A3364 Every revolution in the last 150 years that had for its aim more freedom has modeled its laws on my Constitution. From the four corners of the earth people of all colors, religions, and races have set sail to make their home under the folds of Old Glory. In 150 years I have raised the level of wages and living to the highest point ever attained in all historic time. I have given more persons opportunities to raise themselves, under my individualistic- capitalistic~free-~enterprise system, from me- nial to commanding positions than any other nation in the world, past or present. I have guaranteed to each and all, native and foreign, free speech, a free pen, freedom of religion, and trial by jury. I have abolished slavery and succored the victims of flood, famine, and earthquake ev- erywhere on earth. I have given the world the greatest symbol for all time of revolt against oppression— George Washington. I have given the world the greatest ex~ pounder of individualistic democracy and personal freedom in the history of man- kind—Thomas Jefferson. I have given the world the greatest symbol of a liberator of an enslaved people an@ the most humane ruler in time of civil war that history records—Abraham Lincoln. I have made the words “liberty” “America” synonymous. I have given the world in a Congress, a Supreme Court, and an Executive the best- palanced governmental set-up in history. . No call from. an oppressed people has ever gone unanswered by me. When I have made mistakes—and I have made some great ones—I have admitted them finally and tried to rectify whatever injustice may have flowed from them, My mighty rivers, towering mountains, my prairies, my forests, and my oceans have been open to travel for all my people without police permits or a spy system. I was born in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. I gave the world its model Constitution on September 17, 1787. I froze, shoeless, in the snow at Valley Forge. I hung on by a hair for my life at Gettys- burg. I freed Europe and myself from the deadly menace of Prussian militarism in 1917-18. Today I lift myself to my full proud height and proclaim that I who froze at Valley Forge and battled for my life at Gettysburg shall lay in the dust those enemies who again seek to enslave me. For I am democracy in ac- tion. Iam the: United States. and IAM AN AMERICAN Are you? Then you should be proud to make this statement yours. It expresses tre American’s humble gratitude for his priceless heritage, and acknowledges his du- ties and responsibilities —J.M. Iam an American. The Golden Rule is my rule. Tn bumility and with gratitude to Almighty I acknowledge my undying debt To the founding fathers Who left me a priceless heritage Which now is my responsibility, With steadfast loyalty I will uphold the Constitution And the Bill of Rights. I will treasure my birthright Of American ideals. I will place moral integrity Above worldly possessions. Problems of interest to my country Shall be of interest to me. I will count my right of suffrage To be a sacred trust, And I will diligently strive To prove worthy of that trust. I will give my full support To upright public servants. But those with unclean hands, I will firmly oppose. Each obligation that comes to me As a true American, I will discharge with honor. My heart is in America And America is in my heart. Iam an American. —Benjamin E. Neal, THE FREEDOM PLEDGE (The Freedom ‘Train, speeding through the land with the most treasured documents of our American heritage, inspired this pledge. In a few words it states the beliefs and desires of all true American patriots. It should be your pledge too.—J. M.) Iam an American. A free American. Free to speak—without fear; Free to worship God in my own way; Free to stand for what I think right; Free to oppose what I believe wrong; Free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold For myself and all mankind. FULL TEXT OF BILL OF RIGHTS Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercises thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a re-~- dress of grievances. Amendment 2: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment 3: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indict- ment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be sub- ject in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liber- ty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for pub- Uc use, without just compensation. Amendment 6: In all criminal prosecu- tions, the accused shall enjoy the right to @ speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascer~ tained by-law, and to be informed of the nature of the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have com- pulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of coun- sel for his defense. Amendment 7; In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be pre- served, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment 8: Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. ‘ Amendment 9: The' enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD construed to deny or disparage others re- tained by the people. Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. WHAT THE FLAG MEANS (By Robert Quillen) The newspapers report that a New England boy of good American stock has refused to pledge allegience to the flag. Well, son, the notoriety and conflict and martyrdom may be exciting fun, but you don't realize what you are doing. Evidently nobody has taken the trouble to make you understand just what the flag means. It isn’t a mere strip of cloth with a cluster of stars in one corner. It stands for America—not a certain area of the earth’s surface, not even the millions who inhabit it, but the spirit of America— the ideals and standards and institutions that are typical of America. It stands for freedom, for the right of every decent individual to do as he pleases without fear of lurking spies or brutal police. It stands for the right to say what you please, within the bounds of decent taste, without dread of a heartless and tyrannical government. It stands for the pledge that you will not be killed or tortured in prison or beaten or shamed on the street or deprived of all human rights if you happen to belong to a minority. It stands for the assurance that no man can have you whipped or scorn you or deny you a chance to get ahead merely because his parents were rich and yours poor. It stands for the promise that police shall not break into your house or keep you in prison without fair and public process of law. It stands for the pledge that your mother and sister and sweetheart will be treated as human beings worthy of respect and not as chattels or work animals. It stands for the assurance that every boy will have a fair chance to earn all he is worth; for the right to get a free enducation; for a land where the poor hold thelr heads high; for a land free of swarming, sullen, sore-covered, vermin-ridden professional beggers; for comfort and abundance and safety; for fair play and sympathy for the underdog and hatred for all corruption, All these pledges and rights have been threatened many times and denied at inter~ vals, because of the folly and greed and dis- honor of individuals, but it isn’t the fault of the fag. The flag still stands for these good and decent things coveted by all man- nd. And if you can’t pledge allegiance to such a symbol and fight for it to the last breath, you have very little understanding or a very bad heart. — AMERICANISM (Extension of remarks of Hon. Sol Bloom of New York in the House of Representatives, Thursday, January 11, 1940) Article by the Right Reverend James E. Free- man, D. D., LL. D. Americanism is complete and unqualified loyalty to the ideals of Government set forth jn the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of In- dependence, and the Constitution of the United States. It is respect for and ready obedience to duly constituted authority and the laws of the land. It is freedom without license, religion without bigotry, respect for all nations without entangling alliances, Christian charity without bias or race hatred, love of flag and readiness to defend that for which it stands against every alien and sub- versive influence from without or within, This I believe, is Americanism,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (Extension of remarks of Hon. John G. Alexe ander, of Minnesota, in the House of Reps resentatives, Wednesday, Jan. 3, 1940) Article by K. L. Brown Americanism is an abiding faith in the correctness and justice of the principles con- tained in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. Americanism is a way of life, based on this abiding faith. It is a willingness to live in peace and harmony with our fellow men, re- gardless of political or religious faith. Americanism is a willingness to apply the principles of free speech, free press, and freedom to worship God to our fellow men, even when their ideas and speech and meth- ods of worship are opposed to our own. Americanism is a willingness to live for the principles of America in peacetimes, as well as a willingness to die for American principles in war times. Americanism brings to each American lib- erty under law, and a regard for law which means liberty and happiness for each of us. THE CODE OF THE GOOD AMERICAN (The Code ofthe Good American, prepared by William J. Hutchins, was awarded first place and a prize of $5,000 in a national com- petition conducted in 1916 by the Character Education Institution of Washington, D. C.) Citizens who are good Americans try to be- come strong and useful, worthy of their na~ tion, that our country may become ever greater and better. Therefore they obey the laws of right living which the best Americans have always obeyed. ° 1. The law of self-control The good American controls himself. Those who best control themselves can best serve their country. I will control my tongue, and will not allow it to speak mean, vulgar, or profane words. I will think before I speak. I will tell the truth and nothing but the truth. L will control my temper,‘and will not get angry when people or things displease me. Even when indignant against wrong and con~ tradicting falsehood, I will keep my self- control, I will control my thoughts and will not allow. a foolish wish to spoil a wise purpose. I will control my actions. I will be care- ful and thrifty, and insist on doing right. I will not ridicule nor defile the character of another. I will keep my self-respect and help others to keep theirs. , 2. The law of good health The good American tries to gain and keep good health. The welfare of our country de- pends upon those who are physically fit for their daily work. Therefore— I will try to take such food, sleep, and ex- ercise as will keep me always in good health. I will keep my clothes, my body, and my mind clean. I will avoid those habits which would harm me, and will make and never break those habits which will help me. I will protect the health of others, and guard their safety as well as my own. I will grow strong and skillful, 3. The law of kindness The good American is kind. In America those who are different must lve in the same communities. We are of many different sorts, but we are one great people. Every unkindness hurts the common life; every Kindness helps. Therefore: I will be kind in all my thoughts. I will bear no spites or grudges. I will never de- spise anybody. I will be kind in all my speech. I will never gossip nor will I speak unkindly of anyone. Words may wound or heal, I will be kind in my acts. I will not selfishly insist on having my own way. I, will be polite: rude people are not good Americans. I will not make unnecessary trouble for those who work for me, nor for-= get to be grateful. I will be careful of other people’s things. I will do my best to pre- vent cruelty, and will give help to those in need. €, The law of sportsmanship The good American plays fair. Clean play increases and trains one’s strength and cour- age, and helps one to be more useful to one’s country. Sportsmanship helps one to be a gentleman, a lady. Therefore: I will not cheat, nor will I play for keeps or for money. If I should not play fair, the loser would lose the fun of the game, the winner would lose his self-respect, and the game itself would become a méan and often cruel business. I will treat my opponents with courtesy, and trust them if they deserve it. I will be friendly. If I play in a group game, I will not play for my own glory, but for the success of my team. and the fun of the game. I will be a good loser or a generous winner. And in my work as well as in my play, I will be sportsmanlike—generous, fair, honorable. 5. The law of self-reliance The good American is self-reliant: Self- conceit is sully, but self-reliance is necessary to citizens who would be strong and useful. I will gladly listen to the advice of older and wiser people; I will reverence the wishes of those who love and care for me and who know life and me better than I. I will de- velop independence and wisdom to think for myself, according to what seems right and fair and wise. I will not be afraid of being laughed at when I am right. When in danger, trouble, or pain I will be brave. A coward does not make a good American, 6. The law of duty The good American does his duty: The shirker and the willing idler live upon others and burden fellow citizens with work un- fairly. They do not do their share, for their country’s good. I will try to find out what my duty is as & good American, and my duty I will do, whether it is easy or hard. What it is my duty to do I can do. 7. The law of reliability The good American is reliable: Our coun- try grows great and good as her citizens are able more fully to trust each other. There- fore: I wili be honest, in word and in act. I will not lie, sneak, or pretend. I will not do wrong in the hope of not be< ing found out. I cannot hide the truth from myself and cannot often hide it from others, Nor will I injure the property of others. I will not take without permission what does not belong to me, A thief Js a menace to me and others. I will do promptly what I have promised to do, If I have made a foolish promise I will at once confess my mistake, and I will try to make good any harm which my mistake may have caused. I will so speak and act that people will find it easier to trust each other, 8. The law of truth The good American is true. I will be slow to believe suspicions lest I do injustice; I will avoid hasty opinions lest I be mistaken as to facts. I will stand by the truth regardless of my likes and dislikes, and scorn the temptation to lie for myself or friends; nor will I keep the truth from those who have a right to it. I will hunt for proof, and be accurate as to what I see and hear; I will learn to think, that I may discover new truth. A3365 9. The law of good workmanship The good American tries to do the right thing in the right way. ‘Fhe welfare of our country depends upon those who have learned to do in the right way the work that makes civilization possible. Therefore: I will get the best possible education, and Jearn all that I can as a preparation for the time when I am grown up and at my Hfe work. I will invent and make things better if I can. I will take real interest in work, and will not be satisfied to do slipshod, lazy, and merely passable work. I will form the habit of good work and keep alert; mistakes and blunders cause hardships, sometimes dis- aster, and spoil success. I will make the right thing In the right way to give it value and beauty, even when no one else sees or praises me. But when I have done my best, I will not envy those who have done better, or have received larger reward, Envy spoils the work and the worker. 10. The law of teamwork The good American works in friendly co- operation with fellow workers. One alone could not build a city or a great railroad. ° One alone would find it hard to build a bridge. That 1 may have bread, people have ; made plows and threshers, have built mills and mined coal, made stoves and kept stores. As we learn better how to work together, the welfare of our country is advanced. ‘ In whatever work I do with others, I will do my part and encourage others to do their part, promptly, quickly. — I will help to keep in order the things ‘ which we use in our work. When things are out of place, they are often in the way, and sometimes they are hard to find. In all my work with others, I will be cheer- ful. Cheerlessness depresses all other work~ ers and injures all the work. ‘When I have received money for my work, I will be neither a miser nor a spendthrift. I will save or spend as one of the friendly workers of America. , 11. The law of loyalty The good American is loyal, If our Amer- ica is to become even greater and better, her . citizens must be loyal, devotedly faithful, in every relation of life; full of courage and regardful of their honor. : I will be loyal to my family. In loyalty I will gladly obey my parents or those who are in their place, and show them gratitude. I will do my best to help each member of my family to strength and usefulness. I will be loyal to my school. In loyalty I will obey and help other pupils to obey those rules which further the good of all. I will be loyal to my town, my State, my country. In loyalty I will respect and help others to respect their laws and their courts of justice. I will be loyal to humanity and civiliza- tion. In loyalty I will do my best to help the friendly relations of our country with every other country, and to give to everyone in every land the best possible chance. I will seek truth and wisdom; I will work and achieve if I can, some good for the civiliza~ tion into which I have been born. If I try simply to be loyal to my family, I may be disloyal to my school, If I try simply to be loyal to my school, I may be dis- loyal to my town, my State, and my country. If I try simply to be loyal to my town, State, and country, I may be disloyal to humanity. I will try above all things else to be loyal to humanity; then I shall surely be loyal to my country, my State, and my town, to my school and to my family. And this loyalty to humanity will keep me faithful to civili- vation. . He who obeys the law of loyalty obeys all of the other 10 laws of the good American,
A3366 THE AMERICAN BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES (A good citizen should know what his rights and privileges are, but even more im- portant, a good citizen should know what his duties and responsibilities are. You will find listed below some of the rights and priv- ileges that are guaranteed to you by the Federal Constitution, and also, a listing of your duties and responsibilities. In a de- mocracy each citizen must accept responsi~- bility and do his duty in order to keep and preserve the rights and privileges he enjoys.— E. J. M.) Free speech: You must be willing to allow others to speak, even though you disagree. ‘You must not use this right to injure others. It is wrong to use this right to advocate the change of your Government by the use of force. Freedom of the press: You should read widely and wisely. You should not write or have printed things that are untrue or that would injure others. You should insist that others print the truth. Freedom of worship: You should respect the religious beliefs of others. You should support and become a worker in some chureh. . The right to petition the Government: You should write to your elected officers. You should help to correct wrongs done to others. You should join organizations that work democratically to preserve and improve our democracy. The right to assemble peaceably: You should plan, organize, and take part in meet- ings which advance the cause of democracy and our way of life. The right to be protected from loss of life, liberty, or property: Help to protect the property of others and puble property. Guard your actions so that they might not endanger the life or property of others. Help others to avoid having their legal rights infringed upon. Right to a fair trial: Serve on juries when called, appear as witness when you have in- formation that is helpful to enforcement of the laws. Respect law-enforcement officers. Obey the law. Help officers catch law- breakers. Right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure: Respect the privacy of others in their homes, mail, telephone calls, and conversations. Do all you can to see that others do not violate this right of your fellow citizens. Right to go where you wish and do work of your choice: Do not try to limit the move- ment of others. Do the kind of work you can do best. Do your best in your work. Right to make contracts and agreements and have them enforced: Read all agree- ments carefully. Carry out all contracts you make. Be sure both parties have the same understanding of the contract. Do not enter any contract except in good faith. Federal constitutional rights: Make every effort to prevent local officials or groups from denying lawful rights to citizens or groups of citizens within your community. Right to vote for local, State, and Federal Officials: Vote whenever an election is held. Keep yourself informed about candidates and issues. Encourage others to vote. The rights to be a candidate for public office: Be willing to accept nomination for public office if your ability can help your community, State, or Nation, Right to bear arms: Use weapons safely and only for legal purposes. Obey laws regarding firearms; use firearms only to protect your home, pursuing criminals, or hunting. Right to make profit on your own inven~ tion or ideas: Maké every effort to see that the profits from inventions, writings, and woe of art go to the person who creates em. Right to bankruptcy procedures: Make ° every effort to encourage those who fail to make a new start. Rights of impeachment and recall of of- ficials: Demand proof of dishonesty of public officials. Respect those you elect to public Office. Report any dishonesty you know about. Rights to be protected when in foreign nations: Remember that when you are in a foreign nation you represent the United States, and conduct yourself accordingly. Be willing to serve your Nation in time of ‘war, Statehood Now for Alaska and Hawaii EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WAYNE L. HAYS OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks, I in- clude an editorial from the Martins Ferry (Ohio) Times Leader for Tuesday, May 2, 1950. My stand on statehood for Alaska and Hawaii is well known, and I am happy to place in the Recorp this edi- torial from. one of the outstanding news- papers in my district: SraTreHoop Now ror ALASKA AND Hawart This session of Congress should grant statehood to Alaska and Hawaii. The people of these two Territories are eager and able to assume the rights and re- sponsibilities of self-government. The arguments for admitting them to full : partnership in the Union seem to us over= whelmingly strong. President Truman is for giving them state- hood. The Democratic and Republican national platforms promise them statehood. The National Conference of Gevernors and the Governors’ Conference of the 11 West- ern States have adopted unanimous reso- lutions endorsing their pleas for statehood. And large majorities in one branch of Con- gress—the House of Representatives—have passed bills to give them statehood. All this would seem to indicate that they have an excellent prospect of getting state- hood this year. But that is not the case. lie ahead. The bills are before the Senate Commit- tee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the climate there is, to say the most, only mildly favorable. The Alaska statehood bill, on which the committee is now holding hearings, is in trouble. Qnly a handful of Senators have shown up at the hearings so far, all favoring state- hood for Alaska, in principle, but some of them appearing