A2902 “Plow deep while sluggards sleep, and you shall have corn to sell and to keep. “God helps them that help themselves. “A penny saved is a penny earned. “Wine and women, game and deceit, make the wealth small and the want great.” We do well to ponder these thoughts from the well-disciplined mind of Franklin. We should be mindful of the fact that geod citi- zens are thrifty with time and efforts as well as money. The quality of self-reliance makes me think of my recent visit to our Mesa Verde Na- tional Park. The dole, sccial security and societies for the advancement of this, that and the other things were unknown to the Indian living on this green mesa from 1,200 to 700 years ago. They didn’t have present- day Robin Hoods, bureaucrats, self-styled liberals to soak the rich to give to the poor. No, these red men were self-reliant people. They took what God gave them and made the best of it. They were realists. They worked hard. They made definite contribu- tions to civilization, and the products of their labors still stand today. The next three qualities of a good world citizen: fair play, tolerance and respect for the rights of others, may be summed up in the words of our Master, the greatest Citizen who ever lived, when He said: “All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them” (Matthew 7: 12). And now we come to the seventh quality of a good world citizen. This is the most important of all, in fact, it is the fundamen- tal. If a man has the love of God in his heart, then these first six essentials will just naturally follow. God-fearing people have been the instru-. ments through which civilization has -pro-- gressed upon its course always in a westerly - direction. Take a look at our own country with its background of the Puritan spirit. Our forefathers had the unshakable faith that God was on their side both in war and in peace. This conviction gave these first citizens the strength to make the first pow- erful American commonwealth cut of the wilderness of New England. It gave them a -feeling of independence that was different from anything that had happened before on the North American continent. We learn from American history that the Puritans brought with them their own charter, pro- ceeded to organize their own churches, make their own laws, elect their own magistrates, and buiid their own schools. When they made money by hard work, they kept it among themselves. These Puritans started doing the things that all Americans have sought to do ever since. The spirit lives on, because wherever they went they car- ried with them the indomitable faith of their Puritan ancestors who betieved that God had chosen America as a specially favored land. Since God has been so good to us and be- cause of His many blessings to His people here in America, we of this generation in the public schools of our land should take ad- vantage of the opportunities we have to pre~ pare ourselves for honorable work. We should be frugal, industrious, and provident. We should be self-reliant and make the very best we can with the opportunities we have. We must be fair-minded and respect the rights of others. Above all, we must love and obey God and, like the wise man, build our house on the rock foundation. We must build a character that can withstand the storms of life. By so doing, we'll be able “to make our lives sublime” like all the host of good citi- zens who have gone before us. “Lives of great men all remind us We can make our lives sublime, And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time.” Opposition to Postmaster General Donaldson’s Order EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN R. WALSH OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I served notice that today I would intro- duce a House resolution to authorize and direct a sweeping investigation of the scandalous situation existing in the Post Office Department, particularly with reference to the subsidies and overpay- ments made by the Department to rail- roads for transportation of the mails. I have caused the introduction of the House resolution referred to; it is House Resolution 547. In my statement of yesterday, I called attention to the deplorable condition wherein the Post Office Department pays double transportation charges for space purchased from the railroads, out of postal appropriations, for the transmis- sion of the mails. Postmaster General Donaldson testified as much before a committee of the House of Representa- tives on March 7 of last year. In hearings before the Committee on Post O°":2 and Civil Service, on H. R. 2945—-wanich -had for its purpose a read- justment of postal rates—the following colloquy took place: Mr. Hacen. At that point, let me ask this question: Has any survey been made recently as to what percentage of the actual paid-up space that is used in railway cars—and I understand it is on a cubic-foot basis—is used on the average run? In other words, we now pay the railroads, as I understand it, for the baggage cars for mail and the mail cars, so much per cubic foot on’ each riilroad run, and we pay for that space regardless of whether there is 1 sack or 100 sacks, and some days it is more and some days less. Has any survey been made to show the average amount of usable space that has been used on these various runs over a period of time? Postmaster General Donaldson made the following reply to Congressman Hacen’s inquiry: Yes, Mr. Hacen; there is a difference cf pay to railroads. In other words, I think what you are talking about js space purchased by full cars or storage cars or what-not. That is different from the regular RPO lines, the lines in which railway postal clerks operate. Now with reference to the space for trans- porting mails by full carlots or by 15 feet or 80 feet or 45 feet or what not, I think that our investigation indicated that we used about half of the space that we paid for. Under the law, if we transport a carload of mail from New York City to San Francisco, Wwe pay for that so much per foot per mile, so to speak, and then we pay for the return movement of the car, whether we use it or not. There is far more mail moving west than there is mail moving back. I might add in this connection that an investigation on the basis of cost- ascertainment figures in 1946 indicated that the Post Office Department paid for 580,462,152,219 cubic-foot-miles for the transportation of mails, and actually APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD carried only 323,677,344,195 cubic-foot- mules of nonlocal surface mails. ‘This indicates that 44.24 percent of space was paid for but not used. Now here we find an administrator who testifies before a congressional com- mittee that his Department contracts with the railroads for so much storage space, uses only hal. of it, and, mind you, pays for the total amount contracted for with the taxpayers’ money. This same administrator, on April 18, issued drastic curtailment orders reducing delivery service in the Post Office Department to such an extent that it will mean a reduc- tion in force of a minimum of 10,000 employees. One can only surmise that empty boxcars are more important than human beings. I should like to invite attention to the apparent policy pursued by the Post Of- fice Department with respect to pay- ments for service furnished by railroads transporting the mails. The policy adopted gives no consideration or, at best, very little to the taxpayer. On February 14, 1846, William V. Grif- fin and Hugh William Purvis, receivers for the Georgia & Florida Railroad, were suing the United States Government. The case was heard in the United States Court of Claims. John Hardy, General Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, Post Office Department, was on the stand. Under oath he declared:- I might add that the most—probably the determining factor in my decision was the fact that the railroad company pleaded that we continue the service because of the finan- cial benefits that were accruing to the rail- road, and that has been one of the policies of the Department, that in considering any curtailment or discontinuance of rail serv- ice is to, first make inquiry of the railroad company as to what effect upon the finances of the operation of their railroad any such curtailment would have, and we are invaria- bly governed in our decision by the plea of the railroad in response to our inquiry. During this same litigation Mr. Hardy was asked the following question by Mr. Stern: Question 19. Have you had occasion to deal with and compare the rates for your service and railway express service? Mr. Hardy replied: Well, all large railroads have what is known as managers of the mail and express traffic. The majority of those employees are former employees of the Post Office Depart~ ment, Railway Mail Service, and in my posi- tion we have almost daily contact with these managers of mail and express traffic, and from frequent conversations with those rairoad representatives I can positively state that the railroads value the mail traffic greater than the express traffic; that is that they consider that their revenue from mail traffic, in consideration of what is furnished for the Post Office Department as compared with that which is furnished the express company, brings them a greater return. Mr. Donaldson has stated that the Post Office Department used about half the space that was paid for. From the evidence at hand, that might well be described aS an understatement. Mr. Peter J. Schardt, chairman of the com- mittee on railway mail transportation is quoted in the November 20, 1948, issue
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the Railway Age, in an article en- titled “What Future for Mail Revenue?” as follows: Mail traffic is not evenly balanced; it is heavier going south and west than north and east. The unbalance, moreover, varies sharply on different roads. The ratio of loaded mail space to total mail space au-~ thorized varies from 98.9 percent on one big class I road, down to 57.9 percent on another. It is my firm conviction that the en- tire question of postal subsidies should be thoroughly investigated. Railroads are not the only ones to benefit by sub- sidies at the expense of the taxpayers. Let me show what a waste of taxpayers’ funds is going on in the air industry under the pious name of postal sub- sidies. House Document No. 1242, Sur- vey and Study of the Postal Service, Preliminary Report, January 15, 1948, page 6, reported: In paying the air-mail subsidy, the Post Office Department is called upon to finance inefficient management, parties, hotel suites, entertainment, excessive public relations costs, and to finance competition between existing scheduled carriers. Getting back to the railroads, the statement has been made that the Post- master General has no control over rail rates. That is true only in part. It is true that the Interstate Commerce Com- mission has the right to determine the rate to charge per unit, but the Post- master General determines how many units are to be purchased. In a hearing on S. 1596 before the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee on May 27, 1949, Frank J. Delany, Solicitor of the Post Office Department, pointed out: In other words, we prescribe the service; the Commission—the Commission figures how much it costs the carriers and fixes the rates, also figures the mechanics, whether the rate is to be calculated in terms of space as provided by the Railway Mail Pay Act, or weight, the old weight system, but nothing about directing the Postmaster General in his determination as to what service he re- quires or how often he requires it, or wheth- er he wants it on a one-way basis or a round- trip basis. - On more than one occasion the Post- master General has stated in effect that his is an untenable position with respect to fees paid railroads for the transporta- tion of mails. As I pointed out above, that is only half true. Here is another interesting aspect of this question. Page 23 of the report on the post office appropriation bill for 1949 carried the following: Special contracts with railroads are au- thorized by statute for transportation of mails where the Postmaster General believes special conditions warrant higher rates. Testimony reveals that there were six such special contracts in effect as of July 1, 1947, providing for an annual increase over regu=- lar rates in amount of $111,768. The com- mittee questions the necessity for such spe= cial contracts, and desires that the De- partment undertake a survey to: determine the possibility of their discontinuance. I understand that these preferential contracts are still in effect, despite the recommendation of the committee. Itis interesting to point out the swiftness - with which. the Postmaster General com- plied with the recommendation of the House Appropriations Committee this year with respect to looking for econo- mies by a reduction in services that would not be a hardship or inconvenience to the general public. The Postmaster General, in my opinion, went much further than the recommendations of the committee implied. the general public. The Postmaster General under the law has authority to negotiate with railroads for more favor- able rates; this authority has not been used to secure favorable rates where a competitive situation exists. This is ex- actly opposite to the policy followed by the Department where small contractors are involved. As a matter of fact, the Department encourages cutthroat com- petition among letter carriers on so- called mounted routes where the differ- ence in their contract bids is seldom more than a few paltry dollars. The resolution I have introduced will investigate these unhealthy conditions and bring about corrective action to the end that legitimate rates will be deter- mined for legitimate services performed by the railroads, the air lines, and the steamships. If the Congress in its wis- dom decides that these agencies require help from the Federal Government through subsidies, then I am sure they will give consideration to that question. I do hope that any subsidies authorized will be distinctly separated from pay- ments for actual services performed so that these subsidies will not be charged against the operating cost of the Post Office Department. I invite support of my resolution. Something must be done to save the postal service and the American tax- payer from the horrible situation which exists today. , Security—A Myth? EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HAROLD 0. LOVRE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. LOVRE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orD, I wish to insert the following edi- torial by Prof. Walter J. Jerde, of North- ern State Teachers College at Aberdeen, 8. Dak. The editorial appeared in the student publication of that school, the Exponent. Professor Jerde has set forth his thoughts on the important subject of security and what he has to say is well worth reading and thinking about. I call the attention to the Members of this body to Professor Jerde’s editorial. SECURITY—A MYTH? (By Prof. Walter J. Jerde) When the writers of the history of our gen- eration get around to evaluating the events ‘of the midtwentieth century, they may well call it ‘the era of search for security. It ‘would be interesting to know how many col- umn-inches have appeared in newspapers A2903 and magazines and how many hours of radio time have been used since 1930 in discussing economical security, social security, old-age pensions, income security, freedom from want, freedom from fear, and so on ad in- finitum. What is the security which people of our times want? As we hear it discussed, it be- comes apparent that it has almost as many meanings and implications as there are per- sons who discuss it. There seems to be one thing on which they all agree, that is, that somehow the Government is supposed to be the possessor of this security. There has developed in the thinking of the American people a strong conviction that security is some commodity which the Government has stock-piled as you might an inventory of goods. There is good reason for the people 18 to 50 years of age to have developed this attitude. Was it not the Government which came to their aid and to the aid of their fathers in the catastrophic thirties? It gave them financial aid and new hope. The error, it would seem, is in thinking that the secu- rity comes from such a source. Only the conditions within which security can be de- veloped is the most any people can expect from its government. Peace and security are closely knit to- gether. It seems quite evident that one cannot exist long without the other. There can be no argument with the statement that Americans want peace. But they do not want peace at any price. If the price of peace is injustice, they will reject peace. If the price of peace is loss of freedom, they will reject the proffered peace. How about security? Is it a more precious jewel than peace? Is it worth giving up freedom of speech, action, choice of vocation, choice of how you shall invest your savings? Is secu- rity in old age as represented by the receipt of a pittance worth mortgaging future gen- erations? There seems to be a deep-rooted conviction that somehow government can do things better than the people themselves. This thought reminds me of what a Briton remarked: “This nationalization is a very queer thing. The more you own, the less you have. We own the Bank of England in Britain, but I am no better off. We own the coal mines, and I have less coal. We own the railroads, but I can’t get a railroad for my holiday. This is socialism; the more we own, the less we get.” Perhaps we should ask ourselves the question, Shall future gen- erations of Americans be freemen or pup- " petmen? It seems that security must be more a frame of mind than anything measured in dollars and cents. Our founding fathers were satisfied that here was security, security based on opportunity to work out individual problems, free from the dictates of an all- powerful state. Not security for the in- dolent, not security for the spendthrift at the expense of the thrifty. Security from interference in the matter of where, how, and how much, economically speaking, the in- dividual might wish to accomplish. Real security is of the individual’s own making. Collectively the individuals in a society can make a government secure; never can a gov- ernment make security for the individuals of that society. How does education fit into this whole matter of security? Education is being chal- lengéed as never before. Security for the in- dividual can come only through the develop- * ment of well-informed, self-reliant individ-~ uals equipped with well-disciplined minds. Education must demand from its leaders and its learners alike a vigorous program which leaves no room for lazy thinking and the too prevalent habit of rationalizing. The educational system on any level is certainly not perfect, no more so than the functioning of our free enterprise system of business nor our republican form of government. Educa- tion, both formal and informal, has much to
A2904 offer by way of assistance in making individ. uals secure, secure in the conviction that they are capable of working out their own economic and social destiny. I would remind you of a sentence from the preamble to the charter of UNESCO. “Since wars are made in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defense of peace must be constructed.” If the minds of men can make war or peace, then certainly the minds of men can fashion a lasting security. What fashions the minds of men? More than any other one institution, the schools and colleges of the land. Congressional Haste Makes Waste EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF EON. PAUL B. DAGUE OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. DAGUE. Mr. Speaker, the an- swer to those pressure groups who con- tinually ridicule Congress for the delib- erate manner in which it considers the business before it is found in the article by Mr. Wheeler McMillen in the current issue of Pathfinder magazine. Especially do I invite your attention to the state- ment that Congress is the President’s coequal and that it has no obligation to follow his direction no matter how large the must label that is attached to his recommendations. I also like Mr. Mc- Millen’s suggestion that a Congress that passed no bills at all, except essential appropriations, might well do the most for the people. His able article follows: ALONG THE AMERICAN Way—Lone Live THE “Boc-Down” (By Wheeler McMillen) By now the people have been thoroughly told that Congress has “bogged down.” Every year this story appears, just preceding the opening of the baseball season. Like the Washington cherry blossoms, it tends to be overwritten, When Congress opens in January, bills begin to pour in. The President presents a program of new legislation. The bills are referred to House and Senate committees for detailed study. Meanwhile the pressures for and against descend upon Congress. About 60 days later, the annual cry rises that, because Congress has not passed any major legislation, it has bogged down. The e1tizen distant from the Capitol is offered the impression that his Representatives and Senators have been dawdling. The President is required by the Constitu- tion to report to Congress on the state of the Union. It is within his prerogative to rec- ommend legislation. But Congress is his coequal. It has no obligation to follow any President, every obligation to scrutinize in detail each bull, from whatever source. Its verdict should reflect the best information that can he obtained. Seldom can unanimous agreement be ernes*ed trom amcreg 531 Members so com- proir:scs hrnve wc be worked out if a law is to be passed. The bog-down usually is charged when administration measures move slowly. The charge is one form of Executive pressure, Where dictatorships arise, the Executive pro- gram gets enacted quickly. One might easily argue that the most useful service Congress performs is not to pass laws, If Congress at any one session were to pass every bill proposed, the Republic would soon be wrecked. Some bills are introduced pure- ly for private or political effect; even their own sponsors vote against them. Foolish bills and evil bills are introduced, sometimes sincerely—-and soon put aside. A Congress that passed no laws at all, ex- cept essential appropriations, might well do more for the people than any Congress has ever done. Better yet would be a Congress that concentrated on repealing laws. The deliberations of Congress contribute to the formation of sound public opinion. When issues are discussed through a period of months, information about them fiows out to the people. Informed opinion, re- flected back to Washington, makes for wiser legislation. Congress deserves gratitude rather than criticism when it takes its time. July laws are likely to be wiser than January laws simply because more study and analysis will have gone into their making. When Con- gress ceases to study and debate, this will cease to be a Republic of free people. In a way, Congress has no “spokesman.” It is a large body made up of many kinds of men, Each speaks fow himself, for his party and for his constituents. No one can speak, even in defense, for the whole body. It stands as a safe target for criticism. Certainly the acts and intentions of Con- gress should be under constant public scru- tiny. Its sessions are public for that pur- pose. Every committee hearing, except for a few, is public. This body, chosen directly by the people - to exercise the legislative function, contains within itself the best guarantee of con~ tinued AMerican freedom. The mistakes it makes are generally the people’s mistakes. A clear understanding of how Congress works, and of why it works the way it does, is essential if the Republic is to enjoy the best government. United States Coast Guard Reserve Should Have Funds EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include an editorial from the able pen of John McMullen of the Panama City (Fla.) News-Herald: A VaLuABLe ASSET IN War AND Pracr—Uwnitep States Coast Guarp RESIRvE SHOULD Have FuNnpDs An integral part of the United States armed forces, with an outstanding record in war and peace dating back to 1799, can’t get $4,- 000,000 from the Congress of the United States to operate a creditable reserve pro. gram, The United States Coast Guard has a re~ serve, but for some unknown reason the Con- gress which established that unit has failed to give it any operating funds. The Coast Guard serves as the Federal po- lice force and protector of life and property on the sea and in navigable waters of the United States. This role includes mainte- nance of more than 36,000 aids to navigation along 40,000 miles of waters; lifesaving activ- ities; removal of derelicts and other menaces . to navigation; marine inspection; medical aid to seamen; law enforcement on the high APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD seas and navigable waters of the United States and in Alaska; the prevention of smuggling; patrol of the North Pacific Ocean and Mering Sea to regulate the taking of fur- bearing sea mammals and fish; aid during flood and hurricanes; maintenance of the International Ice Patrol to report the amount of iceberg drift for the benefit of vessels crossing the North Atlantic; maintaining ocean weather stations. Those are just a few of the many pbeace- time duties of the Coast Guard. We in Pan- ama City know the United States Coast Guard cutter Boutwell. Some of us remem- ber the cutter Diz. Many of us were here during the war years when the beaches and port facilities of the Gulf coast were care- fully guarded from possible sabotage by aliens, guard work performed primarily by the Coast Guard or subsidiary units of the Coast Guard. . Those who served overseas during World War II know that the Coast Guard manned LST’s, troop transports, patrol boats, and many other floating units. The Coast Guard fteo warticinctcd in assault landings during i,t, il cnajor operations in the Pa- cific and European theaters of war. During World War II, the Coast Guard also maintained air and surface submarine patrols off both major coast lines of the United States. In every daily newspaper, almost every day, the Coast Guard figures in at least one rescue, one distress call answer, one errand of mercy, one more task in the continuous perform- ance of peacetime duties. How much is $4,000,000? Compared with our national budget of $47,000,000,000, it is only $1 out of each $12,- 000. Compared with the total (and reduced) defense budget $18,000,000,000, it is only $1 out of each $3,250. Compared to the current NSLI dividend, it is only 50 cents out of every $350. President Truman, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson, Admiral Forrest Sherman, Chief of Naval Crcraticns: Secretary of the Treasury Snyder u:e: 2:0 U2 -ceci States Sen- ate all have approved the Coast Guard Re-~ serve training program. The Bureau of the Budget has approved the $4,000,000 appropriation, but the House has rejected it. An organization that has proven its value in peace and war should not be rendered impotent because of an inadequate training program for its reserves. The several thousand officers and enlisted men who are holding on to commissions and enlistments in the Coast Guard Reserve should be given an opportunity to maintain peak efficiency. Congress should see that the needed funds are made available at the earliest possible moment. cob Cexyissioner Mead’s Testimony Before Celler Committee EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, April 3, 1950 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I include in the Ap- pendix of the Rrcorp part of a statement given before the Subcommittee on Monopoly Power of the House Judiciary Committee by Commissioner James Mead of the Federal Trade Commission on April 18, 1950.