance. The Blue Book made public a great many things not generally known outside the trade. Among other things, it listed the promises made by broadcasters to devote a specified number of hours to the broadcast- ing of news, good music, discussion of pub- lic issues, and to live local talent. These unprofitable programs were the price the broadcaster agreed to pay in exchange for a lease on a chunk of public air, which belongs not to the broadcaster or to the Government but to you and me—the listeners, The performances listed side by side with these promises were Unappetizing. Instead of the church programs, the discussion of public issues, the live local talent, the sta- tions presented hour after hour of recorded Bing Crosby, interspersed with appeals from the Bon Ton department store and manu- facturers of headache powders. In the Blue Book the FCC showed its muscles for the first time and threatened to use them. It gave the broadcasters a bad case of the jitters from which they have not yet fully recovered. Listeners, even those who were not entirely happy about Govern- ment interference in radio, were heartened at the idea that some of radio’s worst cx- cesses might be curbed. Well, a year has passed and it is high time to inquire into the effects of the Blue Book on radio pro- gramming. Unhappily, there haven’t been any effects. The FCC has not followed any of the policies it enunciated in the Blue Book, and the prospects of these policies ever being carried out ure dimmer than ever. The Commission has continued with the routine business of renewing licenses as if it never heard of its own document. Not a single license has failed to be renewed. Among the radio sta- tions whose licenses to broadcast were re- newed were two, one in Los Angeles, the other in San Antonio, Tex., both of which had been cited in the Blue Book as particularly hor- rible examples. Though their broadcast log was an almost uninterrupted succession of recordings and spot commercial announce- ments, they were relicensed. If the FCC has not dured enforce its policies by now, the chances of their ever being en- forced are almost nonexistent. The Commis- sion’s relations with Congress have never been too happy. From the new Republican Con- gress the Commission may expect outright hostility. At the time the Blue Book was issued, Carroll Reece, chairman of the Re- publican National Committee, said that the FCC was attempting to tamper with the right of free speech on the air, Several other Re- publicans rumbled along the same lines. This distant thunder was not particularly ominous at the time, since the Republicans were then the minority party. Well, times have changed, and the present position of the FCC is precarious. There are several movements afoot in Congress to clip the wings of the Commission. No matter which one succeeds, it is almost certain that the FCC’s supervisory powers will be limited considerably. The air waves are as much a piece of public property as the Mississippi River, and pro- A859 vide far fewer channels than that body of water. Admittedly, it is harder to lay down rules on programming than it is to estab- lish regulations supervising, let us say, a railroad, Radio programs consist variously of news, music, culture, and entertainment, none of which is susceptible to hard and fast regulations. However, the Commission has never attempted any specific control, or, for that matter, any control ut all. Its powers have been useful chiefly as a threat to remir.d broadcasters they operate in the public domain and, in return for this air grant, owe the public as well as the adver- tisers a certain amount of service. Legislation depriving the Government of any control over what goes on the air comes dangerously close to an abdication of Federal responsibility. Col. Robert Rutherford Mc- Cormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune, hus expressed the opinion that radio fre- quencies should be private property of the broadcasters now using them, just like the land on which the broadcasting stations stand. If this is the opinion of the public and of Congress, then the FCC certainly should be shorn of most of its authority. But, so long as the air remains public prop- erty, the Government has not only the right but the duty to exercise some supervision over it. German Food EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FRANCIS J. MYERS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “German Food,” by Eleanor Roosevelt, published in the Philadelphia Bulletin on March 3, 1947. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: My Day (By Eleanor Roosevelt) GERMAN FOOD I hope that everyone will read with extreme care Herbert Hoover’s report on Germany, because the basic effects of the war are set forth there very simply. In the First World War, Germany did not suffer in this way, but other countries in Europe did suffer in exactly the same way at the end of that war. France has twice been sapped of one generation, among them some of her finest young men. Great Britain has gone through the same thing twice. Russia did not suffer so much in the First World War, but has suffered in full measure in this lust one. And the small nations have all suffered in similar fashion. Germany is experiencing this drastic loss of manpower for the first time, and the figures given by Mr. Hoover are illuminating. In the age group between 20 and 40, there are 6 men to 10 women, and in the group from 40 to 60, about 7 men to 10 women. This means a very profound effect not only on the nation’s economy at the present time, but on what will happen to Germany 20 to 80 years from now. Mr. Hoover notes the shortage of housing and of coal, and the changes made in food production by the alterations in Germany’s boundary line and the consequent shifts of population,