to favor it for the future, not just now. Objections have been raised that the terms of the bill aren’t generous enough in grants of land to the proposed new government of Alaska, But Territorial Governor Gruening and the Territory’s voteless Delegate to Congress, E.R. BartLert, are happy with the bill as it stands, They say it gives Alaska the same treat- ment given New Mexico dnd Arizona, the last .two States admitted. They beleve op- ponents are trying to kill the bill with kind- ness—to make it so liberal that it would never pass. Bartierr charges the salmon-packing in- dustry with spearheading opposition because it fears operation of a State government might mean higher taxes, Serious obstacles APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD But Alaska needs statehood so that its people can supervise development of their own rich resources, increase population and wealth, gain ability to support the kind of government they want. The Senate committee starts hearings on the Hawaii bill next week, and it, too, will encounter difficulties. The Truman administration is pressing for early, favorable action on both bills. It should press harder, and the American people should support its efforts. Get statehood for Alaska and Hawaii out of committee and up for a vote in the Sen- ate before these bills are lost in an adjourn- ment log jam. Outstanding Civic Leaders of Chicago Urge Extension of Rent Control EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. BARRATT O’HARA oF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Saturday, May 6, 1950 Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the board of governors of the Metropoli- tan Housing and Planning Council of Chicago is composed of outstanding civic leaders representing all groups in our city. Perhaps no one is closer to the housing situation in Chicago, and can speak on the matter of the necessity for extending rent control with more au- thority, than the members of this board. That my colleagues may have the ben- efit of the conclusion reached by the civic leaders of Chicago who are so close to the situation and have made such an inten- sive first-hand study of all the problems relating to housing, I am extending my remarks to include the following resolu- tion passed on May 3, 1950, by the board of governors of the Metropolitan Hous- ing and Planning Council of Chicago: “Whereas the removal of rent controls would create devastating hardships, primar- lly to families of low and lower-middle in< come; and “Whereas experience has revealed that the removal of controls results in a drastic rise in renis (as was apparent in the removal of controls on hotels), which inevitably gen- erates an accelerated inflationary spiral; and “Whereas there is machinery for local de- control and local petitions where arranged: Therefore be it “Resolved, That the Metropolitan Housing and Planning Council of Chicago urges that the Congress of the United States extend the present Federal Rent Control Act for 1 year from June 1, 1950.” te by the board of governors May 3, The members of the board of governors, which passed the above resolution, are Saul Alinsky; Arthur Bohnen; Aldis J, Browne, dr; Earl B, Dickerson; George H. Doven- muehle; Harvey G. Ellerd; Marshall Field, Jr; John R. Fugard; Ernest A, Grunsfeld, Jr.; Henry T. Heald; Frank A. Hecht; Porter M. Jarvis; Elmer ©. Jensen; Joseph D, Kee- nan; Philip M. Kultanick; Glen Lloyd; Mrs. Arthur Lowestein; Michael Mann; Mrs. Wal- ker G. McLaury; George A. Morgan; Mrs. Bradford L. Patton; Mrs. Maurice A. Pollak; Wilfred S. Reynolds; Leonard M. Rieser; Wal- ter V. Schaefer; Alfred Shaw; Hermon D. Smith; Sydney Stein, Jr.; Lea D. Taylor; John L. Van Zandt; Albert J. Weisberg; Louis Wirth; George Young, and the officers,
APPENDIX The officers of the council, included in the membership of the board, are Ford Kramer, president; Howard E. Green, vice president; Byron C. Sharpe, vice president; Edward McC, Blair, vice president; Mrs. Sewall Wright, sec- retary; Walter L. Cohrs, treasurer. Mrs. Frederick H. Rubel is the director of the council. Do Not Be Fooled by Propaganda EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, with permission to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I attach the following article, Do Not Be Fooled by Propaganda, by Joseph D. Keenan, director of Labor’s League for Political Education, which appears in the May issue of the Ameri- can Federationist. It is a clear, concise analysis of the kind of nonsense being directed at American workers by those who pretend to protect them, The article is as follows: “The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected andcaredfor * * not by the labor agitators but by the Chris. tian men to whom, in His infinite wisdom, God has given control of the property inter- ests of the country and upon management of which so much depends.” With those words George F. Baer, presi- dent of the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Co., answered the plea of a miner’s son during the terrible coal strike of 1902. The miner’s son, William F. Clark, died in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Just a few weeks ago. But the answer he got from the arrogant coal company president shocked the Nation in 1902 and will long live on in the memories of trade-union men. Do you think things have changed since 1902? If you do, you are partly right. Today unions are stronger and collective bargain- ing is accepted by the public. Today it is not good public relations for a boss to say he has the divine right and wisdom to rule the lives of his employees as he sees fit and the public be damned. But because in- dustry heads today can’t come right out and say they want to abolish unions, it doesn’t mean they would not like to do so. Today they use subtler means. They say the day of despotic capitalism is over. They say the situation is reversed. They aver that it is the labor bosses who are dictating to big business and to the unfortunate work- ingmen who have been forced into labor monopolies. CROCODILE TEARS The antiunion industrialists of 1950 weep crocodile tears for these poor working people who have fallen under the heartless rule of the agitators and labor bosses. What were the arguments passed out by the proponents of the Taft-Hartley Act? Did they assert that it was an act to destroy unions and outlaw collective bargaining? Of course not. According to them, it was an act to “liberate” the workers. It was an act to give poor, oppressed industry heads equal batgataing power and protection against “big abor.”” Former Congressman Fred Hartley has written a book, Our New National Labor Policy. In that book he has sought to justify passage of the Taft-Hartley Act. Says he: “The positions of labor and management were reversed. * * * Labor was in the saddle and riding hard. * * ™* Top labor leaders were equal in power to the elected heads of our Government. Their power had long ego surpassed that of the largest cor- poration in the Nation.” Hartley further states: “The plight of the laboring man was a real one. The rank-and-file worker meant no more to the leaders of organized labor than the ravble to Louis XVI.” Hartley praises Dixiecrat GraHAM BaRDEN, of North Carolina,as a man who “had nothing but contempt for the labor racketeer and the professional union agitator.” Through- out the book Hartiey consistently uses the term “labor boss” to describe elected union officers. When they enacted the Taft-Hartley law over a Presidential veto, the labor haters evidently belleved their own words. They made union shop elections compulsory. The labor-haters were sure that American work- ing people would flock to the polls and vote against their unions. What happened is his- tory now. By overwhelming majorities, 98 percent of the elections favored the union shop. Is there any other institution in America that could have won a greater vote of confidence? SALARY COMPARISONS Compare the salaries of so-called union bosses with those of industry bosses. Even top union salaries are low by comparison. The two top officials of the A. F. of L. and CIO, William Green and Philip Murray, draw salaries of only $25,000 each. By con- trast, A. B. Homer, president of the Bethle- hem Steel Corp., got a total salary and bonus income of $263,280 in 1948. When Homer re- tires at 65, he will receive a pension of $110,- 460 a year, toward which he contributes not one cent. Benjamin Fairless, president of United States Steel, drew $207,900 in 1948. Tom Girdler, chairman of Republic Steel, drew $2'75,000 in 1948 and the president and five vice presidents of Republic each drew more than $70,000. All the income of all the unions in the country didn’t equal the net profits realized last year by just one automobile corporation, General Motors. Even more ridiculous is the charge of the propagandists for big business that union members don’t democratically select their officers and have no control over them. Here the contrast with industry is also startling. Ask yourself, Can you name one institution that is more democratic than your union? Or how about the firm for which you work? Who selects the board of directors? Who selects the top executives? Do the stock- holders control the firm they own? Or is it controlled by a few insiders who own little of the stock? Take, for example, the country’s biggest corporation, American Telephone and Tele- graph Co., commonly known as the Bell sys- tem. Walter S. Gifford just recently re- tired as head of A. T. and T. He received an annual salary of $209,000 and now gets a pension of $95,000 a year. INSIDE CONTROLS This company is running advertisements that 900,000 stockholders own A. T. & T. But as any A. T. & T. stockholder knows, the divorce of ownership and control of the company was accomplished years ago. Mr. Gifford and other inside top officials and directors own only 1 of each 2,300 shares that provided the company’s capital. This is just four-hundredths of 1 percent of all the stock. Yet these insiders control this huge company just as surely as if they owned all the stock, TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD A33&7 A similar situation exists in most corpora= tions today. Read the average corporation financial statement sent to stockholders, It is a masterpiece of vague confusion. Compare it to the detailed financial reports availabie to all union members and checked by their elected trustees. Remember there are far more banking and business officials than union officials in prison for embezzling money. Are all trade-union officers plaster saints? No, Sometime unqualified people are elected to Office. But at least union members can elect new officers. They have not lost con+ trol of their unions in the way that stock- holders have lost control of the corporations they own. The best proof of that is in the A. F. of L. mailing room in Washington. There are more than 40,000 local A. F. of L. unions. Officers turn over so fast that 40 percent of the address plates of local union Officers have to be changed each year. Is that “dictatorship of self-perpetuating labor bosses’’? Remember these facts when you are handed some of the Senator Tart’s leaflets in which he says that only the Communists and union racketcers want repeal of Taft-Hartley. SHOOTING AT SECURITY When they say a particular law is aimed at your officers, not you, don’t be fooled. When they weaken the right and power of your elected leaders to represent you effec- tively, they are taking a direct shot at your security and your paycheck. The kind of Congress we get depends upon the kind of job we do on Election Day. If we fail to reelect our friends, we may well be put back to the good old days when neither the stockholder, the public nor the employees had any control over the arbitrary dictates of industry heads. If you want your wages and security protected by strong unions and freely elected officers, your vote is needed this election year. Remember that in 1946 we failed to re~ elect 45 out of 128 Representatives who voted for labor against the Case antilabor bill. But in 1948 every friend of labor was re= elected. Which will it be this year? It is up to the 8,000,000 members of the A. F. of L. How? Contribute to LLPE, par- ticipate in LLPE, register and vote. The other side may have the money, but we have the votes. If all of us use our votes as good citizens, then we will have a strong and prosperous America with true freedom for all and true competitive enterprise operating for the pros- perity and the happiness of everybody. Problems Confronting Marine Corps EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, under per- mission to extend my remarks I include a splendid address delivered by our col- league, Representative DonaLp JACKSON, of California, before the national con-~ vention of the Marine Corps Reserve Of- ficers Association at the Washington Hotel, Saturday, May 6: Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, ladies, and gentlemen, it is indeed a great privilege and an honor to be here with you this after- noon and to have an opportunity to talk
A3368 quite frankly about some of the problems confronting the Marine Corps today, and to possibly indicate to many of you what you can do as individuals and in the organiza- tions to which you all belong. In common with every other American who has ever served in the United States Marine Corps, I have a deep sense of gratifi- cation and pride. It is not possible to see service in that great fighting organization without taking unto oneself a measure of the spirit of the corps which has charac- terized it during the course of a long and illustrious history. As a matter of fact, and in some quarters, Iam known as something of a nuisance when the subject of the Marine Corps is men- tioned. It is true that I have taken the floor of the House of Representatives on many occasions to call to the attention of the membership of that great body some impending threat to the integrity or the function of that outfit. But, as eternal vigilance is truly the price of liberty, so is it the price, these days, for the continued exist~ ence of a strong, well-equipped, and ade~ quately manned United States Marine Corps. I should be less than frank if I did not state without equivocation that there are those in high policy positions here in Washington who would prefer to see the Marine Corps abolished, Some of these individuals come to their position out of an honest, if very much misguided, conviction that the func~ tions of the Marine Corps are in no sense 80 vital that they could not be assimilated into- other components of the Armed Forces. Oth-= ers of our detractors simply state frankly, and with no apology, that the Marine Corps has outlived its usefulness, consists of noth- ing but a glorified pageantry of press agentry, and is in general a force disruptive to the policies of unification. To these individuals I would say, quite as frankly, that the alleged unification of the armed services has been one of the great~ est legislative fascos in the history of this country. I say that, despite the fact that I voted for the measure in good faith and in the helief that certain phases of our military and naval operations were in truth and in fact overlapping and duplicating. However, unification, as such, has not served to allevi-~ ate the basic and fundamental problems of the national defense. There are those who will take violent disagreement with the statement I have just made. Perhaps there are some in this room who feel that we have made substantial progress toward a true spirit of unification throughout the several branches of the Armed Forces. If complete disruption of morale in the Maval Establishment can be termed an outward and beneficial example of unification, then indeed we are making progress. If retaliatory and punitive steps taken to silence any state- ment of honest conviction on the part of those who disagree with official dictates from the Office of the Secretary of Defense is in- deed making progress toward the unification of the armed services, then perhaps we are moving forward along the desired course of action. If, to create an intellectual Siberia for American officers and men in the armed services who happen to sin in that they dis- agree, then perhaps unification has indeed been the panacea for the ills of interservice rivalry. I realize, Mr. Chairman, and dis~ tinguished guests, that these are blunt state~ ments, but I am also convinced that the hour is at hand for blunt speaking. The Congress of the United States, in passing the unification measure, did not intend that ® vast bureau of unlimited powers was to take the place of the separate service group~ ings which had preceded the legislative act. Neither did it intend to create a situation in whieh the dice were to be loaded against any one branch of the armed services, It did not intend to create a Frankenstein monster, with the power or the inclination to veto the acts of the legislaive branch, such as we have seen happen on several occasions. When the Congress of the United States authorizes construction of a flush- Gack carrier, or a circular carrier, or a square carrier, or a flat submarine, or any other type of construction which has been duly approved by those responsible for design in the Department of the Navy, it is my con- tention that no bureau chief and no depart- ment head in the Government of the United States holds the right to veto that author- ization or any subsequent appropriation. The House of Representatives and the Senate are still presumed to be the spokesmen for the people of this country, and I shall resist any suggestion that their legislative acts can be overridden or disregarded by the execu- tive branch of Government, except through Open and due process of Executive veto. The system of checks and balances established when this Republic was born placed very definite limitations on the powers to be ex~ ercised by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government. This power has been abused and continues to be abused in the instance of the Military Establishment, and the issue has now become one which is much greater than the per- sonal fortunes or the careers of any officer jin any of the armed services. The funda-~ mental question now to be decided is whether or not the Congress of the United States is to legislate for the 160,000,000 people in this country, or whether that legislation is to be initiated and implemented by the Secretary of Defense or by any other appointed official. The United States Marine Corps stands in danger today, gentlemen, not from public Opinion, but from the executive decrees of ap-~ pointed officials, who in many cases can act with entire legality, although in violation of clear intent, within the framework of the legislation passed by the Congress. It has been stated, and I see no reason to take Issue with the statement, that the Marine Corps could today be reduced to the strength of a platoon and kept in that status indefinitely, True, according to the legislation which was written during the Eightieth Congress, one of the functions of the platoon would be the development of techniques in amphibious op~ eration, but there is nothing to insure that they would have anything more to work with than a pair of water wings and an Old Town canoe. Public opinion is with the United States Marine Corps. From one end of this country to the other, former marines, par~ ents of marines, and interested citizens who share in the pride of the corps, have written to me, imploring me to take whatever action I could to insure that the structure of the Marine Corps would not be destroyed. That, gentlemen, is a large order. We who have served in the Marine Corps hold a narrow beachhead In the Congress of the United States. There are those who have done mag~ nificent work in protecting the corps and in trying to insure its continued progress and paequate appropriations for the job it has oO do. Mansriety of Montana; Dacus of Pennsyl- vania; Case of South Dakota; SmaTHErs of Florida, the latter, im case you have not re- ceived the intelligence, the new Senator from. the State of Florida; and on the Senate side, Senators Dovucras of Dlinois, and McCartuy of Wisconsin. All these, and others, have done Trojan work in holding the line tn the legislative halls. Last year Congressman MANSFIELD and myself circulated a petition on the floor of the House, asking other members to join with us in sponsoring legislation which would have created the Office of Sec~ retary of the Navy for the Marine Corps, and would have placed a floor under Marine Corps strength at a figure of 6 percent of the com- bined strength of the other armed forces, In less than an hour’s time we had more than 50 names on our petition, and given more time we could certainly have gotten 250. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I bring up this fact only to demonstrate the warm feeling of friendship held for the Marine Corps by many who serve on Capitol Hill. Again I say that 1t 1s neither from the public or from Congress that the Marine Corps need fear attrition. The danger to the corps lies in the great power wielded today by the Secretary of Defense. In this connec- tion I should like to quote several paragraphs from a speech made upon the feor of ithe House of Representatives on Tuesday, April 4, 1950, by my colleague, Congressman Jack ANDERSON of California, a niember of the Committee on the Armed Services. Mr. ANDERSON said: “Apout a month after Congress was over- ruled on the aircraft carrier, Washington was flooded with rumors to the effect that Marine Corps aviation was to be absorbed by the Air Force, by Secretary Johnson. These ru- mors became so intense that our distin- guished elder statesman of national de- fense—the gentleman from Georgia—to whom, let me say, the Nation owes far more than it can ever repay for his vision and leadership in national defense in the Con- gress for over a& third of a century—yes; it was the gentleman from Georgia, Chairman Vinson, who finally found it necessary to visit the Secretary to ask his intentions as regards the Maxine Corps. “Brom this visit came a letter from the Secretary. That letter flatly disavowed that 4t was or had at any time been planned to alter the status of Marine Corps aviation. The Secretary asserted in his letter that no studies had been initiated at any time in the Pentagon on the subject. “Mr, Chairman, the Armed Services Com~- mittee and the Congress accepted that let- ter at face value and dropped the subject. “But it is widely known—and I must mention it to point up further our need for concern today—that the Secretary person- ally told members of the press in New York, off the record of course, directly the opposite, and I happen to know that the Secretary had personally directed initia- tion of comparative cost studies in the Pen~ tagon which had as their purpose justifying the transfer of the Marine air arm to the Air Force, his disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding.” And so it goes. As I impugn the motives of no man, so I do not question the patriotism or the basic honesty of any department head here in the Nation’s Capital. I do say, however, that there is at present an ever~ accumulating mass of evidence which tends to indicate beyond any question of a doubt that the prerogatives of the Congress are being infringed upon by those charged with directing policy in the Department of De-~ fense. We who have seen service in the Marine Corps feel it incumbent upon us to render whatever continuing service we can to that great fighting organization. How well we shall continue to serve the corps and its best interests will depend in large measure upon how adequate is the liaison between head~ quarters and Capitol Hill. Again I tread upon very thin ice in this connection, be- cause of the fact that such “liaison” is most certainly frowned ywpon by the powers- that-be in the Defense Establishment, Un- less we who must bear the brunt of the leg- islative fight are kept whell informed of the order of battle, we shall certainly not be able to conduct any sort of a successful operation without being constantly out- flanked by those in opposition. Given the true facts, I have mo question as to what course of action the American people them- selves will take with respect to the Marine Corps. The distinguished gentleman from Missouri, Mr. DEwry Sort, & member of the House Committee on Armed Services, under questioning on the floor of the House during debate on the unification measure stated: “No Representative in his right mind would