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In this statement Commissioner Mead indicated that in addition to the matter of pricing practices the Federal Trade Commission is concerned with three other problems raised by the steel in~ dustry—the problem of iron-ore supply, the problem of forward integration through acquisitions of customers, and the problem of the adequacy of steel ca- pacity. Commissioner Mead indicated that each of these problems may well re- sult in a substantial lessening of compe- tition not only in the steel industry it- self but in the much broader area of metal fabrication, A legislative means to deal with the second of these problems is now before the Congress in the form of H. R. 2734 (Celler bill), a bill to amend section 7 of the Clayton Act. This bill, which bears my name, has already passed the House but is awaiting action by the Senate. This bill will close the wide-open loop- hole in the Clayton Act whereby large corporations easily evade the original intent of Congress and acquire other firms by the simple means of purchasing their assets rather than or in addition to their capital stock. Although all of Commissioner Mead’s statement should be of interest to every Member of Con- gress, that part of his statement dealing with this problem of acquisitions and mergers should be of particular interest in view of the present state of legislation on this matter. The statement follows: Although steel producérs have been en- gaged in this practice (i. e., buying up their own customers) since the earliest days of the industry, this form of expansion was rather limited in scope until around 1930. Prior to that time the energies of the steel producers in promoting mergers had largely been expended in bringing together other steel companies, i. e., horizontal mergers; and in acquiring their own sources of iron ore. coal, and related products—i. e., backward vertical acquisitions. In commenting on the apparent disinclination of the steel coms- panies to enter the fabricating fields, E. S. Mead, a prominent writer on corporate fi- nance, stated in 1930 that: “Vertical consolidation in the steel indus- try stopped with the raw material of other industries. The steel corporation sells its products to machine tool builders, building erectors, automobile manufacturers, manu~ facturers of agricultural machinery, rail- roads, public utilities, and a variety of other industries which use steel as raw material of their operations. The steel corporation has not, however, gone into these industries either to own or operate. It stops short at the line of rails, sheets, plates, billets, wire, and structural shapes.” (Corporate Finance, D. Appleton & Co., 1930, p. 460.) I would like now to list briefly the acquisi- tions of fabricated and finished goods pro- ducers which have been made since 1930 by just two of the large steel companies—United States Steel and Bethlehem Steel. During this period the United States Steel Corp. has acquired: 1. Oil Well Supply Co., one of the largest manufacturers of supplies for drilling oil and gas wells in the United States. 2. Witte Engine Works, another producer in the same field. 8. Neilson Pump Co., a third producer of oil-well machinery. 4. Boyle Manufacturing Co., a leading manufacturer of steel drums and barrels. 5. Petroleum Iron Works, another steel- drum manufacturer. 6. Bennett Manufacturing Co., steel-drum producer. 7. Virginia Bridge & Iron Co., a large firm with fabricating plants in Virginia, Alabama, and Tennessee, having an annual productive capacity of approximately 100,000 tons of finished structural work. 8. Gerrard Co., Inc., a manufacturer of oil strapping machines. 9. Jackson Fence Co., a manufacturer of fences. 10. Gunnison Housing Corp., a leading pro- ducer of prefabricated houses. 11. Consolidated Steel Corp., the largest steel fabricator on the west coast. 12, Savannah Wire Cloth Mills. 13. Moise Steel Co. The acquisitions by Bethlehem Steel dur- ing this period followed somewhat this same pattern, with the exception that Bethlehem has been more active in purchasing firms engaged in the fabrication of structural steel. Since 19380 Bethlehem Steel has acquired the following producers of fabricated and fin- ished goods: 1. McClintic-Marshall Corp., a large frm engaged in the fabrication of bridges, build-~ ings, tanks, river barges, etc. 2. Levering and Garrigues Co., another firm engaged in the fabrication of structural steel and the erection of buildings. 3. Hay Foundry and Iron Works, a third firm engaged in the fabrication and erection of iron and steel. 4, Hedden Iron Construction Co., a fourth firm engaged in the same field. 5. Taubman Supply Co., a firm engaged in manufacturing and selling oil-company sup= plies. 6. International Supply Co., another pro- ducer of oil-well equipment. 7. American Well & Prospecting Co. a third firm engaged in the same field. 8. The Buffalo Tank Corp., a manufac- turer of steel storage tanks and other welded plate products. 9, Rheem Manufacturing Corp., one of the Nation’s largest manufacturers of steel drums. 10. Atlas Steel Barrel Corp., another pro- ducer in the same field. 11. United Shipyards, Inc., a large firm engaged in the business of building, repair- ing, and drydocking vessels in New York harbor. 12. Union Shipbuilding Corp., company in the same field. 18. Pennsylvania Shipyards, Inc., a third shipbuilding company. 14. Pacific Coast Forge Co., a manufac- turer of bolts, nuts, spikes, rivets, and sim- ilar products. 15. Shoemaker Bridge Co. In some industries the effect of these for- ward acquisitions has been to give the steel companies almost complete dominance over the fabricating field. Such is the case of steel drums, which, since the war, has been absorbed almost in its entirety by the large steel producers, a movement which was suc- cinctly described by Iron Age as follows: “Long, long ago, in 1939, before the words postwar and planning were wedded, the manufacture of heavy steel barrels and drums was a rather volatile business firmly in the hands of a large number of highly individualistic enterpreneurs, Most of these fabricators had started on a precarious shoe- string and were justifiably vocal in their pride of success in the classical Horatio Al- ger pluck and luck tradition. “A few weeks ago, the purchase of Bennett Mfg., Chicago, by the United States Steel Corp. pretty well completed the capture of a third another the entire barrel and drum business by ma-~. jor steel producers. Some 87 percent of the business, representing about 435,500 tons of: steel consumption yearly has been corralled by the mills and the remaining 64,500 tons of independent capacity will probably re- A2905 mdin so for a variety of reasons” (Septem- ber 21, 1944, p. 103). Today, the country’s leading steel producer is also the leading steel drum producer. In the steel drum industry, U.S. Steel shares the Pacific coast region on a 50-50 basis with Bethlehem Steel. It is the leading steel drum producer in the Houston-New Orleans area; and it is one of the leading producers in the Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh region. Beth- lehem, through Rheem Manufacturing Co., (of which it own: 28.9 percent of the stock) not only divides the Pacific coast region with U.S. Steel, but also is a leading producer in the important Atlantic coast region, where it accounts for more than 40 percent of the steel drum industry. In addition, it is an important factor in the Houston-New Orleans region. All told, six leading steel companies now own more than 80 percent of the heavy steel drum capacity of the United States. There are, of course, many other fabricat~- ing fields 1n which the effect of the forward acquisitions by the steel firms has not been as complete as in the steel drum industry. Among these is the steel stamping industry in which the steel companies have also en- tered to a significant though lesser extent. The steel stamping industry provides an ex~ ample of what might be called “partial ab- sorption” by the steel companies, as com- pared to virtually “complete absorption,” represented by the steel drum industry. But even in these areas, the competitive position of the smaller firms which continue to op- erate has been seriously undermined by the effect of the acquisitions. The steel stamping industry, which pro- duces a great variety of parts for other in- dustries such as automobiles, farm ma- chinery, refrigerators, radios, and even kitchen utensils and toys, developed almost entirely in the hands of independent stampers. In recent years, however, the large steel companies have entered the field through forward acquisitions. In speaking before a meeting of the Cleveland District Pressed Metal Institute, Mr. Tom Smith, president of the Pressed Metal Institute was revorted in Iron Age (April 29, 1948) to have stated thas “the most serious problem fac- ing the stamping industry is the accelerated encroachment through subsidiary organiza~ tions of a majority of metal producers into the stamping business.” And a year later, on May 5, 1949, Iron Age, after noting that there was a general slump in the buying of stampings, stated that some captive plants of steel producers were reverting to the “prewar practice of letting out the tough jobs (to independent stampers hungry for business) and keeping simple work that takes a lot of steel.” The effect of this policy on the small inde- pendent stamper is obvious. His field of operation tends to be narrowed to the diffi- cult jobs and even there he must compete sharply with the large stamper, perhaps becoming only a subcontractor dependent on such scraps of business as his larger com- petitors may turn over to him. This problem of forward expansion by the steel companies becomes particularly acute when supplies are short. During such peri- ods it is only to be expected that the steel companies will channel supplies of steel to their fabricating subsidiaries, which are in competition with independent fabricators who frequently are unable to obtain steel. During the recent postwar period when steel has heen in tight supply, many independent fabricators have complained that there has been an increasing fiow of steel to the fabri- cating subsidiaries of the steel companies; that, consequently, the proportion of the total steel supply available for small busi- ness has been correspondingly reduced; and that this development has been one of the principal factors behind the inability of small business to obtain steel. Typical of these
A2906 complaints was the statement made by Mr. Frank A. Duerr, general manager, Troop Water Heater Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., who testi- fied before the Senate Small Business Com-~ mittee of the Hightieth Congress as follows: “Senator Martin. You state that you were informed by Jones & Laughlin last fall that they could not retain their contract with you? “Mr, Durr. Yes, sir. That was in their Office, in their sales department. “Senator MARTIN. And you state that 1t later developed, you learned, that the steel was to go to one of their own subsidiaries? “Mr. Duzer. That is correct. "Senator Martin. When did they acquire this subsidiary? “Mr. Durerr. As far as I know—they told me during that conversation that they had acquired some of these plants in 1939 and others in the last year or two. “Senator Martin. What does this particu- lar plant produce? “Mr. DurErr. Steel drums.” 7, p. 909.) Similar testimony was offered by Mr. Ar- thur Boehm, secretary-treasurer, the Boehm Pressed Steel Co., Cleveland, Ohio, who stated: “While I was talking to Mr. Boyd, of Jones & Laughlin, I inquired whether it has been @ matter of policy with Jones & Laughlin, and the other big mills, not Jones & Laughlin exclusively, to limit production capacity. During the war, there was quite a bit of pressure from the (Hearings, pt. Senate and the Government for increased _ eapacity of the mills. In other words, steel capacity had been critical all through the war years, and the Government wanted the steel mills to put in additional production facilities. “The answer then, by the big basic pro- ducers, was to the effect that no additional preduction facilities were needed. Existing capacity sufficed before the war. Why in- crease capacity now and have it idle after the war? Boyd said, at that time, Jones & Laughlin didn’t anticipate the fact that it would take on additional subsidiaries of its own to supply. Jones & Laughlin had pur- chased the Draper Barrel Works at Cleveland, and a good bit of their hot-rolled pickled is going into the barrel works.” (Hearings, pt. 6, p. 846.) Mr. Frank R. Nichols, president, Nichols Wire & Steel Co., Davenport, Iowa, implied that the steel companies have shipped steel to their own subsidiaries in excess of the amounts permitted by the use of the so- called historical quota method: “Mr. WIMER. Have you had any indication that the large integrated companies favor their own subsidiaries who produce wire and nails? a “Mr, NicHous. They most naturally would Oo so. “Mr. Wimer. As far as tonnage quotas go? “Mr. NicHots. Naturally. “Mr. Dicker. In other words, Mr. Nichols, you mean that the historical quota that there has been testimony about here, agreed to by the steel companies when allocations were lifted, hasn’t necessarily held true in the wire and nail business? “Mr. NicHoLs. It hasn’t held true at all. “Mr. Dickey. And is it your opinion, or is it a fact, as far as you know, that they are channeling more into their own subsidiaries? “Mr. NicHots. It is a definite fact, into their own subsidiaries and into their own finishing departments. “Mr. Dickey. Either a subsidiary or part of their own business? “Mr, NicHous. Yes.” 1897.) The facts revealed in a report of the Sen~ ate Small Business Committee completely corroborate this type of complaint by small business. The facts clearly indicate that the preportion of steel output which was chan I recall that ~ (Hearings, pt. 17, p.. neled to the fabricating subsidiaries defi- nitely increased between 1940 and 1947. In the case of hot-rolled sheets, which is the principal steel product consumed by the fabricating companies that have been ac- quired, the share of the output going into the fabricating subsidiaries rose from 5.7 percent in 1940 to 10.5 percent in 1947. (Changes in the Distribution of Steel, p. 10.) But even in so-called normal times, when steel 1s not tight, the expansion by the steel companies into fabricating fields constitutes a serious, potential danger to the mainte~- nane: of competition. It is only to be ex- pected that the fabricating subsidiaries will be able to secure their steel at a lower price than their independent competitors. This would be particularly true in the event that vigorous price competition broke out be-~ tween the independents and the fabricating subsidiaries. Thus, whether steel is in tight or in nor- mal supply, a serlous problem is presented by the expansion of the steel producers into the fabricating fields. If the loophole is plugged in section 7 of the Clayton Act, that is, if H. R. 27384, which has already passed the House and 1s now before the Senate Ju- diciary Committee, is finally enacted into law, the Commission will be able to prevent certain types of acquisitions. Whether it will be able to prevent all of the types which create the particular problem that I have been discussing remains to be seen. At any event, however, as a result of the acquisitions which have already taken place, a problem now exists which must be re- garded as a serious danger to the competi- tive system. Who Is the Real Patriot—McCarthy or Tydings? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 18, 1950 Mr.. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, a fearless editor, one Richard Lloyd Jones, of the Tulsa Tribune, has written an important editorial on the current investigation into charges made by Senator McCartuy against the State Department. The American people now. realize that every effort will be made to white-wash the investigation by the partisan efforts of the Democrats on the committee. I include the editorial of April 15 at this point: More ParRTIsaN THAN PATRIOT (By Richard Lloyd Jones) What’s the matter with our country? Mr. Tyrprncs, of Baltimore, is a good example of what’s the matter with our country. The people of Maryland elected him to be a United States Senator. But in Washington he is just a Democratic Senator. He isn’t working for his country. He is working for his party. ' In the Hiss case we learned that our Secre- tary of State, most responsible position in the President’s Cabinet, is not only a friend of a traitor but sympathetic with the fellow who operated with treachery against our country. The Hiss case opened the people’s eyes. Something is rotten in our State Depart- ment. So rotten they are desperate. They are trying to hide something. One United States Senator, Jor McCartxy, . of Wisconsin, had the courage to demand APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that the State Department clean out all who are unfit. McCarrHy is a Senator of the United States. Typrncs is a Senator of the Demo-~ cratic Party. He has obstructed the inves- tigation which, as a United States Senator, he should insist upon. : Harry Truman, president of the Demo- cratic Party, has locked up all the evidence that Senator McCartuy has msisted is es- sential to an honest investigation. What has the president of the Democratic Party got to be afraid of? If all of McCantHy’s charges are without foundation, if they are all a complete fabrication, if they are all imagi- nary, why not unlock the files and prove the lily-white innocence of those about whom McCartuy has cast the cloak of suspicion. If these people were noble and pure they should quit their cussing and demand that their record be read. If Harry Truman were a true President of the American people he would be impatient ts “~ove Genator McCartuyr’s charges false recs co, foundation, or with equal im- patience he would insist that the records be revealed that proved the truth of the accusa-~ tions. Something is rotten in Washington, and the Democrats are afraid to lift the lid. It might let loose a bad smell. There is no denying the fact that the Pres- ident of the United States is hiding the facts. He 1s determined that the truth shall not be known. His fear of the truth is enough to convince any rational mind that there is a lot of dangerous truth in the charges of McCarTHyY. We, the people, have the right to know the truth. It is time we branded as partisans rather than patriots chaps like TypIncs who try to hold up to public contempt any man- who tries to protect us from our enemies within. . United States Senator McCarTHy has ac- cused one Owen Lattimore of being at least sympathetic and cooperative with our en-~ emy. What does this fellow Lattimore do? He blew his top like Vesuvius in eruption. He crossed the line of drawing-room vocabu~ Jary and grew violent with profane outrage. He can call McCarruy all the names he wants to, but the public is still aware of the fact that his records are in hiding., And those that are revealed are not good. The public is aware of the fact that Harry Truman ordered the records locked up. Is the Democratic Party so afraid that more treason may be fixed on individual party workers that they have to lock up the records and bar the doors while the left-wing writers bawl out McCarruy because he is a Senator of the United States? Because he demands that the people be told the truth. And that is where Trpincs falls down flat as a Senator of the United States. He is just a party Senator. If Typincs is honest in his pretensions as a truth-seeker, let him read a book called Situation in Asia, published only last year and written by this Owen Lattimore, who McCartTHy accuses of cooperation with and sympathy for our enemy. Let Mr. Lattimore swear and fume like an epileptic, but here is his own written record, published in book form. Available on the book counters of book merchants who handle books of tainted patriotism. “Wherever the Communists have taken over,” writes this Owen Lattimore, “they have increased food production, and stabilized prices, successfully breaking the old cycle of reoccurring shortages and famines.” Well, now this just isn’t true. Fifty mil- lion wretched people in Red China are now confronted by one of the worst famines in the world’s history. The Russians took all the food away. Whatever the leftist writers say in defense ef our foes, however much they may abuse a patriotic Senator for searching for the truth, this one single written statement by ¥ _. this Owen Lattimore is enough to convict
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD him of Russian sympathies. This statement he makes is false. He pictures the greatest famine in history as a magnificent blessing bestowed upon 650,000,000 perishing people by the benevolent Russian bear. And this is the man our Democratic Party President has selected to advise the American people as to their conduct and relations with the Communist marshals of human misery. Does this excite the Democratic Senator Typines? Apparently not. The Democrats’ President, Mr. Truman? Yes. It excites him. He says, “Lock up the records and bar the doors and don’t let them in.” Mr. Lattimore is the fellow who was sent to China 6 years ago with Henry Wallace. ‘We were fighting the Communist invasion of China when he and Wallace went to look into the tragic affairs of the Chinese people. They returned to tell us that “we were back- ing the wrong horse in China.” That is procommunism. Sure, this fel- low Lattimore’s writings are tainted. They are full of Communist sympathies. In his book he holds that the Marshall plan should have been channeled through the United Nations so that Russia and her satellites might have participated in our relief subsidies. Just last year this fellow Lattimore writes that he foresaw an inevitable demand that Japan break away from America in order to come to terms with Communist China. And he apparently viewed this as a wholesome trend and development. He said, “By with- holding raw iron ore and supplying Japan only with pig iron, China would have abso- lute power to cut off the revival of Japanese war industry.” And he did not seem to be alarmed at the prospect that this might leave Japanese industry at the mercy of a satellite of the Soviet Union. Quite the con- trary. In Mr. Lattimore’s recent book he reports that he found “Asia turning to communism because progress made by the Soviet Repub- lics of Asia has inspired awe and wonder.” ‘The same people, he inferred, were turn- ing against the United States because they didn’t want to be used as cannon fodder, As Congressman Lawrence H. SmirH de- clared the other day, “Uncle Joe couldn’t have handled the subject better himself.” Any fellow who has put himself on record in his own writings as one who admires com- munism, praises it, and accuses us of being war mongers, deserves to be investigated. If MinLarRp TrbDINGs were a Senator of the United States he would join United States Senator JOE McCartHy in demanding that the presi- dent of the Democratic Party become the’ President of the American people and order the doors unlocked that admit to the secret ‘chambers where seeds of treason may be sown. Know Your Waterways EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. LARCADE. Mr, Speaker, under | leave to extend my remarks in the RrEc-~ orp, I include the following statement - from Marine News: ' ‘ Know Your WaTERwArs GREAT NATIONAL ASSETS Harbors, channels, inland, and intracoastal waterways are vital to America, during either. peace or war. Of 95 cities listed in the 1940 census with populations greater than 100,000, 62 are on harbors and navigable channels ime . proved by the Federal Government, as are all navy yards. Regions and communities hav- ing facilities for low-cost water-borne com- merce have great advantages over locations without them. Many areas now without water transportation can obtain it through vision and initiative. Every expenditure for navigation improvements is not only an in- vestment in the development and growth of @ community but also in the building of a nation. Marine News, GEORGE H. PALMER, President and Publisher. New Yors, N. Y. Status of the ITO EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. FREDERIC R. COUDERT, JR. OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. COUDERT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include an editorial appearing in the New York Times of April 20, 1950. Coming from one of our vigorous and consistent sup- porters of international cooperation, this editorial should be of interest to Members of Congress, and particularly to members of the Foreign Affairs Com- mittee. The editorial, in effect, suggests that there is no occasion for haste in the enactment of an extremely complicated and controversial document of more than 30,000 words. Many of its basic provisions, moreover, are identical with or resemble closely corresponding pro- visions in the Geneva agreement, of which this country