A860 Nobody has questioned that the food ra- tion is low, and Mr. Hoover points out very accurately where the deficiencies hit hardest. The self-suppliers, for farmers, are naturally in good condition, and it is satisfactory to know that the prospective and nursing moth- ers and the children under 6 have had suf- ficient supplemental diet to keep them in good condition. But beyond that, the report is exactly What one would expect. The people's physical condition shows un- dernourishment. In a country where great physical endurance will be needed to rebuild it, the population is probably not only unfit to do hard work, but unfit to meet the strain spiritually and mentally. Mr. Hoover bases this part of his report on surveys made by Dr. William H. Sebrell, Jr., of the United States Public Health Service, who was a member of his mission. Dr. Sebrell also visited Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, and Britain, and found that the people in those cour.tries were very nearly in the nu- tritional condition that existed in the pre- war period. The recommendations made by Mr. Hoover to increase as quickly as possible the rations for children over 6 years of age and for adoles- cents seem wise, as this would cover about 3,500,000 people in Germany, or 50 percent of those in need of extra nutrition. In the American zone, a systematic distribution of school lunches, which we can accomplish with available Army ration resources, would achieve this result. The main suggestion, which will strike most of our farmers as sensible, is that we ship 400,000 tons of surplus potatoes to Ger- many. I am wondering if there is some Way of dehydrating these potatoes and thereby using much less space for shipment. Of course, if they are to be used for seed potatoes, that woulc not be possible, but when they are to be used for food, this might increase shipping space. Labor Legislation EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. E. H. MOORE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 5 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MOORE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “Congress Hearings on Labor Measures,” by Westbrook Pegler, pub- lished in the New York Journal and American of March 1, 1947. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: As Peoter Sees IT CONGRESS HEARINGS ON LABOR MEASURES (By Weatbrook Pegler) It is pathetic that at this late date two committees of Congress, one of each House, should have to waste time proving the obvious and conceded fact that the conduct of unions toward the individual worker has been brutal and degrading and commonly includes collu- sion between vicious unioneers and equally wicked employers. On this latter point the conduct of certain opulent and heavy-handed contractors who build eaqueducts, airports, and tunnels, in the Joe Fay case, has been a spectacular illustration. They are rich and ruthless, most of them politicians, and as low as the gangsters whom they subsidized to terrorize the citizens who worked on the jobs. Some perjured them- selves in two trials, one in New York, the other in Newark, in the interests of their accomplice in the dirty work. Of course, they are strongly prounion and praise the Wagner Act, which permits them to deal with a@ crooked unioneer and ignore the workers. The Senate and House committees needn't summon such people to convince themselves of this enormous conspiracy against labor with a capital L, against the administration of justice and against the integrity of gov- ernment. The records of the New York and Newark trials of Joe Fay already have proved the case, but Frank S. Hogan, the New York district attorney who convicted Fay, doubt- less would be delighted to take his turn as a witness and clarify any points that may seem obscure. Not even the American Federation of Labor, which once kicked Fay out but let him back in as a union racketeer, would enter so much as a technical denial. Yet, again, we find congressional committees Inboring the ob- vious in tiny detail. These incidents occur daily in many com- munities. Few of them attract notice be- causc they ere as commonplace as hub- scrapes in traffic. They are the routine ex- perience of Americans. In Kansas City, a young man of 24 parades before struck premises in a picket line. The AP reports in a little novelty item that he wears a sign reading “I am a heel; I crossed a picket line.” The story relates that this citizen is a cab driver who called at a store to inquire about the development of a roll of film. The place was picketed. He was given his choice of paying a $50 fine or picket- ing for