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD vote against the Marine Corps. That would be one of the shortest routes to take back to civilian life.” The public and the Con- gress alike have evidenced their regard on too many occasions to render further evi- dence necessary. We know where the Ma- rine Corps stands in that regard. We do not know where it stands at the policy-admin- istration level, and that must continue to be @ focal point which we must watch with vigilant concern. I am sure that it will suf- fice to say that marines on the Hill do not intend to retreat from the position we have taken. It is our feeling that there is a definite role for the Marine Corps to play, a role which does not infringe upon the le- gitimate activities of the other branches of the armed services. Jet me say how much I personally appreciate being with you here today, and I am sure that I speak for every other ex-marine on the Hill in saying that we are extremely grateful for the help and cooperation being accorded to us by the Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association. As we continue the fight here in the Nation’s Capital, it is heart-warming to realize that throughout the country, organizations such as MCROA are standing behind us. It may well be that we shall need the concerted efforts of every marine organization, every former marine, and hundreds and thou- sands of other citizens before this fight is over. We know that you will not fail if the necessity arises for a concerted drive in the Jegislative halls. Thanks again for making it possible for me to be with you today, and good luck to you all! Joint Statement of 18 Constituent Organi- zations of National Civil Liberties Clear- ing House in Opposition to So-Called ‘Subversive Activities Control Bills EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ARTHUR G. KLEIN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave Iam inserting in the Recorp a statement issued jointly by the 18 constituent mem- bers of the National Civil Rights Clear- ing House expressing opposition to the subversive activities control bills pending in both Houses of Congress. The statement speaks for itself. ‘Nevertheless, I wish to emphasize and underscore the fact that the individuals who signed this statement and the or- ganizations they represent cannot be justly accused of any sympathy or lean- ings toward any kind of Marxism. ‘They are as American as the works of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Frank- lin; they are as American as comic strips and ice cream; they are as American as the institution of Congress and the Con- stitution under which Congress works to protect this Nation. , Because apparently no one is immune from irresponsible and libelous attacks impugning character and loyalty, and because in the present state of hysteria almost anyone who stands up for old- fashioned American freedom of speech and conscience lies in treble jeopardy. I cannot say too strongly that the spon- Py -~ sors and signers of this statement, many of whom are personally known to me, are not even reformers or radicals. They are just people who, like me, take pride in the noble traditions of this coun- try and love it as it is; people to whom human freedom and dignity are terms of reality and not of lip-service alone; men and women whose faith in democracy is deep and unyielding. I am including in this insertion the text of the joint statement; the names of the signers and of their organizations; and also the list of officers and members of the steering committee of the National Civil Liberties Clearing House as shown by the letterhead: Joint STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MUNDT-FERGUSON-JOHNSTON AND NIXON Bruits (S. 2311 anp H. R. 7595) The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 21 reported out the Mundt-Ferguson- Johnston bill (S. 2811). This bill differs only slightly from S. 1194 (MunpT) and S. 1196 (FerGuson), on which hearings were held last spring. Its major objectives are to compel registration by Communist polit- ical organizations and Communist-front or- ganizations, and to impose criminal sanc- tions on individuals for various subversive activities, whether or not in connection with such organizations. Meanwhile, Mr. Nixon has introduced H. R. 7595, identical with the new Senate bill, into the House of Rep- resentatives, and hearings on it have been begun by the Committee on Un-American Activities. We who sign this statement are completely and unalterably opposed to communism and all threats to our national security, whether from the extreme right or the extreme left. We are equally opposed to any violation or weakening of the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution—freedom of speech, press, and assembly; due process; and all the other great foundations of our democracy. We believe the proposed legislation would be such an unconstitutional violation of those civil liberties, and would be more dan- gerous to our American democracy than the evil it seeks to control. We believe, moreover, that its passage would materially aid the cause of communism. It would thus under- mine the structure of the American Govern- ment and the American society which it ostensibly is meant to buttress. In our opinion, there are three basic characteristics of the proposed legislation which render it both undesirable and un- constitutional: 1. The language of the bill, which makes criminal any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment of a foreign- controlled totalitarian dictatorship, violates the due process requirements of the Consti- tution because of its vagueness. The vague-~ ness of the phrase “substantially contribute” threatens the organizational activity of the entire liberal movement in the United States since people would be afraid to joint with their fellow citizens to seek any form of change, progress, or reform which is or might be supported by the Communists. It is standard technique for the Communists to give lip service to a great many liberal causes for their own nefarious purposes. In addi- tion, if enacted, the bill might well be con- strued as making criminal the performance by an attorney of his duty in defending a Communist client. It might even make criminal the mere advocacy of the repeal of the law itself. 2. It would inflict serious penalties on in- dividuals—criminal sanctions, social and economic ostracism, and character assassi- nation—merely on the ground of association with certain organizations whose natures are A3369 not themselves defined with sufficient preci- sion, and would thus inevitably restrict in- quiry and thought, belief and expression. 3. The bill would inflict penalties by legis- lative proscription of organizations instead of by judicial proceedings in which such or- ganizations would be individually tried in accordance with our constitutional guar- anties. Hence, the-bill is a bill of attainder; this is shown, for example, by the fact that members of Communist political organiza- tions face loss of passport privileges and access to Federal employment, merely by virtue of their membership and not after determination by the courts. Moreover, it is our conviction that the en- actment of the proposed legislation 1s com- pletely unnecessary for American security and indeed perversely likely to strengthen the very enemies it is intended to disarm. The registration provisions of the bills would not give the Government any information which the FBI does not already possess, nor is it needed to authorize the prosecution of anyone for actual acts which are genuinely subversive—they are already covered ade- quately by a number of laws. On the other hand, Communists, who would have to label their propaganda as such, would be clever enough to support publicly only the worthi- est ideas, in an attempt to enhance the appeal of communism; and every good cause to which they added their unwelcome help would be tarred with their brush, and non- Communists who believed in the same cause would be subject to the unjust accusation of furthering the designs of communism and the Soviet Union. Communism and all its works were never at a lower ebb in American public opinion than they are today. Driv- ing the Communists underground can only make it more difficult to combat them. Helping the Communists make martyrs of themselves can only enhance the appeal they make to the unthinking. Our supreme interests in defeating the pro- posed legislation is self-interest—the self- interest of all of us Americans who are not Communists but uncompromising oppo- nents of all totalitarian dictatorships. If this proposed action is taken against Com- munists today, a dangerous precedent is cre- ated for extending it tomorrow to progres- sives, Socialists, or trade-unionists. Lest such fear be called fanciful, we call atten- tion to a recent statement by Guy Gabriel- son, Republican national chairman, that the Socialists will be next * * * “We haven't gotten around to spotlight them yet, but I promise you we will. Avowed Socialists have no more place in the official family of the President of the United States than have Communists * * “ socialism Js just the first step toward communism.” The only important fear which we need have of Communists in this country today is that they will provoke us into suicide, by piecemeal destruction of our own free institutions. Police-state tactics will not destroy communism. We must not forget that in czarist Russia, the first nation in which communism triumphed, these tactics turned out to be a boomerang. By refus~ ing to adopt police-state tactics, America will strike the heaviest possible blow against communism, and preserve its own democ- racy. Patrick Murphy Malin, national d@2c- tor, American Civil Liberties Union; Charles M. LaFollette, national direc- tor, Americans for Democratic Action; Dr. Ralph E. Himstead, general secre- tary, American Association of Univer- sity Professors; Elmer W. Henderson, director, American Council on Human Rights; Helen Blanchard, legislative representative, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO; John Slaw- son, executive director, American Jews ish Committee; David W. Petegoreky,
A3370 executive director, American Jewish . Congress; Michael Straight, chairman, American Veterans Committee; Ben-~ jamin R. Epstein, executive director, Anti-Defamation League of B’nal Brith; Rev. Thomas B. Keehn, legis- lative Secretary, Council for Social Action, Car emeestionsl Christian Churches «7 . Lr i. lt States of America; E. Raymond Wilson, execu- tive secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation; Jacob Pat, execu- tive director, Jewish Labor Commit. tee; Ben Kaufman, executive director, Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America; Isaih M. Minkoff, executive director, National Commu- nity Relations Advisory Council; Mrs, Irving M. Engel, president, National Council of Jewish Women; Hlisabeth Christman, secretary-treasurer, Na- tional Women’s Trade Union League; Philip Schiff and Herman Shukofsky, co-chairmen, Social Action Commit- tee, National Association of Jewish Center Workers; John W. Hdel- man, legislative representative, Textile Workers Crion of America, CIO. _ The letterhead of the National Civil Liber= ties Clearing House shows that the principal office is at 1000 Eleventh Street NW., Wash- ington 1, D. C., telephone Sterling 3711. The following officers are listed on the letterhead: Advisory board: Francis Biddle, chairman; Thurman Arnold; Mary McLeod Bethune; Zechariah Chafee, Jr.; Grenville Clark; Mor- ris Llewellyn Cooke, Sr.; Robert E. Cushman; Edward J. Ennis; Earl G. Harrison; Dr. Charles S. Johnson; Dr. Herbert Wechsler. Chairman, E. Raymond Wilson (Friends Committee on National Legislation); vice chairmen, government and civil liberties, Violet M. Gunther (Americans for Democrat- ic Action); academic freedom, Dr. Richard B. Kennan (National Education Association) ; civil rights, Herman Edelsberg (Anti-Defama- tion League of B'nai B’rith); human rights, Dr. Francis J. Brown (American Council on Education). Secretary, Dr. Flemmie P. Kittrell (South- ern Regional Council); treasurer, Philip Schi (National Jewish Welfare Board); executive secretary, Mary Alice Baldinger (American Civil Liberties Union). Steering committee: Marcus Cohn (Amer~ ican Jewish Committee), Mike Masoaka (Japanese-American Citizens League), Rev. Thomas B. Keehn (Legislative Committee, Council for Social Action, Congregational Christian Churches of the U. 8. A.), John W. Edelman (Textile Workers Union of America, CIO), Olya Margolin (National Council of Jewish Women), Louis C. Pakiser, Jr, (Amer= ican Veterans Committee). Was It Cancer? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 » Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, with permission to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I want to tell the story of a family I ran across in the May issue of the Ladies’ Home Journal, in its How America Lives series by Dorothy Came- ron Disney. The quotations are from the Journal article. Was It Cancer? Merrill and Virginia Phillips, of Walton, Ind., and their 5-year-old son, Mickey, are an average American family. Merrill is a plumber-electrician who earned $60 a week. For the past year they had been devoting every spare moment to building their own home. It started when Virginia noticed a lump on her breast, Did Virginia go straight to a doctor? No, she didn’t. For one thing, the Phillipses had no family physician. A much more important consideration was financial. The Phillipses had hospitaliza- tion insurance—it cost them $7.20 a month, put the policy provided only partial coverage. Any extra medical expense might jeopardize thei hard-won home. So Virginia continued to delay, and to lie awake nights, sick with worry. ‘Virginia and Merrill‘ were engaged in a daily gamble with their health. An acci- dent—nothing else—brought their affairs to a crisis.’ While on a job one evening, an oul tank fell, breaking both of Merrill’s col- larbones. He was put in a cast from neck to waist. “With the accident, their financial cir- cumstances took a turn for the worse. Al- though there was no difficulty about meeting medical expenses—Merrill’s employer carried. insurance—their income dropped from $60 to $50 a week. Of this sum, the insurance company paid $23, the balance paid from the boss’s own pocket. The patience of any em- ployer, as Merrill was keenly aware, has limits.” The accident brought Virginia’s breast tumor to the attention of the general prac- titioner attending Merrill. He insisted on an operation for Virginia although he thought the tumor was benign. At the same time he urged removal of a mole on Merrill’s head, As though this weren’t enough, their son, Mickey developed a crippling cyst on the back of his knee. A bone specialist was needed. “The Phillipses’ insurance policy didn’t cover the services of a specialist” “ ‘It wasn’t easy,’ the Phillipses say today, ‘But we figured Mickey would have to wait his turn,’ ” No other decision, under the circumstances, was possible. Just then, “the blow fell. Merrill’s em- ployer explained that he must reduce ex-~ penses, and Merrill was out of a job, When he left the shop he could count on only the $23 a week unemployment payments. The family had $93 on hand. This meant they could stay afloat for approximately two months. After that, they would go into debt at the rate of $40 a month.” On the doctor’s further insistence, Merrill had his mole removed—as a charity patient. Analysis proved it cancerous. Merrill needed follow-up X-ray treatments, said the doctor. “The Phillipses’ insurance policy didn’t cov- er X-ray treatments, Frightened but firm, Merrill refused the treatments.” This story has a happy ending—only be-~ cause the Phillipses got charity care. This family, self-reliant enough: to build their own house with just their hands and home- made plans, was forced to take charity from their neighbors and the State. Mickey’s cyst and Virginia’s tumor were removed and Merrill’s X-ray treatments paid for by charity—charity doled out to indigent per- sons. But meanwhile—they spent weeks and months of agonized worry, not only about the illnesses, but because they couldn't carry the financial load. And now their future is more insecure than ever. For hard-working American families like the Phillipses, every day that the medical lobby blocks national health insurance and disability insurance means needless worry, financial ruin, and human suffering. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD They are victims of the dollar barrier which now prevents four out of five families from getting adequate medical care. We must remove that dollar barrier. Under national health insurance, for $3 90 @ month—1'¥4 percent of Merrill’s salary— the Phillipses would have had comprehensive care. This would include full diagnostic treatment. For Virginia, Merrill, and Mickey there would have been no worry about the costs of diagnosis, surgery, and follow-up treatment, including home visits by the doctor of their choice. Without national health insurance, they paid $7.20 for incomplete protection. The benefits just were not there when they needed them most. National health insurance—a middle-of- the-road plan for self-respecting Americans—. would have covered them—not charity. Let Us Give the District of Columbia Permanent Authority Now for Daylight Saving Time EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR G. KLEIN OF NEW YorE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Speaker, I am, quite naturally, gratified by swift action in the last gap to insure daylight saving time for the District of Columbia this sum- mer, However, I believe that right now is the time to complete action on the pend- ing bills to give the Commissioners permanent authority to establish day- light saving time in their own discretion. The Senate bill, S, 3176, was passed by the Senate on April 21, 1950, and is now pending before the House Committee on the District of Columbia, unaffected by the passage of H. R. 6354. My own bill for permanent authority, H. R. 1387, is also pending before the committee, Hither bill can be reported; I am seeking no personal distinction, and I should counsel the simplest method, which is to report and pass the Senate bill at the next call of the District Calendar, ANNUAL DEBATE IS EXTRAVAGANT The extravagance of the annual de- bate over the purely local issue of day~ light saving time in Washington is be~ coming comic. Based on an unofficial estimate of $19,700 an hour as the cost of a session of Congress, the cost of debate on the floor alone, in both Houses, reaches the fan- tastic figure of about $50,000 each session. Off-the-floor costs are not so easy to compute; but I think it is not unfair to assume that the time of the committees, the Commissioners, the committee staffs, and of the many witnesses, print- ing costs, and other incidentals, brings the total off-the-floor expense to another $50,000. This means that, out of deference to Intransigent milch cows in far-off States, the taxpayers have been assessed some $500,000 since the war ended—just
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to make a legislative decision which ob- viously was going to be made anyway. TOO HIGH A PRICE This is too high a price. It is self-evident that an overwhelm- ing majority of the residents of Wash- ington, including virtually all the sal- aried officers of the District of Columbia government, favor daylight-saving time. ‘There are a few people who will be in- convenienced by “fast time,” and some others who will not be inconvenienced but who will resent and oppose it. Most people are very much the bene- ficiaries, While it is unlikely that in the future temporary authority for daylight-sav- ing time will be denied, it takes little imagination to see what would happen to radio and television programs, trav- elers’ schedules, plane flights, and every other activity involving interstate com- merce in such an eventuality. Now, Mr. Speaker, is the time to settle the whole business while it is fresh in our minds. I am communicating sepa- rately with my chairman in an effort to enlist his support. The Amerasia Investigation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorv, I include the following article by George Sokolsky: THESE Days (By George Sckolsky) All the material in this article is taken from the Report of Subcommittee IV of the Committce on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, published in 1946: “Ou June 6, 1945, the Federal Bureau of Investigation * * * caused the arrest of Philip Jacob Jaffe and Kate Louise Miichell, editor and coeditor * * * of Amerasia. ¥ ™« * Andrew Roth, a lieutenant in the United States Naval Reserve, stationed in Washington; Mark Julius Gayn, a magazine writer * * * and Emmanuel Sigurd Lar- sen and John Stewart Service * * * em- ployees of the State Department In Wash- ington,D.c. * * * “Among the documents seized in the pos- session of Jaffe at the Amerasia office in New York Clty at the time of his arrest were 267 prepared by the State Department, including 2 copies of a top-secret classification, 20 originals or duplicate originals, and 14 copies of a secret classification, and 51 originals or duplicate originals, and 14 copies of a confi- dential classification; 50 prepared by OSS, in- cluding 2 originals or duplicate originals, and 1 copy of a secret classification, and 11 origi- nals or duplicate originals of a confidential classification; 19 prepared by ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence), including 1 original or duplicate original ‘of a secret classification and 8 originals or duplicate originals of a confidential classification; 34 prepared by MID (military intelligence), including 9 copies of a secret classification, 1 original or duplicate original, and 11 copies of a confi- dential classification; 58 prepared by OWI, including 3 copies of a secret classification, i original or duplicate original (and 4 copies of a confidential classification. * * *” (A number of documents similarly de- tailed were found when Larsen was arrested at his home in Washington, D. C.) “The records made available to this com- mittee indicate * * * that Roth, who had been under surveillance, was the contact man or go-between for Jaffe in Washington * * * four items which were seized by the FBI in the possession of Jaffe, and which bore no official classification, were subjected to laboratory analysis, with the resulting disclosure that they were copies of official reports on Indian politics written in long- hand by Roth, or typewritten on Roth’s ma- chine, * * # “+ * © Virtually all of the late 1944 and 1945 items seized from Jaffe, which on their face indicated them to be Government prop- erty, were removed from the State Depart- ment. “Many originated elsewhere, but had been routed to State. Larsen had authority en- abling him to take such items from the State Department, although under the regulations he could not retain them or disclose their contents, “Although the various parties were fre- quently observed in the company of one another by trained investigators, no one of them was ever seen to deliver any