A3442 resources, Comprehensive, multiple-pur- pose plans for resource development are gaining widespread recognition as the best way of doing the job. We likewise are learn- ing that a river basin or some other large region with common interests offers an ideal base for developing and advancing these plans. The evolution of this idea began with fiood control, navigation, irrigation, and water power. Eut these regional programs with their ac- cent on water have only served to emphasize the inseparahbility of land and water. As a result, the agricultural agencies are finding it increasingly necessary to adapt their pro- grams to the basic need for treating land and water as a unit. My lifetime business is farming where we have learned and learned again the lesson that land and water must work together. We should endeavor to deal with our prob- lems at their very beginning on the land where the water from rain and melting snow starts rushing downhill. This is the begin- ning of one of nature’s most powerful forces. Here on the farm it is still a man-size prob- lem instead of the monster 1t becomes farther downstream. We should begin to meet the challenge of floods back on the farm. Here we can summon the aid of our strongest allies—the land 1tself—the furrow contoured across the slope—terraces and waterways and ponds—and trees and grass. Upstream dams have their place in conservation. But they offer at best only temporary benefits unless they are supported by good farming. Silt and sediment from unprotected and poorly managed farm land can turn into folly our reliance upon channel control str: ctures— large or small, upstream or down. We must never forget that the land itself is our foundation. Agriculture has only begun to show what it can do in meeting the Nation’s land and water problems. The present disparity he- tween agricultural conservation and other water programs must be closed if we are to obtain the full benefits of a balanced attack. The Department has recently taken an im- portant step to adapt its work to the severe problems of the Missouri River Basin. Our proposed program is now before the Congress for consideration. Nine agencies of the De- partment and the agricultural and forestry agencies of the basin States pooled their knowledge and technical resources in its preparation. We have also taken the neces-~ sary first steps to bring the essential bene- fits of integrated agricultural work to the support of a comprehensive program for the Columbia Basin. The question may well be asked: “Why is @ special agricultural program necessary for the Missouri Basin?” The Federal and State agricultural agencies now do a lot of work in the basin as part of our Nation-wide pro- grams. It is necessary, however, to fit these activities to the pressing needs which are aris- ing from the swift progress of the engineer- ing program Congress has authorized for the main channels of the Missouri and its larger tributaries. Soil surveys, for instance, illustrate the need for accelerating our work. Under the regular Nation-wide agricultural programs, we expect eventually to make classification studies of all the soils of the basin. In the case of lands proposed for special de- velopment, use, and treatment, however, this information is needed in time to guide these developments in their formative stages. This same principle applies to the other aspects of our agricultural programs. The problem has been met by making an inventory of all agricultural needs in the Missouri Basin, determining a timetable for meeting these needs, and setting up an action program to meet them. The Department’s Missouri River Basin proposal is significant. It points the way to a balanced effort in basin improvement throughout the country. Up to now, the agricultural werk has lagged behind the installation of public works for flood con- trol, power, navigation, and other purposes. The principle of interaction should be given opportunity to demonstrate the worth of soil and water conservation in complete land and water programs. In closing, I want to emphasize again the need for a cov*inu'rt close working rela- tionship bet .: °* ‘yo and government in all efforts to utilize land and water. This should be the dominant theme as we move forward. Public welfare requires that farmers have the support and assistance of effective and well-adapted public programs. But there is a@ vital function that only the farmers can perform through the wise management of their own farms and by working together in their own organizations and local insti- tutions. Government can never provide a substitute for the farmer’s own efforts. Gov- ernment’s role is essentially one of assist- ance. We must always remember that each farm family is the custedian of the basic resources upon which the destiny of a great nation ultimately depends. Articles by Howard Watson Ambruster EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ADOLPH J. SABATH Or ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted me, I desire to insert into the Recorp three articles by the well- known expert on German affairs, How- ard Watson Ambruster, which appeared in the Daily Compass. One article is entitled “McCloy Ducks Denazification Mess in Reich,” and bears the date of February 22, 1950. The second article is entitled “United States Apology for Nazism Spread in West Reich,” under date of February 23, 1950; and the third article is entitled “The Cartels That Worked Against Us When It Hurt,” bear- ing the date line of March 8, 1950. These facts should be brought to the attention of the American people, and the articles follow: [From the Daily Compass of February 22, 1950] McCLoy Ducks DENaZIFICATION Mxss IN REICH (By Howard Watson Ambruster) United States High Commissioner John J. McCloy has not waited long to recant pub- licly his tough talk to the Germans on February 6. He has now let it be known that he has no intention of exercising his authority in the denazification bribery scan- dal uncovered at Stuttgart. This flagrant denial of his own official responsibilities came only a few days after McCloy had denounced to a press confer- ence the high German official who endeavored to cover up this denazification mess. The latter, Reinhold Maier, minister-president of Wurttemberg-Baden, had made a vicious public attack upon Maj. Gen. Charles P. Gross, the United States State Commissioner. This was because General Gross, very prop- erly, had asked for a thorough investiga- tion and dxzastic action against those in- volved in the fixing of denazification trials. JUDGES BRIBED It has been revealed that considerable sums were paid Out in bribes for the whitewash- ing of more than 500 Nazis by so-called court APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD action. Prominent Stuttgart industrialists were among those who were cleared of all charges of Nazi activities by the simple proc- ess of buying the judge. Thousands of ovhers were pardoned after conviction. The defiance of United States authority by Maier appears more flagrant in that one of his own denazification munisters, Karle Stroele, is involved. Stroele’s own acquittal of being a Nazi, by an earlier German tri- punal, has also been questioned. It is charged, too, that Stroele made the deal with Dr. Hjalmar Schacht by which the 8-year labor camp sentence against that notorious Nazi was nullified in North Wurttemberg on June 13, 1949. After this Stroele skullduggery, Maj. Gen. George P. Hayes, Deputy United States Mil- itary Governor, publicly announced that Dr. Schacht was thereby fully qualified for ap- pointment to high place in the new govern- ment of West Germany. Aside from protecting Stroele, Herr Maier appears to have a very odorous record per- sonally on denazification. A parliamentary committee of his state of Wurttemberg-Ba- den has been instructed to investigate some 10,000 pardons or commutations which he granted to Nazis. These were Hitler follow- ers whose records were so bad that even the packed German tribunals had not dared to whitewash them. M’CLOY SIDESTEPS In this connection, Herr Maier is on rec- ord as declaring that American denazifica~ tion policies are all bunk. Before McCloy returned from his recent Washington trip, some of the United States staff at Frankfurt fully expected that he would invoke the occupation statute and make use of his unquestioned authority to clean up this noisome mess as soon as he got back on the job. The High Commissioner did use some hard words when he returned. Now he has meekly subsided. We has sidestepped the issue as a “purely local situation.” Herr Maier’s blast at General Gross is thus vindicated. So, it would seem are his views on denazi- fication. It has been given out, officially, that the United States High Commissioner has no powers to intervene in this affair unless it is clearly proved that the Minister-President has violated the German state constitution. HOSTILE ACT On the record this excuse appears to be an arrant fabrication. The attack made upon General Gross constituted an openly hostile act directed at the authority of the Allied forces. That offense comes squarely within the powers expressly reserved to the Allies by the statute under which the Government of western Germany exists. As such McCloy can, and should, back up his scolding by drastic action—at least the removal of Maier from his office. —— [From the Daily Compass of February 23, 1950) Unitep SraTEs ApoLocy ror Nazism SPREAD In West Reich (By Howard Watson Ambruster) Denial of war guilt by the Germans pre- sents one of the most serious obstacles to establishment of the Bonn government as a@ peaceful democracy. Despite this, a bold apology for German war lust and Nazi mur- ders is now being distributed in Germany with apparent United States official ap- proval., Even worse, this rank pan-Germanism propaganda is an article written by a high- ranking subordinate of James W. Riddle- berger, director of political affairs on the staff of United States High Commissioner John J. McCloy. Dr. Kurt Glaser, an American-born citi- zen now serving in Germany, is the author
APPENDIX-TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the article. Entitled “The So-called Ger- man Mind” it appeared first in the An- tioch Review, published at Yellow Springs, Ohio. This quarterly enjoys the prestige of Antioch College, although not an official publication of that institution. The article, in effect, purports to refute the accepted belief in the intellectual dis- honesty of the German mass mind. It also denies the average German’s willingness to respond with incredible brutality when even a ruthless leadership believes the right mo- ment for world conquest may come again, Dr. Glaser’s apologies had been translated and is being distributed throughout west- ern Germany by the German Institute of Public Affairs. According to a German correspondent of this reporter, the Institute is a pseudo- official organization made up of representa- tives of a dozen or so German groups. Its headquarters are at Frankfurt. With official sanction and approval from the McCloy staff, the Institute appears to be one of the most important sources of so-called Allied or demo- cratic doctrine in Germany. Through this authoritative voice, the west- ern Germans are now being given, as a re- liable American viewpoint, such sophistries as a comparison of the Nazi mass murders with the treatment of Negroes in America and the political morality of the British during the European expansion of the last century. German weltanschauung is justified with the naive assumption that the fatherland, as put together by Bismarck, is merely go- ing through a growing-up process a little later than England, France, and the United States. The thinking Germans of today, says Dr. Glaser, demand that they be accepted as a nation which is just as moral as the west- ern allies. They should also insist, he says, that the evilness of the Treaty of Versailles has al- ready been conceded by the Allies, and that no de facto cession of German territory should ever be recognized. CITES “WRONGS” A dramatic Germany is thus instructed to “plan for the day when these wrongs can be righted.” They are informed that their justifiable dissatisfaction with ‘“condi- tions of the armistice does not mean that the ‘German mind’ is planning new deviltries.” In view of the chaotic conditions now ex- isting in Germany due to the scuttling of every vital war objective and occupation policy the sanction of this kind of propa- ganda is like pouring oil on a blazing fire, [From the Daily Compass of March 8, 1950] THE CaRTELS THaT WoRKED AGAINST US Wuen Ir Horr (By Howard Watson Ambruster) Robert Bosch, founder and mechanical genius of the great German combine bear- ing his name, had a younger brother, Dr, Carl Bosch, who was a founder and chem- ical genius of the German Dye Trust, and of its successor, I. G. Farben. Each was a master technician of the in- dustry in which he played so important a part. And each made full use of the eco- nomic mechanisms of combine and cartel to dominate German Government policies and promote the world conquest dreams of pan-Germanism. Both were highly educated aristocrats | with the arrogance typical of their class to- ward their fellow men. ; INDISPENSABLE IN WAR Robert, in the electrical and petroleum . motor industries, Carl in the, production of | chemical and synthetic materials, were’ in-: dispensable for plotting and waging modern war, Total war (mass destruction) dates back to the turn of the century, when the gaso- line engine replaced the horse for ground transport and made aerial warfare possible. The inventive genius of Robert Bosch emerged here. TNT, the original explosive suitable for mass destruction, was first made from dye byproducts 10 years before World War I. Synthetic nitrogen and poi- son-gas warfare were two of Carl Bosch’s notable achievements in that era. Neither lived to witness the final destruc- tion which resulted from the nefarious use to which their great talents were directed. Carl died in 1940 and Robert in 1942. Their successors did not change the pat- tern they designed. CONTEMPT FOR UNITED STATES Another close parallel in their careers ap- pears in their hatred and contempt for the United States. It is also found in the fact that the American Bosch Magneto properties and the Dye Trust subsidiaries in this coun- try were both seized by the United States as enemy-owned during World War I, and then sold to American citizens who pledged never to permit them to be returned. Those pledges were violated contemptu- ously and illegally. The German Bosch re~ gained control of the American Bosch Co.; Farben regained control of its World War I properties. During World War II, these properties were again seized as enemy-owned. Now Ameri- can Bosch and some of the Farben properties have again been sold. And more pledges have been given, as will be told later. A notable characteristic shared by the two brothers appears in the use which these men caused to be made of their American prop- erties. These German “hide-outs,” their own- ership disguised with incredible duplicity, were used before and during both world wars as secret headquarters for German espion- age, sabotage, and propaganda, FANTASTIC DOUBLE~DEALING All this was made possible by fantastic double-dealing bribery and corruption. Some of this has been made known through con- gressional investigations, criminal prosecu- tions, and other court proceedings. Much of it, especially of the last war period, while known to exist, has not yet appeared in Official public records. Before the United States entered World War I, Otto Heins, manager of the American Bosch Magneto Co., was accused by German Ambassador of violating the German code by supplying magnetos for British airplanes. Heins’ defense was that he accepted the con- tracts in order to retard production and cripple war material production. The ex- cuse was accepted—by the Germans. During World War II American Bosch for months delayed the production of airplanes which were being made here for the Allies, ESSENTIAL PARTS UNDELIVERED Essential parts were not delivered and the United States Government failed to do any- thing about it until after we entered the war. United States production of Diesel engines also was retarded before and during World War II by actions of American Bosch dictated from its German ‘owners. Likewise, espionage ‘of confidential tech- nical data, highly important for the German mollitary, was conducted during both war periods through the American Bosch com- panies. Bosch engineers who formerly had free run: of the United States Army and Navy technical data were finally ordered to keep away from our experimental fields. Despite this warning, in 1941 the United States Bosch management defiantly attempt- ed to sandbag another American manufac- turer into revealing his own technical se- crets in return for a sublicense to use a Bosch device.- oa A3443 Surplus Food to Needy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. T. MILLET HAND OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. HAND. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Atlantic City Union published an editorial entitled “It’s Time To Place Surplus Food Within Reach of Poor.’ This is in line with persistent efforts that many of us have been making here in Congress, and points up the problem very clearly. It seems to me it should be read by the membership of the House. The editorial follows: Ir’s Time To Puace Surptus Foop WITHIN REACH OF Poor Surplus butter and cheese, owned and stored by the Federal Government—that is, by you and me—have been made available for free distribution to needy Americans. We have fed the world; now it’s time to do something for our own hungry folk. The Agriculture Department has placed 15,000,000 pounds of butter and 5,000,000 pounds of cheese on the list of “give away” commodities. Those eligible for the food gifts will include public and private relief agencies, the school-lunch programs, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The provisions will be added to items al- ready on the free distribution list, such as potatoes, dried eggs, and dried milk, and issued from the stock of foodstuffs acquired by the Government, and now valued at ap- proximately $4,000,000,000. Now, we’re doing something beneficial with this mountain of products, raised on American farms, and processed. There are marked differences of opinion in both political and economic circles as to whether Uncle Sam should continue to buy surplus outputs from his kinfolk on the farms and in the dairies in order to regulate prices. But having become a buyer on a gigantic scale—probably the biggest in the history of any country in time of war or peace—practical use should be made of the stuff—perishable for the most part. It should not be permitted to spoil. There are many persons of very small income, in- adequate means, who should be enabled to share the use of this enormous store of edibles, bought at great expenditure of pub- lic funds. But the question is, how to distribute it so it will reach all who need it. Surely, in a country noted for its efficiency and ingenuity that should not prove an insurmountable obstacle. Bring the goods to designated points for distribution. Make it accessible. Undoubtedly it will prove to be a hig task— and cost money—but the details can be worked out by experts. Incidentally, the handling of these huge stores would give employment to some of the jobless in every area where the stuff would be sent. The important point is that the produce of the soil, and of poultry farms, and dairles—the best food in the world— will be placed within reach of those who do not get enough, who may be undernourished, easy prey to disease—and there are too many of these peoplo in a land of plenty. It’s little short of criminal to permit good nourishing food to.perish when people need it—all for lack of initiative in working out distribution methods. Bountiful providence has blessed us with an abundance. There is grim want in some lands. There is famine in others—due to war ravages, and crop failures. Therefore, it