two 8-hour shifts wearing the sign. The Utica, N. Y., Press carried a picture of a young woman holding an ice pack on her nose. She says she quit the union in the plant where she works and thereafter was persecuted. “They” whistled at her and called her names until finally she couldn't stand it any more and “sort of swung my boots.” This seems to mean that a young girl took the conservative course of trying to Kick men who were tormenting her, when she should have bought a shotgun and blown their heads off. “Then,” she said, one gallant guardian of labor's gains “hit me in my face and my nose and thi other fellow hit me, too.” We had a charming and typical incident of the same kind in New York. The night bell rang at an undertaker's shop and the proprietor being ill, his wife, an elderly woman, put on a robe and went down to the office. Two men said a friend had died and as she bent over the desk writing the data she was hit on the head. Reviving later, she crawled up the atairs and the cops were called. She was seriously injured. A note was found on the desk reading, “Don't buy Boyertown.” This referred to Boyertown caskets, which were hot cargo at the time. In New York, George Wall, a laborer, a veteran of the First World War. died of can- cer, leaving a widow and five children. Dur- ing his illness of 14 months all the family’s savings went. His American Legion post petitioned Joe Moreschi, the presiden . of the hod carriers and common laborers union, to grant Mrs. Wall the death benefit. The rascality practiced in many locals of this notorious union is now common knowl- edge. The pay rolls have become a refuge of relatives of the big bosses, including Moreschi’s, and the looting by shake-downs and other familiar practices is comparable to the worst in Fay’s union. Yet Moreschi turned down the petition on the ground that the dying man was automatically suspended after he fell 2 months in arrears in his dues during the time that he was helpless. Moreschi’s letter was written from Miami, which has been adopted by the hod carriers, the teamsters, and the A. F. of L. itself as the scene of its winter conferences. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Most insurance contracts protect the death benefits in such circumstances on the wise assumption that a worker living on earnings will be unable to pay during a long, fatal illness. In New York, a local of the bartenders union requires the employers to pay to the union, not the individual, a pay-roll tax of 5 percent. The Federal Government’s social security tax on the worker is only 1 percent. The contract says this 5 percent “may be spent in any way the union sees fit for the benefit of the membership.” In the case of the teamsters the national bosses decided that it would be for the bene- fit of the membership to buy, furnish, and maintain a winter palace for President Dan Tobin. The bartenders could decide that the interest of the members would be served through preservation of the health of the local bosses by means of winter vacations among that element of the Miami clientele whom J. Edgar Hoover described as the crim- inal scum. Their local boss there is Al Ca- pone's brother-in-law. In New York, Joe Ryan’s union of long- shoremen of the A. F. of L. charges an initia- tion fee of $500 for checkers on the docks. Ryan is president for life at $20,000 a year, and war veterans, among others, find them- selves in the position of helpless, voiceless subjects of union plutocrats. It is none of their business what these parasites do with their money, but Ryan is a dignitary and ua stalwart defender of the American way against Harry Bridges and the invasion of the Communists. Or, again, we find a Westchester County milk wagon driver fined $525 and the fine solemnly upheld on a petty and doubtful charge. That is $525, not $5.25, and this capsuled account must ignore the political muscling that set up for persecution and the economic death penalty a small group of industrious, respectable citizens whose ac- tual offense was that they tried to buck the mob that took over a union which they helped to form. The idea here is not to collect the fines but to drive out the oppo- sition. Congress need hold no more hearings on perversions of unionism which have set up over American citizens a rule strikingly like Hitler's and reduced them to fear and subju- gation. The proof has been on record for years, Regulating the Recovery of Portal-to- Portal Pay EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 28, 1947 Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to make my position clear with regard to the pending bill, H. R. 2157, and make the reason for my opposition clear and un- derstandable. In the first instance, the report on this bill titled “Regulating the Recovery of Portal-to-Portal Pay, and for other purposes” covers far more than the mere question of unjustified claims upon industry. If it covered only the question of portal-to-portal pay, made an issue by the decision of the Supreme Court, I could well have supported the outlawing of such claims within the min- imus rule laid down by the Court, but in- asmuch as this resolution goes far and beyond the issue created by the