APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tax from 38 percent to 20 percent might cut away as much as $4,000,000,000. Because we cannot avoid enormous Fed- eral expenses in the years immediately ahead, all badly needed reforms of the type to which this article is confined obviously can’t be made at once; also, there are other tax re- forms bearing on consumption which obvi- ously should be weighed in an over-all pro- gram of tax revision. But.this is equally obvious: We should have a general design for tax revision which would line up all the necessary steps. Then We could get ahead with tax reductions as rapidly—and as sensibly—as revenue require- ments and political courage would permit. Tax cutting may come piecemeal, but tax planning must not. Through such a design we might discover that some decidedly beneficial improvements in the Federal tax structure can be made at relatively slight cost. But today there is no way to be sure. No onc in Washington with access to the information has even under- taken to make the necessary estimates. Instead, Federal tax revision continues to be a hit-and-run business—and a short-run political business. Take, for example, the proposal of a 20-percent tax reduction across the board. There ure virtues in such a proposal. But how they stack up beside many other extremely urgent needs for tax reform remains a mystery. Congress must dispel such mysteries. Only in that way will it do the job of converting our present jerry-built tax structure into a moderately safe abode for the American sys- tem of private initiative, sparked by adequate incentives. James H. McGraw, Jr., President, McGraw-Hwt Publishing Co., Inc. PERCENT OF TAX EXPERTS FAVORING THE PROPOSED CHANGE Tax experts think we should: 1, Eliminate double taxation of corpora- tion dividends which are now taxed as ocor- porate profit and then again as individuals’ income, 92 percent. 2, Reduce corporation income-tax rate (now 38 percent) as rapidly as budget needs permit until it equals the initial rate for individual incomes (now 20 percent), 73 per- cent. 3. Provide for averaging business’ taxable incomes over a period of about 6 years to allow for losses in bad years, 97 percent, 4. Provide for averaging individuals’ tax- able incomes over a period of a few years so as to treat fairly those whoee incomes fluctu- ate, 86 percent. 5. Reduce upper-bracket individual in- come-tax rates to a maximum of 50 percent in the $100,000 bracket and 75 percent in the million and over bracket, 76 percent. 6. Treat capital gains, now taxed at a lower rate, like other income but provide full al- lowances for losses, 64 percent, 7. Remove the privilege of tax exemption from all future issues of State and local government bonds, 92 percent, Has Congress the Courage To Stop Senseless Waste? EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. ALBERT J. ENGEL OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 3, 1947 Mr. ENGEL of Michigan. Mr. Speak- et, the greatest issue before Congress today is, Shall the Congress furnish the money to continue the outrageous, wasteful, extravagant, and ruinous spending spree we have been on during the past 15 years, or has the Congress the courage to call a halt and place this Nation once more on a sound, sane, and safe fiscal basis? Upon the determina- tion of this issue depends tax relief for every taxpayer whether a $12 a week scrubwoman who may pay 12 cents a week in pay-roll deduction or some other individual in the higher bracket who contributes thousands of dollars to the Federal Treasury. Jobs, rates of pay, return on capital, whether in the corner grocery store or in some large industry, in fect the very existence of our form of Government depends upon the ques- tion, Has Congress the courage to stop this waste of the taxpsyers’ money? Bankruptcy or prosperity are the two alternatives. It is up to us to make the choice. If this third year after the close of the war is not the stopping place, just where is it that we are going to stop this senseless spending? Is it to be the fourth, fifth, or sixth year? Just where is the stopping place? These problems are not so difficult if we will pause a moment and ask our- selves, “What would you and I do if it were our business and our money we were spending?” It is extremely difficult for some of us who were reared in the coun- try to realize jusi what a billion, a half billion, or fifty billion dollars is. In 1939 in trying to realize just what was happening to this country of ours, I wrote to every State in the Union and obtained the assessed valuation of that State as placed upon the assessment rolls by the thousands of local supervisors and assessing officers. I put the totals on the adding machine and found that the assessed valuation of all the real and per- sonal property in America placed upon the assessment rolls by the local assess- ing officers of the various townships, cities, and villages amounted to a total of $150,000,000,000. If you and I owned and operated a business and our manager asked us for a certain amount of money to operate with during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, the first question we would ask him is “How much money will you have avail- able if we give you what you ask for?” And “Can you get along with less?” That is just plain, common, ordinary horse sense, In examining the budget carefully I find that if Congress gives President Truman and the Democratic administra- tion everything they are asking for, and tremendous pressure is being brought upon Congress to do so, President Tru- man and his administration will have available for expenditure for all purposes during the third year after the close of the war at the end of the fiscal year June 30, 1948, from 1948 and prior years’ appropriations, the tremendous sum of $46,200,000,000 or almost one-third the assessed valuation of ail the property in America placed upon the assessment rolls by the local assessing officers of the vari- ous townships, cities, and villages in 1939, I am on the Budget Committee and supported the action of that committee in trying to reduce the expenditure A883 $6,000,000,000. I said then and I say now that if President Truman and his admin- istration cannot operate this Government with less than $46,000,000,000 available for expenditures in one year, in fact if they cannot take a $6,000,000,000 cut and operate it with $40,200,000,000 available for expenditure during the third year following the close of the war and give us adequate national defense without wrecking the Air Corps and scuttling the Navy, the President and his Democratic administration should get out and let somebody else do the job. New Long-Range Plan of Social-Security Bureaucrats Labeled Deception EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. GEORGE B. SCHWABE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. SCHWABE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, 1 am just in receipt of a very concise statement of what one of the leading citizens of my district thinks of the new proposed long-range plan pur- ported to have been suggested recently by a Federal social-security bureaucrat, which my constituent considers a decep- tion. I quote the letter from my con- stituent: I note, via Associated Press dispatch, that the Federal social-security bureaucrats are now proposing a long-range plan under which old-age-insurance costs would be divided among employers, workers, and Government. Such fallacious argument, if not downright deceit, is sickening. Whence does the Gov- ernment derive its powers—and funds—ex- cept from those same employers and workers. That argument sounds like Hitler and Mus- solini. Maybe the social-security bureau- crats are practicing what these two “fine men” knew—that if you tell a lie long enough it becomes accepted as truth. Why doesn’t somebody in Congress pull the beard off this sort of deception? Resolution of American Lithuanian -.So- ciety of Amsterdam, N. Y. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. B. W. (PAT) KEARNEY OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. KEARNEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- ord, I include the following resolution adopted by the Committee of Amster- dam Lithuanian Organizations assem- bled at their mass meeting held at the American Lithuanian Hall in the city of Amsterdam, N. Y., on February 23, 1947: Whereas by the use of devious processes of treachery and overwhelming military power in furtherance of predatory policies of Com- munist aggression, the Union of Soviet So- Clalist Republics has succeeded, against the
A8&4 will of the people of Lithuania, in establish- ing {ts armed forces and administration in the territory of Lithuania; and Whereas over 20 months passed since the end of hostilities in Europe, and Lithuania ts still held under the occupation of the Union of Soviet Socta:ist Army: and Whereas the Communist administration, supported by the Russian Army, has de- prived the Lithuantan people of their govern- ment, individual and political rights and lib- erties, is cruelly persecuting the Lithuanian people, arresting them and subjecting them to long terms in prison and deporting others into the Soviet Union, while the properties of the Lithurnians are being confiscated and transferred to colonists brought in from Russia: Now. therefore, be it Resolved, That this gathering to commem- orate the twenty-ninth anniversary of Lithu- ania's independence, register an emphatic protest against the illegal, arbitrary, and cruel Soviet conduct in Lithuania; and be it further Resolved, That this meeting of Amsterdam Lithuanian Americans, appeuls to the Presi- dent of the United States and the Secretary of State, to demand, through diplomatic channels and international conferences, that Soviet Russia immediately withdraw her armed forces and secret police from Lithu- anian territory, and permit the Lithuanian people to choose and select their own form of government in a free, Just, and demo- cratic election; and be !t further Resolved, That this mass meeting is an appeal to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations at Lake Success, N. Y., through ite chairman, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, to protect the innocently suffering people of Lithuania from the terror and persecution by Soviet Russia and their henchmen; its faithless masters and oppressors; und be it finally Resolved, That coptes of this resolution be forwarded to the Senators and Representa- tives of the State of New York, and published in the press. AMSTERDAM LITHUANIAN ORGANIZATIONS, B. H. Frovup, Chairman. ANNe Biiuis, Secretary. Belated Justice EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that a man of the prominence of Mr. Westbrook Pegler has seen fit to bring to the attention of the public the injustice that has been done to Mr. Her- be-t Hoover by the ruthless, unscrupu- Jous smear crew which for years now have been assassins of character and de- stroyers of faith in representative gov- ernment. Under leave to extend my remarks, I am inserting in the Recorp the column of Mr. Westbrook Pegler which appeared in the Washington Times-Herald under date of March 4, 1947: FAR ENOUGH (By Westbrook Pegler) Herbert Hoover's return from his second dangerous and wearying mission to other con- tinents since Mr. Truman became President is the occasion for a discussion of an act of political nastiness now in process of redress. Senator ALBgrat W. Hawxrs, of New Jersey, has introduced a bill to restore Mr. Hoover's name to the dam on the Colorado River, originally known as the Hoover Dam, but des- ignated Boulder Dam by Harold Ickes. The contrast between the character of Mr. Hoover and those who attempted to degrade him has been plain in all incidents, refiect- ing his morality and theirs, which provide a basis for comparison. His worst fault dur- ing his Presidency was his obduracy on the subject of prohibition and popular anger was directed at him, individually. - He was the target of a great popular up- rising of indignation. He had been booed by the crowd who shouted “we want beer” at a World Series game in Philadelphia. A more ominous note than we who heard it realized at the time. From election day on to March 4, 1933, when Roosevelt was first inaugurated, Roosevelt and his “brain trust” flippantly refused to cooperate with Hoover. During that interim, Hoover being now a lame duck and a man withcut a mandate. decay and decline were rapid both at home and abroad. The problems of the Presidency were his “baby,” in the language of the ribald ed- venturera and the calcu'ated purpoce was to set him up in the public imagination as a monster who would be finally responsible for any calamities that might befall by inaugu- ration day. Hoover certainly was hated when he left office and his wise and consctentious covnsel went unheerd, and his occasional preaching of fundamental morality in public life was sneered away by a people whose heirs may blame them for their susceptibility to phrases and a voice that put them in a spell. Throughout his term he had scrupulously refrained from exp’oiting the Presidency for his personal enrichment or the profit of mem- bers of his family. He hed served without pay. but hadn't said so and the secret was kept until a long time after he had vanished. Although Mr. Hoover was renowned as a man of great ability in many fields, particu- larly in problems of the distribution of food, he was ignored thrcughout the war. Mounte- banks drawn to Washington to advertise themselves as administrators, have since de- ascended again to their natural level of greed and vulgarity, ecrambling for easy money in the movie industry, in radio, in the modern racket known as labor relations, and in the variations of the PAC. Jim Farley, too, another excellent execu- tive, was snubbed in favor of draft dodgers, some of whom were adorned with brass to keep them out of danger. Farley wrote Roosevelt on Pearl Harbor Day offering to serve wherever and however he could and, for answer, got a brush-off. Mr. Hoover has never asked that his name be restored to the dam for which, more than any other man, he waa responsible. He 1s without vanity and so fine are his pride and his dignity that he could not even recognize Ickes who personally changed the name of the dam and wrote to Homer Cummings, then the New Deal Attorney General, in 1936, that reference to Hoover Dam in Government litigation “gives me nothing at all to cheer about.” Mr. Hoover did not name the dam for him- self. It was so named by Ray Lyman Wi!bur, as Secretary of the Interior, in 1930. The Roosevelt Dam, the Wilson Dam, and the Coolidge Dam all had been named for in- cumbents, the Roosevelt in this case having been Theodore, and the Norris Dam had been named for Senator Norris while he was in office. The honor to Hoover was particularly appropriate, however, because he had labored faithfully and successfully as Secretary of Commerce in the early twenties to reconcile old, conflicting interests of the States in- volved and had participated as an engineer. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In support of his bill, Senator HAwxss proves that on three separate occasions Con- gress designated this work the Hoover Dam. The change was made, personally, by Ickes in @ memorandum in May 1933, when the campaign to degrade Hoover was at ita height. Later, in the correspondence with Cum- mings, he said he had “gone to great lengths to give Boulder Dam its original and proper name which my predecessor attempted felontously to take from it, for which praise- worthy and meritorious act I have been roundly condemned by reactionary Repub- lican papers.” Cummings replied that Hoover Dam was the title used by Congress, and in a contract of the Government for its construction, and said, “When I see you I shall extend my commiseration in person.” As to the propriety of naming a public work in honor of a living person, there are other precedents. In New York, Fiorello La- Guardia, who has so much in common with Ickes, rejected the name of General Mac- Arthur for the East River Drive on the ground that history might give a new judgment on MacArthur. MacArthur then was regarded as a political personality by some of the Roosevelt following. It was promptly noted that LaGuardia Field had been named for the mayor. This name has been accepted as peculiarly fitting inasmuch as the field was built on a city dump, the flashy buildings have cracked and crumbled and the runways have sagged into the water. Moreover, LaGuardia selected the name of Sara D Roosevelt, while she was alive, for a scries of playgrounds on the Eust Side of New Yo7k on land acquired by Jimmy Walker for low-cost housing. Sara D. Roosevelt hed nothing to do with this or with any other kenefictal public work. Ti wes actually built by Robert Moses, another who was ignored by Roosevelt, not- withstanding his fine achievements and reputation, because Mr. Moses caught Roose- velt trying to plant his private political sec- retary, Loule Howe, on the public pay roll at 65.000 a year when Roosevel* was out of office, and would not let him get away with it. After Roosevelt's death, President Truman availed himself of Mr. Hoover's abilities. He is now 72 years old and yeare have passed since he could be regarded as a candidate for any office or honors or for public service ex- cept with the most patriotic motives. It would make little difference to Mr. Hoover that his name were restored, but the people have here a chance to make an amend to a great citizen for a vindictive wrong done in their name by one who rather glories in a title self-bestowed, and well-de- served, curmudgeon. Ceiling on Tribute EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT F. RICH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following statement of Hon. Samuel B. Pettengill, former Rep- resentative from Indiana: CEILING ON TRIBUTE A lot of workingmen are looking for an Abraham Lincoln. Congress, the labor boards, and the courts have delivered them over to absentee landlords. That the wo'k- ers resent this is shown by the November election in our industrial centers, The acop-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD vion of the Barnes bill in heavily industrial- ized Massachusetts, requiring audits and full publicity for union funds, shows that woik- ingmen have had enough. These union funds should no more be handled in ir- responsible secrecy than deposits in a bank or funds of insurance companies. Millions of dollars have been taken from union treas- uriles, without the members’ consent, and spent to organize unions in unrelated trades. A railroad union official has threatened to sperid millions of union funds to defeat Pres- ident Truman next year. Whose money is this, anyway? Thousands of workers have been ordered to strike without consulting them. No one de- nies that this is sometimes done to line the pockets of a boss who calls a strike in order to be secretly bribed to call it off. Union funds have been embezzled more often, prob- ably, than anyone knows. For example, James Bove. A. F. of L. official and lieutenant of Joseph Fay, was sent to prison for conspiring to extort $703,000 from the contractors on a big water works project. He was again convicted for embezzling $64.