APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and amortization expenses, and its maximum estimate is more than 2% times the annual charges which must be met if the project is to be liquidated. The tremendous demand for low-cost iron ore from the Great Lakes region and the availability of low-cost transportation of that ore to be shipped from Labrador and Vene- guela on construction of the seaway will alone insure a volume of traffic which will nearly pay the costs of the project. With the inclusion of domestic American traffic, and Canadian import and export traffic, economists who have long studied the seaway objectively are convinced that toll revenues will probably reach $50,000,000 a year very quickly. Only $19,000,000 a year income from navigation tolls is necessary to liquidate the project. The sums of $500,000,000 for power alone or $800,000,000 for the dual project are sub- stantial sums we can all agree. In compari- son with sums expended for other public pur- poses, however, they shrink to relatively modest proportions. As against $800,000,000 to complete the dual purpose project, we have been spending upwards of $4,000,000,000 & year for economic aid to other nations, and about $1,500,000,000 a year to support the prices of agricultural products. In light of our continuing commitments on such a scale for the purposes of interna- tional rehabilitation and domestic economic support, the expenditure of $800,000,000 to render useful a magnificent natural resource, one whose utilization can well serve our na- tional security, is modest indeed. Most im- portant of all to those who very rightly ask for Government economy, the St. Lawrence seaway Will pay its own way, be self-liquidat- ing. It will give this country a great natural resource by opening the Great Lakes to the seas and in making available the greatest source of cheap hydroelectric power on the North American Continent. In our opinion it is false economy indeed to ask deferment of the St. Lawrence seaway. The seaway will more than pay for itself. Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp an editorial entitled “Postman Rings Once,” from the Sherman Democrat, Sherman, Tex.; and also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in that connec- tion a letter to the editor of that news- paper. There being no objection, the editorial and letter were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: PostMAN RINGS ONCE No one read of Postmaster General Don- aldson’s order reducing the number of deliv- erles without awakening to sudden realiza- tion that things in Washington must be worse than the public has been led to believe, Although postal rates have been raised re=- peatedly and the Department is now doing several times its prewar volume of business, it is costing $1,700,000,000 to run the she- bang this year, which, it is estimated, will be 600,000,000 more than receipts. The. Postmaster General has asked further dras- tic increases in rates which Congress ‘is loath to approve. The drastic curtailment in the postal serv- ice ordered by the head of the Postal Depart- ment is its own testimonal to bureaucratic incompetence. ‘she Governntent can no longer get the mail to the people, except on a gigantic RFD basis, although it is tossing billions to Europe, spending hundreds of mil- lions on dam-building projects, and many more billions to buy up butter, wheat, etc., that it doesn’t want in the hope the sellers will vote right at the next election. How the Post Office Department will save money by delivering the same volume of mail in a single delivery, instead of two or three deliveries, daily and by keeping the former number of employees on the pay roll, is something hard to explain. A cut in mail deliveries at this time helps put a rein on the free flow of commerce, The action is inimical to the American philosophy of the distribution of goods and services in that it offers less service for more money. Now that the postman will be ringing once instead of twice in residen- tial areas, perhaps more attention will be focused on the main problem plaguing the whole Federal Government. Wary P. 0.? To the News: What’s wrong with our Congress and Pres- ident? Cutting down on the post office. Of all the departments in our Government, the post office gives more efficient service than any other department. Why cut the depart- ment that does more for the public? Every taxpayer should protest this cut. LONNIE F. RoBerts. DENISON, TEX. The President’s Address at Cheyenne, Wyo. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL HAYDEN OF ARIZONA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, at the request of the senior Senator from Wyo- ming [Mr. O’Manoney], I ask unani- mous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an address de-_ livered yesterday by the President of the United States at Cheyenne, in the Sen- ator’s State. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: It is a real pleasure to be back here in Cheyenne. » The last time I was here, in June of 1948, you gave me a very fine hat—which I still have. And you most Kindly invited me to come back for your famous Frontier Days celebration. Some day I'd like to come back during Frontier Days. I have been hearing akout your celebration for many, many years. But my schedule never seems to come out just right for that purpose. Nevertheless, the spirit of the frontier is exactly what I want to talk about today. Some people believe that the American frontier vanished forever when the forty- eighth State came into the Union. A3481 That is nonsense. These are still frontier days. This Nation has never stopped growing in wealth and strength. It has never stopped finding new horizons of invention, of technology, and of production. It has never stopped blazing trails in finding better ways to use our resources for the well-being of all the people. These are today’s frontiers. And today’s frontiers call for the same pioneering vision, the same resourcefulness, the same courage that were displayed by the men and women who challenged our geo- graphical frontiers a century ago. We proved in war that we have lost none of our strength and courage. We are prov- ing again, since the war, that this coun- try still moves boldly toward the future. Our peacetime production and our standards of living are moving toward new high levels. And we are thinking and planning for steady development and improvement. Our watchword is not “holding our own.” Our watchwords are “growth,” “expan- sion,” and “progress.’’ This is because there are now, as there have always been, more Americans who look ahead toward the broad horizon than look backward toward times and places left behind. A steady growth in the standards of living of the American people is a goal well within our ability to attain. There are still some who look upon the goal of an ever-expand- ing economy as a pipe dream. They still believe in the inevitability of boom and bust. They are among those living in the past. This country used to have a hoom-and~bust economy. ‘You can think back a little over 20 years and recall when the last big bust took place. But that disaster taught this country a great lesson. We learned from that experi- ence that we cannot leave the forces of a huge and complicated economy to take care of themselves. We learned then that the people had to use their Government as a means of mobilizing the resources of the, whole country to restore the economy and start it moving upward again. ; That same lesson about the role of Govern- ment still applies today. The people, using their Government as an agent, found the means to lick the depression. Now we are employing the same means of well-designed Government programs to help strengthen and steadily expand the national economy. Earlier today, at Casper, I talked about one Kind of governmental activity by which we are creating new frontiers of opportunity every month and every year. This is the con- servation and full use of our natural re- sources. The opportunities that can be created through the development of our natural re- sources are immeasurable. Our rivers, our soil, our forests, and our minerals can form the physical base for a steady expansion of real incomes and living standards, if they are developed and used the right way. This afternoon, I want to talk about an- other kind of activity through which we can create new frontiers of opportunity. This is the program to stimulate and strengthen small business which I recom~ mended to the Congress last week. Small and independent businesses are im- portant to the growth of the economy. They are a constant source of new ideas. They are a constant source of new jobs. New businesses are also important to the health of the economy. In their effort to grow by serving consumers better, they pro- vide the vigorous competition which is the heart of our private-enterprise system. Every one of you knows somebody who has had a new idea and has built it into a busi- ness. He has not only made money, but his
A3482 pusiness has also provided jobs and income for the whole community in which he lives. Our country has been made great by the boldness, the daring, and the inventive gemius of men like that. Our Nation would suffer a slow decay if men with ideas did not have every opportunity to build new busi- nesses and create new wealth. The task of economic expansion requires using all the resources of this great Nation. Of the nearly 4,000,000 business concerns in our country, more than 90 percent are usually classified as small. These small concerns pro- vide jobs for over 20,000,000 people—roughly half of private, nonfarm employment. If we are to have an expanding economy, small pusiness must provide its share of the addi- tional jobs needed. In doing so, 1t will not only create new payrolls for workers; it will also enlarge markets generally for other pusinessmen and farmers. We need big business in this country as well as small business, of course. We all benefit from the tremendous output at low cost of large, efficient enterprises. But the stimulus of new and vigorous competitors is necessary to keep old enterprises efficient, and to bring the greatest benefit to con- sumers and the public. Since the passage cf the Sherman Antitrust Act 60 years ago, we have sought to keep monopoly from stifling the growth of new pusiness. The effectiveness of the antitrust laws has varied over the years with changes in our national administration. Right now, the antitrust laws are being enforced as actively as at any time in history. But at their v2ry best, they are only a limited and negative approach. We will keep on using the antitrust laws and will enforce them vigorously. But we must supplement that approach— and we must act soon—with measures which will challenge the power of monopoly, not in the courts but in the market place. The force of vigorous, ettective competition is the best way to prevent monopoly. If the man with new ideas has a fair chance to put his product on the market, the buyer will do she rest. We must, therefore, take meas- ures to assist the man with new ideas, the small enterpriser, as he starts out:to chal- lenge large, powerful, and established com- petitors. The recommendations I have made to the Congress rest upon three simple principles. These are that the small business man needs long-term credit; he needs venture capital; and he needs technical assistance. These things are needed so that the in- dependent businessman can do more for himself. They do not involve Government controls. They will cost the Federal Goy- ernment very little. What they will do is to give the man who wants to be his own boss a better chance to use his own initictive and energy. In the field of credit, I propose that we should insure bank loans to small businesses, such as drug stores, filling stations, and re- tail stores. The local banks would decide whether or not to make the loan in each case and would share some of the risk. But on the major part of the loan the bank would be insured against loss. This means that banks will be able to make safely, good loans which they now find too risky. Thus, bankers would be able to give greater consideration to the human element in de- ciding whether or not to help a home-town businessman pull through a tight period. They wouldn’t have to be quite so hard~ boiled in demanding gilt-edged collateral. You know, a lot of people say, when they find out what kind of collateral they have to put up for a loan at the bank, that if they had that kind of collateral they wouldn’t have needed a loan in the first place. Now, I don’t think bankers act like that just because they are mean. It’s because they have to be careful. This insurance would make 1t possible for them to do what they would like to have been doing all the time. This proposal 1s similar to the insurance that har iis7 s+ 7cie-d oor years under title I of the > Lc: . Int Act for home im- provement loans. In that case it has helped the banks, helped the home owners, and the Government Ras made money from it. I think it will work just as well for small- business loans, Furthermore, I propose that special invest- ment companies be set up to make venture capital and long-term loans available to help small businesses expand when they have proved their ability. This would provide a way to pool the savings of peogie who can- not individually make such investments, put who can, through investment companies, put them to work in growing businesses. This proposal is generally the same as that incorporated in a bill introduced several months ago by your fellow townsman, and my good friend, Senator Jom O’MaHONEY. In addition, I propose that the Recon- struction Finance Corporation be given broader authority to handle cases which offer a good chance of success but cannot obtain private financing on reasonable terms. These credit proposals are designed to make banks and other private sources of funds more effective in meeting the needs of small and growing businesses. They have been proposed by bankers and other pri- vate citizens who understand the problems of the small-business man. I hope the Con- gress will soon enact them. In the field of technical assistance, small- pusiness men are often at a serious disad- vantage. They cannot afford specialists on their payrolls to keep up with the latest de- velopments in accounting and management. They find it difficult to learn about the latest research developments that affect their busi- ness. Under these circumstances, I propose that the Department of Commerce should expand the work it now does in providing technical and research assistance to small business. Thus we would provide independent busi- nessmen with the same kind of research assistance and skilled advice which we have provided successfully to farmers for many years. At the same time, I propose.that we should make the Department of Commerce the cen- tral Government agency for small business, as well as other business, just as the De- partment of Agriculture is the central agen- cy for farm activities. This would mean that the independent businessman could go to one place and obtain the advice and services he needs. These proposals to help small business to obtain credit, risk capital, and technical as- sistance should do much to increase ef- fective competition. They should result in more independent enterprises, striving more effectively to provide goods and services the people need. As such, I believe these pro- posals will contribute to the strength and stable growth of the country. I suppose it is inevitable that this small- business program will meet with determined opposition. Those who fear the rise of new competitors will not be slow in imagining danger to their privileged positions. They will hide their selfish alarm by attacking what they like to call government interfer- ence with the economic system, But the Government is only an instru- ment in the hands of the people, an instru~ ment we use to help maintain a free, com= petitive, and expanding economy. That is the kind of economy all of us want. More abundance for everyone, without the dismal cycle of boom-and-bust, is some~ thing that this Nation can have, and some- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD thing we must have. To bring it about de- mands dynamic private enterprise, and it demands dynamic government. All of us, working together, can build a strong and prosperous America, And keep- ing our own Nation prosperous and strong is the best assurance that our struggle for prosperity, peace, and freedom in the world will end in victory. Effect of Imports on Employment in the Glass Industry EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WAYNE L. HAYS OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I herewith present for the consideration of the Members of Congress a very fine statement on the effect of imports on employment in the American hand- made glass industry by Mr. Carl W. Gust- key, president of the Imperial Glass Corp., Bellaire, Ohio, which is one of the important industries in the city of Bellaire in my district. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the re- ciprocal-trade agreements because there was no provision in that law for protec- tion of American industry from compe- tition from slave labor from behind the iron curtain. If the policy of the State Department is to be that of putting American industries out of business by allowing cheap importations from Com- munist countries, then certainly the Congress should take some action to take this power from the State Department. STaTEMENT ON Errecr or IMPORTS ON EMPLOY= MENT IN THE AMERICAN HaNnp-MapgE Gass InDustry BrroRe A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED States, WASHINGTON, D. C. (By C. W. Gustkey, member executive com- mittee, National Labor-Management Council on Foreign Trade; president, Im- perial Glass Corp., Bellaire, Ohio, United States of America; chairman, board of gov- ernors, American Glassware Association and chairman of its foreign trade commit- tee; treasurer, Glass Crafts of America, May 6, 1950) PREFACE—SUMMARY—EFFECT OF HAND-MADE GLASS IMPORTATIONS ON AMERICAN WaGE EARNERS The management of the American hand- made glassware companies directly, normal- Jy employing about 15,000 union glass fac- tory workers claim herein and offer factual data to support their contentions, that— 1. Imported glassware in 1949 caused these American workmen +o lose $4,000,000 in ‘wages, compared to their actual total earn- ings of about $20,000,000. 2. Importations are to blame for these American workmen at present finding only about 50 percent of 1949 employment. Their 1950 total earnings, based on first 4 months of 1950 already passed, will not ex- ceed $9,000,000. Wage losses in 1950 due to importations may total as much as $12,- 000,000, 8. Unless such importations are promptly prohibited, within 12 months this industry, its worth-while employment, and product,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD its social and economic contributions will be nonexistent. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I appear be- fore you, grateful for your invitation to be here, as a representative of America’s oldest industry which commenced in the year 1608 on the mainland, opposite Jamestown Island, in Virginia Colony. Since that year, the or- derly expansion of the manufacturing of American glassware has developed with the course of our continental and industrial progress through New England, into the Pittsburgh area and throughout the upper tri-State and Ohio River industrial area un- til it is today pretty generally spread over the entirety of our Nation. The company which I head for a liveli- hood, the Imperial Glass Corp., is located in Bellaire, Ohio, and began operations in 1904. Our employment for some 35 years has averaged in the constant vicinity of 650 skilled people. As chairman of the board of governors of the American Glassware Asso- ciation, I speak for approximately 85 per- cent of the manufacturers engaged in this industry throughout all our United States, excluding, of course, structural, architec- tural, flat, container, laboratory, and scien- tific glassware. I am fearful that I lack suf- ficient ability to properly discharge the great responsibility that rests upon my shoulders in appearing before you as the spokesman for this important segment of our Ameri- can economy, but I will do my best and shall attempt to be brief, factual, and logi- cal, in the hope that I will not alone present @ story that will convince you in the course of logic and reason, but that you will find it entering your hearts, and that your minds Will be receptive to a complete understand. ing of, and sympathy for, the tremendous problem facing our industry these current. days. There are over 18,000 skilled persons nor- mally and directly employed in the Ameri- can handmade glass industry; but, includ- ing all office, sales, management, and the employment of various miscellaneous small plants of which there are no factual records available to me at the moment in the classi- fied glassware industry directory, it would be safe to estimate that as of today we em- ploy a total in excess of 15,000 persons. We in the American handmade glass in- dustry are of the opinion that approximately 38,000 people find indirect but full and re- sultant employment in the wholesale and retail distribution and sales of our products. This total, I point out to you, as I recall that we claim there are in excess of 15,000 directly employed in the production of our wares. So please assume that our industry gives total employment, normally, (directly and indirectly) to at least 53,000 persons which safely and conservatively represents total income for about 200,000 American citi- zens (approximately 4 to a family). I re- spectfully call your attention to exhibit I, attached to this statement, showing in de- tail the location of the principal factories producing American handmade glassware and those who are cutting and decorating this product. located in California, Illinois, Indiana, Ken- tucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In this ex- hibit, we give you the approximate normal employment in each of these plants and to- tals In our enterprises in the various States. Suffice it to say, for the moment, as example, that in Indiana we have a normal employ- ment of 475; in Ohio approximately 2,500; in Pennsylvania about 1,500; in West Vir- ginia about 4,500, etc. A large percentage of these plants are lo- cated in small communities of less than 20,000 inhabitants. I have starred the fac- tory locations (on the exhibit to which I have already called your attention) where plants are located in communities of less These plants are principally: than 20,000 persons. Many of these small communities would become ghost towns if the glass plants and decorating companies quit business or were forced out of the eco- nomic picture. The merchants, service in- dustries, and professional people are in many instances supported almost entirely by wage payments from glass factory workers. In some of the larger placcs, severe depression. has and would again result if the glass fac- tories closed down. Most of these workers own their own homes in these communities and for them to seek employment elsewhere would result in severe financial loss, family disruption, and social displacement from which they probably would never recover. For example, I would like to inform you that 78 percent of the workers in my own com- pany own their own homes, and that our weekly normal payroll of about $86,000 to $40,000 is by far the largest weekly payroll in our community of Bellaire, Ohio, of ap- proximately 15,000 population. The important raw materials and the con- servatively estimated annual consumption in the manufacturing processes of our prod- uct can be summarized as follows: | - . | petimptad abe Tons Sodium carbonate... 18, 000 $511, 000 Glass sand_.---.- 60, 000 362, 000 Lead derivatives... 10,000 | 2,850, 000 Potash._.-._.------------------- 10,000 | 1, 636, 000 Timactana lie 10, 000 84, \. . er moat wee et 1,000 fee 2, 120, 000 : : -- - 6,000 | 1,188, 000 Cartons and packing materials_.|-..-------- 3, 000, 000 Gas, coal, oul, and electricity. 2, 600, 000 OX) ee 13, 751. 