court,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD transgresses upon the fundamental rights of the working man, does violence to his constitutional right of being treated equally with business and industry, and deprives him of not only making legiti- mate claims for overtime pay in the per- formance of labor ordered by the em- ployer, but it also specifies that such work as has been performed under compulsion by the employer and for his benefit can only be made the issue in a lawsuit and subject to recovery provided that the work is productive and covered by a col- lective-bargaining contract. An unfair 1-year limitation is being put into the statute even in such cases as mentioned above, regardless of how long the abuse has been going on. No penalties are be- ing provided as originally were included in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for exceeding the minimum workweek. The 1 year statutory limitation does not apply alone to the filing period for claims involving back pay but actually pre- scribes that the maximum claim cannot exceed the unpaid overtime of 52 weeks. If the bill provided the same limitations as applied to other legal claims of indus- try and of business, it could be justified. We permit business and industry to press claims for indebtedness against the work- er depending on the State law anywhere from 3 to 6, and in some instances pos- sibly as high as 8 years. We have repeat- edly made liberal provisions for filing tax claims against the Government by cor- porations and have even gone so far as to extend the law after the expiration of the basic provision limiting filing of such claims. In the carry-back and carry-over pro- visions of existing tax law, as my memory serves me, corporations are permitted to go back for 2 or 3 years and forward for a period of about two additional years, making a maximum total of about 5 years within which to obtain tax refunds for the purpose of wiping out current year’s tax losses. This item so far as the Treasury of the United States is con- cerned will amount to at least $4,000,- 000,000 and maybe more. Why treat the inert corporate structure more gen- erously and affectionately than we do the human element which makes indus- try and profits possible. Then, too, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, why single out only such claims as are covered by agreement in union contracts for such limited con- sideration while ignoring the unorgan- ized worker or the individual worker claimant. It seems that the present Republican majority in the House feels that it will yield, and only partially so, where there is organization and power as in corpora- tions united through the National Asso- ciation of Manufacturers and to a lesser degree recognizing the power of organ- ized labor as expressed through the A. F. of L., the CIO, and the railway brother- hoods. I am sure organized labor does not want to be treated as a separate and distinct entity. I am sure they are not claiming any special privileges under any law which might be enacted. I feel safe in saying that labor’s view is my view, that the worker whether he is organized or unorganized should have a right to make his claim upon his employer for such accrued overtime as might be com- pensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is generally understood that in- dustry under this proposed act can write its own prescription starting out with a formula or custom as to what services shall be paid for. Any and all work per- formed outside of what has been covered by an agrecmeni or performed by some custom or previous practice of the em- ployer, whether just or unjust, legitimate or illegitimate, would not be compensa- ble and could not be made the substance of a Jaw suit for recovery and a woiker would, therefore, have no recourse. This proposal submitted here by the ma- jority party for which they shall be re- sponsible does not seem to have the unan- imous support of the committee itself. The report indicates a division of views along five different paths, some- thing unheard of in parliamentary prac- tice and new to my long experience in Congress. The chairman and the loyal Republican guard for the most part stand rigid in support of the bill without regard to its stringency and unfairness, while four distinct minorities submit re- ports of varying degrees of difference in opinion. The largest and most impor- tant group might be said to be diametri- cally opposed to the majority, while the views of the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania |[Mr. WALTER] and the gentleman from New York [| Mr. KEaTinc] add much confusion to those of us who were not privileged to listen to witnesses appcear- ing before the Judiciary Committee. The additional views of the gentleman from Minnesota |Mr. Devitt! make a strong case against the bill and the views of the gentleman fror Alabama |Mr. Hosss] add further difficulty for anyone to make a decision that would be fair and honest. Seemingly this bill is intended to operate against the worker and to discriminate against him. It is class legislation of the rankest kind. It not only caters to but definitely favors unscrupulous and will- ful violators of the Fair Labor Stand- ards