A3444 is virtually flying in the face of providence to delay doing something about handing out this surplus food to those unable to buy it— or rather to buy enough of it. Yet, this has been going on in the United States ever since the Government began puying the food. At the same time, huge sums are being distributed in every State in the form of grants-in-aid to the indigent, or near-indigent. These grants are inade- quate. Augment them with the surplus pought with public funds. President Truman’s May 8, 1950, Speech at Lincoln, Nebr. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EUGENE D. O’SULLIVAN OF NEBRASKA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I know that every Member of this House of Representatives, and every other citi- zen of our country, whose political faith and judgment is founded upon true loy- alty to his country and respect for duly constituted authority, regardless of his or her own political faith, will be inter- ested in knowing that President Harry S. Truman made an important speech in the State of Nebraska, my home State, yesterday. It was his first major speech on his present westward journey across the United States on several dedicatory missions in Western States. His speech was as follows: I have been looking forward very much to this visit to the Middle West. This is my home country, and I always enjoy coming back to it, . I am particularly glad to be in Lincoln on this trip. Here in the center of the Nation, where the Corn Belt merges with the Great Plains, we can see clearly the greatness and the im- portance of American agriculture. The city of Lincoln depends on the farm- ing areas around it for the sources of its livelihood, The city-draws products from agriculture, and in turn provides goods and services to the smaller towns and farm fami- lies nearby. This is the pattern all over our country. The whole development of this Nation shows how city and country, industry and agriculture, can grow and prosper together, by cooperation and with mutual benefit. Whait’s true of our country is true of the world. This country today, along with other free countries, is engaged in a tremendous effort to bring about peace based on freedom and justice. Make no mistake about it, the strug- gle we are in now is just as important to our future as was our victory in the last war. If we are to win through to peace, we must maintain a healthy and strong econ- omy. And our economy can grow and pros- per only if the other free countries grow and presper also. For the genius of freedom is to succeed not by exploitation but by coop= eration. American agriculture is directly concerned with the success of our program for peace. You here in Lincoln are directly affected by what happens these days in Berlin, in Paris, in Singapore. No one should know that better than the American farmer, because farmers remember what happened to them after the last war. In the early 1920’s the bottom fell out of agriculture in this country. Export markets disappeared. Prices plummeted down, The price of corn dropped in 18 months from §2 to 42 cents a bushel. The price of cotton fell from 40 cents to 10 cents a pound. Land values collapsed. The resulting agricultural depression in the 1920’s was the forerunner of the national depression of the early thirties. Those were the days when international trade barriers were built up and up, in a foolish and futile effort to gain advantage at the expense of somebody else. Those were the days when the farmers were left alone to struggle with their problems while the rest of the country went up and up on the bubble of the boom. ‘When the bubble burst the hollow nature of that boom was revealed. Our country and the whole world suffered the agony of the great depression. It is perfectly evident now how the world- wide depression paved the way for the Second World War. That is why we are doing everything we can to see that the same thing doesn’t hap- pen again. That is why we are working so hard to bring about a sensible development of world trade and a healthy world economy. That is why we are determined to prevent another agricultural depression. Fortunately, we have the experience of the last 17 years to guide us. In 1933 we started in to attack the na- tional depression at its roots. One of our first efforts was to overcome the farm depres- sion. We developed special credit programs to rescue farm families. We stepped up agri- cultural research to develop better crops and broader markets. We started national soil-conservation programs to restore -the basis for abundant production. We devel- oped a price-support program to assure farmers a fair income. These and other farm programs helped farmers and they helped the whole country. The national farm income in 1940 was twice as large as in 1932—-which meant twice as big a farm market for industrial products. As farm income increased, the income of the rest of our people also increased. This was a practical demonstration of the truth that the people of this country prosper together, or they suffer together. Of course, these new farm programs were opposed by selfish or short-sighted people. It was the same kind of mud slinging, name- - calling opposition that you hear now every time we bring up a new proposal for the benefit of the people. I remember when I first went to the Sen- ate, an important farm bill was being debated which became the foundation of our present agricultural conservation program, Over in the House of Representatives, one Congress- man. said this legislation was “an attempt to enslave the farmer,” and that it was “com- munistic.” Another Congressman said that under this legislation farmers would be “dominated and regimented for all time’— they would “no longer * * * be free men.” These were the same people whose weird brand of “statesmanship” had brought us to the low point of 1932. They and their kind opposed all the efforts that were made to get the country out of the trouble they had got us into—just as they are opposing our efforts to improve things today. When you think how miserably wrong they have proved to be in the past, you can see just how little truth there is in the wild charges they are throwing around now. They said—back there in the thirties—that our farm program was “an attempt to enslave the farmer.” Instead, it has made the farmer free—free of the crushing burden of debt that had driven him to the verge of revolu- tion in those dreadful days of the depression. They said our farm programs were “com~ munistic.” Instead, they have strengthened APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the foundations of democracy by making the farmer more secure in the ownership of his own land. They said farmers would be regimented. Instead, farmers regained control over their own destinies, and under these programs they have enjoyed more liberty and led a better life than ever before in history. That is the real story of what happened under our new farm laws. These laws led to freedom and prosperity. They were and are strong bulwarks for our free an democratic society. Remember that fact when you hear people today croaking the old charges of socialism and regimenta- tion about every new proposal for progress. Then, when the war came along, our farm programs proved their worth all over again. The soil conservation, research, and educa- tion programs made possible an enormous rise in farm output, even though fewer peo- ple were available for farm work. The stored- up surpluses of cotton and wheat and other crops, which had been bitterly criticized be- fore the war, turned out to be extremely valuable. The price-support system was adapted to wartime needs. It was used to encourage farmers to increase total production and to turn out the right amounts of each essential product. As a result, we provided well for our fighting men and our war plants, we shipped great supplies to our allies, and our civilians had more and better food than ever before. The tremendous expansion of production during the war was equally valuable when the shooting stopped. In the years since the war, literally millions of people have been saved from a starvation diet by the products of our fields. Food from this country helped to stop and roll back the advance of commu- nism. Without that food,- many of our friends in Europe would have been lost to the cause of freedom. Today, our farm programs are undergoing new tests. They have proved their worth in bringing about economic recovery and mcet- ing the demands of war. During the last few years, we have been faced with the prob- lems involved in readjusting to peacetime needs. Two things have been made abundantly clear. First, that our programs have served us well—have indeed been our salvation—in preventing the kind of disaster that followed the First World War. Second, that there are defects in the present system which require correction. One of the main reasons we have had no serious economic downturn since the war is the farm price-support system. After the First World War, net farm income dropped nearly 50 percent in a single year. This time, when the market prices of some com-~ modities began to fall sharply, the price- support system checked the decline and pro- tected farmers’ incomes. Everybody in this country is better off tcday as a result of this fact. However, our present farm price-support program is not fully satisfactory. It is not encouraging the substantial readjustments in production that are needed now. It has allowed farm income to slide downward too much and too fast. In the last 2 years, farm income has dropped more than 20 percent. That is nothing like what happened after the First World War. Nevertheless, it is serious. This drop is not good for farmers, and it is not good for the rest of the country. We need to take positive action to stop and reverse the trend. Furthermore, the present law provides no satisfactory basis for dealing with perish- able crops. The present program relies on the Government’s taking off the market commodities which are in temporary sur- plus. That works all right for products that are storable, as long as we don’t build stock- piles bigger than may be needed in an
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD emergency. But such a system dcesn’t work for perishables. It 1s foolish to have the Government buy and store food that people want to eat now. It is even worse to have the Government buy food and destroy it, but that sometimes happens under the present program. Everyone knows about the shameful po- tato situation. This can lead to public re- sentment strong enough to discredit the whole farm program. The taxpayers should not be expected to foot the bill for buying food which has to be wasted. These obvious defects of the present sup- port program have led to a great clamor. Some people would like to abandon the pro- gram altogether. Others would like to abandon all of 1t except the part that helps the crops they are particularly interested in. Others are just interested in muddying the waters for partisan political advantage. It is not easy to disregard this clamor and see clearly what is right to do in the interest of the whole Nation. We must base our deci- sions on the facts that are demonstrated by our experience. We must preserve the good features of the present program. They are built on a solid foundation. They are necessary for our own welfare and that of the free world. But we clearly need to improve and strengthen existing legislation. This administration has made a@ very care~ ful study of the changes that are necessary to adjust our farm support program to pres- ent conditions. A series of recommenda- tions were worked out within the adminis- tration and were presented to the Congress last year by the Secretary of Agriculture. Those recommendations take the existing program which has been built up through years of experience, and seek to improve it further to meet the shortcomings which are evident. No one claims that these recommendations are perfect in every detail. We are constant- ly looking for ways to improve them. I am firmly convinced, however, that they form by far the most comprehensive, effective, and progressive proposals that have yet been offered. The essential purposes of these proposals can be very simply stated. First, they are designed to obtain the amounts and kinds of farm products that are needed in an expanding economy, and to as- sure farmers the opportunity to earn a fair income for producing those products. The support program must encourage farmers to reduce costs, and to shift production to the commodities for which we ought to have ex-~ panding markets. In particular, it should encourage farmers to shift into livestock, rather than to continue producing surpluses of such crops as grain and cotton. Under the proposals we have made farmers would be given incentives to make the needed shifts in production. Farmers would be as- sured of support for all the crops which yield @ major share of farm income. At present some of the most important ones are left out. Furthermore, recent production and prices, rather than some out-of-date histori- cal period, would be used in calculating fair income support levels. These are obviously desirable changes. It would continue to be necessary, in some eases, to limit production to genuine con- sumer demand, in order to avoid surpluses greater than amounts which are needed for storage. There are some people—the same people who have been against the farmer all along—who seize on this fact and go around crying “regimentation” and talk about how the farmer is going to lose all his liberty. Now, this is just as strange as it can be. The truth is that such limitations have been provided for in our major farm support pro- grams for many years. We have known since the experience of the Federal Farm Board, some 20 years ago, that there are times when some control of production is needed to make a Support program workable. Unless produc- tion controls are available on some crops, for use when needed, price support could be an impossible burden on the taxpayers. And here is something to remember: un- der our system quotas are not imposed unless two-thirds of the farmers affected vote for them. When two-thirds of the farmers vote to adopt quotas for themselves it is prepos- terous to go around calling that regimenta- tion. Moreover, quotas are administered by local committees, elected by the farmers themselves. These prodvction controls are in complete accord with the tradition of demo- cratic self~government. The second purpose of the administra- tion’s proposals for changes in our support program 1s to provide a method for using our entire supply of perishable products, in- stead of taking part of it off the market and putting it on the shelf. Under our method, all the product would go into the market and be consumed. A system of direct production payments to farmers would make up any difference between the average market price and a fair return. Such a system would be simple and effi- cient. The farmer would be sure of getting at least the support price. The people of towns and cities would get the benefit of what is produced. I have heard this system attacked on the ground that it would cost too much. Most of the fantastic estimates of cost you hear are made by those who don’t understand how it would actually work. When you study the facts, you will see that this plan should cost no more, and may well cost less, than the present system. And 1t would have the tremendous advantage of using, instead of wasting, perishable products. The plain fact is that the productive-pay- ment plan is the best plan yet proposed for ecttive cn abundant production of perish- rbie cvcns consumed without knocking the bs. om cw of the farmer’s income, It is in the farmer’s interest. It is also in the con- sumer’s interest. I firmly believe that it should be made a part of our national farm program. Our third purpose is to encourage the con- servation and wise use of our land and water resources. A price-support program can do this in two ways: The first is by encouraging livestock production. If we produce the livestock products that our people want, we shall need more land in grass and hay. And that is one of the major things we need to do in order to conserve our soil. The second way is to make soil conserva- tion practices a requirement for anyone who wants the benefit of price support. The whole Nation has an interest in soil conser- vation and benefits by it, just as the whole Nation has an interest in and benefits by a sound price-support program. It does not make sense to provide just as much price support for the individual who is deliberately ruining his soil as we provide for the good farmer who is keeping his land productive for future generations. The need for soil conservation is one of the most important challenges confronting us. Our price-support program can and should help us meet that challenge. The fourth purpose of our recommenda- tions is to give the most support where it is most needed—that is, to the family-size farm. The present program channels too much of its benefits to the largest farms. Of course, we must not ignore the welfare of the large farms, which contribute so importantly to agricultural production and income. But it is only sensible, where public funds are involved, to provide a higher de- gree of protection for the family farm, which is so fundamental to our democratic society. These are the four major purposes of the recommendations this administration has A3445 made for improving the farm-support pro- gram. They are designed to contribute to @ stable and prosperous agriculture as part of a strong Nation. They will encourage a sustained, realistic abundance of farm pro- duction as the basis of rising living stand~ ards for our people. They are an expression of our faith that we can all go forward together toward well-being and abundance—farmers together with city folk—the people of the United States together with free people everywhere. That is the only way to assure peace and prosperity for ourselves and for the world. Let Us Follow the Advice of Our Beloved President and Admiral Nimitz EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ADOLPH J. SABATH or ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, last week our beloved President Truman issued a statement to the press wherein he stated that he is not alarmed over the cold-war situation. He said conditions are better than in 1946 and he is optimistic over hopes for peace. Since reading that statement, I have received many letters from all parts of the country approving the President’s statement, and urging me to aid the President in every way possible so as to make an early and lasting peace a reality. Yesterday, I had occasion to read an article in the Chicago Sun-Times under date of May 7, 1950, concerning the great and beloved Admiral Chester W. Nimitz. The article was entitled “Admiral Nimitz, Opponent of Force, Takes Rest.” Unlike many military gentlemen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who thrive on war and war preparations because it means promotion and personal glory, Admiral Nimitz and other well meaning, honest, and sincere gentlemen, prefer, however, to settle their differences amicably at a peace table before a war is made possible with its killing and crip- pling of millions of people and the de- struction of billions upon billions of dol- lars worth of property. It is indeed unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that some of our radio commentators and so-called radio reporters, at every op- . portunity, scare the public and instill fear into their minds. They try to in- volve us in every conceivable way with their war-mongering statements. They could serve their country better if, every Sunday night, they would cease their alarming utterances. To my mind, if these reporters would devote their abili- ties and influence toward channels of urging and advocating peace, they would surely endear themselves to the Ameri- can people. I hope for their own future standing and influence, these commen- tators will so do. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the statement made by our great Admiral Nimitz will be welcome by 95 to 98 per-~ cent gf the American people who are opposed to war and who are continualiy
A3446 . praying for a lasting peace. The article follows: ApMIRAL Nimitz, OPPONENT oF ForcE, TaKES REST Lanse Success, N. ¥Y—The United Nations most famous man of war—Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz—has taken indefinite leave from his work after 18 months’ service in which he built a reputation as the United Nations most persistent speaker against use of force—even by the United Nations itself. The white-haired sailor, who during the war in the Pacific commanded the mightiest battle fleet ever assembled, came to the United Nations as administrator of a plan- ned plebiscite in Kashmir, to settle whether that disputed state joins India or Pakistan. But, when political events prevented hold- ing the plebiscite during his stay at Lake Success, Nimitz turned himself into a busy public speaker who could be heard week after week denouncing the use of force, by any- one, at any time. OPPOSE POLICE IDEA The other day he looked down from the rostrum of a UN committee room at 110 West Point cadets and opened with the quip: “J hope we can win a football game from you some day.” Then, figuratively, he held up the UN Char» ter and ripped out of it article 43, which calls for establishment of a world police force. The 65-year-old admiral told the future American Army generals that the UN prob- ably never would be able to agree on creat- ing a police force. “And in my opinion,” he said “its a good thing they don’t agree. The UN is not and cannot be an enforcement agency.” For example, he said, “if the UN had tried to use a police force when the General As- sembly sought to internationalize Jerusalem over objection of both Israel and Jordan, “we would still be in a bloody bath today.” VIEW ON H-BOMB A few days earlier Nimitz faced another group of West Pointers and told them he didn’t think he’d live to see a hydrogen bomb developeti—"and I hope I don’t.” He enlarged on this a little: “I personally hope they don’t ever learn to trigger it, but if anybody does, I hope we do, because I believe if we possess weapons like that and have a few of them, that will prevent the others from using them.” The Texas-born admiral is headed for his home in Berkeley, Calif., where he will re~ main until such time as his services are re- quired at UN. Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “Cuts in Face of Increased Mail Volume Worry Rhode Island Postmas- ters,” published in the Providence (R. I.) Evening Bulletin of April 21, 1950. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Cuts rn Facr or INCREASED Mar. VOLUME Worry Ryope IsLAND POSTMASTERS Rhode Island postmasters said last night they didn’t know how they could put into effect the sharp cuts in postal service ordered this week by the Postmaster General—‘‘but we’ve got to do it.” Postmaster Raymond A. Creegan of Provi- dence, one of those who spoke at a meeting of the Rhode Island Chapter of the National Association of Postmasters in Westerly, said the Providence post office had been running on a 24-hour basis with business firms doing a great volume of mailing up to midnight. “I checked today on the night differential in pay for clerical help,” Creegan said, “and I found that by cutting out night work we will save $80,000 a year. But if the work is now being performed in 24 hours, how can we do it in 12 hours?” Postmaster George A. Dolan of Westerly said he had just completed a survey in his town which showed “we will have to add 18 miles of foot carrier service in our area. As soon as we completed the survey, I received the curtailment order.” Dolan urged the group to “take this up with your Congressman,” and Creegan urged the postmasters to build a strong organiza- tion. Postmasters are going to seek a re- classification from Congress to obtain salary increases, he said, and “one strong associa- tion” would help “educate your Congress- man.” Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Is This Economy?’ published in the Texarkana Gazette of Texarkana, Tex., of April 22, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Is Tu1s Economy? Although it may seem inconsistent to call for economy in Government one day and protect cuts in the postal service on another day, we cannot see the logic behind a so- called economy move that would eliminate a few low-salaried postmen and allow a swarm of nonessential Washington bureaucrats to continue to feed at the trough. With the possible exception of the men and women doing really essential jobs in the building of our national defense, we do not know of any group of civil-service employees of the Government who work harder for less pay than do the postal workers. The postal service is a part of the daily lives of the people and is the one Govern- ment service upon which business depends more than any other. Somehow we cannot keep from believing that there is method in the madness of the Government in this approach to economy. To hit the service most essential to the people appears to us to be a calculated move to bring about a grass roots protest against economy in Government. Greater economy could be achieved by starting in the high-salaried brackets of those agencies of the Government who spend their time developing new theories on a planned economy. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Israel After 2 Years EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON, ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, we re- cently observed in this House the second anniversary of Israel’s independence. A review of the accomplishments of the State of Israel during the 2 years of its existence in the military, political, and economic fields, as well as in immigration and other phases of activity, was pre- pared by the American Zionist Council, 342 Madison Avenue, New York, and is- sued on April 23, 1950, on Israel’s second anniversary. It is entitled “Israel After Two Years.” I commend it to my col- leagues’ attention: IsraEL APTER 2 YEARS The State of Israel becomes 2 years old on this 5th of Iyar, 5710—April 28, 1950. A purely objective observer—ignorant of Israel’s history and its unique character— would be likely to describe it as a poor, small country, whose boundaries are still not fixed; whose hostile neighbors have not yet con- cluded peace treaties with it; whose cost of living is high; whose economic future de- pends upon large-scale outside investment; whose trade balance is unfavorable; whose agricultural productivity is dependent upon the introduction of irrigation projects; whose established population is being flooded by a mass immigration of perplexing variety and great poverty. There is truth in this objective picture, but it is very far from the whole and the essential truth. It omits the significant human fac- tors of historic attachment and  over- whelming need; the factors of intelligence, determination and ingrained habit of col- lective effort. Those were the factors which made the proclamation of the State of Israel 2 years ago an inspired act of destiny rather than the mad and dangerous whim it seemed to many. The land was full of Arab irregu- lars who had been attacking since December. Air communications with the outside world had ceased and the ports were under Egyp- tian aerial and naval bombardment. Five regular armies marched upon a community whose defense force, always having had to train underground, had never functioned as an army. Israel’s store of weapons was so limited that camps of many hundred trainees had one rifle to practice with. Hardly more than a dozen tiny, patched-up cast-off British training planes were its entire air force. The British-owned Haifa refineries had been closed in April and British tankers had re- moved the remaining crude oil. There was almost no oil for the air force and other mechanized equipment. Yet during the pe- riod up to the first truce of June 11, 1948, Israel’s improvised army and home guards staved off the Syrians with their tanks and armored cars in the north; encircled the Egyptians near Isdud in the Negeb; and, though losing the Old City of Jerusalem to the Arab Legion, saved the beleaguered New City from what seemed inevitable surrender to large and well-equipped forces. In the intertruce period of July 9-July 18 Israel forces seized the Lydda Airfield, Ramle and Nazareth. Israel was winning its ordeal by battle— but, looking backward, one is shocked by the realization of the precarious state it was in even after the great exertions of the first campaigns. ‘In the fall of 1948,” Prime Minister Ben Gurion wrote a year later,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “Israel actually held only a quarter of the area of the state. Central Galilee was in the hands of Kaukji’s gangs and the Lebanese army. The entire south was cut off. The Egyptian forces held, on the one hand, the Rafa-Gaza-Majdal-Isdud line along the coast up to a point less than 40 kilometers from Tel Aviv, and a second line across the coun- try south os Be’er Tuvia. All settlements and defense forces in the Negeb were cut off and the approaches to Jerusalem were blocked. At that time the United Nations meeting in Paris, was presented with a plan to exclude the Negeb from Israel.” The “plan to exclude the Negeb from Israel” was contained in the Bernadotte re- port which was launched at the United Na- tions in September 1948, with the enthu- siastic support of Secretary Marshall and the British Foreign Office. The security and territorial integrity of the new State were never in such jeopardy as in the months be- tween September 1948, and February 1949. Aside from the military difficulties, there was the very present danger of the adoption of the provisions of the Bernadotte plan, and the reiterated threat—spearheaded by the British—of sanctions against Israel for non- compliance with United Nations orders. No historic record, however, brief, would be complete without mention of the notable part played by American Jewry and FPres- ident Truman in defeating the threat of sanctions and preventing the passage of the Bernadotte plan. It is difficult now to re- member how perilous Israel’s situation was then and how close actual war between Israel and Britain seemed in January 1949, after Israeli fighters had shot down five RAF reconnaissance planes over the Egyp- tian-Israeli frontier, and British troops had been dispatched to Aqab& on the Red Sea “at the request of King Abdullah under the provisions of the Anglo-Transjordan Treaty of Alliance.” The crisis of the fall and early winter of 1948-49 was averted not only by political action at the United Nations but—concomi- tantly—by hard military facts which turned Israel’s theoretical rights into actualities, and at last convinced the Arab governments to enter into the negotiations that culmi- nated in the armistice agreements of the late winter and early spring of 1949. Egyptian violation of a United Nations order for shared use of a highway in the Negeb had led in October 1948 to renewed fighting in the Negeb which ended in Israel’s conquest of the kKeypoint of Beersheba. Almost at the same time fighting broke out in the north after Arab forces out of Lebanon attacked a height inside Israeli territory in Galilee. Within a fortnight Israel controlled all of Galilee. On December 7 a new road con~- necting Jerusalem with the coast was dedi- cated to take the place of the main route © still blocked by Arab forces. Built over the mountains by youngsters and men past fighting age, Kvish Hagvurah—the Road of Heroism—was the triumphant climax of Is- rael’s desperate effort to save its historic capital from a third destruction. Now, after suffering thousands of casualties during al- most a year of bombing, hunger, and thirst, Jerusalem’s 100,000 Jews and the shining city . they had built were safely linked to the rest of Israel. “A new pattern of governmental control and geographical relationships developed during the war. plan of November 1947 western Galilee and Jaffa and part of the Negeb were to have been in an Arab Palestine state, linked by an internationally administered economic . union with the Jewish state; Jerusalem was to have been set up at the close of the man- date as an internationally administered area. None of these things happened. The United Nations, charged with responsibility for in-° ternationalizing Jerusalem, did nothing. The According to the partition - Arabs of Palestine did not move to set up a state in the territory assigned to them; instead the overwhelming majority of them, incited by their leaders and by British ad- vice, fled to the neighboring countries. Ac- cording to the partition plan, Israel was to have had a large Arab minority of about 400,000. Ruling now over large areas not included in the area assigned to it by par- tition, Israel has an Arab minority of only 180,000. Moving into the vacuum left by Arab flight and Arab and United Nations failure to act, the new Israel took on a shape and form not anticipated by the United Nations nor even by itself. The logic of events in these 2 years has eliminated the distinction between territory assigned by the United Nations and territory occupied in the course of the war. Both are Israeli in population, government, and development. Where 2 years ago there were a half dozen Jewish villages in the largely Arab hinterland of Jerusalem, there are now some 80 Jewish Villages and almost no Arabs. Where outside Jerusalem there were stony hills which the White Paper of 1939 forbade Jews to buy and work, 300,000 trees were planted this winter. To take the place of Jerusalem’s always inadequate water supply line—still cut by Arab forces—a new aqueduct is being built which will treble the amount of water brought to the city and provide for an expanding population. Most important of all, Jerusalem, almost wrecked by British sabotage and Arab siege, is once more a thriving capital. It was the scene of the first meeting of Is- rael’s parliament, the Knesseth, on Febru- ary 14, 1949, and—in swift reaction to the United Nations vote of December 1949 for in- ternationalization of the city—has been made the permanent home of the Knesseth, of the prime minister’s and president’s offices, and of most departments of the government. If lts exalted and central place in the great drama of Jewish history needed the confirma- tion of a symbolic modern ritual, it received such confirmation in August of 1949 when the bones of Jewry’s modern prophet, Theo- dor Herzl, were brought from Vienna and laid to rest in a tomb on a high hill now known as Mount Herzl. Western Galilee and the Negeb are like Jerusalem, integral, constantly changing and developing parts of the new Israel. Of the more than 180 agricultural settlements founded since the establishment of the State (an average of about 8 a month), a particularly large number are in Galilee and the Negeb. The need of peaceful conquest py the plow is as acutely felt throughout Israel as the need for adequate military pre- paredness. A geobotanical research station, newly established in Beersheba, experiments with trees, plants, and crops, to determine which are most suitable for the Negeb. Pipe lines now under construction will be bring- ing 15,000,000 cubic meters of water to the Negeb this summer, revolutionizing its agri- cultural possibilities. A systematic govern- ment drilling program has led to the dis- covery of large quantities of sweet water in the desolate Azaba Valley south of the Dead Sea. The sluggish little Arab town of Beer- sheba has become a Jewish municipality whose population is expected to reach 10,000 by'the end of this year. In the north the small Arab town of Acre has become an ex- panding Arab-Jewish city, Jewish and Arab workers have begun work on a 5-year plan to convert 10,000 acres of malarial marshland east and southeast of Acre into fertile soil. The Ministry of Agriculture has established a@ special department for the guidance and advancement of agriculture in the 76 Arab villages of Galilee. Beersheba, southern limit of Jewish settle- ment in the Bible’s familiar delimitation of Israel’s boundaries, is Jewish once more, but it is no longer Israel’s southern boundary. A3447 Military clashes with the Egyptians in the Negeb grew in intensity in December of 1948 and January of 1949, and in their most effec- tive action of the war the Israeli forces bot- tled up the Egyptians in a pocket at Faluja. Israel now controlled the southern Negev, and the ground was laid for armistice nego- tiations with Egypt which began on January 13 and concluded on February 24, 1949, leav- ing Egyptian forces only in the coastal strip between Gaza and Rafah. In March, despite British political and military maneuvering, Israel secured the right, given it by the parti- tion resolution, to Eilat, the little strip on the Gulf of Aqaba at the southeast tip of Palestine. King Solomon’s port of Etzion Gever had been a stone’s throw from Eilat which can become Israel’s gateway to the Indian Ocean and the Hast. HEHilat is Israel now—inhabited by a small pioneering mili- tary force, a goal of pilgrimages, a center of activity. It is linked by air to Lydda. Docks are being built for boats. Private investment is establishing a factory to grind the tiny fish caught in the Gulf into meal for chicken feed. Israel—from Dan to Hilat—is a much larger land now than its most devoted chil- dren conceived of only 2 years ago. For the southernmost point of the Negeb, facing Egypt, Transjordan, and Saudi Arabia, is no longer a dot on a map, but an important and cherished part of its new life. The State of Israel’s first obligation had been the defense of its people against attack by land and sea and air. In the midst of this agonized, extemporaneous struggle for life it had to carry out the practical, peace- time task of setting up a government. The mandatory regime had deliberately left Israel a legacy of chaos. It had made no pro- vision for the functioning of any sort of administration to take over after the High Commissioner’s departure on May 14, 1948. Here the years of semigovernmental experi- ence which the Jewish Agency and Vaad Leumi had had, proved their extreme use- fulness. The task of governing the country was assumed naturally and with as little strain as possible under the circumstances, by the Provisional Council of State estab- lished on May 14, 1948, in accordance with an agreement between the principal parties represented in the Jewish Agency and the Vaad Leumi. In the turmoil of the fall of 1948 a census of the population was carried out, prepara- tory to the holding of a countrywide election on January 25, 1949. The election was a model of peace and order in a part of the world where elections are notable for vio- lence and fraud. Every adult resident of the State of Israel, Jew or non-Jew, man or woman, was eligible to vote, and over 80 percent of them did so. The Arab women who voted that day in Israel broke a new trail in the history of the Arab world. They were the first ever to have had the privilege of the franchise and they stirred feminist demands in Egypt and Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. They were the inspiration behind a startling development in Syria where Husni Ziam, the revolutionary swept into power during March 1949 in the unrest caused by the Syrian Army’s defeat in Palestine, gave the franchise to women with primary ed- ucation, : - Husni Zaim had come to power in a mili- tary coup d’état; he was shortly assassinated in @ second military coup d’état; the per- petrators of the latter were themselves dis- placed by a third coup d’état. An attempt at a similar coup d’état, led by the chief of police, took place this winter in Iraq, where cabinets have been changing with un- usual rapidity. What bore all the signs of an, armed revolt by the Syrian Popular Party of Antoun Saadeh was nipped at the very last moment in Lebanon during the sum- mer of 1949. Political assassinations had be- come the order of the day in Egypt last year.
A3448 In striking contrast to the rest of the Middle East, the Government of Israel—the youngest state and the most exposed to hostility—has been as stable and orderly in its workings as an old and well-established democracy. The governmental structure of Israel has in fact developed swiftly and comprehen- sively in these 2 years. The President’s func- tions are similar to those of the President of the French Republic. The 120-member Knesseth functions very much along the lines of the British House of Commons. The Gevernment is responsible to the Knesseth and the latter has shown itself to be very far from a rubber stamp body—debates in it are both lively and on a high level and fre- quently lead to amendment of government policy. The Knesseth has 9 committees, each of which is composed of representatives of all parties and is responsible for thorough study of all bills falling within its scope. The 17 ministries into which the government is subdivided, are each headed by a director general, who is a permanent civil servant. A nonpartisan state comptroller, directly re- sponsible to the Knesseth, checks the ac- counts and efficiency of all government of- fices. The supreme court has the power to check the government where it seems to it to be infringing upon democratic and constitu- tional rights. It may summon any govern- ment official and demand an explanation of his conduct. It has on several occasions re~ versed decisions and rulings made by minis- tries, and has won the confidence and grati- tude of those concerned with genuine demo- cratic development in Israel. The Knesseth has proved to be a mature and hard-working body of law-makers, In its first session from February 14 to Sep- tember 12, 1949, it passed '70 laws, of which the most important pertained to the budget, military conscription and education. The Prime Minister had asked for a budget of 37,000,000 pounds for current expenditure; the Knesseth, after grave and extensive de- bate, reduced this to 35,440,000 pounds, In March 1950 at the end of the fiscal year, Fi- nance Minister Kaplan was able to report to the Knesseth that the budget had been met without a deficit—a result which could never hare been obtained if not for the high income and inheritance levies passed by the Knes- seth. National manpower has been mobilized as well as national income. The universal con- scription bill passed in September 1948 im- poses military training of various lengths upon all men between 18 and 49 and all un- married women between 18 and 34. A serv- ice bill, passed in February 1950 provides for the drafting of men and women for a year of agricultural and military training and a year of specialized vocational training. Children are required, without exception, to go to school. The education bill passed by the Knesseth provides for free education for all children between 5 and 13 years of age. In succeeding years the age range is to be gradually increased till the goal of free com- pulsory education for all children from 4 to 16 is reached. In this present school year 100,000 Jewish children and 15,000 Arab chil- dren—boys and girls alike—are enrolled in school. During the mandate period 25 per- cent of-the Arab children in urban areas and 50 percent of those in rural areas did not at- tend school at all. In faithful reflection of the cooperative tendencies which have dominated the de- velopment of the Jewish community in Pales< tine, Israel’s two labor parties—the moderate Mapai, which controls the Government, and the leftist Mapam—are the two strongest groups in the Knesseth. The leaders of the Government have made no secret of their hope for a Socialist Israel, but they are un- dogmatic and practical enough to under- stand how vitally necessary private invest- ments are if the country is to be developed adequately and quickly, Hence, on March 29, 1950 the Knesseth by a 47 to 15 vote adopted a law nrividi~~ -t¢c1al privileges for private investor-: 27 #'i.' than the usual 75 per- cent income-tax celling on their earnings; 5 years exemption from property taxes on new buildings; customs exemption till June 30, 1952 for machinery and raw materials; permission to transmit abroad in dollars 10 percent of their investment a year. It is difficult enough to establish a new independent state in time of war. It 1s even more difficult to establish a new state in time of war for a population constantly being augmented by immigrants from many dauf- ferent lands and backgrounds. In 1947, after 66 years of Zionist resettlement in Palestine, there were some 700,000 Jews in the land. In the 2 years of Israel’s independence, almost 400,000 were added—-more than half the number six and a half decades had brought. The process of return from exile, begun on so tiny and tentative a scale by the few young Biluim of 1882, has taken on a swiftness of tempo and a greatness of scale that carry the mind back to the mighty, soaring pro- phecies of the bible: “and I will bring you out from the peoples and will gather ye out of the countries wherein you are scattered, with a mighty hand and with a stretched out arm and with a poured out fury, * * *” “Lift up thine eyes round about and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far. * * * Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows? ee “Behold these shall come far: and lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim.” The prophecy is being fulfilled with almost literal exactness. The children of Israel have been returning from the furthest corners of their exile—from every western land, from India and Afghanistan, Morocco and Shang- hai, Turkey and Cyrenaica, and, “flying as a cloud” in the airplanes of “Operation Magic Carpet,” from out of the medieval prison of Yemen, The arrival on November 20, 1949 of 660 immigrants from Tripoli brought the Jewish population of Israel to 1,000,000. Most montis bring more newcomers—20,000 to 30,000—than all but a few of the 28 years of the Mandatory period. There have been days on which three or four thousand landed at Haifa; in a single week of December 1948 one-third of Yugoslavia’s 11,000 surviving Jews sailed from Fiume in two ships; and as recently as February 26, 1950, 1,200 came on a single boat from North Africa. The total for 1948 was 118,993; for 1949, 239,331—an av- erage of more than 655 persons every day. There is comforting irony in the fact that 60 percent of the new immigrants are trans- ported, economically and appropriately, on Israeli ships—the very same ships that were the ghost fleet of illegal immigration during the last, bitter years of the Mandate. The face of the Jewish world has already been radically altered by the 2 years of un- restricted immigration to the State of Israel. The Jewish community of Bulgaria may be sald to have disappeared, for 42,000 have come to Israel, leaving only 4,000 or’ 5,000, most of whom wish to remain in Bulgaria. Yemenite Jewry will be completely trans- ferred to Israel by 1950, 40,000 having come since the establishment of the State. Al- most half the Jews of Turkey—about 35,000— have so far arrived in Israel. About 2,000 a month are leaving Tripolitania, and more than half of Libya’s 30,000 Jews are now in Israel. Seven thousand—practically all those who wish to leave—have come from Yugo- slavia. Twenty thousand have come from Czechoslovakia, leaving 15,000, of whom about 5,000 have applied for immigration to Israel. Some 20,000 of the 45,000 Jews re- maining in Germany are to be expected in Israel during 1950, and 30,000 of the re- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD maining 50,009 Polish Jews. The exodus from North Africa has a Messianic haste and fervor. Iraq appears to be ready to allow its Jewish citizens to emigrate. Only Hungary with its 150,000 Jews, and Rumania with its 360,000 have followed the Soviet’s example in barring emigration to Israel; unlike the Soviet, they have, however, relented enough to allow a few thousand Jews with relations in Israel, to leave. The Messianic tempo of immigration is hardly matched by the tempo of absorption in a small, undeveloped land like Israel. That is Israel’s burning economic and social problem. It is true that in the period be- tween May 15, 1948, and January 1, 1950, 264,370 immigrants were absorbed into the life of the country, 165,000 of them in towns, 13,000 of them in communal settlements, 14,000 in cooperative settlements, 34,000 in villages, while 15,000 child and adoléscent immigrants are being supported and trained for productive living by the Youth Aliyah movement. But satisfaction over these comforting figures is tempered by the inade- quate standard of living and inadequate em- ployment of a great many of these 264,000 immigrants and by the shattering fact that there are still at least 80,000 persons in re- ception camps, for whom not even the bar- est housing is available. Normal economic thinking and procedure can hardly apply to Israel’s abnormal immi- gration situation. It is an immigration which, in its vastly greater part, cannot wait, for it flees from present dangers or from the valid fear of the closing of the gates of the lands in which it lives. Swift improve- ment in the living conditions of the new- comers and acceleration of their absorption into the country are pathetically dependent upon the free-wifl offerings of Zionists throughout the world, for they cannot wait upon the gradual process of the broadening of the economic base of Israel. Before Israel’s economy can be expanded to the point where it will adequately sustain its present population of over 1,200,000 and its anticipated population of 2,000,000 within 10 years, many obstacles will have to be over- come. The general objective is clear: A mixed cooperative and private economy based on intensive agriculture and highly specialized light industries, supplemented by fishing, maritime trades, and tourist traffic. That this objective can be reached is proved by the agricultural and industrial experience of the mandatory period during which the Jewish community created a self-supporting economy in an utterly undeveloped land. But large investment of both private and public funds is required. Robert Nathan has estimated the amount needed as $2,000,000,- 000 for the next 10 years, Investment must be supplemented by careful control of im- ports and currency; sharp reduction in the cost of living and consequently of labor; soil and water conservation of maximum efficiency; moderization of factory and trans- port equipment; and intensification of agri- cultural and industrial skills. How far has Israel gone toward those goals in its first two troubled years? There is reason to feel that the worst is over and that there are encouraging signs on many sectors of the economic front. During 1949, 250 new industrial enterprises were estab- lished and 200 others are now being estab- lished. Most significantly, an unusually large sum for so small a country—$241,000,- 000—an amount equal to 40 percent of Israel’s total national income, was invested on capi- tal development in Israel in the course of the year. Sixty percent of this investment was public capital; 40 percent was from private sources, more than half of it provided by Israelis. American private capitalists in- vested $25,000,000 during 1949, and 1950 has brought the news of, large new industrial projects in which the technical know-how