000 And we must not forget that this American craft industry we are discussing annually expends in excess of $750,000 for national advertising of products to consumers in American national magazines and for print- ing catalogs, selling aids such as counter- cards, display pieces, and like assistance for consumer selling by retailers everywhere. This expenditure to an important extent, can be translated into substantial earnings by American labor, for we are all familiar with the high labor costs involving the printed arts. We will further say that these raw mate- rials and supplies come largely from the central West as that is the location of most of the glass plants and the suppliers have naturally and properly so, from an economic standpoint, attempted to serve this industry from the same geographical location in which the consuming factories are lo- cated. It is impossible for me to give you an estimate of the number of people em- ployed in these supply industries; for our hand-made glass producers, as a part of the general glassware industry of America, take only a portion of the output from these sup- ply producers of these chemicals, sand, min- erals, refractories, cartons, packing mate- rials, and fuel. What percentage of the total produced, we in our industry consume, is a figure I cannot sugggest to you with any truthfulness or even near accuracy. But, gentlemen, you must agree that the quanti- ties listed and their implied values are sub- stantial and important and represent valu- able national employment. In addition to the just-mentioned values, we estimate that the manufacturing of American hand-made glass, from raw mate- rials to finished product, embodies the usage of about 15,000 railroad cars per year and we submit that when we had this estimated traffic (or transportation load) check a few days ago by an official of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., it was adequately and A3483 sufficiently developed that our estimate was conservative. Gentlemen, our industry in 1948 produced, successfully merchandised, and sold apprcxi- mately $25,000,000 worth of hand-made glass- ware. This was about 994 percent absorbed by the American retail market, as there is absolutely no opportunity for us to export merchandise, never has been in the last 20 years, and we do not see any opportunity currently or in the foreseeable future, ex- cepting in almost negligible amounts to Canada. In 1949, our industry produced and sold about $30,700,000 worth of merchandise. Note the decline of nearly $5,000,000. These figures I quote were released as of April 28, 1950, by the United States Bureau of Census of the Department of Commerce, in their publication Facts for Industry. In both these years, my own company produced and sold approximately 10 percent of these an- nual total figures. I’m getting personal again for intended and related reason. Imported glassware sold in the United States in 1949 had a market value at Ameri- can factory-price level of approximately $6,- 000,000. In 1948, the similar total volume was $1,000,000 smaller than in 1949. Note the increase; from nothing at end of war to a gigantic current value. This gives you some little indication of the trend and the dollar value of imported glassware competi- tive to our own product. I have attached two exhibits dealing with import quantities, sources, and trends. One, entitled ‘“Ameri- can Glassware Association Analysis, 1949-1948 Imports of Glassware Most Generally Pro- duced by Members of the Association Show- jing Dollar Totals and the Principal Export- ing Countries” dated March 24, 1950. An- other, the “American Glassware Association Summary of Annual Imports (past 5 years) of Glassware Most Generally Produced by Members Showing Dollar Totals and Prin- cipal Exporting Countries’? dated March 30, 1950. This latter exhibit shows the trend of importations by countries, 1945 to 1949, inclusive. The 1849 analysis and exhibit I have re- ferred to as being dated March 24 shows 1948 and 1949 totals of importations by classifica- tions of merchandise and by countries of origin. Both of these exhibits are based upon United States Department of Commerce figures. General increases are evident in nearly all instances, Our own occupational forces in Germany and Japan are admittedly and directly com- peting with us in our own American markets, with our own American tax money as their means, and without hesitation and un- ashamedly they tell us in detail of their plans for extension of the hand-glass pro- ductive capacity in Japan and in occupied Germany to far in excess of prewar levels and ability. Now, gentlemen, if you will allow me, please, I would again like to become personal and put these import figures on the level of my own company, the Imperial Glass Corp. I have stated to you that we produce ap- proximately 10 percent of the domestic pro- duction of American handmade glassware. Had there not been $5,000,000 of competitive importations in 1948, our gross business would have been increased by $500,000 and in 1949 by $600,000 if foreign glass totaling $6,000,000 at the American factory level had not been with us. In other words, last year we would have had $50,000 of business each month that we did not enjoy and our em- ployees at Imperial would have had 390,090 payroll dollars they did not get (about $650 per wage earner on our payroll). Last year our business was off from expectations by approximately this $600,000. This amount of gross business represented the difference be- tween a profit and a loss in our operation and the current result as of the moment is, in our individual factory, that we are operat- ing at about 30 percent of capacity. We have
A3484 no immediate hopes of a betterment of this situation. For the last 2 years the most important retail buyers in America have been visiting Europe and other foreign countries to pur- chase glassware and spend their buying ppropriations at the attractive, foreign give- away prices based upon the dreadfully low foreign labor rates. I’ have more to say about this trend in purchasing by retail buyers a little later on in my presentation. Let’s talk for a moment now about the comparative wage rates we in the American hand-made glass industry pay in comparison to the rates being paid by our foreign com- petitors. Exhibit ITI, which 1s attached, will point out some relative wage schedules in foreign countries. We have recently been told by the United States Army that new wage rates in the Japanese hand-made glass industry, which are considered there to be very high, are approximately 40 cents an hour, average, for skilled workers, including all fringe payments, such as pensions, resi- dential fuel, house rental allowances, and long severance pay; while in the United States, the current average is at least $1.75 per hour for the same skilled workers, not including any extras such as guaranteed turn pay, overtime, vacations, social security, insurance contributions, pensions, house al~ lowances, residential fuel provisions, liberal severance, et cetera. The wage exhibit I am now referring to, No. IIT, deals principally with rates paid in the hand-glass industry in socialistic Eng~ land, Germany, and Communist Czechoslo- vakia. These earnings figures are based on United States Department of Commerce re- ports from our American embassies in these three countries. The average hourly male rate in the glass industry in England in June of last year was 44% cents; Germany, 4514 cents; the average hourly rate of both men and women in Czechoslovakia in the hand- made glass industry was 36 cents. We are comparing these foreign, competitive hourly rates to the hourly rate of $1.75 currently paid in our United States incustry in support of our American way-of-life. What a destructive contrast. The amazingly low wages paid in these three countries—prior to deflation of cur- rencies—as recorded in my exhibit ITI shows the difficulties which manufacturers of hand- made glassware in the United States have to overcome in order to maintain a fair share of our own American domestic market. When it is realized that approximately 65 percent of the cost of our domestic finished product is labor, it can be readily seen that with Eu- ropean wages averaging fully two-thirds less than our American wages there is little chance of meeting the low-priced European competition based on these ridiculously low wage scales. This is conclusive evidence that foreign nations need not be favored any more by our Government cutting tariffs, for they already have such an immeasurable advan- tage in their very, very low labor costs. In fact, their costs indicate they can well afford to be faced with duties entirely sufficient to give American producers a fair break, and still have us at great handicap, Why the two great American parent unions, the American Federation of Labor and the CIO, continue to back the present United States trade policy, with no restrictions in it for safeguarding their members who are engaged in the pro- duction of glass, pottery, lace, gloves, and many other American craft-produced items, is a mystery to those of us laboring in their behalf. To encourage the sale of imports in this country, as the present Federal admin- istration is now doing, gives support to main-~ taining low wage scales in Europe and will eventually lead to tearing down the wage scales in this country and bankruptcy of the industries which must compete with ruinous European import prices, By such action, encouragement is also lent to the actual, currently existent condition where American manufacturers of these com- petitive products cannot further raise wages, provide pensions, finance adequate holidays, vacations, sick benefits, and insurance, let alone break even and keep their heads above water, The only inevitable result and in- dustrial relief from today’s situation is an immediate and extensive reduction in the American rate of pay and wages, and, before too long, the absol*1 desormoorerce Of Er- ployment in the : yo. century old, skilled trade known as the Makers of American hand-crafted glassware. While we American manufacturers claim, and we believe impartial authority would admit, that we have higher quality than the *imported article, we admit that to the ulti- mate consumer there is an apparent higher quality in imports because of the false but alleged romanticism of foreign source and of the ridiculously low retail prices which come about because of the serious low wage advantage. There are no shortages in our American hand-made-glass industry as to capacity or as to ability. Factories that exist in this country can produce all the hand- made glassware all of North America can ab- sorb, and in so doing we can offer steady em- ployment, increasing employment, and the security that modern wage earners demand. At even cost, up to and at the retail level, the American industry will out-design, out-sell, out-service, and out-perform the imported sources and the imported product. At the end of this statement I attach another and concluding exhibit which we in the industry believe to be a true condensa- tion and summary of the glassware classifica. tions and tariff discussions which will take place in Torquay, England, beginning Sep- tember 28, 1950. Many, many of our im-~ portant articles of manufacture are on the docket for consideration at this conference. It appears that we are once again just as certain as winter becomes spring and sum- mer becomes fall to suffer further in interna- tional negotiations. We also attach a cumu~- lative list of tariff-duty changes on glass- ware articles and we asterisk the items which are publicly and officially declared to be on the Torquay list. We submit to you that if we suffer further tariff cuts and damage our industry 1s a gone goose. Yea, we further submit, in all sincerity and emphatically, that all relief possible under so-called escape clauses now in existence will not alter the situation. May I now extemporize from my prepared statement for a brief moment. Furst, I have here some glass samples I want to submit to you. Second, I have current and most re- cent information from major American pro- ducers of hand-made glassware I would like to submit to you informally. On both sub- jJects—(1) these samples and (2) this cur- rent operating information which has just today come into my hands—I would like the privilege of promptly preparing a supple- mental statement so as to make these two matters a permanent part of the record. I would like, with your permission, to proceed quickly and informally to cover these mat- ters and then to return to my brief for final concluding thoughts. Submission of foreign samples priced and domestic comparisons. Ads on imported glass by prominent Amer- ican retailers and trends of domestic pur- chases by those same firms. Various individual current factory operat- ing facts in our American industry. We feel the effect of this disastrous, dis- couraging, and unfair competition from for- eign-source merchandise throughout our en- tire field of production. We feel it pretty generally geographically. There was a time when the competition from imported mer- chandise was confined to the great metro- politan retail markets such as New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, This is not the case Lhe - APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD since the last war. The importers and for- eign manufacturers have studied our Amer- ican merchandising methods and our dis- tribution methods (at the suggestion of and with the aid of our own governmental agen- cies) and have publicly announced their plans to compete with us in their own and our American trade journals and in their propaganda to prospective consumers here in America. They have sales organizations today in our Nation which cover all of our 48 States and our entire market. They have regional sales campaign offices in the South, the Southwest, the Midwest, the far West, the Northwest, and they are reaching for every dollar they can secure from the Amer-~ ican consumer. The average worker in the hand-made glassware industry of America 1s highly skilled. He is considerably over 50 years of age. Well over half of our active workers must of necessity serve long onprenticeshins; for instance, 4 years to become a aints bicwer. And many of our so-called unskilled opera- tions require a vast know-how and cannot be obtained readily by so-called common labor taken at random from our community. Because of the long years they have been employed in this highly skilled craft and because of their advanced ages, our workmen have never and will not in the future find ready employment in other trades or in other jobs. If they are deprived of working in a glass plant, they usually try to form a little co- operative and work for themselves for what- ever they can get out of it in the way of wages; as they say, Just to keep their hands in the trade and to wait for better times. Such a condition will literally break asunder eur skilled and established working units and cause their utter disappearance. Our union, the American Flint Glass Workers’ Union (one of America’s oldest craft unions), will no longer find justifiable existence and our individual companies will go out of pusiness. . Gentlemen, I repeat—last year America consumed nearly $6,000,000 worth of foreign hand-made glass at American factory level prices (at least $12,000,000 at American re- tail price levels). Those factory wage earn- ers directly engaged in the United States domestic industry lost 65 cents for each one of those $6,000,000—or total wages lost to them in 1949 of $3,900,000. Actual earn-~ ings of our American hand crafters of glass in 1949 were about $20,000,000. Ani what about the capital we here in America have invested to provide these jobs? Again you must forgive me for referring to my own factory, but it certainly is of value for you to know that in our own plant our capital investment stands today at approxi- mately $3,500 for every employee of our group of about 600. And I'll say that figure is a fair, average one, for our national in- dustry. Is this investment in time, skill, in money, in heartache, in management, in struggle, in ability, to be utterly disregarded and thrown aside as at the same time we con- demn those who labor in our industry to a future as uncertain as words could describe? Somebody said the other day that the stockholders in our industry would have to find their liquidating benefits from other use of the physical plants than as glass factories. Most of you gentlemen (particularly those of you from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Texas, and California) are familiar.with the physical construction of a glass factory, and know it is not at all suited for ready adaptation to other types of in- dustry. Our production equipment cannot be used for anything else other than the manufacturing of hand-made glass. Mr. Steelman from the White House, recently in a letter to Congressman SracczErs, of West Vir~ ginia, quoted in an editorial in the Morgan~ town Dominion newspaper of Morgantown, W. Va. (which editorial I attach to my state- ment as an exhibit) said words which would
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD indicate that in Washington it is felt there is absolutely no hope for the future of the American hand-made glass industry and sug- gested that Mr. Sraccrrs and his associated, interesied Citizens in his own congressional district take immediate steps for future em- ployment elsewhere of those now engaged in the glass business. Gentlemen, is this an cflicial governmental pronouncement seal- ing the destiny of our industry? Are we to accept it assuch? If so, the condition arises as a direct result of untoward governmental action and as such cur employees, our em- ployers and the owners in our industry are entitled to full, fair, adequate and prompt indemnity for we have not given permission to anyone to confiscate, destroy, or give away our livelihood and property. A conservative estimate, gentlemen based on facts I have just read to you from various prim. ~rceieerr in our American industry, is Ji° 7 .. 2 2w the rate of current op- erations throughout our trade in all its fac- tory units 1s no greater than 50 percent of 1949 activity. This being so, the year’s pro- duction will be in the vicinity of only $15,- 000,009 as comnared to $30,000,000 in 1849 and £24,070 060 1: 1948. Estimated total wages will be only $9,750,000 for all of 1950, es ecm~en-d to $20,000,000 1n 1949 and $22,- CY. Oy 70 a 1948. Continued operations & cn é +57 for the rest of 1950 will cause individual worker distress of magnitude and bankrupt our entire industry. The general level of the retail business in America is good, as is the general level of employment. Reliable sources report 1949 retail sales of china and glass to be only slightly below 1948, and currently to be only under 1949 by a very small percentage. ‘Yes, American hand-glass producers are bad off. I submit that the greatest single Cause 1s the importation of cheno *Vror-cc-i foreign- made glassware wit’. ¥-1¢7 2 ir -npossible to compete, plus the devilish and horrible foreign competitive advantages arising through a manufacturing system which does not have to show a profit, which does not have to give a whoop about costs and their relationship 1o prices and which exists today only because of the fact that our Govern- ment has set it up in business and keeps 1t in business. Gentlemen, you have been patient and courteous, I fervently pray you are discern- ing and courageous. You and the American Congress must wholeheartedly and at once act to save this, America’s oldest craft in- dustry, if it is not be traded or given clear away and be gone forever. A prompt, com- plete and thorough prohibition of hand-glass imports is the only answer. No other treat- ment will save this industry. Smiles, jovial- ity, promises, preachments will be to no avail. We implore your best consideration, your prompt action, for only to the Con- gress of the United States can we look for succor. All other governmental streets are closed or stenciled ‘dead end” to us. Is 1t necessary to condemn our own American hand-glass industry to complete dissolution to save the rest of the world? Confusion in Our Government EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE A. DONDERO OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, the President has declared that Senators McCartiy, Bripces, and WHERRY were assets of the Kremlin. In connection with that statement of who is an asset sCVI—App.——220 to Russia and how the prestige of our Government was injured abroad, let us look at what happened here in Washing- ton last week. Cn May 3, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senator TyYpDINGs, delivered an address before the Rotarians of Washington, saying among other things that war may break at any time. On the same day Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson and George F. Kennan, spcekesman for the Department of Siate, appeared before the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and pleaded for an extension of the draft. Gen. Omar N. Bradley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had similarly testified before the committee on the previous day. These three men based their requests on the greatly deteriorated international situation which they described as the worst since the war. Incidentally, and in connection therewith, they had ob- tained an increase of $350,000,000 over and above the present budget for national defense. The next day, and less than 24 hours after these statements were made by highly authorized officials of our Gov- ernment, the President told his press conference that the international sit- uation was not particularly concerning and that it was not as bad as in 1946. He also said that he expected to reduce the 1952 and 1953 national defense ap- propriations. The President, as Commander in Chief, has all lines of information avail- able to him. He receives every day a thorough briefing of world conditions. Surely that information, which comes from State and defense departments, cannot be at variance with information presented to the House Committee by Johnson, Bradley, and Kennan. The President’s statement, transmit- ted to the people of this country and the world, caused utmost confusion. Our people were confronted with these con- flicting views all within 24 hours and do not know whom to believe. What is worse, our allies in western Europe were dismayed. For the last 2 months there have been repeated sug- gestions from western Europe military commands that their weak forces be bol- stered by additional American ground forces. President Truman’s statement about reductions is considered. by these Europeans as an indication that such reinforcements will not be forthcoming. That eventuality worries them more than the charges against possible communism in the American Government, Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE CF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my A3485 remarks in the Appendix of the REcorp, I inelude the sixteenth article by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop on the infiltration of communism in our country. Bracest Story (By Frank C. Waldrop) The primitive American Communists of 40 years ago called themselves by many names. ‘They had no formed system of thought, to organize + ~vttves1 machinery and no spectacular” ‘¢. 7 >. Least of all did they have a disciplined corps of spies and administrators working with them inside the colleges and Govern- ment offices of the United States of America. They were what the Moscow-trained mod- ern types have since contemptuously called native radicals and were mainly just con- fused and rattled by the upsurge of Ameri- can industry and expansion following the United States Civil War. Few of them were much attracted by the scientific socialism of Karl Marx, beyond occasional agreement with his picture of a world free of want and trouble. Which, after all, is an ideal not invented by Marx. But as fresh waves of immigrants came over from Europe, an occasional one was caught up in the thread of imported hates and intrigues that some of the new arrivals did not shed. It is a peculiar thing, this looking back- ward. After all, America has been settled and developed by fugitives from Europe and all that’s in it. Our ancestors came here not to carry on the fruitless conflicts of the past but to forget them and build the New World. Work on that New World was weil in prog- ress 40 years ago when a well-to-do Russian farmer’s son became so intolerable to the government of Czar Nicholas II through his propagandizing for revolt that he was utterly banished and exiled. Those are chillang words. They raise the idea of misery and horror. But, in fact, this banished revolutionary named Lev Davido- vitch Bronstein, who called himself Leon Trotsky, suffered comfortably. First the Czar’s police tried to lose him in the frontier country of Siberia. But scon he was back. Local jails only give him time to think up new tacks for the Czar’s chair. So, finally, he was kicked over the border. You can compare the terrors and oppres- sions of czarist times with the present peace under Stalin from this: Trotsky in Europe immediately became a correspondent for Russian newspapers and magazines, wrote books that were widely read back home, and at regular intervals his friends and family came over to meet him in the wineshops of old Vienna. Have you made any dates along the edge of the iron curtain lately with anybody from the other side? When the war of 1914-18 broke out, Trotsky was in Germany, so he took off for New York City, traveling by easy stages all around Europe. In his autcbhiography Trotsky claims that President Wocdrow Wilson stole the famous Fourteen Points for peace that lie now be- tween the pages of the story of things past from the proofs of a book Trotsky had sent to a New York publisher. And certainly somebody worked into Wil- son’s mind the germ seeds of world govern- ment which first took shape as the old League of Nations, then came back with Roosevelt as the United Nations. Now, somewhat more baggy in the knees and with its shirt tail flapping in the breeze, here 1t is again, jouning college girls and moldy old political has-beens under such banners as Union Now and World Federalists. Trotsky later wrote of his American years: “My only profession 1n New York was that of a professional revolutionary.”