Act. As time goes on you will learn that a serious mistake has been made in a move which was obviously intended to rectify an injustice and which was aimed to wipe out unsupported and exaggerated claims never intended by the Congress for compensation. Labor leadership, might I say, Mr. Speaker, is not altogether without fault, and in some instances is culpable of in- stituting suits on behalf of workers that did not have a shred of substance to sus- tain claims. It appeared to be a move predicated upon the advice of Jawyers who did not carefully enough calculate the consequences. I realize that in view of the clamor by the industrialists and the large segment of the public that there will not be enough of us who will dare stand up on this issue, but my position is clear. This is not a move to relieve in- dustry of unfair and unsupported claims but rather a veiled means of nullifying the Fair Labor Standards Act. There are a score or more other and lesser reasons, important in themselves, included in the bill which I shall not take the time to discuss but which make the bill even more objectionable. This bill will not settle the issue. It will create other and more far-reaching problems, A&61 I hope that the Senate will make some corrections which might make the bill ac- ceptable and effective. In its present form I cannot support the bill, and therefore shal] vote against it. Our Country—Highways and Hictory EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FRANCIS CASE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, February 27, 1947 Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, last night I read one of the most interesting and thought-provoking ad- dresses on our national idea that it has been my privilege to see in a long time. It was given by our colleague, the Hon- orable Pau. CunnincHaM, of Iowa, before the American Association of Highway Officials in Los Angeles, Calif., December 17, 1946, and appears in the January number of American Highways. Under permission granted by the House, I offer it for the Recorp at this time: OUR COUNTRY—HIGHWAYS AND HISTORY (By the Honorable Paut CUNNINGHAM, Cone gressman from Jowa, member House Com- mittee on Roads, before the American As- sociation of State Highway Officials, Los Angeles, Calif., December 17, 1946) In appearing before you this afternoon, I feel somewhat like the student who, for the first time, addresses an audience in which sits his favorite teacher. I am referring, of course, to Congressman Robinson, who has been chairman of the Roads Committee of the House during mcst of the years I have been privileged to serve on that committee. I never served under a finer chairman. I never served under a harder working chair- man. I never saw a chairman who was fairer or more courteous to members of his committee und to witnesses appeuring before the committee. The development of America has gone hand in hand with the development of its transportation facilities, first, river transpor- tution from the flat bout to the steambout, and second, its land transportation from trail blazer and ox cart to the more modern horse- drawn vehicle to the railroad and lastly the automobile. The third is transportation by air. The steamboat or river transportation; transportation by land whether by rail or automobile and transportation by air never could have been developed to its present peak without good highways, This is obvious, for what value would all these kinds of trans- portation be if the people and the goods did not have adequate highways to get to the dcpots and terminal ports? It is important to 140,000,000 people that the Nation’s roads and streets are made suitable for present needs and future progress, Highway development of the future must be equal to or greater than its development in the past. A sound government is de- pendent upon a prosperous, contented, and happy people. People cannot be contented, happy, and prosperous without adequate means of transportation for goods and mate- rial as well as adequate transportation for social intercourse. To attain all this a highway program must be developed in keeping with the needs of America along those lines. Those of our citizens who do not comprehend the need must be sold on the idea. Each time I travel
A862 the Pennsylvania Turnpike I think, “If every person in the United States could traverse it once, no further selling of the road program of the future would be necessary.” However, since this is not possible, other means of making the people realize the necessity of an enlarged road program must be found. One excellent way is in the Federal Aid High- way Act of 1944. Through it the farmer will get more and better farm-to-market roads. As these come to his door he will no longer | object to or resent the building of super or express transcontinental highways, but until and unless he receives proper transportation facilities for his products we have no right to expect his support for the enlarged pro- gram. Proper cooperation between you and the county supervisors or commissioners of each State in the locating and in the build- ing of farm-to-market roads will greatly aid the over-all program, Bottlenecks should be eliminated as rap- idly as