is a member. In other words, we are already functioning under an international code of fair prac- tices which it merely remains for the ITO to formalize, elaborate, and imple- ment with permanent machinery.. In concluding, the editorial observes that “its long-term desirability should not be mistaken for short-time ur- gency.” The editorial follows: Stratus or THE ITO Secretary Acheson yesterday urged early action by Congress approving American par- ticipation in the International Trade Organ- ization (ITO), whose charter was agreed upon by the representatives of 54 nations at Habana in March 1948. This agreement, which is designed to provide a permanent code of fair practices in world economic re- lations, goes into effect, theoretically, on ratification by the governments of 20 of the signatory countries. Actually, only:2 countries, Australia and Liberia, have ‘ratified the charter to date. The others are marking time, Mr. Acheson . told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, pending action by the United States. This wait-and-see attitude on the part of the. ather nations is easily understandable. In_ .the first place, the ITO plan, while it was hammered out in its present form under the auspices of the United Nations, had its be~- ginning in: the United States. Specifically, it appeared first in the Anglo-American Loan Agreement, ‘published December 6, 1945. > Comprising. an essential part of that agree-. ‘ment were proposals for the expansion of world commerce and employment, and the creation of a world trade organization to be attached to the United Nations, The first A2907 draft was the work of an interdepartmental committee of the American Government. It was recognized that a basic requirement was a charter setting forth the general rules un- der which trade should be conducted among the nations. That task was completed by stages between February 1946 and March 1948. The second reason why action elsewhere has waited on that of the United States is equally obvious. It is generally reccgnized that whether the [TO stands or falls depends upon whether the United States, econom- ically the most powerful Nation in the world, participates actively in its affairs. That is what Secretary Acheson meant when he said yesterday that it is up to Congress whether there will be an International Trade Organ- ization. Whether Congress will be convinced, on the other hand, that it is desirable to hasten ratification of the ITO is more debatable. It is no criticism of the basic idea behind the proposed organization to suggest that the order of priority with respect to the urgency of international economic legisla- tion has undergone substantial changes since 1946, and even since 1948. The No. 1 prob- lem in the months ahead is to develop a pol- icy toward Europe for the period following the termination of the Marshall plan in mid- 1952. And there are at least three measures which are of more immediate importance: than ratifying the ITO so far as this purposu is concerned. These are: (1) action on the Customs Simplification Act of 1950, which is expected to come before Congress shortly; (2) planning for, and carrying out, the pro- posed “third round” of tariff negotiations, scheduled to be held later this year; and (3) reconciling the differences which are holding up action on the establishment of the European Payments Union. Of these three the first looms as perhaps the most im- portant. It is based on the belief that im- ports to this country can be stimulated more effectively at this point by the elimination of customs red tape and the clarifying of rules and regulations than by even an actual reduction in rates themselves. The ITO charter, it should be borne in mind, is an extremely complicated and con- troversial document of more than 30,000 words. Many of its basic provisions, more- over, are identical with or resemble closely corresponding provisions in the Geneva agreement, of which this country is a mem- ber. In other words, we are already func- tioning under an international code of fair practices which it merely remains for the ITO to formalize, elaborate, and implement with permanent machinery. It is not too much to say, perhaps, that the ITO represents the capstone of the postwar trade policy we have been seeking to build with the aid of the reciprocal trade agreements program, the Geneva agreement, and the World Bank and Fund. But at atime when there are so many legislative and administrative problems pressing for early action on the same front its long-term desirability should not be mis- taken for short-term urgency. The Party of Achievement and Confidence EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WALTER A. LYNCH . OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE-OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted me by unanimous consent, I take pleasure in including in my re- marks a stirring address made in New
A208 York City on April 19, 1950, by Hon. W. Averell Harriman, United States Ambas.- sad-r at Large, on the occasion of the annua! dinner of the New York State Democratic Committee at the Waldorf- Astoria. His remarks follow: We are dr. wt ‘orcther tcnight by a great cause—the Demeeri*.c Pit.y. It is a great cause, for in a realistic sense, it has come to be in our day almost synonymous with the cause of democracy. The Democratic Party, I feel deeply, is the party of democracy, because it 1s the party of progress, of human freedom, and human security. It not only has the faith that these high objectives can be achieved; it also has the courage to take bold, decisive action to see that they are achieved. The Democratic Party not only believes that man is entitled to have dignity and freedom; it believes that these words do not have full meaning unless he can ‘eat regular,” too, And our party is ready to take whatever steps are necessary to fight off those two great fears which beset our generation—the fear of want, and the fear of war. I have seen our party operate at close hand in Washington and abroad for nearly 20 years. In 1933, I joined the ranks of those who went to work to clean up the wreckage left us by Republican policy. The Republi- can Party, responsible for the disaster of 1929, had remained down in a cyclone cellar for 3 years, waiting for the storm to die down. When the Democratic Party took over it immediately started a program of action under the leadership of a man who believed in action—Franklin D. Roosevelt. Ten years ago, when Nazi aggression was threatening to engulf the world, I jomed the ranks of those who again responded to Roosevelt’s leadership in facing the new peril from abroad. Since then I have been in a position to see, in a number of different posts at home and abroad, how effectively the Democratic ad- ministration has dealt with threats to our national life. To me, the Democratic Party is the party of confidence. It has confidence in the strength of a free people. It is not afraid to meet squarely any problem, no matter how great. It does not sit by complacently wait- ing for a problem to solve itself. It takes affirmative action before the problem over-= whelms us. In Democratic leadership there is confidence, but not complacency. There is alertness to danger, but not fear. For these reasons, I believe, the American people have rejected the timid and vacillat- ing leadership of the Republican Party. Too many of its leaders are terrified of progress. It is forever looking fondly backward for safety. It squints timidly at the future, hoping that nothing new will ever have to be done. We are told that the elephant never forgets. I wonder why. Perhaps it is be- cause the elephant dreams only of the past. This kind of straddling and vacillating Re- publican leadership is present in our State— in the person of its governor. At one time Dewey claims to believe in the social objec- tives of the New Deal. At another time he condemns them as socialistic. At one time he ridicules the defense levels of airplane production set by Roosevelt; later he seeks to blame the Democrats for inadequate war preparedness. Originally he was partly isola= tionist, then he became partly international- ist—never quite sure—always seeming to wait for the polls of popular opinion before making up his mind where he stood. And finally, when he read the election polls of 1948, he evidently made up his mind the elec« tion was such a cinch that it was safer to take a stand on nothing—that is, nothing but two things. He was for “unity”; and he was for “Dewey for President.” That wasn’t good enough. The American people turned to a fighting leader, a2 man who made his objectives clear—a man ready to look into the future with confidence and action. And that man is carrying on today with the same bold Democratic cffensive. He does not wait for blows to strike us. He too goes out to meet them in the traditional way of the Demo-~ cratic Party. Our party has confidence—and so have the American people confidence—in the leadership of Harry S. Truman. It 1s a leadership of action to meet any and all threats. At home it 1s the leadership of the Fair Deal against poverty, disease, ignor- ance, intolerance, race prejudice—a fight continually to improve the American life. Abroad it is a leadership to support faith- fully the Charter of the United Nations. It is a leadership to repel chaos, to help rebuild, to resist aggression, to unite all men of good will all over the world in the struggle against want and against fear. Itis a fight fcr peace. It is a fight in which everyone of us here tonight, and every peace-loving American, plays his full part. And to carry on such a fight abroad in the kind of werld we now face, in tke kind of cold war which imperialistic Soviet Russia has imposed upon us, we must have clear, firm, and consistent American foreign policies. We have such policies. They are not the policies of any one party. They are American policies. It is the duty of the President to develop foreign policies which transcend all partisan considerations. That is exactly what he has done. We Democrats recognize and respect those Republican leaders—such as Senator VaNn-~ DENBERG and many others in the Senate and and in the House—who have put party con- siderations aside, and have helped to develop policies which are concerned only with the highest national interest and security. These have been called bipartisan policies, but Senator Vanpenperc has perhaps more appropriately labeled them unpartisan policies. The ECA is an outstanding example of such a policy. After full debate, it was authorized by an overwhelming majority of both parties in the Congress. It has been administrated in a completely unpartisan way. In the words of Senator VANDENBERG, “This working unity typified our finest traditions and our greatest safety in the presence of external hazards to all Americans, regardless of party. * * * United, we stand. Di- vided, we fall. I want America to stand.” Let us all here tonight pray that Senator VANDENBERG will soon recover from his ill- ness, to continue to add his wisdom to the guidance of our country at this time. The objective of American foreign policy can be expressed in various ways. In es-~ sence it is to attain peace with freedom and justice. But the desperate reality is that an aggressive, determined force is loose in the world today which has a completely different objective—to extinguish both free- dom and justice. The strength of our economy and the strength of our spirit will be the deciding factors in maintaining freedom and peace. On this, I hold three deep convictions: First, that the American people must se- cure and broaden our own well-being at home. . : Second, that the American people must give inspiration, assistance, and leadership, as partners, to the free nations of the world. My third conviction is that if the Ameri- can people do both these things, war can be avoided. The policies of the Fair Deal work toward a dynamic and expanding economy with a steadily rising national income in which all can share, They are directed toward the . eradication of injustices and intolerance APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD against our fellow Americans of minority races and religions. They are designed to provide the kind of security and opportunity which gives each citizen a ~eal stake in the material prosperity of his country. Republicans have tried to argue that social security interferes with opportunity. We Democrats reject such narrow concepts. We believe that our country can achieve security for the people, and at the same time give greater opportunity to the individual—to more individuals. Republicans are again doing their best to picture the social objectives of the Fair Deal as monstrous and terrible things which will swallow up our American freedom. That's just the bunk! It 1s an uninformed, inaccurate reading of contemporary history. The truth is that the danger to freedom mounts when the economic system fails to feed, clothe, and house the great mass of the people at a decent level, when it fails to hold out the prospect of an improving standard of living for those willing to work hard enough to get it. If our experience during the past 30 years proves anything, it proves that the happiest hunting ground for fascism and communism 1s mass unemployment and human misery. It is the environment of economic security which strengthens freedom and renders it safe from the lies and the plots of the Communists. Some Republican leaders and candidates seem to be looking upon certain recent elec-~ tions in various countries as a kind of un- earned increment for themselves——as evidence that the people in other parts of the world are turning back to reaction. These Re- publican politicians are evidently hoping that all they have to do is to wait passively by the ballot box here at home to get back into office, As usual, they are misreading polit- ical facts. Actually, the elections are en- couraging to us of the Democratic Party. I have watched these elections at-first hand. All of them reflect a definite trend away from the extreme left—from the Commu. nists, from the fellow travelers and from the fellow wanderers. In general, they reflect a trend toward our kind of democratic belief, But let’s not begrudge the Republicans their temporary delusions. They’ll find out when the time comes. When I speak of Republican leaders, I differentiate them from the rank and file of the Republican Party. Many of them con- sider themselves Renuhticons cut of a nat-= ural sense of inki.. "itd acer. But they vote for progressive candidates only— whether they are Democrats or Republicans. We welcome their support, and we must con- tinue to be worthy of it by putting up for- ward-looking candidates and carrying on a program of progressive action. ‘The essential foundation on which we can wage a successful fight for freedom and peace is to make our society healthy, intelligent and economically secure, based upon a sys- tem of free enterprise which, together with Government, recognizes and discharges its social responsibilities to the whole people. That is our preeminent task at home. Abroad, we have been giving inspiration and assistance to the free nations of Eu- rope—our partners in this fight for freedom and peace. By the Truman doctrine, by the Marshall plan and by the North Atlantic Treaty, we have already made long strides together in this fight. The development of the far-sighted concept of point 4 will strengthen the cause of freedom in the un- derdeveloped areas, and will expand the trade and prosperity of our own country and other industrial countries. The free nations of the world are going to win this fight. I am confident of it—for two fundamental reasons: One reason is that history and morality are on our side. The Kremlin proclaims the ,. Mevitability of the dictatorship of the prole=
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tariat. Well, it is not inevitable. History does not teach the inevitability of tyranny. It teaches just the opposite. The whole stream of human development has been a successful struggle of mankind for ever- growing freedom. There have been many set-backs; but eventually dictatorships have been overthrown by the strongest of human forces, man’s passionate desire for liberty. Liberty, not tyranny, is a man’s birthright. The moral force of that birthright is our most powerful ally. The second reason I arn confident is that the material resources on the side of freedom are far stronger. The United States and Canada have about half of the heavy manu- facturing capacity of the world. Including the free nations of Europe, the Atlantic com- munity has at its command about 75 percent of the entire world’s vital industrial capacity. We have access to the needed food and raw materials, If the free nations of the North Atlantic— with all these resources—work together to improve economic conditions in the free world, if we all do our share in the develop- ment of the means of mutual defense, then the free world will be unbeatable. Our partners in western Europe are steadily gaining economic health and democratic strength. Hunger has been driven out. When I went to Europe 2 years ago for ECA the people of France, for example, were liv- ing on a bread ration of only two-thirds of the ration given them by the Germans dur- ing the occupation. Today bread and most foods are no longer rationed. In western Europe, war-shattered industry is already producing well above prewar levels, and is continuing to rise. Trade is expanding, and most important of all, the fearful specter of inflation has been laid at rest. In 1947, when the Communist threat to seize control was most menacing, the prospect of the Marshall plan revived hope. Today, confi- dence has returned. That is why in country after country, as free elections have been held, communism has been rolled back. No wonder Communists hate free clections, and no wonder they fight the Marshal! plan. The front line of the battle for freedom in western Europe has been the labor front. The Communist strategy—dictated from Moscow—was to gain control of the labor movement in order to destroy the free coun- tries of Europe. With the failure of strikes called for Kremlin political objectives, the free labor movement has been strengthened. The present attempts of the Communists ‘to use the trade-unions to prevent the unload- ing of American military assistance is again proving a boomerang. In the ranks of Euro- pean labor, communism has suffered decisive set-backs. I want to pay tribute to the vision of the American trade-union movement in helping the workers of Europe in their battle. The A. F. of L. aud the CIO and the railroad unions have given effective support to the cause of freedom in Europe. There is growing vigor in Europe. The same spirit that created the resistance move- ment during German occupation, is again alive. In traveling through Europe as I have, and in meeting the men who are leading the pattle, I have become confident of the new hope and new vitality of our partners in Europe. There is the will to work, the will to fight, and the will to win. Their decision to join with us in the North Atlantic Treaty meant setting aside forever reliance on appeasement or neutrality to maintain peace. This courageous decision stemmed from their belief—as we believe— that unity among the free nations is the greatest single deterrent to aggression. But we must remember that hope and con- fidence in Europe naturally rests on faith in the firmness and consistency of American XCVI—App.——184 aegs rape Awe See policy. It is bewildering to our friends abroad when, in the United States Senate, reckless and irresponsible charges are slung against those in important positions who are carrying out our foreign policy. People abroad do not understand, as we do, that these maneuvers are for personal publicity and partissn cs, This political perse- eution of ere: su. might be ignored if it did not play right into the hands of the Com- munists. It weakens confidence in us abroad, and there could be no greater handi- cap to the administration’s efforts to stamp out subversive elements. As Mr. Henry L. Stimson has said: “It should by now be wholly clear that indis- ecriminate accusations are doubly offensive; they damage the innocent and they help protect the guilty. For if the accuser is so stupid as to connect a man like Ambassador Jessup with communism, are not all such accusations made suspect?” Others are following Mr. Stimson’s leader= ship in denouncing these malicious tactics. Would there were more. Instead, there are some who, though unwilling to share respon- sibility with McCartuy in his indiscriminate tirade of unsubstantiated charges, are hoping * to gather some political windfall out of them if they can. The American people will see through these un-American political maneuvers. They know that no administration can possibly be friendly to Communists which has proposed and is carrying out with vigor the Truman doctrine, the Marshall plan, and the North Atlantic Treaty. The American people will repudiate those who are undermining for selfish purpose the confidence of other free nations in our country at this critical time. I believe that 1f our foreign policies are consistently and vigorously carried forward and expanded in cooperation with our part- ners of the North Atlantic Treaty, we will develop an impregnable position of strength in western Europe and in other parts of the free world. With life secure and healthy in the free world, I am convinced that pressures will begin to operate behind the iron curtain to break down the Kremlin control. When and how no one can predict. But there can be no doubt that the disaffection of Tito has resulted from the success of the Marshall plan. Let there be no mistake: It will be a long and tough struggle, requiring present-day sacrifices by us and our partners—sacrifices which are in fact investments in the cause of peace and in the cause of freedom. Early this month I was with Secretary Johnson and General Bradley at a meeting in The Hague of the defense ministers of the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty. I was struck by the determination shown by our associates sitting around that table. These men, representing their governments, mean business. They mean to do their share in developing with us an integrated defense force for mutual security. The United States, the most powerful na- tion in the world, is helping to forge an as- sociation of partners whose strength will lie in its, unity—whose strength is based on mutual respect and mutual confidence. In sharp contrast, Soviet imperialism is seeking to create a world of nations subor- dinate to Russia—a world of satellites forced to do her bidding. Russia itself is ruled by fear and is out to rule the world by fear. Within Russia, the Kremlin 1s afraid of the people and the people are afraid of the Kremlin. I remember one occasion in the summer , of 1945 when General Eisenhower and I were invited to stand on Lenin’s tomb as Stalin was reviewing a great youth sports parade A290$ in the Red Square. Standing next to Stalin, I looked around, and as far as I could see every window from which anyone could view the scene had been blocked or guarded. In front of Lenin’s tomb and running the length of the square before the Kremlin, the Red soldiers stood rifle to rifle with bayonets in place to protect the Russian rulers from their people. I have also seen how fearful the Russian leaders are of the people of their satellites. In January 1946 I was in Bucharest with the British Ambassador to negotiate with Vish- insky the carrying out of one provision of the Yalta agreement. This called for the participation of all democratic parties in the Rumanian Government preparatory to holding a free and unfettered election. This Was one of the innumerable attempts to get the Soviets to keep their promises made at Yalta. One day, we were all invited to lunch with King Michael at his country place. My daughter and I drove out in a small car with a GI as driver and bearing an American flag. Through the countryside, there was friend- liness—cheers for our flag. On the way, we passed one stalled cavalcade of seven huge motorcars (they were evidently repairing a blow-out). There were three cars in the front and three cars in the rear filled with guards, In the middle car sat Mr. Vishin- sky. The American Military Mission to Ru- mania numbered only 100 officers and men; the Russians had 700,000 soldiers in the country at the time, but Mr. Vishinsky was not trusting to the friendliness of the Ru- manian people. The Kremlin is intent upon using fear to disrupt and paralyze, and ultimately to dominate the world—they use fear of war, fear of terror. The association of free nations, on the other hand, is based on confidence and mutual trust—it is based on faith in democ- racy and in people, faith in each other. That is the way to meet Moscow’s attempt to rule by fear. In faith there is eternal strength; in fear, inevitable weakness. It is the high purpose of the Democratic Party to continue to preserve that faith and confidence at home and abroad. That is a mission the Democratic Party has set for it- self—and will fight to achieve. But political victories, like liberty, have to be won over and over again. That is the essence and the strength of democracy. There are political victories that are going to have to be won this fall. Political victories, like liberty, cannot be taken for granted. We have to fight to win them. There is too much at stake at home and in the world to lose them now. Five years ago last week, in a little white cottage at Warm Springs, Ga., President Roosevelt was preparing a speech to be de- livered on the Jefferson Day of that year. He died before he could deliver it; but his manuscript has come down to us. The last words of that speech—in a sense his fare- well message to us—were these: “To you and to all Americans who dedicate themselves with us in making an abiding peace, I say: the only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.” To Roosevelt, to Wilson, to Jackson, to Jefferson, to all our great leaders of the past, we can say tonight: “There are no doubts among the true followers of the Democratic Party—your party, our party. We have faith, we have a strong and active faith. And we will move forward—we and all Americans of good will—to a realization of our aims: a secure and a good life at home; peace, se- curity and international good faith throughs out the free nations of the world.”