A3486 And he added: “* %* * in those days my profession was no more reprehensible than that of a bhoot- legzer.”” Days of American innocence. Little did we dream that one day soon Troisky would be commanding armies in the field at war; that he would next be stripped of the power and glory; that he would again flee to the New World. And yet that the long arm of Stalin would reach him ané@ knock out his brains even as he sat correcting proofs on his record of Stalin’s rise from bank robber to czar. Or that the dignified United States pub- lishing house of Harper & Bro., with the best grace it could muster, would actually with- hold that amazing story from publication because F. D. Roosevelt had the United States of America then deeply entangled in Stalin’s influence. Yet all these things happened, and so many, many more, that even the most severe editing of this running account cannot but mention them. Let it be noted then, merely that Trotsky in New York saw a fertile field in which to work. He later wrote: . “In the United States there is a large class of successful and semi-successful doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers and the like who divide their precious hours of rest between concerts by European celebrities and the American Socialist party.” He didn’t think them much and even called one of their leaders, Morris Hillquitt, a “Babbitt of the Babbitts.” But Trotsky builded more poisonously here than he knew, Secretly they admired him and in their minds they followed him when the czar’s government fell and Alexander Kerensky, the head of the temporary government, let Trot- sky come home. Incredible, fantastic, but still the foolish Kerensky let Trotsky come home. Once there, he joined at once with the poison flea, Lenin, to destroy Kerensky. Extension of Old Age and Retirement Benefits of Social Security Act to Sugar Workers Favored by Hawaiian Planters EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF . HON. JOSEPH R. FARRINGTON DELEGATE FROM HAWAII IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. FARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to.extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to present herewith the text of a statement presented to the Sen- ate Committee on Finance on March 22 by Ernest W. Greene, vice president of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Associa- tion. His statement follows: BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, UNITED Sratses SENATE, IN THE MATTER OF SocraL Szcuriry Acr REvisIon (Statement of Ernest W. Greene, vice presi- dent, Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Associa- tion, March 22, 1950) T am Ernest W. Greene, vice president of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association, of which all of the producers of sugar in Hawaii are members. The executive committee of the associa- tion, on March 13, 1950, unanimously adopted a resolution as follows: “Whereas the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate is presently conducting hearings on proposed amendments of the Social Security Act, and consideration is be= ing given by said committee to proposals for the extension of the coverage of said act to include persons not now receiving benefits provided by the act: Now, therefore, be it “Resolved, That this committee express to the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate the position of the sugar plan- tation companies of Hawaii in favor of the extension of the coverage provisions of the Social Security Act in order to entitle agri- cultural labor to the same old-age and retire~ ment benefits now received by other persons covered by the act.” The production of sugarcane and the proc- essing of raw sugar therefrom is necessarily @ large-scale operation under the conditions which exist in Hawaii. Persons employed by sugar producers are engaged in year-round employment in every phase of the farming and harvesting of sugarcane, transporting such sugarcane to the sugarmull on the plan~ tation farm, and processing it into raw sugar. About one-half of the employees of sugar producers are employed in employment which is covered by the present Social Security Act. The other half are employed in employment which is defined by the act as agricultural and, therefore, they are exempt from such coverage. Exemption in this instance means that many thousands of the persons employed in producing sugar do not participate in the penefits of social-security legislation. The sugar producers of Hawaii urge that the Committee on Finance amend the Social Security Act to extend to employees employed in agriculture the old-age and retirement benefits which are now received by persons who are covered by the act. We believe that coverage of agricultural workers will accomplish simple justice by af- fording to such workers the security which is now enjoyed by other workers who are employed in employment which is so classi- fled as to be covered. Mail Subsidies EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN R. WALSH OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I recently called attention to a scandalous situation existing in the Post Office Department having to do with subsidy payments made the railroads for transporting mail. Perhaps I should say payments to the railroads for not transporting mail, since they carry only about half of the mail they are paid to transport. For this fantastic situation we have the word of Postmaster General Donald- son himself. In my statement of April 21, appearing at pages A2902 and A2903 of the Concressionat Record of that day, I quoted Mr. Donaldson’s testimony to that effect in hearings before the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee. I am struck by the fact that in his order of April 17 reducing drastically the postal service furnished the American public, the Postmaster General did not complain about this condition. If the Postmaster General is interested in econ- omy, he should economize wherever pos- sible, without diminishing the service for which the American public is paying. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Postmaster General at least pays lip service to this principle. In his order of April 17, he states as follows: This Department is exerting every effort to provide for the public the best possible postal service at the least possible cost. We are taking advantage of every Known device or program that is suitable in the operation of the postal service, to improve the service, better the working conditions of the postal people, and reduce the operating costs. This, gentlemen, is what is known in law as a Self-serving statement. I ques- tion its accuracy. Laying off thousands of letter carriers by ordering the loads on the backs of the remainder doubled can hardly be described as “bettering the working conditions of the postal peo- ple.’ And it is no improvement in the postal service to cut mail deliveries in half. I fail to see how Mr. Donaldson can accomplish what he claims to seek by his order. If the postal service was operated efficiently before—and here again Mr. Donaldson says it was—this order does not make sense. It simply will not work. I also fail to see why the Postmaster General did not instead correct the scandalous railroad situation which he himself has admitted to exist. He pays approximately $250,000,000 annually to railroads for transporting mail; but he receives only half the service he pays for. Instead of seeking to double the load of the letter carrier, I assert the Postmaster General should have cut in half the payments made to railroads. He would save much more, and would only be doing his duty. But Mr. Donaldson did not do this, In fact, he denied that it could be done. In this same order of April 17, he said: About 96 percent of all expenditures in the operation of the postal service is for salaries and transportation costs. We in the Department have no control over either. Salaries are fixed by the Congress, and trans- portation rates are fixed by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Civil Aero=- nautics Board. There are those who disagree with this statement, and believe that the Post- master General is not as helpless as he claims to be. The General Accounting Office for one does not have its sym- pathies actively aroused at the spectacle of the Postmaster General pathetically pleading that his transportation costs are beyond his control; in effect, that he must order and pay for twice the amount of railroad service he needs. I have reference to a report of the General Accounting Office, filed only a few days ago with the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee, and en- titled, “Report on Study Made of the Round Trip Provisions of the Railway Mail Pay Act of 1916.” That report is 37 pages long, and con- tains 24 exhibits. It is most difficult but interesting reading. Much is said; but it appears that even more was left unsaid, because the General Accounting. Office did not attempt to report com- pletely on the transportation of mail by railroad. Had the report been intended to cover that subject completely, I am confident that a situation of extreme gravity would have been presented,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Railway Mail Pay Act of 1916 which governs the transportation of mail by railroad companies contains what is known as the “round trip” provision. That section of the law (39 U. S. Code 535) requires the Post Office Department to pay at the same rate for the return of a mail-storage car as was paid for its full cut-bound movement, provided the car 1s not used by the railroad for other trafic on the return run. Suppose the Department ships 50 carloads of parcel post from Chicago to Los Angeles, and uses only 20 of these cars to return parcel post originating in Los Angeles to Chi- cago. The remaining 20 cars, if hauled back empty, without being put to other use by the railroads, must be paid for at the full rate. There is before the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee a bull, S. 1596, oxfered to repeal this provision. That committee asked for the General Accounting Office Report to aid it in passing judgment on this bill. As I said before, many interesting facts are revealed by the GAO report. Among them is the fact that the Post Office De- partment has permitted the railroads to abuse this provision of law in such a way as to increase greatly the amount of empty space paid for. While some empty returns must under the law be paid for, this has been turned into a racket by the railroads with Post Office Department approval. It stands to reason that this must be aracket. According to Postmaster Gen- eral Donaldson, only half the space paid for is used. Not all cars carrying mail from Chicago to Los Angeles must be re- turned empty. The people in Los An-~ geles can write as well as read. Itisa fair assumption that in a random mo- ment some citizen of that fair city must feel the stir of a literary impulse, and write a letter to a friend in Chicago. Parcel post must be mailed east as well as west. There must be other traffic than mail which the railroads could use to fill the cars. Some reason for the tremendous empty space paid for is given at page 2 of the GAO report, which states: The study has indicated that cars carry- Ing full pay loads out do not return promptly, but are often directed to other use for the carrier’s convenience and substitute cars are returned, making it possible for the rail- roads to realize a greater income. The pro- priety of this practice is a possible question since the act (39 U. S. C. 535) does not ap- pear to anticipate such substitution. The substitution of cars further compli- cates the administration of the round-trip provisions. Many substitute cars are returned in freight trains and the trip is paid for at passenger rates. The operation of the round-trip provi- sions has resulted in numerous complex agreements, which assure the railroads full payment for all returned deadhead cars and empty space. In some instances the return movement is in advance of the out-bound loaded movement. What this boils down to is the fact that the Post Office Department has done what it can to pay the railroads as much money for the empty return of cars as possible. It has allowed them to sub-. stitute other cars for those in which the . mail was carried in the out-bound move- ment. It has even gone so far as to defy the laws of nature as well as those of this Congress by agreeing that the re- turn movement can precede rather than follow the initial movement. You and I must go somewhere before we can re- turn; Postmaster General Donaldson has hit upon a way to reverse this natural time order in the case of postal cars— when to do so means increased payments to the railroads. In my statement of April 21, I quoted testimony given under oath by the Gen- eral Superintendent of the Railway Mail Service of the Post Office Department. He testified that the determining fac- tor of his decision regarding railway mail service was the financial benefits that were accruing to the railroad, and that has been one of the policies of the Department. Mr. Hardy appears to be an honest man, on the witness stand. Yet, Mr. Donaldson states that transpor- tation costs are expenses over which he has no control. If that is so, why does he enter into agreements permitting substitute cars to be returned, which, according to the GAO, are for the car- rier’s convenience * * * making it Possible for the railroads to realize a greater income. Why does he permit substitute cars to be returned in freight trains, and pay for the trip at passenger rates? Why does he enter into numer- ous complex agreements which assure the railroads full payment for all re- turned deadhead cars and empty space? Is he working for the railroads or the Post Office Department? An agreement of the kind referred to is found in exhibit No. 6 accompanying the GAO report. The Santa Fe Railroad found itself faced with operating difficul- ties if it could not claim credit for empty return of mail cars from the west coast in advance of the arrival of the cars from east to west. In other words, this rail- road wanted to use its cars as it saw fit, and still claim every cent possible for deadhead cars. To this request the De- partment agreed. By virtue of its policy of aiding the railroads financially where- ever possible, it made sure that the Santa Fe could handle all other traffic and squeeze the last possible dollar from the Post Office Department. The Deputy Second Assistant Postmaster General agreed in writing, as follows: It is also our understanding of the space rules that the round-trip provision was written into law for the purpose of allowing railroads to claim deadhead pay for cars used in the initial movement for mail when these deadhead cars could not be used for other trafic. Therefore, we feel that the deadhead claims should be observed care- fully in all instances, in’ order to operate within the intent of our understanding of the law. Regardless, you may advise Mr. McNulty that we will allow deadhead pay for cars operated in train 8, in advance of the initial movement and if all space needed in train 8 is furnished for the handling of mail. Note carefully this letter. It states the author’s view of the purpose of the law; it then piously admonishes compliance with the law, and proceeds to approve a departure from the law. What is behind this? Does the author wish it under- stood that he is aware that he is giving A3487 something away, and, if so, why? Per- haps the answer is found in other testi- mony of John Hardy, general superin- tendent of the railway mail service, quoted in my statement of April 21. I quote this again: Well, all large railroads have what is known as managers of the mail and express traffic. The majority of those employees are former employees of the Post Office Department, railway mail service. It would be interesting to compare the salaries of these graduates from the railway mail service with the sums avail- able to them in the postal service. The Postmaster General entered the Post Office Department in Washington as Deputy Second Assistant Postmaster General, the branch of the Department handling railway mail transportation. A full investigation should be made of these conditions. I ask and call upon the Comptroller General to institute such a general investigation; and simulta- neously I urge prompt and affirmative action on House Resolution 547, intro- duced by me on April 21. Effect of Imports on Employment in the Glass Industry EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WAYNE L. HAYS OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I herewith present for the consideration of the Members of Congress the state- ment by Mr. Harry H. Cook, president of the American Flint Glass Workers’ Union, on his appearance before the Subcommittee on Imports and Employ- ment of the House Committee on Edu- cation and Labor. There is no question that imports of glass and pottery from slave-labor coun- tries such as Czechoslovakia and other jiron-curtain nations are having a crip- pling effect in the glass and pottery business in this country. Unless the Congress takes some action to limit this importation, these industries are faced with extinction. To allow these indus- tries to be squeezed out by this kind of competition it not only un-American but absolutely stupid and certainly un- desirable. STATEMENT PRESENTED BY Mr. Harry H. Coon, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FLINT GLASS WORKERS’ UNION, To THE Houss COMMITTEE ON Enuca- TION AND LABOR, STEED SUECOMMITTEE ON IMPoRTS AND EMPLOYMENT, May 6, 1950 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com- mittee: I appear for and represent the officers and members of the American Flint Glass Work- ers’ Union of North America. Our organi- zation was formed in 1878 and I am pleased to make the statement to you that we are one of the oldest labor organizations in the United States and that the industry {n which our members are employed and must depend upon for their livelihood is one of our coun- try’s oldest industries with its first factory at Jamestown, Va., in 1608. We are affili- ated with the American Federation of Labor.