- 000 from his own union. He is now Indicted, for the third time, on the charge of defraud- ing the Government of $194,000 of income which he said nothing about. That ain't hay. The closed shop plays inte the hands of racketeers and Communists. It forces men to join a union against their will, and it terrorizes them to keep their traps shut, or lose their jobs. All unions not affiliated with either the CIO or the A. F. of L. get the cold shoulder from Government agencies. A poll taken among coal miners shows that 65 percent of the miners want the ric ht to vote by secret ballot on whether to strike or stay at work. Why not? Is this a democ- racy or what? In some unions, dues and assessments are so high that many are unable to join. En- trance fees run as high as $1,500 This strengthens the labor monopoly by limiting its membership. Those who do pay have to force wages up to recover their investment in the right to work. This makes the hgh cost of living go higher It helps to put homes for veterans beyond their reach. The Government owes workingmen some sort of a bill of rights. It must elther make unions democratic so the men themselves can run them, or it must go into the busi- ness of regulating unions to protect their members from extortion. If it docs the lat- ter, it would secm that the Government should put a ceiling on dues and assess- ments It should say that any union which charges more than so much for the right to work shall lose its bargaining powers under Federal laws. Many independent unions, honestly run, have found they need no more than 25 cents or 50 cents a month. So long as the Government supports labor monop- olists with special privileges such as the closed shop, it must protect workers against extortion of excessive dues. These seem to be the alternative courses of action for any Government that commands 300,000 young men to die to force democracy on foreigners. I don’t advocate the Government regulat- ing unions as it does freight rates or bills for gas or electricity. Instead, Government should free workers from the autocracy of their bosses and then let the men run their own unions on democratic lines like the New England town meeting. The Government should issue an emanci- pation proclamation to white men:as well as black, or else admit that we have lost the war for democracy at home. SAMUEL B. PETTENGILL. Republicans Open Attack on Labor’s Basic Rights EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHET HOLIFIELD OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, if H. R. 2157, which passed the House Friday, openly sought to repeal the minimum wage of 40 cents an hour, how many of us, in this time of ever-increasing living costs, would dare go on record as favor- ing it? Yet a measure which maintains the wage rate but for practical purposes repeals the act which creates it, was passed by the House. It is the first step in undermining the great progressive program of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The 1-year statute of limitations would make the remedy ineffective and thus destroy the act. Many of the em- ployees affected by this legislation are unorganized. They do not know their rights. Time elapses before they find out that they have a claim. Frequently the discovery is made after there has been an inspection by the Wage and Hour Division. After that the employee is placed in a dilemma and must answer the question, “Shall I keep my job and forget about my claim, or shall I sue and lose my source of income?” If a businessman lends money to his employee or sells him goods he usually has from 3 to 6 years in which to sue his employee. If the employee wishes to sue his employer for minimum wages or overtime compensation, even though the employer may have falsified his records or failed to keep records in open defi- ance of the statute, the employee must act within a year. This is so even though the employer’s misconduct has made it difficult for the employee to prove his claim. Why such solicitude for such an employer? Why such discrimination against the employee? There can only be one answer. There are some members who are still against a worker receiving 40 cents an hour. There are some who are still against overtime compensation. Those of us who favor a minimum wage and overtime must see that the legisla- tion is workable. Such beneficent legis- lation should not be nullified by adopt- ing a discriminatory statute and a stat- ute which is calculated to defeat the rights which have heretofore justly been created. If H. R. 2157 is finally enacted into law it will result either in an almost com- plete break-down in the observance of the Fair Labor Standards Act or in the creation of a Vast bureaucracy. To en- force the Fair Labor Standards Act un- der a 1-year statute of limitations will require the Wage and Hour Administra- tor to increase his staff materially. He has personnel at present sufficient to inspect one-tenth of the businesses sub- ject to the act each year. Such a staff would be entirely inadequate to uncover violations within 1 year of their occur- rence, much less to put legal machinery A885 into motion within 1 year of a violation. Does Congress want to harass employers by constant inspection by the Govern- ment? If not, the l-year statute of limitations should not become law. Or does Congress wish to allow most crim- inal violations of the Fair Labor Stand- ards Act to go unpunished? If these are not the purposes of this provision it will certainly be its consequences. One other provision of the bill deserves Special comment. That is the provision which gives the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division or any other ad- ministrative official the most uncon- trolled power to dispose of Jegal rights ever given to any person. He can do that even though his acts are entirely unauthorized by Congress, completely capricious and without rational basis. Under this bill employees’ rights can be entirely destroyed by such an action. The act provides that an employer can cheat his employees to his heart's con- tent so long as he can point to some ad- ministrative official’s statement sup- Posedly upholding such a practice and nothing the employee can do can pre- vent. it. Never before has Congress given away authority so recklessly. Our con- stitutional system provides for a govern- ment of laws, not of men. Yet the spon- sors of this bill would give complete power to men to alter a law of the land at their pleasure. Such a power is abhorrent to democracy. This bill contains a statute of limita- tions of so short a period as to result in depriving of protection the unorganized, low-paid employees who are most in need of it and for whose benefit. the act was primarily enacted. It is common kKnowl- edge that these low-paid unorganized workers are for the most part too un- informed as to their rights under existing laws or too afraid of being discriminated against to assert their rights against their employers. Experience shows that rare is the suit by such an employee un- less his employment has been previously terminated. It is not the normal and natural thing for such an employee to assert his claim promptly. Even if such a workers is aware of his rights, he will proceed most cautiously before suing his employer. The effect of the 1-year stat- ute of limitations is to discriminate against unorganized workers most likely to receive subminimum wages. I agree that there should be a uniform statute of limitations but it should be a reasonable statute of at least 3 years, such as is pro- vided in the Federal Employecs Liability Act. Control and Eradication of Foot-and- Mouth Disease EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM S. HILL OF COLORADO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I
AS&8&6 include Senate Joint Memorial 3 of the Colorado Senate petitioning the Congress to pass appropriate legislation to control and eradicate the foot-and-mouth dis- ease affecting livestock in the Republic of Mexico: Senate Joint Memorial 3 Joint memorial memorializing and petition- ing the Congress of the United States to pass appropriate legislation to control and eradicate and prevent from entrance into this country of the disease of animals known as foot-and-mouth disease now present among animals of several states of the Republic of Mexico; and petitioning the President of the United States for his support of the petitions herein set forth Whereas the United States Department of Agriculture has been advised by the United States Embassy in Mexico City that the live- stock disease which recently appeared in the vicinity of Vera Cruz has been diagnosed as foot-and-mouth disease by both Mexican and United States Government veterinarians who have made extensive field investigations; and Whereas the disease now recognized by the Republic of Mexico as foot-and-mouth dis- ease affecting cattle, sheep, swine, and goats has spread from the original point of infec- tion in the Republic of Mexico to no less than eight Mexican States, and reports of United States veterinarians now in the infected ter- ritory indicate it is spreading rapidly and ts not being controlled; and Whereas there have been seven outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States since 1920, completely eradicated at an estimated total cost of $200,000,000, and the infection or virus causing the disease came here directly or indirectly from foreign coun- tries where the disease existed; and Whereas the 1914 outbreak spread from the original premises where the first infection was found in cattle to 22 States and the Dis- trict of Columbia, and in order to eradicate this infectious and contagious disease, it was necessary to slaughter 172,222 head of livestock, including 77,000 cattle; and Whereas the California outbreak in 1924 quickly spread to cattle and other livestock in 16 counties, and in order to completely eradicate the disease it was necessary to slaughter 69,991 head of cattle, 28,382 head of sheep, 21.795 head of swine, 1,391 head of goats, and 22,214 deer; and Whereas there are in Colorado today cattle, swine, sheep, and goats, of a total va'ue esti- mated at $167,000,000, including approximate- ly 1,900,000 head of cattle now in pastures, on ranches and farms or in feed lots: ‘ow, there- fore, be it Resolved by the Senate of the Thirty-sizth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (the House of Representatives concurring heretn), That it respectfully memorializes the President and the Congress of the United States to take such steps as may be necessary by legislation or otherwise to: 1. Appropriate adequate funds to the United States Bureau of Animal Industry to prevent, control, and eradicate foot-and- mouth disease in this country; 2. Provide assistance to the Republic of Mexico In locating, diagnosing, and eradicate ing foot-and-mouth disease in that country to the fullest extent permitted and requested by the appropriate officials of that country; 3. Create a joint United States-Mexico commission empowered to deal with this problem and to control, eradicate, and pre- vent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease in each of said countries; 4. Close the United States-Mexico border, in addition to the present quarantine regula- tions, to all importations or traffic of what- ever kind or nature that may carry the in- fection of foot-and-mouth disease into the United States; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this memorial be forwarded to the President of the United States and to each of the United States Sena- tors and Representatives in Congress from the State of Colorado, so as to urge their vigorous support in accomplishing the peti- tions of this memorial. Homer L. PEARSON, President of the Senate. W. C. Brarr, Secretary of the Senate. Wma. ALBIN CaRLeon, Speaker of the House. V. C. Crawsiaw, Chief Clerk. Sheuld We Execute 16-Year-Olds? EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WALTER B. HUBER OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. HUBER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RrEc- ORD, I include the following editorial from the Lorain (Ohio) Journal of March 3, 1947: SHOULD WE EXECUTE 16-YEAR-OLDS? One hundred and eighty-five years ago this month Jean Calas, a French merchant, was broken on the wheel by court order because his son had committed suicide. The father was held responsible because the boy had been made despondent by parental objection to certain of his desires. Breaking on the wheel was a form of execu- tion in use in France and Germany until about a century ago. The victim was placed on a wheel, his legs and arms stretched out and his bones broken one by one with an fron bar as the wheel turned. The story of the execution of Jean Calas is shocking to our 1947 minds. But is it any more shocking than the sentence of death in the electric chair imposed on a 16-year-old boy by an Ohio court at Youngstown the other day? A companion, also 16, was sen- tenced to life imprisonment. They had killed a salesman with whom they had hitchhiked a ride in an attempt to steal his car. The evidence offered in the trial showed that parental neglect, as well as neglect by society generally, helped put these boys on the road to prison and the electric chair. Yet, they alone are being required to pay the penalty. There !s no condoning the action of these two boys. They should be required to pay a just penalty for their crime. The courts have been guilty of much sloppy sentimentalism toward the criminal. Some- times there appeared to be more concern over the wrongdoer than for his victim. Juvenile criminals especially have got off too easily. A reversal of this attitude is overdue. But is it right that a couple of 16-year-olds should be among the first to feel the full weight of a sterner, tougher, less emotional brand of justice? APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Statement to Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare by the American Institute of Architects on March 4, 1947 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FREDERICK A. MUHLENBERG OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. MUHLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, because architects are representatives of professional men who direct much com- mercia] activity, partly themselves, partly through subordinates; because many of these subordinates have been approached by union organizers; because a few so-called unions, actually societies or groups already formed by their em- ployees have been solicited by national union organizations with a view to ap- plication which would eventually lead to their representation by nonprofessiona] officers of the unions it seems important to extend in the Recorp testimony given before the Labor and Public Welfare Committee of the senior body March 4, 1947, by an official representative of the American Institute of Architects. The statement follows: The American Institute of Architects is the only national organization representing the profession of architecture. It includes within its organization 77 chapters, 11 State associations, and 6 State organizations, rep- resenting every part of the United States and its possessions. It is therefore competent to express the opinion of the profession as a whole. We are honored to appear before your committee with representatives of the engineering professions. We would like to make some observations on the nature of the architect and of his services. Architecture is a profession. Its sole product is professional service. The same is true of other professions. This service with architects takes the tangible forms of drawings and specifications, which frequently are erroneously termed “blue- prints.” The average architectural office is con- ducted on a basis not customarily found in business or commercial enterprises. The architect principal generally engages younger men whom he trains and who, in normal times, stay with him over a period of years, increasing their earning power and assum- ing a continually more responsible position in the employer’s office. Many of them be- come architects or principals themselves. Personal understanding and freedom from restraint are characteristic of the relation- ship between employer and employee in the offices. In order to continue to render an ever- increasing service to the general economy, the architect's activities have expanded, and, with the increasing of governmental acts and regulations covering all fields of endeavor, professional men find themselves coming within the scope of some of the characteris- tics of a commercial enterprise. However, the basic patterns of professional service, characteristic of both employer and em- ployee, do not lend themselves altogether to the same formula or standards which maintain in commercial and industrial enterprises. For instance, the work of the architect and office employee cannot be governed on a quantitative basis, The standards thet ap-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ply to the production of materials cannot be adopted for use in the professional office. No standard could be established as to the number of drawings a draftsman should pro- duce each day or of the number of pages of specifications he should write, or the num- ber of items he should supervise in the field. Service rendered by the employee is like that of the employer, essentially intellectual and varied in character. Creative ability, orig- inality, and individual talent are important in nearly every individual in the architec- tural profession and cannot be measured on & quantitative basis. Regimentation of those qualities is impossible. It is also found that the daily work and duties of the employer and employee overlap. An employer, for instance, may often work beside his own men, doing the same work as they do. He often requires the employee to take over some of his duties, such as, confer- ences with clients and supervision of con- struction. An assignment of definite duties is not practical. Only the individual office can determine for itself how it can best ren- der its particular service to the client. You may question why we are uppeuring before your committee. You may wonder if we, as professional men, are facing the prob- lems which we know many of your other wit- nesses have reviewed for you. We assure you that, in a sense, we are facing many of those problems, both directly and indirectly. We have u comprehensive interest in the matter before your committee. This interest takes on two general aspects. The first might be called “indirect interest.” We, as architects, are an element of the construction industry, which industry in it- self constitutes some 12 percent of the total national economy. In that industry, our profession is, numerically speaking. small. Our importance in the industry is not pro- portionate to our relatively small number. It is due to our study and our solution of bullditng problems that our country takes on the appearance which it constantly assumes. Through the initiative of the design element, projects often receive their first incentive. We are interested in seeing the plans which we engage upon result in finished products. We are interested in promoting general wel- fare and progress. We plan for the realiza- tion of thut objective. We are, therefore, affected by any labor disturbances in the construction industry. As the industry itself rises and falls so do our activities, and so does the welfare of those who are em- ployed by us. We feel we have a very great interest in the proper solution of labor prob- lems in the construction field. The other phase of our interest may be cited as “direct interest”; and this, in turn, resolves itself into two aspects. The first of these is our consideration for those mem- bers of our profession who may themselves be members of units organized for the pur- pose of collective bargaining. We doubt if there are many architects found in this category. However, regardless of the num- ber of our men who may find themselves in unions, the principle remains the same, and our concern is as great. There are some architects on salaries in corporations, and we may assume that a number of them are members of collective bargaining units. There are also many architects in direct Government employ, not only Federal, but also State and municipal as well. Probably many of these architects belong to collective bargaining units made up of governmental employees. For these men who are members of our profession, we wish to see established three conditions affecting their lives and their welfare. Let us observe at this point that we recog- nize the right of any group of citizens of the United States to form themselves into units for the purpose of collective bargaining. We do not seek to deny the right to do so. We do not seek to make the assertion of that right cause for discrimination. We urge, first of all, that no professional employee should be forced, against his desire, to join a labor organization as a condition of employment. It seems to us that the foregoing is a simple corollary of the estub- lished right of organizing for collective bargaining. As a second condition, we ask that no pro- fessional collective-bargaining group ever, at any time, be forced to affiliate itself with a nonprofessional labor organization. The de- termination of affiliation should be left en- tirely with the professional group. We know, by the very nature of the architects, that they would not willingly lend themselves to direction by nonprofessional organizers or officers. We hesitate to make the follow- ing assertion, which is that anyone who is engagea in architectural work is generally found to be of a progressive and of an in- tellectual turn of mind. However, it must be admitted that initiative, talent, and nat- ural inclination are all factors which con- tribute to individual advancement, and are also tactors which lead to the adoption of certain careers which tend to set apart those who embark upon them. The practice of architecture is one of those careers. We feel and we assert that only those who are engaged in such a career are qualified to determine the inward policies for the wel- fare of that career. And, thirdly, we urge that any organiza- tion ot architectural employees must have the right of designating its own representua- tives in discussing matters with employers. Usurpation of this right of representative designation by peop’e outside of the archi- tectural field would serve to prejudice any case against collective barguining in the eyes of the employers. We cannot conceive how anyone without the architectural ranks would have the knowledge and experience necessary to represent intelligently a pro- fessionu’ collective-bargaining unit. The second aspect of our direct interest in the questions before your committee re- lates to the unionization of the employees of the architects themselves. Here, again, you may question our concern; and it may be truthfully said that so far the unionization of the employees of the architects has made little progress, and what there has been is sporadic and isolated. We do not seek to discourage such unionization, as here again the same principle applies. If the employees of the architects wish to form themselves into units for collective bargaining, such 1s their privilege. When it comes to a consideration of union- ization of the employees of the architect, it is our opinion that the same precepts should apply as we have cited before in our argu- ment with respect to those members of our profession who may now be in collective bargaining units. At the risk of repetition, we again cite them, First, no employee in a professional office should be forced, against his desire, to join a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment. Second, should a collective bargaining group be formed in the professional offices, it must not be forced to affiliate itself with a nonprofessional labor organization. Third, the right of the employees in those units to designate thedr own representatives must be strictly observed. We ask for the observance of those three principles in any appropriate legislation which is being considered by this Congress. A887 There Are Lobbyists and Lobbyists EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANK A. MATHEWS, JR. OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursaay, March 6, 1947 Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. Speaker, in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of February 26, 1947, one of our col- leagues, the Honorable Tuomas S. Gor- Don, extended his remarks, including an address by another colleague, Hon. A. J. SaBATH, over Station WTOP, Columbia Broadcasting System, on February 24, 1947, on the subject of lobbyists. On the same program and subject, Col. John Thomas Taylor, national legis- lative director for the American Legion, also spoke, Colonel Taylor's address is such a fine answer to the views of Hon. A. J. SABATH that the Members of the House should have the opportunity to read it. The address of Colonel Taylor follows: Iam a lobbyist and I am proud of it. As the American Legion's national legis- Intive director, I um the lobbyist for 18,C00,- 000 American war veterans. The question is: Do lobbyists serve the public interest? The answer is spelled out clearly in the Constitution of the United States. The urge to live by laws of their own mak- ing inspired the framers of the Constitu- tion to form this Government. The right of every citizen to play a personal part in the creation and administration of those laws remains the basic factor in our demo- cratic structure. It follows, then. that the greater and more personal the participation by individual cit- izens, the nearer we advance in reality to the ideal of American democracy. But physical limitutions enter in. Ob- viously, it is impossible for 140,000,000 Amer- icans to meet personally with their elected lawmakers in Washington. To overcome these barriers of time and distance, organizations like the American Legion employ representatives to keep the Congress informed of their will and opinion on matters of national import. Every legiti- mate lobbyist performs this function. He is the personal agent of the citizens who ab- sorbs their expressed desires, condenses them into one parliamentary package, and reg- isters them with the Congress I submit that this is a valuable service to the public. No less valuable is his service to the Mem- bers OT Congress themselves—a fact which the majority of Congressmen enthusiastically sustain. And why shouldn’t they? It is common knowledge that Congressmen today labor un- der an incredible barrage of distractions. Claimants upon their time and attention render proper discharge of their duties dif- ficult and tedious. How much more trying if not impossible their job would be were it not for those who sign, seal, and deliver the assembled petitions of multitudes of their constituents in digestible form. The American Legion is composed of 3,500,- 000 veterans of two World Wars. United in an organization pledged to service to God and country, it is only natural that they should seek fulfillment of that pledge through specific courses of action. These courses are charted at our annual national