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and part of the capital are to be provided by American firms; a Kaiser-Frazer automobile assembly plant to be opened in Haifa in Au- gust for the production of 6,000 cars a year; an Israeli branch of the General Tire & Rubber Co., of Akron. Rigid rationing and import and price con- trols—the so-called austerity program, di- rected by Dr. Bernard Joseph, minister of supply and rationing—brought the cost of living down by 12.8 percent between Janu- ary 1949 and January 1950. A satisfactory agreement has been reached with the British Treasury regarding Israel’s frozen sterling balance and the settlement of all claims and counterclaims arising out of the termination of the mandate. Though imports (which amounted to 87,700,000 Israeli pounds) ex- ceeded exports (which amounted to 10,600,~ Q00 pounds) by about $215,600,000 in 1949, one of the main reasons for this is the inevi- tcble necessity for import of capital goods into the country. Increased production will eventually enable Israel to export more. As matters now stand, half of Israel’s ex- ports—largely citrus fruit—go to the United Kingdom, but Israel has by now signed trade agreements with the Netherlands, Hungary, Poland, Finland, Uruguay, Yugo- slavia, Denmark, France, Ozechoslovakia. Taking the $3,200,000 pact with Uruguay as a typical example, we note that it provides for Israel’s importing frozen meat, wool, and rice and exporting polished diamonds, artificial dentures, wines, oil stoves, and olive oil. The agreement signed with Czechoslovakia in March 1950 provides that $8,400,000 worth of Czech goods—iron and steel wares, food and glassware—be imported by Israel which is to sell Czechoslovakia $2,800,000 worth of citrus products, pharmaceuticals, and other goods. In the period between November 1949 and March 1950 Israel-manufactured textiles valued at $2,800,000 were sold abroad, a mil- lion dollars worth in Denmark alone. Large quantities of optical lenses have been ex- ported to Yugoslavia; machinery and paper from Sweden have been bartered for six thou~ sand dozen nylon stockings from Israel and timber from Austria, for artificial teeth. These are all hopeful beginnings. More- over, the entire economic set-up should shortly be reflecting the therapeutic effect of the carefully administered Export-Import Bank loan of $100,000,000. Since January 19, 1949, when the loan was announced in Wash- ington, over $96,000,000 worth of credits have been authorized by the Bank, in each case for the purchase in the United States of equipment and materials. Half the credits authorized have so far been spent, and about a@ quarter of the total equipment to be pur- chased has arrived in Israel. Israel’s key agricultural need is large-scale irrigation, and that is being made possible by the $35,000,000 credit for agriculture, half of which has been allocated for the purchase of irrigation pipe. Dr. Walter Clay Lowdermilk has pointed out after his recent trip to Israel that there is actually a greater abundance of water in the country than experts had thought, making it better-watered than southern. California. About 400,000 acres of arable land can be redeemed by irrigation during the next 3 or 4 years, and it is notable that Dr. Lowdermilk with his world-wide ex- perience in conservation is to be adviser to the Government of Israel next year. He will be empowered to set up a coordinated pro- gram of full land and water use for the entire country, including the dry southern Negeb whose grazing possibilities must be fully de- veloped. The Export-Import Bank credit for agri- culture has brought Israel many hundreds of heads of cattle and other requisites. The Ministry of Agriculture can now look soberly ahead to eultivation within 4 years of 1,250, 000 acres which should provide Israel with all the garden vegetables it needs, half its potatoes and tobacco, one-third of its fish, and one-quarter of its bread grain. The constant expansion that is going on and that will soon be felt in Israel’s food basket may be gaged by the fact that this year 23,000 dunams of land—10 times the present po- tato area—have been put under potato cultivation. Efficient transport is a prerequisite of effi- cient agricultural and industrial develop- ment. ‘An Export-Import Bank credit of $11,000,000 for communications has already brought Israel 4,000 new trucks and busses and will modernize the overtaxed, archaic telephone and telegraph facilities. A $5,- 500,000 loan for port installations is enlarg- ing Haifa Harbor and equipping it so as markedly to reduce loading and unloading time and in every way increase the efficiency of the port. <A recent $20,000,000 credit for construction materials will alleviate the housing shortage and facilitate building and rebuilding of interurban highways and the expansion of the water-supply and sewage~ disposal facilities of Israel’s municipalities. Industrial development—key to enlarged employment and a more favorable balance of trade—will be stimulated by a $20,000,000 credit for the purchase of machinery and raw materials. Economic adjustment is not the only one of Israel’s large, present problems, There is the painful struggle about the future of Jerusalem and the uncertain status of the Arab refugees who, having abandoned their lhomes and left Palestine to become a com- pletely altered land, must now he aided to find a new life—preferably, Israeli and many British and other observers feel, in under- populated sections of the Arab countries. Over and above all other questions looms the problem of peace and decent neighborly re- lationships with the Arab countries. Looking at these vexed problems in the long perspective of Jewish history, one is somehow persuaded to feel that an answer to them should not be too long delayed. The mystery and the tragedy of the exile have found their answer in the third Jewish Commonwealth. Fhe Jewish people has re- covered its national entity; its state on May 11, 1949, entered into the fellowship of the United Nations and has been accorded the recognition of most of the governments of the earth, including even the two islamic lands of Turkey and Iran. The incredible has happened; the prayer of generations has been answered. There is no truer expression of the marvel of Jewish history today than the noble ritual that takes place on the airfield at Aden every time a plane load of Yemenite Jews leaves for Israel. As the passengers go into the modern American planes and the pilot pre= pares to take off, the Shofar—ancient cere- monial horn of the Jewish people—is sol- emnly blown. For the airfield at Aden is the threshold of redemption. Withholding Tax on Dividends at Their Source EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr, Speaker,. under leave to extend my re- marks in the REcorp, I include the fol- lowing telegram from the commissioner A3449 of corporations and taxation of Massa- chusetts: Boston, Mass., May 8, 1950. Hon. Evrrn Nourse RoceErs, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Tax revenues for Massachusetts and its 851 cities and towns are likely to be seriously affected if Congress approves withholding tax on dividends at their source. Massachu- setts has an income-tax law taxing income from intangibles, major portion of which comes from tax on dividends all of which is distributable to cities and towns of com- monwealth under formula established by leg~ islature. Five-sixths of tax on foreign and business corporations measured in part by income is distributed to cities and towns and balance retained by Commonwealth. It is conceivable courts would hold if tax on dividends were withheld that the entire dividend credited to the stockholder actu-~ ally received or constructively received could not be taxed under Massachusetts law. Under present Massachusetts law dividend of $1,000 would be taxed at 6 percent and that same $1,000 would be subject to Federal tax if amount stockholder received instead of $1,000 was $900. Massachusetts for its cities and towns would be restricted fo taxing #900 thus losing $6 tax on that $1,000 dividend. In the aggregate this would deprive the Com- monwealth of upward of $2,000,000 annu~ ally. If there is anything you can do to prevent this it is my opinion you will he benefiting State and its 351 cities and towns. Your opposition to the proposal is respect- fully requested. Henry F. Lone, Commissioner of Corporations and Taxations. Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial en-~ titled “Dubious Péstal Economy,” pub- lished in the Buffalo Courier Express, of Buffalo, N. Y., of April 20, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Dvustous Postan EcONOMY Aecording to Postmaster General Jesse M. Donaldson, operating funds recommended by the House Appropriations Committee for the fiseal year will not be enough to maintain postal service at present levels. Complying with a congressional mandate, the Post Of- fice Department has ordered a sharp reduc- tion in services, including limitation of resi- dential deliveries to one a day and some cur- tallment of business deliveries. This will result in some inconventence to the public, and possibly some financial loss to private business. It will save several mil- lions of dollars, but by no means wipe out the Department’s annual half-bilHon-dollar op- erating deficit. Unfortunately, tt will cause about 10,000 postal employees to be latd off, a severe and unde~erved hardship for a faith- ful and none-tou-well-paid group of publis servants.
A3459 President William C. Doherty of the Na- tional Association of Letter Carriers (AFL) called the reduction ‘‘a rape of the postal serv- ice” and said the union would ask the Senate Post Office Committee to block “this de~ vastating, ill-advised, and unnecessary order.” The Hoover Commission’s comprehensive report on the postal service made various recommendations to put the Department on @ pratical business basis. In regard to fiscal management, it said that the Post Office is “in need of greater flexibility than the customary type of appropriation budget ordinarily per- mits.” It also recommended that Congress authorize the Postmaster General to raise certain postal rates, estimated to increase postal revenues by $113,000,0CO0 annually. It made no specific recommendation for a cur- tailment of service necessitating layoffs of the postal labor force. So it appears that the congressional mandate has only an in- ferential basis in the Hoover Commission re- ort. ® Incidentally, Congressmen never are slow about appropriating money for new post offices in their home districts. In view of this and other Federal spending, to appro- priate funds for continued employment of 10,000 postal employees, now threatened by the reduction of essential services, hardly could be challenged. Near Eastern Armaments Situation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTHONY F. TAURIELLO OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. TAURIELLO. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the REcorD, I include the following letter: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 5, 1950. The Honorable ANTHONY F. TAURIELLO, House of Representatives, Drsr Mr. TAURIELLO: I am grateful to you and your colleagues for the letter of May 3, 1950, in which were set forth your joint views relative to my forthcoming discussion with Mr. Bevin on the Near Eastern arma- ments situation, Such expressions of opinion by Members of the Congress are ex= tremely helpful to us in preparing for the meetings shortly to take‘place at London. Several of the points which you have raised merit our comments at this time. With reference to your question as to whether the supply of armaments by Great Britain to the Near East is facilitated, directly or indirectly, by the settlement of that country’s lend-lease account, the mutual defense assistance program or ECA aid, I assure you that it is not. The mutual defense assistance program for the 1950 fiscal year does not provide to the United Kingdom any items being furnished by that Govern- ment to the Arab states, nor does this pro- gram furnish Great Britain replacement items for items thus furnished. With re- gard to ECA, the relationship between this program and the Military Assistance Pro- gram was thoroughly explored by the Con- gress when the latter was pending last year. There has been no indication that the United Kingdom is diverting any undue proportion of its resources into military production. I assure you also that the United States has consistently sought to persuade both Arabs and Israelis to reach a settlement of their differences through negotiation and voluntary agreement. This has been Ameri- can policy both in the United Nations and in the direct relations of the United States with the countries themselves. The same policy has been followed by the American representative on the Palestine Conciliation Commission, which was estab= lished by the UN General Assembly on De~ cember 11, 1948, and instructed to take steps to assist the governments and authorities concerned in the Palestine dispute to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstand~ ing between them. The Commission is now engaged in discussions with representatives of Israel, Jordon, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. You suggest in your letter that it would be helpful if the United States declared its policy to be opposed to a Near East arms race or a renewal of Arab-Israeli hostilities. That this is United States policy regarding an arms race was set forth by the United States representative in the United Nations on August 4, 1949, when he stated in the Security Council that “So far as the United States is concerned, it does not intend to allow the export of arms which would per~ mit a competitive arms race in the area.” This Government has on several occasions declared iteslf to be firmly opposed to a re- newal of hostilities in the Near Hast. You suggest further that point 4 technical assistance be made available only to those Arab states which were at peace, by which I assume you mean those Arab states which had reached peace settlements with Israel. You may recall that the point 4 program was specifically designed to improve the health and general living standards of the people of a country, as well as to raise their productivity. The Department believes that it would be undesirable to use this program as an instrument of political pressure. The Department also considers that the economic development of the Near East as a whole would lay sound foundations for permanent peace and stability in the area. I hope that you will convey these observa- tions to your colleagues, together with my thanks for the views expressed in your letter. Sincerely yours, DEAN ACHESON. Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “How Do You Like the New Set- Up?” from the Holyoke Democrat of Hol- yoke, Mass., of April 22, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE BystanpeErR—How Do You Lixs THE NEw Set-Up? Postmaster General Jesse M. Donaldson has ordered an economy measure that you, citi- zen, will have to suffer, grunt, holler and whatnot. Postmaster Philip F. Ryan will do the best under circumstances but orders are orders and he will have to put them into execution, whether he likes it or not, and it is a cinch that you, citizen, are not going to hold bon- fires to celebrate the new schedule. The regulars will squeeze in their regular hours, but the poor substitutes will have to take it on the chin and enjoy a diet of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cheese and crackers. Still, some “monkeys” in Europe will keep on receiving American goods from America with the postal au- thorities acting the Santa Claus part. he overtime basis is “in the bag’’ ready to be closed in the “dead letter” closet. The residential districts will see their favorite mail carrier once a day. If some club or social matron intends to receive an invita~ tion for tonight’s meeting or social, she better arrange her afiairs in advance to be sure to receive her “invite” in the morning mail—Niema in the afternoon, lady. It might have its good sjde if you intend to send a check. You could say: “I mailed it last night.’ It would be all up to you to find out where they won’t collect at night. You would be sure to have “freedom of mind” and feel safe that you will have time to cover said check by the time it will reach its destination—it might take 3 or 4 days. Business districts from Monday through Fri- day will receive two deliveries instead of three and one on Saturday. Somebody in these districts will ‘‘pray” in undertone voice we bet. At night, mail will be picked up only from street boxes which are widely used. From the less popular boxes there will be no stop. It sounds to us as a catch as catch can stuff. From now on, citizen, you will have to speak ‘“‘sweet little things” to your letter carrier in asking him where in heck you can deposit your correspondence at night. As it will hit the residential sections the most, better use the family car and bring your mail to the post office to be sure of de- livery. Wonder if residents from those sec- tions will accept with good grace? If your correspondence is local or just across the river you may as well deliver in person and economize the 3 cents. Post-office windows will close at 6 p.m. but the chances are that it will be five. In that case the boys may be able to listen to a couple of innings of broadcast on baseball. The cut is one supposedly set for economy purposes. But you will notice that Con- gress is still in session and it is only a shor¢ while back that the Postal Department gave us a present in the form of an increase in postal rates. Congressman. JoHN W. HESELTON scored some success by sending telegrams, potatoes, tomatoes, etc., to President Harry S. Truman. We have about 2,000 stamps ready for col- lection purposes. Wonder if our Congress- man would care to present them to the President thereby giving him a hint about the postal curtailment? Write to your Congressman and Senators, citizen, The Little Marginal Farmer Is the Home- steader of Today in a Costly Era EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WINT SMITH OF KANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, perhaps for the last 25 years, more space has been devoted in the American press on ways to help agriculture than any other subject. Many plans have been in~ troduced in the Congress. Some of these plans have been enacted into law. Yet all seem to have been lacking in some respects. Some of these plans have been rather severe in their application. The most notable one perhaps was to create the doctrine of scarcity—pby the use of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the gun and hammer—and some more recent proposals seem to sound more like the program of the “hammer and sickle.” Perhaps the main trouble has been that the planners did not have an over- all picture of farming. Many base their ideas on a one-crop farm. So many, in approaching the farm program, lose sight of climate, soil, topography, geog- raphy, and moisture. All thinking per- sons who try to solve this perplexing problem, soon come to the realization that a yardstick and a formula made and enforced by bureaucrats in Washington is not and will not be the answer. Any farm program, to be successful, must be voluntary and controlled by farmers themselves. Recently it was pointed out from sta- tistics of the Agriculture Department that there were 25,000 less farms in Kansas in the year 1945 than in 1930, and I am sure that the number of farms have decreased since 1945. It seems to me that any farm program should be based upon this question: “Will it help the family-sized farm?” I herewith: submit for my colleagues’ attention the ideas of Mr. E. I. Chil- cott, of Mankato, Kans., who comes from along line of ancestors engaged in agri- culture since the Revolutionary War. He has been an agricultural county agent and knows agricultural problems from a practical standpoint. His ideas are as follows: We dare America. Yes, we farmers that grow the food and every laborer that eats it dares America to cut out a lot of red tape, counting of acreages, bushels and pigs, and really get behind America’s agriculture. Did we not finance industry for a war to create a lot of stuff to destroy and kill on a cost-plus basis? We dare America to get behind agriculture on a cost only, not cost plus, basis to make & prosperous peace. No country heavily en- dowed with soil and climate like our great Mississippi River Valley can have a sound and enduring prosperity without a sound and prosperous agriculture. We do not need or desire to have the own- ership of property in the hands of the Gov- ernment. For is not that selling ourselves into communism and socialism? If all our money goes to the Government for taxes and bonds and they in turn buy and own the corn and wheat and the bins on our farms and communities, mortgages on homes, etc., etc., are we not taxing and buying ourselves into socialism, losing our individual liberties and rights? We all have to keep a record of income and expenses for tax purposes so Federal and State collecting gangs can extract the profit. What are small business and farmers sup- posed to do with the losses, forget them? Try it. Those things, if over too long a period, get harder to forget and stagnate our whole economy. : Would it not be a sound investment in security of Americanism to stand behind the small marginal and submarginal farmers, not to the limit of $25,000 as Brannan suggests, but even $500, $1,000, or $1,500 to the extent Congress deems economically feasible and desirable, letting them book their feed, seed, fertilizer, repair costs and deduct from in- come, also deduct one-tenth or 10 percent of « the value of auto, tractor, machinery, and home equipment. If the book shows a profit, take the necessary 20 percent (if it is neces- sary?). If book shows a loss, just mail him a check to that predetermined limit, The little marginal farmer is the home-- steader of today in acostly era, They are the untouched market. Forget socialized medi- cine, bank guaranties, pig counting, acreage measuring, spud rolling, even a lot of unem- ployment insurance checks, relief, etc. Let ’em all farm if they want to. A few small checks to offset these losses, if they do occur, would underwrite our whole national economy. The investment would be economically justifiable and sound. The profit share from all business along the line would many times pay the investment. We would see the national debt shrink, the red tape cut out, a happy prosperous country owned by its individual citizens into which socialism and communism could not creep. Yes, we dare America to stand behind the little basic farmer upon whom all peacetime prosperity hinges. We dare America to really turn our economy back to the individual citizens. ‘We dare America to let the regular individ- ual-owned business channels own and dis- tribute the commodities of production, the law of supply and demand set the price. Just assure the farmer his costs and let nature and business take its course. That’s Amer- icanism. ‘You’d be surprised what a country they’d make of it. Where’s the Fire? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES R. HOWELL OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. HOWELL. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I want to praise the work which is done by America’s volunteer firemen. The first volunteer fire company in America was chartered by the King of England under date of July 11, 1752. I am familiar with the date because the company so chartered is still in existence and has been continuously since that time, and is located in the district which Irepresent. This is the relief fire com- pany of Mount Holly, N. J., which is now making plans for its bicentennial. Only those who have had the privilege of growing up and living in a small American town can appreciate the im- portant place which the volunteer fire company holds in the life of the commu- nity. Besides the work for which it is chartered, the volunteer fire company contributes immeasurably to the social and civic life of the people. To be a member of the fire company is something to be proud of. I am very proud of the fact that I was a member of the Pen- nington, N. J., fire company. Recently the volunteer company of White Horse, N. J., a suburb of the city of Trenton, was selected by the March of Time to play the central role in their documentary film, Where’s the Fire. An editorial in tribute to this fine group of men and this outstanding honor which has been paid them was printed recently in the Hamiltonian, the weekly news- paper of Hamilton Township, printed in Yardville, N. J. The editorial, also en- titled “Where’s the Fire?” follows: WHERE'S THE FIRE? ‘One of the most deserving groups of men we can think of will receive recognition on & Nation-wide scale in the near future. The A3451 men are our volunteer firemen, and the well- deserved recognition will be provided by a motion picture which should be of special interest in Hamilton Township. The March of Time recently completed a film entitled ‘‘Where’s the Fire?” It traces the development of fire-fighting equipment from the early days of hand-pumped engines to the present with its motorized, highly effi- cient fire trucks. Afte: examining the work- ings of large and small city departments, the film turns to the volunteers. The White Horse Fire Co. was selected to illustrate the work of the volunteers. ‘‘Typi- cal of the modern volunteer fire company is that at White Horse,” a March of Time spokesman says. “Practically all community activities center around the fire house of the White Horse volunteers. The firemen sponsor boys’ baseball, basketball, and foot- ball teams, a 50-piece brass band, and they stage semimonthly dances for teenagers of the community.” The film is a real tribute to the White Horse firemen and to the volunteers every- where. Like their White Horse brothers, the members of Hamilton’s other fire companies serve their communities ably and willingly. It is difficult to over~praise the volunteers. To many, the fireman is a professional, paid to risk his neck in battling fires, yet the volunteers outnumber paid firemen by 10-to-1 in the United States today. ‘These volunteers are expertly trained in the latest fire-fighting methods and their equipment, notably in Hamilton Township, is often the envy of large city departments. We urge you to see this picture. It will give you a good idea of what these altruistic fire fighters are doing in your interest. We salute the White Horse firemen and all thé volunteers of the township for a difficult job well done. Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Sputtering About Postal Matters,” published in the Carthage, (Mo.) Evening Press of April 20, 1950. There being no objection, the edito- rial was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorp, as follows: SPUTTERING ABOUT PosTsL MATTERS The same day Carthage celebrated improve- ment of the mail service by inauguration of a mail bus between here and Kansas City the Postmaster General at Washington lobbed a gloom grenade. Nation-wide cut in urban mail service to one delivery a day. Post Office Department going deep into red. Congress won’t make up the difference. Result a cut in service through cutting work hours and hence workers’ total pay. An endeavor to make ends meet. Businessmen can understand that sort of thing, though this may be the first recorded indication in recent American history of a Government department doing so. But there might be an alternate to this plan of reducing costs at the financial ex- pense of the postal worker and the incon- venience of the letter-getting public.
A3452 In view of the tremendous number of Gov- ernment offices and bureaus and this-and- thats which use the mails free and freely, it is perhaps not unreasonable to assume that maybe a third or a fourth of the volume of mail is this deadhead stuff. The Post Office Department could figure it out quite accurately. Then it could bill Congress for this load which should be charged to the Government direct or to the agencies or bureaus con- cerned. If all the postal load were pay load the department very likely would be plenty in the black. The Hat Industry EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTONI N. SADLAK OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. SADLAK. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the statement made by me this afternoon when I personally appeared before the United States Tariff Commission which is currently investigating a complaint having reference to the hat industry. Most seriously affected are the workers in some 10 concerns located in the Dan- pury and Norwalk areas, in my district, the State of Connecticut. Other areas in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey are likewise affected by the issue involved. The statement follows: STATEMENT OF Hon. ANTONIO N. SaDLaK, Con~ GRESSMAN AT LARGE, CONNECTICUT, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION Mr. Chairman and members of the Tariff Commission, it is the well-known function and capacity of the Tariff Commission in cases of this kind to search for and evalu- ate details and technical information, I recognize that a Member of Congress would not normally be able to submit more technical details that would assist the Com- mission than are made available by research members of your own staff and by the many experts in the industry, some of whom are here to present their statements. There are some points, however, that are of particular interest to Members. of Con- gress—and one or two have come to my at- tention as applying to the case which is now pefore you. I feel, therefore, that it would pe of some assistance if we could clear the air a little and get down to the heart of the discussion as to whether, under existing law, the industry now before you can right- fully expect some relief. I have read with considerable interest the written statement of Vice Chairman Edmin- ster in a previous escape-clause report on spring clothespins. We feel he is to be con- gratulated for putting in plain language something which has been quite nebulous heretofore, and which, as a matter of fact, seems to have been carefully avoided by those administering the trade-agreements program. I refer to the statement in which he has spelled out the fact that when tariffs are reduced in trade agreements, it is expected, and therefore foreseen, that increases in im- ports and decreases in production might take place. This is very logical, for in general, the domestic market is usually blessed with about all of a particular product that it can absorb, and when we manipulate the im- port end, it should be anticipated that in- creases in imports would be accompanied by decreases in domestic production. Now, as I recall, the distinguished Vice Chairman once told a group of businessmen in New York City that it was his interpreta- tion of the escape clause that the President of the United States was the only person who would do the foreseeing. It was pointed out then that the President was the person au- thorized by Congress to enter into trade agreements and to issue the proclamations lowering rates of duty. Of course, we must assume that he would have expert assistance and some recommendations, but the responsi- bility ultimately is his. Summed up, it is clearly evident that the President, when he makes a concession—that is lowers a rate of duty—foresees some in- crease in imports and quite possibly, some cutback in domestic production. . Tt appears, then, that the appellants ap- pearing before you now have the Herculean task of proving—if they are to get redress— that the President did not foresee the injury to the fur-felt-hat industry that is so evi- dent. It would be difficult for me to prove beyond a doubt that injury has occurred. That will be done by the injured, and who is there that could do it better? I am assuming in- jury, for it appears obvious to me that re- ductions in output, layoffs of workers, and idle equipment is injurious. It does not take an economist to figure that, if imports from: low-wage-scale coun- tries are increasing; if retail sales in our own market are more and more of foreign origin and less and less of domestic origin, then the imports are responsible for the injurious reduction in United States production. The connection is obvious, the result inescapable, The case before you, one in which unemploy- ment, dwindling sales, curtailment of cutput, and loss of dollar income coincide closely with increased imports, seems to be one of definite injury as a result of increased im- ports. Mr. Chairman, I by no means desire to prejudge this case, but, assuming that some of the firms producing fur felt hats and bodies, have been injured as a result of in- creased imports, they must still prove that the increase in imports, and therefore the injury, is the result of the concession made on the products they manufacture. I firmly believe they can and will do that— as nebulous and difficult as such a require- ment is. The evidence appears conclusive that foreign producers were induced by lowered tariff rates to enter the domestic market on a much larger scale than for- merly. They were quite aware of the great advantage they would have. I recognize that certain foreign currency devaluations may have had some effect, and that the gradual strangulation of free enterprise in one of the principal competing countries by Communist dictators has wiped out other competitive advantages we may formerly have had. Nevertheless, the initial and most important factor was the reduction in duty. But the end is not yet. Assume the do- mestic producers prove to your satisfaction that they have been injured, that the injury is the result of increased imports, and that the increased imports are the result of the concession. They must still show a greater amount of injury than was foreseen by the President when he reduced the duty, and that, gentle- men, is the $64 question, and the one in which I am particularly interested. It is the answer to that question which will de- cide whether the unemployed go back to work and whether the idle equipment begins operating again. I do not believe the Tariff Commission has come to grips with this problem in any prior investigations under the escape clause. Hither injury has not been proved or the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD appellants have failed to show the injury has been the direct result of the concession. In. this case, I feel confident you will find both. Your report to the President might then state that you have found those elements to be present and might make rec- ommendations accordingly. I do not pre- sume that you will be able to indicate to the President whether he foresaw the extent of the injury—that will be a decision which only he can make. However, in the making of your report, may I suggest that you dwell on one of two in- cident factors. When the negotiations with Czechoslavakia started, it was a free country and, although wages were very low and most of the numerous expenses besetting our own producers for the public good were absent, nevertheless it was unfettered by the im- perialism of another country. Since that time, the yoke of-rigid communism with all its civil evils has taken over the government reins. I hope the Commission will remind the President of this and point out that he probably did not foresee the injury to the American producers that developed as a re- sult of the despotism that enveloped the principal competing country. I cannot be- lieve that the President would make a con- cession to a Communist-dominated satel- lite if he foresaw a resulting injury of any magnitude to any domestic industry because of that action. Mr. Chairman, the competition between domestic producers of the articles which are the subject of this appeal has always been very keen. Processes have ben improved and efficiency increased to a great extent. The improvements made by research and expen- sive testing and experimenting have been transmitted abroad almost’ as fast as they have been put into effect here. In some in- dustries the output per worker is much greater in this country than abroad. It is not true of fur felt hats and bodies. Labor costs, then, play a very important part in the competitive picture. I need not ask you to make comparisons of the costs of labor in the principal competing country and in our own. Furthermore, you are cog- nizant, I am sure, that no domestic industry would dare to form a trust or combine, or would presume to fix prices and regulate sales, or force its workers to put in long hours at almost starvation wages. Unfair competition is a phrase that has, by careful Government regulation and inspection, been practically eliminated in our own country. We cannot inspect, regulate, or make ille- gal those same practices in any foreign coun- try. We can, however, take steps to protect our own industries from the devastating ef- fects of the unfair methods of foreign com- petitors. You have the opportunity of taking such a step in the interests of this in- dustry. We cannot dictate to Czechoslovakia that employees there shall receive minimum wages and decent working conditions, health insurance, retirement, or other reasonable plessings accorded our own workers. We can, however, prevent the products of such conditions as exist in Czechoslovakia from driving our own industries to the wall and our employees to the dole. Again, Mr. Chairman, I realize that a strict administration of the escape clause by the Tariff Commission would require that you decide only whether there was injury, and whether that injury was the result of in- creased imports because of a concession. You would not be required to take cogni- zance of the foreign conditions that make the cutthroat competition possible, except as they developed after the concession was made. It is my firm belief that the Congress, when it passed the Trade Agreements Act, and the President, when he ordered the escape clause written into all future agree- ments, joined in one common principle, that of maintaining our standards of employment
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and our system of free competitive enterprise. If that is so, the various fringe elements that I have mentioned here may well be taken into full consideration and when ycu prepare your recommendations to the President. This industry is being injured by increased imports. Almost one-fourth of the domestic market has already been taken over. The imports increased rapidly after the duty rate was lowered and this was undoubtedly the main factor in the injury now taking place. While some increase in imports was prob- ably foreseen when the concession was made, it does not seem logical that the President would have allowed the cut had he foreseen the extent of the increase in imports and the extent of the cut-back in our own prceduc- tion. I shall look forward to seeing the Tariff Commission report on the results of its investigation. The Last 50 Years in New Hampshire EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. NORRIS COTTON OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. COTTON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp, I insert an article written by Dr. J. Duane Squires of the faculty of Colby Junior College at New London, N. H., a well-known educator, author, lecturer, and civic leader in our State. This article, entitled “The Last Fifty Years in New Hampshire,” ap- peared in the April number of the New Hampshire Troubadour, a monthly pub- lication issued by the State planning and development commission. The article follows: Tue Lasr 50 YEaRS IN New HaMPSHIRE (By J. Duane Squires) ‘On the 31st of August 1899 Mr. and Mrs. F. O. Stanley, of Newton, Mass., drove their Stanley steamer up the carriage road on Mount Washington. It was the original as- cent of that mountain by automobile and a fitting augury of the remarkable changes that the next 50 years were to bring. In this brief survey of those changes in New Hamp- shire life since 1899 three questions will be posed and answers sought: How have New Hampshire people altered their ways of mak- ing aliving? What new developments in the art of living together have they devised? In what spiritual and intellectual ways have they reacted to the fast-flowing tides of change? The United States census in 1900 showed New Hampshire to have a population of 411,588. Slightly more than 53 percent of these people are described as rural; i. e., liv- ing in the country or in villages of fewer than 2,500 population. By 1940 the rural propor- tion had dropped to 42 percent, and by 1950 it was expected to be stilllower. At the same time, however, the product of farm and field in terms of dollar value rose steadily during the years after 1900; by 1949 it was approach- ing $70,000,000 in annual value. The estab- lishment of the State Department of Agricul- ture in 1913, an extensive growth in poultry raising, the appearance of the 4~H Clubs and the county agent, State control of the milk market, and a great increase in tested dairy herds, the modernization of the maple-prod- ucts industry—all these have been notable agricultural developments. in the Granite State cince 1900. XCVI—App.