Govern- ment items to another.” From the minority view of FraNK FELLOWS, member of the committee: “Larsen, when arrested, was a research spe- cialist in the Far East Division of the Depart- ment of State. The Department of State had no system worthy of the name for protecting the files of that Department. “He (Jaffe) was photographing and pub- lishing some of them, thereby, through the medium of his magazine, at least, selling the contents of some of the classified documents of this Government at the time when the United States was fighting for its very existence. “These papers were seized from Jaffe at the time of his arrest in his business estab- lishment, where he was publishing a maga- zine. They were not his own documents, They were not seized as the result of search- - ing his files. “They were found in suitcases and paste- poard containers on the tables and desks of his business cftices. I do not see how any- body could claim these papers were illegally seized. The circumstances clearly indicate that Roth, who had previously worked for him in this very office, was delivering papers to him.” The activities reported above by a con- gressional committee, the chairman of which was Sam Hosss, of Alabama, a Democrat, occurred while this country was engaged in a war which involved an armed force of 11,000,000 men and women and cost this country more than $300,000,000,000, What has been done about this report? McCarthy’s Victims EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, with permission to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I attach the following article, A3371 McCartTHy’s Victims, by Joseph Alsop, which appeared in the Washington Post, May 8. Mr. Alsop’s remarkable quali- fications to discuss the far-eastern situ- ation and the personalities concerned are greatly in evidence in this open letter. If the others who have joined in this unwarranted assault on the integrity of the State Department had the same qualifications, it seems likely that the assault would never have taken place. McCartTHy’s Victims—AN Oprzn LETTER TO Senator TypiIncs (By Joseph Alsop) After long hesitation, I am impelled by the appalling effects in Europe of the McCartuy witch hunt to offer my testimony to your committee, for what it may be worth. I do so for two reasons. First, I have al- ready sharply criticized the conduct of our affairs in China on several occasions. Sec- ond, I was intimately involved in the events which led to the loss of China, whereas Sen= ators McCartHy, WHERRY, and Tart and their informanis are offering second-hand evi- dence. This evidence is so obviously cor- rupted by political and other pressure that it is a duty to correct the impression conveyed. Stating the case as briefly as possible, I think it fair to say that the really crucial years in China were those when Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell commanded the China-Burma- India theater, from 1942 to 1944. In this period, Professor Lattimore, who was always at best a fringe figure, played his most im< portant role in our China policy, as a per- sonal adviser to Generalissimo Chiang Kai- shek. In this rather b: ef assignment, he accomplished nothing, but he was quite ob- viously loyal both to the American Govern= ment and to Generalissimo Chiang. Professor Lattimore had no part whatever in the real debate about China policy, in which the different points of view have been fantastically misrepresented by Senator Mc- Carty and his friends. No informed person ever supposed that offering blank checks to the National Government of China would accomplish anything. Those who advocated a@ strong policy of aiding the National Gov- ernment only did so with the proviso that the aid given would be closely controlled by American representatives on the spot, as it was during the short and successful period of General Wedemeyer’s command. It should be noted that the congressional advocates of postwar aid to China specifically rejected the responsibility involved in this sort of local, on the spot control, in the first major bill appropriating funds for the purpose auring General Marshall’s Secretaryship of State. Returning to the vastly more important war period, the other school of thought was composed primarily of General Stillwell and his political advisers. General Stillwell, so far as one could judge, was chiefly animated by his personal destestation of Generalissimo Chiang, arising from their disagreements. His political advisers, among whom was Mr. John Stewart Service, were operating on a more reasoned theory, however. They asserted, first, that the National Gov-~ ernment was too feeble and corrupt ever to be reformed, even with direct American help and under direct American pressure. They sald, second, that the Chinese Communists were therefore bound to win in the end, no matter what measures might be taken by the United States. In the third place, they argued that the Soviet Union, insofar as it had intervened in China at all, had given all its assistance to the regime of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek rather than to the Com- munists, who received no tangible Russian aid whatever until the war was over. Fourthly, they suggested that the Chinese
A3372 Communists might be induced to declare their independence of the Kremlin if they were treated as friends and allies by the United States. Opening friendly relations and offering aid to the Chinese Communists was frankly ad- mitted, at the time, to be a bold gamble. The gamble now looks better than it did then, On the one hand, the Yugoslav Communists, whose experience was precisely what the ex- perience of the Chinese Communists would have been if they had received American aid, have now rebelled against the Kremlin. On the other hand, the recent behavior of the Japanese Communist leader, Nosaka, a war- time refugee at Yenan and intimate friend of Mao Tse-tung, clearly suggests that the idea of independence of the Kremlin must have been in the air in Communist China in wartime. My right to speak, if I may be said to have a right to speak, derives from the fact that in wartime I was one of the chief American opponents of the school of thought I have summarized above. As a member of the staff of the American Volunteer Group, as chief of the Lend-Lease Mission to China, and finally as an assistant to Dr. T. V. Soong, I did everything in my power to present the pro-Nationalist point of view in influential quarters in Washington. Those who wished to develop an American policy of friendship toward, and aid to, the Chinese Communists were finally and de- Cisively defeated with the dismissal of Gen~ eral Stilwell, in October 1944. This occurred many months after I had finally succeeded in getting into uniform, as a member of Gen, c.L, Chennault’s staff in the Fourteenth Air Force. But although I had long before be~ come a mere junior officer in the Air Force, the effect of my letters to Harry L. Hopkins and the other representations I had made was acknowledged by implication in General Marshall's first instructions to General Wede- meyer. These are, so to speak, my credentials. Hav~ ing known the situation in wartime China far more intimately than any of the pro- McCarthy witnesses you have yet heard, I think it my duty to say that while I disputed the judgment, I never had the faintest doubt of the loyalty of any of the American officials or others whom McCarruy has attacked. They were serving the United States to the best of their ability, with courage and fidel- ity. This should be sufficient to protect them from the kind of vulgar attack McCarry has made, even if their judgment was incorrect. Although our views clashed sharply, I was particularly well acquainted with Mr. Service. To the best of my knowledge, although I thought then, and think now, that he was gravely in error, he was a most conscientious and decent American public servant. It is difficult, of course, to offer hard evidence to support such contemporary impressions. But I may cite one fact, at least, to show how erroneous it can be to judge situations from the viewpoint of a later time. Former Vice President Henry A. Wallace has been, in effect, a pliable stooge for the American Communist Party for more than 2 years. From this, many people have inferred that Wallace was a Communist stooge in war- time. In fact, however, nothing could have been more contrary to the party line in war. time than to urge the dismissal of General Stilwell; yet Wallace recommended the dis- missal of Stilwell and his replacement by Wedemeyer in a telegram from China to Pres- ident Roosevelt in the late spring of 1944. Incidentally, the telegram was sent with the full knowledge of Mr, John Carter Vincent, who entered no protest whatever, although he too has been under attack as a Commu- nist stooge. In conclusion, there are two points which I feel I must make. First, I do not think I was wrong in opposing the policy of gam- bling on winning the friendship of the Chinese Communists and inducing them to declare their independence of the Kremlin. I do not think I was wrong, simply because I, and the others who took the same view, could not possibly foresee that when this policy of winning the friendship of the Chinese Communists had been defeated with the dismissal of General Stilwell, there would be a long period after the war during which we had no China policy at all. None of the men now under attack by Senator.McCarrtuy had any important re- sponsibility, to my knowledge, for this singu- lar hiatus. Speaking for myself, if I could have foreseen that the only alternative to a policy of gambling on the friendship of the Chinese Communists was a kind of vacuum of policy, I should have been on the Other side in the struggle in China. The gamble on the Chinese Communists, al- though unnecessary, in my opinion, was at least a reasonable gamble, such as could be reasonably advocated by entirely loyal Americans. Second, I should like to suggest to your committee that, if the test of loyalty is following the line of the Communist Party, you had much better launch an investigation of Senators McOartwy, Wrerry, and Tart, than an investigation of Messrs. Lattimore, Service, and Vincent. Let the test be a tabulation of the key votes of the three Senators above mentioned on the great post- war measures of foreign policy, and especially of their votes on key amendments by which bills can be nullified. Unless I am gravely mistaken, such a tabulation will show that these three Sen- ators, and most of the others who have joined them in the present clamor, have voted the straight Communist Party line on every major issue of foreign policy, as laid Gown in the Daily Worker, ever since the end of the war. If temporary agreement with the party line is to be made the test of loyalty, let these men be called to the bar to explain their records. In summary, I do not attempt to excuse or palliate the grave American mistakes in China, which I have often before denounced. But I submit that we may as well abandon all hope of having honest and courageous public servants, if mere mistakes of judg- ment are later to be transformed into evi- dences of disloyalty to the state. And I submit further that the Members of the Senate who are now persecuting these men who made, as I think, mistakes in China, have far more to explain, excuse, and ration= alize in their own records. I still believe that the loss of China was unnecessary. But I think it far more important that we should not destroy the decent traditions of Ameri- can political life. These now seem to be endangered. Flood-Contro] Project at Havre, Mont. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WESLEY A. D’EWART OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. D'EWART, Mr. Speaker, I was about to make a speech today concern- ing the need for a small flood-control project at Havre, Mont., a project which would cost only slightly more than $1,- 000,000. Some of the Members will re- call that I have spoken about this project frequently. It was authorized many years ago. Each time the Corps of Engi- neers has asked for funds to build it the Budget Bureau has turned it down. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Each time we have asked the Appropria- tions Committee to appropriate for it as an additional item, we have been refused. For 2 years the Senate has appropriated money only to have the House conferees turn it down. The only reason we can get for these repeated rebuffs, this re- fusal to construct a tiny project that is of great importance to the people of Havre, Mont., is that it is against the President’s policy to start new construc- tion. Now the President has announced that one of his stops on the political tour, at taxpayers’ expense, which begins this week will be in Havre, Mont. The cost of this tour alone would pay for the Havre project. Instead of making a speech today, I want to suggest that the citizens of Havre ask the President, when he honors their city with his presence, whether he is ever going to withdraw the objections that have stopped their proj- ect. I suggest they ask the President, who proposes to put us in debt another $7,000,000,000 this year, when he thinks he can afford $1,000,000 to protect the citizens of Havre from floods. After he has viewed their growing town, ask him if its protection is not worth at least one three-hundredth of the amount he proposes to spend on the St. Lawrence waterway. If he can spare time from politics to consider this problem, perhaps we will get the project underway. Changing a Republic Into a Socialist State EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT F. RICH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. RICH. Mr, Speaker, a republic gone to seed is the very worst form of autocracy; and our Government-wreck- ers have taken long strides toward mak- ing of this Government the worst au- tocracy the world has ever seen. History teaches that, in the case of every destroyed republic, the destroyers first broke down all lines of demarca- tion between governmental functions, and rendered the people’s representa- tives, the legislators, impotent. They do not usually abolish legislatures, but they so weaken them, that they enact only such legislation as the wreckers demand of them, leaving the bureaucrats to con- trol or dictate every act of government. Our Congress has so far surrendered its powers to the Executive and the bu- reaucrats that it generally enacts into law every measure demanded of it: and ours has become a government of men, not of law. The process of destruction began with the reign of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his horde of bright young men fresh from the colleges, and without experi- ence in government, business, or other- wise. The late President Roosevelt claimed several mandates, but, viewing them in retrospect, it is now apparent that they were assumed mandates sneaked over on
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an unsuspecting Congress and the peo- ple, each of which was part of a pattern to destroy this Republic. In a Jackson Day dinner radio address on January 1, 1939, the late President said: In answer to the demands of the American people we have expanded the functions of the Government of the United States. We are handling complicated problems of ad= ministration with which no party has ever had to wrestle. To do that we are constantly recruiting lieutenants who will give intense and genuine devotion to the cause of liberal governing. We have brought to the Govern- ment men and women whose first thought is to be of service to their country through their Government—men and women with fewer attributes of selfishness and more ob- jectives of clean service than any group I have ever come in contact with In a some- what long career. Almost without exception they are more intent on doing a good job than in keeping themselves on the payrolls. Almost without exception, they possess that quality of co- operative effort which distinguishes them from the old-time political officeholder. The exceptions which the late Presi- dent Roosevelt did not mention stand out in bold relief when we view what those unselfish souls did in the pursuit of efforts to render “service to their country through their Government.” They established a long list of alpha- betical agencies for curing a depression which was never cured—agencies headed and manned by such immortals as Rex- ford Guy Tugwell, Henry Agard Wallace, Harry L. Hopkins, Corrington Gill, Au- brey Williams, and others comprising a list too long to enumerate. When it be- came known that those unselfish guides of our destinies were other than what they pretended to be, and the populace clamored for their jobs and their politi- cal heads, they were kicked upstairs into better jobs, where they could go on with their government-wrecking and de- struction. : Under the guidance of the late Roose- yelt, with his falsely claimed mandate to cure our depression, the general-welfare clause of our Constitution was all but read out of that memorable and honor-~ able document. That clause was stretched to put the Government into activities never contemplated by our founding fathers—it was distorted in a catch-all phrase to justify the appropria- tion and use of the peoples’ money for every hairbrained and cockeyed scheme conceived by the unselfish horde of bu- reaucrats that had been recruited, as now seems apparent, to wreck this Gov- ernment. ‘When it at long Iast became apparent that the New Deal had utterly failed to cure, or even to show improvement in the prolonged depression, Mr. Roosevelt jockeyed us into World War II as a means of saving face for the New Deal and its horde of unselfish martyrs who were recruited to save the Nation. The fighting and winning of World War II, plus the loss of the fight against the depression, left this Nation with a known public debt and contingent labili- ties of more than $430,000,000,000—far more debt than had been incurred throughout the entire history of the country. ; XOVI—App.——213 Since the shooting of World War II stopped, the same hordes of Roosevelt’ brilliantes—unselfish and God-given blessings to mankind—and their descend- ants, so to speak, have evolved other and further schemes for the continued saving of this Nation, but they have evolved out of their inner consciousness-= es a horde of world-wide alphabetical agencies designed to succor and rescue the entire world from communism, com~ mercial disaster, and the like—all at the expense of American taxpayers, Amer- ican industry, and American labor. These world-wide alphabetical Fair Deal schemes have already cost our tax- payers some $30,000,000,000, for gifts, loans, hand-outs, and assistance to the rest of the world; and the end is not yet. Secretary of State Dean Gooderham Acheson has now declared an additional remedy for saving the world—‘“total di- plomacy,” which is daily coming more and more to mean: We give away our wealth all over the world to buy friend- ship and opposition to the spread of communism, as we give it away at home in the form of gifts, hand-outs, and sub- sidies to buy the necessary influence to Keep the Fair Deal’s destructive jugger- naut rolling. Furthermore, in addition to our gifts, grants, and hand-outs all over the world in a futile effort to buy friendship, the all-powerful internationalist bloc in the State Department and elsewhere in the Fair Deal hierarchy, are hell-bent on taking the United States into a one- world government where she will be shorn of her inherent and inalienable right to legislate for and govern her own people—a one-world government in which, through alien minds and foreign governments, our own States and peo- ple will be forced to surrender their sov- ereign rights and even their persons to trial by foreign courts and tribunals. In short, the Fair Deal—a continua- tion of the Roosevelt New Deal, to which many dangerous innovations have been added—goes merrily on with its steps to- ward a planned economy at home and all over the world. Already many American business con- cerns are being put out of business be- cause of the loose way in which the State Department has handled, and is han- dling, the reciprocal trade agreements, but the wrecking does not stop there. It is now seriously proposed by the ad- ministration that the International Trade Organization be approved—not by treaty but by executive agreement—and that the matter of handling tariff mat- ters, international financing, and even of labor, be delegated to a foreign or- ganization ruled and governed by aliens and alien minds—an organization in which the United States will have but one vote out of 50-odd by the foreign- ers. It emerges crystal clear that the Gov- ‘ernment-wreckers and world-planners mean and intend to make American in- dustry and American labor subservient to this alien-minded and alien-govern- ment trade organization, under the claim ‘that the living standards of the rest of the world can be raised to those in the United States. A38373 To anyone who is not willfully and mentally blind, it is altogether clear that such aim cannot be attained through such organization, or otherwise; and that, in the process, American industry and labor will inevitably be reduced to the standards of the rest of the world, rather than the world’s standards being elevated to our own. L Extension of Selective Service Act EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JOHN W. McCORMACK OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, un- der permission to extend my remarks, I include the following article written by Gould Lincoln, appearing in the Wash- ington Star in favor of an extension without limiting provisions of the Se- lective Service Act that in the light of existing world conditions is based on sound and logical reasoning: Drarr Coutp Be NeEepmp DESPERATELY AND In Hurry (By Gould Lincoln) Overriding the views of the administration and of high ranking armed services officials, the House Armed Services Committee has written into the bill to extend for 2 years the Selective Service Act a provision mak- ing necessary a declaration by Congress that @ national emergency exists before any fur- ther inductions may be made. Cold war or no cold war, this seems to be as far as Congress is prepared to go, with an election just around the corner. Indeed, 6 months ago there were plenty of predic- tions that Congress would not extend the so- called peacetime draft act at all. It is due to expire June 24 unless given new life by legislation. Only the serious situation in the world, which certainly has not improved in recent months, has brought some willingness on the part of many Members to pass any legislation relating to the draft. STEP IS NOT ENOUGH The action of the House Armed Services Committee, which has now unanimously re- ported the bill with the amendment already described, is a step in the right direction. But it is not enough. Once before in our recent history an attempt was made in Con- gress to kill off a draft law by permitting it to die. That. was in the summer of 1941, 5 months before the Japanese made their attack on Pearl Harbor. General Marshall, then Chief of Staff, argued for hours before the congressional committees in favor of ex~ tending the Selective Service Act, pointing out that if it were allowed to die—as die it would—the Army would be hamstrung. Yet when the measure extending the life of the draft law came to a vote in the House it pre- vailed by only a single vote. It seems incredible today that so many Members of Congress could have been s0 short-sighted as to vote against the con- tinuance of the draft. Had the bill failed, this country would have been in far more desperate shape than it was when the attack did come. In 1945 and 1946 this country tore down great and victorious armed forces. The race to demobilize was swift. The war had been won; there was going to he no more war.