A888 conventions and semiannual meetings of our national executive committee. They embody the will of Legionnaires organized in 16,000 posts in every State of the Nation. There are two ways in which American Legion members could present their opinions to the Congress. First. Each of the 3,600,000 could mail, telephone, or deliver his expressions to his Representatives and Senators in Washington. Second. He could entrust delivery of the expression to his own organization's legisla- tive officials, who testify upon invitation at congressional committee hearings. The American Legion—and I'm sure the American public as well—prefers the latter | procedure. When it Js realized that the alter- native would subject the Nation's lawmakers to such a torrent of attention that they must inevitably founder in utter confusion then I say the American Legion lobby serves the people. Unfortunately all the lobbies operating on Capitol Hill today do not measure up to Legion standards, The legitimacy of some is, at best, questionable. Their motives and means are as contemptible and farcical as the principle of lobbying is exemplary and sound. With the questionable activities of certain groups the American Legion has no patience. These groups are easily recognised. They claim to represent a membership of great size whose only existence is fictional. They em- ploy unethical means to achieve unethical ends. And they remain active today because the Lobbying Act, with which the Seventy- ninth Congress sought to snare them, is too weak. However, these groups are in the minority. To say that they outlaw the profession of lobbying is to say the presence of Communists impugns the American way of government. I am confident the American people sub- acribe to no such measurement. Performance always has been the yardstick for judgment ir America. To the skeptics and political hucksters who hold that lobbying is misapplied I say look to the record. In the years following the First Great War the American Legion created a structure of veterans’ benefits which enabled disabied veterans and the widows and orphans of de- ceased veterans to live decently by human standards. When this structure was demolished by the infamous Economy Act of 1988, the Legion won ite resurrection over two Presidential vetoes. And the righteous anger of Ameri- cans everywhere, appalled at the forced im- poverishment of those who had given limbs and lives for their country, supported the Legion's fight. The American Legion not only conceived but nourished the network of veterans’ hos- pitals which today afford protection and care to veterans who are not able to adequately protect themselves. e The GI bill of rights, which recognizes the readjustment and rehabilitation needs of World War ITI veterans, is an American Legion bill. Establishment of the Veterans’ Adminis- tration itself was a Legion proposal. These are a few of the hundreds of meas- ures on which the American Legion has peti- tioned and won congressional action. Mark them weil. Each has contributed materially to the welfare not of veterans alone but of the entire American citizenry who cherish justice and fair play. If this generation of Americans believes yet, as Lincoln believed, in government by and for, as well as of the people, if the prin- ciple of personal participation in that gov- ernment still prevails, then the American Legion legislative staff serves the public interest. Address ef Gov. James H. Duff, of EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES G. FULTON OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. FOLTON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following address of Gov. James H. Duff before the Pennsyl- vania Manufacturers’ Association, Phil- adeiphia, Pa., Tuesday, February 25, 1947: My friends and fellow Pennsylvanians, on Washington's Birthday, at Princeton, for the second time in less than a month, Secretary of State Marshall found it expedient to forcibly remind the American people that the world is in a perilous situation—a situ- ation dangerous to our national welfare. Not one of us would believe for an instant that a sound, able, far-seeing man like General Marshall would make pronouncements of such character uniess he felt that a vital awakening notice to the American people was imperative. His repeated references to the “long-time dangers to the Nation's se- curity,” and his assertion that “we are seri- ously failing in our attitude toward national problems whose solution will largely deter- mine our future,” logically and inevitably potnt to the necessity of reexamining as well our attitudes on vital problems of the home front. During the war we learned, by re- peated experiences, that in this new world of rapid access and communication the do- mestic front and the foreign front were more often than not inextricably interwoven. Manifestly, therefore, we cannot make the same mistake on the home front after World War II that we did after World War I with- out unpredictable consequences. You will recall after World War I that President Harding became famous for a new word, the word “normalcy.” He repeatedly referred to the time “when everything gets back to normalcy.” From the record we now know that everything never did get back to normalcy. The probabilities are that we will not get back to normalcy in our time, because there is no norm in a revolutionary period, and, whether we realize it or not, we are definitely in a revolutionary period. In appraising our duties, dangers, respon- sibilities, and opportunities for service in this tremendously changing world it is well for us not to be too greatly perturbed over the mere fact that this is a revolutionary epoch. Because it was our own Revolution in 1776 that started a new ferment and a new leaven in the world that has more funda- mentally changed and bettered the course of civilization than any other event in the lang course of history since the close of the Middle Ages. In the light of our national experience, therefore, the disturb:ng situation to us should not be that there is revolution and change in the world. The sobering and ac- tivating thoughts and inquiries should be that we stand alone; why we stand alone; and whether we can continue to stand alone in a world constantly narrowing about us and hedging us in, Of ali the great nations of the world, we are alone in believing that the kind of gov- ernment established here in 1776 and the free-enterprise system and American way of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Mife that have been fostered and developed here under that Government are the best. However, the fact that, of the great na- tions of the world, we are now alone in our way of life, should certainly convince even the moat skeptical among us that our Amer- ican way of life is in a fierce battle for sur- vival. Let us not realize too late the real character of this life-and-death struggle, Otherwise we may arouse ourselves to the seriousness of the situation when the issue has already been determined. The aim of the society visioned by our American Constitution and Bill of Rights was a society where the chief end and em- phasis was placed upon the freedom of the individual and the dignity of tne individual The political philasophy to which such a large part of the world has now succumbed is the very opposite of our own. It is the Pphilcsophy of Kar] Marx, which emphasizes the satisfaction of material wants of the in- dividual and the physica] and economic se- curity of the individual, rather than the freedom of the individual, as the atm of its society. Yet under our form of government and our American way of life the average man, in addition to the blessings of liberty, has enjoyed more material advantages and has had a better condition of well-being and eco- nomic security in the United States than the average man anywhere under any form of government in the whole history of civili- vation. Nevertheless it must now be clear to all of us that tf we are to evaluate our future on the basis of sober judgment, whatever our own appraisal of our American way of life, we can no longer assume that it is safe or that it stands unchallenged in the world of today. In determining our future course we should analyze both the form and substance of the government and of the way of life that have made America the best place in the world. In evaluating our chances for survival we must not forget that the government es- tablished here in America in 1776 was estab- lished on the basis of a rural and agrarian economy, while the vast and complex prob- lems of today arise out of an economy that has become in the main both urban and industrial. Then we had a small population of only a few million along the eastern sea- board. Today we have spread out over a vast continent and have multiplied to a great people of more than 140,000,000. One of the distinguishing features of our Government, known the world over as the American type of government, was the policy of responsibility at the local level. In other words, government by home ruje. In such government the benefit and ability of all the able men in every community and the various States and commonwealths are avaii- able to the people instead of merely the few at the top in a centralized government. The early determination in America of establishing responsibility in government at the local level has been adhered to strictly until recent years. But since the great de- pression there has been a noticeable and disturbing change, a tendency to be more dependent upon the central government to do things for the local communities. In all the various capitals of the States and com- monwealths, as well as at the Federal Capital at Washington, various groups keep com- ing to the Central Government to request aid from the Central Government to make the local government work; especially that there may be funds provided by the Central Government in order to eliminate the neces- sity for taxation in the local districts for cer- tain essential local functions. It is clear that if local levels of government insist on coming to the Central Government every
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD time they need additional funds it is only reasonable to expect that the Central Gov- ernment, in furnishing those funds, will in- sist upon a constantly wider and larger measure of control of the local situation. This process in effect channels everything to the top, thereby making it easier, if the time should come, for the central govern- ment to make a set-up controlling the whole situation, both at the state and local levels. That is the exact antithesis of what ought to be the tendency and policy if we are to maintain the American way of life at a time when it is challenged everywhere in the world. There are, of course, certain functions that of necessity ought to be performed by the central government. But in the various crises affecting local communities those problems ought to be solved in the greatest degree possible on the basis of local commu- nity action, and by local levels of government rather than by developing and strengthen- ing the central authority in government. There are so many things that would be done differently if all the people in the local community knew about them. When serv- ices are performed by the Central Govern- ment, the local community knows nothing of the details, method of their accomplish- ment, or their cost. In this period of challenge and threat, I feel that it will also be generally accepted that we cannot continue in America to main- tain our historic attitude with respect to the maintenance of our national defense. We have been fortunate that we have never lost a war. In the past we have been impressed by the ability and the iron might of the average citizen to rise in arms whenever danger threatened and repel any character of invasion. That attitude was in part jJus- tifled by the fact that we were bounded by two oceans and by two friendly and non- military neighbors on our other borders. But in this age of atomic energy, when one bomb may destroy a city, our future policy must be based on a long period of prepara- tion. Nor can we longer rely upon a great buffer nation to rise between us and our ene- my before we are put to the test. In World War I we had the French. Thereafter the French nation had so deteriorated, as the result of the tremendous impact of that struggle, that it was scarcely an obstacle in the path of Germany in the last war. In other words they were exhausted because they had been the buffer in World War I. In World War II England occupied the position that France did in World War I. England was the buffer against the onslaught in the last war until the rest of the world aroused itself to the fact that it was their struggle as well as England's. England's situation today is somewhat sim- ilar to that of France after World War I: they exhausted their manpower and economy in the tremendous sacrifices and difficulties of the struggle. In view of the threat of the tremendous production that is now being realized in Russia, America must accept the challenge of the new events in the world. We must accept the further challenge of the ideologi- cai contest between those who believe in se- curity and those who believe in liberty. We must arouse ourselves to the sobering fact that irrespective of what our determination may be, irrespective of what our potential production may be, it will not be our poten- tial production but our actual] production that will determine our ability to stand up and survive in the event of a further world- wide struggle. It is clear, therefore, that it is imperative for us to reorient our thinking: to bring ourselves to the realization that if in Amer- ica we are to be strong, if we are to be free and independent, if we are to do and stand for the things that we have done and stood for in the past, we must retain and main- tain our power of production. If we are to maintain that production on @ scale necessary to preserve our way of life from danger, it can only be maintained on an entirely different basis and on an entirely different understanding between labor and management than what has obtained in the immediate past. There have been times in America when management has engineered the making of laws and made an economic set-up decidedly unfavorable to labor. And there have been times when a like situation has been made effective at the instance of labor. But the time has come in the dan- gerous situation in which we find ourselves when the various segments of management and labor cannot continuously be at odds. In the existing crisis management, labor, and other parties in the community must join and play on the same team if we are to pre- serve the American way of life. They must join together with all the other good forces in the community in accepting the challenge and in doing the things that only a united America can do in order to preserve our position. Management and labor relations must not be a one-way strect for either management or labor. The time has come when the secu- rity of the Nation demands that we must have two-way traffic on a two-way street. The mandate of the people at the last elec- tion was to take the kinks out of the ma- chinery that interfered with the normal operation of the American way of life. That means mutual give and take, forbearance, and cooperation between all forces in order to make the vitally necessary readjustment from war to peace that has been so unsatis- factorily delayed in this, one of the most critical periods of our history. Therefore, gentlemen, I feel the time has come when we must accept the responsibility of making some all-important determina- tions. We must decide whether or not we will build ourselves up to our maximum strength at a time when it may be more im- portant than ever in our history that we be strong; or whether we are willing to go into this battle of survival handicapped by the restrictive influences of those things that have developed in our national life that are not for the common benefit and that are urgently demanding correction. Therefore, it is up to us who sincerely believe in the American way of life, who vision in it the hope and haven of mankind for the future, to reexamine our way of life in all its functions and attributes to the end that we may correct and eliminate those things that are in need of correction and elimination. We must be willing to make such sacrifices of our interests, pecuniary or otherwise, as are definitely necessary to be made for the public interest. We must do this just as freely, unselfishly and willingly as did those in the armed forces of our country in times of national crisis, who were willing to give and hazard all they had. Finally in the determination of all the social and economic phases of what we will be required to do at Harrisburg, and at the various other capitals of the States, and at Washington, we must have a less political and a more American attitude with reference to the solution of these problems, if we are to be able to come to the right conclusion in a struggle that may well prove to be the most important struggle, both domestically and on foreign fields, that the American people have ever been obliged to undertake. If we approach the solution of these prob- lems, not in the attitude of partisans, but as Americans, and if we approach them patri- otically and unselfishly, and only if we do, can we give, with assurance, an answer to the disturbing question; What of tomorrow in America? A889 Self-Help in Germany EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALBERT L. REEVES, JR. OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. REEVES. Mr. Speaker, the re- cent survey and report of Herbert Hoover upon conditions in Germany, made at the request of the President, presents a sharp challenge to the United States. In the eyes of the rest of the world our stature will be measured by the intelli- gence and decisiveness with which we ap- lait this critica] international prob- em. The most penetrating and constructive analysis of the situation which I have read is contained in an editorial which appeared in the Kansas City Star on February 28. I include it in my remarks at this point and commend it to the thoughtful reading of all Members of the House: A PLAN FOR SELF-HELP IN GERMANY Herbert Hoover's report to President Tru- man on his recent mission to Germany has presented the plight of the German people with photographic clearness. It has also brought sharply home to this country's tax- payers the expensive futility of the present policy of doling out inadequate food sup- plies to the suffering populations of the British and American zones. And it has offered a constructive plan for eventually making these two areas something other than a permanent slum grudgingly sup- ported by the occupying powers. The former President's report covers food and agriculture conditions in both the Brit- ish and American zones since they are now being administered as an economic unit. A total of 41,685,000 persons are listed as living in these two occupied sections Only about one-fourth of them, comprising farm fami- lies, children under 6 years old, and a relative- ly small group of child-bearing women, were found to be getting enough nourishment. The others cither are undernourished and in poor health or are at the fringes of starva- tion. Thus the joint effort to sustain human life and health in Germany is considerably short of being effective. And yet Mr. Hoover esti- mates the United States contribution to this relief program at $192,000,000 for the first 6 months of this year. Some improvement in Germany's food pro- duction is expected this year. Mr. Hoover also points the way to still larger harvests next year if shipments of seed and fertilizer are increased. He recommends that a larger amount of the estimated $283,500,000 to be spent by the United States for Germany's sustenance in the 1947-48 fiscal year be ear- marked for growing potatoes and other crops. Over a period of years greater emphasis on rebuilding German agriculture would be al- most certain to yleld large savings to this country. Mr. Hoover also recommends that shipping costs be cut down by permitting German crews to operate some of the American- and British-owned ships now carrying food and other supplies to Germany. He also favors using the fish surpluses of Scandinavian countries and making boats available to Ger- mans s0 they can resume fishing for them- selves. Probably the most important recom- mendation by Mr. Hoover along this line is that maximum use be made of Germany's potential capacity for manufacturing export goods.