——218 Transportation in the last half century has similarly changed. Edwin V. Mitchell in his charming “The Horse and Buggy Age in New England” has reminded us that 19CO was the high point of the equine era, There were then fewer than 8,000 automobiles in all the United States, and at least 20,000,000 horses. Harness makers, blacksmiths, gristmills and feed stcres, livery stables, giant snow rollers in the winter, and dusty roads in the sum- mer, in New Hampshire as elsewhere in the Nation were apparently basic aspects of American life. Yet within 50 years what a difference. Old Dobbin has almost disap- peared, an ox team is a rarity, more than 100,000 motor vehicles are registered in ‘New Hampshire alone, and even the “iron horse” is not the imposing figure he was in 1900. New Hampshire’s modern highway development began in 1905 with the passage of the State- aid road law. A short stretch of bituminous road was laid near Nashua in 1908, and the original stretch of concrete highway cut down, in Hooksett in 1918. Interstate bus service started in 1923 between Manchester and Low- ell, and interstate air travel began in 1934. During the same decades consolidation in New Hampshire’s principal industries—tex- tiles, shoes, and timber products—waxed and then began to wane. In the latter nine- teenth century New Hampshire had 6,000 in- dustrial establishments; today the number is perhaps one-sixth that number, but for- tunately increasing. The prototype of the early twentieth century industrial giant was the Amoskeag Mills in Manchester, at one time the world’s largest cotton-textile fac- tory. By 1935 such consolidation brought its own downfall, and today the single establish- ment of yesteryear is functioning as several dozen varied and independent industries. In 1950, as in 1900, manufacturing, including such activities as printing and the process- ing of materials from Mother Earth, is New Hampshire’s chief method of: earning a living. The expansion of the recreational indus- try in the Granite State over the last 50 years has been impressive. Even in the nineteenth century thousands of persons came annually to New Hampshire, to enjoy its mountains, lakes, and forests. Since 1900 the numbers have hugely increased. The establishment of the 600,000-acre White Mountain National Forest in 1909 was fol- lowed a few years later by the beginning of State forest reservations. Today these have expanded into more than 20 attractiv> State parks. In the last 50 years golf clubs have dotted the State, numerous boys’ and girls’ camps have been founded, and many sum- mer theaters have flourished. Tourist ac- commodations have been so well developed that it is now possible to sleep 75,000 visitors to New Hampshire at one time. In recent decades the Cannon Mountain Aerial Tram- way, the Cranmore Mountain skimobile, the Belknap and Mount Sunapee chair lifts, snow trains, and winter carnivals, the efforts of the six regional agencies in the State, and the skill of the State highway department in maintaining good roads have raised tourism to unprecedented heights. Thousands of Granite State men and women now derive their livelihood from this important indus- try. What new developments in the art of living together have New Hampshire people devised in the last half century? In can- dor it must be said that, more important than any single act of will by our people themselves, have been the effects of the social revolution throughout the whole Na- tion wrought by technology in the last 50 years. Among these effects which have in- fluenced New Hampshire mightily have been the wide use of electricity; the marvels of modern medicine, hospitals, and public health; radio and television; the moving pic- ture; the automobile, tractor, and truck; frozen foods and fuel oil; consolidated schools; supermarkets and synthetics of all A3453 sorts; and many other technological changes of our age. All these developments have al- tered our whole manner of living together, and in New Hampshire as elsewhere their impact has been profound. Nevertheless, in other ways by deliberate acts of their will Granite State citizens have altered the pattern of pubiic and group life. In 1899 “Old Home Week” was begun; 2 years later the present judiciary system was inaugurated; and in 1909 the direct primary law was instituted. In 1911 New Hampshire adopted the Nation’s first workmen’s compensation law and did pioneer work with the idea of a Public Service Com- mission, child labor regulation, and factory inspection legislation. During World War I the Granite State furnished more than 20,000 men for the armed services, invested upwards of $80,000,000 in war securities, and produced the author of that famous song, “The Long, Long Trail.” A quarter of a century later, during World War II, New Hampshire gave 59,000 men and women to the uniformed services, and in war bond drives and by interim buying invested more than $539,000,000 in the cause of victory. In other ways New Hampshire people re- acted to the problems and needs of the con- temporary world. In 1936 after devastating floods and again in 1938 after the terrible hurricane New Hampshire showed the tradi- tional New England spirit of surmounting grave difficulties. In 1905 the State’s oldest city, Portsmouth, was host to the Conference which ended the Russo-Japanese War, and in 1944 its largest hotel at Bretton Woods shel- tered the conference which led to the crea~ tion of the International Bank and the Inter- national Monetary Fund. In 1949 New Hampshire was proud to furnish the granite cornerstone for the United Nations head- quarters building now being erected in New York. In what spiritual and intellectual ways have New Hampshire people reacted to the fast-flowing tides of change since 1900? Among Protestants there has been a notice- able increase of the ecumenical spirit, and a lessening of narrow sectarianism. Among those of other faiths similar trends have been at work, and all religious people have cooperated closely in manners of social re- form and general welfare. “Brotherhood Week” in 1950 for all the United States was headed by a distinguished Catholic son of New Hampshire. Throughout the half cen- tury service clubs, youth organizations, fra- ternal groups, women’s clubs, and welfare agencies,,all with a basically religious moti- vation, have had a steady growth and a far- reaching influence. Traditionally partial to the “district <chool,’ New Hampshire did not establish a real State school system until 1919. As early as 1901 the Normal School at Keene had been established, to do for the southern part of the State what its older sister at Plymouth had long done for northern New Hampshire. In 1923 the modern University of New Hamp- shire at Durham was organized, and has rap- idly grown to a status of leadership among institutions of its kind. In private educa- tion Dartmouth College attracted students from all over the Nation, as did Colby Junior College, Exeter, St. Paul’s, and Holderness. Other fine schools flourished, both on the sec- ondary and higher level; among these were the Catholic colleges of St. Anselm, Mount St. Mary, and Rivier. In the field of books and the arts New Hampshire had a proud record over the years since 1900. In 1950 almost every town in the State had a free, tax-supported, public li- brary; an efficient State library’ furnished pookmobiles; and in per capita circulation of books New Hampshire ranked high among the 48 States. Early in the century Augustus St. Gaudens was a towering figure in the art colony around Cornish, and his beautiful home and studio are now a public preserve. Daniel Chester French, a native of Excter,
A3454 gained world renown from his creation of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington in 1922. The handsome Currier Gallery of Arts in Manchester opened in 1927, and the Orozco murals at Dartmouth became famous a dec- ade later. Since 1908 the MacDowell Colony at Peterborough has been a stimulus to writ- ers and musicians, while at nearby Swanzey in 1914 Joyce Kilmer was inspired to write his immortal poem, Trees. In summary, it is clear that New Hamp- shire has changed amazingly in the past 50 years. Yet, as Carleton J. H. Hayes has prop- erly reminded us, the forces of continuity are always stronger than those of alternation. Underneath, the character of the Granite State has been constant. It was no accident that the FBI reported in 1946 that New Hampshire was the most law-abiding State in the Nation. Perhaps with this thought in mind, the late Lawrence Shaw Mayo wrote in 1948: : “Conservative they are indeed, these coun- try people of New Hampshire * * * but it does not follow that they are dull. Far from it. They are as shrewd as they are con~ servative, and so must occupy pretty nearly the first place among the shrewd peoples of the world. * “ * That is merely one phase of the uncanny sense which gives un- usual value to their judgments upon every- thing from uncertain weather to even more uncertain human nature. * * * Is it possible that the countryside in which they live is a tiny cosmos containing all types of human character? * * * Perhaps it is so. At all events their Keenness in judging individuals is equaled only by their knowl- edge of human nature in general.” It is a tribute of which New Hampshire folk in the middle of the changing twentieth century have a right to be proud. Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp an editorial entitled “How To Blackjack Congress,” published in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of April 20, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: How To Buacksack ConcREsS The difficulty in enforcing economy in Government is well illustrated by Postmaster General Donaldson’s order sharply reducing postal deliveries, There can be little doubt but what Donaldson’s order is simply a high- handed attempt to blackjack Congress into appropriating the funds the postal depart- ment feels it needs to carry on. He obviously hopes that his order will result in a great hue and cry from the people demanding the restoration of the department’s funds. Undoubtedly that pressure will soon be forthcoming. How Congress will deal with it remains to be seen. Nevertheless Donald- son knows, and so does Congress, that there would be no necessity for a retrenchment in postal service if the department were op- erated efficiently and sensibly. | The Hoover Commission has pointed meas- ure by measure how the annual postal deficit can be eliminated without curtailment of service. In fact, under the Commission's plan service would actually be increased in- stead of decreased. But entrenched bureaucracy in the postal department, as in other agencies is dificult to fight. When faced with a showdown, the bureaucrat invariably finds a means of mak- ing the public suffer; for his first allegiance is to the world of bureaucracy, never the people. Proposed Loan to Spain EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JAMES J. MURPHY OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my fre- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I include the following article by John O’Donnell: CaPiraL STUFF (By John O’Donnell) Wasuincton, D. C., April 27.—It was only 9 months ago that Secretary of State Ache- son—then riding high, wide, and hand- some—coldly told the Senate that he op- posed lending $50,000,000 to Spain on the ground that Spain was a poor security risk. A couple of days later, in his White House press conference, President Truman backed up anti-Spain Acheson. He declared that if the Senate bill then under consideration carried provisions for a $50,000,000 loan to Spain through the Export-Import Bank, he’d be against it and he bluntly proclaimed that this Nation just didn’t have friendly rela- tions with Spain, CONNALLY STATES REVERSAL Now the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tom Con- NALLY, Of Texas, solemnly assures the Senate that he has just talked with Truman and Acheson and can assure the upper House that, if Spain applies for an Export-Import Bank loan, the O. K. of White House and State Department will be forthcoming—and pronto. We can assure the readers that this would never have happened if Acheson and Truman hadn’t been nursing the bruises and wounds suffered in their defense against the Com- munist infiltration charges hurled at the ad- ministration by Senator JosepH McCarTHy (Republican, Wisconsin). It took Connatiy’s solemn pledge that Acheson and Truman had reversed them- selves before the Senate agreed it should pass the foreign-aid bill without a mandatory pro- vision that Spain must receive a $50,000,000 loan out of the over-all $3,250,000,000 appro- priation. The mandatory loan to Spain lost, 42 to 35. . Now all this and its background is ex- tremely important as it relates to the in- dividuals who are consciously playing the Commie game in the higher echelons of di- plomacy in this Republic. The facts are that Generalissimo Francisco Franco and the forces behind him have been the foes of the Kremlin since the first shot was fired in the effort to recapture the gov- ernment of Spain from Moscow~dominated Reds, syndicalists, radicals, anticlericals, etc., who had seized power. That was soft- pedaled along with the record that the anti- Franco groups in this country at the time of the civil war have now, on the whole, been publicly denounced as Commie-front and subversive. In that group are formally listed these organizations: The Abraham APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Lincoln Brigade, the Action Committee to Free Spain Now, the American Committee for Spanish Freedom, the Comite Coord- inator pro Republica Espanola, the North American Committee to Aid Spanish De- mocracy, and the North American Spanish Aid Committee. BARRIER LAID TO MRS. ROOSEVELT In the UN sessions, even after such Re- publican leaders aS ARTHUR VANDENBERG, of Michigan, and Democrats like ConnaLiy had proclaimed months back that the majority of the Senate wanted us to resume normal relations with Spain, and send back our Ambassador, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt in the UN blocked the move and made it impos- sible for the United States to switch from the Kremlin line. Then and today, our military leaders will point out, privately, the necessity of having Spain and Portugal on our side when the cold war takes on the heat of battle. Today’s move in the Senate—if Acheson and Truman make good the promise to Spain that ConNALLY proclaimed in the Senate— may well mean the end to the persistent, sinister attack which Moscow’s mouthpieces in America have been hurling at Spain dur- ing the war years and since. Roosevelt in his official papers, Churchill in his historical report, Eisenhower in his account and the wartime diary of our Ambas- sador to Spain, Carleton Hayes, all have em- phasized the long-ignored fact that Franco was on our side and not on Hitler’s and that without Franco’s aid our North African land- ings would have ended in bloody disaster. SUPPORT FROM GERMAN SOURCE Their endorsements of Franco have long been deliberately skipped over or given scant notice. But we notice from another source— this one German—that the American Judg- ment on Franco was correct—even back in the opening days of 1941, when the British were being battered in North Africa and the German armies were riding the crest of vic- tory. In B.H. Liddell Hart’s The German Gen- erals Talk (Willlam Morrow & Co., New York, 1950, 308 pp., $4), Gen. Kurt Student, com- mander in chief of Germany’s airborne forces, was quoted as saying the Germans could have taken Gibraltar only with Span- ish help, and Student so reported home, where a parachute attack had been planned. “After my report, General Student went on, that plan was changed into the bigger one of capturing Gibraltar by an attack on the mainland. Eight divisions from France were to race through Spain. But this de- pended on the Spanish agreeing to let us through. Hitler did not want to take the risk of having to ight his way through Spain. He tried to persuade Franco, but Franco would not agree. The discussions went on for some time but proved fruitless. So the Gibraltar plan had to be dropped,” Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an editorial entitled “Post Office—Cat’s Paw,’’ pub- lished in the Nashville (Tenn,) Banner of April 22, 1950. :
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There being no objection, the edito- rial was ordered to be printed in the RecorpD, as follows: Post Orrice—Car’s Paw In one of those sweetly chiding “come now” editorials rebuking the unreasonable, a contemporary asks: “Do you absolutely have to have your mail twice a day?” With that as its headline, it goes on to justify the slesh of service which Mr. Donaldson has ordered for the Fost Office Department. As a stanch defender of the New Deal and then the Fair Deal, it refrains from all suggestion, naturally, that the Post Office has been used to rake squanderbund chestnuts out of the economy fire. But back to that question: The answer is “No.” Most citizens don’t absolutely have to have even one mail delivery. They could go to the post office and call at the general delivery window. Or they could communi- cate by telephone or telegraph or buy time on the radio in lieu of written correspond- ence. Or they could get in their cars, or even walk, to go see the folks personally, with whom they have social or business contacts. The point is that they don’t have to do that—or haven't had to—because the postal service has built up the finest mail-carrying system of any land. It has steadily improved that service; not as a boondoggle venture, but as a responsible discharge of public serv- ice obligations justifying the slogan which declares that neither storm nor other calami- ties and handicaps shall stop these couriers. Another point is that this essential serv- ice, proudly maintained and improved over the years, has been curtailed by Mr. Donald- son’s order when there are dozens of Federal units—each with its encumbering person- -nel—which could be abridged or lopped off entirely without detriment to the operating efficiency of government, and actually to every taxpayer’s benefit, If the question were asked ‘“‘Do you absvu- lutely have to have the services of these sur~ pilus agencies—these supernumeraries of big Government?” the answer would be an unequivocal “No.” When these, and not the post office, are curtailed, no responsible citizen would reg- ister a complaint. Partition of Ireland EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I insert the very impressive resolutions adopted by the Clan-na-Gael at the Hotel Astor, Easter Sunday night, April 9, 1950, sent to me by my valued friend, James Reidy. These admirably drawn resolutions set forth clearly and forcibly the viewpoint and arguments for the elimination of partition in Ireland. To my mind the arguments presented are unanswerable to any American who believes in the basic principles of freedom and democ- racy. I hope that Members of the House will read these resolutions and other similar communications concerning this great contemporary problem which affects so profoundly the destiny of a courageous people who will not be deterred in their age-old fight for liberty and unity. Americans would do well to ponder the question of Irish unity and Irish au- tonomy. It is bound up inseparably with our own ideals of free government for which so many persons of Irish descent and blood have so valiantly and indomi- tably fought and died. It is bound up with eternal principles upon which this Nation was founded, by which it has risen to incomparable greatness. It is bound up with the avowed aims for which this Nation has stood, fought, and sacrificed so much—the dignity of man, the supremacy of moral and civil law, the predominant political significance of self-determination for all nations, great and small, and the right of every people worthy of the name to establish the government of their choice under free institutions and free traditions. It is bound up with strategic values in this time of peril. Freedom exists for all, not for the favored and the privileged. It exists for mankind, for the Irish as well as every other people. It exists particularly for those peoples, like the Irish, who have cherished it enough unselfishly to die for it throughout recorded time. Let us never compromise the cause of freedom. Let us hold out the hand of encourage- ment and assistance to the Irish as well as other nations in their gallant strug- gle to achieve unity and independence. I hope the Congress will soon express itself on this question. And I hope the great British Government will recognize that the early unity and deliverance of Ireland will do much indeed to cement the bonds which bind that nation to ours in the confraternity of freedom-loving peoples. The resolutions follow: Resolved, That we, members and friends of the Clan-na-Gael, assembled in the Hotel Astor, New York City, on Easter Sunday night, April 9, 1950, to honor the men of our race who fought and died for Ireland’s free- dom in Easter week, 1916, again pledge our- selves to work earnestly, in cooperation with all the other American-Irish organizations, in support of the demand of the people of Ireland for the withdrawal of the English armed forces and the English flag from the six counties of northeast Ulster, which were arbitrarily separated from the Irish Nation by a partition act passed in the English Parliament in 1920; and be it further Resolved, That as the Government of Eng- land dismembered Ireland in 1920 for the evil purpose of fostering division and discord among the people of Northeast Ulster to serve the interest of English imperialism and did so without the approval of even the Irish Unionists who were sitting in the lm- perial Parliament at that time, we again charge that Government with being solely responsible for the grievous wrong which was done to the people of Ireland and to the Irish race everywhere by the passage of the Partition Act, and we demand that the Eng- lish Parliament, which perpetrated this in- justice, undo it by restoring to Ireland the six separated counties that have been part of the Irish Nation from time immemorial; and be it further Resolved, That we charge that the puppet government known officially as the Govern- ment of Northern Ireland has from its be- ginning violated, and still continues to vio- A3455 late, every one of the four freedoms, which were declared to be the things for which the Government of England and our own Govern- ment were fighting in the Second World War, and we cite in proof of this accusation the ban against celebrations in honor of Sit. Patrick issued by the despotic regime in Bel- fast and the reimposition, on April 6, of the provisions of the infamous Special Powers Act, including authority to the reguiar police and the auxiliary police force known as the B. Specials, which is recruited from the most fanatical members to raid the homes of the people and search them without a warrant at any hour of the day or night; and be it further Resolved, That we brand as untenable the argument which has been advanced in some quarters that American citizens of Irish blood should not ask or expect the Govern- ment of the United States to interfere in a dispute between the people of Ireland and the Government of England, and we de- clare, in answer to that contention that the Government of the United States has already injected itself into this situation—and on the side of England—by shoveling, un= conditionally, billions of dollars of the American taxpayers’ money into the Treas- ury of the United Kingdom, in which is in- cluded the Government of Northern Ireland, and some millions of those billions have been and are used by the English Government to subsidize and support the puppet government in Belfast, keep part of Ireland unfree and prevent the people in the northeast corner of the island from living together in peace and uniting amicably with the inhabitants of the other twenty-six counties of Ireland; and be it further Resolved, That we, remembering the pledges which were made to the unfree peoples of the world by the spokesmen of our Government in wartime and aware also of the friendship of millions of liberty-lov- ing Americans, not of our race, for the people of Ireland, pledge ourselves to continue in- sisting that the Government of the United States, which by its prodigality in the use of the money of its citizens, has kept the British Empire from collapsing completely, has not only the right but also the duty to tell the English Government that it is vio- lating American principles by its conduct toward Ireland and that, if it continues to do so, the flow of American dollars into the English Treasury will cease; and be it also Resolved, That we request our representa- tives in both Houses of Congress to keep in mind the misuse by the Government of England of part of those billion dollar hand- outs which it has received from the United States and we demand that no further ap- propriations be voted to that government while it continues its oppressions in Ireland and maintains a garrison there. Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp a letter from Walter E. Waring to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, published in the _ Philadelphia (Pa.) Inquirer of April 21, 1950.