A3488 I wish the committee to know that I have been a worker in the glass industry for the past 57 years, starting at the age of 10. I worked in glassware factories as a skilled craftsman for many years. For the past 34 years I have represented the workers in these industries as one of their international officers; the past 10 years as international president. While business generally is reasonably good, we find the American hand-made glass- ware industry in a serious condition and rapidly reaching the point of catastrophe be- cause of the damaging influence and effects of the importation of glassware produced by cheap labor in countries embraced by the Marshall plan and also bebind the so-called iron curtain. Imports need not be injurious but can in fact be very harmful. It is not only a matter of quantity but particularly one of prices. If we had competitive parity with imports, so that our domestic products would not be undersold in our own market, we would not face the constant threat to our wage standards that now confront us. The facts are that the extremely low wages paid in other countries, such as Japan and Czechoslovakia, not offset by lower produc- tivity, gives these countries a great price ad- vantage in this market. This advantage is not based on greater efficiency of the foreign producers, as some people would have you believe; nor is it based on greater skill of the foreign workmen. I am sure that we can match them in both these respects, but we cannot match their prices without sacrific- ing something that is the pride of America, namely, the high living standard that makes this country stand out alone over the rest of the world. This high standard of living makes us vul- nerable to the onslaught of low-wage pro- ducers abroad. This is to say, we cannot hope to compete on a wholly unequal wage basis. The only possible result of being forced to meet this competition is unemploy- ment, joblessness, poor working conditions and a gradual decline to the economic level of these foreign competitors. We are delighted, Mr, Chairman, to have this opportunity of appearing before a com- mittee that is interested in the employment angle of import competition, We have been coming down here for years and we might as well have saved our breath. We have simply been told in effect that if we cannot meet the competition that faces us we might as well face the music instead. The prevail- ing theory in the State Department seems to be that if an American industry cannot com- pete with imports the fault lies with the American industry. We are held to be inefficient, uneconomic, or to be marginal producers if we cannot meet the abominable wages paid in com- peting countries, Mr. Chairman, the fore- going is an unfortunate theory and to de- scribe our glassware Industry in this way is worse yet. The workers in our glassware industry are well paid. They are skillful artisans and we need offer no apologies to any workers anywhere else in the world. We do not believe that we represent the workers of an industry that might as well be dis- carded, the State Department to the con- trary notwithstanding. Until a year ago the glassware industry (pressed and blown branch) was getting along very well. However, Czech, Japanese, and German glass tableware has given us more and more trouble. Today there is acute danger of shutdowns and layoffs. The question is how far this must go before relief can be had, if any. Few, if any, of our American hand-pro- duction glass plants are operating more than 50 percent of normal capacity today. Many are operating far below 50 percent and some are about to close indefinitely. Many of these plants are in small communities which depend upon them to furnish employment and to support the needs of such communi- ties. In speaking for the more than 35,000 workers, I also presume to speak for the many hand-made glassware factories that constitute the industry as a whole repre- senting a heavy and vital financial invest- ment. Our workers are trained in glassmaking and not as production-line workers in auto- mobile factories or as steelworkers, or elec- trical workers. In the handicraft part of our industry individual skill still counts. Our workers retain the close connection between. workman and final product, the lack of which psychologists consider as one of the great drawbacks of modern industry. We are told by high authority in our Gov- ernment that if the American glassware in- dustry cannot survive the onslaught of im- portation they should engage in new busi- ness and that the displaced glassworkers will be afforded some kind of Federal unem- ployment relief while training for new kinds of work. Why should the American glass- ware industry be sacrificed and why should our highly skilled glassworkers be forced, and the thousands of other workers in the industry be forced, to depend upon extended Federal unemployment relief? Our Government, through its social secu- rity regulations, has repeatedly stated that a worker has the right to choose the kind of work he desires to do. Surely our people would, by the proposed arrangement, be de- prived of this freedom and be forced to ac- cept employment which they do not choose to accept. Our people are good Americans and splendid citizens. They should have the right to choose their place of employ- ment and should not be expected to submit to being moved like common cattle to other places of employment through governmental regulations as a matter of expediency. The State Department propagandists condemn the Russians for uprooting humanity by their transfers of large groups of people to new areas of employment yet they propose to force our good American glass workers to sell their homes, take their children out of schools and move into strange communities and accept employment contrary to their wishes. Are we in America all to become produc- tion-line workers, or are we to retain smaller industries in smaller communities scattered throughout the United States? Shall we no longer produce anything that will be worth possessing a generation or a hundred years later? Are we to succumb completely to ma- chinery and be deprived of all the arts of handicraft production? This is precisely what will happen if we cannot have proper protection in industries that still offer opportunity for handicraft labor. Apparently we are to be forced to ga to Europe or anywhere but the United States if we are to find any articles that embody individual skill, artistry, and craftsmanship. In the United States only machine-made products, which have no lasting artistic value, are to be produced, . We greatly deplore this attitude in those who have the power to say whether we will or will not survive. It almost looks as if they were more concerned about the wel- fare of foreign producers than about the well-being of our own. There is a very stubborn insistence upon further duty re- ductions despite the fact that we should find some remedy for cuts already made, where these have gone too far. The terms of trade treaties negotiated under the Trade Agreements Act have never afforded adequate protection to the Amer- ican glassware industry. It is more difficult now because foreign countries are deter~ mined to expand their prewar export trade and are coming into a position to do so. We have been told of the relief to be gained under the escape clause in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Unfortunately this would afford no help in the present situa- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tion. Immediate remedial action on foreign- made glassware is an absolute necessity if the American glassware industry and the wage and other standards of living of the American glassworkers are to be preserved. The wage rates in Czechoslovakia range from an average of 20 cents for unskilled workers to an average of 40 cents for skilled workers per hour in the glass industry. The rates in Japan are still lower, reaching down as far as 10 cents. The rates in Germany are higher than in Czechoslovakia but are still very low compared with our own rates, Swedish wages are higher than those in Ger. many, where average rates range from 36 to 45 cents per hour. This compares with an average of about $1.35 per hour in this country. Even if our workers were twice as produc- tive as the European, we would still be at a competitive advantage. In those of our factories where hand work still predominates we have little advantage, if any, over the Europeans, in productivity. In terms of quantity imports are not ex- tremely heavy. The 1949 imports amounted to slightly over $5,500,000, foreign invoice value. At our wholesale prices this would amount to roughly $10,000,000. According to the Census of Manufactures of 1947, employment in the pressed- and blown-glassware industry amounted to 42,170 persons; but no breakdown is given which would show how many of these are in the hand-made division of the industry. Hand- made articles amounted to about a half of the machine-made product in tableware and kitchenware classification. However, in em- ployment the two are probably more nearly equal. The effect of imports since the lush post- war market has disappeared is to create pres- sure on wages, hours, and employment. It also affects the question of old-age pensions, I can tell you that wage-wise we are definitely in competition with the low rates prevail- ing abroad. Unless this wage gap is bridged or unless some other limit is placed on im-~ ports the hand-made-glass factories face ex- treme difficulties and eventual extinction. We hope that you can do something to focus the spotlight on the nature of wage competition that will bring home to the pub- lic this fact: We can no more compete with 25- and 30-cent-an-hour wages in Europe and hold up our standards than we could compete with sweatshop wages in this coun~ try when they were still in existence. The employer who wants to pay decent wages can continue to do so only if he can hold his market against his substandard com-~ petitors. Otherwise he either goes out of busines: or lowers his standards. The latter is what we want to avoid. ‘We assure your committee of our appre~ ciation of the opportunity you have made possible for us to appear before you and pre- sent this present serious problem of a great American industry and a splendid American labor organization. Address by Senator Chavez at Albuquerque, N. Mex. EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. DENNIS CHAVEZ OF NEW MEXICO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be in- serted in the Appendix of the Record an
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD address delivered by me at Albuquerque, N. Mex., last Wednesday. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: ADDRESS BY Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ, UNITED STATES SENATOR, CHAIRMAN, SENATE Com-~ MITTEE CN PuBLIc WORKS, JEMEZ GROUND- BREAKING CEREMONIES aT STATE Farr GROUNDS, ALBUQUERQUE, N. Mex., May 3, 950 Judge Bratton, distinguished guests, fel- low New Mexicans, ladies and gentlemen: This day makes history for the State of New Mexico, but especially the Middle Rio Grande Vailey. The event that we celebrate is as impcrtant as the original trip taken by the lieutenants of Coronado in marching up the Jemez River to Jemez in the sixteenth century. Everyone should be happy in New Mexico teday. Iam. I have lived for this day when we could put into effect the efforts of many years of work by a creative citizenship of this valley and we will start the actual construc- tion of the Middle Rio Grande project. For years I have envisioned the time when the Rio Grande would be harnessed for its entire path through New Mexico. I have looked forward to the day when we could restore farming in the valley to its produc- tiveness of yesteryear. I have longed for the time when all of the communities from Pena Blanca to San Marcial would be free from fear of ficods and when our water resources could ke used for the benefit of mankind and not for destruction. I look forward into the future when the dams we will build up the stream will be generating power for the bene- fit of the people. Power—the golden touch which will bring prosperity to northern New Mexico. From this day onward we go for- ward. It is a historical moment. With humility I wish to say that I am proud of having fathered the Middle Rio Grande projec as you see it today. I recall the trials and tribulations when the local Middle Rio Grande Project was initiated, the hardships bringing about the program that has been made up to now. For the benefit of those who don’t know about the trials and tribulations which the pecple of the valley underwent, let me briefly review its history. For centuries the tireless waters of the river have brought floods and heartaches to the valley, destroying prop- erty, crops, homes, and at times destroying people. But until there was a greater density of population and until there was a greater investment in property, the floods were con- sidered unimportant. Growing numbers of livestock gradually denuded the grasslands. Water ran off more rapidly on bare ground than cff the lush when nature reigned. Through overgrazing of the ranges, the cut- ting of timber, and a multitude of human follies, the threats of floods of today was brought about. Today we are starting to undo the damage. As early as 1828 there was a recorded flood at Tome in New Mexico and El Paso in Texas. There were floods before that, but we do not have accurate historical data. You all know that we are gathered in the oldest continuously settled area in the United States. In comparison with the valley’s his- tory of over 400 years of European white civilization on this very ground, history of the Middle Rio Grande Valley project is short, indeed. After the coming of the rail- road, and also about the turn of the century, people began to worry about the flood threats of the Rio Grande. Lives, property, and crops were constantly in danger. Neverthe- less, because of an international situation which developed in the last century, there was an embargo on the construction of reser- voirs in the basin. The Elephant Butte Reservoir, which is the lifeblood of the lower Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico and the El Paso section of Texas was built and placed in operation in 1916, but not until a treaty had been agreed to with Mexico which guar~ anteed that Republic a certain amount of water from the reservoir; the complete em- bargo for construction was not lifted until 1925. That is as far back as we can reach to find our people really working to eliminate the constant threats of floods by the Rio Grande in this portion of the valley. In 1927 the State legislature enacted a law author- izing formation of conservancy districts, and in August of 1928 came the official plans for the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. Flcod control was one of the purposes of the district. It took courage by the people of the valley to create a local district and to get into debt to the extent of $11,000,000 in order to protect its people and property. Bonds were issued. Bonds had to be sold. The market wasn’t so good and the district was having quite a time. I’m going to let you into a secret. Senator Bratton, our hon- orable chairman of this meeting; the late Senator Cutting, and I, as your Representa- tive In Congress, finally prevailed upon the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to buy the bonds which made it possible for the district to conclude its work, But while there was this paving of the way which first furnished us with basic thoughts for the future, actually not too much could be done. The work was too vast. The Federal Government had a tre- mendous interest in the old river. Water was dear to the States of Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico, each trying to take care of its own, and sometimes little more than its own. Long series of conferences as between the States followed. Finally, in 1938, the Rio Grande compact was approved by Con~ gress, after ratification by the States of Colo- rado, Texas, and New Mexico. It was de- signed to permit the construction and op- eration of reservoirs above Elephant Butte. The Soil Conservation Service came into play with a report on soil and water in the valley watershed in Colorado and New Mexico. Even unpublished flood-control projects were made by the Department of Agriculture in 1940. It was about that time that I came to the conclusion that if we were to have actual flood control and an intelligent, thought-out plan for good construction, the Army engineers should be brought into the project—the Army engineers who had started this type of work from as far back as 1854 on the Sacramento River. Senator Josiah Bailey, of North Carolina, at my request signed an order authorizing the United States Corps of Engineers to make a survey of the problem and report as soon as possible. Remember that up to that time the only actual Government agency that had to do with the Rio Grande was the Buveau of Reclamation of the Department of Interior. To further advance the work of the Army engineers, legislation was intro- duced—legislation that I sponsored. My good friend, Senator Bailey, at the proper time brought out and reported the pill and it became the law. That was all very good, but what would actually count would be to get construction work going to carry out what was recommended in the re- ports pertaining to the surveys. In 1936 Congress passed the Reorganiza- tion Act. By said act there was created a Committee on Public Works which took over the functions of rivers and harbors and flood control, public buildings and public roads, formerly a duty of the Committee on Com- merce. The Reorganization Act first came into play during the Hightieth Congress. It became my good fortune to be assigned to said committee, which was then headed by Senator Revercomb of the State of West Virginia. The survey report of the Corps of Engi- neers, Albuquerque district office was sub- mnitted September 7, 1947, to the Chief Engi- A3489 neer in Washington. In the 4 years between the time that that survey was authorized, the middle Rio Grande project had gone through surveys and conferences on the problems; many plans of improvement; the Rio Grande compact was studied. They were also under the close scrutiny of the Governors of Colorado and Texas. They were all studied by the other Federal agencies— the International Boundary Commission, and so forth. The study and conferences by the States continued until April 5, 1948, at which time the Chief of the Army Engineers sub- mitted the plan to the Congress. On April 28, 1948, Senator Hatch, now Judge Hatch, and I joined in introducing S. 2571, to authorize the Chief of Engineers project and that of the Bureau of Reclama- tion for the Middle Rio Grande Valley. After that was introduced, the engineers and technicians for Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico got busy and walked up and down the halls of the Senate Office Building and they never had been busier—meetings here and meetings there, conferences with Members of Congress, discussing the project. New Mexico’s patience and the fact that we had a good, solid, sound project formed the combination which triumphed. Oscar Love, Fred Wilson, Hubert Ball, John Patrick Mur- phy, Phil Maestas, of Espanola, J. C. Crespin, and Holm Bursum, of Cocorro, Joe Tondre, of Los Lunas, Mayor A. F. Apodaca, of Bernalillo, and many others did a lot of fine effective work in diminishing the Colorado and Texas opposition. Again on May 17, 1948, Senator Hatch and I joined in introducing an amendment in the nature of a substitute to our original pill, the substitute meeting the objections of Colorado and Texas. On June 9, 1948, the substitute bill was reported to the Senate by the Committee on Public Works. The bill passed and became Public Law 858° of the EHightieth Congress when it was signed by President Truman on June 30, 1948. Let me divert for the moment while I tell you the following: I consider the Public Works Committees of the Congress as non- partisan committees. They are construc- tion committees and partisan politics do not have anything to say in discussing mat- ters of life and death of American citizens. Public Law 858 was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic Presi- dent because 1t was good. The law authorized the appropriation of $3,500,000 to be expended by the Depart- ment of the Army for the partial accom- plishment of the comprehensive plan for the Rio Grande Basin and what we are start- ing today is in keeping with that authority. We are starting a partial accomplishment of the comprehensive plan for the Rio Grande Basin. I have stated heretofore that the valley has been settled for practically 400 years. People living in many communities are the descendants of ancestors of 350 or 400 years ago. They have been here through the cen- turies. It has always been my thought since working in the interests of the valley that it was the duty of legislators to protect those people in their rights so that they could get some benefits and be the recipients of the great program brought about by the ex- penditures of Federal money. I want them to save their little land; I want them to save their property; I do not want the ad- vantage of what is being done today to go to speculators whose only interest in the val- ley 1s to make a profit out of the hardships and the work of others and for that reason I had inserted in Public Law 858 the fol- lowing language, which is the law of the Jand: “The Secretary of the Interior, in enter- Ing into a contract or contracts for the re- payment of the reimbursable construction costs of the Middle Rio Grande project, now estimated at approximately $18,000,000, shall