A&90 Application of the measures urged by Mr. Hoover would mean moving away from the attitude that to prevent future German aggression it is essential that the nation's economy be left in ruins. It would mean helping the former enemy state to start pay- ing for part of its keep. And, according to the Hoover viewpoint, it might enable Ger- many some day to repay the money now being spent by Americans and the British to keep German citizens alive. The Hoover plan is a design for giving the people of at least two German gones the strength to work and the ability to feed themselves. Putting it into effect should be possible without impairing the aim of the Allied Nations to prevent for all time the revival of military power and war-making spirit in Germany. It should contribute to prospects for lasting peace instead of weak- ening them. For starvation and hopeless- ness are barren grounds for planting the seeds of world peace. Letter of Lewis H. Oehlert, of Fargo, N. Dak. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES R. ROBERTSON OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Speaker, I particularly wish to address myself to- day to the Republican Members of both Houses of Congress and to remind them of the responsibility that rests upon their shoulders resulting from the last election. The people of the United States have re- turned us to power todo a job. We must not failthem. Otherwise, we cannot ex- pect to remain permanently in control of the Coneress. Perhaps not in many years have men of good repute been inclined to speak so forthrightly as they are doing today on some of the questions that now confront this Congress. Particularly is that true on the question of labor legislation, on the question of destruction of free enter- prise by monopolies, and on the impor- tant question of balancing the budget and cutting the national expense. Under unanimous consent, I include herewith a letter forthrightly written by one of the distinguished attorneys, Mr. Lewis H. Oehlert, of the firm of Nilles, Oehlert & Nilles, Fargo, N. Dak.: Farco, N. Dax., February 28, 1947. Hon, Cusrg.tes R. ROBERTSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN ROBERTSON: I take this opportunity to address ou on the proposi- tion of what I call modern despotism in America. I refer to the task of emancipat- ing the workers from the involuntary servi- tude of the closed-shop contract and the co- ercion of mass picketing. The Republicans are in control of both Houses of Congress, and I think you fellows in Congress must realize that the main reason you have such majority contro] is because of the excesses and abuses of labor-union leadership. In other words, the Republicans were returned to authority in Congress primarily because the American people were fed up with the abuses of labor-unton leadership. I have great faith in the ordinary working American and the members of unions, but, frankly, I have little, if any, faith in most of the lead- ership of labor unions, The recent spectacle surrounding the ooal strike, as well as the spectacle surrounding the railroad strike should make it appare.:t to all Americans that labor-union leadership has assumed the same dictatorial methods and monopolistic practices as were engaged in by Hitler and Mussolini, and probably Stalin. There is for the moment a sort of labor truce in America. There Is no doubt in my mind that labor-union leaders are withholding strikes until they can size up the amount of courage there is in the Republican Party in Congress. You may have seen what our own North Dakota Legislature is doing on these labor-union leader abuses. I respect- fully submit that you Republicans in Con- gress should take hold of this situation and write a good, fair, and reasonable piece of legislation which will correct the abuses in the labor-union movement. In that connec- tion we respectfully urge you to read the provisions of H. R. 151 and H. R. 160 pres- ently before our North Dckota Legislature. Both of these bills have alzveady passed the house of representatives and are presently under consideration by the senate, where al] of us expect the same td pass. The American people face a business re- cession unless prices and wages can be ad- justed. I am not against the labor-unlon movement and the right of the workers to strike and picket where they have an cm- ployer that is unreasonable and is not fair to them. The trouble is that today labor- union leadership has become more despotic and monopolistic than the abuses of man- agement ever were, and it is time that the Rapublicans in Congrese take the mandate that was handed to them by the people in the last fall election and do something about it. If you don’t, then I submit that you are not fulfilling the duty that the great ma- jority of the Americans expected of the majority of Republicans in Congress. Unless there is some stab#ity in the labor situation, which many of the proposed laws are de- signed to bring about through removal of impediments to production and abuses of the power of labor-union leadership, the eco- nomic situation will grow worse instead of better. So long as mob rule prevails in labor disputes there can be no real plan by man- agement, and the free-enterprise system be- comes a mockery, for what we have then is a dictatorship by labor-union leadership who regard themselves as above the law. Con- gress must meet this challenge or the Amer- ican people will put other men in Congress who will meet the challenge. This is still America, where the right of the individual is protected from the interests of any selfish well-organized minority. I trust that you will accept the above com- ments in the spirit in which they are written, as I thought perhars you would like to know what some of us fellows in North Dakota are thinking. You well know that I am not a politician, but I am intensely American and I will speak my views to the best of my ability whenever I think something ulterior is striking at the heart of our bsloved America. Yours very sincerely, Lewis H. | Economy Begins at Home EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. HARRY McGREGOR OF ONIO IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD orp, I wish to include the following edi- torial which appeared in the New York World-Telegram on Saturday, March 1, 1947; ¢ ECONOMY BEGINS AT HOME Representative J. Harry McGereaor, Re- publican, of Ohio, suggests that this is no time for the Government to spend money on new post offices and other Federal building projects that aren't in the emergency class. He's right about thet. Building costs are high. Building material and labor are scerce, and badly needed for housing And the Republican Party, of which he is a member, has promised to reduce Federal spending. Mr. McGrecor, as choirman of the H:use Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, says he's going to call for a list of proposed projects and attempt to post- pone those that don't qualify as emergency. You couldn't find many Members of Con- gress, in either party, willing to stand up and defend the proposition that all projected Federal building should go forward right now. But there will be plenty to contend that exceptions should be made for projects in their particular districts or States. We hope, however, that Mr. McGarrcor will pu’ up a valiant fight. It will be enlighten- ing to see how many Senators and Repre- sentatives who shout for Government econo- my are willing to practice it on their home grounds. Protect American Fishermen EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALVIN F. WEICHEL OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 28, 1947 Mr. WEICHEL. Mr. Speaker, the so- called reciprocal-trade treaties have pro- duced nothing but a lowering of tariffs, thereby permitting the free flow of cheaply made foreign goods to this coun- try. This ts in direct competition with the American workman and would tend to lower his standard of living. In ad- dition to the products made by low-cost foreign labor we are now confronted with the importation of fish from foreign countries. The cost of labor is so low that the American fisherman could not live on the wages paid for the production of foreign fish which are coming into the United States. The tariff is so low and under existing treaties is not raised high enough to protect American workers who are engaged in the fishing industry. I am including a statement covering the matter of fish tariffs in which it says: The urgent need for adequate tariff pro- tection against the growing influx of foreign fish importations was conclusively shown by the fAshing industry at hearings in Wash- ington on January 28-30 before the Commit- tee for Reciprocity Information. Over 150 industry spokesmen and labor- union officials, representing fishermen, boat owners, processors and packers on the At- lantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts, testified at the hearings, which were reported to have had the largest attendance of any industry appearing before the committee. Also pres- ent were numerous Senators and Congress- men who went on record in favor of more effective import regulations. . The hearing was called in connection with the forthcoming reciprocal trade-agreement negotiations with 18 foreign countries, in- cluding Canada, Norway, and the United
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Kingdom. The Reciprocity Committee in- cludes representatives of the Departments of State, Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, War, Navy, and of the Tariff Commission. Under the Trade Agreements Act the President is authorized to reduce or increase tariffs by 60 percent during trade negotiations. The delegation from New England, which section already is feeling the effects of the growing imports of frozen fillets, voiced its Opposition to any reduction in present tariff rates and requested a substantial increase. It was pointed out that even increasing the rate by the allowable 50 percent would not offset the difference in costs between this country and foreign producers of fillets. Southern crab-meat canners urged contin- uation of the 22'4-percent tariff on imported crab meat to protect their rapidly growing industry. This rate, placed in effect in 1941, is 50 percent over the 1930 duty. Because of wartime restrictions, crab-meat canners have not yet had an opportunity to fully capitalize on the technical knowledge they have gained. In connection with crab meat, it is inter- esting to find that the U.S. Commercial Com- pany, a subsidiary of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, recently announced that it will sell 31,000 cases of Japanese crab meat on a sealed-bid basis. Fears have heen expressed that the sale of this crab meat may demoralize the domestic market. It will be recalled that this country sent a mission of fishery experts to Japan to assist in the re- habilitation of the fisheries to produce food needed for consumption in Japan. Despite the fact that Japan’s production is estimated even now to be less than one-half prewar, Japan is exporting crab meat to this country Maine sardine canners asked that the pres- ent tariff on sardines be continued, stating that any reduction would mean the loss of their business to Canada because of the fact that the Canadian wage scale is only 60 per- cent of that in Maine. : Total {mports of ground fish fillets (cod, hake, haddock, cusk, pollock, and rosefish) from Canada, Newfoundland and Iceland. have grown from 9,426,000 pounds in 1939 to an estimated 62,000,000 pounds in 1946. In 1989, the imports were equivalent to about 10 percent of the New England ground fish fillet output, but by 1945 they had climbed to 82 percent of New England's ground fish fillet production. New England produces 43 percent of this country’s production of fish sold fresh or frozen, and practically all of the cod, hake, haddock, pollock, cusk, and rosefish. Cold-storage holdings of frozen fishery products in the United States renched record quantities during the past year. On January 1, 1947, they totaled 162,000,000 pounds com- pared to a 5-year average of 109,000,000. In 1989, the highest amount in storage was 92,000,000 pounds. It will be seen that the difference between the present holdings and the 5-year average is nearly equivalent to the 1946 importations of frozen fillets. The present duties on fresh and frozen ground fish fillets, which have been in effect since 1939, are 1% cents per pound on im- ports of 15,000,000 pounds or 15 percent of the average annual domestic consumption during the three preceding years, and 21 cents per pound on imports over this amount. Last year approximately 20,000,000 pounds of fillets were imported from Canada under the 15 percent quota, dutiable at 1% cents per pound, while the balance of imports to- taling approximately 32,000,000 pounds came in at the 2% cents per pound duty rate, indicating that the present tariff duties are no deterrent against increased imports of frozen fillets. . In 1939, the ad valorem equivalent of the 1% cent tariff rate applying to imports rep- resented 24.7 percent of the value of ground fish fillets f. o. b. country of export. In 1945, the ad valorem equivalents of the 1%-cent rate under the quota and the 2'4-cent rate above the quota were respectively 9.8 percent and 12.4 percent of the value. While the tariff rate established in the 1939 trade agreement may have been considered fair in relation to the value of ground fish fillets imported at that time, certainly no such re- lation exists now, and has not since 1943. In 1939, the average price paid fishermen for ground fish (cod, hake, haddock, cusk, pollock, rosefish) in the United States was 2.104 cents per pound; in Canada, 1.188 cents; in Newfoundland, 1.25 cents; and in Iceland, 0.9257 cents per pound. . The average 1946 price paid for the above species of ground fish at New England ports was 6.038 cents per pound. In Canada, the uverage 1946 price for ground fish, principally cod and haddock, was 3.50 cents per pound. Using an average price of 7.25 cents per pound which prevailed for cod and haddock in New England during 1946, and allowing an average yield of fillets from whale fish as landed at 40 percent, in 1946 one pound of rough fillets cost processors in the United States 18.12 cents and in Canada 8.75 cents. These prices do not allow for packaging and freezing. In 1939, the corresponding costs to proc- essors were 5.264 cents in the United States and 2.97 cents in Canada. At the 1939 cost of rough fillets, Canadian processors could pay the 1.875 cents ‘duty then applying and have un initial advantage of 0.419 cent per pound, but in 1946 this spread had increased to 7.495 cents. Up to this time the bulk of frozen fillet imports has consisted of cod fillets, although there is every indication that fillets of other species will be imported in increasing quan- tities. In 1939 the imports of cod fillets were 5,000,000 pounds, and the domestic pro- duction was 19,000,000 pounds. By 1945 the imports had increased to 37,000,000 pounds, but domestic production tn that year was only 34,000,600 pounds. In terms of United States consumption of cod fillets, the 1m- ports actually supplied 21 percent in 1939 and 52 percent in 1945. In the first 10 months of 1946, the United States produc- tion was 10,000,000 pounds, and imports were 38,000,000, or 79 percent of United States con- sumption. Through direct lend-lease in some cases and through indirect lend-lease via Eng- land, immense fishing, filleting, and freez- ing industries have been set up in Canada, Newfoundland, and Iceland. These indus- tries have been, or are, in the process of being turned over to private operators. With the aid of their local government subsidies, they are being geared to hurdle all trade barriers, Their ability to flood the American market with cod fillets is the outgrowth of wartime expansion in those fisheries designed to feed England. Starting with negligtbie production be- fore the war, the combined production of Canada, Newfoundland, and Iceland now ex- ceeds 140,000,000 pounds of cod fillets. In 1945 they sent 37,000,000 pounds of cod fillets to the United States and 92,000,000 pounds of cod fillets to England, but now England has notified them that she will stop import- ing because the British fishery, with gov- ernment aid, is building up a fleet of suffi- cient size to provide England with all of its needs of cod fillets. England's trawler fleet is now 25 percent larger than prewar and still building, while Canada has increased its fishing fleets sub- stantially. Iceland has 80 new steam trawlers on order from Great Britain and is building about 100 motor vessels from 35 to 85 tons. The government of the Province of Quebec operates in the Province 37 cold-storage plants. Storage capacity ranges from 80,000 to 1,000,000 pounds, Until 1943 the govern- ment operated these plants as a special serv- ice with no direct charge whatever to the fishermen or the packers. Since then there has been a smell freezing and storage charge. A891 There are 62 freezers and cold-storage ware- houses in Iceland, with a total capacity of over 37,000,000 pounds and a daily production capacity of 1,387,000 pounds. Four new fil- leting and freezing plants began operating this season, and construction continued on a government-owned plant. It is expected that Norway will sell 20,000,000 pounds of frozen fillets in the United States in 1947. That country has 12 modern German -built freezing and cold-stor- age plants and plans to construct 3 more. Newfoundland has 17 freezing and cold- storage plants operating. The government recently declared its intention to assist in the further development of the frozen-fish indus- try by an investment of $4,000,000. In 1919, Newfoundland exported only 46,000 pounds of fillets to this country, and Iceland only 12,000 pounds. By 1945, these figures jumped to practically four million and one und one-half million respectively, while Canadian exports to the United States in- creased 300 pereent to thirty-eight million. Formerly the exports of these countries consisted mainly of salt fish, much of which was sold to Europe. Now these countries are sending the products of their war-developed frozen-fish industry to the United States where they have the advantage of attractive prices and an established market for fillets. Meanwhile European countries are badly in need of food. Wita the high living standards and wages which this country has encouraged, and without the benefit of subsidies, we cannot compete with other countries on an equi- vable basis unless we have tariffs that are sufficiently high to offset the differences in labor and production costs. The evidence presented at the Washington hearing clearly demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the pres- ent tariffs on frozen fish, and indicated the need for giving greater protection to our fishing industry. Los Angeles County and How It Grows EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GORDON L. McDONOUGH OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Speaker, Los Angeles County today has one of the most critical housing shortages in the United States. Our veterans are un- able to find adequate housing, and con- struction of emergency housing units and other housing facilities has failed to bring more than partial relief. The increased population in the Los Angeles area has caused this acute hous- ing shortage as well as other serious problems including extreme traffic con- gestion. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times provides facts and figures con- cerning these problems in Los Angeles County, and I want to recommend it to the attention of the Members of the House: LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND HOW IT GROWS Two questions usually puzzle visitors to Los Angeles: First, why is the housing short- age so acute here? and, second, what makes the traffic congestion so fearful? To both we now receive some very plain and simple answers. By April 1, the regional planning commis- sion reports, Los Angeles County will have
A892 a record population of 8,747,062, or almost a million more people than resided here in 1940. They will live in 1,197,898 dwelling unitea—homes, apartments, trailers, quonset huts, and motels. Seven years ago the 2,785,643 residents of Los Angeles County occupied 961,641 dwelling units. Percent- agewise our population has bounded upward about 82 percent. Places of residence have increased less than 25 percent. At the pres- ent pace we are growing faster than the rate of dwelling construction, and no one can safely predict when our population will begin to level off. The State department of motor vehicles supplies the reason for the community's traffic mess. Of the 3,442,051 automobiles registered in California in 1946, more than one-third of them—1,411,831—were in Los Angeles County. This is approximately 25 percent more than in 1940, and it represents a vehicle for about every three people. The National average is one for every four and six-tenths people. This county is only beginning its tremen- dous growth. That we must bend to the task of building bomes for the new citizens and highways for their automobiles is obvious. Los Angeles County Floed Control Vitally Important EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GORDON L. McDONOUGH OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday. March 6, 1947 Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr, Speaker, by April 1, the regional pjanning commis- sion reports, Los Angeles County will have a record population of 3,747,962 or almost a million more people than re- sided there in 1940. While population has increased 32 percent, places of resi- dence have increased less than 25 per- cent. The population is still increasing with no indication that it will begin to level off in the near future, construction of dwellings continues to lag, and the housing shortage remains critical. As a result of this serious situation, the flood-control problem in Los Angeles County must receive immediate consid- eration. In the past floods have caused serious damage, disrupting traffic for days, breaking communication lines, in- undating homes, and causing needless loss of life. In some areas flood-control dams have been constructed giving a measure of protection to limited residential and commercial areas. But present flood control is wholly inadequate, and in- creased population has increased the hazard to densely populated areas. The Federal flood-control program in Los Angeles County should be continued to completion. Additional flood control would safeguard vast residential areas as well as industrial and commercial areas and port and harbor facilities of Los Angeles which are of national im- portance. Furthermore, it would open up new areas for development which are badly needed now for the housing of vet- erans and their families. I urge the Members of the House to appropriate sufficient funds to carry out the Federal flood-control program and to provide that a just and proportionate share of such appropriation be allocated for flood-control improvements in Los Angeles County. The board of supervisors of Los An- geles County has passed a resolution con- cerning the urgent need for the comple- tion of the Federal flood-contro] program as follows: In re flood control: Resolution memorializing Congress to appropriate funds heretofore authorized for construction work in water- sheds of Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Baliona Creek On motion of Supervisor Smith, unani- mously carried, it is ordered that the follow- ing resolution be and the same is hereby adopted: “Whereas the Flood Control Act of 1941, known as Public, No. 228, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, approved August 18, 1941, authorized the construction of certain flood-control improvements on the water- sheds of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers and Ballona Creek, in Los Angeles County, at an estimated cost to the United States in excess of $163,000,000; and “Whereas Congress has authorized for ap- propriation the sum of 675,000,000 to inittate the construction of said improvements; and “Whereas there is immediate and urgent need for the construction of said improve- ments at the earliest possible date in order to provide flood protection to life and prop- erty in Los Angeles County, and to permit the development of large residential and com- mercial areas within the county, which de- ve‘opment is so badly needed at the present time to properly house our veterans and their families; and “Whereas recent past appropriations for flood-control improvements in Los Angeles County are