A3456 There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: THar Cur IN Mar SERVICE To the Eprror oF THE INQUIRER: It has just been announced that the Post Office Department has decided that there shall be one instead of two deliveries of mail in, the residential districts of our cities. This is certainly a raw deal for the ordi- nary citizen who for years has been footing more than his share for the maintenance of the Post Office Department. Every letter sent by humble John Doe must bear a 8-cent stamp. I understand that the average letter weighs slightly less than one-half an ounce. This means that first-class mail pays the Government some- what more than 6 cents an ounce or about $1 a pound. Simple arithmetic shows that this means $2,000 a ton. The Government can carry letters, at a profit, to any part of this Nation at that rate of payment. But the citizens paying this high rate of postage are to have their daily deliveries cut in half. Why does the Post Office Department have & deficit? Because any firm acquiring a second-class mailing permit can send John Doe circulars, pamphlets, prospectuses, and what not for practically nothing in com- parison with the $2,000 per ton which John Doe must pay for the necessary letters that he sends to friends, relatives, and creditors. From my own experience I am sure that John Doe consigns immediately to the wastebasket at least 90 percent of this sec- ond-class mail. Yet he must not only pay for such mail with his 8-cent stamps but he is penalized by having his mail deliveries cut in half. Surely the Post Office Department has not considered the rank and file of its citizens— and its patrons—in issuing its decree. ‘Water HE, WaRrING. LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, April 18. Pension Plans and Public Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Beecher E. Hess, for years identified with the movement to provide adequate old- age pensions, visited central Pennsyl- vania last week and addressed large groups at Altoona and Williamsburg in my congressional district. Mr. Hess’ analysis of the general problem of old-age pensions is of timely interest and for that reason I am in- serting in the ConcressionaL REcorD a copy of his address: . PENSION PLANS AND Pusiic Poricy Followiztg the legislative trends in our National Capitol I am impressed with the great public interest that is focused on the preservation of our Americanism and, the general subject of pensions. Americanism versus foreignism of one kind or another is of vital concern to every true American citizen today. Never before in our Nation’s history have we been confronted with a problem dealing with so many of those within our own border who would destroy our form of government, enslave us under a dictatorship, and subject us to the rule of the iron cur- tain. It is scarcely believable that such a condition could exist in free America, but it is a fact and not a red herring drawn across the path of our national life. It is a great satisfaction to me to be identified with an organization, as a member, that has for one of its objectives patriotism. I refer to the American pension committee under whose auspices Iam speaking now. This nonparti- san organization is national in scope having clubs and memberships in 17 States. I am glad to say that it is particularly active in this area of Pennsylvania where its influence. for Americanism and pensions is substantial. In the pension field this organization is de- voting its best efforts toward better pensions and improved social security. Our old folks represent one segment of our population that from year to year are placed in greater jeopardy. This is perhaps due to our national development and to our éverchanging economic order. Age limita- tions for industrial employment are decreas- ing while it becomes more difficult for older people to get or hold a job. The elderly man or woman has little chance of earning a livelihoad today. The Census Bureau tells us that our popu- lation is increasing beyond all past esti- mates—the population is more than 150,000,- 000. This represents a gain of 17,000,000 since 1940. That gain is more than the population of all the New England States combined. And the largest percentage of all this increased population comes in the age group of 60 years and over. There are now more than 16,000,000 American citizens over 60 years of age and an estimated 10,000,000 of them are dependent more or less upon someone else for their existence. Modern science, hygiene, medical care, hos~ pitalization, etc., have greatly prolonged their lives. They sometimes feel that they are too young to die and too old to live. The tragic result of our speeded-up industry is an ever growing army of aged folks forced into unem- ployment, poverty, and obscurity. While we are most thoughtful for the rest of the world, I feel we are prone to ignore our own needy old folks and let them suffer without atten- tion or concern, In this Congress there were long debates on the famous minimum-wage proposition. Again and again we were told that 75 cents an hour or $80 per week was an absolute minimum on which an individual could live. If that be true we are guilty of relegating more than 2,500,000 good American citizens to slow starvation, for there are that many “who are on the old-age-assistance rolls get- ting the pitiable sum of about $10 a week, average, throughout the country. By what process of reasoning do we assume that one man must have a minimum of $30 a week to live on and at the same time refuse to hear the plea of the man or woman who is forced to live or die on $10 a week? The answer is obvious. It is unfair, unjust, and un-American. To guard ourselves against communism we spend millions beaming the Voice of Amer- ica to the rest of the world. We support ECA to the tune of $15,000,000,000, and we rightly seek to protect ourselves against any and all subversive elements. But let us not forget that one of the greatest perils to our American way of life is the fear of destitu- tion, dependency, and poverty when our pro- ductive days are over. Millions of destitute .senior Americans find it difficult to enthuse over a security system that provides them only $10 each per week when living costs are at the highest peak in history. While they are proud and perhaps not so vocal as other groups getting Government aid and support of one kind or another, their feel- ‘Ing of neglect is deep-seated and their being. ignored is bitterly resented. I have yet to find anyone who is satisfied with old-age assistance as it is operated by the present Administration. All are agreed that it is in need of revision or improvement and many feel that it should be scrapped and replaced APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD with a new system whereby pensions would be paid as a matter of right. Perhaps the most frequent criticism of the present old- age assistance are the lien laws that prevail in many States. Under these laws old per- sons cannot secure a pension if he or she has property, insurance, or anything else of value. In effect they must proclaim them- selves paupers regardless of cause or circum- stances which may be beyond their control. Pensions as security in old age has within @ short time become one of the foremost public issues of our day. Industry through- out the country has adopted pension pro- grams for their workers. But can many companies or corporations provide real old age security for their employees? How can anyone know whether or not a large and prosperous enterprise may not be completely out of business 5 or 10 years hence. You hear it said that pensions are paid for by the company and the workers. Now if we are realistic we must agree that such pension costs are added to the price of the product and paid for by the purchasing pub- lic. The United Mine Workers have a $100 a month pension and I am glad to see them get it. But how is it paid? It is paid by adding 30 cents to the price of every ton of coal sold. Everybody pays directly or indi- rectly into this pension fund. But only the mine worker gets the pension. But even in this instance the mine workers are not absolutely secure. A few months ago when there was disagreement among the managers of the fund, payments were stopped and the retired miners found themselves without pension security. The problem is too big and too complicated to be solved by com< panies, industries, or unions. The old age pension issue is national in its scope. About 11 percent of the popula- tion of every county in every State is in the old age class and nearly every family has its aged dependents. It is little wonder that pension news gets the newspaper headlines and radio time. What are we doing about it? But first, let us see what has been done. The present old-age assistance was enacted into law in 1935. The first year’s payments averaged about $18 a month to some 435,000 recipients. As time went on the average monthly payments were raised and the pen-« sion lists were increased. Last year an aver= age of $44 plus per month, each, was paid to approximately 2,500,000 recipients through-' out the country. No one denies that these pensions have not served a humanitarian purpose. Small and inadequate as they are,’ they have helped—and only helped—to keep body and soul together. Our pension expe- rience over the past 15 years points up the following facts: That pensions are here to stay; that each year @ greater percentage of our population, graduates into the old-age class, and that’ even. 45 years of age is too old for industrial! employment; that $10 a week will not sup- port an adult human being; that there are millions of needy and suffering aged citizens’ who are denied pensions because of techni- calities, State laws, or the social worker; that organized attempts here and there to find jobs for the oldsters have failed because the young man and the machine get the pref=- erence; that we have the financial ability to pay decent livable pensions—we raise bil- lions to send abroad; that pensions clubs, groups, and national organizations have been organized for the purpose of improving the plight of the aged. These organizations de- serve great credit for promoting and ad- vancing the cause of pensions. Their insist- ence and influence have kept the issue alive and before the legislators, both State and National. In view of the above and other pertinent facts, two schools of thought have developed, particularly in the Congress, in regard to old- age pensions, one believes that the old-age I
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD assisLance provision of the Social Security Act should be retained but extended and im- proved, this position is the one taken by the Democratic administration. The other be- lieves that it is wrong in principle and should be discarded. It believes that a national, uniform old-age pension law should be passed by the Congress, providing a pension to all citizens of a given age with perhaps certain minimum restrictions. The American Pension Committee is sup- porting a bill in Congress that would pay a pension of $60.00 a month to any citizen 60 years of age and over who had not paid a Federal income tax the year previous to mak- ing pension eprien*ion. This would pro- vide a man and 15 wile $120.00 a month. Incidentally, I want to state that the Con- gressman representing this Twenty-second Congressional District of Pennsylvania, the Honorable James E. VaN Zanvptr, has been most active in behalf of better pension legis- lation during his service in Congress. I want to assure those who are interested in the cause of pensions that you have a sincere, stanch supporter serving your best interests in Washington, He is capable, experienced and respected by his colleagues and associates as one of the hardest working men on Capitol Hill, impartial in his services and thoroughly devoted to his duties as a Member of Con- gress. He 1s serving as cochairman of a congressional steering committee for old-age pensions. Congressman VAN ZaNopt is doing a good fob for you and therefore deserves your full cooperation and support. There are some 15 social security or pension bills before Congress now—hearings have been held by the House Ways and Means Committee and by the Senate Finance Com- mittee. Some kind of social security pension legislation will certainly be passed in this Congress. I hope it will enact legislation to provide pensions for those who qualify now and not tie it in with an insurance proposi- tion that only anticipates future payments. Pensions are needed now. I know of no ac- tion that this Congress can take short of that which deals with our national security that will yield as much in happiness and gen- eral good as to provide a genuine American pension for our deserving retired American citizens. Curtailment of Pestal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Postal Service Not a Business,” published in the Canton (Ohio) News of April 22, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, -as follows: . PostTAL SERVICE NoT A BUSINESS Whenever the United States Post Office Department gets into the news, as it is now in connection with the Postmaster General’s retrenchment order, effective next July 1, its failure to be businesslike is discussed. This stems from a widespread belief that the postal service is a business because it collects payment for some of its services. Consequently, its operations are expected to ' be like the operations of a business, with ° balance sheets and profits and losses, A deficit is alleged to be a sign of misman- agement, as 1t would be in a business. The truth is that the United States Post Cfiice Department was not set up as a busi- ness, hor is it operated as a business. It is operated according to the will of Con- gress, which expects it to do many things no business would be asked to do, such as main- taining some 30,000 post offices that don’t handle enough mail to pay their own way. The Department has no control over its rates, furthermore; it cannot make itself more nearly self-sustaining without con- gressional authority. It has been used throughout its history as an agency for car- rying out certain vital public policies, such as providing public subsidy for development of aviation; distributing publications to as many persons as possible, in order to inform the public; and giving service at no direct cost to every person in the United States. It cannot bargain with railroads and air- planes over the cost of carrying mail; that 1s left to Congress. Though the difference be- tween the money it takes in and the money it pays out is referred to as a deficit, this 1s not the case in any other department of the Government. No one would think of refer- ring to the money spent by the Department of Agriculture as a deficit merely because it isn’t offset by revenue from benefited farm- ers. In a recent issue of the Postal Record, Jerome J. Keating, secretary of the National Association of Letter Carriers, pointed to the fact that of the 18 percent of Federal spending chargeable to normal operations of Government only one-fifteenth is spent on the Post Office Department. He declared: “The Post Office Department is operated as a service. It is up to Congress to establish rates that it feels are fair and equitable. It is also the responsibility of Congress and the responsibility of the offi- cials of the Post Office Department to secure sufficient funds to operate the postal service so that the American people are given the service thev are entitled to. * * * A doc- trine that the postal service should be oper- ated fundamentally to give good service to the American people is absolutely necessary. Poor service gives great distress to conscien- tious postal employees.” Elsewhere, Mr. Keating pointed out that the Department does not run a business but a service. “Postal operations are always managed by Government,” he explained. “There isn’t a single country in the world where the postal service is owned and op- erated by private capital. * * * Even to-~ day in this great country of ours the postal service is the only universal public service. There are millions of people who do not have telephones; there are millions who do not have access to telegraphic service; there are millions who do not have running water; there are millions who are not served by public transportation; there are millions who do not have the benefit of electricity.” ’ Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mrs. ST, GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, un- der unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I include the fifteenth article by Mr. A3457 Frank C. Waldrop on the infiltration of communism in our country: Biecrst Srory (By Frank C. Waldrop) History wastes no time on losers. But even so ‘in this limited little story there must be mention of a shadow known as Trotsky. He 1s a shadot7. But of all the murderers of our age, he was the one who most anpsaled to American lovers of communism 40 years ago. And so, to understand today’s communism you must know something about him. Like Marx, Lenin, and the other early builders of the machine, Trotsky was a son of the well-to-do, More than that, he was educated, polished, and elegant in dress and manner. His born name was Lev Davidovitch Bron~ stein, and if you are interested in such things you can read a story of his upbringing in his own words, for he was a gifted writer and as a historian of the revolution that cost him his life, he has no equal. He had wit, charm, and a love of malice. Once in New York City as an exile from the czars, he wrote a widely quoted piece about the gum-chewing crowds on the subway. But to accept it, you had to forget that no matter how grinding the poverty of one might be at a given moment, the standard of living in the free air of America was mov- ing steadily up, for all. To let Trotsky persuade you, it was essen= tial to forget that every American was then, as every American remains today, a human being whose lot is the envy of the world. A good understanding of the difference be- tween the mind of a Trotsky and the mind of an American might be summed up in the case of Siberia. From the earliest times, the rulers of Euro- pean Russia have been trying to fill up that vast emptiness. Somehow, it does not work. Right today, the machine guns and the prisons are doing little better for Stalin than did the knouts and the chains of the czars. Long railroad trains of victims are moving steadily from European Russia to the plains beyond the Ural mountains. And yet it is . impossible for the Communists to conceal that the basic drift stays steadily west. The stubborn nonpolitical will of the peo~ ple is to huddle into the region that lies be- tween the Baltic and Black seas. Trotsky was once sent to Siberia in one of the many efforts of the czar to combine dis- solution of troublesome politicians with populating undermanned territories. But Trotsky was a city slicker. He liked drinking tea out of a glass and wiggling his toes and spinning yarns of diversion while his lightning instinct for intrigue worked to cut opponents’ throats. He hated the forests and the snows and the summer winds and the smell of the great outdoors, even though he had been born on a farm, himself. Or maybe it was because of that. So with his gift for words, he made Siberia an image of horror for the class of people in the Western World who are today commonly known everywhere as intelligentsia. The word is Russian. And what are the intelligentsia? Well, about the only people who know intelligent- sia when they see them are other intelligent- sia. Apparently, though, their main idea is that they know what’s good for the rest of us and will give it as they please—New Dealers, 80 to say. Forty years ago, Trotsky was laying down a formula for the “intelligentsia” that now is perfected and glazed. He had no taste for the earth to which he had been born. In contrast, I have in my memory the words, of an American who was hired by the Soviet