A3499 vary that amount to reflect changes in the estimates of those costs occurring prior to the date of the contract or contracts and in so doing may, if need be, extend the re- payment period beyond 40 years to permit payment of costs in excess of the present estimate. “Subject to the limitations of authoriza- tions approved from time to time for prose= ecution of this plan, approval is granted to the Secretary of the Interior to acquire, on behalf of the United States Senate, by pur~ chase or donation, agricultural lands owned by the State of New Mexico within the Mid- dle Ric Crerde provect and to develop those Jands ~Uox-ey. se ™ the manner outlined in the report of the Bureau of Reclama- tion referred to above. Lands so acquired shall be resold or leased by the Secretary to actual settlers for apvicu™urel -urrases under rules and regula bp a him which rules and ty torn otal ge out the prices and terms of such sales and leases, the qualifications required of purchas~ ers and lessees, and other matters relating to the disposition and use of these lands, and shall provide a preferred right to pur- chase or lease any tract of land to other- wise qualified persons of the following classes in the order hereby set out, purchasers in any class being preferred to lessees in that or any other class: “(1) The former owner or owners of such tracts, if his or their title thereto was divested by reason of sale for taxes to the State of New Mexico. “(2) Honorably discharged’*veterans of World War II who are the sons or daughters of the former owner or owners of such tract, if the title of said former owner or owners was divested by reason of sale for taxes to the State of New Mexico. “(8) The sons or daughters of the former owner or owners of such tract other than those referred to in (2) if the title of said former owner was divested by reason of sale for taxes to the State of New Mexico. “(4) Honorably discharged veterans of World War II and other than those referred to in (2). “(5) Persons other than those referred to in the clauses above. Any deed executed by the Secretary in favor of any person described under (4) or (5) shall provide that any per- sons described under (1), (2), or (3) shall have the right to purchase any land conveyed by such deed, within a period of 10 years after the execution thereof, by (a) paying to the owner the amount or amounts actually paid by him as consideration for such deed and for the actual cost of improvements on such land plus interest at the rate of 6 per- cent per annum on such amount or amounts, and (b) assuming any obligations of the owner to the Secretary with respect to such land. Any lease executed by the Secretary under the provisions of this section to any person described under (4) or (5) shall, by its terms, expire not later than 5 years after the date of its execution. The preferred rights provided for by this section to pur- chase or lease any lands shall continue to be applicable until such land is finally dis- posed of by the Secretary; but the right of any lessee or purchaser to enter into posses-~ sion shall be subject to any rights under any prior lease executed by the Secretary. Moneys accruing from the sale or lease of such lands shall be covered into the reclama- tion fund in the Treasury.” Yes, sir, the good citizens who lost their all around San Marcial and Clyde and Val- verde during the floods of 1928 are the ones that I want to protect. I want to see the owners of land around Socorro, La Joya, Ve- guita, Belen, Jarales, Los Lunas, my home town of Los Chavez, and all the communi- ties and citizens from Pena Blanca to San Marcial to recelve some of these benefits. That’s why I lose my temper and get annoyed with the heartlessness and the selfishness of the State tax commission that would sell out that class of people. I ask all of you people who are listening to me that I know believe in fair play and decency to help me in this behalf. Why shouldn’t the father of a boy who is buried in Guam, Okinawa, Anzio, or Luxemburg be vretected in his rights? Why shouldn’t that iype o. ho; who was fortunate enough to come back, not- withstanding his sufferings in behalf of the Stars and Stripes, be protected 1n his rights? Why shouldn’t his sister be protected in her rights? I know you will help because I know you’re decent. Of course, the speculator and the selfish and the greedy are always with us, but thank God they are in the minority, and even now, if there are any around, prob- ably feel ashamed. The people of the valley owe a debt of gratitude to the tireless efforts of many Federal Government agencies in bringing about the project, but none more so than the United States Corps of Engineers and the Reclamation Bureau. Each has its work to do but said work will be correlated only to the best advantage. I know the work of the Army engineers. I know its personnel and I, for one, want to give thanks for the help and cooperation that the Corps has given me throughout the years in my efforts to be of some help to the State. From the days of General Markham and Capt. Lucius Clay, now General Clay, continuing with Generals Reber, Reybold, Wheeler, and Pick, we have had cooperation. Even in the days of Conchas Dam construction, Capt. Hans Kramer was advising and cooperating. Col- onels Stratton, Rosenberg, Killian, and now McNutt, have unselfishly given their time and energy to be of help to the people of the valley. I can say the same thing for the Reclama- tion Bureau. From the days of Dr. Mead, of John Page, Harry Bashore, and Mike Strauss we have had the thought and cooperation and the efforts and energy of the Reclama- tion Bureau to be of help. Assistant Director of Reclamation Wesley Nelson, who was re- gional director at Amarillo, Tex., devoted many and many a day in trying to help solve the problem, and right here in our city with the Reclamation Bureau we have John Mutes, .a New Mexico boy from the Merino Valley in Colfax and Taos Counties, handling the work of that Bureau faithfully, honestly, energetically, and intelligently. I can vision the day when the work of those two Bureaus will be completed, when the Rio Grande Floodway will be concluded, Jemez and Chamita Dams actual facts, and it is not an idle dream that after the proper studies and understandings as between the States, the Chifio Dam in Taos County will be a fact. Since preparing the statement made up until now, there have been further develop- ments; further progress has been made in order to carry out the comprehensive plan for the basin. When the omnibus flood-con- trol bill was up for consideration in the House of Representatives, that body allowed the authorization of $84,000,000 for flood con- trol work. When the Senate Committee on Public Works considered the House bill we were able to prevail upon the said commit-~ tee that the House amount should be in- creased by $5,000,000 to the Army engineers and that an additional $30,179,000 should be authorized for the program to be prosecuted by the Reclamation Bureau of the Depart- ment of the Interior, The Senate approved that, but being that there was a difference between the House amount and the Senate amount the matter had to go to conference and only last Wednesday night that confer- ence was concluded and I am happy to an- nounce that the conferees agreed on the full amount of $69,179,000 authorized. So you see, great progress has been made because no appropriation above $3,500,000 could have been made without further authorization, which is now an actual fact, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ladies and gentlemen, I am thankful for the occasion. I am thankful to the people of the State who gave me the opportunity to be of service, which I shall continue to do until my trust in this respect is ended. Curtailment of Mail Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. KATHARINE ST. C£ORGE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I include an article by Mr. George Sokol- sky entitled “These Days.” THESE Days (By George Sokolsky) I received a letter from the postmaster telling me all about the reduction of the mail service. It is a mimeographed letter and takes two pages and an envelope. It must have gone to lots of folks and it must have cost a good deal of money. It was an unnecessary expenditure because I had read it all in the newspapers. That is where most of the bad news appears. What the Post Office is trying to say is that its inefficiencies having caught up with it, it hopes to solve the problem by becoming less efficient. A privately owned business would have to go into bankruptcy under such management. The Hoover Commission had prepared a detailed plan for making the Post Office an efficient operation. This plan had been worked out by competent men after thor- ough study. However, most of the plans of the Hoover Commission have been side- tracked. President Truman is for them, but also against them. He is for them in private con- versations; he is against them when it comes to legislative action. In fact, nearly every- body in Congress is for them up to the vote. We shall survive getting our mail once a day instead of twice. We shall also survive getting the mail in the afternoon instead of the first thing each morning. But it will only prove that the American standard of living is receding. I shall look at our very filthy streets and at no police being around when you need them, and at all sorts of break-downs of public efforts and say to myself: “Standards of living are going down.” For the standard of Ilving of a people ts to be measured as much by what one gets for the taxes he pays as by any other yardstick. The Post Office used to be the example par excellence ,of communal effort. In fact, the Socialists used to say that if a nation can run a post office so well, it can run the rail- roads and about everything else. But the fact is that the Post Office con- stantly costs more money and gives less service. We used to put a 2-cent stamp on an envelope and it traveled swiftly, in the horse-and-buggy days, everywhere in this country. Now we put a 8-cent stamp on the en- velope and accept casual handling. If you want to see, in a big city like New York, some real slow motion, put a special-delivery stamp on the envelope and telephone to find out when it arrived. All this is just lowering the standard of living. Or maybe it is due to a lowered tone. Now, Harry Truman’s homely attitudes have @ great appeal to me, because I like the Httle people of the earth.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Stuffed shirts bore me as they must most of you. But does Harry Truman have to wear that funny outfit when he goes to Florida? Every time I look at his picture down there— cap with the long visor, funny colored shirt, and the cane—I think of sports at an Atlan- tic City convention walking the Boardwalk of an evening to see what’s around, I just can’t help thinking of that. It does not mean that he isn’t a good guy maybe, but the tone 1s wrong. So maybe he sets the tone and by now it has worked its way down to everybody in government. Tone is a standard of living. There used to be a homely phrase, “high toned.” We don’t use it anymore. We no longer say “that 1s a high-toned family,” by which we meant that they were well set up, acting according to the traditions of the race, fine looking. Sometimes you have the feeling about high toned when you see the oldsters, but in our generation we level down. And that is exactly what our post office 1s doing. It is leveling down. Maybe the next reform will be mail delivery every other day or come to the post office to get it. Maybe they will set up some self-service machinery so that you can grab your own, like a cafeteria. Anything can happen when the standard of living goes down. And it can go awfully low. Happenings in Washington EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD MARTIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REcorD a newspa- per release of mine, dated May 8, 1950, entitled “Happenings in Washington.” The statement applies particularly to program No, 24. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: HaPrENINGS IN WASHINGTON—PROGRAM No, 24 This is Ep Martin, speaking to you from the Nation’s Capital, and bringing you an- other discussion of happenings in Washing- ton. I want to speak to you about something going on in Washington that’s important to the livelihood of everyone in our State. I want to talk to you about your jobs— how they are being affected by the tariffs we have now and the tariffs to come. Most of you know where I stand. For the others I’ll make my position clear now. I believe that the best guaranty of se- curity for the United States is a good job at good wages for every American worker. ‘I believe that every American should be gainfully employed at a wage scale sufficient to maintain the American standard of liv- ing. I believe in the expansion of the purchas- ing power of the American dollar so as to maintain a growing market for the products of industry and the products of our farms. That’s what I’ve always fought for. That’s what I’m fighting for now. That’s what I intend to keep on fighting for. You can’t have good jobs or good wages if the goods we produce must compete with commodities made by people who get only a@ fraction of your wages. And when enough of those goods, produced by cheap labor, are dumped on our shores, then you don’t have any job at all. For more than 15 years, we have operated under a so-called reciprocal trade system. Under that system our tariffs have been fall- ing lower and lower and lower. Today they are lower than at any other time in 50 years. The protection formerly given to the Amer- ican worker is being wiped out, slowly but surely. Nevertheless, the State Department an- nounced, just the other day, that we are about to make still further and deeper tariff cuts. Beginning September 28, the State De- partment announced, conferences will be held in England for the purpose of discuss- ing tariff concessions on 2,500 items. Seventeen nations in South America, Cen- tral America, Europe, Asia and Africa will take part. One of them 1s the Federal Repub- lic of western Germany. You may be sure that the outcome of the conferences will be a further flood of cheap jJabor imports to compete with goods pro- duced by our workers and our farmers. How does that affect Pennsylvania? I’m going to tell you. But first let me say something else to the millions of workers in our State, particularly those who have jobs in manufacturing plants. If there is any question in your minds that these tariff reductions endanger your jobs—well, just ask your unions. I’ve been hearing from union leaders. From the United Mine Workers, from the A. F. of L., and from the CIO. Your unions, too, are worried about your jobs. As long ago as 1947 and 1948 I was hearing from the lead- ers of locals of glass and pottery workers in western Pennsylvania crying out for protec- tion for the jobs of their members. Let’s consider a few specific 1tems, and I’m talking now directly to the skilled watch- makers of Lancaster, Pa. In the middle of the 1930’s, the United States was producing about 53 percent of the fine watches sold in this country—the high quality, jeweled watches. That was before the reciprocal trade agreements began to go into effect. Today about 85 percent of our jeweled watches and watch movements are imported. Today the Hamilton watch factory and the Elgin plants in the Midwest are the last two jeweled watch companies operating in the United States. There was a third until re- cently when the Waltham Watch Co. went broke under the pressure of foreign com- petition. Hundreds of highly skilled Amer- ican craftsmen lost their jobs. That is what happens to the well paid American worker when the bars are dropped. But that’s not all. The fine watch indus- try is important to our national defense. It builds up a reservoir of skilled men who can work on precision instruments that are vital to modern warfare. In the last war, Germany drew heavily on the skilled Swiss watchmakers for such work. Switzerland furnished the bulk of the precision instruments for the German war machine. .We were able to furnish our own. But what will happen if the cold war should turn into a hot war? What will hap- pen if the Red army sweeps across Europe? . Well, I expect the neutral Swiss will make precision instruments and sell them to the Russians. They’d have no other market. But what would happen to us? How would we obtain the necessary precision instru- ments? If you don’t know the answer, I suggest you ask the State Department. Yes, the jobs of our watchmakers and the skills needed to defend our country are being lost. They are pawns in this foreign policy game played by the State Department. A3491 The folks of western Pennsylvania hardly need to be told what has been happening to the china and pottery and glass indus- tries. Men laid off. Men working part time. I’ve heard from the unions out there and I know. Their jobs, too, have been made pawns in this game. And now they announce that in Septem- ber, they are going to cut still more the tariffs on tex*i'es. ~ctterr glass, china, chem- icals, rayon, :-:¢ . c* .: goods, clocks, fish products, wines, and dairy products. I wonder how many more Pennsylvania jobs will be lost in that fancy shuffle. I wonder how many Pennsylvania factories will be forced to post notices that they will be able to work only 2 or 3 days a week. In our State thousands of families are dependent upon the mining and preparation of coal for their daily bread and the roof over their heads. Things haven’t been too good for the miners. We all know that. There are several reasons for this, and I’m not blaming the reciprocal trade agreements for all of the present unemployment in coal mining. But I am blaming it for a part of the trouble. I am not alone in that stand. Nor does my support come from rich men who own mines. It comes from labor. It comes from the United Mine Workers, the rail- road brotherhoods and the CIO oil workers. This administration has let so much oil come in from foreign countries that the unions are up in arms. The coal people estimate that, Nation-wide, the heavy impor- tation of cheap oil—as allowed under the trade agreements—will throw 50,000 miners out of work. The railroads that hau! the coal will have fewer jobs for railroad men in our State and in the remainder of the country. An esti- mate has been made that up to 50,000 rail- road men may alco lose their jobs. And still they’re going to lower rates more and more, reducing another 2,500 duties in September. I say it is time for everyone in Pennsylvania to think 1t over. Eastern Pennsylvania is a leading center of hat manufacturing. That industry is in grave danger. Union officials have warned that the American hat industry is being crushed and the workers are faced with the Joss of their jobs. Why? Because of the imports coming largely from Czechoslovakia behind the iron curtain. Thanks to the sharp cut in tariffs, the im- port of felts jumped 300 percent last year. The textile workers in Pennsylvania and in. New England, as well as those of other States, are feeling the squeeze which is the consequence of this never-ending game of give-away—I mean give-away of your jobs, The farmer is feeling the weight. Chester County and Delaware County, in our State, are the Nation’s most important producers of mushrooms. Tariffs are being cut down to nothing on fresh and canned mushrooms. They are coming in—in great quantity. ‘We have millions upon millions of pounds of surplus dried eggs stored away in caves. Yet we are importing dried eggs from China. We have more butter in storage than we know what to do with, but we are importing putter. Ihardly need mention the great sur- plus of potatoes which we are destroying. Yet we are importing potatoes.. . The Government has bought up vast quan- tities of wheat, corn, barley, rye, and other agricultural commodities. But, under the re- ciprocal trade agreements, we are importing them. There’s trouble ahead for our farmers in that kind of situation. It can’t spell any- thing but trouble. Eut, in September, the jobs and livelihood of our farmers will be made a pawn again—when the State Depart- ment further reduces the tariffs on hundreds of farm commodities. When I ask here in Washington why we do these things, I get the same kind of answers
A3492 that many of you receive. Our people are told that we are strengthening our friends and allies. With that answer, the State De- partment seeks to justify its action. If that is so, IT ask—and you have every right to ask—why are the jobs of our people to be sacrificed to imports produced by slave jabor in Communist Russia and the other countries behind the iron curtain? Why are we letting them dump their sur- pluses into our markets? Why do we let this slave-labor merchan~ dise undersell the product of the American worker? Is Russia our friend and ally? Are Bul- garia and Rumania and Czechoslovakia and Poland and Communist China our friends and allies? Why should we strengthen them? We have been told that what we are buy- ing from those countries are strategic ma« terials—things we must stock pile for our defense. The truth is, my fellow Pennsylvanians, we are getting practically no strategic ma- terials from those countries now. Here are some of the things we have been importing from iron-curtain countries: Furs, shoes, rubber footwear, walnuts, and canned crab meat. Now I ask you, Is canned Russian crab meat a strategic material? Are walnuts from Communist-controlled Manchuria a secret weapon? Will we be unable to defend ourselves in the next war without rubber overshoes from Czechoslovakia? There has been convincing proof that most of what we get from Russia is turned out by slave labor and dumped in the United States to cause confusion in our markets and hurt our labor. We have a law in this country that we may bar goods produced by foreign slave labor. I say we should invoke that law to protect the jobs of our people. The Russians buy no frills from us. They don’t let our manufacturers or our farmers dump surpluses in their country. They don’t puy anything which will result in unemploy-= ment for their people. Why, then, do we allow the United States to be made a dumping ground for the iron curtain countries? Why do we allow that kind of competition? And remember, we are going to get more of it if the State Department further drops our tariffs. These trade agreements are not the only concern of our workers this year. ‘The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has begun hearings to determine whether the Senate should ratify the International Trade Organization charter. It is interest- ing that only two of the other 55 countries that took part in drafting the charter, have s0 far ratified it. The ITO, among other things, would force further tariff reductions among the countries, and would establish rules to govern and limit some types of tariffs. Of course, there is one invisible but ever present factor. We have learned from the reciprocal trade agreements, that other na- tions do not reciprocate. In case after case, other countries have withdrawn their con- cessions to us. Nevertheless, they continue to enjoy the full benefits of our concessions. I fear that the same situation would de- velop under an ITO and still more Pennsyl- vania jobs would be lost. I am strongly in favor of helping the free nations that are in need of assistance to re- store stability and to raise their standards of living. ‘Whether all of its objectives are achieved or not the outpouring of American wealth and resources under the Marshall plan will be recorded as the greatest humanitarian ef~ fort in world history. But I do not believe that the American worker, in addition to being burdened with high direct and hidden taxes, should be de- prived of his Job to bolster a foreign poligy which has not distinguished itself with outs standing success in the past. I repeat, the best guarantee of security is &@ good job at good wages. This is Ep MarTIN, speaking to you from the Nation’s Capital. I will be with you again in 2 weeks. Thank you for your attention. Reply to Harold E. Stassen by Senator Humphrey EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. CLINTON P. ANDERSON OF NEW MEXICO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a reply to Harold E. Stassen by the junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HumpHrey], broad- cast over the radio last night through the facilities of the American Broad- casting Co, There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: Rerp.y tro Harotp E. STASSEN (Radio address by Senator Huszrt H. Hum~- PHREY over American Broadcasting Co., May 9, 1950) Last week those of you who were listening to this network were subjected to a most extraordinary attack on the President of the United States. Some of you have been sym- pathetic to the criticism of Mr. Truman’s policies. Some of you may have shut off the radio. But I am sure that those who con- tinued listening were shocked at the type of attack which was made. I, myself, was deeply shocked. And per= sonally embarrassed. I come from the State of Minnesota of which I am justly proud. I am privileged to serve as a United States Senator from that State. So it was espe- cially difficult for me to realize that the slashing irresponsible attack poured out over the air came from a man who at one time had heen the Governor of my State—Mr. Harold Stassen. As a citizen and elected representative from Minnesota I wish to set the record straight. Mr. Stassen in no way spoke for the mil- lions of Americans who respect and admire their President. Nor did he speak