far too small to adequately and properly carry on this program and are far from commensurate with the extreme need for flood protection in this county as war- ranted by the existing hazard to densely pop- ulated areas, to industrial and commercial areas, and to port and harbor facilities of national importance: and “Whereas in order to be effective and to assure the continued prosperity and growth of Los Angeles County, the Federal flood- control program should be immediately prosecuted and consummated within a period of not exceeding 15 years: Now, therefore, be it “Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County and ez officio the Board of 8u; 8 of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, That the United States Congress be respectfully urged and requested to: “1, Provide that a just and proportionate share of all flood-control appropriations be allocated for improvements in Los Angeles County, taking into full consideration the basic need, the population affected, the reve- nue-producing importance to the Nation, and the existing authorizations: “2. Appropriate sufficient flood-control funds at this session of Congress that tr> Los Angeles County flood-contro] improve- ments heretofore approved can be immedi- ately resumed and completed in not over 15 years; and be it further “Resolved, That copies of this resolution be filed with each member of the Los Angeles County congressional delegation, the chair- man of the Senate Appropriations Commit- tee, the chairman of the House Appropria- tions Committee, and the chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Flood Control Com- mittee.” APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles on the 25th day of February 1947. [SEAL] J. F. Moaoney, County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and Ex Officio Clerk of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. By Ray E. Lez, Deputy. The Situation in Greece EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JACOB K. JAVITS OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, a true understanding of the epochal decision we are about to make on the role of the United States in bringing about a peaceful and prosperous world requires the deepest study and thought of all Members. The following editorial from the New York Herald Tribune of March 6, 1947, is a significant contribution to such thinking. The destiny of our country is great, not small, and its value to the world lies in usefulness—not in reluc- tance and prejudice. STRENGTH MUST BE USED It is unfortunate that the immediate crisis in Greece as well as the much larger implica- tions which lie behind it have been presented to the American people in a confusing com- bination of rumors, “leaks” and partial dis- closures, As a result, most of the relevant facts are still missing and the emphasis is gravely distorted. What is unquestionably a direct, though long-term challenge to the bases of American policy is being discussed as if it were a question only of “batling out” the British Empire, of relieving the people of the United Kingdom or even of propping up the somewhat moth-eaten monarchy of Greece. All such considerations ure equally beside the point. If there is anything to be “bailed out” here it is not the British Empire; {t is simply and solely the foreign policy of the United States—in which we already have an investment of some 300,000 lives and $300,000,000,000 or so. If there is anything to be propped up, it is in the first instance the security, the influence, the adequacy of the American system in the world of today. The Greek note appealing to the United States for aid—the only document in the interchange which has as yet been made public—pute the immediate issue in a clearer light. An utterly wrecked and ruined na- tion is asking for the capital goods, for the technical and administrative assistance, for the minima of food, clothing, and seed which will enable it to create the “means for self- support in the future.” Its government is also for the means of “restoring tran- quillity,” which may mean arms and might even mean police assistance; but even if such things are temporarily necessary they are still the least and the least worthy part of the real task—and it is an inspiring task— which here presents itself. That is the task of making free-enterprise democracy possible in Greece (without need for either kings or gendarmerie) by giving the country a viable basis on which to stand and from which to supply the human needs of its people.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In itself that would be a moving challenge, a challenge similar (in some ways, but only in some) to that which this country met nearly 50 years ago when, with unbounded confidence and energy, we accepted the task of bringing the best our system could offer to the people of the Philippine Islands. But this is a question neither of nineteenth cen- tury romantic imperialism nor of a mere altruistic rescue expedition. Greece is one of the decisive points at which the future shape,of the world will be determined. It is a key position, not so much in military as in political and moral strategy. The Soviet Union has a great deal to offer to the peoples of the world. But so has the American Union. Dire poverty, dislocation, uncertainty will take what they can get; they will take the Sovict order and systematization if nothing else Is available, but they will take the demo- cratic freedom and productive power if those things are made real and effective in their lives. Whether or not we can find the confidence and energy to export our freedoms, our skills, our productive power (as Britain once did) will largely determine the next phase of world history and will certainly determine the fate of our own system. The Greek crisis is xd- mittedly only a beginning; a loan of 8259,000,- 000 there wculd not approach the end of the commitments the times may challenge us to make But if we lack the courage or fore- sight even to make the beginning; then the end, for ourselves, will be easily predictable, Strength is given in this world to be used; hoarded, it evaporates. Reduction of Costs of Armed Services EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. HARRY McGREGOR OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr.McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orD, I include the following article by Louis Bromfield: Army, Navy CouLp Trim Costs By CuTTING Out WASTE AND RED TAPE (By Louis Bromfield) In the controversy about the cut affecting the War and Navy Departments in President Truman's proposed budget, there is probably a good deal of truth on both sides, No sensible citizen wishes to cripple our national defenses or weaken our prestige. On the other hand, it is probable that the greater part of the proposed cut could be made up by the overhauling of our armed forces und the introduction of economy, efficiency, and better planning with a corresponding cut in red tape, duplication of effort, and general confusion, In Washington it is well known that both Army and Navy have always asked for much more than they needed in the hope of get- ting what they actually wanted. During the war, when the issue was one of victory, there was no argument, but the war, or at least the active, belligerent part of it, is over, and it is time for Congress and the taxpayer again to impose restraints and ask for accountings. It is doubtful if there will ever be an ac- counting of the cost of waste and inefficiency during the war but the senseless extrava- gance of the War Department in the Trans- American Highway, the Canol project, the wholesale purchase of camp sites and land for arsenal depots, are pretty well established facts. That monstrosity, the Pentagon Building, headquarters of the Army itself, is a notable example of incredible extravagance conceived largely by General Somervell, an ex-WPA administrator. In the Nation there are millions of GI's and sailors who could give dozens of examples of maladministration and waste during the war period Some thousands of officers could contribute their share of testimony. While it is perhaps useless and unprofit- able in general to dig up the past, there are two instances in which investiyations would be useful to the Nation: (1) Investigations having to do with criminal grounds for ac- tion; (2) inefficiency and extravagance tn War and Navy Departments with regard to present budgetary demands, During the war no real accounting was asked for from either Department but the war is over. Even in so-called peaceful times these two Departments function with far too little surveillance. From the tone of their demands, one would gather that both Departments we models of efficiency and economy, an assump- tion which any man in the street hnows ts not truc. The unification plan concocted by these two Departments and :ponsored by President Truman is essentially a phony. The impulse and demand for unification was based upon the ussumption of greater economy, more efficient organization, less red tape, and less duplication of effort. An examination of the propusal reveals that the proposed unification plan does very little toward any of these goals. It serves, like so many bureaucratic New Deal measures in the past, largely to complicate existing conditions and multiply duplications and confusions. It would not create substantial economies; indeed the opposite result misht well be expected. Congress, accepting the plan at first glance, quickly discovered its phony qualities and hus cooled to freezing temperature But beneath all of these facts lies a more important principle--that in a democracy, next to the need of vigilance against enemies, comes the heed of vigilance avainst the ex- travagance and the hunger for power of its armed forces. Under President Roosevelt, vigilance, particularly in the Navy, was re- laxed by the exigencies of war and for per- sonal and sentimental reasons, President Truman suffers from a sentimental xattach- ment to the Army much as President Roose- velt felt for the Navy. The job of surveillance of both agencies lies properly with Congress us the most direct representative of the people and the con- troller of the Nation’s purse. In this case, a ttle investigating might uncover any amount of waste, inefficiency, und duplica- tion of effort. The peril of war to the Nation at the moment is probably much less than the lead- ers of our armed forces would have us be- lieve. The only nation which could possibly menace our security is Russia who, it be- comes clearer and clearer, each day, is in no condition to make war and probably will not be for years to come, Occupation troops and research in weapons against the possibilities of the future are vital, but beyond these two elements there is not much evidence of need for vast appro- priations in a world where, in fact, the Ameri- can Navy has no challenge and where atomic energy, aviation development, and industrial production are all overwhelmingly domi- nated by this Nation. Nations may be weakened economically and politically from within as well as from with~- out. As a nation we have a three hundred billion debt to service and pay off. We have fantastically high taxes which must be re- duced if our economy is to get under way and maintain a level of prosperity. A893 There is nothing sacrosanct about the Army and the Navy. Both would probably save the greater part of the proposed cuts by better management, by real unification and reor- ganization, and by a little simple economy. Perhaps Congress ought to do a little investigating now that the orgy of war spend- ing is over. Address by the President on Receiving Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws EXTENSION OF REMARKS [o) HON. ALBEN W. BARKLEY OF KENTUCKY IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March’? (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. BAHKUEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp the address delivercd yesterday by the President of the United States on the occasion of his acceptance of the honorary degree of doctor of laws from Baylor University, at Waco, Tex. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed as follows: TRUMAN'S ADDRESS CALLING For REDUCTION OF BarRRIERS TO REVIVAL OF WORLD TRADE It is with a rev] sense of gratification that I meet with you today on the beautiful cam- pus of Baylor University in Waco. I con- gratulate you on the outstanding achieve- ments of this great university during the 101 years of its existence. I am sincerely grateful for the degree cf doctor of laws that you have bestowed upon me, and I am honored to become a fellow alumnus of the distinguithed men and women of this insti- tution who have contributed so much to make our country great. At this particular time, the whole world is concentrating much of its thought and energy on attuining the objectives of peace und freedom. These objectives are bound up completely with a third objective—re- establishment of world trade. In fact the three—peace, freedom, and world trade—are inseparable. The grave lessons of the past have proved it. Many of our people, here in America, used to think that we could escape the troubles of the world by simply staying within our own borders. Two wars have shown us how wrong they were. We know today that we cannot find security in tsolation. If we ure to live at peace, we must join with other nations in a continuing effort to organize the world for peace. Science and invention have left us no alternative. RFCALLS LEAGUE OF NATIONS After the First World War the United States proposed a League of Nations, an organiza- tion to maintain order in the world. But when our proposal was accepted and the League was estublished, this country failed to become a member. Can any thoughtful person fail to realize today what that mistake cost this Nation and cost the world? This time we are taking a different course. Our country has taken a leading part in building the United Nations, in setting up its councils, its committees and commissions, and in putting them to work. We are doing everything within our power to foster inter- national cooperation. We have dedicated ourselves to its success. This is not, and it must never be, the policy of a single administration or a single party. It is the policy of all the peopie of
A894 the United States. We, in America, are unanimous in our determination to prevent another war. But some among us do not fully realize what we must do to carry out this policy. There still are those who seem to believe that we can confine our cooperation with other countries to political relationships; that we need not cooperate where economic ques- tions are involved. This attitude has sometimes led to the assertion that there should be bipartisan support for the foreign policy of the United States, but that there need not be bipartisan support for the foreign economic policy of the United States. Such a statement simply dots not make sense. FOREIGN RELATIONS INDIVISIBLE Our foreign relations, political and eco- nomic, are indivisible. We cannot say that we are willing to cooperate in the one field and are unwilling to cooperate in the other. I am glad to note that leaders in both parties have recognized that fact. The members of tke United Nations have renounced aggression as a method of settling their political differences. Instead of putting armies on the march, they have now agreed to sit down around a table and talk things out. In any dispute, each party will present its case. The interests of all will be con- sidered, and a fair and just solution will be found. This is the way of international order. It is the way of a civilized community. It applies, with equal logic, to the settlement of economic differences. Economic conflict is not spectacular—at least in the early stages. But it is always serious. One nation may take action in be- half of its own producers, without notifying other nations, or consulting them, or even considering how they may be affected. It may cut down its purchases of another coun- try's goods, by raising its tariffs or imposing an embargo or a system of quotas on im- ports. And when it does this, some producer in the other country will find the door to his market suddenly slammed and bolted in his face. Or a nation may subsidize its exports, sell- ing its goods abroad below their cost. When this is done, a producer in some other coun- try will find his market flooded with the goods that have been dumped. In either case, the producer gets angry, just as you or I would get angry if such a thing were done to us. Profits disappear; workers are dismissed. The producer feels that he has been wronged, without warning and without reason. He appeals to his gov- ernment for action. His government retali- ates, and another round of tariff boosts, em- bargoes, quotas, and subsidies is under way. This is economic war. In such a war no- body wins. Certainly nobody won the last economic war. As each battle of the economic war of the thirties was fought, the inevitable tragic result became more and more apparent. From the tariff policy of Hawley and Smoot, the world went on to Ottawa and the system of imperial preferences, from Ottawa to the Kind of elaborate and detailed restrictions adopted by NaziGermany. Nations strangled normal trade and discriminated against their neighbors all around the world. MAJOR CAUSE OF DEPRESSION Who among their peoples were the gainers? Not the depositors who lost their savings in the failure of the banks. Not the farmers who lost their farms. Not the millions who walked the streets looking for work. I do not mean to say that economic conflict was the sole cause of the depression. But I do say that it was a major cause. Now, as in the year 1920, we have reached a turning point in history. National econ- omies have been disrupted by the war. The future is uncertain everywhere. Economic policies are in a state of flux. In this at- mosphere of doubt and hesitation, the de- cisive factor will be the type of leadership that the United States gives to the world. We are the giant of the economic world. Whether we like it or not, the future pat- tern of economic relations depends upon us. The world is waiting and watching to see what we shall do. The choice is ours. We can lead the nations to economic peace or we can plunge them into economic war. There must be no question as to our course. We must not go through the thirties again. There is abundant evidence, I think, that these earlier mistakes will not be repeated. We have already made a good start. Our Government has participated fully in setting up, under the United Nations, agencies of in- ternational cooperation for dealing with re- lief and refugees, with food and agriculture, with shipping and aviation, with loans for reconstruction and development, and with the stabilization of currencies. And now, in order to avoid economic warfare, our Gov- ernment has proposed, and others have agreed, that there be set up, within the United Nations, another agency to be con- cerned with problems and policies affecting world trade. This is the international trade organization. FAIR ECONOMIC DEALING This organization would apply to com- * mercial relationships the same principle of fair dealing that the United Nations is ap- plying to political affairs. Instead of re- taining unlimited freedom to commit acts of economic aggression, its members would adopt a code of economic conduct and agree to live according to its rules. Instead of adopting measures that might be harmful to others, withcut warning and without con- sultation, countries would sit down around the table and talk things out. In any dis- pute, each party would present its case. The interest of all would b2 considered, and a fair and just solution.wculd be found. In economics, as in international politics, this is the way to peace. The work of drafting a world-trade charter was begun by the United States. It was carried forward by a preparatory commit- tee of 18 nations meeting in London last fall. It should be completed at a second meeting of this committee in Geneva, beginning on April 10. The progress that has already been made on this project is one of the most hearten- ing developments since the war. If the nations can agree to observe a code of good conduct in international trade, they will cooperate more readily in other interna- tional affairs. Such agreements will pre- vent the bitterness that is engendered by an economic war. It will provide an atmos- phere congenial to the preservation of the peace. As a part of this program, we have asked the other nations of the world to join us in reducing barriers to trade. We have not asked them to remove all barriers. Nor have we ourselves offered to do so. But we have Proposed negotiations directed toward the reduction of tariffs here and abroad, toward the elimination of other restrictive meas- ures and the abandonment of discrimina- tion. These negotiations are to be under- taken at the meeting which opens in Geneva next month. The success of this program is essential to the establishment of the inter- national trade organization, to the effective operation of the International Bank and the monetary fund, and to the strength of the whole United Nations structure of cooper- ation in economic and political affairs. The negotiations et Geneva must not fail. FREEDOM OF ENTERPRISE There is one thing that Americans value even more than peace. It is freedom. Free- dom of worship—freedom of speech—and freedom of enterprise. It must be true that the first two of these freedoms are related APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to the third. For, throughout history, free- dom of worship and freedom of speech have been most frequently enjoyed in those so- cileties that have accorded a considerable measure of freedom to individual enterprise. Freedom has flourished where power has been dispersed. It has languished where power has been too highly centralized. So our devotion to freedom of enterprise, in the United States, has deeper roots than a desire to protect the profits of ownership. It is part and parcel of what we call American. The pattern of international trade that is moet conducive to freedom of enterprise is one in which the major decisions are made, not by governments, but by private buyers and sellers, under conditions of active com- petition, and with proper safeguards against the establishment of monopolies and cartels. Under such a system, buyers make their pur- chases, and sellers make their sales, at what- ever time and place and in whatever quanti- ties they choose, relying for guidance on whatever prices the market may afford. Goods move from country to country in re- sponse to economic opportunities. Govern- ments may impose tariffs, but they do not dictate the quantity of trade, the sources of importe, or the destination of exports. Indi- vidual transactions are a matter of private choice. This is the essence of free enterprise. The pattern of trade that is least conducive to freedom of enterprise is one in which deci- sions are made by governments. Under such a system, the quantity of purchases and sales, the sources of imports and the desti- nation of exports are dictated by public of- ficials. In some cases, trade may be con- ducted by the state. In others, part or all of it may be left in private hands. But, even £0, the trader ts not free. Governments make all the important choices and he adjusts him- self to them as best he can. This was the pattern of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Unless we act, and act decisively, it will be the pattern of the next century. NATIONS UNDER PRESSURE , Everywhere on earth nations are under economic pressure. Countries that were devastated by the war are seeking to recon- struct their industries. Their need to im- port, in the months that lie ahead, will ex- ceed their capacity to export. And so they feel that imports must be rigidly controlled. Countries that have lagged in their devel- opment are seeking to industrialize. In or- der that new industries may be established, they, too, feel that competing imports must be rigidly controlled. Nor is this all. The products of some countries are in great demand. But buyers outside their borders do not hold the money of these countries in quantities large enough to enable them to pay for the goods they want. And they find these moneys difficult to earn. Importing countries, when -they make their purchases, therefore seek to dis- criminate against countries whose currencies they do not possess. Here, again, they feel that imports must be rigidly controlled. One way to cut down on imports is by cur- tailing the freedom of traders to use foreign money to pay for imported goods. But re- course to this device is now limited by the terms of the British loan agreement and the rules of the International Monetary Fund. Another way to cut down on imports is by raising tariffs. But if controls over trade are really to be tight tariffs are not enough. Even more’ drastic measures can be used. Quotas can be imposed on imports, product by product, country by country, and month by month. Importers can be forbidden to buy abroad without obtaining licenses. Those who vuy more than is permitted can be fined or jailed. Everything that comes into a country can be kept within the limits determined by a central plan, This is regimentation. And