A2910 Tax Revision EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FREDERIC R. COUDERT, JR. OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. COUDERT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the following letter by Mr. Harold Riegel- man, distinguished New York lawyer, which appeared in a recent issue of the New York Times: Mr. Covprrt’s Proposar—Ir Is Sam To BE AIMED AT GROWING CENTRALIZATION OF POWER To the Evrror or THE New York TIMES: The attack upon Representative FREDERIC R. Counerr, Jz., in a letter to the Times of April 10 calls for comment. The attack centers upon Mr. CouDERT’S dramatic proposal that the power to tax in- dividual incomes be withdrawn by constitu- tional amendment from the Federal Gov- ernment except for debt services and national emergencies (which present)y include na-~ tional defense) and that this power be re~ served, with the exceptions above noted, to the several States. The dramatic aspect of the proposal is not that welfare and social services should be discontinued (which is not proposed) or that income taxes would neces- sarily be reduced: It is that the administra- tion of welfare and social services would be transferred and restored to the sovereign States, and the resources of the State, in- cluding taxable incomes of their residents, would be made available to the States for those and other proper purposes. This proposal is aimed at the great and growing centralization of power in the Fed- eral Government and the difficulty of con~ trolling at that remote level expenditures not of necessity national in character. This purpose would be implemented, ac- cording to Mr. Couprrt, by charging the States with functions relating to the do- mestic well-being of their people and im- posing upon the States responsibility for financing the administration of those func- tions under the observation and control of those who are immediately affected and who pay in taxes their cost. Mr. CovprErt’s estimate of savings from elimination of existing duplications and dis- pensable Federal bureaucratic overhead and activities indicates the fiscal feasibility of this proposal. In this connection it is well to bear in mind that the period of authorized foreign aid at present levels will expire sub- stantially before it is physically possible to complete the process of required Federal ' constitutional amendment; and if a national emergency subsequent to the amendment re- quires a continuance of foreign aid, such aid could still be financed as far as necesary by Federal taxation of individual incomes. The question of whether or not such a na- tional emergency exists could be determined jointly by the President and the Congress. Mr. Covnert’s proposal, whether accept- able or not, has the merit of going to the very root of a trend toward centralization of government which many informed citi- . zens and students of government regard as endangering our traditional political and - economic system. Mr. CovupERt’s subsequent resolution for the appointment of a nonpartisan commis- . sion to study revision of the Federal tax structure was designed to permit a careful and objective appraisal of the steps by which his principal objective could be accomplished in an orderly and prudent manner, consistent with our international obligations and those internal affairs which must be handled by the Federal Government if they are to be handled at all. I believe the issue defined by Mr. CoupDERT is of such grave importance that it should be studied and debated on its merits and not presented, as it was, merely as an ex- ample of propaganda serving to obscure or mislead the citizen as to activities of his Government. Hanotp RIEGELMAN, New Yoru, April 14, 1950. Peace in the Middle East EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 4, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to direct the attention of my colleagues to the joint statement by president William Green, of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, and president ~ Philip Murray, of the Congress of Indus- trial Organizations, issued by them on February 10, 1950, after conferring with our President Harry S. Truman. It is unfortunate that since that conference the reports indicate that the situation is getting worse rather than better. I sincerely trust that vigorous efforts on the part of our Government will soon bring this armament race to an end. The statement follows: . PEACE IN THE MIDDLE East—A JoOInt STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENTS OF THE CIO AND A, F. or L. In the name of the overwhelming majority of organized labor in America, we have today expressed to the President our firm support of the new democratic State of Israel, and our anxiety over the threats to this state and to the people of the Middle East through the heavy and needless armaments race now being undertaken by the governments of | Egypt and other Arabic countries in the middle eastern areas. From authoritative newspaper reports and other trustworthy sources of information, we are convinced that the objective of this drive toward militarism is a second war against the State of Israel. We regard this development as a threat not only to the new democratic republic of Israel but also to the hopes of the American people for stability and peaceful progress wherever possible in the world. Labor in America—both CIO and A. F. of L.—has long supported the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine. We took great pride in the prompt action of our Gov- ernment in giving recognition and support to the new State of Israel, which is the frui- tion of centuries of Jewish aspirations and hopes. We have followed with close inter- est and approval the efforts of the demo- cratic Government of Israel to achieve peace -and progress for its citizens. . We have come to recognize the Republic of Israel as a bastion of our hopes for : strengthening the democratic. processes in the Middle East. We-have maintained close -and friendly relations with Histadrut,. the splendid labor federation of Israel, which is .° accomplishing so much for the well-being APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of its members and for the new state as a whole. . We had hoped that after the conclusion of Israel’s rightful struggle for national in- dependence, it would be allowed to develop its human and natural resources in peace and with the cooperation of its neighbors. The growing menace of renewed armed intervention by reactionary and umnrepre- sentative neighboring governments—as re- ported in considerable detail in the press— has caused growing slarm. This renewed military threat is being aimed at a state which is working more effec- tively than any other in the Middle East to bring its people higher standards of living, literacy, housing, and health. It has made tremendous strides in its first 18 months of experience, and great progress can be ex- pected if peace is maintained throughout the entire region. The effective advancement of living and cultural standards in Israel will inevitably bring improvements in the lives of millions of other persons in the Middle East—the great majority of whom live in ignorance, poverty, and disease. Indeed, Israel is ideally equipped to be a pivotal factor in developing the resources of the Middle East when President Truman’s point 4 program, which we heartily endorse, is enacted into law and placed in operation. Newspaper reports and other creditable evidence indicate that Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, and the other Arabic countries un- friendly to Israel are receiving large supplies of armaments from the government of Great Britain. We appealed to the President to make appropriate representations on behalf of our Government to Great Britain to dis- continue supplying these Arabic countries with instruments of aggressive warfare obvi- ously designed for use against Israel. We likewise appealed to President Truman, since the flow of arms to the Arabic countries still continues, to permit the scle of arms to the Israeli Government in order to meet the daily increasing threat to the security of the State of Israel. We see no reason why Israel should not be given the opportunity to purchase means of defense while the arms machinery of its neighbors is constantly in= creased. for obviously aggressive purposes. At the same time, we have voiced to the President our hope for continued American support to help achieve a just and perma- nent peace settlement between the Govern- ‘ment of Israel on the one hand and Egypt, Transjordan, and the other Arabic countries. We have expressed our strong belief that the Government of the United States should con- tinue its reasonable and enlightened attl-' tude concerning the position of Jerusalem’ to the end that the impracticable UN deci- sion relating to Jerusalem shall be recon< sidered. \ We have likewise appealed to the President for additional financial support for Israel. That small and new state has admittea— during the 18 months of its existence— 365,000 Jewish immigrants. They have been liberated from displaced-persons camps in Germany, the ghettos of Arabic countries, and the increasing discrimination of Soviet satellite nations. The $100,000,000 loan of the Export-Import Bank which the President so generously supported is now virtually ex- hausted. The assistance extended by Amer- ican Jewry cannot entirely meet the imme-~ diate and overwhelming need. We are hopeful that our Government will again support a new loan from the Export~ Import Bank and the World Bank in order to make it possible for the state of Israel to cope. with these manifold problems. American influence and actions can help ' preserve peace and democracy in the Middle East and -bring stability, progress and en- lightenment to that part of the world.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD As unionists and as believers in the con- tinuance of the peace and in democratic op- portunity, we trust that our Government will stand against further aggression directed at the State of Israel and its courageous enlightened people who, like we, are seeking to achieve a decent economy and a full uti- lization of the resources of nature for the penefiit of mankind. Address by T. Russ Hill Before the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY C. DWORSHAK Or IDAHO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, April 19 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, an ad- dress delivered by T. Russ Hill, Detroit, Mich., at the opening of the Fifty-ninth Continental Congress, National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, - at Washington, D. C., on April 17, 1950. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: It is an honor and a pleasure to be pres- ent at the gala opening of the Fifty-ninth Continental Congress, National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. This organization is remarkable in char- acter, accomplishments, and steadfastness to the principles of the era from which your name is derived. Since the gulf between man and his past is widening with each gen- eration, the dedication of your current activ- ities to history, patriotism, and teaching is increasingly important to the Nation. At the same time, you have a rather alarm- ing responsibility, being one of the leading organizations of the controlling group in the Nation, its women. The women of America are the bulwarks of our democracy, particu- larly when they are realists instead of senti- mentalists as far as Men in public life are concerned. Since women have the biggest stake in our Nation’s economy and security, their respon- sibility is, therefore, alarming. So much so, that they cannot be content to sit in lecture halls and then merely wonder what they can do. Women are the strongest influence with which to resist the tide of destructive or misnamed constructive forces rising within the Union and attempting to submerge the free capitalistic system which is the Nation’s strength and the guaranty of the people’s freedom. In this age of lunacy, greed, shallowness, fear, and decaying moral fiber, as in all pe- riods of stress, the condition of the Nation’s bulwarks determines its chances of riding out the storm and fixes the job to be done by its citizens aboard the ship. Furthermore, the realization that this stressful period is not unusual and that it had to be, increases the confidence required to do the job. Unfortunately, the American people are very impatient when solutions are difficult. We become irritated, discouraged, and alarmed when we cannot wipe the slate clean v..th one swipe. It seems only yesterday that we were laughing at Mussolini, the clown; at Hitler, a little man with a funny mustache; and joking about how long the Russian 5-year plan would last. The smiles disappeared in a storm of anguish and the world paid a terrible price to ride it out. Still there is no peace within or without. Instead, the people are disturbed and fearful. America, the oldest pure democracy left, is agitated because of that fact. The impact of this era of upheaval has us nervous because we are so accustomed to solving things quickly and then having done with them. Faster motorears, faster trains, faster planes, faster ships, faster production, faster education, faster salvation, and even faster destruction of millions of people have not solved the problems of peace and security. On the contrary, they have bred frustration. We are regretfully realizing that we cannot snap our fingers and find a cure for cancer, heart disease, nor the social and economic unrest of the day, so we indulge in fits of fancy and fallacy. The answer is deeper and slower, but the answer can be found through the dogged efforts of you and millions like you in this Nation whose concepts are solidly American. Given the true facts, our people will find a true solution. Otherwise, there can be no strength in a democracy. The issue in America is really between free capitalism and authoritarianism whether called socialism, fascism, or communism. All other names for either side are window dress- ing. It isn’t liberty, freedom, free enterprise, or our way of life against authoritarianism. It is free capitalism which guarantees all of these and more. In fact, free capitalism is the only form of economic existence that has ever worked in any land-and today democra- cies control two-thirds of the world’s trade and most of its resources; yet disciples of col- Jectivism, ofttimes refugees of failure in other lands, tinker with the workings of democracy. - Likewise, the opponent of free capitalism is not progressivism, social justice, equality for all, social security, a share of the wealth, or any other attractive phrases that are as old as history. The opponent is authori- tarlanism as exemplified by socialism, at least for the moment. Calling it by any other name does not change its objectives. Iam a believer, therefore, in free capital- ism and the fact that the supporters of Marx sneer when they use the word in- creases my entgusiasm for free capitalism. I left a rural section of Kentucky at the age of 13 to get an education. As soon as “ college was behind me, I had to make some money. I was in debt for my schooling, so I became a capitalist as every wage earner on a business payroll is today. Later on, some other people who had the same idea, joined me in establishing a business. We made money, built other businesses, dis- tributed merchandise that rendered a serv- ice to the public, donated money to many causes, employed people and paid good wages and dividends, paid substantial taxes, and served the communities in which we lived. I hope that every boy in America will con- tinue to have that kind of an opportunity. If that is to be, those who believe in it must stand up for free capitalism. Free capitalism is no saint in white robes but it is by far the best child in the economic family. The blessings which God has showered upon it attest that fact. Since free capitalism’s means and meth- ods built this Nation, put up and endowed its colleges, libraries and hospitals, erected and preserved its historical shrines, saved the world twice and is still carrying a major portion of that world, any American can openly endorse it with pride. It is worthy of your vigorous championing and the peo- ple need to be reminded of the same. Furthermore, all Americans are capitalists except probably three classifications: the re- A2911 ligious sect dedicated to poverty, the loafer and the criminal parasite, and the dema- gogic politiclan who creates nothing and lives off the money earned by taxpaying cap- italists. So, you see, we have tremendous strength on the side of this Peck’s bad boy. Uniting it is the job to be done. The people need to be reminded of both these facts. I believe that can best be done by clari- fying the issues. Those who believe in stat- ism, in part or in whole, which I believe is socialism and a forerunner of commu- nism, are probably as honest, zealous, and unselfish in their beliefs as those who cham- pion free enterprise. Let the issue then be joined scun-clv and settled in the demo- cratic vur. Ths can be done by the peo- ple working for what they believe, voting for it (all of them, not 50 to 60 percent as in recent elections) and striving to put the future ahead of themselves or the stress of the moment. The immediate problem is not to stop Communists. I do not believe that communism can take over this country from within or without. The task of those who believe in free capitalism is to check the infiltration of socialistic trends and ideas into our presumably respectable in- stitutions which are a major portion of the Nation’s bulwarks. If that is done, I am sure that communism has no chance in this Nation. Some educators tell us that mass educa- tion is the crime of the century against American youth. _It is certainly obvious that cultural teaching, the foundation of the western world, has declined under mass education and that the intensification of specialized courses thereunder is teaching the student to battle, to acquire, but not to live. This educational process has been popularized. That destroys the basic vir- tues of cultural and patriotic citizenship. It creates fertile ground for socialization of the educational process under the guise of providing easy, elective educational -op- portunities for all. Such opportunities and such educational processes would not build citizens of democracies. To subscribe to that, it seems to me, is to overlook the his- torical fact that few if any students who have really sought an education in this country tailed to get it because they were poor. Those who did not want it, though having ample funds, did not profit by the process of going through the motions of receiving it, and contributed little to the common good thereafter. Nationalization of education will not change that pattern. It will increase the waste and magnify means instead of minds. A sound, free educational process is essential to the continuance of free capitalism. Therefore, it is fertile ground for the cultivation of their ideas by those who oppose it, Miss Bentley, con- fessed former Communist spy, blames her being taken in by communism upon her failure to study American history, political science and civics, despite an otherwise ex- pensive education. The old line political parties, long bul- warks of the Nation, have also been softened up, both of them, by the blows of collec- tivism power groups. We have for some time witnessed both parties seeking votes through promising campaigns of unusual magnitude. There is no better example of the results of this course, it seems to me, than the laws that have been enacted under the impact of the pressure groups controlling large blocks of votes. The farm subsidies are probably the best known example of ‘such because they can be seen, but the bait in other directions has been propor- tionately heavy. ; In a Mmestone cave near Atchison, Kans., the Government has stored 112,000,000 pounds of dried eggs and 33,000,000 pounds
A2912 of dried prunes and raisins. That is enough to provide breakfast for 150,000,000 Ameri~ cans. Free capitalism, mainly the women of free capitalism, paid for these twice. First with tax money to do the buying and storing. Second, in the higher prices that the same commodities cost when they purchased them. Elsewhere there are 364,000,000 pounds of linseed oil—enough to make all of the paint that is used in America in 1 year; 182,000,000 bushels of wheat; 15,000,000 bushels of flax- seed; 89,000,000 pounds of wool and still other mountains of cotton, butter, flax, pea- nuts, soybeans, potato starch, dried milk, barley, dry edible beans and peas, corn, rice, rye, hay and pasture seeds, rosin, and tobacco, not to mention potatoes. Three billion dol- lars have been spent in these mountains of subsidies. The statistics are dry but the results are drier. CCC, of course, hoped to make a profit out of the investment, but lost $254,000,000 in the 12 months ended June 830, 1949, and is currently asking for $2,000,- 000,000 to keep going, Economists really have a bear by the tail when they attempt to extend the law of diminishing returns to all incomes down to the necessity pomt. It is not too difficult to tax profits and incomes for that purpose. It is a different animal when it is extended to farm products, edu- cation, and medicine, to mention a few. Closely allied with this aid to the farmer and the bid for his vote is the quest for the labor vote upon much the same basis. Here again the desire for size has weakened the bulwarks of the Nation and made possible the infiltration of socialistic ideas and programs. Many industries busy with mass production neglected their masses. The leaders of those masses, now busy with extending their powers, are likewise neglecting their people. Some are actually, consciously or uncon- sciously, leading them into the corrals of regimentation. Human relations are in the arena with the labor law a political football. Collective bargaining has in many cases been reduced almost to the level of violence with viciousness indulged in on both sides of the table. Obviously, the country cannot con- tinue strong under such pressures, especially when the advocates of either side are sup- ported by the Government. Men willing to fight and die for brick and mortar or for their selfish organizations are a sorry sight in a nation whose sons have been dying for the flag and whose shrines and the records of their deeds this organiza- tion has done so much to preserve. In this situation, we see men exchanging their lib- erties, their initiative, their heritage as free- men for theories—most of which are im-~ ported from countries now dependent upon the United States for support, This was manifested recently in Detroit when the press reported an official of a great union as telling a mass meeting of one of its striking mem- bers: “We are only asking for a little of what we produce. One of these days, when we are organized politically, we are going to ask for everything we produce.” Under slogans such as free speech, social justice, equality of all men, a fair return to all workers for their efforts, no discrimina- tion of any sort, etc., socialistic measures gain ground and fasten themselves upon the people. The gradual encroachment of Gov- ernment controls keeps step with taxing polf- cies which are sapping the Nation’s fiscal strength. The resistance strength of the strong is being steadily broken down through promises to the weak. Eventually, all will be weak, even the individual and industrial giants whose earnings are making the head« lines now. The large earnings of such in- dustries as the automotive are taken as cri- terions for all businesses and loud denunci- ations are voiced. The 1949 profit trend, however, was down in most industries as the drop in the tax yield to the Government will confirm, Measuring the take from these by the automotive yardstick will mean the death warrant for many. You know, of course, that Britain’s social- istic government, which the United States has largely underwritten, has not taken over all business—just credit, communications, civil aviation, transport, coal mines, elec- tricity, gas, and medical services, That is enough to control any other business. The palance of “private” industry there now has the responsibility of trying to make enough money to pay the operating losses sustained by the industries under Government con- trol. We are so well along the road of taxing individuals and corporations for funds with which to underwrite government projects that the inclusion of entire businesses in such projects would not be too difficult. A little more time and a few more votes and the job could be done and coal might be the starter. Communism is the second stage of the struggle, not the first. The battle today must, therefore, be joined on the battle- grounds and not at teas, clubs, bridge and canasta sessions, or in summer colonies. The chief battlegrounds now, I believe, are the schools and colleges, the unions, the churches, and the polls on every election day. Before asking what you can do, check your interest and activity in the PTA, in college and university management and cur- ricula, in labor relations, in church affairs, and in ward politics. Free capitalism must survive there if it is to survive. Donald Richberg said recently: “Higher taxes mean less money for individual spending; and more political controls mean less individual lib- erty.” I believe it is as simple as that. If war comes and it will come when Rus- sia feels that she has enough with which to win (and this Nation should never let her get that far ahead), the miracle per- formed by industry in the last world war will be but a token compared with the re- quirements upon industry in the next one. For the sake of our salvation, I trust that free capitalism is still the economic system in this Nation when the shooting starts. It will be if the people who really believe in free capitalism push the spoons filled with the opiate of government hand-outs away from their lips and stand tip. It will be if the same people openly and cleanly meet such charges as “capitalists, special inter~ ests, Wall Street, privileged class, reaction- aries, and financial tycoons,” all devised to cast suspicion upon the free capitalistic sys tem and to arouse the people to the support of measures aimed at crippling it into im- potence so the leaders of the opposition may take over. It will be if the same people show by the record where greed for power and greed for gain is truly to be found. Re- gardless of sectionalism, material worth of party affiliations, such people must come from the North, the South, the East, and the West, united in one purpose, the pres- ervation of the Union through retention of its strength, free capitalism. If such are afraid of that term or of the mud that has been thrown upon it, then they will have no passion for the crusade. The flood of government, sincerely believed in by its ad- vocates and slowly rising across the land, will engulf all, not merely the so-called vested interests. The best people have been telling us for 5,000 years that there is something eternal to every human being. I believe that ap-~« Plies also to a nation where God is respected. Therefore, I believe that the Valley Forge shrine, the monuments of Gettysburg, and the white crosses in America and foreign soil will stir the people to make eternal the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD fruits of the sacrifices of those who per-= formed the deeds which these monuments and markings symbolize. May Almighty God lead us in the fullest participation in the issues relevant to the preservation of such a heritage. The Situation in Germany EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. GUY M. GILLETTE OF IOWA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a very able radio statement delivered by the junior Senator from New York [Mr. LeHman] on April 20, 1950. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: I can think of no undertaking which is more badly needed today than a study and reexamination of the entire situation as it has developed in Germany. Five times—I repeat five times—within the last century Germany has been the starting point of aggressive wars. The last two of these wars threatened the very existence of western civilization. And all during the centuries before Germany was the scene and theater of almost endless wars which raged across the face of Europe, involving one country and then another in devasta- tion and destruction. Today the chief threat in the world is un- doubtedly that of Soviet expansion and ag- gression. This should not blind us, however, to the importance of looking closely at the situation in Germany to see what is happen- ing there. What is going on in this heart of central Europe. What has happened to our original war and peace aims for the German people? What has happened to our dreams of democratizing this unhappy land? What are the German people doing and thinking while the cold war rages around them? We are all pleased that Germany is re- covering from the economic wounds of the recent conflict. But if there is being re- created the same Germany that confronted the world 10 years ago, we are making another date with a terrible destiny for Europe and the world. But Iam not ready to pass my own judg- ment on this situation. I would like to know the facts. The American people should know the facts. A bipartisan commission such as we have proposed in the resolution submitted to the Senate last week will throw @ searchlight of inquiry upon an area which is only vaguely illuminated in the public mind today. If we forget the German people in our concentration on the battle for Germany, we may win the battle but lose the war— both the war that we fought and the war we may yet-—-God forbid—be called upon to fight. History has an uncanny way of repeating itself. The resolution of which I am a co- author is intended only to inquire whether the western German republic is a really new Germany or just the same Germany with a new facade.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Current World Situation EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, last Wednesday at a dinner sponsored by the Democratic State committee of New York, Ambassador Averell Harriman gave a very powerful and informative address on a number of subjects, political and international, Ambassador Harriman’s analysis of the current world situation, as well as his analysis of the current political situation are well worth reading. I ask the wnanimous consent of the Senate to insert this speech in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: We are drawn together tonight by a great cause—the Democratic Party. It is a great cause, for in a realistic sense, it has come to be in our day almost synonymous with the cause of democracy. The Democratic Party, I feel deeply, is the party of democracy, because it is the party of progress, of human freedom, and human security. It not only has the faith that these high objectives can be achieved; it also has the courage to take bold, decisive action to see that they are achieved. The Democratic Party not only believes that man is entitled to have dignity and freedom; it pelieves that these words do not have full meaning unless he can eat regular, too. And our party is ready to take whatever steps are necessary to fight off those two great fears which beset our generation: the fear of want, and the fear of war. I have seen our party operate at close hand in Washington and abroad for nearly 20 years. In 1933, I joumed the ranks of those who went to work to clean up the wreckage left us by Republican policy. The Republi- can Party, responsible for the disaster of 1929, had remained down in a cyclone cellar for 3 years, waiting for the storm to die down. 4 When the Democratic Party took over, it immediately started a program of action un- der the leadership of a man who believed in action—Franklin D. Roosevelt. ! Ten years ago, when Nazi aggression was threatening to engulf the world, I joined the ranks of those who again responded to Roose- velt’s leadership in facing the new peril from abroad. » Since then, I have been in a position to see, in a number of different posts at home and abroad, how effectively the Democratic administration has dealt with threats to our national life. {| To me, the Democratic Party is the party of confidence. It has confidence in the strength of a free people. It is not afraid to meet squarely any problem no matter how great. It does not sit by complacently waiting for a problem to solve itself. It takes affirmative action before the problem over- whelms us. In Democratic leadership there is confidence, but not complacency. There is alertness to danger, but not fear. t For these reasons, I believe, the American people have rejected the timid and vacillat- ing leadership of the Republican Party. Too many of its leaders are terrified of progress. It is forever looking fondly backward for safety. It squints timidly at tne future, hoping that nothing new will ever have to be done. We are told that the elephant never forgets. I wonder why. Perhaps it is because the elephant dreams only of the past. This kind of straddling and vacillating Republican leadership is present in our State—in the person of its Governor, At one time Dewey claims to believe in the so- cial objectives of the New Deal. At another time he condemns them as socialistic. At one time he ridicules the defense levels of airplane production set by Roosevelt; later he seeks to blame the Democrats for inade- quate war preparedness. Originally he was partly isolationist, then he became partly internationalist—never quite sure—always seeming to wait for the polls of popular opin- ion before making up his mind where he stood. And finally, when he read the elec- tion polls of 1948 he evidently made up his mind the election was such a cinch that it was safer to take a stand on nothing—that is, nothing but two things. He was for unity; and he was for Dewey for President. That wasn’t good enough. The American people turned to a fighting leader, a man who made his objectives clear— @ man ready to look into the future with confidence and action. And that man is car- rying on today with the same bold Demo- cratic offensive. He does not wait for blows to strike us. He too goes out to meet them in the traditional way of the Democratic Party. Our party has confidence—and so have the American people confidence—in the leadership of Harry S. Truman. It is a leadership of action to meet any and all threats. At home it is the leader- ship of the Fair Deal against poverty, dis- ease, ignorance, intolerance, race prejudice— a fight continually to improve the American life. Abroad, it is a leadership to support faithfully the Charter of the United Nations. It is a leadership to repel chaos, to help re- build, to resist aggression, to unite all men of good will all over the world in the struggle against want and against fear. It is a fight for peace. It is a fight in which everyone of us here tonight, and every peace-loving American, plays his full part. And to carry on such a fight abroad in the kind of world we now face, in the kind of cold war which imperialistic Soviet Russia has imposed upon us, we must have clear, firm, and consistent American foreign poli- cies. We have such policies. They are not the policies of any one party. They are American policies. It is the duty of the President to develop foreign policies which transcend all partisan considerations. That is exactly what he has done. ‘We Democrats recognize and respect those Republican leaders—such as Senator Van-~ DENBERG and Many others in the Senate and in the House—who have put party considera- tions aside, and have helped to develop poli- cies which are concerned only with the high- est national interest and security. These have been called bipartisan policies, but Sen= ator VANDENBERG has perhaps more appropri- ately labeled them unpartisan policies. The ECA is an outstanding example of such a policy. After full debate, it was au- thorized by an overwhelming majority of both parties in the Congress. It has been administrated in a completely unpartisan Way. In the words of Senator VANDENBERG, “This working unity typified our finest traditions and our greatest safety in the presence of external hazards to all Americans, regardless of party. * * * United, we stand. Di- vided, we fall. I want America to stand.” Let us all here tonight pray that Senator VANDENBERG Will soon recover from his ill- ness, to continue to add his wisdom to the guidance of our country at this time. A2913 The objective of American foreign policy can be expressed in various ways. In essence, it is to attain peace with freedom and justice. But the desperate reality is that an aggres- sive, determined force is loose in the world today which has a completely different ob- jective—to extinguish both freedom and Jus~ tice. The strength of our economy and the strength of our spirit will be the deciding factors in maintaining freedom and peace. On this, I hold three deep convictions: First, that the American people must se- cure and broaden our own well-being at home. Second, that the American people must give inspiration, assistance, and leadership, as partners, to the free nations of the world. My third conviction is that if the American people do both these things, war can be avoided, The policies of the Fair Deal work toward a& dynamic and expanding economy with a steadily rising national income in which all can share. They are directed toward the eradication of injustices and intolerance against our fellow Americans of minority races and religions. They are designed to provide the kind of security and oxportinity which gives each citizen a real sti.ke in the material prosperity of his country. Republicans have tried to argue that social security interferes with opportunity. We Democrats reject such narrow concepts. We believe that our country can achieve security for the people, and at the same time give greater opportunity to the individual—to more individuals. Republicans are again doing their best to picture the social objectives of the Fair Deal as monstrous and terrible things which will swallow up our American freedom. That’s just the bunk. It is an uninformed, inaccurate reading of contemporary history. The truth is that the danger to freedom mounts when the economic system fails to feed, clothe, and house the great mass of the people at a decent level, when it fails to hold out the prospect of an improving stand-~ ard of living for those willing to work hard enough to get it. If our experience during the past 30 years proves anything, it proves that the happiest hunting ground for fascism. and communism is mass unemployment and human misery. It 1s the environment of economic security which strengthens free- dom. and renders it safe from the lies and the plots of the Communists. Some Republican leaders and candidates seem to be looking upon certain recent elec- tions in various countries as a Kind of un- earned increment for themselves—as evi- dence that the people in other parts of the world are turning back to reaction. These Republican politicians are evidently hoping that all they have to do is to wait passively py the ballot box here at home to get back into office. As usual, they are misreading political facts. Actually, the elections are encouraging to us of the Democratic Party. I have watched these elections at first-hand. All of them reflect a definite trend away from the extreme left—from the Commu- nists, from the fellow travelers, and from the fellow wanderers. In general, they reflect a trend toward our kind of democratic be- lief. But let’s not begrudge the Republicans their temporary delusions. They'll find out when the time comes. When I speak of Republican leaders, I dif- ferentiate them from the rank and file of the Republican Party. Many of them consider themselves Republicans out of a natural sense of loyalty and tradition. But they vote for progressive candidates only—whether they are Democrats or Republicans. We wel- come their support, and we must continue to be worthy of it by putting up forward-look- ing candidates and carrying on a program of progressive action,
A2914 The essential foundation on which we can wage a successful fight for freedom and peace is to make our society healthy, intelligent, and economically secure, based Upon a Sys~ tem of free enterprise which, together with government, recognizes and discharges its social responsibilities to the whole people. That is our preeminent task at home. Abroad we have been giving inspiration and assistance to the free nations of Europe— our partners in this fight for freedom and peace. By the Truman doctrine, by the Marshall plan, and by the North Atlantic Treaty, we have already made long strides together in this fight. The development of the far-sighted concept of point 4 will strengthen the cause of freedom in the underdeveloped areas, and will expand the trade and prosperity of our own country and other industrial countries. The free nations of the world are going to- win this fight. I am confident of it—for two fundmental reasons: One reason is that history and morality are on our side. The Kremlin proclaims “the inevitability of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Well, it is not inevitable. His- tory does not teach the inevitability of tyranny. It teaches just the opposite. The whole stream of human development has heen a successful struggle of mankind for ever-growing freedom. There have been many set-backs, but eventually dictatorships have been overthrown by the strongest of human forces, man’s passionate desire for liberty. Liberty, not tyranny, is man’s birthright. The moral force of that birth- right is our most powerful ally. The second reason I am confident is that the material resources on the side of free- dom. are far stronger. The United States and Canada have about half of the heavy manufacturing capacity of the world. In- cluding the free nations of Europe, the Atlantic community has at its command about 75 percent of the entire world’s vital industrial capacity. We have access to the needed food and raw materials. If the free nations of the North Atlantic— with all these resources—work together to improve economic conditions in the free world, if we all do our share in the develop- ment of the means of mutual defense, then the free world will be unbeatable. Our partners in western Europe are steadily gaining economic health and demo-~ cratic strength. Hunger has been driven out. When I went to Europe 2 years ago for ECA the people of France, for example, were living on a bread ration of only twa- thirds of the ration given them by the Ger-~ mans during the occupation. Today bread and most foods are no longer rationed. In western Europe war-shattered industry is already producing well above prewar levels. And is continuing to rise. Trade is expand- ing, and most important of all, the fearful specter of inflation has been laid at rest. In 1947, when the Communist threat to seize control was most menacing, the prospect of the Marshall plan revived hope. Today confidence has returned. That is why in country after country, as free elections have been held, communism has been rolled back. No wonder Communists hate free elec tions, and no wonder they fight the Marshall plan. The front line of the battle for freedom in western Europe has been the labcr front. The Communist strategy—dictated from Moscow—was to, gain control,of the labor movement in order to destroy the free coun- tries of Europe. With the failure of strikes called for Kremlin political objectives, the free labor movement has been strengthened. The present attempts of the Communists to use the trade-unions to prevent the unload- ing of American military assistance is again proving a boomerang. In the ranks of Euro- pean labor communism has suffered decisive Set-backs. I want to pay tribute to the vision of the American trade-union movement in helping the workers of Europe in their battle. The A. F, of L. and the CIO and the railroad unions have given effective support to the cause of freedom in Europe. There is growing vigor in Europe. The same spirit that created the resistance move- ment during German occupation is again alive. In traveling through Europe as I have, and in meeting the men who are leading the pattle, I have become confident of the new hope and new vitality of our partners in Europe. There is the will to work, the will to fight, and the will to win. Their decision to join with us in the North Atlantic Treaty meant setting aside forever reliance on appeasement or neutrality to maintain peace. This courageous decision stemmed from their belief—as we believe— that unity amrong the free nations is the greatest single deterrent to aggression. But we must remember that hope and confidence in Europe naturally rests on faith in the firmness and consistency of American policy. It is bewildering to our friends abroad when, in the United States Senate, reckless and irresponsible charges are slung against those in important positions who are carrying out our foreign policy. People abroad do not understand, as we do, that these maneuvers are for personal publicity and partisan politics. This political perse- eution of individuals might be ignored if it did not play right into the hands of the Communists. It weakens confidence in us abroad. And there could be no greater han- dicap to the administration’s efforts to stamp out subversive elements. As Mr. Henry L. Stimson has said: “It should by now be wholly clear that indis- criminate accusations are doubly offensive; they damage the innocent and they help protect the guilty. For if the accuser is so stupid as to connect a man like Ambassador Jessup with communism, are not all such accusations made suspect?” Others are following Mr. Stimson’s leader- ship in denouncing these malicious tactics. Would there were more. Instead there are some, who, though unwilling to share re- sponsibility with McCartry in his indis- criminate tirade of unsubstantiated charges, are hoping to gather some political windfall out of them if they can. The American people will see through these un-American political maneuvers. They know that no administration can possibly be friendly to Communists which has pro- posed and is carrying out with vigor the Truman doctrine, the Marshall plan, and the North Atlantic Treaty. The American peo- ple will repudiate those who are under~ mining for selfish purpose the confidence of other free nations in our country at this critical time. I believe that if our foreign policies are consistently and vigorously carried forward and expanded in cooperation with our part- ners of the North Atlantic Treaty, we will develop an impregnable position of strength in western Europe and in other parts of the free world. With life secure and healthy in the free world, I am convinced that pressures will begin to operate behind the iron curtain to break down the Kremlin control. When and how no one can predict. But there can be no doubt that the disaffection of Tito has Tesulted from the success of the Marshall plan. Let there be no mistake: It will be a long and tough struggle, requiring present-day sacrifices by us and our partners—sacrifices which are in fact investments in the cause of peace and in the cause of freedom. Early this month I was with Secretary Johnson and General Bradley at a meeting in The Hague of the Defense Ministers of the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty. I was struck by the determination shown by our APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD associates sitting around that table. These men, representing their governments, mean business. They mean to do their share in developing with us an integrated defense force for mutual security. The United States, the most powerful na« tion in the world, is helping to forge an as sociation of partners whose strength will lie in its unity—whose strength is based on mutual respect and mutual confidence. In sharp contrast, Soviet imperialism is seeking to create a world of nations subor- dinate to Russia—a world of satellites forced to do her bidding. Russia itself is ruled by fear and is out to rule the world by fear. Within Russia, the Kremlin is afraid of the people and the people are afraid ot the Kremlin. I remember one occasion in the summer of 1945 when General Eisenhower and I were invited to stand on Lenin’s tomb as Stalin was reviewing a great youth sports parade in the Red Square. Standing next to Stalin, I looked around, and as far as I could see every window from which anyone could view the scene had been blocked or guarded. In front of Lenin’s tomb and running the length of the square before the Kremlin, the Red soldiers stood rifle to rifle with bay- onets in place to protect the Russian rulers from their people. I have also seen how fearful the Russian leaders are of the people of their satellites. In January 1946 I was in Bucharest with the British ambassador to negotiate with Vishin- sky the carrying out of one provision of the Yalta agreement. This called for the partici~ pation of all democratic parties in the Ru-« manian Government preparatory to hold- ing a free and unfettered election. This was one of the innumerable attempts to get the Soviets to keep their promises made at Yalta. One day, we were all invited to lunch with King Michael at his country place. My daughter and I drove out in a small car with a GI as driver and bearing an American flag, Through the countryside, there was friendli-~ ness—cheers for our flag. On the way, we passed one stalled cavalcade of seven huge motor cars (they were evidently repairing a blowout). There were three cars in the front and three cars in the rear filled with guards, In the middle car sat Mr. Vishinsky. The American Military Mission to Rumania num- bered onl:” 100 officers and men; the Russians had 700,000 soldiers in the country at the time, but Mr. Vishinsky was not trusting to the friendliness of the Rumanian people. The Kremlin is intent upon using fear to disrupt and paralyze, and ultimately to dominate the world—they use fear of war, fear of terror. The association of free nations, on the other hand, is based on confidence and mutual trust—it is based on faith in democ- racy and in people, faith in each other. That is the way to meet Moscow’s attempt to rule by fear! In faith there is eternal strength; in fear— inevitable weakness. It is the high purpose of the Democratic Party to continue to preserve that faith and confidence at home and abroad: That is a mission the Democratic Party has set for it- self—and will fight to achieve. But political victories, like liberty, have to be won over and over again. That is the es- sence and the strength of democracy. There are political victories that are going to have ‘to be won this fall. Political victories, like liberty, cannot be taken for granted. We have to fight to win them. There is too much at stake at home and in the world to lose them now. Five years ago last week, in a little white cottage at Warm Springs, Ga., President Roosevelt was preparing a speech to be de- livered on the Jefferson Day of that year. He died before he could deliver it; but his manu- script has come down to us. The last words