for those Americans, who, at times, feel compelled to constructively criticize the President and his policies. He in no way spoke for the 3,000,000 citizens of Minnesota, the overwhelming majority of whom cast their vote for Presi- dent Truman in 1948, just as they have sup- ported the New Deal and the Fair Deal in every election since 1932. To be sure, the President has his political critics in Min- nesota, but I am proud to say that that criti- cism comes With good taste and with good manners. Effective and constructive criti- cism is essential to the preservation of de- mocracy. Irresponsible and reckless criti- cism is destructive of democracy. ‘ But Mr. Stassen did not criticize—he vill- fled. Distasteful as his methods were, and in his case under the circumstances strangely reminiscent of the fox and the sour grapes, the false charges of Mr. Stassen could easily be dismissed as the bitter voice of an ambi- tious but unsuccessful candidate for the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD office of President. We could have ignored these charges except for one thing. Mr. Stassen represents a pattern of political con- duct and political strategy which the dis. gruntled Republican Party is trying to de- sign out of the rags and tatters of their despair. For 18 long years they have tried every political trick in the book to win the support of the American people. Yes, tricks they have used—not program; trickery—not leadership. Their political sideshow has been repudiated. Having nothing of their own to offer the people of this country, in despera- tion they have decided to try to tear down what Mr. Truman has offered. Mind you, they offer no real alternative. They do not offer a constructive program. This attack was timed by the Republican leadership to discredit our President at the very moment that he was going to the people to make a direct report. The partisans of privilege do not want a President who speaks plainly and honestly to the American people, The representatives of privilege fear the democratic example of a President being with and speaking directly to the people. Yes, the Republican leadership well re. members that when President Truman last went to the people in that memorable cam-~ paign of 1948 the people came by the thou. sands to hear his message. That message was the program of the Democratic Party, The people accepted that message. They believed in their President. They demon. strated their belief and their faith in him by their votes. That message was the pro- gram of the Democratic Party. The people accepted that message. They believed in their President. They demonstrated their belief and their faith in him by their votes. Yes, in 1948 President Truman went to the people and said, “I believe in the people of this country and I believe in the principles on which this country was founded. I be- lieve in their right to work and to be healthy and to live decently. I believe that as a free people we have an additional responsibility to the rest of the world, and that, as a demo- cratic nation, we can and must help the other democratic nations of the world to prevent the aggression of communism.” But the President didn’t stop there. He told the people exactly what he proposed to do to make this possible. He spoke of housing legislation, of strengthening the So- cial Security Act, of increasing the minimum wage, of providing health legislation, and of enacting laws giving all citizens an equal opportunity to work. Since then the President has stood by his word. It is this which annoys, disturbs, and confounds the opposition. Could it be be- cause of the President’s integrity, his cour- age, his program, and his identity with the people that Mr. Stassen calls him, “the worst President ever to occupy the White House’? In his first message to the Bighty-first Congress, Mr. Truman presented a complete program which would carry out his pledges. In the field of foreign policy, he reem~ phasized the importance of an aggressive, constructive program of economic assistance to the democratic nations of Europe in their struggle against communism. He proposed a bold new program to help the underdeveloped and underprivileged areas of the world, so that they, too, might become strong and able partners with us in the fight for free- dom. The President sent to the Congress a series of measures to guarantee basic civil rights, and equality of opportunity to all people. He proposed the repeal of the Taft-Hartley law and the establishment of a fair standard of labor-management relations vital to a free economy. He outlined to Congress a comprehensive slum-clearance and housing program that met the needs of our low-income families, farmers, our middle-income groups and vet- erans,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The President requested of the Congress enactment of a broad health program. He had promised the people he would try to give them basic economic security, and true to his word, he sent to the Congress a bill raising the amount of monthly allowance for old-age insurance and expanding its coverage to include many people who now receive no insurance at all. Yes, Mr. Truman is fulfilling his promises, He has fought for his program. He has pre- sented to the Congress realistic proposals. Here we have a President who understands the practical, everyday needs of the Ameri- can people. Despite the bitter opposition of the Repub- lican party and their Dixiecra. friends in the Congress, real progress has been made. We have a new housing act which will help clean out some of the worst slums in the Nation and relieve the serious housing shortage. We have a new minimum wage law pro- viding for 75 cents an hour. We have moved forward in improving the Nation’s health. We have provided for the farmer—grain stor- age and price supports. Under the constant prodding of the Presi- dent, we have begun the difficult process of reorganizing and modernizing the govern~ mental machinery. And, before this Congress adjourns we shall do much more. But, some parts of the Fair Deal program have not been carried out. And who do you suppose is responsible? Not the President, who outlined the program. Not the support- ers of the Fair Deal, who voted for these pro- posals. Not at all, It is the members of the party to which Mr. Stassen and Mr. Gabrielson belong who have blocked good legislation—with the help of their Dixiecrat allies. It was this coali- tion, repudiated in the last election, that blocked repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and has successfully resisted the enactment of basic civil-rights legislation. It was this co- alition which defeated a proposal for middle- income housing. It is this unrepresentative coalition that defeats the will of the Ameri- can people. Now, a word about our foreign policy. First, I wish to pay tribute to the leadership of that distinguished Republican Senator from Michigan, ARTHUR VANDENBERG, for his mag- nificent efforts in attempting to breathe into the Republican Party an understanding of its obligations in the field of international affairs. I also pay honor to those who have joined with him in fulfilling the obligations of a bipartisan foreign policy. But, the Republican Party policy-makers, from its national chairman to its Senate lead- ers from Nebraska and Ohio, are leading the Republican Party back into isolationism. Oh, yes, they are unwilling to say they are isola- tionists—they just say they are economizers. With the world on fire, they think it is im- portant to save on water or to keep half of the fire-fighting equipment safely tucked away in the firehouse. The efforts to scuttle the Marshall plan come from the Republican leadership. The insults to our neighbors and allies come from that same leadership. The efforts to weaken. the reciprocal trade program come from the Republican leadership. The recent unsuc- cessful attempt in the United States Senate to defeat the important point 4 program of assistance to the underprivileged and under- developed nations came from the Republican side. The same Republican leadership that has initiated and encouraged an irresponsible and unsubstantiated attack on the State De- partment, would, by their votes and their ac- tions, scuttle our most effective weapon against world communism—the Marshall plan, , This is their official record. What is the program of the Republican Party? What constructive proposals are they offering the people? A careful analysis will reveal there is no program. ‘There are no proposals. But there surely is a campaign strategy. It is imperative that every American iden- tify this Republican strategy for what it really is—a strategy to deceive, to confuse, to bewilder, and to frighten the American people. We have seen this strategy unfold itself under the guise of such terms as welfare state, statism, socialism, regimenta- tion, and communism. These scare words have been hurled about with reckless irre- spcnsibility. This is but the beginning of a frenzied effort to stampede the American people into a state of confusion and fear. They are unwilling to clarify the issues. The Republican leadership is unwilling to tell the American people for what it truly stands. Well, let me tell you. What the Republican Party really opposes is a program to provide a decent minimum of economic security for the American people. This is what they mean when they cry, “welfare state and socialism.” What the Republican leadership really opposes is a constructive program to increase the living standards of the American people through the cooperative efforts of a government of the people working with the people. This is what they mean when they shout regimenta- tion and statism. Yes, what the Republican leadership really opposes is a program to strengthen the democratic nations in Europe and Asia in their struggle against world com- munism. Well, our President is on the road again taking the issues to the people, calming their fears, and reaffirming their faith. The President will have the opportunity again to warn the people in these dangerous moments of the world that American de- mocracy has grave responsibilities. He will speak in the spirit of Franklin Roosevelt, who, in the dark days of 1938, cautioned us with this following message: “We in America know that our demo- eratic institutions can be preserved and made to work. But in order to preserve them we need * * * to prove that the practical operation of democratic govern~ ment is equal to the task of protecting the security of the people.” Our President and the Fair Deal program are committed to the welfare of the people, for we know that as a nation we are only as strong as the people. More on McCarthy EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, the Burlington Free Press in a recent editorial comments on the McCarthy charges against the State Department. Mr. Pat Dunn, the editor, very clearly calls the turn on this situation. I agree with the thesis of the editorial in ques- tion and I am extending it as part of my remarks at this point: More on McCartry . “Politics makes strange bedfellows,” is a saying that is as old and as true as most things in our finite world. And don’t they, though? Segments of our daily press are trum- peting right in chorus with the Commie rag, the Daily Worker, that McCartuy is doing the country’s foreign relations “irreparable A3493 harm” and his “unfounded accusations” are destroying American prestige abroad. Many of the phrases used in the editorial columns of the Red rag and of these great “independent” dailies are interchangeable and seem to be lifted, one from the other. We are astounded at the slavish devotion to so silly a cause of great dailes such as Milwaukee’s biggest paper. Hating Mc- CartHy since he opened his political career, they now lead a chorus in condemning his work and his investigative actions. Perhaps the metropolitan press has grown too big and too lofty and too far out of touch with the little people? They may echo the sentiments of the international set and of the present regime, but we give them odds they are off base 3 feet, in the opinion of most little people. - Damage to American prestige was done, we repeat, by the type of diplomatic repre- sentative the Roosevelt-Truman regime has employed. Some 90 individuals of a certain type suddenly kicked out of the State De- partment, employed there Lord knows how long—perhaps these, apparently the best the country could dig up to represent them before other nations, are what gave Hitler the idea ours was a degenerate nation. And then, the sudden gymnastics of the State Department in switching to the Marshal Tito faction in Yugoslavia and let- ting this vicious vindictive Communist give the business to our wartime ally in that nation. And now, China, where Chiang is a bum and not the great war year fighter for four freedoms. For our money, the whole four freedoms had a phony ring from the start as long as Communist Stalin was a sub- scriber thereto. The great trust of our State Department in Russia through these years, if not indi- cating a betrayal, at the kindest, indicates an ignorance not in keeping with so-called leaders in our Government. Great Campaign of Trath EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimou. consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp the text of an editorial from the Christian Science Monitor entitled “Great Campaign of Truth,” which was reprinted as a public service by the International Latex Corp. in the New York Herald Tribune on April 27, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: [Editorial from the Christian Science Monitor] GREAT CAMPAIGN OF TRUTH President Truman is displaying a gratify- ing awareness that the struggle with Soviet imperialism is basically mental. Real gains for the free peoples will begin to appear as the attitude he expressed in his excellent speech to the American Society of News- paper Editors is carried into action. Mr. Truman said that he had already directed the Secretary of State to plan a more ef- fective national effort to use the great power of truth in working for peace. The Soviet system does not even have the interest in truth which caused Pilate to
A3494 ask, “What is truth?” It denies the whole concept of objective and permanent truth, and sets up instead a party line—defined from day to day by the Politburo. It is car=- rying on a vast offensive of suggestion, mis- representing, and vilifying the free na~« tions, particularly the United States. To deal with this aggression Mr. Truman calls for a great campaign of truth to be heard round the world. He wisely recognizes that government can and should do only a part of this job. But that part can be vastly improved and ex- tended. On its educational and informa- tion program the United States is spending less than $40,000,000 a year, compared with $15,000,000,000 for arms and $4,000,000,000 for economic aid abroad. Recently the House Appropriations Committee cut the funds for these purposes. Does this sound as if the American people yet understood the real nature of the struggle for the minds and loyalties of men? Some competent observers believe that Russia is winning the war of ideas. Almost anyone who has been abroad in recent months has seen instances where American infor- mation and propaganda is outmatched hy Soviet money, fanaticism, and effrontery. For instance, millions of “neutrals” were fed Moscow’s bald “protest” about an American plane invading Russian territory and shoot- ing at Soviet planes. Washington’s sharp answer will be accepted by many, but it should have come faster and with more sup- porting evidence. It is becoming harder and harder to pierce the iron curtain. The satellites are closing down American information services. Russia is spending huge sums trying to jam the Voice of America broadcasts. Senator BEN- ton has urged a world-wide network capable of putting America’s story into every radio receiver in the world. He also urges docu~ mentary movies for at least one-fourth of the earth’s population each month. These are ideas well worth exploring, Much of the job must be done by private agencies—newspapers, magazines, radio, and movies. These are often given more credence than official information. They, too, need improvement. Too many times commercial- ized sensationalism or partisanship gives a distorted picture of America. Some movies are particularly damaging, even those which are useful at home in showing up abuses and injustices. Possibly one answer would be in a semipublic, nonprofit agency de- signed to tell democracy’s story but avoid an official line. Fundamentally, our hope lies in the power of truth. Our part is to seek it, adhere to it, and trust it. As we come to understand better that absolute truth is nothing less than God, the disposition to do that should be increased. We should then be less dog- matic, less ready to follow the Russians in taking a party line from one source, more willing to give unorthodox views a hearing. We should then listen more eagerly for truth and insist that it be strictly adhered to in presenting America’s story to the world. Acheson Persuaded To Stay EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REcorp the column appearing in this morning’s Washington Post by that eminent and fair-minded columnist, Mr. Marquis Childs. I regard this article as an eloquent expression of why it is so difficult to keep able men in key Government positions, and it is likewise testimony to the selfless devo- tion to duty of our distinguished Secre- tary of State in the face of almost in- credible assaults upon his character. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: THE Hate CHorus—AcHESON PxrrsuaDED To Stay (By Marquis Childs) It is a strange commentary on the times that on one side of the stage in the present drama of foreign policy—war or peace—is the same cast of characters that played the same role in the years immediately pre- ceding World War II. They might be called the hate chorus. They are a weird blend of ex-this and ex- that; of chi-chi individuals who cling to the social label and very important Republicans, In 1988 and beyond they were in America First and they hated Roosevelt. This time they consider the President beneath their contempt. Their hate and their malice are concentrated on Secretary of State Dean Acheson. At a charming little dinner party given by a soloist in the hate chorus recently, Acheson’s resignation was gleefully predicted even down to the number of days preceding the date on which he would be forced out of office. The prophet in this instance was one of the oddest characters in the group who has since been removed from the pay- roll of the Central Intelligence Agency; the last being an eventuality that may have been hastened by the fact his name was on one of Senator McCartHy’s.lists. How much this prophecy derived from wishful thinking, compounded with psycho- pathology of a complicated nature, probably only a good psychiatrist could determine. But, in actual fact, the event this crew have so worked for and longed for came closer to happening than they could have known. Not long before he left for the series of European conferences now in progress Ache- son called on the President. The prolonged and nagging quarrel in Congress with all its savagery had deeply depressed him. He had a heartsick feeling that perhaps his useful- ness was at an end. While it has been for the most part out- side the scope of the news, Acheson has in recent months been under a great personal strain in addition to everything else. One of his two daughters, Mrs. William P. Bundy, has been undergoing a series of major opera- tions in connection with a grave illness. This may have been one of the reasons why, as he told the President, he felt he could not and should not continue as Sec- retary of State. ‘The President’s response was immediate and unequivocal. He re- plied that whatever Acheson's personal wishes might be, he could not resign. The President. went on to say that he understood Acheson's feelings very well. To serve in high office in times like these was to take personal abuse of an unprecedented nature. But under the circumstances there was no choice but to go on. It was a duty not merely to people here at home but to free people everywhere. You've got to stay here, Dean, and fight both the Communists and the Republicans, the President is reported to have said in conclusion. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The President was in a fighting mood and he conveyed to his Secretary of State some- thing of this same fiery determination. Acheson left for Paris feeling better about the struggle to maintain some unity of policy at home and the struggle to maintain some unity of purpose among the western allies in Europe. There was, of course, not a little politics behind the President’s pep talk. He well knows that Acheson’s resignation, no matter what the real motives, would be taken by the McCarthy-Wherry-Taft wing of the Repub- lican Party as a victory and everything would be done to make it appear as a confession of guilt. Between the President and his Secretary of State it seemed to be settled that there would be no change—certainly not before the elec- tions of November 7. This means that there is not likely to be any change in or expansion of policy. And it is just here that one comes to the crux of the tragedy. The policy being pursued today is not big enough or bold enough in relation to the threat of total war; a threat that seems to grow more real and more imminent with each day that passes. Both in theory and in prac- tice the policy of containing communism through strength is inadequate. The policy of strength should be related to a far-reach- ing peace Offensive carried to all peoples everywhere. Perhaps no course whatsoever can avert destruction. But if there were an all-out effort to avert it, then at least there would be the satisfaction on the day it happened that everything humanly possible had been done on our side to prevent it. Truman at Lincoln EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD J. THYE OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. THYE. Mr. President, there ap- peared in the Washington Post this morning an editorial which I think is very good. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Appendix of the RECORD, There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorn, as follows: [From the Washington Post of May 10, 1950] TRUMAN aT LINCOLN It is significant that President Truman elected to give the first major speech of his “nonpolitical” tour at Lincoln, Nebr. That is in the area where farmers have begun to grumble about price declines, and it is not far from the region where blowing dust and insects have seriously damaged the winter wheat crop. Mr. Truman’s remarks thus can be taken as a preview of the administra- tion’s campaign to retain the farm vote. Not surprisingly at all, that campaign is based on the something-for-everybody formula of the Brannan plan. Evidently the adminis- tration is relying on price declines to bring farmer pressure on legislators who so far have refused to take the plan seriously. A lot of nonsense has been written about the Brannan plan, and the President had a point in decrying the charges of regimen- tation. Any governmental program neces- sitates some controls, and it is the lack of