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this is the direction in which much of the world is headed at the present time. If this trend is not reversed the Govern- ment of the United States will be under pres- sure, sooner or later, to use these samc de- vices in the fight for markets and for ruw materials. And jf the Government were to yield to this pressure it would shortly find itself in the business of allocating foreign goods among importers and foreign markets among exporters and telling every trader what ,he could buy or sell, and how much, and when, and where, This is precisely what we have been trying to get away from, as rapidly as possible, ever since the war. It is not the American way. It is not the way to peace. INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION CHARTER Fortunately, an alternative has been Offered to the world in the charter of the international trade organization that is to be considered at Geneva in the coming month. The charter would limit the present freedom of governments to impose detailed adminis- trative regulations on their foreign trade. The international trade organization would require its member nations to confine such controls to exceptional cases, in the imme- diate future, and to abandon them entirely as soon as they can, The trade agreement negotiations that will accompany consideration of the charter should enable countries that are now in diffi- culty to work their way out of it by affording them readier access to the markets of the world. This program is designed to restore and preserve a trading system that is con- sistent with continuing freedom of enter- prise in every country that chooses treedom for its own economy. It is a program that will serve the interests of other nations as well as those of the United States. If these negotiations are to be successiul, we ourselves must make the same commit- ments that we ask of all the other nations of the world. We must be prepared to make concessions if we are to obtain concessions from others in return. If these negotiations should fail, our hope of an early restoration of an international order in which private trade can flourish would be lost. I say again, they must not fail. The program that we have been discussing will make our foreign trade larger than it otherwise would be. This means that ex- ports will be larger. It ulso means that im- ports will be larger. Many people, it is true, are afraid of imports, They are afraid be- cause they have assumed that we cannot take more products from abroad unless we pro- duce just that much less at home. Fortunately, this is not the case. The size of our market is not forever fixed. It is smaller when we attempt to isolate ourselves from the other countries of the world. It is larger when we have a thriving foreign trade. Our imports were down to a billion dollars in 1932; they were up to five billion in 1946. But no one would contend that 1932 was a better year than 1946 for selling goods, or making profits, or finding jobs. Business is poor when markets are small. Business is good when markets are big. It is the pur- pose of the coming negotiations to lower ex- isting barriers to trade so that markets every- where may grow. I said to the Congress when it last con- sidered the extension of the Trade Agree- ments Act, and I now reiterate, that domes- tic interests will be safeguarded in this proc- ess of expanding trade. But there still are those who sincerely fear that the trade- agreement negotiations will prove disastrous to the interests of particular producing groups. I am sure that their misgivings are not well-founded. The situation briefly is this: 1, The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act has been on the books since 1934. It has been administered with painstaking care and strict impartiality. Some 30 agreements with other countries have been made. And trade has grown, to the great benefit of our economy. 2. This Government does not intend, in the coming negotiations, to eliminate tariffs or establish free trade. All that is contem- plated is the reduction of tariffs, the removal of discriminations, and the achievement, not of free trade, but of freer trade. 3. In the process of negotiations tariffs will not be cut across the board. Action will be selective; some rates may be cut substan- tially, others moderately, and others not at all WILL SEEK CONCESSIONS 4. In return for these concessions we shall seek and obtain concessions from other coun- tries to benefit our export trade. 5. Millions of Americans—on farms, in factories, on the railroads, in export and import businesses in shipping, aviation, banking, and insurance, in wholesale estab- lishments, and in retail stores—depend on foreign trade for some portion of their live- lihood, If we are to protect the interests of these people, in their investments and their employment, we must see to it that our trade docs not decline. To take one of these groups as an example: We exported in 1046 over €3,000,000,000 worth of agricultural products alone—mostly griuin, cotton, to- bacx, dairy products, andeges. If we should lose a substantial part of this foreign mar- ket, the incomes of over 6,000,000 farm !ami- Nes would be naterially reduced and their buying power for the products of our fac- tories greatly curtailed. 6. There is no intention to sacrifice one group to benefit another group. Negotia- tions will be directed toward obtuining larger markets, both foreign and domestic, for the benefit of all. 7. No tariff rate will be reduced until an exhaustive study has been made—until every person who wishes a hearing has been heard and careful consideration given to his case. 8. In every future agreement there will be a clause that permits this Government—or any other government—to modily or with- draw a concession if it should result, or threaten to result, in serious injury to a domestic industry. This is now required by the Executive crder which I issued on Febru- ary 25, follow.ng extensive conferences be- tween officials in the Department of State and majority leaders in the Senate. All these points—the history of trade- agreement operations, the way in which negotiations are conducted, the protection afforded by the safeguarding clause—should provide assurance, if assurance is needed, that domestic interests will not be injured. The policy of reducing barriers to trade is a settled policy of this Government It is em- bodied in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, fathered and administered for many years by Cordell Hull. It is reflected in the charter of the international trade organ- ization. It is one of the cornerstones of our plans for peace, It is a policy from which we cannot—and must not—turn aside. CALLS ISOLATIONISM BANKRUPTCY To those among us—and there are still a few---who would seck to undermine this policy for partisan advantage and go back to the period of high tariffs and economfe isolation, I can say enly this: Take care. Times have changed. Our position in the world has changed. The temper of our peo- ple has changed. The slogans of 1930 or of 1896 are sadly out of date. Isolationism, after two world wars, is a confession of mental and moral bankruptcy. Happily, our foreign economic policy does not now rest upon a base of narrow partisan- ship. Leaders in both parties have expressed their faith in its essential purposes. Here, as elsewhere in our foreign relations, I shall welcome a continuation of bipartisan sup- port. A895 Our people are united. They have come to a realization of their responsibilities. They ure ready to assume their role of lead- ership, They are determined upon an in- ternational order in which peace and free- dom shall endure. Peace and freedom are not easily achieved. They cannot be attained by force. They come from mutual understanding and co- operation, from a willingness to deal fairly with every friendly nation in all matters— political and economic. Let us resolve to continue to do just that, now and in the future. If other nations of the world will do the sume, we can reach the goals of per- manent peace and world freedom. Comment on President’s Address at Waco EXTENSION OF REMARKS F HON. BURNET R. MAYBANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 7 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Mr, Truman at Waco,” pub- lished in the New York Times of March 7, 1947. There being no objection, the edi- torial was ordered to be printed in the RecorD, as follows: MR. TRUMAN AT WACO Peace and freedom are not easily achieved. They cannot be attained by force. They come from mutual uncerstanding and co- operation, from a willingness to deal fairly with every friendly nation in all muatters— political and economic. These words, taken from its closing lines, formed the underlying theme of President Truman's address at Waco yesterday, an ad- dress in which he developed that basic con- cept as it applied specifically in the field of foreign-trade policy. The term “developed” is used advisedly. For this was no perfunc- tory speech on the part of the President. An- nounced in advance as a major address, it measured fully up to that standard. There was a documentary quality in its lack of oratorical flourish, in its sane objectivity and in the challenging logic that marked its closely reasoned passages. The seeds of economic aggression are to be found in world conditions today to an extent comparable only with that of the early thirties, Countries everywhere are under severe pressure to invoke government inter- vention in their foreign-trude relations. Countries engaged in postwar reconstruction and rehabilitation find their import needs outrunning their ability to export; countries bent on programs of industrialization find themselves in a similar position, and still other countries find it impossible to obtain the currencies of those nations which have the goods they want to buy. In all these cases the natural temptation is for the gov- ernment to step in and curtail imports. Such defensive measures lead to retalia- tion, and as the movement gains momentum, it goes far beyond mere tariff raising. It embraces quotas, import licensing and all the assorted devices associated with isola- tionism and regimentation. If this trend, already in evidence, were to continue, the President pointed out, the United States would sooner or later have to resort to these same totalitarian techniques. It would find itself in the position of “allo- cating foreign goods among importers and
A896 foreign markets among exporters, of telling every trader what he could buy or sell, and how much, and when and where.” And this, he added “is not the American way. It is not the way to peace.” What, then, is the alternative? The alter- native is to apply in the area of world trade the principles represented in the political field by the UN. That is the purpose for which the International Trade Organization, to be considered at Geneva next month, has been devised. The proposed charter of the ITO strictly limits the area of government intervention in foreign trade. At the samc time, the trade agreement negotiations which are to be conducted at the Geneva meeting are designed to restore and preserve a trad- ing system that is consistent with the con- tinuing freedom of enterprise in every coun- try that chooses freedom for its economy. The case for reciprocity in foreign trade has been argued forcefully on many occa- sions in the past. But it is doubtful if any- one has brought out more clearly than did Mr. Truman yesterday the basic interdepend- ence of economic peace, on the one hand, and freedom of enterprise, on the other, with all the historic connotation which the latter holds for political and personal freedom, Air Transportation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALLEN J. ELLENDER OF LOUISIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, March 3 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REcorp excerpts from an address entitled “Air Transporta- tion,” delivered by C, Bedell Monro on February 27, 1947, at the twentieth an- niversary. dinner of Capital Airlines, PCA, at the Statler Hotel. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Unquestionably, today’s heudlines paint a rather bleak picture of the present and fu- ture of that phase of aviation which only recently typified the pinnacle of business glamor and romance—a sort of matinee idol, as it were—namely, the air lines of the United States. Those headlines paint us as a@ sick industry, as a patient so il' that the relatives have been summoned from near and far. Tremulous stockholders are calling for medical doctors, surgeons, and even an odd faith healer or two. Hastily formed clinics are holding forth up and down the land, in Congress, Government offices, and cocktail bars. e s e s s Perhaps that is the situation at present, And even at present we should view it with calmer appraisal and without the hysterical exaggeration and panic that appears so prevalent. The future, however, is another thing en- tirely, and that is where you and I should take immediate and violent issue with the calamity howlers, the apostles of defeatism, with those who will sell anything short, whether it be our Nation’s economy, our Na- tion’s Government, our Nation itself. ° * e s e There surely is no question but what air transportation is today in the most critical period of its history. The situation certainly is more far-reach- ing because of the Nation-wide and world- wide ramifications, plus a tremendous im- port, of the air-transport system. In the early days when a crisis came, all we had to deal with was a handful of planes and a few hundred employees and a few thousand dollars. Now our crises are measured by hundreds of planes and thousands of em- ployes and, God help us, millions of dollars Yes, air transportation ts in the most criti- cal period of its history. Yet, ladies and gen- tlemen, at no time in its history has it ever shown greater promise—promise of future economic strength, promise of fulfilling its destiny as the most powerful safeguard of peace and the most potent instrumentality of our country’s prosperity. To understand that fully, we must look through the right end of the telescope. That is not just a con- tradiction; it is not wishful thinking; it is not a Pollyanna philosophy. I can say that T have been in this business long enough not to have any Pollyanna philosophy. It is just plain, unadulterated fact. Why that fact is a fact leads us to another fact. Previously, little recognized or little realized, that fact was made apparent in- creasingly during the war and made obvious in the somewhat cataclysmic events of the past few months. It is simply this. No longer does our industry stand alone in its failures or in its succegses, in its tribu- lations or in its victories. By the very na- ture of what it has come to mean in our national] life, it has many partners. And who are they? Each and every one Js repre- sented here in this gathering tonight. You, the Congress of the United States. You, the Government of the United States, as represented by the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil Aeronautics Authority and the Post Office. You, the armed services of the United States. You, the aircraft manufac- turers of the United States. You, the doc- tors, the lawyers, the bankers, and the busi- nessmen of the United States. * * * * s Let us admit freely that all of us in the commercial airlines made quite a few mis- takes in the past few years, particularly in the period following the war. Perhaps one or more of our partners fumbled the ball once or twice and even made one or two mistakes themselves, but the greater fault was ours. Also, many things happened to us that were entirely beyond our control. It would serve no good or constructive pur- pose to indulge here in this gathering in any recriminatory or apologetic recital of the past. It suffices to state that the war was one of the principal causative factore of our difficulties, in the creation, since 1945, of a public acceptance and a public demand for air travel far beyond either our capabili- ties or our war-restricted facilities. . * s s e Now, I wouldn't be frightened a bit with having just a small trickle or two of that former flood of business at this moment. You can make reservations any time at any place, anywhere, on the next plane going to anywhere in the country or in the world. That is a small plug for our traffic depart- ment. But the truth was that the public came and expected much. It was bitterly dis- appointed. Then came another flood, this time of magazine articles, editorials, and radio talks. It became fashionable to take a literary poke at the air lines. Columnists specializing in fashions, medicines, sports, religion, or what- not, delighted tn traveling with us so that they could syndicate their woes—and our de- fictencies—from coast to coast. In a joyful splurge of opportunism other forms of transport intensified their advertise- ments as to their reliability and comfort and “beauty and safety of their form of transpor- tation. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD So, public acceptance turned into public suspicion, distrust, and disgust. With a cycle of accidents, though relatively few on the domestic scheduled air lines, came public fear. And now we are paying the price. What is this partnership of ours doing or planning to do to meet’and overcome air transports’ crisis, if it may be termed that? What action is betng taken or contemplated? The answer is: Plenty. Constructive ac- tion, aggressive action, fast action. . Ly * * * First, we have Congress. And incidentally, ladies and gentlemen, this is probably the first time anything has been said publicly in praise of Congress. Congress has be- come justly and duly alarmed with air transport’s situation and has instituted a searching investigation into the various phases and problems of our industry. Para- mount is the question of air safety and the many manifold and complicated problems of equipment, air navigational aids, airports, pilot qualifications and training, our main- tenance and operating procedures, and our aspects of reliability and progressive devel- opment, and, finally (here is where they are going to have to spend time), our financ.al troubles. I have heard some unthinking people care- leasly characterize the investigation as a pos- sible witch burning. To those of us who have followed it closely, there appears to be only @ sincere, intelligent, and constructive program to help not only in increasing safety, but to help in the correction of what may be aviation’s defictencies. In close cooperation with Congress are the CAB, CAA, and Air Transport Associa- tion, endeavoring to reach the proper solu- tions in the common cause. J * s s s What about some of the other activities of our partnership? In that consideration we come inescapably to the arbiter of air-line destinies, the CAB. As arbiter of our desti- nies it sets the extent and pattern of our routes and determines the degree of compe- tition. It has the power to regulate rates and fares, and has a lot of other powers, too, though those matters have not yet been brought to the Supreme Court. There are some rumors about that it has power to reg- ulate the color of our ties and the cut of our clothes and, if anybody has been at a meet- ing of our Air Transport Association, you know that would be a fine power to have them exercise. Along with those powers it has the con- eomitant responsibility imposed by law of developing a sound air-transport system “in the interests of the Post Office Department, of national defense, and of the commerce of the United States.” Certainly it is our considered opinion that the Civil Aeronautics Board has sincerely and fully recognized that responsibility and has shouldered its obligation constructively and aggressively in its recognition of the present critical situation in the indusutry. Already it has instituted an investigation of passenger fares as a possible and early reme- dial measure for certain of our economic ills. It has provided machinery for early emer- gency relief through temporary mail pay in- creases, based on where they are needed and where they can be proved justified by the carrier, Already I can hear the anvil chorus of our surface friends beating out their measured moans of “Subsidy, subsidy, subsidy.” Be- fore our ears are deafened, let us hark to the truth. This is an emergency situation—tempo- rary—and can return all of us who are in- volved to a compensatory basis as other factors bring permanent improvement. Sec- ondly, we should remember that for years “the Post Office Department has received many ‘millions of doMars in air-mail revenue far ‘in excess of amounts paid carrier: for serv-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ices rendered. And, finally, we should re- member that this !{s an investment in na- tional security and national defense. For a longer range, permanent program to insure a sound air-trapsport system, it seems clear that the Civil Aeronautics Board is thinking and planning along foresighted and constructive lines, as typified in public addrteses of its Chairman, Mr. Landis, whom we are very happy to have with us this eve- ning and who said (and I hope he doesn't mind my quoting him) within recent months: “The domestic route pattern was a DC-3 route pattern and must be rewritten for the newer and faster type of airplanes, such @ program requiring surveillance of possible unfair competitive strains which will result if due care is not taken in this job of re- ordering he route pattern of the United States.” There is no question but what the task that Hes ahead of the CAB, not only in there stormy times but in the calmer waters aheed, is not just a Saturday afternoon pastime. In Hollywood terms, it is a supermammoth, supercolossal, and supereverything job. It requires the highest degree of states- manship and foresight and sound judgment and fairness, Certainly no one shou'd envy any one of these beleaguered gentlemen who make up the CAB for on their wisdom de- pends not only the destiny of the industry but, in many respects, the economy of our Nation, the defense of our Nation, and the leadership of the United Siatcs in aviation among the nations of the world. With that burden how any of them can possibly slecp peacefully at night is far beyond my com- prehension. Now we come, perhaps, to one of the things we should do that has been left undone or has not been done wisely. It was Abraham Lincoln who once commented that ‘with public cpinion nothing can fail.” Conversely, witbout public opinion, nothing can succeed. Never has an incustry had such a great need for public understanding as ours today. The future depends on many things, principally upon an enlightened and favorable public opinion, and during these dark and jittery days of misconception and misunderstand- ing, we face an enormous job of education. Although the air-transport industry must depend upon complete and wholehearted co- operation of its other partners, the air trans- port industry must take the lead. Frankly, at the time when we should have brought all of our public relations ammunition up to the fzant-line trenches, we were dawdling in shy retirement in the rear, e s s s ° Where, indeed, were all of us? We were getting splattered, plenty, and we sat in a daze doing nothing much, just making a futile dab or two at a particularly large spot. Instead of a concentrated drive to tell the public of our trials and tribulations, of the real reason for our deficiencies, of what we were doing to correct them; instead of facing the issue squarely and depending upon the American sense of fair play; instead of point- ing out many improvements and successes and demonstrating the outstanding job of reconversion, what did we do? s ° * * s Oh, we had a story to tell, a real story, frezh, vivid news, a saga of accomplishment and a record of reconversion better than that of any other industry. Instead, we apol- ogized weakly, dodged facts, exuded false optimism one moment and became defeatist the next. Only when we were pushed to the wall did we admit to the Nation our really amazing record of safety in scheduled air transportation and then as a defensive anti- climax. s e e s s In several instances in these remarks I have alluded to the national defense and XCIII— App.