A3374 But the peace had not been won—and it has not yet been won. With many pains, ani large ouvrocric . we are building back toar wid :. Ittakes time. It be- came evident a couple of years ago that the country was not going to get enough’ enlist- ments to keep the armed forces up to the strength authorized by Congress, notwith- standing increases in pay and in many ad- vantages of training offered young men en- tering the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. So the Draft Act was passed. And also provi- sion was made for voluntary enlistments for 1 year for 18-year-olds, and for 21 months for older men. NO ASSURANCE ON MEN The enactment of the Draft Act stimulated enlistments. By January 1949 it was not necessary to draft more men, and the draft has not been used since. But this year, 160,000 enlistments end. With the draft re- moved—and it will be removed to all intents and purposes by the amendment requiring Congress to act before any more men can be drafted—the sole reliance of the Armed Forces will be voluntary reenlistments and voluntary new enlistments. What assurance is there the same condi- tion will not be found that brought about the passage of the present Draft Act? There is none. The administration is asking that, at least, the authority to start up the draft again be left to the executive branch, which could act promptly. The wisest action, however, would be to retain the draft as it now stands, with its machinery continued in effect and ready to go into active operation at the drop of a hat. The draft is one of those things which, if needed at all, will be needed desperately and in a hurry. What the American Flag Means to Me EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following essay by Carlyle Ausley, Jr., of Ocala, Fla., 16 years old and a member of the National Honor Society, Carlyle’s essay won first prize for boys in the tenth to twelfth grades of the Ocala High School in a competition sponsored by Marion County Post, No. 27, the American Legion. He tells— WHAT THE AMERICAN FLaG MEANS TO ME The American flag, though only a piece of cloth or bunting, has been brought to a proud position by love and sacrifice, and was au- thorized by Congress June 14, 1777. Carrying our flag high in a place of honor above my horse last winter in a parade, sud- denly I was thinking deeply what the flag meant to me. My mind became more peace- ful; gratitude for all good things seemed first place, love for all that’s real and worth while, the great need of being helpful to others with patience. The red color I figured was proud, and must mean valor and zeal. The white must be hope, good conduct, and purity. The blue, being the color of heaven, was surely rever~ ence to God, justice, truth, and sincerity. The star, being high, like in the sky, meant high ideals. The fiag’s history is just the history of the American people, where I will find my place, like 140,000,000 or more other humans under this flag. Feeling by now the physical as well as mental weight of the flag, I promised myself to study the lives of the men who wished to lead us under our beautiful flag so when I become of age to vote I would do it honor. In time of war its stars and stripes were never pale, and in peace 1t proudly floats, like now, in the breeze, and is so fair to see, being the third oldest of national flags. Looking at the flag in a position of honor in front to the right of the speaker of that day these quick thoughts came, for the flag seemed alive, representing a living country— freedom to hunt, fish, grow, mine, cut, make and manufacture; freedom to ship and sell, freedom to work or quit, freedom to hire or fire, freedom to make the most of my nat- ural gifts, and a chance to reason rather than be forced, with my rights safeguarded. On a casket of a great soldier once I no- ticed a flag, and I knew uf he could talk I would hear, “Our flag will always wave on for the good of mankind, and when I lived I ex- pressed opinions on all matters, also I kept my self-respect. I deserved no better gov- ernment than what I exerted myself to get. If I had it to do over again I would shudder to see my flag ever dirty or abused—like let- tering on 1t—because we must first respect before we love. Besides, my country was the best fed and clothed, with the same op- portunity for all.” The parade finally came to where it dis- banded; but my thoughts were still in tune— if I am pleased with my country, thrilled with the red, white, and blue; can just be what my flag stands for, my country will be proud of me, too. European Recovery Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. OTTO E. PASSMAN OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrco- orp, I include the following article by Philip Warden, from the Washington Times-Herald of April 26, 1950: TRUMAN’S AIDES CLAIM IT’S ERP oR A DEPRESSION (By Philip Warden) Administration leaders have told the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees in a secret session that foreign aid spending must be continued unabated or the country faces the threat of a depression. President Truman and his aides told the Congressmen that the European recovery program billions are all that is preventing an unmanageable surplus of farm products. Stop foreign aid spending, and our markets will be’ glutted, they maintained. EMPLOYMENT PERILED Administration leaders also declared that the Marshall plan dollars are being spent in industries where widespread unemploy- ment would develop at once if the aid pro- gram were curtailed. They asserted unem- ployment would spread quickly to other in-« dustries, The administration has decided to put all its emphasis on the depression threat at home in its campaign to sell the Marshall plan to Congress for another year, rather than on Europe’s economic requirements, The Senate is considering the administra tion bill to authorize 3.4 billions for aid to APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Europe for another year. The bill has been passed by the House. PRODUCTION RECOVERED Administrator Hoffman, of the Marshall plan, said yesterday that Europe’s industrial production is 20 percent higher than before the war, her food production is back to pre- war levels, and her export trade is above prewar. Asked if he felt that we should continue giving money under these conditions, Hoff- man replied: “The real problem in Europe today, which must be solved or both Europe and America will suffer, is to build up Europe’s dollar earnings. “Europe needs our goods, not our dollars. That is what we are giving them—the goods they can get nowhere but here. Europe could triple her production and still not have enough dollars to buy what she needs from us. COTTON GIFTS CITED “For example, Europe does not have enough dollars to buy the cotton she needs. We have been giving her the cotton. If we stop giving her cotton, her mills will close, un- employment will spread, and she will be right back where she was when the war ended.” The administration will rely upon the aid program to prevent the stock piles of sur- plus food from getting much larger, rather than revise farm supports along realistic lines. Democrats from industrial areas are be= ing told that they must vote for the aid pro- gram or the industries in their areas are likely to suffer and unemployment follow. Alaska, Key Point of Nation’s Defense EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRED L. CRAWFORD OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, many of our leading editors are taking cognizance, in their editorial columns, of the great importance of Alaska to the United States. The editor of the Tulsa (Okla.) World, in an editorial April 4, calls it “a key point of Nation’s defense.” By unanimous consent, I submit that editorial for consideration of the Mem- bers of Congress. It follows: AuasKa, Key Pornr or Nation's DereNnse Practical attention to Alaska as the most vital point in the American defense system, is made certain by the statement of Gen. Dwight Eisenhower. The importance of Alaska in this respect has been growing for many years; the public mind is fairly familiar with the general idea. But it was essential that an authoritative statement be made. The situation poses for the United States a gigantic problem in finance and prepared~ ness. It is one of those things which cannot be avoided. Immediate plans are for expenditure of from $300,000,000 to $500,000,000 in the next year or s0. Most of that is to be earmarked for air expansion, which implies a great deal of preparation along various Mnes. Prob- ably the work of outfitting Alaska as a de- fensive base is further along than most of us know. The whole affair starts with the nearness of Russia. Alaska is no longer a remote outpost of the United States or a plece of land which Russia sold, It is now
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of first-class importance to the two greatest nations of the earth, and consequently to all nations and all mankind. On the historical, sentimental, or reflec- tive side, Alaska is a mighty subject. The far-sighted Secretary of State, William H. Seward, bought the country for $7,200,000; that was in 1867, when it was difficult to fix general attention upon anything so remote, even nebulous. It was not until long after. ward—or not more than 80 years ago—that the idea of Alaska as defensive territory and a key to the north side of the world gained any real credence. Billy Mitchell was dis- charged from the Army for making sugges- tions and he was reprobated for intimating that air was the future power. No greater change in outlook or viewpoint than is in- volved in the matter of Alaska can be imagined. When Alaska was bought for what is now called chicken feed, there was no conception of the airplane, no particular idea that na- tions far apart would ever be gouging and shoving each other in the purlieus of the Arctic Circle. The price paid for the land is a very small fraction of what we now seriously propose to spend on it next year. While we are considering the practical side, as we must, we Americans are called upon to recognize, in all its phases, a new era. That is an era in which we take a lead- ing part. There is dramatic interest in the story of Alaska. It is close to the heart of American defense, yet it is called geographi- cally remote from the States. It may soon bea State. But, State or detached Territory, it is a matter of vital concern to all of us. It is something rather bigger and more far- reaching than we are usually called upon to consider. Alaska is one of the three car- dinal points in vast strategic areas. Mani- festly, it is time we quit thinking of it as a cold distant country of ordinary potentiali- ties. It actually is an immediate, engrossing matter of defense, strategy, finance, industry, transportation, and all-around responsibility. In Support of the Metal-Clad, Lighter- Than-Air Ship EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rzc- orD, I include the following letter and statement: Toms River, N. J., April 4, 1950. Hon. JoHN D. DINGELL, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Drneent: As you know from my wire of yesterday, I genuinely appreciate your thoughtfulness in sending me a copy of your letter of March 21, to the Secretary of the Navy with respect to airships. It is most gratifying to see that you have continued your interest in this badly neglected type of aircraft. What sort of a reply will be forthcoming to your letter is problematical but it 1s my feeling it will be a polite but completely noncommittal one, leaving your idea still unacted on. ‘ On March 18, at the request of the Asso- clated Press, I made a statement on the then recently announced request of the Navy for funds for building four new blimps. A copy of that statement is enclosed herewith for your own information and for whatever other use you might care to make of it, since of course it is public property. Some of the eastern papers carried portions of it, but what happened elsewhere I do not know. Needless to say, I sent a copy special de- livery, to the Secretary of the Navy the moment the statement was released, but of course I have had no Navy Department com- ment, nor do I expect such. From reading this statement, it will be clear to you where I consider the responsi- bility to rest for the shamefully muddled air- ship situation. Furthermore, you will note that I almost despair of any remedial action originating with the Navy itself. During the war, after we had the blimp project fairly well under control, I tried to resurrect the metalclad idea but obviously with no results. I even asked Ralph Upson to meet me and discuss the matter, which he graciously did despite all his other pressing work. More recently, I got together with Carl B. Fritsche whom you of course remem- ber as a far-seeing c_tizen, and we discussed the possibility of getting the metalclad idea reestablished somehow. There is no doubt but that the necessary talent is available, and it is not too much to hope that financial interest can be obtained if there is some indicated prospect for help from Wash- ington, You will note, therefore, that in my AP statement of March 18, I mentioned the metalclad and also the idea of getting more widespread interest in airships in general. I am more convinced than ever that we must have competition in the airship field to in- sure progress. It cannot be denied that the great progress made in airplanes has been mainly due to the fact that many minds and many interests have worked simultaneously and competitively on the airplane project. I cannot stress too strongly the completely fallacious policy of placing airship develop- ment and welfare in the hands of airplane personnel. That is precisely the root of all the evil that has beset the airship. It is susceptible of correction administratively but will never so come about for several rea- sons. Not the least of these is the gradually dawning reason that the piloted military airplane is on the decline, pushed out of the picture by guided missiles, and other devel- opments. Hence there is an instinctive de- sire to draw into or rather retain in the air- plane empire, anything that will keep it alive, even unto the lowly airship. Actually, neither the airship nor the guided missile has any business being in the hands of airplane people. I do not wish to burden you with a lot of reading but I am sending you copies of various things I have written from time to time on the airship subject. You, yourself, will have to be the judge of how much you can find time to read, but I assure you it contains the gist of the whole airship situa- tion. Let me suggest, however, that the following would be of first value to you: (a) My AP statement of March 18, 1950. (b) My 1947 report to the American Legion, (c) My Airships in the United States Navy. (In this I predict that the fabric airship will go the way of the fabric airplane and be replaced by metal-hulled airships of considerably increased performance and ef- fectiveness.) The whole world is now aware of the presence of foreign submarines on our Pacific coast, and the Chief of Naval Operations has announced that our anti-submarine strength in the Pacific is to be augmented. However, there has been no statement that such augmentation will include the airships that were so fallaciously removed from the Pacific coast about 3 years ago on the easily exploded pretext of “economy.” Does this situation, then, make hypocrisy of the Navy’s retention of airships at all? A3375 I do hope that on some coming early visit to Washington I may have the privilege of stopping in for a chat with you, for I am more convinced than ever that the United States is missing a great bet in neglecting airships. With kind personal regards and best wishes, I am, Very sincerely, ©. E. ROSENDAHL. STATEMENT BY Vicz ADM, OC. E. ROSENDAHL, UNITED STatrEs Navy, RETIRED, MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSOCIATED Press, Marcu 18, 1950 The recently published statement that the Navy has belatedly asked for funds for a few modern blimps comes as gratifying news to those who have long hoped that airships would be given a fair opportunity to develop and demonstrate more of their real value to the national defense. Contrary to some opinicn, airships have never had such an opportunity, not even in World War Ii. This latest airship announcement also should be interpreted hy the public as apparent as-< surance that official circles are now at last really concerned over the menace presented by mcdern submarines in the hands of a ruthless enemy. Such alarm over modern submarines is well founded. In their various forms and appli- cations, present and coming submarines are the most formidable weapons that could be used against us. By the same tokens, under- seas craft can and should be made a key- stone in our own military strength. Thus, it is my opinion that submarine vessels and antisubmarine warfare s: :uld get top bill- ing at once, a billing in which the airship can, if properly permitted, share to at least a modest degree. The latent potentialities of airships, both large and small, are nuggets of our defense treasure yet to be assayed. But all that glitters in the headlines isn’t gold of reality. Mere acquisition of a few better blimps isn’t the whole story by a long shot. Unless the corollary problems such as those of airship personnel and administra- tion are also solved realistically, airships will never reach maturity. But I am reluctantly convinced that solutions to interdependent airship problems will never come until and unless some topside conceptions are changed, and in so saying, I am merely repeating what I have said publicly and officially for many years—but fruitlessly, thus far. As has been the history of other military weapons, the day of the piloted military air- plane as a stellar performer in our national defense is ending. Obviously there will con- tinue to be important uses for manned air- planes of and for the Army ground forces, of and for the Air Force, of and for the Navy. But such airplanes should be integrated into the national defense as work horses in the team rather than as individual stars. Air- planes reached thelr zenith and covered themselves with undeniable glory in World War II. Let them now settle down to their logical places of taday and of the future. Yes; the ominous shadows of the subma- rine and the guided missile are eclipsing the former brilliance of the military airplane. But neither submarine nor guided missiles can attain their rightful places until and unless some basic ideas change. I do not presume to speak for submarine people nor for the artillerymen in whose province the guided missile belongs for the basic reason that it is a modern item of artillery. This is true for both landgoing and seagoing artillery. Let us hope they raise their voices and be heard and heeded jn their respective causes of such transcendent importance. But as for airships, I am not unfamiliar with their unfortunate plight, a plight that stems from. their continued un~ realistic handling by the Navy, and particu- larly by their fallacious submergence in naval aviation,
A3376 While the airplane was top dog there was something to be said for having naval avia- tors in many important top places because they were aviators. Today, however, these billets should be filled by those naval officers most qualified regardless of whether they be winged or unwinged. What a farce it is to say that if ome of the two top men in an important command is an aviator, the other must be a nonaviator, and vice versa, This is but one of the anachronisms still extant. Naval aviation should be integrated into the Navy, and not vice versa. Modern control of the sea will be exercised from the surface primarily by men of broad rather than spe- cial qualifications. By no stretch of the im- agination do such broad attributes demand inclusion of a once-demonstrated ability to fly an airplane or an airship, for that matter. With specific respect to the airship, com- plete recognition must be given 1o the basic fact that airships are “displacement” vessels of the air and not even remote cousins of heavier-than-air machines. Hence, to afford airships their rightful chance to develop, they should be placed under their own specialists and pioneers and not under airplane men who have a big and important enough field of their own and to whom the airship is just another chore. We must forget the fal- lacious idea of having dual qualifications in both airplanes and airships, merely as ap- parent career insurance for airshippers, with the consequent flitting of such men from one to the other, trying to carry water on both shoulders, Nor should the airship branch be used as a catch-all for excess air- reve “iets. Indeed, the recently ordained ‘rf 1a + < of airplane men into the airship field may indicate a dawning suspicion of a coming unemployment problem. From the standpoint of airship progress, let us hope this latest official recognition of the airship will attract new minds and at- tention from American industry that has done so much for the airplane. For exam- ple, it is extremely unfortunate that we ever let development of the metal-class or metal- hulled airship lapse. The Navy has held self- imposed responsibility for airship develop~ ment for some 30 years, and the whole coun- try looks to the Navy for leadership and inspiration in this field. Such inspiration, I am reluctantly forced to conclude, will never come as long as we persist in anachronistic domination of the Navy by aviators simply because they are aviators. While commendable and increas- ing tolerance of the airship is now evident, by itself that is not a sufficient solution. I do not see how we can expect perfection in armed-service unification until we are able to set our own naval house in order, and one of the most urgent needs therein is for straightening out the muddled, unrealistic handling of airships. The Kerr Natural-Gas Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT S. KERR OF OKLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, May 8 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Real Reason for Kerr Bill Veto,” from the April 20, 1950, issue of the - Southeast Oklahoman, of Hugo, Okla., and an editorial from the Texhoma (Okla.) Times of April 20, 1950, relating to the so-called natural-gas bill, There being no objection, the editori- als were ordered to be printed in the Record, aS follows: [From the Southeast Oklahoman of Hugo, Okla., April 20, 1950] REAL REASON For KERR BILL VETO We agree with the tenor of opinion in a Paris News editorial which condemns Presi- dent Truman’s veto of the Kerr bill which would have left independent producers of natural gas free of regulation, including price setting, by the Federal Power Commission. However, our estimate of Mr. Truman’s reas- ons for the veto goes somewhat beyond that of the Paris News editorial writer. “President Truman’s veto * * * was in keeping with his determination to have everything regulated by the Federal Gov- ernment,” 1t was asserted. That point we would not argue, but we think that politics, pure, simple, and selfish, furnished basis for the Presidential disapproval. It adds up this way: Oklahoma’s Senator Krrr, Texas’ Speaker of the House Sam Rarsurn, and other Repre- sentatives and Senators to whom Mr. Tru- man, to put it mildly, is under deep obliga- tion, had the President’s nod before the bill ever was introduced. He did not, so far as we know, attempt to exert any influence against its passage by both Houses of the Congress. It was about the same bill as one advocated, we are told, during the preceding session, with administration assent. If the President had been opposed to en- actment of the Kerr gas bill by a Democratic Congress he could, very easily, have made his displeasure known earlier. And if the es- sence of the measure did not meet disap- proval in a former session, it should not have been objectionable this year. The tip-off is the statement that the Presi- dent had been advised that enactment of * the measure during this session would be bad. political strategy. The truth, we suspect, is that both industry and labor lobbies, repre- senting the North and East, turned the heat on and threatened political recrimination if Mr. Truman signed the Kerr bill. That is the President’s most sensitive spot. He judges a lot of things by the yardstick of political expediency, far more, we believe, than is consistent with reasonable standards of statesmanship. The Paris News made a significant point in the statement that, little by little, gas and oil are taking the place of coal, not only in railroading, but in many industries. Now, as is ‘well known, the price of coal is high and must be kept high to meet the demands of John L. Lewis. If the coal- mine owners cannot meet competition they must curtail operations. Result, fewer coal- mining jobs and less money from union dues for Mr. Lewis and his fellow top brass union officials to spend. It is a safe guess that both the coal operators and the miners were side by each in urging the veto of the Kerr bill, The President needed only mild re-~ minder of how much they did for him at the last election and how much they could do to him in the congressional elections this year and in the next presidential election. Of the precise merits of the vetoed bill we are ill prepared to express opinion. Both Senator Kerr and Speaker Raysurn denied that it necessarily would raise the price of gas to northern consumers a red cent. They should know whereof they speak. Certainly neither would like to be proven wrong in the matter by subsequent events. But we do sympathize with the bill’s pur- pose to keep just one industry out of the clutches of a Federal bureau. Now it is reasonable to assume that northern and eastern industrialists and labor leaders, hav~ ing persuaded the President to go with them, will, as the Paris News predicts, demand that the Power Commission keep down the price of gas, regardless of what it costs to produce it and put it in the pipelines, ‘APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD If Bos Kerr, SAM RAYBURN, and other con- gressional stalwarts from the Southwest ac- complish no more, they have learned the exact depth of Harry Truman’s gratitude and how far he can be depended upon to stand hitched when the heat is on. Situated as they are, they are constrained to suffer in silence—but they know the worst. [From the Texhoma (Okia.) Times, April 20, 1950] The Kerr bill, to exempt independent na- tural-gas producers from Federal control, excited more interest in the course of its passage through Congress, in the interim while President Truman considered whether or not to sign it, and since his veto than has any other piece of legislation in recent years. It is significant that not a single nationally syndicated columnist took a stand in favor of the bill—all of them said the legislation was “against the public interest” and would favor “the big interests.” Most of the columnists, of course, write from New York or Washington and they identify “the public interest” with the poc~ ketbooks of the residents of the cities of the East and North. So far as the people of the Southwest were concerned, the bill was “in the public in- terest.” But we’re outnumbered—there are more votes in the overcrowded cities. And we’re condemned to stand by and see our irreplacable gas drained out from under us at a price set by a Government in control of those hostile to our best interests, drained to warm the inhabitants of eastern cities ad- jacent to the coal flelds. It sometimes seems that the people of the North and East regard the South and South- west as subject provinces. If the price can be set by the Govern- ment on gas as it comes from the ground, why can’t the same be done with coal or jron ore or timber. This natural gas isn’t going to last long. The Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. is even trying to get permission to pipe gas from our field to Canada, Let us hope the at- tempt fails. Rent Control EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, the House Banking and Currency Commit- tee commenced its hearings this morning on the extension of rent controls. Dur- ing the course of those hearings today the Honorable Tighe E. Woods, the Hous- ing Expediter, made a very fine state- ment showing the absolute necessity for extension of rent controls on the Federal level. Even though my city and State have been removed from the jurisdiction of Federal controls, I heartily concur in all that Mr. Woods has said. Iam sure that if my colleagues will examine this very compelling factual statement they will agree that we must extend rent con- trols for another year. His statement is as follows: I want td express my appreciation to this committee for the opportunity to testify on the need for extending Federal rent control. I subscribe wholeheartedly to the purpose of the Congress as stated in the rent-control