possible. What profit it a man to gain 3 hours’ time in flying from one city to another and lose it all in congested high- way traffic to and from the airport? You are experienced highway and road men. It is not for me to tell you how. It would be no more fitting for me to attempt to tell you how than for a Brooklyn lad to tell an Iowa lad how to raise corn. But it is for me as a member of the Roads Committee of the House to do my part to see that you get the necessary tools in the way of legis- lation to do the job, 1. e., insofar as the Federal Government shall or ought to have a part in the program, I realize that much of the support and cooperation must come from the State legislature. Good highways mean a good America—a good government. Those interested in bulld- ing more and better highways are inter- ested in a good government and a good coun- try. In short, they are good people—our best people. Nothing has contributed to the advance- ment thus far more than our form of gov- ernment, and since those interested 1n good highways are interested in good government, I now want to talk with you about our form of government, how we got it, what it is, and the importance of keeping it if we are to go forward with a sound road-building program for the future. You know that it was about 285 years from the time Columbus set foot on San Salvador until the signing of the Declara- tion of Independence, just about twice as long as we have existed as a free America since that date, and some 170 years from the founding of Jamestown in 1607 to the signing of that immortal paper about 15 years longer than we have lived as a free America, and from the landing of the Pil- grim fathers at Plymouth Rock until 1776, &@ period of about 5 years longer than we havelived as a free United States of America. Now, what happened to the form of gov- ernment as administered upon the colonists or the citizens of the Thirteen Colonies prior to the Revolutionary War, that made or caused it to become so iniquitous that our forefathers and foremothers preferred rebel- lion and death rather than continue under it, when those people were not by nature rebel- lious. At least, I would hate to think my an- cestors who participated in that war were revolutionists. They were loyal to the mother country as long as they dared or could be loyal to it. We were taught in school that the Revolutionary War was caused because of taxation without representation. That was not the real cause. The real cause was the form of government as administered upon the 13 colonies by the mother country that made it possible for the King of Eng- land to tax the colonists without their be- ing represented in Parliament. That is what I want to talk about now. Why was it pos- sible for the King of England to tax the colonists without being given representa- tion? The answer is because of totalitarian- ism, or authoritarianism, or dictatorship. The King of England and his advisers were supreme insofar as the colonists were con- cerned. They made the lawe—the tax laws, the charters, and the stamp acts. They were made in England largely and sent over here to be administered upon the colonists. They were not bad laws when you compare them today with some of the laws passed in our Congress and State legislatures. The colonists did not rebel only because of taxes. The king and his advisers not only made the laws, but once they were made they sent the king’s soldiers and Army across the water to see that those laws were enforced upon the colonists. So they had the same man or same group of men not only making the laws but enforcing the laws. That wasn't all. If the colonists disobeyed, they were tried in the courts presided over by an appointee of the King. For major offenses they were transported across the water and tried in the King's court without the benefit of a jury. So, we had prior to the Revolutionary War insofar as the Thirteen Colonies were concerned, one-man rule. One man made the laws, administered the laws, and judged the people under the laws. That is what caused the Revolutionary War. Now, the Revolution is over and it was suc- cessful. I do not wish to take your time talking about it, but I do want to tell you what happened afterward. Following the Revolution, the colonists first tried to bind themselves together by articles of confed- eration, which defined themselves merely as a league of friendship. They did not work, and soon the responsible people in the Thir- teen Colonies realized that something more must be done or we would have 13 separate kingdoms or countries along the Atlantic seaboard. So, these colonists sent their rep- resentative men of that day to a little town then known as Philadelphia to get together and see if they could agree upon a plan of government for the colonists collectively to govern themselves under in the future. They did so meet for some 13 or more weeks, and they drew up an agreement on three pages of parchment or sheepskin. I know not which. The interesting thing is that it was drawn on three pages. I want to tell you about that agreement, page by page. On page No. 1 they created a body of men, and they defined these men's duties. They said to this body of men, “You will have one