——57 the national security aspect of commercial air transportation. I have also alluded to the question of safety. There is another kind of safety, however, which perhaps, in the shortness of our memories, is receiving too little attention these days. That is the safety of our Nation. Today all of us share a common legacy. It is an inheritance from the harrowing days of Pearl Harbor, the South Pacific, Japan, Africa, Italy, and the continent of Europe. In that legacy there is a mutual obligation to do everything poseible to avert such a tregedy again as a nation. However, as a Nation, perhaps of incurable optimists, we seemed disinclined even to recognize that such a legacy hae been left by thousands of young men and their bereaved families, by thousands more for whom the meaning of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is now only a mockery. One of our great generals. Ira Eaker, re- cently stated that atomic energy has made air power all important. Air power, he tells us, is the only available present means to strike with the atomic bomb and to protect against misuse of the atomic bomb. And withaut air superiority we will be helpless, he adds. I am certain that this outstanding ex- ponent of atr power will back me up when I add that the air power he speaks of for vour and my protection depends in large part on a strcng civi] air-transport system, prepared to fulfill its obligation in an hour of national crisis. Fundamental to our future military and civil strength and preparedness is the in- tensiNed and unremitting concentraticn on a phase of aviation little known generally and its value too little realized. That phase is research and engineering. And it will be in any foreseeable future the very core, the very backbone of progress in the field of aviation, whether commercial or military. Aviation actually is still in almost a primary state of development, as military or civilian technical experts will tell you. We have many hard nuts to crack and the question is: Who is going to crack them? That is the first question and it is the #64 question. The answer to that €64 question is whether or not the United States will main- tain its world leadership. Military and commercial aviation are closely interwoven, almost inexorably inter- woven. What benefits one benefits the other. And only in the research laboratories wil) those tough mutual problems be solved. The second question is: When are those technical problems of cquipment and op- eration going to be solved and at what price? In that connection there are just two ap- proaches, One is a preparatory approach which is initially costly, perhaps, but divi- dond-paying in the long run. The second approach is what may be termed “the after- the-fact approach,” which is extravagant of money and of lives and is dangerous to our national security. e e s s es All of us know what happened when World War II broke out and when President Roose- velt called for 50,000 planes per year. It was @ grand gesture and a necessary one. What was the cost because Uncle Sam was caught with his pants around his knees, because he had neglected for years and years that im- portant preparatory basis of research and aviation and the real encouragement of civil aviatio) to carry out those problems? The cost in lives and in our Federal debt was in- calculable. How insignificant would have been those few extra life-saving millions of Government aid to the air lines, to the mili- tary, spent judiciously and effectively over those 4 or 5 years in research and develop- ment, prior to the war, according to a fixed national policy, as contrasted with the bil- A897 lions so hestily voted overnight in the hys- terical hope of somehow unbottling the avi- ation research bottteneck. What would the United States huve given at the time of Pearl Harbor to have bzen able to retrieve those valuable but lost yecrs of research rnd en- gineering? This country cannot afford to make this same mistake a second time, becaure the cost the second time may well include the devastation of our cities and our towns end our countryside, and the destruction of the American way of life and of living. And so, this partnership of ours—the Con- gress of the United States, the Civil Aero- nautics Board. the Civil Aeronautics Au- thority, the armed forces, the sir lines, the manufacturerse—all of us for our own pro- tection must work together and put our shoulders to the wheel to make the United States aviation picture, in all its phases, the envy of the entire world. I should like this evening to add another voice to that mounting hope that we resort to every possible means, without deviation from an inspired course, to foster the vast p2acetime promise of civil aviation, to look upon the subject as something special, re- quiring special consideration, and that in our thinking we be guided constantly by the in- evitable association of civil aviation with na- tional security. To draw these remarks to a close there is a vi‘al point that should be mentioned and which should be underlined in our thinking in the months and years to come. As Mr. Earriman, Secretary of Commerce, recently stated, “our industry has oversold aviation to the public.” There is no question but that many of our ills can be attributed to thet overselling. The public was handed a bill of goods by unthinking optimists who foresaw an impos- sible, immediate future of perfect reliability, superluxury, and superspeeds. We oversold tho public on safety not deliberately but ratner by misinformation. Also there is no question but that this in- dustry has progressed amazingly in what are really only two decades of history. The prog- ress has been measured in technical and business aspects. So, let's get away from those wild prom- ises, those rosy and unrealistic predictions, those talks of aircraft larger than vucean liners, speeds in everyday commercial travel of 750 to 1,000 miles per hour, of operations that can be continued despite fog and every other known form of weather which pre- vents the other forms of transportation trom completing their schedules. Perhaps those things may come, but now is the time to consolidate our gains, to progress through needed adjustment, to perfect what we have accomplished. The obligation of this part- nership (and I exempt military and research and engineering upon which our future de- pends, and they are going ahead on these forward-looking projects) is to work toward financial strength and stability, to work toward a greater reliability of service, to work toward a greater safety and to work toward a greater quality of service. We already have in this business of ours @ superproduct. Let us use it in the pcer- fection which its qualities demand. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the most critical period of our history, but with the recognition of our errors of omission and commission, with the recognition of our problems, with the recognition of our obliga- tions, with a great partnership of intelligence and foresight and patriotic endeavor, work- ing as a team, there should be no question as to the future. I, therefore, leave the answer in your hands. Is this not the most promising pe- rlod in the history of air transportation? I thank you. |[Applause.j
A898 Necessity for American Military and Economic Strength EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. H. ALEXANDER SMITH OF NEW JERSEY IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 7 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an address en- titled “Collective Security Depends Upon American Military and Economic Strength.” delivered by Hon. Warren R. Austin, United States representative at the seat of the United Nations, before the Overseas Press Club at the Waldorf- Astoria Hotel, in New York City, on March 4, 1947, There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Two world wars in 25 years have demon- strated that the United States cannot isolate itself from the consequences of war any- where in the world. The mass destructive power of atomic energy and of other forces unleashed by science has further demonstrated that the great imperative of our times is to prevent a third world war. The American people believe that these postulates are equally true for all nations. They are as true for the large nations, such as the Soviet Union and the United States, as they are for the small nations. Facing these sober truths the United States 1s dedicated to the policy of supporting the United Nations with all the resources that it possesses, The security of the United States and of every other nation depends upon applying the United Nations Charter and using the institutions of the United Nations to build a system of collective security strong enough to prevent a third world war. The building of collective security is an immensely difficult undertaking. It is es- sential that the American people understand the true nature of collective security and the contribution that the United States must make in order to achieve success. First of all, let us never forget that the United Nations is a means to the end. It is not the end. The mere existence of the United Nations and our participation in it does not establish collective security. The United Nations is a means by which collec- tive security can be achieved. Also, we must understand that every pro- vision of the Charter and every organ of the United Nations is a necessary part of build- ing collective security. The work of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council—for example—are just as necessary to collective security as the work of the Security Council. This is because the problem of building collective security is not solely, nor even pri- marily, a problem of writing out formulas for police action—for enforcement methods. It is primarily a problem of building the sub- stance of agreement for common action— agreement 60 firmly based that it will acquire the force of law through the will and ability of the member nations to develop and main- tain the law. Reduction and removal of the basic causes of war by using the institutions of the United Nations to relieve political, eco- nomic, and social tensions and to raise standards of living is a most important ele- ment of collective security and one most frequently overlooked. The more the nations work together for their mutual welfare, the less will nations try.-to break the law against war. Nations where economic and social condi- tions create instability, suffering, and de- spair among their people, are in no position to resist aggressors, from either within or without, regardless of treaty commitments, Conversely, nations whose economy and s0- cial organization are healthy, strong, and pro- gressive desire peace and have the power to act in support of peace. The final measure of the strength of col- lective security is not found in obligations in treaties for collective action. It is to be found in the will and the capacity of the peoples to fulfill their obligations. Collec- tive security can be no stronger than the sum of its separate parts. Nothing could be more dangerous than to act upon the assumption that a treaty or a voting system: would operate automatically, Let me illustrais the point by a brief ret- erence to the veto. The veto power in the Security Council is widely thought of as a protection to an aggressor nation. Actually the veto would be no protection at all to an aggressor if the other nations should act to- gether in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. If any great nation possessing the veto power should ever embark on e® course of ag- gression in violation of the Charter, it would be committing an act of nullification, an act of rebellion against the United Nations. It would forfeit its position under the Charter. No veto could protect such a nation from the consequences of its crime. Only the failure of the other nations to act together against it could spare tl.e aggressor from law- ful punishment. The heart of the problem of building collective security is the strength and the will of the member nations to carry out their obligations, individually and col- lectively. Veto or no veto, the strength of the great nations in relation to one another is such that no one of them can safely go to war in violation of the Charter if it is certain that the others would act together in defense ot the Charter. If the United States demonstrates con- vincingly that all its great material and moral power would be used in support of collective security under the United Nations, that fact would have far-reaching influence upon the will and capacity of other member nations to act together to maintain peace. On the other hand, if we should falter, if we should dissipate our strength, if we should act in blind or shortsighted selfishness, we would inevitably undermine the whole cause. The preservation of peace cannot be as- sured by the United States alone. The will and strength of all the other members of the United Nations—especially the greatest na- tions—are also necessary. Nevertheless, because of the great power and influence of the United States, it is true that we can do more than any other nation to decide the outcome. The central fact, of which Americans must never lose sight, is this: The United States, with half the productive power of the world, has decisive power either to create the condi- tions of permanent peace or to permit the balance to be tipped in favor of war. What we do or fail to do determines to a large extent whether other nations move rapidly toward political and economic stability and democratic achievement or flounder in the disaster and despair that lead to fanaticism and war. What, then, are some of the policies the United States must pursue in relation to the United Nations in order to attain the goal of collective security? First. We must make clear that we are ready at all times to support the law of the charter—by force if necessary—in accordance with our obligations, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Second. We must use to the full and with patience all the processes of conciliation and organized cooperation established by the United Nations. We must seek constantly for better understanding with all our allies. Whatever others do, we must seek always to avoid hysteria and recrimination. We do not need to fear anybody. We must seek by our policies to remove fear in others and re- place it by confidence. Third. We must maintain our own eco- nomic strength, and help restore economic strength to those parts of the world left weakened by the war, and, therefore, an easy prey to some future aggressor. This means a businesslire investment of American capi- tal, a firm adherence to the policy of reducing barriers to an expanding world trade, and, for this year at least, continued direct relief to some countries. An enlightened economic foreign policy will increase prosperity in the United States as much as in any other coun- try. Collective security can never be realized without such a policy on our part. Fourth. We must maintain our military establishment, not for purposes of domina- tion, but in order to be able to back up our commitments in support of collective security under the United Nations. This means that we must not engage in any unilateral dis- armament by hasty and ill-considered re- ductions in our armed forces or in our budget for national defense. It also means estab- lishment of a universal military training sys- tem that would provide the necessary re- serves of skilled manpower trained in the complicated techniques of modern warfare. If we were ever called upon to join in col- lective action against a major aggressor, we would not have the 2 years of grace we were given in the last war. We should have to act with decisive force at once and with men already trained. Peacetime universal mili- tary training in the United States is not in conflict with the ultimate goal of world dis- armament. Nor is the strategic trusteeship proposed by the United States for the former Japanese mandated islands in conflict with the goal of collective security. On the con- trary, at the present stage of the develop- ment of the United Nations both would con- tribute to progress toward these goals because both would add to the strength the United States can contribute to collective security and collective control of armaments and armed forces, Fifth. We must stand firm in support of an effective and enforceable system of inter- national control of atomic energy and of other major weapons adaptable to mass de- struction. We must keep trying with patience and firmness to reach agreement with the Soviet Union on this matter. I be- eve that sooner or later we will reach agree- ment. It is just as much in the vital in- terest of the Soviet Union as it is of ourselves to establish a system of control that would fully safeguard complying states from the hazards of violations and evasions. Such a system would require greater delegations of national sovereignty to international author- ity than either of our nations has previously been willing to give. But without such a sys- tem neither one of us would, in the long run, be able to safeguard our independence or our respective ways of life from the de- structiveness of another war. Sixth. We must apply comparable princi- ples of effective international control to the so-called conventiona) armaments and armed forces so that they, too, can be reduced in such a way as to safeguard all States against violations and evasions. Seventh. We must press for completion of the Special agreements called for by the charter that would provide the Security Council with peace forces to enforce its decisions. Eighth. We must lend our full support to the development and application of in- ternational law, particularly the laws against war which have been for the first
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD time enforced against individuals by the Nuremberg and far eastern tribunals. The increasing application of international law directly to individuals is of importance to the prevalence of peace. The problem of building collective secu- rity has two inseparable parts. We have to take every measure that lies within our power to remove the funda- mental causes of war and to establish con- ditions of mutual understanding and con- fidence and economic well-being. Simultaneously we must maintain a suit- able military posture to support collective action under the charter. At the present time special hazards to peace call for special effort toward collec- tive security. Looking forward to the fulfillment of our mission in the United Netions, we are de- termined to maintain American military and economic strength adequate to meet all our needs and obligations. Czechoslovak Day—Proclamation by Governor Dewey EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. IRVING M. IVES OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATS OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 7 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19). 1947 Mr. IVES. Mr. President, today marks the anniversary of the birth of Thomas G. Maseryk, the late President of Czecho- slovakia. By proclamation of the Gov- ernor of the State of New York this day has been set aside in honor of that occa- sion, as Czechoslovak Day. I ask unani- mous consent to have printed in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp the proclamation of Governor Dewey naming this day for that purpose. There being no objection, the pr cla- mation was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: For more than 400 years the peoples of Bohemia—the Czechs and Slovaks—fought for their independence. It was finally achieved in 1918 under the brilliant leader- ship of Thomas Garrigue Masaryk. Thanks to his staunchness, unflinching courage and perseverance, the Republic of Czschoslo- vakia, with the sympathetic encouragement of the United States of America, took its rightful place among the freedom-loving na- tions of the earth. The people of Czecho- slovakia fully vindicated the efforts that had been made on their behalf, the sympathy extended them. Their Republic in a remark- ably short time achieved a high degree of prosperity and good government. Six dreadful years of Nazi tyranny failed to quench the spirit of the people of Czecho- slovakia. Under the heel of the oppressor they continued to fight for their freedom. The defeat of the Nazis restored Czecho- slovakia as a free and independent nation, & member of the United Nations. Today in Czechoslovakia the ideals of Thomas Garrigue Masaryk @re still in the hearts of the people whom he helped to set free and who are egain trying to rebuild their democracy. Friday, March 7, is the anni- versary of the birth of Thomas Garrigue Masaryk. Now, therefore, I, Thomas E. Dewey, Gov- ernor of the State of New York, do hereby proclaim Friday, March 7, as Czechoslovak Day and urge all the people of New York to participate in ceremonies honoring the peo- ple of the Republic of Czechoslovakia.” great gift to the people. George Washington and the National Capital EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. MILTON R. YOUNG OF NORTF’ DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, Murch 7 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Record a very able Washington Day address delivered by the Honorable H. Paul Caemmerer, secre- tary, National Commission of Fine Arts. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: We rejoice today in the birthday of one of the greatest benefactors of mankind, George Washington, the father of our country. Well has the poet said of him: “Art to his fame no aid hath lent; his country is his monument.” Many statues, monuments, and memorials have been erected to George Washington in all parts of the world, some of them beau- tiful works of art, but they stand as tributes to him. Even tomorrow a statue of George Washington, portraying him as a churchman, by the notable sculptor Lee Lawrie, will be dedicated in the Washington Cathedral. We are indebted to George Washington for many things—for having led a patriot army to victory and independence; for having pre- sided over the convention that gave us the Constitution; for having guided the Govern- ment through its first eight critical years; and also for having founded the city of Wash- ington. It may be said to have been his last No one appreciated this more than President Washington him- self, who was most desirous that the Govern- ment should have a home of its own, and the story of the founding of the city of Wash- ington has thus become one of the most tn- teresting chapters in the history of the Na- tion. During the period of the War of Inde- pendence and the subsequent period of the Confederation, Congress had been driven to eight different towns and cities—Philadel- phia, Baltimore, Lancaster, York, Princeton, Annapolis, Trenton, and New York, part of the time pursued by the enemy, and after the war by disgruntled soldiers. The Continental Congress was seriously inconvenienced by moving from place to place. To move the records and files was burdensome, and in sev- eral of the towns where Congress met the accommodations were inadequate. The sub- ject was discussed for 5 years while numerous cities and towns offered locations. Then the Constitutional Convention of 1787 decided on @ Federal district 10 miles.square. It left the question of location unsettled and the site on the banks of the Potomac was finally agreed to by compromise between Alexunder Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. The resi- dence bill became law July 16, 1790. It is said the loftiest minds in Congress were swayed by the judgment of President Washington when it came to the exact loca- tion of the capital. He might has selected any spot 80 miles up the Potomac, from approximately Georgetown to Harpers Ferry. But he was famillar with this locality, and by the fall of 1790 this site at the head of navigation of the Potomac was chosen. The Residence Act was amended March 3, 1791, so that the Federal District would include a convenient part of the Eastern Branch and also the present Arlington County and Alex- andria, Va., which was his home town. There one may still see many places associated with A899 the life of George Washington and the found- ing of this Nation. Then arose the question of design for the Federal City. President Washington chose for this work Pierre Charles L'Enfant, the artist of the American Revolution and a dis- tinguished officer who was trained in Paris and had come to America to offer his serv- ices, like Lafayette, in 1777. L'Enfant had made application for the appointment by letter of September 11, 1789, stating that “the plan should be drawn on such a scale as to leave room for that aggrandizement and embellishment which the increage in the wealth of the Nation will permit it to pursue at any period however remote.” His plan has now been the basis of development of the city for a century and a half. He submitted a preliminary sketch on March 30, 1791. On that day President Washington made his celebrated agreement with the 19 original proprietors, under which they agreed tu con- vey without compensation to the United States Government such portions of their farms as were needed for streets und to eell such land as was needed for the Gcvernment buildings and public reservations, including parks, at £25, or about $67 per acre. The re- maining land was to be laid out in 20.272 building lots, to be apportioned equally be- tween the Federal Government and the pro- prietors. In this way, without advancing a dollar and at a total cost of 836.000 the Gov- ernment acquired a tract of about 540 acres in the heart of the proposed city for public buildings and parks; in laying out the strects 3,606 acres were taken, And be it noted by that fee-simple conveyance of land for streets the L’Enfant plan was forever carved into the ground. The 10,136 building lots ultimately yielded $850,000 to the Government L’Enfant submitted a revised sketch to President Washington in June and again in August 1791. This sketch was then com- pleted, engraved, and published with ex- planatory notes, as we see them on the L’En- fant plan todey. On September 8, 1791, it was decided by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, and James Madison, then a Member of Congress, in conference with the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, “to name the streets of the Federa) City alphabetically one way and numerically the other from the Capitol, and that the name of the city and territory shall be the city of Washington and the Territory of Columbia.” The city was divided into four sections, with the Capitol in the center, in- tersected by avenues. . L’Enfant's services to the Government erd- ed officially in March 1792, due to difficulties that ne encountered. Thus, 1 year after he had begun to prepare his notable plan he terminated his services. Since he had ren- dered outstanding service in New York City in remodeling Federal Hall in 1789 for the accommodation of the First Congress and the inauguration of President Washington, and had also assisted in fitting up the Halls of Congress in Philadelphia in 1790 !t had been thoucht L’Enfant would also make Plans for public buildings in the Federal City. But they never materialized, and, ac- cordingly, Secretary of State Jefferson ar- ranged for a program of competition for public buildings, the first of its kind in Amer- ica. The competition, dated March 15, 1792, closed on July 15, and called for designs for the President's house and the Capitol. James Hoban architect of Charleston, 8. C., re- ceived the award for the President's house. For the Capitol 14 designs were received, none of which was accepted: they may be seen in the archives of the Maryland His- torical Society, Baltimore. One architect, Sterhen Hallet, was given permission to make further study of his design, and while doing so an application was received from Dr. Wil- Mam Thornton, of Philadelphia, an amateur architect, who had heard of the competition while on a visit to the West Indie. His de- sign was accepted. President Washington
A900 recognized tn it “grandeur, simplicity, and convenience”; Jefferson regarded it as being “simple, noble, beautiful, excellently ar- ranged.” Elaborate preparations were then made for laying the cornerstone. President Washington was to be the principal figure in the ceremonies of laying the cornerstone of the United States Capitol, which took place on September 18, 1793. It was eloquently referred to by Secretary of State Daniel Webster, orator of the day, on July 4, 1851, at the laying of the cornerstone for enlarg- ing the United States Capitol to its present siz2, when he said: “He heads a short procession over naked flelds, he crosses yonder stream on a fallen tree, he ascends to the top of this eminence, where original oaks of the forest stood as thick around as if the spot had been de- voted to Druidical worship, and here he per- formed the appointed duty of the day.” In November 1800 the Capital was removed from Philadelphia to the city of Washington, with filles and equipment and an office force that then numbered 187 clerks, in 5 de- partments of the Government—Stat:, Treas- ury, War, Navy, Justice (then known as the Attorney General's Office); the Post Office was Officially designated as a department some years later. When the final session of the Sixth Congress convened on November 21, Congress was addressed the following day by President Adams, with a special message congratulating the people and Congress on the estublishment of a home for the United States Government. There were then in Washington 109 brick and 253 frame houses, sheltering a population of approximately 8,000. The city of Washington grew slowly and haphazardly during its early years, when it was simply a new settlement along the Po- tomac, a new town in the woods. It was often ridiculed by visitors from abroad. The two leading structures were the Capitol and the President's house. Pennsylvania Ave- nue, connecting the two buildings, a mile apart, was laid out in 1796, and for years was nothing but a dirt road crossing a swamp covered with elder bushes. Thomas Jeffer- son, during his administration, from 1801 to 1809, manifested keen interest in the Avenue by improving it and planting on it four rows of popla: trees, At the suggestion of Jeffer- son, approved by President Washington, the classical style of architecture had been cho- sen for the first two public buildings, and this style was adhered to by President Andrew Jackson in the design for the Treasury De- partment (1837), the old Patent Office, and the old Post Office Department buildings. This precedent was again followed in 1850 when the plans of Thomas U. Walter, to en- large the United States Capitol to its present size, were adopted, again in the plan of 1901. After the passing of the generation that knew President Washington, the L'Enfant plan seems to have been quite forgotten. The neglect of the plan led to departures and errors evident in the National Capital today, notably in the placing of the Treasury De- partment directly in the line of Pennsylvania Avenue, which destroys an unobstructed vista from the Capitol to the White House. In 1846 Congress allowed the Virginia portion of the District of Columbia to be ceded back to that State, because the inhabitants in that area claimed they were not receiving im- provements due them as residents of the District of Columbia. Since then the Dis- trict of Columbia comprises 68 square miles on the Maryland side c” the river. In 1900 occurred the centennial celebra- tion of the removal of the seat of Government from Philadelphia to Washington. Decem- ber 12 was declared a legal holiday and it was 4 notable event. It gave impulse to a study of the entire District of Columbia on the basis of unity, good order, and elegance, which prevailed tn the original plan of 1791, and resulted in the establishment of the McMillan Park Commission of 190r, That Commission revived and restored the L’En- fant plan, and adapted it to the entire Dis- trict of Columbia, and then published the Plans. They have been the basis of the beautiful new projects in the city of Wash- ington these past 46 years. They were spon- sored by the National Commission of Fine Arts, established by Congress in 1910, and since 1924 also by the National Capita) Purk and Planning Commission, which. also plans tor the harmonious development of the Metropolitan area of Washington, in cooper- ation with similar commissions in Maryland and Virginia. The city of Washington is unique in that it be‘ongs to the people of the country; it is your city and mine, and its future de- velopment is thus our responsibility. Ulti- mate authority rests in our representatives at the Capitol, the Congress of the United States. Many private organizations have made the city their headquarters and have erected beautiful monumental buildings, such, us the Headquarters Building of the Daughters of the American Revolution. There is no more beautiful capital city than the city of Washington, combined with its Possibilities of further development, and I say this after having seen fully two dozen capital cities in different parts of the world. Though right now our Municipal Govern- ment is in desperate need of help from Con- gress, due to the great burden placed on the city government by the war. For preserving the history of the city of Washington we are profoundly indebted to the Columbia Historical Society, which in the past 53 years has published 47 volumes, and is at present interested in having re- stored the old historic home of the author of our national anthem, Francis Scott Key, in Georgetown, What a thrill it is to go into the Betsy Ross House, Philadelphia, where the first flag was made. Likewise, it would thrill us to be in the home of him who wrote the Star-Spangled Banner, as a eulogy to our flag as it waves “over the land of the free and the home of the brave!" Much can be said of the future of our city of Washington, but time will not per- mit. Suffice it to say, the recent war has made of the city a world capital, to which the nations of the earth are looking for guidance, several of them for financial sup- port, others for food and clothing. The members of our armed forces fought on 56 fighting fronts and through their valor and sacrifice made known the principles of liberty which we cherish in all parts of the world. Toda: the city of Washington numbers well over a million inhabitants. Thousands of visitors are here each week to see the city. Each day as many as 100,000 pass in and out of Union Station, a beautiful and monu- mental gateway to the city, within sight of the dome of the Capitol. They see the oity from the top of the noble shaft erected to the Father of our Country, and then proceed in solemn pilgrimage to his home at Mount Vernon; those who have time, linger in old historic Alexandria. The year 1950 will mark the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the seat of government in the city of Washington. It will undoubtedly be made the occasion of a great celebration, similar to that in 1900, and may indeed take on international significance. When General Lafayette visited the United States in 1824, after an absence of 50 years, he was the spe- cial guest of the Ration, and on the occasion of a banquet here gave this toast: “The city of Washington, the central star of the con- stellation, which enlightens the whole world!” To us, who have seen the city grow and expand, doubling its size in the past 15 APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD years, how much more meaningful that prophesy ig today: The city of Washington is the heart of the Nation, the City Beau- tiful, commemorating the name of the im- mortal Washington, and spreading its pulsat- ing influence to all parts of our country and to far distant lands in all parts of the earth, Reorganization of the Executive Department EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 7 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp two arti- cles relating to the joint resolution which I have introduced to reorganize the executive branch of the Government, one by Phelps Adams, published in the New York Sun of January 22, 1947, and the other by Frank C. Waldrop, published in the Washington Times-Herald of March 6, 1947. There being no objection the articles were ordered to be printed in the ReEc- ORD, as follows: | From the New York Sun of January 22, 1947] WovuLp TRIM 8$7,500,000,000 From UwNitTep States EXECUTIVE SFENDING—BROWN-LODGE MEASURE WOULD AUTHORIZE COMMITTEE To STREAMLINE AGENCIES—COULD CuT INCOME Tax 40 Tc 60 PERCENT (By Phelp; Adams) WASHINCTON, January 22.—The entire ex- ecutive branch of the Federal Government appeared today to be headed for a thor- ough overhauling which could conceivably save the American taxpayers a sum ranging from $7,500,000,000 to ¢:1,000,C00,000 a year, and which would permit a reduction of from 40 to 6M percent in individual income-tax rates. Although the Republican leadership in Congress has not yet put its official stan.p of approval upon the Brown-Lodge execu- tive streamlining bill, enthusiasm for the measure is running so high among the Mem- bers on both sides of the Capitol that ulti- mate passage is regarded as a virtual cer- tainty. Authored by Representative CLARENCE Brown, of Ohio, and sponsored in the Senate by Henry Capor Loncz, Jr., of Massachu- setts—both Republicans—the measure simply provides for the creation of a nonpartisan joint Commission to comb every agency of the executive branch, and to report its findings at the opening session of the new Congress which will be elected in Novomber 1948, The principal duty of the Commiasion would be to recommend the elimination of the gov- ernmental deadwood that has accumulated through two world wars and that has never been cleaned out. It would remain, of course, for a Congress which has not yet been elected to put these recommendations into effect. Similar attempts to streamline the sprawl- ing executive branch in the interests both of economy and efficiency have been made under at least three different administra- tions in the past quarter century without significant success, but the outstanding fault in these previous efforts has lain in the fact
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that the studies in every case were made from within the executive branch itself. NONPARTISAN TASK The Brown-Lodge bill seeks to eliminate this fault by giving both the Congress and the public a crack at the job, and by pitch- ing the whole attempt on a thoroughly non- partisan plane. It provides that the study shall be conducted by a Commission of 12: Four to be appointed by the President, 2 of whom ' shall be from public office and 2 from private life; 4 to be named by the President pro tempore of the Senate, 2 of whom shall be from the Senate’s membership and 2 from private life; and the remaining 4 to be picked by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 2 being House Members and the other 2 from private life. In each group of 2, not more than 1 could be chosen from each major political party, 50 that in the end neither the Democratic or Republican Parties would command a clear majority of the committee membership. The most amazing thing about this bill is the fact that while it is merely one among hundreds of measures which have been Gropped into the legislative hopper this ses- sion and while—as yet—-it has made no legislative progrees whatever toward passage it has commanded such widespread atten- tion and interest, both in and out of the Capitol, that Washington is already speculat- ing intently upon the probable membership of the Commission. Publicly mentioned for posts on this agency have been such men as Justice Learned Hand of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals; ex-Senator Robert M. La Foliette of Wisconsin; Dr. Karl T. Compton, president of Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology; Secretary of the Navy James Forres- tal; ex-President Herbert Hoover; Bernard Baruch; C. E. Wilson, president of the Gen- eral Electric Co., and Chester I, Barnard, president of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. Congressional enthusiesm for the bill—in the face of previous failures in this field— has been born currently cut of both circum- stance and neceasity. The circumstance is that for the first time in 16 years, Congress and the Executive are controlled by opposite political parties. It is possible, therefore, for the congressional! majority to deal itself an important hand in the reorganization task without stepping on the toes of its own President. At the same time it is evident that no such effort can be undertaken under these conditions without the complete cooperation of President Tru- man, and therefore, Congress must lay aside all thought of part:san politics as it so clearly has under the terms of Representative Brown's bill. The necessity for action arises from the fact that Congress has just completed the job of streamlining itself, and that, under the provisions of its new fiscal set-up, it can- not possibly hope to cope adequately with the complex budget problems within the rigid time limits that have been fixed. The four major flacal committees of Congress, at this moment have fewer than 4 weeks in which to comb and cut the entire budget and fix an over-all ceiling on appropriations for the coming year. It is obviously impossible for the members of these committees, within this space of time to study the entire govern- mental structure and to determine intelli- gently just where economies and efficiency can be wedded, to the lasting satisfaction of the taxpayer. They must slash more or lese indiscriminately, and then only where the opportunity for saving—without injury to governmental functione—is clearly ap- parent. AIR ECONOMY MOVE Only through the painstaking, 2-year job of research contemplated under the Brown- Lodge bill could the hope of economy be fully realized, it is generally agreed. The tremendous fruits to be born of such an effort have already been indicated by a small- scale study of War Department activities conducted in the office of the Secretary of War and the Adjutant General by expert technicians in this field. These sample studies have indicated a prospective saving of from 20 to 30 percent in the over-all budget of the executive branch. To understand what this means to tax- payers it ts only necessary to note that the 1948 budget calls for total expenditures of $37,528,000,000. All the expenses of the le3- islative and judicial branches together will amount only to about #46,000,000, leaving $37,482,000,000 to defray the expenses of the executive branch, including the independent agencies Government corporations, trust funds, etc. Should a saving of 30 percent b> realized as a result of the Commission's re- organization proposals, the P-esident's [37,- 500,090,000 budget would dwindle auton 1t- cally to $26,250,009,000, and in the wnlikc,,— and perhaps unwise—event that this saving should be used entirely for the relief of indi- vidual income-tax payers, the total levy upon them could be reduced by 60 percent. Only 30 years ago—and well within the memory of many men in Washington today, there were only 160 Federal bureaus, and the total civilian pay roll numbered fewer than 450,000 names. Today—srfter two wars, one depression, and 16 years of the New Deal— there are 1,160 Federal bureaus and 2,300.00 peraons on the Federal pay rol!. The oppor- tunity for economy, with increased efficiency, is obviously vast. [From the Washington Times-Herald of March 6, 1847] Lonce’s Losic (By Frank C. Waldrop) The Army and Navy put up several thcu- sand finger bowls and salt shakers for sale the other dey as surplus. And at the same time the Army and Navy placed an order for some fresh finger bowls and salt shakers. Dses anybody rise to claim that makes sense? It doesn't, and because it doesn't our Fcd- era! Government cxsts the taxpayers of the United States between seven and eleven bil- lion dollars a year more than necessary to do the amount of work it does today. Governmental services are now a fixed part of American life. We hire the Government to grow trees, stock rivers with fish. feed birds, deer, and bears, build roads and dems, run electric-power plants, print books on beby cere, collect crop information and fore- cast weather. catch crooks, fight wars, print and distribute money, guard the public health, mind the stock market, enforce busi- ness competition, make general laws, and do thousands upon thousands of other things. About the only major exception to date is that we have not yet got up the nerve to hire the Government to protect the coun- try from overbearing union bosses, but that, too, will come. ‘ No matter what we say about it, there is no doub* that big Government is here to stay in more or less degree. So the question Is how to live with it effectively and not have it break us. That is what all the economy talk in Con- gress js all about, and bills have been intro- duced by the dozens to bring about business- lke operation of Government. The best of these so far discovered by the writer is the one sponsored in the House by Representative CLarxENce J. BROWN, Republi- can, of Ohio, and by Senator Hxnry CaBoT Lopor, Republican, of Massachusetts, on the other side of the Capitol. Senator Loncr has explained their joint project as follows: AS01 “It calls for a study by experts and Mem- bers of Congress of the reorganization of our executive branch to report back to Congress in January 1948—just as the Enghty-first Congress is beginning. “Thus this Commission will have a full year and a half to go thrcugh the Govern- ment with a fine-tooth comb and to throw light into all the musty ald corners. “The noncongressional Members should be men of stature, like President Compton or President Conant, Justice Roberts, former Senator La Follette. or Secretary Forrectsl, who has done pioneer work in introducing modern management methods into the Gov- ernment. Senator AIKEN has Kindly prom- {sed me an early hearing for my bill. “Let me say that there are innumerzble rreecdents for setting up such a Commission. Within my own memory here we have had the temporary national economic committee ef 1938, composed of three Senators, three Representutives, and one expert each from the Treasury, Justice. Labor, and Cammerce Departments, the Securities and Exchonge Coyrmission and the Federal Trade Com- mission. “Congress has reorganized and streamlined itsclf. Let the same be done for the cxecu- tive branch. “This is not a job which Congress ulone, working through congressional committees and using {ts own stuffs, can do. We in Congress have not the time. Our staffs would not have the standing which the members of this Commiesion wou!d have in thetr re- lation to the departments. “Ul envisage full-time work for at least a year and a belf. All sorts of expert knowl- edge would be required. possibly including the services of industrial engineers and man- agcment experts. It would take time and money. “Iam in no way minimizing the vitai im- por‘ance of setting up prcper congressional stafs to prcbe for waste and extravegance and to scrutinize the budget estimates for nent yenr, They have a vital task to per- form. But they are definitely not se‘ up to undertake the great overhauling which 1 heve in mind.” Not another of those typical economy drives. is it? To the contrary, this is a majcr operation to do for the whale Gcevernment the sort of thing intended by the just-agreed- on merger of the armed forces. and the reor- ganizavicn of congressional procecure. The Lcedge-Brown bill undertakes an over- haul of the executive branch on u scale he- yond anything in the history of the country. Is it worth doins? Well, consider these typi- cal examples of the way the erccutive runs today, as amassed by Senator Harry F Byrp, emocrat, of Virginia. one of the ablest stu- dents of government in the world: 1. During the late war the departments and old-line Federal agencies expanded to TT7 individual outfits. Now they are pro- posing not to decrease, but to increase to £20 principal agencies. 2. There were only recently 1.200 Fece al offices tn New York City, 1,000 in Chicago, and 500 each in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, just to signify the mushrooming and dupli- cation of branch offices. 3 The annual pay roll of the executive branch—that's pay roll, not total expense-- is $6,250,000,000, which is a billion and a half more than the total expense of the Govern- ment in 1933 for all purposes including debt service. 4. The executive branch employs more pco- ple than all the State, county, and city gov- ernments of the Nation. And so it goes. The examples of present confusion multiply at every examination. Yet it is impossible to make a scientific cut- ting down at present because nobody knows what the Government is doing in all its parts.