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of that speech—in a sense his farewell mes- sage to us—were these: “To you and to all Americans who dedicate themselves with us in making an abiding peace, I say: the only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.” To Roosevelt, to Wilson, to Jackson, to Jefferson, to all our great leaders of the past, we can say tonight: “There are no doubts among the true followers of the Democratic Party—your party, cur party. We have faith, we have a strong and active faith. And we will move forward—we and all Americans of good will—to a realization of our aims: a secure and a good life at home; peace, secur- ity, and international gocd faith throughout the free nations of the world.” Rainfall in Wisconsin EXTENSICN OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a statement prepared by me entitled ‘Wisconsin Rainfall Situation Satisfactory,” together with a letter from Robert Taylor, di- rector of the University News Service, and an article by Jerry Wollan. There being no objection, the matters were ordered to be printed in the Rec- oRD, as follows: WISCONSIN RAINFALL SITUATION SATISFACTORY (Statement by Senator ALEXANDER WiLEy, of too Wisconsin) * Mr. President, it has been my pleasure on many occasions to invite attention to the fact that the State of Wisconsin is America’s dairyland, and is blessed by nature with a magnificent climate, beautiful scenic attrac- tions, and splendid resources, of which any commonwealth could indeed be proud. , I have proven by factual records that my sincere praise of the attractiveness of my hative State is no act merely of the pride of a Senator in his own State—which is only natural—but an accurate, objective attitude based on the facts in the situation. ‘ AS summer once more approaches, the thoughts of hundreds of thousands of Amer- icans turn to tourist travels in Wisconsin, to leisure time enjoyment, to fishing and hunting, swimming, and just plain relaxing. Moreover, aS summer approaches the full rhythm of agricultural production begins to really roll throughout America’s dairyland. On our 175,000 model, well-kept farms, we are out to break new records in quality and quantity of agricultural items, par- ticularly, of course, our dairy products. Against the background of these facts, it was with considerable disappointment that we of Wisconsin have noted’ certain recent newspaper and magazine articles as to the alleged heavy loss of rainfall in the Badger State. It seems, Mr. President, that all sorts of gloomy and utterly unfounded predic-~ tions have been made to the effect that Wis- consin is facing a semiarid future. Naturally, any such news story or magazine write-up must bear the closest scrutiny, because the effect of those stories can be very harmful, both mconomically, sociologically, and psycho- logically. The alert University of Wisconsin News Service has, therefore, very promptly sent cut to the Nation’s press a documented refutation of the phony write-ups as to Wis- consin rainfall. Mr. Robert Taylor, director of the Uni- versity News Service at Madison, has con- veyed to me conclusive scientific proof that the Badger State is very definitely not suf- fering a decrease in rainfall. Moreover, the Badger State has a bright future insofar as ground water 1s concerned, provided, of course, that we and for that matter every- one else, develop and use our resources in- telligently on the basis of up-to-the-minute scientific data. , Crdinarily, Mr. President, I do not like even to give attention to phony write-ups by presenting their refutation, but I think that in this instance, the thoroughly scientific refutation so completely demolishes the fear- provoking propaganda that many construc- tive uses will be served by my colleagues noting the splendid proof cited by the Uni- versity of Wisconsin News Service. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that there be printed in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL R=corp, the text of a letter sent on April 13 to the Nation’s editors by Mr. Taylor as well as the text of two articles by Mr. Jerry Wollan. The news service also sent out a splendid graph prepared by Pro- fessor Bryson, University of Wisconsin mete- orologist—a graph which led the professor to conclude firmly that ‘there has been no Significant change in Wisconsin rainfall.” Were it possible to reproduce this graph, I would do so, but since this 1s not possible, I am merely asking that these three items be printed in the Appendix. UNIVERSITY or Wisconsin News SERVICE, Madison, Wis., April 13, 1950. Dear Eprror: In December John J. O’Neill, science editor of the New York Herald-Tri- bune, made a survey of the national rainfall picture and came up with a statement that Wisconsin is losing more rainfall than any other State in the country and is facing a semiarid future. In February an article of similar nature appeared in American magazine under the’ byline of Oscar L. Chapman,’ Secretary of “ the Interior. Apart of this article dealing with Wisconsin was reprinted in the’ April” issue of Readers Digest. Such a charge has serious implications for an agricultural State like Wisconsin. Al- ready, alarmed farmers have asked what to do and-whethet the charge is true. The same applies to hydroelectric projects for which loans are being sought. . . * If the charge is generally believed, officials feel that farm and hydroelectric loans may be difficult to obtain and that Wisconsin will be considered a poor risk for any type of investment which ultimately will be bene- ficial for the State. An immediate investigation of the charge by scientists at the University of Wisconsin has resulted in an absolute denial that the State is suffering a decrease in rainfall. These scientists feel that the Chapman article fig- ures were adopted from the O’Neill findings, They flatly state that O’Neill is incorrect. Enclosed 1s a serles of two stories which present the actual picture of Wisconsin’s rainfall situation as decribed by four com- petent authorities. The experts are Prof. R. A. Bryson, university meterologist; Lothar A. Joos, United States Weather Bureau me- teorologist at the university; Ernest F. Bean, Wisconsin State geologist; and Frank C., Foley, United States Geological Survey. These men definitely conclude that Wis- consin rainfall is not changing and that the State does not in any way face a semiarid future. These articles are being sent you for your information and for publication if you so desire. Sincerely, Rosert TayLor, Director, University News Service, A2915 (Eprror’s NoTE.—This is the first in a series of two articles on the Wisconsin rainfall and ground-water situation. It is presented in answer to recent charges that Wisconsin is suffering a severe rainfall decrease.) (By Jerry Wollan) Mapison, W1i8s.—The serious charge that Wisconsin tops the dubious national “honor” roll of States in rainfall loss has drawn ex- plesive comment from scientists at the Uni- versity of Wisconsin. To the charge they say, ‘““Hogwash.” “Wisconsin is not suffering any appreciable loss of rainfall,” Prof. R. A. Bryson, Univer-~ sity of Wisconsin meteorologist, emphatically declares. First rumblings on the rainfall loss ques- tion popped up during the New York water shortage. John J. O'Neill, science editor of the New York Herald-Tribune, made a na- tional survey on the problem and came up with figures which indicated Wisconsin had Jost 3.84 inches of rainfall over the past 60 years and was facing the danger of becoming semiarid. in February American magazine published an article under the byline of Oscar L. Chap- man, Secretary of the Interior, which restated the same figures, and which was reprinted in Readers Digest. Wisconsin scientists feel that the Department has adopted the O’Neill findings. These men—Professor Bryson; Ernest ™. Bean, Wisconsin State geologist; Frank C. Foley, United States Geological Survey; and Lothar A. Joos, United States Weather Bu- reau meteorologist—-were quick to see the impact such a charge would have on farmers and hydroelectric enterprises in the State. They immediately went to their record books to check.the published findings, and what they found led to the “hogwash” com- ment. Here, according to the scientists, is the Wisconsin rainfall picture: “Wisconsin rainfall records since 1890 show that the average annual total is 30.52 inches,” says Joos. ‘The records also show that the average for the past 10 -years is 30.61 ‘inches, slightly more than the long-term average.”, - These figures- hardly indicate rainfall loss, - but let’s look further. . In looking.over the record one fact stands out—the large variations of precipitation from year to year. - As Professor Bryson puts it: “The year to year rainfall in Wisconsin varies from about 21 inches to 41 inches, so let’s look at average rainfall over 5-year periods. “If we look at, the 5-year average record from 1940 on, it looks like our rainfall is de- creasing (see broken line of graph). But the previous 10 years record, during recovery from a national drought, looks like a big in- crease, and the 10 before that is normal. “This certainly suggests that the changes We see are temporary, due to passing changes in the over-all weather pattern,” Bryson points out. The fluctuations in rainfall present an in- teresting picture. Wet and dry periods fol- low each other with amazing consistency and patterns over the years show considerable similarity. For example, the record shows that two consecutive very wet or very dry years never have occurred. The year following a par- ticularly wet or dry year always has rainfall in amounts closer to the normal range. Even the periods of slightly wetter or slightly drier than normal follow a definite pattern. The records prove that Wisconsin mever has had more than six consecutive years wetter than normal nor five consecu- tive years drier than normal. Wisconsin scientists admit that over the past 60 to 70 years changes in rainfall can be found for many parts of the country. Several States have shown declining rainfall, particularly west of Wisconsin.
A2916 However, the experts firmly contend that the Wisconsin pattern has remained virtually the same. O'Neill compared the years 1886-1909 (a 24-year period) with 1914-88 (a 25-year period). Taking the average yearly rainfall for each period and comparing them should show the amount of decrease or increase of one period over the other. Bryson and Joos made this comparison and found the latter period averaged less than one-half inch less than the former. Then they added 1910 to the first era to make each 25 years long. The answer showed @ decrease of less than one-tenth of an inch. The pair tried every method they could devise to find how O'Neill arrived at the 3.84- inch-loss figure. They never obtained an answer which corresponded even closely to his findings. Bryson devised another way of determin~ ing the possibility of change. He laid out overlapping 5-year-rainfall averages on @ graph, then compared the last 30 years with the first 30. By superimposing one era on the other it is apparent that they follow each other closely. As Bryson says: “T; doesn’t matter much which line is which because they practically fall on top of each other. This, to me, means just one thing: No significant change in rainfall.” To use another figuring possibility, that of comparing the last 10 years with 1891-1900 (a 50-year jump), results show that the last 10-year average is 30.61 inches, compared to @ 29.49-inch average for the decade prior to the turn of the century. “We know,” Joos declared, “that it takes more than 1 or 2 years to make a serious drought. Wisconsin rainfall was below normal from 1929 to 1937, a period that in- eluded the most serious drought in recent United States history. “Yet, 1938 brought Wisconsin the wettest year in 59 years of record. This wet period ended in 1945 and we now have completed the fourth year of below normal rainfall.” What then, in summary, is the Wisconsin picture? Bryson speaks first. “The annual rainfall in Wisconsin is highly variable, but the average rainfall over the years has remained remarkably constant. Five or six wet or dry years may come to- gether, but not more. Our records reveal that the annual rainfall, while fluctuating, has shown no appreciable downward trend.” And Joos concludes: “Many people have tried to predict future rainfall cycles but such forecast of wet and dry years have not worked out well so far. “But, we can determine from our past records whether or not there has been a downward trend in the Wisconsin rainfall pattern, Weather records since 1890 do not show a trend toward a drier climate in this State.” Both men join emphatically in saying: “There are many ways of trying to deter- mine the true rainfall picture. We have tried all the ways we can devise, and our evidence points to the fact that the figures advanced by John J. O'Neill and those ap- pearing in the American article by Oscar L. Chapman are incorrect. “Wisconsin, as of now, faces no danger of becoming semiarid through diminishing rainfall.” (Eptror’s Nore: This is the second in a series of two articles on the Wisconsin rain- fall and ground-water situation. It is pre- sented in answer to recent charges that Wis- consin has suffered a severe rainfall decrease.) (By Jerry Wollan) Mapison, Wis.—There is no general deple- tion of ground water in Wisconsin. This announcement by scientists at the University of Wisconsin adds another clinch- ing link to the chain of denial of recent charges that the State is facing a future semiarid condition due to diminishing rainfall. Rainfall and ground water are closely tied in determining the State’s true situation. ‘There is a direct relation between ground- water levels and the amount of rainfall, ac- cording to Frank C. Foley, United States Geo- logical Survey, in charge of ground-water studies in Wisconsin. He points out that if the State is suffer- ing decreased rains, levels of observation wells would fall and reflect the loss. Levels in the shallower wells closely follow the wet and dry rainfall periods. During wet years the water levels are high, during dry years they are low. Seasonal fluctua- tions due to rainfall are much less, even un- measurable, in artesian wells. Records of shallow wells in Wisconsin were begun in 1934, during a severe national drought, and levels were extremely low. In 1935 the levels began to come up fast and climbed more or less steadily to 1945-46, when they hit their highest point. Since that time there has been a gradual drop. This well-record picture is practically identical with the rainfall pattern. What does this mean? Foley explains that if Wisconsin rainfall has been decreasing as charged, then ground water in the State must also decrease in a like proportion, barring the normal fluctu- ations which occur. “But,” Foley declares, “our records show no general decrease in water levels. There is no general depletion of ground water in the State as a whole. This strongly indi- cates that rainfall, which 1s the source of ground water, has not decreased on the average.” There are points in the State, however, where ground water is a matter of concern. But the difficulties in these given areas easily can be explained. In the Marshfield-Neillsville area, for ex- ample, the bedrock beneath shallow surface materials will not allow fluids to pass and does not hold water. Because of this geo- logical factor there is a ground-water prob- lem in this locality. Milwaukee-Waukesha, Green Bay-Fox River valley, and Fond du Lac are areas where substantial drops in ground-water levels and artesian supply have been noted. ‘Why have levels dropped in these places? Here is what Foley says: “These areas are heavy municipal and in- dustrial users of water, much of which comes from the ground. Water consumption in the State, and particularly in these re- gions, has risen greatly because of increased demands of industry and the public during and after the war. “Because of this continually increasing demand, the withdrawal of vast quantities of ground water has lowered water levels and taken water from storage more rapidly than it has been replenished in some areas, “Heavy consumption is the real cause of one ground-water levels in these locali- ies.” Recharge of ground-water supplies at the source is quite constant. Of the State aver- age rainfall of slightly over 30 inches yearly, about 10 inches runs off in the streams and rivers. More is lost through evaporation and transpiration and the remainder goes into ground water, Foley points out. “Our problem is one of withdrawal, not of supply. We know this because in some areas recharge has kept pace with and even ex- ceeded use. “The State’s ground-water supply is not dropping in certain areas due to natural causes. The causes primarily are man- made,” he concludes. Wisconsin’s ground-water program is based on this premise. Scientists are not nearly APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD so concerned about rains recharging and maintaining water reserves as they are about sensible utilization of what is already there and the stable amounts that are expected in the future. State Geologist Ernest F. Bean sums up the problem this way: “Continued State development depends on an adequate water supply, much of which must continue to come from the ground. Some control of ground-water withdrawal, in critical areas at least, is essential to af- ford equitable distribution and to protect present users. “Some legislation already Las appeared and conservation measures are to be encour~ aged. “But I want to set the record straight. We do not urge conservation because diminish- ing rainfall is causing ground-water stores to decrease. The major problem is heavy use in localized areas, use so heavy that natural recharge is not capable of meeting these local demands. “Wisconsin has a bright future so far as ground water 1s concerned, provided that future developments and uses are made in- telligently and on the basis of adequate sci- entific and technical data.” This is the Wisconsin picture: Adequate ground-water stores despite recognized criti- cal areas which are man-made. Nolong term or permanent drop in the amount of rainfall. American Policy in Germany * EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GUY M. GILLETTE OF IOWA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an address on American policy in Germany deliv- ered by the junior Senator from Iowa last week. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: The officers of the American Jewish Con- gress have done me a great honor in inviting me to participate in this meeting tonight. The purpose for which this meeting has been called has, of course, my full endorsement, and the spirit which has prompted so many of you to assemble here is a spirit for which I have deep respect and warm sympathy. Furthermore, I am frankly delighted to have this opportunity to say a few things that I have wanted to say for a long time. I genuinely welcome this chance to take off my gloves, roll up my sleeves, and grapple with a few of the raw facts about what is happening to America and American in- terests in Germany today. The sponsors of this meeting deserve the thanks of everyone, here and abroad, who is aware o. the terrifying implications of re- surgent German power. I congratulate you who have organized this meeting, as well as you who have come to Town Hall tonight in this demonstration of your high sense of citizenship. Perhaps we will all look back on this occasion as the beginning of a Na- tion-wide campaign to awaken the American people to the meaning of present trends in Germany and to the need for swift action to avert the impending catastrophe. I am convinced that thoughtful people everywhere are increasingly apprehensive
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD over the crisis they see approaching in Ger- many and are increasingly troubled by all that they read and hear from that country. For months we have been bombarded with headlines about Germany telling stories none of us ever expected to hear again. Let me read you a few of the kind of headlines that have appeared in the American press just in th? past 3 months. These are headlines of newspaper stories appearing in the New York Times, Herald Tribune and Washington Post in the first 8 months of 1950. January 24: “Ruhr board found of little use now—With only an advisory role left, it is held in danger of becoming a white ele- phant.” January 28: “German nationalism rising to new climax—Soviet Russia has the power to turn it into a serious crisis at any time.” January 30: “Recovery figures distorted by Bonn—Allied sources say Germans altered industrial inder to minimize gains. February 6: McCloy wants full inquiry on denazification—warns Stuttgart officials; Americans in bribery scandal studied. February 21: “East German Army of 45,000 men reported trained to aid Russians.” February 23: “Bonn speeds bill to end Nazi trials—Measure eliminating special courts passes its first reading in Parliament. Allied law is attacked. German speakers charge that top Nazis were acquitted while lesser ones paid.” February 24: “New Farben trust seen in Germany. Subsidiaries in Argentina and Spain are said to be tied to budding cartel.” March 2: “Limited atomic work allowed west Germans. Allied Commission grants re- search in fields of medicine and education.” January 28: “Bonn seen placing check on cartels. West Germans expected to let trusts operate but under rein by government.” March 5: “Russia is building new ‘jJugend’.” March 8: “SS men get homes of Hitler victims. Another scandal is revealed as United States authorities refuse to act on Nazis’ release.” March 12: “German Rightists drawing to- gether. Refugee groups in west also moving consolidation for political purposes.” March 26: “German Reds push ‘action’ campaign in western zones. Party line ex- ploits Nationalist sentiment, aiming at small farmers and middle class. Inroads visible in Ruhr. Threat of agitation said to lie in drawing together of radical right and left. April 6: “West strikes snag on trusts in Ruhr. Issue of future ownership sent to Foreign Ministers as Commissioners dis- agree.” April 8: “ECA says German revival is both ‘rapid and dramatic.’ ” Finally, from the New York Journal Ameri- ean, April 9, just a week ago last Sunday: “West Germans threaten direct deal with Soviet.” These are 15 or 16 typical headlines in American newspapers this spring. There have been hundreds of others like them. Is it any wonder that people who read these stories day after day are beginning to write to their Senators and Congressmen asking whether the Allies have already lost control of events in occupied Germany? These reports, which have been coming to us in growing volume for the past year or more, have persuaded me that the time is now long past due for a general, public de-~ bate in every city, town, and village in this country on the question of where the present course in Germany is leading us. On May 8, just 20 days from now, the world will mark the fifth anniversary of the Allied victory over the Nazi armies, the fifth anni- versary of the second defeat of a German attempt to conquer the world. Many of us, too, will recall the inexpressible horror we felt when the Nazi murder camps were torn open and the whole world learned the full black record of the Hitler regime. And many of those who survived that sec- ond German onslaught of this century will be asking, on May 8, whether the great war ending in 1945 was the last they will ever have to fight against a German army, or whether it was only another in a series of such wars, the next of which is already in the making. That, my friends, is why I say that the time has come to find out what lies ahead in Germany. In recent months we have been having a prolonged debate in the Senate on the dis- aster that has occurred in China. We have not yet had one on the disaster that may occur in Germany. Perhaps there would have been no disaster in China, or at least not a disaster of such dimensions, if we had had enough informed public debate in and out of Congress before the conquest of China by the Communists, instead of afterward. My own purpose, at this stage of develop- ments in Europe, is to aid in generating such broad and active interest in the German problem that, this time, we shall have devoted so much attention to the approach- ing crisis in Germany that, no matter how it may turn out, there will be no one who can say we have failed to amass the facts, assess the alternatives, and reach a decision on a definite course before, instead of after, the explosion occurs. My topic this evening is “American Policy in Germany.” Unfortunately, I am not cer- tain that the United States has a policy in Germany—or, to put it another way, Iam not sure which of the steps we are taking consti- tute policy originally initiated by us, and which are counteractions taken hurriedly to meet policies laid down in the Soviet Union. Also, I am as confused as many of you must be, by what seems to be a policy on two levels in Germany, one of verbal pro- nouncements, the other of actual deeds. On the record of the last 5 years in Ger~ many we are justified in concluding that all the occupying powers without exception have had a twofold approach to Germany: one represented by noble statements of intention, the other found in the record of their real actions. Allied intentions were set down with great clarity at the end of the war: we agreed to transform Germany into a democracy and to prevent Germany’s armed industrial might from every again menacting the rest of the world. This policy called for democratization of German society, denazification of German. politics, decartelization, and deconcentration of German industry, and demilitarization of the German Army and the German state. Without any knowledge of what went on between 1945 and 1950, a man picking up a newspaper this year, and glancing at head- lines such as I have just cited to you, would have a clear picture of how far the Allies have all strayed from the intentions they all stated at the end of the war. When the enormous gap between verbal pronouncement and actual achievement is called to official attention, of course—when it is pointed out that democracy is a facade in the west and a fraud in the east, when Nazis are shown to be climbing back into the seats of power, when cartels are found pros- pering under the benevolent protection of the German Republic, and when rearming of Germany is commonplace talk in high government circles on both sides of the iron curtain—when these conditions are pointed out, the official reaction is to blithely say: “Well, what do you expect? We had to re- puild a powerful Germany to stop the Com-< munist drive toward the west.” This response suggests to me that in Ger- many, as in many other parts of the world, our Government has not yet any real policy worthy of the name, but rather a sort of reactor mechanism, set up to record what the Russians are trying to do, so that we in A2917 The Germans recognized the existence of this reactor mechanism very early after the war, and have played upon it for all it was worth, The mechanism works in the follow- ing way: If the Russians are trying to unify Germany, on the basis of resurgent national- ism, the Western Powers must do the same thing. If the Russians incorporate Nazis into their puppet regime in the east, that is ex- cuse enough for ignoring denazification in the west. If the Russians are rebuilding a German Army under their control, then the western Allies must not hesitate long in re- arming the German state in the west. So, our policy, if such it can be called, is a re- flection of Russian policy. There is only one sure winner in a game like this—the one who calls the cards—and the Russians, so far, have been calling the cards with increasing rapidity these past few months. They may soon call another in Ber- lin, if the reported Communist demonstration on May 28 takes place. We of the west are condemned to lose one trick after another, as long as this sort of game continues. Until we have liberated our thinking from the almost hypnotic trance that has been caused by the rise of Com- munist power since the war, we shall never be able to seize the initiative—in Germany or anywhere else. We must, at the very least, liberate our thinking to the point where ‘we can deal with the resurgence of Germany, not only in terms of the Russian threat, but in terms of Germany itself, its relations to its neighbors, and its place in Our world. In fact, only if we succeed in this, can we ever hope to create the kind of Germany which will not end up in the Russian camp. Until there has been the kind of widespread public debate on Germany that I am argu- ing, our Government will not be able to de- velop a real American policy for Germany; a policy that says what it means and means what it says; a policy that is no mere reac- tion to another policy made in Moscow; a policy that sets out to save for democracy, whatever can still be saved in Germany; and that neutralizes, if it cannot fully eliminate, the efforts of a resurgent Germany to drag the world once again into war. Until there has been this Kind of discus- sion, the Congress, the administration, and the people will be the victims of dubious pressure groups, special interest lobbies, and undercover manipulation on behalf of ene- mies of America in Germany. Already the Germans are sending agents over here to carry out special missions be- hind the scenes. One of these agents came to my attention last December, and I tell you the story as a striking illustration of what is happening while public attention is diverted to other, more immediate issues: I discovered last December that Adolf Hit- ler’s top financial adviser, Hermann Abs, had slipped into New York on a visit reported to involve efforts to raise a substantial loan for the giant German cartel, the United Steel Works (Vereinigte Stahlwerke). During the several weeks Abs had been here before I heard about him, he had visited the follow- ing agencies in Washington: the Federal Re-~ serve Board, the Treasury Department, the ECA, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank, and the Bureau of Ger- man Affairs of the State Department. Rather than for me to tell you what the Abs incident meant, let me read you a para-~ graph from the United States News, a maga~ zine published in Washington by David Law~ rence, in its edition of December 30, 1949: a» “Under Hitler, Abs rose to be head of Ger- many’s biggest bank, one that had a key role in financing Hitler’s war machine, in plund- ering occupied Europe. Under the Allies, Abs . was first vetoed for a top bank job, then al- - lowed to manage the Reconstruction Loan . Corporation, chief banker for German indus- . turn may attempt to stop them from doing it, . try. Official explanation is that, since Allies
A2918 want Germans to govern selves, Germans must be allowed to choose their own officials. It’s a calculated risk. To ex-Nazis, resur- rection of big shots of the Hitler era 1s en- couraging. To anti-Nazis, it begins to look as if they have been played for suckers. Antinazism doesn’t seem to pay. It may even become dangerous once more. That's the trend in western Germany today. Allied officials are reluctant to admit it. Other ob- servers see it clearly. It’s already a major problem.” If it was a major problem last December, it is now becoming a major catastrophe. What will be the official explanation when the Nazis openly take over power in western Germany? What will be the official explana- tion when German cartels, refinanced by United States dollars, spread their tentacles throughout the western European economy? What will be the official explanation when gentlemen from the same political camp as Mr. Abs sign a pact with gentlemen from Moscow—and Allied policy all over Europe appears as the formless, amorphus, and shapeless thing that it actually is? J, for one, am not going to wait to find out what official explanations for these phe- nomena will be. There are many in the Congress who feel the same way. I am glad to announce to you that Mem- bers of both the House and Senate are taking action to bring the facts on Germany before the Congress and before the people as soon as it can be done. We are determined to get the full truth on the record. Yesterday seven other Senators and I in- troduced a resolution requesting the estab- lishment of a bipartisan Presidential com- mission of inquiry into all matters relating to American policy in Germany. Associated with me are Senators of both parties. . You will be proud to know that both the Sen- ators from New York, Senator Ives and Sen- ator LEHMAN, are cosponsors of this resolu- tion. The others are Senators HENDRICKSON, of New Jersey; PEPPER, of Florida; Kmcore, of West Virginia; Douczas, of Dilinois; and Cuavez, of New Mexico. And I understand » Members of the House, including Represent- atives CELLER, JAVITS, and RoosEvELtT, of New York, and others from other States, intend to introduce similar resolutions this week. We want to know, and we think the American people are entitled to know, the names, the real purposes, and the actual po- tential strength of all the antidemocratic political parties, groups, and movements ac- tive today in Germany; who finances them, for what hidden interests they speak, what are the connections among them, which ones are secretly fronting for the Communists in east Germany, which ones represent indig- enous Nazi, pan-German, and other author-~ itarian forces, and which ones have outside connections with Fascist and Nazi elements lingering on in other countries. Second, we want to know how far the re- cartelization of German industry has pro- ceeded, which cartels and trusts are flourish- ing again, what power they exert over the Ge:man political scene, and what influence they have over the relations between the German Republic and other countries in the world. In other words, we are interested in the extent to which German business has been reconquered by monopoly instead of being transformed into the sort of free, competitive economy which is essential to the function- ing of political democracy. We want to know, third, what, if anything, has been done to reform the German schoois and universities, so that they teach demo- cratic ideas and principles to the new gen~ eration of German children, We are asking, in effect, whether the German educational system has become an instrument for guid- ing German youth toward a free society or whether it has remained a machine in the hands of the old ruling elements to produce obedient and willing slaves of the army and of the state. Fourth, we want to know how widespread is the use of militaristic, ultranationalistic, anti-Semitic, and other antidemocratic prop- aganda in the German press, radio, and cinema. We are interested in knowing who are the masters of the principal media of news and opinion in Germany today, and to what extent they are the same masters who dominated these media before and during the late war. Fifth, we want to know what the real level of industrial productivity is, and not merely what the German industrialists are willing to tell the Allied control boards. We must know this if we are to judge the extent to which German war potential is being re- stored. We are also interested in the reap- pearance of German military or paramilitary organizations. What, for example, is the mysterious Bruederschaft, the brotherhood of former German Army Officers, and what is its power and its aim? How many German generals are secretly working for the Soviet Union toward a day when a new totalitarian Russo-German Axis may be proclaimed to the world. Likewise, who would be the men in con- trol of any German military force the west- ern Allies might be so foolish as to permit to be formed? Sixth, we want to know how far Nazis and other enemies of democracy have repene- trated into the political parties and move- ments, into the courts, into the industrial and commercial life of the country, into the school system, and, last but not least, into the civil service of the new state, the bu- reaucracy which operates the day-to-day ad- ministration of the German Government. Is it true, as reporters have told us, that if the occupation ended tomorrow, Nazis would move back into every seat of power within 24 hours and purge every person who had in any way worked with the Allies in the past 5 years? Seventh, we want to know the extent to which such prodemocratic elements as sur- vived the Nazi terror have been prevented from taking active part in building postwar Germany. If we know the answer to this, as well as to the question of what strength such prodemocratic elements still have, we may be able to judge what hope there still remains of salvaging something of value in the country. Eighth, we are interested in knowing what encouragement is being given the Germans to raise their eyes above the level of purely nationalistic alms toward participation in a broader association of free nations. There is plenty of evidence that they are being en- couraged to join the Communist association of slave nations. There is also evidence that they are being asked to join a kind of west- ern association that would have little in com= mon with free society, and that might, in fact, end up with Germany in control of it, via the Ruhr and the Rhineland cartels. But we don’t know how much effort is ex< pended to lead Germany toward participat- ing in, for example, the proposed Atlantic federal union or some other broad intercon- tinental group of free countries. . Ninth, we also seek to find out what has happened to economic power in Germany since the war. Has there been any shift of control over basic economic power into. the hands of new groups in German society, or, on the contrary, has the same small feu- dalistic class of the same individuals, fam- ilies and groups regained economic power that it exerted before the outbreak of war? Political power in Germany, it must be re- membered, has always been secondary to eco- nomic power—hence, those who dominate the great blocs of economic power, especially in coal, iron,. steel and other heavy indus- try, as well as those who control vast por- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tions of the agricultural land, are inevitably the ones who rule the State above and out- side the political parties and regimes. When we have the answer to this particular ques- tion, we will know how far we have suc~ ceeded or failed in our efforts to make Ger- many into a democratic country. If we find that economic power still rests in the hands of the same feudal group that has always held it, we will know that whatever demo- cratic institutions, parties and constitutions we may have helped build will go down in total collapse the moment we are no longer there to prop them up. Finally, our resolution asks the presiden-~ tial commission of inquiry to determine whether or not ECA funds have been used to strengthen prodemocratic elements and tendencies in western Germany. As of April 2, 1950, Marshall plan authorizations to Germany had totalled $840,403,000. This year the sums allocated to Germany will be so great as to place her second in the re- ceiving line after Great Britain. We must not allow ourselves to be enthralled by the handsome charts and graphs which the econ- omists provide us, showing curves of produc- tion, comparison with the 1936 index, and so On. What is crucial is what is being done with all this production, who is benefiting by it in terms of economic and political power, how will 11,000,000 tons of steel, 18,000,000 tons, or any number of million tons of steel in the Rubr aid the growth of democracy in western Germany? We wish to know what will happen to German democracy if all those tons of steel are produced and dis- tributed under the absolute control of the ‘very same men, man for man, who produced steel for the German Army and the Nazi war machine. These are questions which the sponsors of this resolution ask to have answered by a Presidential commission of inquiry, on be~ half of the Congress and of the people of the Nation. Until we have those answers, we in the Congress cannot hope to legislate intelligently. Until the American people have those answers, they cannot instruct us, their representatives, how they think we should act in their interest, And, frankly, I do not believe that the executive depart~ ments themselves, including the ECA, the State Department, and the Defense Depart- ment, can plan and make policy intelligently without the answers to these questions be- fore them at every step. It is fatuous to assume, as some of our supposedly realistic policy makers seem to assume, that we don’t need to worry much about what kind of German state exists in the west (so long as it isn’t Communist), because we need German production and German manpower in the contest with Mos- cow and, anyway, we can outbid the Russians for Germany’s allegiance wherever we have to, I say it is fatuous, because great questions of international politics are not settled by bribery, no matter how defined. The rulers of Germany will make up their minds ac- cording to their own self-interest, as they see it. The real question is who are to be the rulers of Germany. Responsible officers in our Government ap~ pear to understand very well the threat of communism in Germany and the nature of the Soviet bid for its kind of German unity. But do they recognize the threat of resurgent nazism in Germany and the nature of its kid for a Soviet alliance? Are we even mentally prepared for a putsch by the sinister elements that have reemerged in western Germany—the cartel industrial- ists, the pan-German politicians, the feudal militarists, the Nazis, ex-Nazis, and neo-Nazis of every stripe? How will we deal with these elements when they have finally blackmailed the Allies into yielding full liberty of action to their German Republic? What will we do when they install a naked totalitarian
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD regime, smash the labor unions, organize a conquest of western Europe by cartel and political rovetr.tis-, oxmel American influ- ence from ~bhe ¢ortinei. of Zurope—and then proceed to ally themselves in a gigantic to- talitarian bloc with their supposed enemies, the Communists of the Scviet Union? Today we do not have the information such as our resolution seeks to obtain. We must depend on newspaper accounts, maga- zine articles, and books. From these sources we are obliged to accept, for lack of contra- dictory evidence, a shattering indictment of the real, as distinguished from the verbal, Allied policy in the postwar years in Germany. But, worse than the grisly farce of de- nazification, worse than the sabotage of the decartelization program, worse than the cruel rejection of the few German democratic elements left after Hitler, worse even than the abject ew *w'e*ta~ to the most outrage- ous demanc.<.C. ‘:'. nationalism—worse than all these has been the complete re- fusal or inexcusable fallure to undertake the most obviously necessary step of all: to set the stage for remaking the whole underlying social and economic structure of Germany by wiping out the powerful feudal basis from which Prussian militarism, industrial cartel- ism, pan-German aggression, and national socialism have sprung. Because of this monstrous failure, we and the French and the British and the Rus- sians all share the frightful responsibilty for recreating the German menace. The occupying countries in 1945 had the power to save Europe from another German war. None of them has exercised that power. All Germany’s neighbors know this. All Ger- many’s neighbors again are trembling for their safety. They tremble all the more since they know that the menace this time may very well mean their subjugation not merely by German force, but by an alliance of a re-Nazified Germany with the Soviet Union— by another and far more fearsome totali- tarian Axis, The simple rule we have not yet learned is that the only allies of democracy are demo- cratic people. Failure to transform Ger- many into a democratic scciety means that power reverts to the same elements that ruled Germany in the past. Failure to democratize Germany, as we said we in- tended to do, is the result of a complete misunderstanding of what had to be done to prevent a Soviet triumph in central Europe. We seem to have done all the wrong things, and none of the right ones. A day of reckoning will come over Germany, just as it came over China. I es -ssa7* +h-+ the resulting explosion in the T° e ¢ will make the outcry over China seem like a pleasant afternoon tea. For in Germany it will be seen that we have not only lost the Second World War—that the Nazis rather than we were the victors—but that we have prepared the way for us to lose a third world war, if it comes. I realize that I have painted a black pic- ture tonight, blacker than some may believe it to be. But until evidence is shown me that contradicts what I have said, I cannot in honesty relieve the blackness by even a touch of gray. Of one thing I am certain, however, and this thought I hope you will ponder at length. In all the years I have spent in public life, I have never seen the American people fail to be right on great public ques- tions when all the facts were spread before them. In an issue as complex as Germany, covered over as it is by layers of propa- ganda from every conceivable.source, it is taking the people of this country longer than usual to grasp exactly what is going on. A2919 When they do—and it is certain that they will—they will see to it that Washington hears from them in unmistakable terms as to what they want done. I pray only that their awareness will come in time for the effects of their thinking to be translated into action by our Government in its relations with the German state and the German people. What the States Pay Out in Revenue and What They Receive in Return EXTENSION OF REMARKS . OF HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 18, 1950 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the ReEcorp, under leave to extend heretofore granted, two tables which I think will be revealing to the Members from the various States. The first table shows the total inter- nal-revenue collections by States and Territories, fiscal years 1940-49 in mil- lions of dollars. The second table gives a summary of Federal expenditures by year and by State made as direct pay- ments to States under cooperative ar- rangements and within States to provide relief and other aid, fiscal years 1940-49, inclusive, in millions of dollars. The tables follow: TaBLE 1—-Total internal revenue collections by States and Territories, fiscal years 1940-49 + [In millions of dollars} State 1940 Alabama. _.--2-22- 22222222 nee eee eee en eee 1 F.C) <: ar ATIZONG. 2. oon ene eee enn eee nen nn en eee Arkansas........--.------------------------------ California _ 3 Colorado... Connecticut. Delaware_..- District of Co 4 1 a 1 1 2 New Hampshire. New Jersey-.-- New Mexico. New York...-_..-------------------- +--+ 1,0 North Carolina. 3! North Dakota.. Ohio. -..-.-. Oklahoma.. 4 1 1 Internal revenue collections include income taxes, est are made, 7 ry 2 198700 Nw NNEASARAANP CHR BSSA RM Son 8asoSSnee Bsn nD =] rage. SSSpENw, & ws 1941 1942 1943 1944 1 25. 8 67.4 142. 4 248, 0 0 15 4.0 4.9 18 8 1 6.2 135 33.5 69.0 5 12.6 29.0 54.7 92.3 3 405. 7 755 7 1,411 3 3,371.7 9 41,5 67 7 117 6 214 6 9 143. 2 313 5 546.5 904 6 9 134. 4 208 1 315.3 417.7 5 39. 4 84 2 165.9 419 7 8 57.1 98 3 158.9 343 9 8 52.3 102 8 199. 0 336 1 9 140 32 4 76 5 150 8 1 63 13 0 31. 58. 8 1 609 3 1, 096. 1 1, 880.7 3, 231 8 9 176, 1 327 9 497.6 1. 5 2 32.9 67. 2 137.7 293, 2 6 28.4 62.7 164.0 355 8 8 186.8 264, 8 420 6 552.3 0 63. 6 105. 3 165, 4 309. 4 6 17.8 36 7 71.1 147.9 4 140.8 230 7 422. 710. 4 6 235. 1 441.9 800. 6 1, 499. 2 2 497,9 788 0 1, 188.0 2, 370. 6 5 88, 4 149.0 306. 7 576. 6 6 93 24.4 48 88. 6 167.3 298. 4 540, 970. 9 8 9.5 17.3 40, 7 8 27.1 48. 5 105. 4 67 11.6 21. 2 10.3 21.6 42 0 268.1 406.4 801. 4 4.5 9.0 19 3 1, 469. 9 2,583 3 48. 2 393.9 490 8 672 7 25 61 15. 1 429, 9 928.7 26, 7 78 7 112.1 6. 5 22.3 58.9 1 637.8 1,163.7 4 4 2 4 4.1 2.3 5 43.9 85.6 0 16.7 48.0 . 1 3.1 6.7 . 6 47.4 92.4 162.1 303. 7 4 178 2 312.9 536.1 1, 087. 4 9 14.3 23,7 45.4 85.9 6 7.9 16.7 32,1 52, 2 2 Soparate figures no longer available. Included with Maryland. 1945 1946 253 9 239.0 19,9 15.2 71.3 76.2 08.5 102.3 3,722.5 | 3,369 4 226 9 243.2 875.7 699. 2 466 3 403.0 415 1 509.9 384 8 394.6 419.0 405. 4 174.0 141 6 59 8 60.2 3, 766 3 3, 545.7 943, 1 916.3 321.2 318.3 493.9 380.6 699, 0 709.3 350. 5 342.8 150. 1 135.2 848.7 729. 4 1, 490.9 1, 450.5 2} 579.8 1970.1 38. 45.6 335. 2 324. 6 1,152 5 1, 074, 3 84.6 81.9 52,5 45.5 ate and gift taxes, excise taxes. and employment taxes. Tax receipts are credited by the States in which the collections Receipts in the various States do not indicate the tax burden of the respective States, since the taxes may be eventually borne by persons in other States.