job and one job only. Once each year you will repair to the seat of government whether New York, Philadelphia, or wherever it may be, and while there in proper assembly, you will enact the necessary bylaws that in your opinion you believe should be enacted for the well-being of the colonists, and when you have completed your work you will adjourn and go back home to either following the plow, preaching the Gospel, teaching school, attending the forge, or whatever your voca- tion has been, and so long as you belong on page No. 1, and are a lawmaker, you will have nothing to do with the duties imposed upon the men we are going to create on pages 2 and 8. You will be a lawmaker and a law- maker only. You will not be a law enforcer, and not be a judge.” They then drew up page 2 of the agree- ment and created another body Of men and said to this group, “You will have one job and one job only, and that will be to adminis- ter the laws made by the men on page 1. See that they are justly and equitably enforced upon the colonists, and as long as you are law enforcers you will not be permitted to make any of the laws that you enforce. The making of those laws will be left entirely to the body of men created on page 1." The head, of course, of page 2, will be a President, and he in turn will have a Cabinet and be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. He will have the power to see that _ Convention. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the laws made by the men on page 1 are properly enforced. Then they drew up page 8 of the agreement and created a third body of men, and said to this group of men, “You will have one job and one job only. You will sit as the judges of our courte to deter- mine whether or not the bylaws to this agree- ment, made by the men on page 1, are in accord with the agreement, and also whether or not the method of enforcement employed by the men on page 2 is just and equitable and in accordance with the terms of this agreement. As long as you remain on page 3 and sit as a judge on our courts, you cannot make a law, under which you will judge the people, nor will you be able to enforce a law that you are judging the colonists under.” When they had completed the three pages they decided they must have a title or a beginning, just as in Congress or the State legislatures today, the title is agreec to after the body of the bill or legislation is com- pleted, so these men agreed upon a title that ran something like this: “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect unton, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote thé gen- eral welfare, and secure the blessings of lib- erty to ourselves and our posterity, do or- dain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.” Much has been said about that document. So much has been written about it that most people believe it is a document beyond com- prehension, one that would require a lawyer, and sometimes they refer to a “Philadelphia lawyer” to figure it out. That is not true. Its greatness is in its simplicity, and its sim- plicity is the division of power into three branches or three groups. Take that division away and put one page upon the other, or a portion upon another, and you are taking the initial step back to what we fought a revolutionary war to get away from. Once one page is on top of the other, it is easy to get two pages on top—it is easy to bring the third over. When you get the third on top of the other two, you are right back to what we fought to get away from—totalitarianism, Once there ts a dictator of the government, he not only makes the laws, but enforces them and judges the people under them. They had quite a fight in that Philadelphia They fought over more than just what I told you. Before going further, I should refer to the amendments of the Con- stitution. They are simply clarifying amend- ments, and the rest of the wording of it is simply setting forth in more or less detail exactly the duties or powers of the groups on each page. Take away the three pages and put them together, and the whole Con- stitution is gone. The whole of government is gone. That is all there is to it. One of the fights they had was whether or not they should draw a line through the center of page 1, and divide it into two parts. One group led by Georges Washington believed that should be done. They believed in two Houses of Co . The other group led by Hamilton believed In the unicameral. The first group led by George Washington be- lieved there should be a lower House and an upper House, one the Senate, the upper House, and one the Congress, the lower House. That is known, of course, as the bicameral system. The unicameral] men be- lieved in only one House instead of two. The debate raged on. It was fierce for sev- eral deys. Finally Washington settled it when he was having lunch with Hamilton. He said to Hamilton, “Why, Alec, I notice by the way you eat your lunch that you favor the two House system of Congress.” Alec said, “I do not. What do you mean?” George said, “I noticed that before you drank your tea you poured it into a saucer to cool.” The cooling off process in legislative assemblies as well as in Congress is one of the greatest safety