APPENDIX TO.THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sufficient controls that has in part been re- sponsible for the disgraceful potato glut. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the Bran- nan plan would bring more direct depend- ence on the Government for farm income. That may not be regimentation, but it is scarcely the way to bring about greater con- trol by farmers of their own destinies—a point Mr. Truman dwells upon. Moreover, the more governmental control there is, the more disastrous can be the effects of misjudgment—and that is where the pos- sibulity of ruinous cost comes in. Most interesting is the President’s refer- ence, with apparent alarm, to the fact that farm prices have fallen 20 percent in the last 2 years. It is quite true that if farm prices were to plummet, it would be diffi- cult to stave off a depression in the rest of the economy. Nevertheless, Mr. Truman speaks of price declines as if the highs of 2 years ago were normal. In point of fact, they were all-time highs occasioned by tre- mendous foreign demand, and what has taken place since is largely healthy read- justment. It is on this point that the Brannan plan runs into perhaps its greatest difficulty in light of technological advances, new” seeds and fertilizers and changes in farm patterns, many farm products are simply not worth even what they cost today. Yet under the Brannan plan many of the sup- port levels would be even higher than under the present system. In other words, in- stead of bringing flexibility in supports, the Brannan plan would compound the rigidity by giving permanency to overvaluations. Consumption of perishables might be stimu- lated by lower prices to consumers—made up by Government payments to farmers charged against the taxpayers—and some overproduction might be checked by quotas. But it is hard to see how the shifts in pro- duction, better soil conservation and stim- ulus to more efficient farming the President talks about could be attained under a sys- tem which would make it more profitable for inefficient marginal producers to stay in business. Should President Take a Hand in Congressional Contests ?—-Minnesota Poll EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD J. THYE OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. THYE. Mr. President, there ap- peared in the Minneapolis Tribune on May 7, 1950, what we call the Minnesota poll. I think this would be of some in- terest to all Members of Congress. For that reason I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Rrecorp. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Minneapolis Tribune of May 7, 1950] MiInwesoTa Pot~t—56 PERCENT Say PRESIDENT SHOULDN’r TaKE ANY PaRT IN CONGRES~ SIONAL RACES A majority of Minnesota voters think Pres- ident Truman, who leaves today on a 9-day, 1G-State speaking tour, should take no part in congressional election contests, the Min- nesota poll finds in a State-wide survey. Fifty-six percent say the Fresident should adopt a hands-off policy toward such con- tests. But 39 re-cer* co2*+71d that, as head of his party,*.> 7 «.c. . has a duty to help elect as many members of his party to Con- gress as possible.” The remaining 5 percent are undecided or offer different answers. Democrats call the President’s scheduled tour nonpolitical in character but Republi- cans assert it will be a political mussion. Observers point out that the President’s route will take him through congressional districts in which Republican Congressmen are in the majority. Views of Minnesotans on the question whether the President should or should not use his influence in congressional races were obtained in a survey in which a representa- tive cross section of the State’s men and women 21 years of age and older was ques- tioned. Interviewers, calling attention to the Presi- dent’s tour, handed each person a card bear- ing two statements and asked: “With which of them do you most agree?” The statements were: Statement A: “As head of his party, the President has a duty to help elect as many members of his party to Congress as possible; therefore he should help them in their elec- tion campaigns.” Statement B: “Because he is President, he should not take any part in congressional election campaigns in the various States.” These are the results: Percent Choose statement A-..-.-..--.~-------- 89 Choose statement B._..-..-.-.---~---- 56 Other answers.__----.-------~~-~------ 2 No opinion_--.._..------------~------- 3 100 People who give other answers say “as President, he can do anything he wants to,” or “both parties have always done it and I suppose he has the same right, regardless of how we feel about it,” or “he should not be called upon to do this as he has enough to do now.” Democratic-Farmer-Laborites are inclined to favor the position that the President should help to elect as many members of his party to Congress as possible, but Republi- cans and independent voters differ: ——— ‘Democratic : Laborites al Percent Percent Percent Statement A-...- 50 26 35 Statement B__..- 47 69 58 Other answers... 2 246 1 No opinion....... 1 234 6 Total_....-- 100 100 100 A Faribault farm woman thinks that if he got more Congressmen elected who agreed with him, he would get more done. A Duluth man comments that he has to have someone to help him. And a Minneapolis man believes that his speaking would not influence the vote just because he is Presi« dent. But another Minneapolis resident thinks the President should not participate in con- gressional campaigns, saying, “Let the peo- ple decide on candidates without the influ- ence of the President.” A LaSalle man says, “This is a democracy; the people should make their own decisions.” A Worthington man thinks he should stay in the White House where he belongs. Majorities of the city, town, and farm people interviewed in the study indicate they think the President should not campaign for congressional candidates, A3495 Respectful but Despairing Plea to Mr. Truman EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. J. GLENN BEALL OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. BEALL. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include an edi- torial from the Baltimore Sun, Balti- more, Md., of May 9, 1950: RESPECTFUL BUT DESPAIRING PLza To MR. TRUMAN Those whose memories go back 2 years will remember that Mr. Truman’s last campaign tour was a great political success. When it started, the President faced almost certain defeat. When it ended, the tide had turned and victory was 1n sight. The only trouble with the tour was that it was so expensive to the taxpayers. Mr. Tru- man had to make so many promises to the various pressure groups that making good on them has given the country a succession of enormous deficits. The famous dollar gap of Europe is small compared to the dol- lar gap which Mr. Truman has presented to the United States. Now Mr. Truman is off on another tour. He is going to visit those States where the outlook un November is least hopeful for his party. He will be tempted to bring those States into line by promising them more money out of the public vill. Is it too much to ask the President to restrain his generous impulses? Already he has brought the country to the point where people are beginning to ask questions about the value of the dollar. A few more billion- dollar promises and national bankruptcy will be in sight. Fifty-five Thousand Communists Aided by 500,000 Fellow Travelers Seek To De- stroy the United States EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, last week the Grand Lodge of Masons presented a grand lodge medal for dis- tinguished achievement to that out- standing American, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation. As part of my remarks, I am including an extract from an address given by Mr. Hoover on that occasion. There can be no doubt that J. Edgar Hoover has first-hand knowledge about communism and Communists in this country. The extract in question ap- pears in the current issue of the United States News and World Report. Firty-Five THOUSAND COMMUNISTS (By J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI) The times demand candid and forthright words. Communists have been and are to- day at work within the very gates of Amer- ica. There are few walks in American life
A3496 which they do not traverse. Their allegiance is to Moscow; their hopes are spurred by the Writings of Marx and Lenin, not Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln; their enthusiasm is whetted by expediency and deceit, not toler- ance and brotherhood. Atheistic material- ism is their idol; the destruction of the God of our fathers their goal. Wherever they may be, they have in common one diabolic ambition: to weaken and to eventually de- stroy American democracy by stealth and cunning. Theirs is an organization built and supported by dishonor, deceit, and tyranny and a deliberate policy of falsehood. They know that as long as the ideals of com~ mon endeavor, mutual respect and tolerance remain alive they can never bring to fruition the Communist world revolution. That is why Communists consider America their No. 1 enemy. A strong America, materially and spiritually, is a constant beacon of light, buoying the hopes and aspirations of millions of men, women, and children crushed under the yoke of Communist tyranny which today controls the destinies of one-third of the peoples of the world. The Communists possess a well-Knit, closely disciplined, destructive force of ap- proximately 55,000 members in the United States. In actual numbers, their member~ ship may not be large, nor have the Com- mounists polled at any time a large number of votes in an election. This has been cited by the ignorant and the apologists and ap~ peasers of communism in our country as minimizing the danger of these subversives in our midst. The actual strength of the Communist movement in the United States is not something that can be accurately stated in fust so many figures. It has to be measured largely by the general mass influ- ence of the party and its program. We no longer measure the importance of revolu- tionary organizations by size. In some places where there are only one or two men, more results are obtained than where they have larger organizations. But, behind this force of traitorous Com- munists, constantly gnawing away like ter- mites at the very foundations of American society, stand a half million fellow travelers and sympathizers ready to do the Commu- nist bidding. These individuals, though not identified as Communists, are extremely dangerous to the internal security of this Nation, because as hypocrites and moral swindlers they seek the protection of the freedoms which they constantly seek to de- stroy. They represent, for the Communist movement, a source of wealth; financial re- sources; the creation of valuable contacts; levers of social, economic, and political pres- sures; recruiting grounds for espionage in- formation and agents. Moreover, they do their work anonymously, in “front” organi- zations, and wherever they can exert the greatest influence, each doing his share to the best of his ability. These individuals are difficult to detect. They are disdainful of ‘ the very tolerance which enables them to betray their country. They practice their double-dealing, double-minded, double- tongued, and double-faced tactics on all fronts of our American life, whether it be in politics, in labor, in the press, in radio, in motion pictures, in the schools, or even in some of our churches. The Communists have their membership concentrated in certain key areas of the United States—primarily in strategic indus- trial and population centers. This mem- bership is coordinated through a national leadership and a dedication to an alien hate which looks abroad for its direction. If ad- ditional personnel, perhaps for a political pressure campaign, for infiltration into a labor union, or for a militant educational program, is needed, National Headquarters of the Communist Party will peremptorily transfer members, temporarily or. perma= nently, into the strategic area, Communist members, body and soul, are the property of the party. They scorn the standards of American democracy. They function like puppets on a string, ready at a moment’s bidding to execute the will of the directing master—the Red “Hitler” at Moscow. The party, thereby, through mo- pility, central direction, and the disciplined fanaticism of its converts can, at any given moment, achieve power and strength in a limited sector. At times, this pressure is so well organized and expertly supervised that the Communists achieve gains out of all pro- portion to their numerical strength. That is the secret of Communist success; the tragedy of democratic resistance. If every American faced the reality of what the fulfillment of the Communist objectives would mean to him—he would be inspired to work harder to protect and preserve the in- dividual liberty and freedom which is part and parcel of our American way of life. President Truman Again Asks for Action on Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii in This Session of Congress EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF : HON. JOSEPH R. FARRINGTON DELEGATE FROM HAWAIL IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. FARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include the text of a letter addressed by President Truman to Senator Josrer# C, O’MaHoNneEY, chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, urging the approval of bills to give statehood to Alaska and Hawaii. The letter follows: My Dear SENATOR O’MaHoNEr: I am highly gratified by the thorough and objective con- sideration which your committee is giving to H. R. 331 and H. R. 49, bills which would enable the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii to take their rightful place as members of the Union. As you know, I have long sup- ported the objectives of these important bills which carry out the pledges made to the people of the two Territories. I sincerely hope that the Congress, during its present session, will enact legislation granting statehood to Alaska and Hawaii. The need is more urgent today than ever be- fore. By such action, we will not only pro- mote the welfare and development of the two Territories, but also greatly strengthen the security of our Nation as a whole. It should not be forgotten that most of our present States achieved statehood at a relatively early period of their development. The stimulus of being admitted as full part- ners in the Union, and the challenge of managing their own affairs were among the most significant factors contributing to their growth and progress. RESOURCES ARE STRESSED Very few of our existing States, at the time of their admission to the Union, possessed potential resources, both human and na- tural, superior to those of AlasKa and Ha- wail. I am confident that Alaska and Ha- waii, like our present States, will grow with statehood and because of statehood. There is no necessity for me to repeat at this time the arguments for statehood. The- many qualified witnesses who have appeared before your committee have, I am sure, pre- sented convincing evidence both as to the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD need for and the tangible benefits to be derived from statehood. There is, however, one objection made by opponents of H. R. 311 and H. R. 49 which I believe requires further discussion because it goes beyond the question of statehood and raises a fundamental constitutional is- sue. I am referring to the objection that Alaska and Hawaii, as States, would be en- titled to representation in the Senate of the United States disproportionate to their pop- ulation. This argument is not only entirely without merit, but also directly attacks a basic tenet of the constitutional system under which this Nation has grown and prospered. Without the provision for equal representation in the Senate of all States, both great and small, regardless of population, there probably would have been no United States. NO ISSUES DISCERNED This was one of the great compromises which the Federalist says was a result not of theory, but of a spirit and amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation ren~ dered indispensable. There is no justification €or denying statehood to Alaska and Hawali on the basis of an issue which was resolved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787, America justly takes pride in her record of fulfilling to the letter its obligations to foreign nations. We should be no less scru~ pulous in carrying out the promises made to our own citizens in Alaska and Hawaii. The case for statehood rests on both legal and moral grounds. These are troubled times. I know of few better ways in which we can demonstrate to the world our deep faith in democracy and the principle of self-government than by admitting Alaska and Hawaii to the Union as the forty-ninth and fiftieth States. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman. Attacks on United States Foreign Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS by HON. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, with permission to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I attach two newspaper accounts of a significant address made in Mil- waukee May 5 by George F. Kennan, counselor of the State Department and generally acknowledged to be the author of the policy of containment of Soviet Russia. It is noteworthy that although Mr. Kennan did not mention Senator McCartHy’s name in his address, two of the country’s most distinguished inde- pendent newspapers simultaneously in- terpreted his remarks as a rebuke to “McCarthyism.” The first of the arti- cles is by James Reston, and appeared in the New York Times May 9; the second is an editorial which appeared in the Milwaukee Journal of May 7. {From the New York Times of May 9, 1950] KeEeNNAN Sars UNFaIR ATTACKS IMPERIL UNITED Srarus ForeIicn Pourcy—THey Atso TEND To Cause Srare Dzurarrmenr To Kzep PLans SECRET, COUNSELOR DECLARES : (By James Reston) WaSHINGTON, May 8.—George Frost Ken= nan, counselor of the. State Department, is that rare Washington creature: a man who
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD writes his own speeches and does not hesitate to include therein a little history, some op- jective criticism and one or two ideas. The net result of this unorthodox approach is that what he writes often has a delayed reaction. He did a piece for Foreign Affairs a couple of years ago under the pseudonym of Mr. X, which was ignored at first and even- tually recognized as 2 detailed and authelitic account of the policy of containment toward the Soviet Union. He later delivered an address before the Academy of Political Science in New York that defined the possibilities and limitations of this country’s foreign economic aid policy. This, too, was overlooked at the time, but now stands as the most informative and re- liable official document on the subject. Nevertheless, although he went to Mil- waukee last week-end and delivered another reflective essay on United States policy in China and the consequences of McCarthyism, his remarks lost out in competition with other news and were scarcely reported at all in this part of the country. MAIN POINTS ARE LISTED Mr. Kennan had a little advice, not only for private citizens but for his colleagues in the Government as well, His main points were as follows: 1. The charges against the State Depart- ment should not be ignored. They have disturbed the American people because the people are beset with serious doubts and questions about American foreign policy that have not been answered to their satisfaction. 2. There is generally a great time-lag—as much as 5 or 10 years on the average—be- tween cause and effect in major foreign policy developments. This fact is not gen- erally understood by the people. As a result, they tend to demand results too fast, and they also tend to lay the blame or give credit for current developments to the people who happen to be in office at the moment, even though the real causes go much deeper in time and in complexity. 8. The United States failed to realize in the 1930’s that the three totalitarian states that were most dissatisfied with the outcome of the First World War—Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union-—possessed, in combi- nation, a greater military potential than anything that was likely to be mobilized against them. 4, The western allies also failed to face up to the humilating fact that they won World War II only with the help of the Soviet Union, which was still saturated with hatred for us and determined to encompass our downfall. 5. Instead of recognizing this unhappy state of fact, and drawing from it the bitter les- sons which it held for us, we consoled our- selves with the delusion that Moscow would change. We did not fully realize that we were in a situation where the power of the freed world after the war had not really been enhanced and where it would be a hard and dangerous, and wearisome task to re- store peace except with Russia’s consent and on Russia’s terms. 6. Much of the misunderstanding and bit- terness in the United States about the vic- tory of the Communists on the Chinese main- land is the result of shallowness and over- simplification of what has been happening in China. Before the war we sentimental- ized and patronized the Chinese people, and underestimated their feelings about the his- torical record of the west in that part of the world. During the war we ignored a great deal of evidence that the Chinese Gov- ernment would not be able to consolidate its position. And later we gave them much material aid, which they misused and ad- vice which they ignored. 