A2920 APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Tarte 1—Total internal revenue collections by States and Territories, fiscal years 1940 -49—Continued {In millions of dollars] 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 4.9 399. 4 563.5 830.5 $23.1 751.9 739. 0 768. 6 770.3 ei 734 5 126. 2 287.0 605. 5 625.7 542.6 484, 4 614.2 488.8 22.4 33.5 59. 2 99.6 179.3 191.3 192.4 196. 7 236, 7 242, 7 86.4 121.8 235, 2 400.7 822, 2 916.2 841.5 730.0 799. 5 788.2 3.1 4.1 16.6 28.9 29. 4 30.8 32.6 39.0 38.8 5,340.5 7,370. 1 18, 047.9 22, 871.4 40, 121.8 , 800. 4 40, 672.1 39, 108. 4 41, 864.5 40, 463. 1 ay Source: Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. ow mary of Federal expenditures by year and by State made as direct payments to States under cooperative arrangements and TABLE 2.—Sum y of within States to provide relief and other aid, fiscal years 1940 to, 1949, inclusive [In millions of dollars] State 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 84.3 72.8 64.9 63. 6 34.3 25.7 22.6 19.7 15.9 11.0 77.3 65 9 59. 6 40. 2 25.1 192, 8 192.7 199. 6 205. 1 114.8 61,2 50.8 43.5 34,3 29.0 33.0 28.6 37.0 33. 8 11.9 6.0 5.6 4.5 5.6 3.1 53.9 62,9 53.5 43,5 11.8 47.4 45.9 62.5 34,2 29.9 81.2 72,4 68.9 65. 5 38.5 36.7 30.0 22.9 16.9 18. 4 236. 1 199.3 167.4 147.5 105.1 106.9 85.0 82.6 74,4 48,7 108. 0 93.1 86.8 84.9 62. 8 75.7 67.5 67.5 70.3 52.8 64.2 62.0 54.7 34.7 26. 2 “41 62.7 57.0 39.4 37.4 18.6 17.3 17,3 19,5 13.1 34, 2 29.3 55.9 38.8 23.3 115.5 99.0 84.6 57.3 32.8 132.1 109. 4 91.5 85.5 64.7 106. 4 92.4 81.7 59.3 48,1 80.6 70.8 64.7 40.7 28.8 124. 8 106.7 93. 9 74.1 54.1 45.5 35. 6 30.0 22.0 20. 8 78. 6 68.3 58. 6 50.2 42.4 9.8 9.5 6.9 8.0 4.2 13.0 11.8 14.3 5.8 4.0 90. 5 80.8 65. 2 33.2 21.9 New York... 244, 5 178. . 2, rth Carolina. 75.2 71.0 59.2 35. 6 Re 50.8 39.9 26. 2 28.4 188. 4 160.0 116. 6 76.1 93. 2 75. 8 47,7 48.6 44.6 39.0 66.0 25.9 211.8 200. 5 107.0 63. 1 18.1 16.0 9.0 5.4 59.7 61.3 39.6 22.9 46.2 37.0 22.6 22.9 67.3 59.8 35.4 30. 6 225. 4 187.4 158.6 105. 7 26.7 25.0 25. 5 15.2 9.2 9.4 5.6 3.3 46.1 44.8 109. 0 36. 4 61.1 56.3 127.6 50.7 46.2 41.4 31.5 12.8 93.9 78.0 43.7 32.9 19.6 16.7 7 6.9 3.4 2.3 5 L4 15.5 6 3.1 29.5 0 9.7 7 1 2 a, i ee hee 7 2.5 0): on neewnne 3, 822.3 3,476.4 3, 225, 2, 729, 7 1, 762.1 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 26.7 21.8 30.1 183, 4 133, 9 10.3 9.8 16. 4 31.9 32,4 18,5 15.9 25.3 97.0 93, & 102. 6 93, 5 121.9 393, 4 373.0 27.2 25, 2 30.7 78.0 80. 8 9.7 9.9 13.0 67.2 52.5 2.9 2.5 3.6 9.7 10.0 8.5 7.8 10.0 44.6 49.2 25.6 21.6 30.0 105.7 111.4 31.7 271 41.5 183. 7 135. 8 11.8 11.7 16.8 82.5 30.6 65, 5 62.3 76. 2 278.7 279. 3 30. 0 27,4 37,4 112.9 109. 7 30.0 31.2 37.1 98. 8 88. 6 25. 2 20.8 33, 2 70. 2 60. 9 23.7 22.7 34.5 104.1 91. 5 26.7 32.7 33. 3 106. 3 150.1 7.6 7.4 10.5 31.5 30.1 13.5 11.9 15.3 51.3 54.3 29.8 29.5 40.4 177.8 165. 8 52.3 47.0 61.0 193. 5 193. 7 31.6 36, 6 41.5 124, 1 113.1 22.0 17.9 27.5 102. 5 107.9 42.4 41,3 57.3 189. 2 178. 9 15.9 16.0 17.9 33, 1 31.8 25. 2 21.0 28,7 56, 1 49. 1 3.6 3.1 6.0 &4 10. 8 3.8 3.7 5.0 20.3 10.4 17.7 16.9 22.6 114. 5 110.6 9.5 10.1 14.1 31.7 32,3 65.4 68. 1 86. 0 432.9 417.3 26. 2 22, 5 35.5 146, 1 150.8 12.1 20.4 14.7 31.5 29, 55. 9 48.9 63. 8 237.0 226. 5 37.9 41.1 58. 4 142.3 135.3 24.5 18.8 25. 8 63. 67.0 54.2 48.0 67.9 359. 3 355.9 4.5 4.1 5.1 31.8 30.7 19.1 14.6 21.9 82.9 89.0 13.2 11.7 15.2 29.3 26.8 31.4 27.9 33, 7 149.0 157.1 85. 5 76.9 110. 6 352, 9 343, 5 13. 5 10.7 15. 8 38. 4 36.0 3.3 3.9 5.4 16.7 16.1 24.8 20.0 22.6 80.9 74.9 41.0 36.0 41.4 95.3 92.7 14.1 12.4 16.6 60. 5 52.4 28.6 27.7 35.6 99.9 101.7 8.2 8.7 11.6 19.7 20.0 15 16 2.1 3.8 3.6 13.0 10.5 17.6 22.7 18.9 17.9 62.7 72.3 wl +2 a) 1.3 27.7 36.8 — 26.0 —9.6 1, 353, 4 1, 290. 1 1, 694. 1 5, 551, 1 5, 493. 7 8 jource: Annual reports of the Secretary of the Treasury. Marshall Plan of Ideas EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the ReEcorp a three-column featured edito- rial appearing in the April 19 issue of the Christian Century, entitled “Marshall Plan of Ideas.” This great magazine asks, ‘“‘Does Congress really want a demo- cratic world?” It endorses my resolu- tion and calls for nothing less than a world missionary movement on behalf of democracy. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: * Marsaui PLAN or IpEas The Marshall plan recently passed its mid- Point. After 2 years of operation, it is ob- vious to any impartial mind that it is play- ing a significant role in European recovery. If that recovery fails, as it may, it will not be because of the Marshall Plan, but in spite of it. Europe still has a long way to go, but without American aid, given through what Mr. Churchill called “one of the most unsordid acts of history,” it would not have made a beginning. The success of the economic Marshall Plan has caused Senator WiL1AM BENTON to pro-~
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pose a “Marshall plan in the realm of ideas.” The Connecticut Senator is the only Mem- ber of the present Senate who has served as an Assistant Secretary of State. Out of his 2 years’ experience under Secretary Byrnes, he realizes more keenly than most Senators how intense is the battle now being fought between communism and democracy for the minds and loyalties of men. Senator Bren- Ton is also one of the few Members of the senior legislative body who have worked in advertising, publication, and education. Cut of this background he has developed a con- viction that world public opinion can be influenced for good and has formed some idezs as to how to go about it. This faith and know-how Senator BEn- ton sets forth in a resolution which he has introduced in the Senate. Recognizing that force, the threat of violence and the expendi- ture of vast sums cannot in themselves an- swer Communist propaganda, he proposes a global offensive in behalf of the ideas which express democratic principles and aspira- tions. It may be argued that his timing is bad, since the upper house seems determined to let the business of government slide while it plays politics with Senator McCarry. But this fact may rebound to the benefit of a constructive proposal of this character when the upper house recovers its sense of duty and its perspective. The world situation certainly demands that we take the lead in a greatly expanded program of information and education among the peoples of the world, who are not per- mitted to share the Senate’s leisure and who are only mildly interested in its passions. James Burnham argues that point cogently in his recent book, The Coming Defeat of Communism. Believing that the Soviet structure of power is essentially vulnerable, he declares that it can be overthrown with- out war if the western nations use the means at their disposal, including a massive propa- ganda attack, to that end. Senator Benron’s proposal is confined to the development of a world-wide program of information and education. This can he done, he says, in six ways. (1) Our diplo- macy must be geared to securing universal freedom of information. (2) We should greatly extend the support we give to the work of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (3) We should expand the Ofiice of International Information and Educational Exchange in our own State Department by increasing the number of educational films sent abroad, multiplying the number of foreign students brought to the United States, and setting up ways of a world broadcasting network. In these and other ways we should do every~ thing possible to penetrate the walls of censorship which isolate the people under Communist control, as weil as to reach others not yet overrun. Senator BENToN seeKs also (4) to increase the current efforts to firomote democratic education abroad, especially in Germany and Japan; (5) to convene a conference of non- | Communist nations to coordinate and im- prove their information programs; and (6) to establish a non-governmental agency to guide and inspire the efforts of the millions of private American citizens who might use their talents and resources and contact’ over- seas in furtherance of the programs and ob- jectives of this resolution. This is a hold and spacious conception, and it deserves serious consideration. More than that, it deserves support in prin- ciple. If we are losing the cold war, as many believe, it is because we are losing the battle for the minds and loyalties of men. This is not because the conceptions of freedom and democracy inherently lack strength and liberating power. The contrary is true. Rather, it is in part, because, as =" Senator Benton says, “day in and day out, in two score languages, in every medium of communication from a whispered rumor to a globe-girdling radio, everywhere from a remote Burmese village to the Security Coun- cil of the United Nations, the Communists play the same propagandatune. * * * It revolves around five themes: (1) The United States is headed for a cataclysmic economic crash. (2) The rulers of the United States are Fascists, warmongers, and capitalists. (3) Although the rich of the United States are getting richer, everybody else is getting poorer, and there is starvation, unrest, and growing sympathy for the Soviet Union among the masses. (4) America’s vaunted freedom is a fraud and our doctrine of equal- ity is belied by racial and religious discrimi- nation. (5) Our character is bad—we are culturally barbarous, money-mad, lawless, crime-ridden, and effete.” This Communist propaganda offensive is having a profound effect, particularly among the peoples of southeast Asia and Asia, who have not had first-hand experience with communism but have had such relations with colonialism. Walter Lippmann recently declared that “we are losing touch with the peoples of the world—with their fears, their hopes, their needs, their nurpeses, and their will to survive—and we c’e tik.ny not to them but to ourselves, in a self-induced mood of defeatism and impotence, about how much we must distrust one another and our own better instincts and our own capac- ity to think and believe.” We cought to make it a first consideration to recover effective contact with the peoples of the world. We should realize that this is essentially a mis- sionary task in the field of politics. In its essence, democracy is the application to the relationships of men of true and morally right principle. As a political concept, it needs to be proclaimed with skill in the use of modern media of mass communication, with sacrificial zeal and convincing power. It has nothing to fear from Communist com-~ petition so long as men are in position to learn the truth and to make a free choice. It can rely on the truth, and the truth can always win over what Communists seek to justify as the historic lie if it {s fearlessly and diligently proclaimed and defended. Senator Benton’s resolution, which is co- sponsored by a dozen Senators of both par- ties, simply asks the Senate to endorse the outline of his proposal for a Marshall Plan in the field of ideas. It does not carry an estimate of costs and it is not linked with an authorization for expenditure. It would ob- viously cost a great deal more than the $31,- 000,000 which the Department of State is spending this year for its world-wide pro- gram of public relations. But if some action of this kind can contribute vitally to victory in the ideological contest which is now going on in the world, as it can, it deserves support. Even if the whole program is not approved by an economy-minded Congress, a part of it may be. Today half the member nations of the United Nations practice some form of cen- sorship. American influence is helping to break down these walls and it can do more. UNESCO, with a budget of only $8,000,000 a year, is making a significant contribution to world peace and security. It could do a great deal more if it were adequately supported, as the United States delegation to that body is urging. The few documentary films on American life which the State Department has distributed abroad portray, generally ac- curately and effectively, what life as we know it in this country actually is. What might it not mean if one-fourth of the population of the earth could see documentaries of this kind once a month. Foreign students edu- cated in America have almost always been among our best friends abroad. An exchange . A2921 program which would absorb 50,000 or 100,000 such students a year would make an incalculable contribution to world under- standing. An example cited by Mr. Benton is worth pondering. “The ECA, under its technical assistance program, brought 600 people from European industry and agriculture last year to study our methods. Two among the 600 were influential Italian labor leaders. When these two had seen American labor- management relations at first hand, when they had seen that our workers share in the benefits of increased productivity and from the use of labor-saving machinery, when they had seen that competition is not with- out its economic value to our workers, they went back to Italy, pulled 700,000 workers out of the big Communist-dominated gen- eral trade union and launched an inde- pendent union ”’ America’s task, we repeat, is nothing less than to organize a world missionary move- ment on behalf of democracy. Such an at- tempt does not imply that we have nothing more to do to make democratic principles more effective at home. It does not imply that the Christian missionary movement should become in any way organizationally entangled or involved in this essentially po- litical effort. That indeed would be a grave disservice to the Christian church, which all concerned should seek to avoid. A world- wide missionary campaign on behalf of lib- erty and equality would have powerful effects among colonial peoples who are seeking the freedom which so many millions have gained in recent years. It might even backfire to make our own underprivileged minorities demand a larger share of participation in the political and economic benefits which the majority have. Let it! A risk that the missionary always runs is that the creed he preaches will lay hold of his own life and revolutionize it to a degree he did not anticipate. If he whole- heartedly believes, he will not fear but wel- come such an outcome. Does Congress really want a democratic world? Do we? False Picture of United States Abroad Held To Antedate Red Efforts EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, April 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Ap- pendix of the ConGRESSIONAL RECORD an article by a distinguished foreign cor- respondent, Harold Callender, which ap- peared in this morning’s New York Times. As Assistant Secretary of State, I used to point out that there was a great need for a United States informational and edu- cational exchange program throughout the world—even, if, as I once put it, the Pacific Ocean were to open up and swal- low the U.S. S. R., and communism were to be abolished from the earth. Mis- understanding and mistrust of the United States is deeply entrenched in many areas of the world, and is widespread even in England. The Communist propaganda has capitalized upon and exaggerated attitudes toward America and beliefs