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD law, namely “to terminate at the earliest practicable date all Federal restrictions on rents on housing accommodations.” I have followed the directive of the Congress and have taken more than 500 decontrol actions during the last year on my own initiative. However, hundreds of communities still have an acute housing shortage and great hard- ship and suffering would result if rent con- trols were prematurely terminated. In my opinion, the need for Federal rent control will still be a national problem after June 80, 1950, the expiration date of the present act, . By 1941 we had made a start on working off our backlog of accumulated housing needs .when Pearl Harbor diverted both materials and manpower to the war effort. At the same time the shortage was intensified in hundreds of areas by the tremendous in- flux of war workers and servicemen and their families. It was necessary to establish rent control in these areas to prevent the sky- rocketing of rents. I should like to point out that rent control has always been confined to areas of extreme housing shortage and has never been in effect in a considerable portion of the geographic area of the coun- try where it was not needed. At its peak 1946, it applied to about 16,000,000 rental dwelling units in 650 defense-rental areas. During the 4 years of active warfare an average of less than 230,000 new dwelling units were started per year. Along with this restriction of new construction came the war poom in marriages and new families which added a greater and greater strain to the already inadequate supply of housing in the areas of shortage. Since the war, the initia- tive and energy of the building industry, stimulated by Government aids, have borne fruit so that by 1949 all previous building records were broken. Two contradictory conclusions have been drawn with respect to the volume of new construction. On the one hand, it has been argued that as a result of the high level of new construction there is an adequate supply of vacant housing to meet the demand. On the other hand, it has been claimed that rent control retards new construction and should therefore be ended. Both con- clusions are unwarranted. The charge that rent control retards new construction is without foundation. There is no rent control on new construction. The Congress removed rent control in July 1947 from dwelling units newly constructed on or after February 1, 1947. This action was taken after repeated assertions that rent control was discouraging the construction of addi- tional housing units. I have stated over and over again that I do not and will not ad- vocate the reimposition of rent control on newly constructed units. Has the existence of rent control on other than newly constructed dwelling units held back new construction? An all-time high of more than 1,000,000 nonfarm housing starts was set in 1949, and record-breaking new construction is continuing in 1950. And this tremendous building boom is taking place while Federal rent control continues in effect. The critical housing shortage created the need for such a large volume of new con struction. The enterprise of the building in- dustry, the economic resources of our coun- try, and Government aids have made this record possible. The existence or nonexistence of rent con= trol has nothing whatsoever to do with the volume of housing produced. Let us examine what happened to new construction in some decontrolled cities and in comparable cities which have remained under rent control. In Spokane, Wash., in the 5 months following the decontrol of that clty—August through December 1949—there was an increase of 72 percent in the number of new dwellings au- thorized over the corresponding months in 1948. However, in Seattle, Wash., which is still under rent control, there was an increase of 75 percent between the same periods. In Knoxville, Tenn., in the 7 months follow- ing decontrol, there was an increase of 9 per= cent in the number of new dwellings author- jzed over the corresponding months in the previous year, but in Nashville, Tenn., which is still under rent control, the increase was 198 percent between the same periods. In Tampa, Fla., in the 6 months following de- control the number of new dwelling units au- thorized declined 15 percent below the num- ber in the corresponding months of the pre- vious year. Between these same periods the number of new dwellings authorized in- creased 121 percent in Shreveport, La., which is still under rent control. It is obvious that factors other than rent control determine the volume of new construction. The claim that the large volume of new construction has provided an adequate sup- ply of vacant housing is not borne out by the facts. The record-breaking volume of new construction is making a noteworthy contribution during this period of housing shortage. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the increase in the number of non- farm households during the 1940’s has ex-° ceeded the number of new dwelling units started by nearly one and one-half mil- lions. Today housing vacancies are still at abnormally low levels. Over-all vacancy rates are generally be- tween 1 and 2 percent as compared with normal rates of 5 to 6 percent. Vacancy rates for habitable dwellings for rent are generally less than 1 percent and many of them are less than one-half of 1 percent. These conclusions are based on recent offi- cial surveys of vacancies made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of the Census in 25 areas located in all regions of the country from coast to coast. Some of the over-all vacancy rates were as follows: One and six-tenths percent in Detroit and Cincinnati; One and three-tenths percent in Jackson~ ville and St. Louis; One and one-tenth percent in Atlanta, Boston, and Indianapolis; and Eight-tenths percent in Chicago, Kansas City, and New York City. The habitable rental vacancy rates were between 0.5 and 0.9 percent in Buffalo, De- troit, Portland (Maine), Memphis, Jackson- ville, Cincinnati, Portland-Vancouver, Nash- ville, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Los An- geles. The rate was 0.4 percent in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, New York City, and St. Louis. And it was 0.1 percent in Kansas City and Minneapolis- St. Paul. The vacancy rates for all 25 areas are shown in exhibit A which is attached to this statement and which I should like to have made a part of the Recorp. With these low vacancy rates throughout the country it is clear that new construc- tion has not yet caught up with the back- log of housing demand. Newspaper ads and various unofficial sur- veys have been quoted as evidence that the housing shortage has ceased to exist. Some testimony to this effect may be given in the present hearings. Irespectfully suggest that the committee examine, as I have done in a number of cases, the nature of the vacancies claimed. My experience indicates that most of the few vacancies which do exist fall into one or another of the following categories: 1. Units which have been rented or sold but are not yet occupied and are not avail- able to anyone seeking housing. 2. Dilapidated housing which is not habit- able. 8. Units under construction and not ready for occupancy. 4. Newly constructed units priced beyond the reach of the average family income. 5. Units undergoing remodeling, conver- sion to multiple units, or to other usage. 6. Rooms in rooming houses or otherwise unsuitable for family occupancy, A3377. 7. Temporary or condemned units sched- uled for demolition. 8. Units where children are prohibited. What do low-vacancy rates mean in terms of human suffering? They mean that many families are still forced to live in attics, cellars, shacks, Quonset huts, barracks, and other makeshift housing accommodations. Let me cite a few illustrations from the many hundreds that have been called to my at- tention. The News-Journal of Mansfield, Ohio, on March 27, 1950, described the plight of a veteran who had written to the newspaper about his inability to find housing for him- self, his wife, and their 2-year-old son: “He explains that he is a war veteran, dis- charged from service in 1946, and that for the past 3 months he has been trying unsuccess- fully to find a three- or four-room unfur- nished apartment. “He tells of one offer to rent him four un- furnished rooms for $185 a month and an- other at $22 a week or $85 a month, after which he says: ‘People working in factories don’t make $100 a week and therefore can’t pay such high rent.’” The following letter, dated March 14, 1950, was sent to the St. Louis Rent Advisory Board: “After getting out of the Navy in Janu- ary 1946, we had to live with my sister-in- law for 1 year while trying to locate a place to live. Finally we were forced to rent with- out utilities, and unfurnished, a two-bed- room, four-room apartment, signing a severe 8-year lease at $96.80 per month. “Since that time we have tried to locate by advertising, driving around, talking to people, a place at a rental of less than $90 per month with no success. “Our lease on the present apartment ex- pires in June and renewal is on even more severe terms for another 3-year period. This we cannot possibly afford. For the past year we have been trying to locate a place with- out success. We find it incredible that any- one can publish the lie that there is ample rental housing in the St. Louis area,” The following is an excerpt from a letter dated February 28, 1950, from Revere, Mass., addressed to President Truman: “T pay $16 a week out of my $34 a week pay. About half my pay is gone—and I have to feed, clothe, and pay dental, medical, carfare, and provide for us out of the remain~ ing $18. I have to live in two rooms. I’m married and have a baby. I’d like to move to larger quarters—can’t afford to. The prices jump up $10 a room, about. Thank God I had terminal-leave pay, a bonus, and now GI dividends to see us through or else we'd almost starve and go naked.” A letter from Philadelphia dated February 19, 1950, said: “I am not @ person of note, but I am a mother of two young children. Due to a heart condition, my husband is not a vet- eran. * * * “For years I have tried, unsuccessfully, to rent a unit in one of the low-rent housing projects. No veteran—no unit. The apart- ment I am in is indescribable. To get an- other, I will have to dispose of my children. To buy a house is out of the question with my income. * * * ‘Tt have no knowledge of any surveys or statistical records. Yet I know how those I meet in the store, trying to buy a meal for their families, have to struggle to pay rent as it now stands.” These are but a handful out of the hun- dreds of reports and letters in our files from cities, towns, and villages throughout the country which tell in terms of human misery and suffering the meaning of the statistics I have cited on’ the abnormally low vacancy rates. I recognize that not all of the families who have been unable to find adequate rental housing have been compelled to live in make- shift accommodations. Some of them have
A3378 been able to obtain shelter by buymmg a house. In fact, there has been a decrease in the number of rental units in recent years as @ result of a shift from tenant to owner occupancy. It has been argued that this change wes caused by rent control, which is therefore responsible for the continued shortage of rental housing. This shift from tenant to owner occupancy would have oc- curred even in the absence of rent control. According to census reports, the number of tenant-occupied dwelling units in the United States decreased by approximately 2,000,000 between April 1940 and April 1947. How- ever, about half of this decrease occurred in rural farm areas which have never been under rent control. The decline in urban and rural nonfarm areas was 6.2 percent. The decline in rural farm areas was 29.6 per- cent. In other words, the pervertace dea crease in rental units ini: .1 have never been under rent control was more than four times as great as the decline in con- trolled areas. Factors other than rent control caused this shift from tenant to owner occupancy. It must be remembered that properties have been selling for two and three times as much as they would bring before the war. The opportunity to realize a big profit on invest- ment has motivated many owners of rental property to sell. Rents never fluctuate as rapidly as sales prices and the incentive to sell would have existed whether or not there was rent control. Proof of this 1s found in the fact that most of the newly constructed units have been built for sale rather than for rent, even though there has been no rent control on new construction for almost 3 years. From the standpoint of the tenants pur= chasing homes, there were three considera- tions: (1) The natural desire and the Ameri- can ideal of home ownership; (2) in many cases shelter could he obtained only by pur-~ chasing during the shortage; and (8) in- creased incomes and liberal credit, especially to veterans, made it possible for many fami- lies to own homes for which they had long planned. I recognize also that in the midst of this housing shortage some small families and single persons are occupying dwelling units which are large enough to accommodate bigger families or are suitable for conversion to provide additional units. It has been argued that the removal of rent control would free these units for occupancy by larger families and do away with the housing shortage. This argument assumes that land- lords would prefer to rent to large families with children rather than to small families or single persons. It also assumes that the large families with many children would be better able to afford the higher rents which would follow decontrol than the small fami- lies and single persons. It is common knowledge that most vacant units are offered for rent to adults only. In fact, when a landlord offers a unit for rent to a famuly with children it becomes a feature story in the newspapers. For example, the Boston Traveler of January 30, 1950, reports what happened when a landlord who is the father of three children advertised an apart- ment for rent headed “Children welcome”: “He contracted writer’s cramp trying to answer the flood of mail the postman handed him and he hasn't finished the job yet, “It was 323 all told, including telegrams and special deliveries,’ he recalls ruefully. “Eighty percent of the families who did have children he classed as in desperate cir- cumstances—separated because of housing conditions, in crowded quarters or in quarters unfit for children. “This conscientious man made a brave at- tempt to write to all 300-plus of the disap- pointed because he knows what it’s like to be desperate: He had spent a whole year separated from his wife, and at that time, two children because of lack of living quarters.” It is well known that small families and single pet> -s 47~~7"It “ave lower expenses for the «+ « than larger fam~ jlies with growing children. It is extremely unlikely that rents high enough to force a small family or single person out of a dwell- ing unit could possibly be afforded by a large family already living on a tight budget. With respect to large units suitable for conversion, the present act and rent regu- lations provide for the decontrol of any con= versions which result in additional self-con~ tained family units. This offers every in- centive to the remodeling of large units to accommodate a greater number of families. We have started, under housing legisla- tion passed by this Congress, to relieve the housing needs of low- and moderate-income families, but no substantial volume of hous- ing may be expected from this program for some time. The bulk of new construction since the war has been priced to meet the needs of only the Fietersivce-o families. In large cities new") :&. ‘7's. or families with children generally rent for $85 a month or more. There is, therefore, no relief in. sight for the millions of families who so desperately need housing. In the face of our present acute housing shortage, there would be an intolerable rise in rents if controls were removed on June 80. Chicago landlords have already gone on record as to the size of rent increaces they would put into effect in the absence of rent control. In a case which they recently carried to the United States Emergency Court of Appeals they contended that their evi- dence justified an increase in rent of 71.5 percent but insisted that the court order an immediate increase of 45 percent with the statement that the balance should come through the operation of economic laws at the ena of rent control. These demands by the landlords of Chicago, where the over-all vacancy rate is less than 1 percent, show what would happen in our larger cities. The danger of underestimating the amount of pressure which the housing shortage can exert upon uncontrolled rents is apparent in some of the cities which have been decon- trolled. In 12 cities where it was thought that the housing shortage had eased enough to permit the removal of rent control and in 2 cities where State control was substituted for Federal control, recent surveys of rents were made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The most significant figures in these sur- veys are those which show (1) how wide- spread the rent increases were after decon- trol for the units whose rents were free to rise, that is, excluding units having continu- ous leases since decontrol and units indi- vidually decontrolled before area-wide de- control; and (2) the average percentage in- crease for the units whose rents were raised. The surveys show that many cities had expe- rienced widespread and large increases in rents within a few months after decontrol. In 7 of the 14 cities surveyed rents were raised for more than 50 percent of the dwell- ing units whose rents were free to rise, For example, in Dallas rents were raised for 67 percent of these units; in Knoxville for 61 percent; in Beverly Hills, Calif., for 74 per- cent; and in Omaha for 62 percent. The fig- ures I have quoted represent the percentage of tenants who had to pay increases. Of equal importance is the amount of in- crease these tenants had to pay. In eight of the cities the tenants whose rents were ralsed had to pay average increases of 26 to 41 per- cent. These increases averaged 41 percent in Houston and Beverly Hills; 35 percent in Dallas; 30 percent in Topeka and Eugene, Oreg.; and 26 percent in Knoxville, Jackson~ ville, and Oklahoma City. Average percent- age increases in the general rent level for all APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD units whose rents were free to rise are ab-~ tained by combining the rents which had not increased with those which had. These average increases were 20.5 percent in Dallas, 26.7 percent in Beve1ly Hulls, 15 8 percent in Knoxville, and 14.2 percent in Omaha. The inclusion of units whose rents had not becn increased in oh*siv'+~ such general averages conceals the 'c'l }s1G-1p umposed by de- control on tenants whose rents have been raised. Moreover, the heaviest burden was imposed on the tenants cers unis renting for Jess than $30 av “ f Dallas 75 percent of these tenants had increases averaging 55.8 percent. In Knoxville 63 percent of these tenants had average increascs of 361 per- cent, and in Eugene 57 percent of these ten- ants had increases average 34.6 percent. The Federal Reserve Board in its 1949 Survey of Consumer Finances shows the startling fact that families with incomes of less than $2,000 are paying 23 percent of their income for rent. A 35- to 50-percent increase in rent would cut drastically into their purchases of the other necessities of life. A summary of the Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics rent survey results for units whose rents were free to rise in all 14 cities is shown in exhibit B, which is attached to this state« ment and which I should like to have made a@ part of the record. The present act does not permit the recon= trol of any community which is decontrolled by State or local option, I suggest that the committce consider the possibility of author- izing local governments to secure the re-~ establisnment of Federal control where rents get out of hand. As the President stated in his special mes- sage on rent control “a sudden and simulta- neous removal of rent controls on a national scale would precipitate a wave of ecxorbi- tant rent increases. Such increases would seriously reduce the purchasing power of millions of families. Since there are very few livable housing quarters available for rent within the means of low- and middle- income families, they would have no choice but to pay the rent Increases demanded. These families are alrendy living on tight budgets. The money to pay high rents would have to come out of their purchases of food, clothing, and other necessities. The burden would be most serious for the one-fourth of our families with income of less than $40 a week. “A sudden and rapid imerease in rents would affect adversely sales and employment in many industries and trades. In addition, public assistance costs would rise, increas ing Federal, State, and local budgets. Public and private pensions for the aged would be~ come more inadequate.” Letters we have received from decontrolled areas spell out in detail the hardships that result from exorbitant rent increases. The following letter, dated August 10, 1949, came from Dallas, Tex.: “Iam just the mother of a family which has been subjected to rent decontrol here in Dallas, and since our rent has been just about doubled, I find it rather hard to make ends meet, as the children start back to school next month and will require school supplies, clothes, lunch money, etc., and the funds will not be available. Since the de- control, we have had to forego much, such as cleaning of dress clothes, even for church- going, shoes for the children, floral offerings for relatives’ funerals, and many other things that gall one to the quick. Now, since a@ very close relative is lll in another city in Texas and needs my aid, I cannot even afford the train fare and will have to refuse to go to her side. All these things and many others are happening to the little people in rent- decontrolled cities. “Dallas is strictly the big man’s town, and the penthouse elty council is utterly unaware