7. It sounds plausible to blame the State Department for what happened in China, but China is not a province of the United States and the State Department did not decide that the Communist Party should be the faction which would have the best morale and discipline and pack the strong- est political punch and win the civil war in China. Mr. Kennan implied that only by direct intervention in China could the United States have changed the course of events, and he added: “I can conceive of no more ghastly and fateful mistake. * +* Nothing would | have pleased our enemies more. * * To blame the present state of our rela- tions with the Soviet Union and Commu- nist China on a few contemporary officials was not only an overly simple reading of history, Mr. Kennan concluded, but it cre- ated an atmosphere in which it was diffi- cult for the Government to explain policies or to keep good men to admunister foreign policy. “If the atmosphere of public discussion is to be too harsh, too intolerant, too abu- sive,” he said, “this is going to decrease rath- er than increase the possibilities for a frank and helpful exposition of Government policy to the public at large. * * “What I want to urge is only this: that you * * * recognize the profundity of the foreign-policy problems with which we are faced today; and that you do not be misled into the easy conclusion that the dangers and challenges and dilemmas of cur world situation are the product of the mistakes or the ill will of any individuals who bear responsibility at this moment for the conduct of foreign affairs.” [From the Milwaukee Journal of May 7, 1950] KENNAN TELLS Or DAmacE or McCartHy Tactics George F. Kennan returned to his home community Friday to urge the American peo- ple to have faith in their State Department, its policies, and its personnel. If they do not—if they concern themselves with things which are shallow and fleeting and of dubious substance—there is serious danger of losing the cold war, he said. No one, we are sure, will question Mr. Ken- nan’s qualifications to discuss these matters. He is third in command in the Department of State. He is shortly leaving Government service for 2 long time. He has devoted his adult life to foreign affairs. He is the author of the policy of containing Russian commu- nism which has engaged us in the cold war. He is an implacable enemy of communism. The trouble with the American people to- day is that they are looking for scapegoats, Mr. Kennan indicated—scapegoats to blame for the fact that we are not getting quick results in foreign policy, the cold war is not going entirely our way, the Russians have made some gains, and China has fallen to communism. It is an easy conclusion, he continued, that our challenges and dilemmas are entirely the product of mistakes, or of the ill will of individuals responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. It is an easy conclusion that could be disastrous. Mr. Kennan is not a pessimist about the cold war. He said that the dangers are no greater than they have been. Things have gone well for us in Europe, badly in Asia, The situation in both areas is still fluid, and can turn in our favor or against us. We have, he indicated, done the best we could—all that was possible and practicable— and have nothing to be discouraged about, He even hinted that there was hope about China, saying: “We are now on the road to a relationship with China which will be ex- pressive of our high regard for the Chinese people but unencumbered by past involve- ments and illusions.” “I am not a pessimist, but,” sald Mr. Kennan. “If the American people take their eyes off the ball, or if they fail to keep in mind the A3497 pr®undity of our problems and the depth in time and space of their origins, if they allow the quiet and sensitive and gifted peo- ple to be driven out of the State Depart- ment and Government by wild and un- founded charges, then George Kennan can give no promising assurances. “The ressoarvbilit'es borne by men who have toc? .. , affairs are neither light nor easy,” he explained. “This country is not rich in men both qualified and avail- able to take these positions. * * * The strains under which they work leave them a very slender margin of physical and spiritual energy to absorb abuse and derision from the people for whom they conceive themselves to be working. * * * The atmosphere of public life does not have to deteriorate much further to produce a situation in which very few of these people will be able to continue with government. “The margin of safety with which our country moves in the world today is not great enough to permit us to be reckless and wasteful with the talents and the idealism of these people we depend on for the gener= alship of our peacetime battles,” he ex- plained. Mr, Kennan at no time named Senator McCartHy, of Wisconsin, who instituted the campaign against the State Department that is now rocking the country. But it was obviously this campaign that he had in mind when he concluded: “Perhaps only someone who has lived for many years in totalitarian countries can feel as strongly as I do how vitally important it is to us to preserve the spirit of tolerance and liberality in our relations with each other and the readiness to give the other fellow the benefit of the doubt, where doubt exists. These things lie at the heart of our civilization. They are essential to the pres- ervation of our national identity and to our entire claim of world leadership. If our enemies without can force us to abandon the spirit of tolerance by frightening us with their agents inside our country, then they will have bypassed the Maginot line of our society; they will have seized the cita- dels from within, and we on the firing line will have been lett with nothing to defend.” Mr. Kennan’s story was told with a sin- cerity, a moderation and a simplicity that won him an ovation from his audience of 250 persons. It is regrettable that more Milwaukeeans did not hear him. It would have done much to clarify their thinking about the McCarthy campaign and to bring them to a realization of what a dangerous and irresponsible thing it is. , Stassen’s Attack EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN W. McCORMACK OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Boston Post of May 4, 1950: STASSEN’s ATTACK As president of the University of Pennsyl- vania, Harold E, Stassen is hardly in the proper position to engage in political war~ fare. But the attack on President Truman’s administration which Mr. Stassen unleashed Tuesday night would indicate that Mr. Stassen is holding two jobs, one as a univer- sity president and the other as sharpshooter for the Republican Party. Mr. Stassen, of
£3288 course, is entitled to attack Mr. Truman #ha the Democrats as an individual. Even as the head of one of our large universities he is entitled to criticize the President and the administration. But it would seem that an out-and-out political broadside such as Mr, Stassen fired at the President this week might well have been left to some Republican who is strictly in the business of politics and not part politician and part university president. Mr. Stassen’s speech does not compare very favorably either in restraint or content with the speeches that have been made by his fellow educator, General Eisenhower. Inexperience Blamed for United States Role in Far East - EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OWEN BREWSTER OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BREWSTER. Myr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp an article dealing with the personnel of the State Department and the far-eastern policy, printed in the day before yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: INEXPERIENCE BLAMED FOR UNITED STATES ROLE IN Far East (Second of four articles on the men who make American far-eastern policy. As a specialist in this field, Mr. Isaacs analyzes @ serious personnel problem faced by the State Department and offers some sugges- tions.) (By Harold R. Isaacs, special correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor) ‘WasHINcTON.—It is an arresting and un~= comfortable fact that there is not a single man at the top policy-making level of the State Department who can be described as a matured and experienced hand in Far East affairs. This is by no means the whole ex- planation for American failures in Asia. But it is a significant part of the explanation. For both Secretary of State Dean’ Acheson and Dr. Philip C. Jessup, now one of his top policy advisers, Asia lies beyond a horizon dimly seen. Dr. Jessup’s recent swift jour- ney across the world could not overcome the deficiencies which he probably would be one of the first to acknowledge. Yet he has had to take part in serious policy decisions based precisely on this deficient background. It is presumably at the next lower rung in the hierarchy that one might expect to find the riper kind of experience needed to pro- vide the materials for higher Judgment. Yet here, too, there is no change in the charac- teristic pattern. POLICY PLANNING High in State Department councils, in an adjacent sort of way, js the Policy Planning Committee. It was headed until recently by George Kennan, whose chief experience has been in Russia, and who is reputed to be a scholarly and thoughtful individual. His capacity for global thinking, however, Was never quite able to embrace Asia. Like many others in Washington, he became an involuntary captive of cold-war thinking, and the trouble about Asia is that so much about it cannot be understood in the sim-< plistic terms of the cold war. One member of this committee is John P. Davies, Jr., who was born in China and served his entire Foreign Service career there, plus 2 years in Moscow. Mr. Davies is probably the ablest and most knowing Far East man in the Department today. But he had the mis- fortune to tangle with Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Hurley during General Hurley’s mission to China late in the war. Mr. Davies was one of that small group of China officials who foresaw the collapse of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and tried to foresee what other po- litical combination might provide a new basis for American policy there. EXPERT FROZEN OUT For this reason he has been tarred by Chiang Kai-shek lobbyists and propagandists in this country as one of those responsible for the China debacle. Although he com- mands respect in the State Department, he has not been able, as a result of this, to hold any post in which he could exert any strong influence on the making of Far East policy. Indeed, it is quite possible that Far East matters are now not even within his purview on his present job. Over on the operational side, the man who became the first Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs under the re- cent reorganization was a career diplomat, W. Walton Butterworth. Mr. Butterworth served a tour as a stripling vice consul in Singapore 20 years ago. He went from there to Europe and to a host of jobs far from Asia and Asian affairs. He did his most important work in Spain during the war. He did not see Asia again until 1946, when he went to China with Gen. George C. Marshall. He served there for a year and a half and re- turned to become America’s top Far East official late in 1947. He has a reputation for being able, courageous, shrewd, but not for having a detailed knowledge of Asia. LONG CAREER He was recently detached from his other duties to concentrate on the problems of the Japanese peace treaty. His successor as Chief of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs is Dean Rusk, former Deputy Under Secretary of State. Mr. Rusk has had a long academic and governmental career in this country, none of it directly concerned with Asia until he went to India as an Army staff officer during the war. He is obviously a man of ability. But in his new job he has to start from scratch, and that, at this stage of the game, is very far back. The career men who sit at the various geographic desks under Mr. Rusk are usually too far down to have much to do -with the making of policy. The business of making a career in Government service often. has a way of routinizing and bureaucratizing men. and keeping them from capitalizing on any latent ability they might have. The For- eign Service in particular has not heen a notable producer of notable men for the high policy-making jobs. The few individuals with outstanding spirit and special attain- ments who crop up in its ranks every once in a while usually run into obstacles, in- ternal or external, that block their advance-~ ment. In a bureaucracy only the safe men normally get ahead, and it is not safe men who can make effective policy for the United States in these times, especially in the Far ast. Some of these officials, like John Allison (northeast Asia) and Philip Sprouse (China) served for many years in their areas. Mr, Sprouse is about to be succeeded by Ed-~ mund Clubb, who has also spent his whole career in China. The man who presides over the Office of Southeast Asian Affairs, on the other hand, is William B. Lacy, a Govern-~ ment economist, who had never set foot in APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Asia until last spring, when he made a fleet- ing trip there. Under these regional heads, more junior officials sit in various spots. They conform to the usual law of averages and have varying amounts of knowledge and experience. Every once in a while a junior turns out to be superior to his superiors, and, as everyone knows, this is a dangerous business for the junior. Many a man with a light has to find a bushel to hide under or take the con- sequences. This is normal bureaucratic routine and it does not make for much vitality in the Government organism as a whole. Still farther down the line is the Office of Intelligence and Research, where a few of the most knowing and knowledgeable people in the whole State Department can be found. But it is not often that these people have a chance to make any impact on policy. They bring together all the strands of information that come from missions abroad and other sources. These are not always adequate. They try to use such judgment as they have, but whether their findings influence the up- per brackets of policymakers is a matter of chance or circumstances. In a few notable instances, their findings have been deliber- ately ignored and policy decisions made that ran directly counter to their factual con- clusions. It is no joke to say that this opens them to the suspicion of being maverick, if not downright subversive, EUROPEAN SLANT But all the men who, for good or ill, work in thé Far East sections of the State Depart- ment suffer from another disability that has little to do with their merits or demerits as individuals. This is the deadweight of the European outlook on Asian affairs. If it were possible to put one’s finger on any central factor in the weakness of American Far Kast policy, one might say it is the failure to see Asian problems in Asian terms. Decisions about Asia are conditioned by, and often sub- ordinated to, Huropean considerations. This was the decisive factor in all Ameri- can policy in southeast Asia from 1945 on- ward. It was all but ruinous in relation to Indonesia. It is still operative in relation to Viet Nam. The recent decision, for example, to support the French Army in Viet Nam was a decision made not by men primarily con- cerned with Asia but by men primarily con- cerned with Europe. The factors determin~ ing American policy in Viet Nam have much more to do with France than they have to do with Viet Nam. Hence, among the makers of American Far East policy one would have to include American diplomats in Paris and the men who sit in the Western European Division of the State Department. It need surprise no one, therefore, if the results are, from an Asian point of view, ruinous. Veto of the Kerr Natural-Gas Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. PAUL H. DOUGLAS OF ILLINOIS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article by Thomas L, Stokes, which appeared in the yyashington Evening Star of April 21, 950.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: AGENCY Is THE TARGET—CONSUMERS COULD StiL Lose Vicrory Won IN VE™o oF KERR NarouraLt-Gas Br (By Thomas L. Stokes) The consuming public won a signal vic« tory that it could see, out in the open, when President Truman recently vetoed the Har- ris-Kerr-Thomas bill designed to exempt in- dependent natural-gas producers from regu- lation by the Federal Power Commission. But the story is not ended. The pub~< lic still might lose some effects of that vic- tory and that takes us to a part of the Government process often overlooked by the public. That is the commission that administers regulatory laws under our com- mission form of Government. Such com- missions have wide discretion, and can make laws really effective or dilute them. Involved in this instance is the Federal Power Commission and the 1938 Natural Gas Act over which there has been constant friction within the FPC as to its scope. The Supreme Court held that under that act the FPC could regulate independent produc- ers, but the FPC has approached the issue divided and warily. The purpose of the Harris-Kerr-Thomas bill was to make sure it did not exercise such power by a specific prohibitory statute, a familiar technique in recent years, and that measure squeaked through Congress by close margins under pressure from big oil interests that own the bulk of natural gas reserves. MOVE TO RECOUP IN AGENCY Thwarted by the Truman veto, sponsors of that bill now have concentrated on the FPC in an effort to recoup in the administrative agency. ‘They include politically powerful figures, notably Speaker Sam RayBurN, Dem- ocrat, of Texas, to whom the President is be- holden for his legislative program, and who took the floor personally to jam the, bill through the House by two votes. Another is Senator Bos Kerr, Democrat, of Oklahoma, who has considerable influence among oil men—of which he is one—who have been generous with campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. They want the President to reappoint to the FPC its current Chairman, Nelson Lee Smith, a Republican, who is sympathetic with their position. His term expires June 22. Chairman Smith was not only for the Harris-Kerr-Thomas bill, and wanted the President to sign it, but in the Eightieth Congress he was for amendments to the 1938 Natural Gas Act which went beyond exemp-~ tion from regulation of independent pro- ducers to include also a new rate-making formula. In that view he was supported by Commussioner Harrington Wimberly, a Dem- ocratic member from Oklahoma, Those who fought the broader Rizley- Moore bill of the Eightieth Congress and the Harris-Kerr-Thomas bill which President Truman vetoed, are hostile to Mr. Smith’s reappointment because of his attitude. COMMISSION DIVIDED In recent years the Commission has been sharply divided over the extent of natural gas regulation, with continual strife. When the Rizley-Moore bill was before the Eightieth Congress, the FPC on which there was then a vacancy, divided two and two, with Commissioners Claude L. Draper, Re- publican, and Leland Olds, a Democrat, op~ rrsing it vigorously, and Chairman Smith and Commissioner Wimberly supporting the amendments which were regarded as of about the same effect as the Rizley-Moore bill. To the vacancy President Truman ap- pointed Burton N. Behling, head of the FPC’s natural gas investigation staff. When it was revealed that he sided with Chairman Smith and Commissioner Wimberly on the proposed amendments and thus would break the tie in the Commission in favor of the oil and gas industry position, such a protest arose that the President finally withdrew the nomination, Instead he appointed Thomas Cc. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, who had served for several years on Penn- sylvania’s utility regulating commission. This gave the strict regulationist faction a temporary edge until the term of Leland Olds expired last year. He was reappointed by the President, but the oil and gas inter- ests, ever watchful on the administrative as on the legislative front, succeeded in de- feating his confirmation after a bitter fight. To that vacancy President Truman named his old friend, Mon C. Waligren, ex-Senator and ex-Governor of Washington, who sided with strict regulationists in support of a veto by the President, which seems again to give the majority to that viewpoint. However, proponents of regulation are taking no chances and want to prevent Chairman Smith’s reappointment and, if that happens, his confirmation by the Senate, To Save $4,000,000,000 in Taxes EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. JAMES W. WADSWORTH OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by Clarence K. Streit from Freedom and Union for March 1950: To Save $4,000,000,000 uw Taxes (By Clarence K. Streit) ATLANTIC UNION SEEN ALSO AS GIVING LIBERTY 50 PERCENT MORE POWER, YET CUTTING UNITED STATES ARMS BURDEN TWO-THIRDS IN DECADE How can the burden of taxes be lightened? That is the question more and more every March. Something can be done in the domestic fleld, but hardly enough for the taxpayer to feel it. The reason is that 71 cents of each 1951 United States budget dollar goes to pay for past war or present defense against either cold or shooting war. Only 6 cents goes for social welfare, health, security; only 23 cents for all the other peaceful governmental services put together. If there is to be tax relief the bulk of it must come in the international field, without weakening our defenses, either in the present cold war or in the possible shooting war. None but Communists would want to weaken these defenses. All others would much pre- fer to make them stronger, but to do this, if at all possible, without increasing the tax burden but lessening it instead. How can we work this wonder, of strength- ening our defenses while lessening the taxa- tion burden?, The establishment of a federal union of the North Atlantic democracies—which reso- Jutions now before Congress would have us explore in company with the other six spon- sors of the Atlantic Pact (Canada, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and ‘Luxemburg)—would do this in four ways: 1, By giving greater defensive power with no increase in cost; by giving the taxpayer, in short, more for his money; 2. By increasing the national income at the same time, thus lessening the ratio of A3499 the tax load to the income of the people who earry the load; 3. By lessening the cost of defense through removing unnecessary and dangerous dupli~ eation by the democracies; and 4. By lessening it still more through elimi- nating excessive defense expenditure and in other ways. The total effect of these four factors would be, by conservative estimate, to reduce the defense burden of the United States tax- payer $4,000,000,000 a year, while giving him at least 30 percent more defensive power. Moreover, they would reduce his defense bur- den in 10 years of Atlantic union to one-third of what it 1s now while increasing his defen- sive strength by at least 50 percent. A detailed consideration of each of the four points will show how conservative this esti- mate is. Furst. There can be no doubt that creation of this union of the free would give the United States taxpayer at least 30 percent greater defensive power at no extra cost. Why? The United States is now spending $13,000,000,000 annually on defense, the other six founders of the proposed union are spending a total of $4,000,000,000. The aggregate annual total of the seven is $17,- 000,000,000. If United States taxpayers con- tinued under union to pay $13,000,000,000 of this $17,000,000,000 bill, they would be get~ ting a $17,000,000,000 union defense force for a cost of only $13,000,000,000, or 30 percent more for their money. By this calculation, the other democracies would be getting still more for their money, since they are now spending much less on their national defense. Their population and income are not so great as those of the United States, but the Atlantic union de- fense force would be as much theirs as ours. Just as the citizen of Rhode Island can count on the United States Army to defend him to the same degree as can the New Yorker or Californian or Ohioan, the citizen of the Union in France or Belgium could depend on i+ as much as those living in North America. Atlantic federal union by this calculation would give the British eight times more defense for what they now pay in taxes; the French, 15 times more; the Canadians, 43; the Dutch, 76; the Belgians, 97; and the Luxemburgers, 5,666 times more. But this calculation errs on the conserva- tive side. Consider all the United States taxpayer would gain—still at no extra cost—in defen- sive power by the organic union of our naval, air, and atomic arms with the world-dis- persed bases now held by the British, French, Dutch, and Belgians. Consider the gain in strength through the fact that the western European territory of-the union would itself be an advanced base. This territory, more- over, is the strategic hub of the principal hemisphere of the air age—the hemisphere that has, as Parker Van Zandt has pointed out in July 1947 freedom and union, 90 per- cent of the land on this planet, 94 percent of its people, 98 percent of its industry. Ponder, too, how the British, French, Dutch, and Belgians would gain by the or- ganic union of their defensive position and power with the vast industrial arsenal of the United States and Canada—a great citadel with two oceans for moats. Consider how this great rise in theiz defensive strength at no extra cost would improve their morale, their will to resist any invasion. And then try to calculate how this improvement in their morale would further strengthen the defense of the American taxpayer’s individ- ual freedom. . Look at the kind of attack—atomic at- tack—that alarms people most. The most hopeful practical defense against it is two- fold—dispersion and power to retaliate deci- sively.