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the way others live, nor do they care, as they can never be touched by the trials and tribulations that we renters are subjected to, “Thank you so much for listening to me, as it seems I just had to let off some steam somewhere, and I Knew you would be sym- pathetic. “p, S—This decontrol situation will not help the juvenile-delinquency problem, either, as more mothers will have to leave their homes to go to work in order to sup- plement the family earnings.” This letter, dated March 8, 1250, came from four tenants in Danville, Va.: “Simce the abolishment of rent control in the last session of the Virgmia Assembly, to become effective June 25, we, the under- signed, should like for you to have an idea of the effect it is going to have on the citi- zens of the city of Danville and also the State. “This 1s going to-create untold hardship and suffering among the mass of people because of the greed and unscrupulous tactics of the majority of the landlords. The landlords have lain in wait to gouge whom- ever they could as soon as the lids were off and have lost all sight of a reasonable profit on their investments. “The landlords in this area seem to have the same idea, so there is no alternative of moving out and moving somewhere else where the rent will be more reasonable. The situation is general and people are frantic. “we, the undersigned are occupants of a 12-unit apartment house composed of six 8-room apartments and six 5-room, apart- ments. The three-room spartments, occu- pied by the undersigned, consist of three unfurnished rooms, very crude bath. The stove and refrigerators are not furnished. No painting nor other improvement have been made during the past 10 years except by the tenants. In 1943 at the beginning of rent control, these apartments rented for $40 per month. From 1943 to 1949, two hardship increases were granted under rent control, which made a total 20-percent in- crease. With the abolishment of State rent control, notices have been received by the undersigned that rent on the three-room apartments will be increased from $48 to $70 beginning in June. This one increase amounts to 45.8 percent, or an increase of 75 percent over 1943. “we consider this completely out of all reason and know that the citizens of this city and this Nation cannot stand increases im such proportions when they are already so heavily burdened with taxes and the gen-~- eral high cost of living. “we trust that you will submit this infor- mation to the proper authority as an appeal for relief for citizens who are being subjected to these scandalous and unwarranted increases.” The pressure of the housing shortage is further indicated by the attempts at un- warranted evictions and collections of illegal rents. The 1949 act restored the authority to control evictions. This authority made it possible to prevent about 75,000 illegal evictions during the past year. At the same time 134,000 eviction certificates were issued where the landlord had legitimate grounds for eviction. In 488,000 other cases where eviction certificates were not required (such as nonpayment of rent or nuisance) a simple notice of intention to evict was filed by the landlord and accepted without question. In addition to preventing illegal evictions, other violations were cured in 242,000 cases, In 78,500 of these cases where essential serve ices had been reduced, landlords were re~ quired either to restore the services or have their rents reduced. In cases where more than the maximum rent had been collected ‘refunds to tenants and penalty payments to the United States Treasury were secured amounting to more than $7,500,000. Of this amount, about $5,500,000 was obtained by compliance negotiation and the remainder by court litigation. While rent control prevents much suffere ing and hardship for tenants, it neverthe- less permits landlords to secure all rent in- creases which would be justified in a normal rental market. What happens if a landlord wants to mod= ernize a kitchen or make some other im-= provement on his property? He can get an increase amounting to the rental value of any major improvement, plus an extra allowance for increased costs. Fur- thermore, before he starts, he can find out exactly how much of an increase he will get. t Suppose a tenant rents out part of a dwell- ng? The landlord can get an increase for addi= tional expenses and extra wear and tear on his property. What if a landlord was caught with a low rent on the date the maximum rent was set? If a landlord is renting for less than other landlords were gettting for similar accom~ modations on the maximum rent date, he can get his rent increased to make up the difference. What if a landlord has already received an increase, but still doesn’t have much income left over after he pays his operating ex- penses? He can get an increase in his rent to make sure that he has a liberal amount of income left over after paying all of his operating costs, including taxes and an allowance for depreciation. How about the increase in the price of fuel or any other operating costs the landlord has to pay? He can get an increase in rent to make up for higher operating costs like fuel, repairs, taxes, utilities, and other services. He thus has every incentive to keep his property in good repair. Rents are not frozen under rent control. Since controls went into effect there have been 5,000,000 rent increases—half of them as a result of landlords’ applications and half by 15 percent leases under the law. During the period, April 1949 through March 1950, area rent offices processed 589,103 landlords’ petitions for rent increases of which 448,120 were granted. In other words, three out of every four landlords who applied for a rent increase obtained it. The 448,120 petitions granted raised the rents for 915,074 awelling units because in some cases a single petition secured rent increases for all the dwelling units in the building. The in- creases averaged 17.8 percent. Pending peti- tions constitute less than 8 weeks’ work. You will recall that the 1949 act directed that so far as practicable rents be adjusted 50 as to yield landlords a fair net operating income. This directive was carried out by the providing in the Rent Regulations for rent adjustments to give landlords a net operating Income equal to 30 percent of gross income for small buildings (that is, struc- tures containing less than 5 units) and equal to 25 percent of gross income for large bulld- ings. Landlords need only report income and operating expenses for the current year. Net operating income is the amount of in- come the landlord Has left over after paying all his operating expenses, including property taxes and in addition an allowance for de- preciation. So far only about 80,000 peti- tions have been filed for rent adjustments under this provision. All but about 4,000 of these have been processed but only about 29,000 were found to be earning less than @ fair net operating income. This would ap- pear to be the clearest kind of evidence that there was no foundation to the claim re- peatedly made bfore this committee in pre- vious hearings that most landlords had little A3379 or no income left after paying their operat- ing expenses and that many were operating ataloss. Similarly, the repeated claims that many landlords have been losing their prop- erties as a result of rent control are not borne out by the facts. During the period of rent control, nonfarm real-estate foreclo- sures have been practically negligible and at the lowest levels of the past 25 years. It was recognized that some landlords may have been adversely affected by increased operating costs even though they were still not eligible for adjustments under the fair net operating income provision. In order to correct such inequities, another provision for rent adjustments was added to the regula- tions. This provided for rent adjustments to compensate for increases in operating costs since the maximum rent date regardless of the amount of net operating income being earned. In accordance with the directive contained in the Housing and Rent Act of 1949, a landlord-tenant consultant was des- ignated for every defense-rental area. These consultants have provided both landlords and tenants with information on the grounds for rent adjustments and have assisted thou- sands of them in the preparation of formal ropteations, Since April 1, 1949, more than © > ‘Lui Ji consultations and personal inter- views have been held by the consultants and other specially trained area office personnel. But what about the landlords who haven’t had an increase in rent? They have benefited in other ways as a result of the critical housing shortage. Before rent control landlords customarily expected to lose a substantial amount of rental income each year because of vacan- cles. Now practically every landlord can count on a full 12 months’ income from every rental unit. Thus, his total income has gone up, even though his individual rents have not been increased. Before rent control landlords had to compete with each other for tenants. As a result they had to offer special inducements, such as particular color schemes and other unnecessary redeco~ ration. Now such expenses are no longer necessary. Finally, most landlords have benefited from the fact that the value of their property has doubled or trebled dur- ing the period of rent control. The present Rent Control Act contains adequate safeguards to prevent the continua- tion of rent control in any locality where it is no longer needed. Any incorporated city, town, or village has the right of self-determi- nation and can remove rent control if it finds that the housing shortage has eased to the extent that control is no longer necessary. Any State has the right of self-determination and can end rent control throughout the State or any part of the State if it finds con- trol no longer necessary. Any local rent ad- visory board which finds that the demand for rental housing has been reasonably met can secure the removal of rent control upon the submission of its recommendation and substantiating evidence. Finally, the Office of the Housing Expediter is directed to re- move rent control from any area where the demand for rental housing has been reason- ably met. In keeping with this directive, I have taken 584 decontrol actions on my own jnitiative since April 1, 1949, thus decon-~ trolling about 1,805,900 rental units. Incor- porated cities, towns, and villages have ex- ercised their right to decontrol themselves in, 262 cases, involving about 1,039,400 rental units. Actions by 7 States removed controls from about 3,087,000 rental units. However, more than 2,500,000 of these units remain under rent control by State law in New York and Wisconsin, Six local rent advisory boards, by their recommendations, secured the termination of control for about 84,400 units. Local boards have also been called upon by city councils and State Governors
A3380 considering the possibility of decontrol for information on the local rental housing situation and for their recommendations. I have relied on them in the same manner in all cases where there appeared to be a possi-~ bility for decontrol. In areas which have been decontrolled local boards were retained to advise on any changes in the housing situation which might make recontrol neces~ sary. In seven cases controls were reestab- lished on the recommendation of local rent advisory boards. To sum up, a total of 809 deconirol actions removed controls from an estimated 5,516,700 rental units since April 1, 1949. Federal rent control still remains in effect, however, for about 8,650,000 rental dwelling units occupied by about 30,000,000 people. This estimate takes into account the number of units decontrolled, shifts from tenant to owner occupancy and the reverse, shifts from residential to other uses, additional units created by conversion, and demolitions and disaster losses. The 1940 census lists 3,521 incorporated cities, towns, and villages in 42 States in the areas still under rent con- trol. All of these incorporated places have had the right to decontrol themselves since April 1, 1949. There are 92 cities in the United States which, in 1940, had a popu- lation of more than 100,000. One of these, Flint, Mich., has had local rent control and another, the District of Columbia, has a sepa- rate rent-control law. Of the remaining 90 major cities which were under rent control on April 1, 1949, 64 are still under Federal rent control and 8 more in New York and Wisconsin are under State control. Federal rent control will cease in two addi- tional States, Alabama and Virginia, before’ June 30, 1950. However, on June 30, 1950, there will still be more than 8,000,000 rental units under Federal rent control. There will still be about 3,400 incorporated cities, towns, and villages under Federal rent control in 40 States. There will still be 62 cities with a 1940 population of more than 100,000 under Federal rent control. Rent control will, therefore, still be a national problem after June 80, 1950. The continuation of rent control for an- other year will provide an orderly transition to a free rental market and an orderly proc- ess of decontrol as each community meets its housing needs, As the President stated in his special message: “In contrast to the hardships and economic dislocations which would follow a sudden and premature ter- mination of rent control, we have the sound alternative of continuing a policy which pro- tects the tenant and at the same time is fair to the landlord. The welfare of our citizens, as well as the stability of our national econ- omy, require that this policy be continued. ExHipit A Vacancy rates in 25 areas i ‘a oO g |e38 gy 2 rE) ee ay Arca z s 4 q Date of survey Ss |aa PS Cid o 1 Atlanta, Ga_..--..---..-- 0.4 | February 1°80. Baltimore, Md... -9 | December 1949, Birmingham, Ala.}. 1.0 Do. Boston, Mass... 1. ~4 Do, Buffalo, N. Y.2..--------- 1. .5 | January 1980. Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky--_--- 1.6 .7 | December 1949, Chicago, Il -8 «4 {| January 1°50. Denver, Colo 1.5 22 Do. Detroit, Mich.- 1.6 -5 | December 1949. Indianapolis, Ind. -| 11 «4 | January 1€50. Jacksonville, Fla._..----- 1.3 7 | December 1949. Kansas City, Mo.-Kans..| .8 «1 | January 1950. Los Angeles, Calif...-.--- 1.8 9 | February 1950. Memphis, Tenn..-.------ 2.3 «6 | Deecomber 1949. Minneapolis-St. Paul, | 1.0 al Do. Minn. Mobile, Ala.!_..-....----+ 2.0 Do, Nashville, Tenn... «8 | February 1°50. New Orleans, L .8 | January 1980. - New York, N, ¥.2.......- Do. 5. Decontrol by State action becomes effective on May , 1260. 2 State rent control was substituted for Federal rent control] on May 1, 1°50. Expisir B APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Exuisir A—Continued Vacancy rates in 25 areas—OContinued > IS oO Po ES 8 | 88 Be ri] om Arca =| Og | Date of survey a" | 38 5 | 3s S Gia ° Ay Pittshurgh, Pa_.--------- 0.9} 0.4 | January 1950. Portland, Maine....------ 21 ~6 | December 1919, Portland, Oreg.-Van- | 21 .7 | January 1950. couver, Wash. * Richmond, Va3_.-.------ L1 .3 Do. Savannah, Ga.t_..------.- 3.9] 27 Do. St. Louis, Mo.-Hl._..-..-- 1.3 4] December 1949, 3 Decontro] by State action becomes effective on June 4 Decontrolied by local option on Mar. 6, 1950, Sourees: Surveys by the U.S, Bureau of Labor Statis- tics except for Nashville, Tenn., which was surveyed by the U.S. Burcau of the Census. DEFINITIONS 1. Over-all vacaney rate: The “over-all vacaney rate” jsthe percentage which the number of vacant units found in the survey sof the total number of units in the sample, Included among the vacant units are any vacancies found among units under construction whieh have exterior windows, doors, and. final usable floors m1 place, units already rented or sold but not yet occupied, units being held in estate or other liligation, units held for sensonal occupancy, and all available units being offered for rent or sale. 2. Habitable rental vacaney rate: The “habitable rental vacaney rate” is the percentage whieh the number of vacant habitable rental units found in the survey is of the total number of units in the sample. A unit is not habitable if its state of repair includes defleiencies iu physical construction rendering it inadequate or unsalo as shalter, i. ¢., sagging of roof, walls or floors; holes, open cracks, rotted, loose or missing materials over a consider: able arca of foundation, walls, roof, floors, or ceilings; extensive damage by storm, flood, or fire; or several simi Jar deficiencies cach to a lesser extent whieh in combina: tion render the unit inadequate or unsale as shelter; makeshift or inadequate original construction, A vacant rental unit is one which is actually being offered for rent, A unit which js being offered for rent or for sale Is consid- ered a rental unit, A unit already rented but not yet oceupicd is not counted as a vacant rental unit. Increases in rents free to rise after termination of Federal rent control in 14 cities {Excludes units having continuous Icases and units individually decontrolled before area-wide decontrol] nce RNR All rent ranges Under $30 per month Average percentage Average percentage increase increase Percent Percent . ‘ Date of dee | Method by which F For all For all , ate of de ethod by whieh Federal , City ot al | tats, ofa - nits, Survey period control control terminated having For units| including having For units | including increases which those increases which those had rent | which did had rent | which did increases | not have increases | not have rent in- rent in- creases creases qa) (2) (4) (5) (6) 9) (8) (0) Houston, Tex... 31 41.3 10.7 44 46.4 20.2 | Aug. 15 to Nov. 15, 1049... Oct. 10,1040 | S Beverly Hills 4 41.0 26.7 1] 142.7 138.9 | Oct. 15, 1949, to Mar, 1, 1980.....| Dee. 7, 1940 Loe ont, D las, ex 67 35.4 20.5 75 55.8 41,6 | Apr. 15 to Nov. 15, 1949.22.22. June 23, 1949 Do. ope’ a, Gani 40 30.3 10.5 50 37.7 19.7 | July 15 to Nov. 15, 1949....--... Sopt. 14, 1949 Do. Eugene, 798 38 30.3 9.4 57 34, 6 19.7 | June 15, 1949, to Web. 15, 1950....] Aug, 18, 1949 To. z nOxT a e 61 26.8 15.8 63 36.1 21.9 | May 15 to Nov. 15, 1949....... .-| Juno 14, 1949 To, Jacl sony. er. ore 56 26.2 12.3 () (2) (2) June 15 to Nov. 15, 1049... Aug. 6, 1049 Do, Qxlahome City, i 36.2 ras 7 32.8 ig Sept, 15, 1949, to Jan. 15, 1950__..| Nov. 23, 1940 Do. , - . . . 2 en Onnenn aren nn meen ennene nee «| Nov. 2,1949 | State action Milwaukee, W 60 20. 2 12. 2 59 27.0 15.9 | May 15, 1949, to Feb. 15, 1950, A ‘ “contro . . . jaen| Aug. 5, 1040 | Stato control subs . Spokane, Wash. 2 46 18.6 8.2 43 28.3] . 18 | May 15'to Nov. 15, 1949......--.| July 25, 1949 Housing Expediter initia: Wichita, Kans_. 35 18, 2 6.4 84 52.1 16.6 | Oct. 15, 1949, to Mar. 1, 1950 D sou . . . . » 15, , . n=] Dee, 29, 1049 . Salt Take Cty Fy 16.2 71 48 26.3 12,6 | June 15 to Nov. 18, 1949... w--| Aug. * 104 Loot! option , an ~ 12.3 5.9 155 114.1 17.9 | Tune 15, 1949, to Feb. 15, 1950_...|_-.. a(n State control substituted. te 1 Under $50 per month, _* £ Not available. 3 General rent increase of 20 percent granted prior to decontrol: ‘ Includes all units—data on rents free to rise not available. 5 Based on informal recommendation of local rent advisory board. Source: Surveys by the U. 8. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Biggest Story x LHNSION OF REMARKS oF HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I include the thirteenth article by Mr. Frank Waldrop on the infiltration of communism in our country: Biccest Srory (By Frank C. Waldrop) The first Soviet government in the world was formed in the ballroom of a girls’ school in Petrograd, Russia, on November 17, 1917. It wasn’t much. The leader of the new system was Vladimir Ulyanov, alias Lenin, a professional conspira~ tor and revolutionary. Soviet means merely group or council. Soviets were to pull together the farmers, the factory workers and the rank and file of soldiers and sailors, unit by small unit, in the villages, towns, and cities. Delegates from village soviets would go to higher soviets carrying their wisdom up- ward in happy spirals until at the top the rule of the saints would take care of every one back down the line. Of course, in every soviet, there would be a Communist or so to plant the seed of Karl Marx’s scientific socialism, the key to positive progress. -" ‘That was the theory. But not the reality. While Lenin talked in the ballroom of the girls’ school, the firing squads out in the streets were Killing on sight a list of “ene~ mies of the people.” This was supposed at first to be just an unpleasant preliminary to happy days for everybody surviving. Little did the Russians dream that bad as things were, they would soon be worse. For the list of “enemies of the people” kept getting longer, not shorter. The more who were killed the more had to be killed. One bargain Lenin did keep. The German General Staff had sent him from Switzer~ Jand to the Russian border in April 1917, to do anything he could toward knocking Ruesia out of the war against the Kaiser. The Germans were logical enough in their way. President Woodrow Wilson had jock~ eyed the United States of America in. against Germany, so they undertook to lift the pres- sure from the east by any means they could. Think what the world could have been saved if that chapter in the history of our times had never been written. At any rate, Lenin formed his brand of government in Petrograd on November % 1917, and on December 5, 1917, he produced, like a rabbit from his hat, an armistice with Germany. To the war-sick Russians, any- body who could stop the murderous German gunfire looked like a savior. But then came the problem of building the Soviet state on lines of scientific Marx- ist socialism, with the Communist vanguard leading the way. That was something else. For the list of “enemies of the people’ was now reaching down past the nobility and the aristocracy, past the big landowners and the merchants. It was beginning to blot out the doctors, the lawyers, the school teachers, the writ- ers, and the independent-minded of any rank, Instead of bread, land, and peace, there was disaster everywhere. People who owned cats kept them on a leash, so they could de- cide when it was time to eat, And instead of peace anywhere, a whole series of swirling regional wars broke out. The war between Germany and the western powers ended on November 11, 1918, and soon thereafter the victors sent expeditionary forces to see what could be done about re~ storing orderly Russian Government. But people were too sick of war, West as well as East, and so the expeditions soon came home again. Memorable dates were: July 16, 1918: The Communists shot the deposed Ozar, Nicholas II, in a cellar at Eka- terinburg along with his family. March 2, 1919: The Communists formed the Third International Congress of Com- munist Parties of the world. Their simple aim in life was to spy and campaign and propagandize in every nation to cause a world revolution at once. They were blindly sure that what they were doing to Russia would be simple every- where. They were not alone in the idea. April 25, 1920: The Russian Communists opened war on Poland, in line with the above march toward world revolution. But it was a short-lived conquest that ended in a rout, for the Soviet system back home was break- ing down as fast as it had been built up. March 17, 1921: The “New Economie Pol- icy,” Lenin’s admission that the Soviet state could not deliver the goods. The NEP was nothing more that a retreat to private enterprise. And as long as it lasted the Russians ate better than they ever had since 1917. Industry even climbed back to prewar levels. January 21, 1924: Lenin died, exhausted and a proven failure at government, but forever marked as a matter of intrigue and class warfare. Had the western nations kept their occupation forces in Russia until then, the Soviet experiment in the world would have stopped right there. Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YorRK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, un- der unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I include the fourteenth article by Mr. Frank Waldrop on the infiltration of communism in our.country: Biccest Story (By Frank C. Waldrop) Two things saved the Communists in the chaos that swept Russia after 1913. First, they knew exactly what they wanted and they stuck to it while all the other contenders for power switched and changed. and fought one another. The Communists from the start aimed straight for the gold and the guns. Their first gold they got from the Germans and that helped them buy guns. And nothing adds to gold and guns, like guns and gold. Second, they were as they remain today, the shrewdest Judges of our age at making promises that excite giddy minds and hearts. Politicians out of power are never limited in the promises they make except by their caution or thelr consciences, The Communists, having nelther and roll- ing the dice in the spirlt of winner take all, hit the war-shaken people of Europe, Asia, and the Americas in 1918 with a propaganda of dazzling reach and style, A3381 In every country of the world since time began, writers have all loved the melodra- matic side of life. The more uproar, the more interest they take. Why is that? Well, writers write to be read and readers like to read about the blood and fury, the captains and the kings, the disasters and the thunders, not the quiet side of peaceful progress. Thus, as the Communists undertook in Russia the melodramatic enterprise of revo- Tution plus an experiment in government frankly aimed at the overturn and capture of the whole world, romantic minds everywhere Were agitated. Over in the State Department, today, you can turn the dry, yellowing leaves of dis- patches sent long ago and see the thing be- gin to unfold. There was, for instance, the case of John Reed—Harvard, class of 1910. A brief de- partmental press release mentions him as a stowaway who left the United States without @ passport and was found in the coal bunker of a ship as it put in at Abo, in Finland. He had on him, so the message said “large sums of money, films and letters to im- portant Bolsheviks,” which surprised nobody, as Reed had been seen in Russia in 1917, had been one of the main organizers of the just- formed “Communist Labor Party” over here and had heen indicted for sedition. The messages did not add that John Reed, as a real Harvard man, would go on with the Communists in their move back from Petro- grad to the ancient capital of Moscow. Or that he would fire the excitement of easily agitated minds in the United States of America with a propaganda account of the revolution, entitled “Ten Days That Shook the World.” Or that he would die of typhus, like un- counted hordes of others and be buried in the wall of the Kremlin where Joseph Stalin rules today. Or that his beautiful widow, Louise, would soon marry another young man who had been sent to Russia by Woodrow Wilson to observe and report. . Or that the second young man would quit his diplomatic job with the United States of America in disgust because nobody in the State Department cared for the message sent back by another of his exploratory delega- tion, “I have seen the future and it works.” Or that the seconc young man who had married the widow and had kicked up his heels, would one day return to Moscow as the first United States Ambassador to the Soviet Government of Russia. Or that, within a year after becoming that ambassador, the second young man, no longer so young, no longer so pleased with what had once been called the future at work, would quit Russia disgusted and alarmed. Or that by 1950, he would be one of the most determined voices in the United States of America, crying beware the future that worked—but the wrong aay. The name of the second young man was William Christian Bullitt, who has said of those far-off times: “You cannot imagine the difference be- tween the men who were in Moscow then and the ones who followed them. “Jack Reed, Lincoln Steffens (who told Woodrow Wilson he had seen the future and it works)—all of them were the warmest-~ hearted, most out-giving souls that ever lived. They were men who aimed for good and only for good.” And so it may have been. But they were all talkers and writers and theorlzers and they were the kind who can jmagine a thing right before their eyes. They were the kind who looked, for in- stance, at a plan for what was to be the biggest office building in the world, the Mos~ cow Palace of the Soviets. The palace got as far as a medium-sized hole in the ground, about 1928. Jt has mever gone any further.
A3382 Yet, the Communist propaganda made it as real to the faithful as if they could ride up in the elevators to the very top of the tower that was to be the tallest in the world. To the faithful that tower of dreams was real. The typhus that killed Jack Reed was hardly there at all. The Help That Hurts EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Saturday, May 6, 1950 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RecorD, I include the following editorial from the Wall Street Journal of May 8, 1950: REVIEW AND OUTLOOK THE HELP THAT HURTS We've been talking with a small-business man, the kind that Washington professes to do so much worrying about. He would seem to have reason to be cheer- ful. After dipping last year, his sales are climbing again. “here’s more demand for the sensitive equipment his firm makes to measure moisture in lumber, textiles, and paper. His customers also are doing better this year than last and they’re more quality- conscious. So they’re more alert to the need for moisture-measurers. But our small-business man friend is per= plexed. In the past few weeks he has trav- eled over about a third of the United States calling on customers. He finds among many of them what he calls an air of uncertainty. There’s just a slight unwillingness to risk the money for new equipment though the cus- tomers want it and, generally, are making the money to pay for it. Being something of an amateur reporter, our friend has tried to dig underneath that uncertainty and see what causes it. So far, however, he hasn’t been able to put his finger on the cause. That set this businessman to thinking about his own business and its prospects and problems. He sees a chance for quite a lot of sales, if this air of uncertainty could be blown away. To take care of much larger de- mand, however, he’d have to get more fac- tory space, buy more equipment and perhaps double his 25-person payroll (evidence he’s @ small-business man). That, in turn, directed his mind to one high hurdle—how much various govern- ments take away from him before he can take any money oyt of his business. Our small-business man has his factory in a California city, and here are the major taxes he has to pay: City license tax, city sales tax, city income tax, State sales tax, State corporate income tax, State corporate franchise tax, State use tax on materials for his products, State unemployment insurance tax, Federal social security (old age bene- fits) tax, Federal corporate income tax. Then, assuming his business is good enough to provide some income for himself after these bites, he has the prospect of pay-= ing both State and Federal personal income taxes, This has created just a touch of uncer- tainty on the part of our friend about any expansion. He wonders whether that isn’t one of the things that bothers his small- business men customers. We wonder, too. That brings us to the latest proposal out of Washington to ald small and independ- ent businesses. President Truman has Wrapped up into a five-point program several ideas that have been kicking around the Cap- ital for a long while. The main points would: Provide Government insurance of bank loans up to $25,000 each. Permit the Government to charter “na- tional investment companies” that would offer equity capital and long-term loans. They would be privately owned but Govern~ ment-supervised. Let the Government’s Reconstruction Fi- mance Corporation relax its collateral re- quirements on loans to small pusiness. Turn the management of this program over to the Government’s Department of Commerce. That means putting the RFC in the Department. The administration proposes, by this pro~ gram, to help the small-business men by put- ting Government agencies and departments ® little closer to their operations. The two major points of President Tru- man’s program are easing of loan require- ments by the RFC and the setting up of cap- ital and credit banks. The dangers of these two steps are obvious. Some small com- panies that borrowed from the RFC and later found they couldn’t pay off are now in the hands of the Government. That could hap- pen many more times under more liberal lending. It’s true that the suggested “‘na- tional investment companies” would be pri- vately owned. But this proposal sounds very much like that incorporated in a bill sub- mitted by Senator O’Manoney. In releas- ing the details of his bill some months ago, the Senator said: “It is recognized that such capital banking corporations must be in a position to pro- vide not only money but business guidance to small and independent business. It is contemplated, therefore, that the Federal Reserve Board and the Department of Com~ merce will collaborate to establish machinery within which the capital banking corpora~ tions will be able to provide such service.” It’s easy to see, therefore, where that fi- nancing road leads—to a steady encroach~ ment of Government into the affairs of small businessmen. There will be lots of talk about how this help-the-small-business man scheme will be self-financing. But we can see the costs of administration piling up and the need for Federal funds to make up losses from loans that go sour. That means a further call on the taxpayer. We've no doubt about the reaction of our small-business man friend from California. He can see that tax hurdle rising higher and higher. So what’s the use of trying to make the leap and expand his business and provide more jobs. He might break a leg doing so. For Equity in Local Elections EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BURR P. HARRISON OF VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rxecorp, I include the following editorial from the Evening Star, Washington, D. C., entitled “For Equity in Local Elections”: For Eauiry rn Locan ELEctions In approving a Hatch Act amendment to permit partisanship by Federal employees in nearby local elections, Congress has paved the way for more representative government in the enfranchised parts of the Washing- ton metropolitan area, Under the Civil APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Service Commission’s interpretation of the no-politics law, Democratic or Republican employees of the Federal Government could not run for local offices except in disguise— as independents. And independents in the past often have lost to nongovernmental Candidates supported by one or the other party. This situation sometimes has placed Federal employees at a distinct disadvantage. And local boards and commissions may have been deprived of the services of exception- ally qualified citizens who were under Hatch Act restrictions. Congress considered another development in reaching its decision to remove the re- strictions for purely local politicking. This is the fact that the bar on Federal employees’ political activities had tended to create non- partisan organizations which had every ap- pearance of being full-fledged political par- ties, except in name. Thus, Federal workers could be as active as they pleased in such a third-party movement, but were denied the right of campaigning under old-line party colors. Representative Harrison, of Virginia, pointed out that the amendment will permit Federal workers to take part in local politics in the parties of their choice. They would still be prohibited, of course, from engaging in national political campaigns. This will not prevent local communities from holding nonpartisan elections for cer- tain offices, if that is the will of the voters. But, unless the entire election is to be on a nonpartisan basis, it is unfair to Federal em- ployees to place them under handicaps not applicable to nonfederally employed resi- dents. The amendment, thercfore, is in the interest of a more equitable administration of the Hatch Act. And so, also, is the addi- tional amendment giving the Civil Service Commission a wider choice of penalties to inflict on violators of the law. United States To Pay Off Eight Billions of British Debts EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. OTTO E. PASSMAN OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orD, I include the following article by Arthur Veysey from the Washington Times-Herald of April 26, 1950, and an Associated Press dispatch on the same subject: Uniren States To Pay Orr EBionr Briirons or British Drsrs—Pusnrc O. K. Sovent FOR AGREEMENT (By Arthur Veysey) Lonpon, April 25—The United States will begin paying off Britain’s sterling balance war debts within 6 months under tentative agreements, already reached, it was learned today. The debts total more than $#8,000,000,000. The chief creditors are India, Pakistan, and Egypt. . Negotiations for transferring the debt from Britain to the American taxpayers began last September and have continued in Washing- ton and London. CONGRESS IS HURDLE The talks have been completed except for determining the method by which the shift of the debt will be presented to Congress and the American public. The negotiators refer to their present deliberations as a search for a formula,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD For a while the negotiators planned to present the debt shift as “a final effort to put England on her feet.” However, they recently decided Congress or the American public might not be interested in “putting England on her feet” after pay- ing more than $50,000,000,000 to that end in the last 10 years. So the current plan is to present the plan as a necessary battle against communism in Asia. The negotiators agreed thes unless some- thing is done, communism will take over the rest of Asia. HAND-OUT TO ASIA They agreed also that the best thing to do was to hand out a considerable amount of money to certain people in Asia. Britain would like to hand it out, but doesn’t have it. Therefore the bite will have to be put on the American public. So far no decision has heen made as to how much of the $8,000,000,000 the United States will assume initially. The actual sum will depend upon the success of the negoti- ators before Congress. The British, recognizing the increasing un= willingness of Americans to continue hand- outs to Britain, are opposed to presenting the plan as a straightforward assumption of the British debt. They urge instead that Con- gress be asked for funds to fight commu- nism in Asia. SEPARATE TRANSACTION In an entirely separate transaction the countries receiving the hand-outs would wipe out part or all of the British debt. The reduction in the debts would depend upon the amount of the American gifts. The British continue to fight bitterly any suggestion that the American money must be spent only in America. American financiers and exporters who have urged the Truman administration to take over the British debts have proposed such a restriction, saying it would not only penefit them but might be a plum to dangle in front of Congress and the public. Pian on Drsrs Suaprep in SENATE Cold opposition was raised in the Senate yesterday to Britain’s proposal that the United States shoulder part of Britain’s $9,000,000,000 debt to the sterling-bloc nations. Three leaders spoke out vigorously against it and their position was believed to reflect @ general feeling among lawmakers. Here is what they had to say: Chairman Connatiy, Democrat, of Texas, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “The British proposal is astounding. It is my view that the United States cannot and should not entertain the British plan.” Senator Tarr, of Ohio, chairman of the Republican Senate Policy Committee: “It is an extraordinary presumption on their part to ask us now to assume their debts.” Senator WHeErry, of Nebraska, Republican Senate floor leader: “I am not in favor of giving any further aid to Britain,” Long Beach, a California City Sings—A Municipality Music Minded EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. CLYDE DOYLE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950. Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, Lo: Beach, Calif., fully observes Nation Music Week, May 7 to May 14, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, my home city, Long Beach, Calif., is nation- ally known as a city which sings. The people there recognize that a city which sings has less sin, sickness, and sorrow. So, amongst emphasis which its places upon the power and place of music in municipal experience, it always observes with emphasis and vigor National Music Week, May 7 to 14, inclusive. This present National Music Week is directed by Gladys Comstock Smith, whose great- great grandfather was Judge Nicoll Hal. sey. Judge Halsey was born in South Hampton, Long Island, N. Y., in 1782, and was a member of the New York State Assembly, and later served two sessions in the Twenty-third Congress of the United States, to wit, from 1833 to 1834. He was one of the Erie Canal commissioners. I believe it is self-evident that the songs which a nation sings are not less important than the laws which their legislators enact. Music emanates from the souls and hearts of the “folks.” Thus it is that I have come to believe that the songs of a people, and the poems which people love, have at least as much to do with their character, happiness, and their prosperity as do the laws which their legislators put on the stat~ ute books: For people sing out of their souls and out of their hearts. Perma- nent history is made out of the hearts and souls of people. What people sing, how they sing, and where they sing de- termine much history. The people of Long Beach, Calif., be-~ lieve it essential that people participate in recreational programs. They voted a special tax levy of 3 cents per $100, to set up a separate budget for recreation for its people. They created a recrea- tion commission. They studied and as- certained that what people do in their leisure time, determines their real char- acter and worth. So my city has be- come nationally recognized for its pro- motion of participation by the maximum number of people in items of music, drama, baseball, art, handicraft, roque, tennis, swimming, Hbraries, song festi- vals, community singing, and so forth, and so forth. Iam pleased to call to your attention an article forwarded me which appeared under date of May 5, 1950 in a Long Beach newspaper. You will note that the theme of the week is “Our American Heritage in Music.” I am informed that the distinguished great, great granddaughter of Congressman Nicoll Halsey selected the theme of the week, ‘ When I had the pleasure of speaking with her at Easter congressional recess, about the place of music in the national experience she replied, “Congressman CiypE Dore, we are grateful that in these United States of America every man, woman, and child have full free- dom. to express the joy or sadness of his heart in music; without fear of oppres- sion.” So, Mr. Speaker, here is the news item about National Music Week in Long Beach: Long Beach will observe National Musie Week May 7 through 14, General chair- man of the week’s events is Gladys Com- stock Smith, founder-president of the Guild A3383 of Women Composers and president of the Long Beach Presidents’ Club. Cochairman is Harry R. Christensen, baritone, director of several Long Beach choirs and a member of the Kiwanis quartet. Mrs. Smith is a piano composer and poet. Clubs cosponsor- ing the week are the Guild of Women Com- posers and the Presidents’ Club. Our American Heritage in Music is the theme for the week and stress will be placed upon American music. First offering of the week will be May 7 at 4 p.m., when Long Beach Chapter of the American Guild of Organists will sponsor a program in First Presbyterian Church. The speaker will be Rev. R. Merrill Jensen, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church, who was a concert organist before going into the min- istry. Dr. Emerson C, Cox is dean of Long Beach Chapter of the American Guild of Organists. The program will be provided by the music department of the host church. Throughout Music Week a half hour pipe organ recital at noon will be given daily in First Congregational Church by members of the American Guild of Organists, as follows: Monday, Robert Douglas, graduate student in music at UCLA; Tuesday, Harry and Chris- tine Thomlinson, ministers of music of Palm Springs Community Church; Wednesday, F. Raymond Parmelee, Pacific Coast Club or- ganist; Thursday, Vivian Sutton, organist at Bethany Baptist Church; Friday, Dorothy Rankin Smith, from the music department of Jordan High School; Saturday, Wallace W. Roblee, instructor of organ at Redondo Beach High School. On May 9, Allied Arts International will give a program of music and classical danc- ing at 7:45 p.m. in the YWCA auditorium. Franklin Pierce Chaney is president and Edith Emily Dane, vice president of the organization. On May 10, the Woman’s Music Club of which Mrs. B. Tuckley Thompson is presi- dent, is to have open house in Ebell Audi- torium beginning at 1:30 p. m. where a spring concert will be given. In the evening, @ concert will be given by four choral groups of the adult department of Long Beach City College under direction of Arne Zahl, in- cluding Mothersingers of Long Beach Coun- cll of Parents and Teachers; American Legion Auxiliary Chorus; Call of Church Choir, and Barbershoppers. May 12 the Woman’s City Club of which Mrs. Lucille Swenson is president, will have open house in the Masonic Temple, 835 Locust Avenue. Mother’s Day will be observed in conjunc- tion with Music Week on May 14 when an evening concert is to be given in Conven- tion. Hall of the Municipal Auditorium under direction of Gladys Comstock Smith. In- cluded will be manuscript numbers by mem- bers of the Guild of Women Composers. John Berry, violinist, will play and piano numbers will be given by George William Mack. Harry A. Christensen and a chorus of 200 singers from the Southern California Welsh Choral group will sing. The groups is sponsored by the Cambrian Society of Long Beach of which W. O. Williams is presi- dent and Ann Thomas, secretary. Development of Irrigation in Nebraska EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. L. MILLER OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rrecorp,