A3458 Government in the 1920’s to set up and oper- ate a hunt for gold in the Siberian reaches. To him, Siberia was a place of wonder and beauty and “75 t-7"*~ It was nature to be conquered itt: ‘ with in pleasure. The life, he said, was éasier than Alaska, where he had srcnt many years. Surely any American who has any knowl- edge at all can understand that engineer’s feelings. Here on this continent our breed has beat the worst that nature can do. We even dig the borax out of Death Vale ley. We cut down one forest and plant an- other. Tear the soc off the western plains and then spend hundreds of millions tack- ing it back If the spirit of America were let loose on Siberia it could be a land of rich fulfillment. But under the czars the Russian people huddled timidly up against the edge of Eu- rope and so they do, today; because they have never been told to go out and make a profit for themselves out of the earth. And what little development there is be- hind the Urals can be traced directly co the importation of American and German and a few English and French engineers, first by the czars and later by the foviets in the 1920’s, when the cry of communism was “catch up with and pass America.” a Address of Hon. William C. Bullitt EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL HINSHAW OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Saturday, May 6, 1950 Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following text of an address delivered by William C. Bullitt at the Yale Law School at New Haven, Conn., Friday, April 14, 1950. Mr. Bul- litt spoke under the auspices of the Pier- son College International Relations Club: Forty years ago when I was a student at Yale we were all obliged to go to compulsory Sunday chapel—which often meant return- ing to New Haven by the milk train from parties in New York. Our pain was eased, however, by President Hadley. The visiting preachers would invariably ask him how long they should preach. Hadley invariably would reply: “Your time is, of course, un- limited; but the oldest Yale tradition is that no souls are saved after the first 15 minutes.” At the risk of saving no souls at all, I shall take more than 15 minutes be~ cause I want to try to give you an over-all picture of the world situation. When you complete your studies you will step onto a field of battle. All of us wish that were not so; but it is so. And you had better know now what you will face. Why isn’t it reasonable to believe that if we display enough good will we tan reach an agreement with Stalin that will give peace to the world? After all, the Soviet Union contains a sixth of the land surface of the earth. Itis sparsely populated. It could be developed as our own country was developed between the Civil War and the First World War—peacefully, with a constantly rising standard of living for all its inhabitants. Why doesn’t that happen? Isn’t the trouble with ourselves? Isn’t the Soviet Govern- ment afraid of us—legitimately afraid of us? It is not. The Soviet Government knows better than any other government in the world the exact state of mind of the Amer- ican Government and the American people. It has plenty of agents and sympathizers in our country to give it the facts, and there is no better in*-~ 777 “7-7 o* men in the world than the -v...: L .. leaders of the Soviet Union know. as well as we know that we desire to live in peace with all nations. One day in 1984 when our Government was attempting to establish cordial relations with the Soviet Government—hoping that a combination of the forces of Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union might prevent Hitler from making war in Europe and the Japanese militarists from pushing further into China—a number of commissars were having a drink with me at our Embassy in Moscow. { showed them the Soviet Second Reader. In it was a chapter entitled “Amer- ica” At the head of the chapter was a draw- ing of starving children working at factory machines in a cellar, while on the floor above fat, bejeweled women and fatter men danced jazz. The text read: “America is a country where children of workers and peasants are forbidden to get an education. They are forced to work all day at machines in dark cellars, and get nothing to eat but bread, while the rich dance over their heads.” I asked the commissars how they expected to educate leaders for the Soviet Union if they taught their children such les? They laighed and one of them replied: “Have you ever found any one of us that doesn’t know the facts?” I answered that I thought they were better informed than the members of any government I knew. The commissar then went on: “It will always beso. We shall educate in special schools leaders who will know the truth, but as for the rest-——we shall teach them exactly what it is in the interest of the Soviet Union for them to know.” Stalin and the members of the Politburo have no fear whatsoever that they will be attacked by the United States. They know the facts. The tremendous trumpetings of anti-American rrcoor~srea in Soviet schools, plays, movies, .."-, rss, and radio are merely means to drive ear and hatred into the ignorant in order to make them docile instruments of Stalin. From 1941 to 1947 we tried to appease Stalin. Hopefully we gave him everything he asked. We failed. His appetite remained as great as ever. We failed to appease him then, and we would fail now if we should try again to appease him. We cannot develop friendly relations with the Soviet Government as we could develop such relations with a normal government because we are facing, not a nor- mal government, but a clique of men who, by their own will, deliberately and con- sciously, have chosen to declare themselves the enemies of all peoples that live in free- dom. They are the high priests of a fight- ing faith which requires of its adherents conquest of the world. The Russian people, who are capable of performing prodigies of good, are driven by that privileged and per~ secuting clique to prodigies of evil. In 1939, Stalin ruled 170,000,000 persons. Today he controls 800,000,000—more than a third of humanity. His objective is conquest of the entire human race. He will not stop. He can only be stopped. We cannot get off this planet. We shall have to stop him or submit to his rule. ‘ To believe that it is still-possible to ap- pease Stalin, it is necessary to be ignorant both of Soviet history and of the doctrine which inspires the actions of the Commu- nists. The Communist creed teaches that estab- lishment of Communist dictatorship throughout the earth and abolition of pri- vate ownership of the means of production will erase all envy, hatred, and malice from the human heart. It promises that the state will then wither away and that all men will live without a state in perfect happiness, In the name of science, the Communists * teach this fantastically unscientific creed to the peoples they control. They educate their APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD children to live by this faith and, if need be, to die for 1t. A lerge percentave of the young in the Soviet U.s10» aod tl¢ Soviet satellite countries have no other creed taught them. So they have faith in the Communist creed and give their lives for 1t, h-"fse--r > '* they are fizhting to emancipate :' | “ . from all evil. Since the Communists believe this, they are convinced that the highest present moral duty of man is to achieve Communist world Creteterehin This supreme end, they hold, “4 ff, “ means for its achievement—all means including the pledged word given and broken, character assassination, torture, mur- der, and war. They revere the words which Lenin wrote: “It 1s necessary * * * to use any ruse, cunning, unlawful method, eva- sion, concealment of truth.” They hold as gospel truth his portentous statement: “It is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue for a long period side by side with imperialist states. Ultimately one or the other must e-rene. Moonwhile a number of terrible ¢. 2 te .. 2 the Soe viet Republic and the bourgeois states is inevitable.” There is not the slightest evidence that Stalin disbelieves in this doctrine which now bears his name as well as the names of Marx and Lenin. Even if he should disbelieve in it, he could not abandon it. For the Marx- Lenin-Stalin creed is the fighting faith which holds the Communists together. Without it the Soviet Union and all other Communist states would disintegrate. Stalin must and will continue to try to conquer the world. No vice in international affairs is so fatal as the vice of wishful thinking. If we con- tinue to believe that we can appease the un- appeasable, we shall not survive. We can~ not turn a tiger into a cat by stroking it, In our short history we have never had to face any problem as complex as the problem of this Communist assault. The western world once did face a similar problem. The fighting faith of Mahomet ove-whe!moed the Christian states of the Near East and north Africa and Spain, and the Moslem forces were not stopped until they reached Tours on the Loire not very far from Paris. I do not wish to compare the Moslem religion, which is a noble one, to the Communist creed, which is satanic; but I do wish to point out than in the hundred years between Ma- homet’s death in 632 and the defeat of the Moslems by Charles Martel in 732, country after country fell before that fighting faith until it seemed that it was irresistible. The Communist attack is no more irresist- ible than was the Moslem attack. But to meet it successfully, we shall need the same faith and courage that the Christians had at Tours. Furthermore, we shall need wisdom. We shall have to be wise in time. And there is not much time. We shall have to grow up quickly, for the burden of defeating the Communist attack has fallen on us at a moment when we are intellectually ill-pre- pared to carry it. We have always been s0 occupied with out domestic affairs, so happy in our own continent, that few Americans have taken any long-continued interest in foreign affairs. In consequence, our foreign policies have often been not expressions of our vital interests, but mere spasmodic re- actions to the demands of domestic political expediency. The few Americans who have devoted their lives to foreign affairs since 1914 are so exceptional as to be almost oddi- ties. As a nation, we are amateurs in the foreign fleld. Our leaders play by ear or by hunch, Stalin sits in the Kremlin with the members of his Politburo who compose hia general staff for conquest of the world and plans his advances on a world scale as care- fully as the commander in chief of an army plans his attacks. Our Government has never prepared an over-all plan of political, economic, and military defense for ourselves and the rest of the free world. Indeed, our
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD administration has not even understood that such @ plan is vital. It 1s not so long ago that Fresident Truman said, “I like old Joe.” What should we be doing? Can we stop Stalin without war? It is not impossible but 1t will not be easy. For Stalin will not stop unless we keep him constantly confronted by superior force and unless he knows that we will use that force against his direct or indirect aggressions. To stop Stalin without war we must, therefore, have both the superior force and the will, if neces- sary, to use 1t. Do we have the superior force? In 1945 we had the atomic bomb and the world’s greatest air force to carry it. Our industrial plant was intact. China, the key to all Asia, was our ally. Stalin had no atomic bomb and no long-range bombing planes. His in- dustrial plant was, in large part, worn out or destroyed. Compared to the Soviet Union we were overwhelmingly strong. Today Stalin has China as an ally. He has atomic bombs and at least 350 long-range bombers capable of carrying them to any spot in the United States. We have no radar warning net to detect the approach of his planes. We have only a fraction of the number of pursuit planes needed to make effective use of a warning net. The authori- tative Finletter Commission in 1948 recom- mended as a minimum for national security 70 air groups. We have 44. Stalin’s total air force outnumbers ours by about 3 to 1. His annual production of war planes is about 8 to our 1. He has 125 army divisions to our 10—among them, 30 armored divisions to our 1. In addition, he has approximately 270 submarines—about 30 of which are of the latest type against which we have not yet produced effective counter weapons. Furthermore, thanks to his agent Fuchs, who transmitted to him all our secrets for pro- duction of both A-bombs and hydrogen bombs, he may be ahead of us in production of H-bombs. Moreover, the whole of western Europe is without defense, and everyone in western Europe knows it. Its cities cannot be pro- tected against Soviet atomic bombs except by our Air Force, which today is not strong enough for the task. To oppose the 125 So- viet divisions, the French have 6, the British say they can furnish 1, the Belgians 1. To have a chance to stop the Red Army for a few months, the European democracies would need from 50 to 60 divisions. Modern equip- ment for such a number of divisions would cost from ten to twenty billion dollars. And military authorities agree that no western European defense system can be effective unless both the western Germans and the Spaniards are included in it. The balance of military force is swinging so rapidly to the Soviet side that some offi- cials in Washington who have access to se- *cret information believe that Stalin will at- tack us this autumn. They argue that by August 1950 he will probably have 50 A-bombs—enough to destroy our great cities and our atomic-production plants, and thus prevent effective American counterattack. But my belief is that Stalin will not launch shooting war until he is certain that he can defeat us easily. He is a cautious and crafty leader who strikes only when he feels sure of quick victory. This autumn, his first sur- prise attack might not be successful, We would probably be able to strike back effec- tively. Therefore, it seems likely that he will not start bombing this year but will go on in- creasing his military strength faster than we are adding to ours, and seize more peoples, resources, and strategic areas, until he feels that his power is irresistible. We are allow- ing time to run on his side. And he knows it. Unless we strengthen quickly our own military forces and those of our allies and prevent further Soviet aggressions, we shall throw away our last chance to keep Stalin confronted by superior force—and shall throw away, therefore, our last chance to stop Stalin without war. We shall not even be able to defeat Stalin in war unless we build up our strength and that of our allies faster than Stalin is build- ing up the strength of the Soviet Union and its satellites, and unless we stop further direct or indirect Communist aggressions. At the present moment the Communists are advancing by open warfare in Indochina. If we let Indochina fall, Burma, Siam, and British Malaya—with its vast production of rubber and tin—will also fall. Then it will be India’s turn. At another point, the Communists are making small attacks preparatory to a great attack. The Chinese Communists for some time have been attempting to seize small is- lands on the way to the great strategic island of Formosa. Formosa is still being held by the Chinese Nationalist Army which, some weeks ago, gave proof of its good morale by seizing a port on the mainland. If the Chinese Communists should capture For- mosa, Stalin’s forces would be within 250 mules of the northern Philippines. It was from Formosa that Japan attacked and cap- tured the Philippines. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed by General Bradley, pleaded with President Truman to send munitions and equipment, as well as economic aid to Formosa, and a few American officers to ad- vise regarding defense. Secretary of State Acheson opposed our military leaders, and persuaded President Truman to decide that ‘we would continue to do nothing to prevent the fall of Formosa. That is our present policy. For the Philippines, the Department of State is preparing another Bataan. In the Near East, Iran, with its huge oil production, which plays such a large part in British economic life, is again threatened by Soviet-directed revolutionaries of the Tudeh party. They have a fertile field in which to work. The poverty among the peas- ants of Iran is so grinding that they are close to revolt. Unless the Government of the United States moves rapidly to alleviate the suffering in Iran, Stalin may soon add that ancient country to his long list of satellites. These, for the moment, are the areas in Asia where Stalin is pressing his advance strongly. But even in western Europe he is undermining our friends. In Italy, more than 20 percent of the work- men are unemployed, and the Communists, who gathered one-third of the votes at the last elections, are gaining in strength. In France, the Government is far weaker than any French Government before the Second World War, and its entire apparatus is riddled with Communists. Even the head of French atomic research is a Communist. Great Britain is staggering toward another financial and economic crisis. : Western Germany, under the pressure of unemployment, is beginning to listen to the Soviet propaganda which says: “Side with the United States and you will have unemploy- ment, underfeeding, shortage of raw mate- rials, a divided country and, finally, Soviet atomic bombs on your cities. Side with the Soviet Union and you will have all the wheat and raw materials you want, no unemploy- ment, and a united Germany including the part that is momentarily Polish.” Pastor Niemoeller, much admired by Americans, has now declared himself in favor of a united Germany even at the price of Communist rule. When we began to give Marshall plan aid, and when we signed the Atlantic Pact, our object was to make western Europe a strong ally. We have succeeded only in keeping alive 17 picturesque, competing countries which cannot feed or defend themselves. If they would unite their economies by enter- ing a European federation, they would be on the path to strength. But their govern- A3459 ments refuse to take any serious steps to- ward federation. And our Government is making no effective effort to move them toward federation. They feel confident that, even after 1952, we will not stop our doles to them. And, indeed, we do not dare to stop for fear that they will all collapse into the hands of Stalin and be organized as Soviet satellites for his final attack on us. What then is the real state of cur de- fenses against Soviet aggression? Cur own military strength is falling behind the grow- ing mulitary strength of Stalin. Asia is slipping into Stalin’s hands. Western Eu- rope is defenseless. The Soviet atomic bomb threat to our homes, our families, and our country is increasing each day. The Com- munists are advancing. We are retreating. They are on the offensive. We are on the defensive. No war, hot or cold, was ever won by forces which remained on the de- fensive. Why are we on the defensive? Why has our Government failed to defend our vital interests? Because American foreign policy since 1941 has been a supreme triumph of Soviet psychological warfare. In 1941 our Gov- ernment was bamboczled into treating the Soviet Union as a “peace-loving democracy,” and the Chinese Communists as “mere agrarian reformers who have no connection with Moscow.” Our Department of State forgot that the Soviet Government was 4 predatory totalitarian tyranny and that the Chinese Communists were agents of Stalin. In 1941 the Soviet Government was in des- perate straits. Thanks to our aid—$11,- 000,000,000  worth—it survived. Today, Stalin controls more than a third of the human race, and we are not sure that we shall suryive. The measure of our foreign policy is the fact that in 1939 Stalin con- trolled 1'70,000,000 people, while today he controls 800,000,000. Apologists for the Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam agreements have used many words in an attempt to prove that what was wrong was not the agreements themselves but the failure of the Soviet Union to carry out the agreements. This is as if a banker, who had been appointed trustee of the fortune of a child, should place the funds entrusted to his care in a Ponzi get-rich-quick scheme and then, when the money was lost, plead that the trouble was not with the trustee— who accepted Mr. Ponzi’s promise to pay 200 percent per year—but with Ponzi’s failure +o carry out the agreement. The people of the United States hire officials to work in the Department of State because they need experts to handle complex world questions. The officials of that Department are trus- tees of the vital interests of the American people, and the most contemptible excuse that can be offered by or for them is that they meant well but were “played for suckers.” To explain the sacrifice of the vital inter- ests of the people of the United States by our National Government, it is not necessary to conclude that our Department of State is filled with Soviet agents. We know that there have been some in influential posts. But most of the damage has been done by naive dupes of Soviet psychological warfare. We still have in office, in Washington and throughout the world, duped officials who have not been Soviet agents but have served the Soviet Government as effectively as if they had been Soviet agents. In our Army, a general who loses a division through incompetence is court-martialed. In our Department of State, men who throw away whole countries are promoted. They have a vested interest in their own mistakes. They cannot detach themselves from their past or their friends—even though those friends turn out to be Soviet agents. In any
A3460 parliamentary democracy a minister of for- eign affairs who had tossed a great ally like China to Stalin would have been dismissed from his post. Mr. Acheson remains Secre- tary of State. There is a great moral difference between traitors and Soviet dupes. It is the same difference that is recognized in law between @ man guilty of murder and a man guilty of manslaughter. In the case of manslaughter, there is no intention to commit the crime. Eut in both cases the victim ends up dead. If our President continues to keep as ad- visers on foreign policy men who have played a part in the sacrifice of our vital interests from 1941 to the present time, we shall have small chance to survive. Perhaps it is difficult for you to feel pro- foundly that all you care about may be de- stroyed. Have you ever thought how many great civilizations have been totally annihi- lated? Have you thought of the Athens of Pericles and of the Roman Empire? Of all the great cities of Syria and North Africa where today stretch only lonely sands? Have you understood that a similar extinc- tion may come, and come soon, to the whole Christian civilization of Europe—and may come to us here? This is hard to believe but it 1s so. Under these circumstances, what should we do? Let us remember two facts in ap- proaching the problem of our foreign policy: First, let us remember always to distinguish petween the Russian people and the Soviet Government. There can be no peace on earth so long as the Russian people and the peoples of the Soviet satellite states are driven by men who prefer a murderous doc- trine to the “plain exigence of charity.” In the year 1880, the Poles in revolt against the tyranny of the Czars inscribed on their ban- ners a phrase adjressed to the enslaved Rus-< sian people: “For your freedom and ours.” We should approach the Russian people in the same spirit. However hard it may be, we must make the Russians comprehend that we stand for their freedom no less than for our own, since in our battle against the Communist dictator, the Russian people must be our final allies. We have had free- dom for so mény years, we have lived so long in Christian civilization under a bill of rights honestly enforced, that we are apt to forget that the idea of freedom is the most explosive force in the world of politics. Freedom is an atomic bomb in the field of ideas. All men hate to live under the eye and hand of an omnipotent secret police. Tyranny, whether it be called by the name of communism, fascism, or by any other name, is loathed by all normal men and women. And however absolute may be today the grip of the Soviet dictator on his sub- ject peoples, that grip can and will be ended eventually by the idea of freedom. Second, let us remember always that many years will elapse before the peoples of the Soviet Union and the satellite states achieve freedom and that, throughout those years, we and the other free nations will be in danger of extinction unless we keep the Soviet Union constantly confronted by superior force. If any one of you is morally dis- turbed by that idea, lel him remember that the most legitimate use of force on this earth is to hold the field to permit the growth of moral ideas. Within the framework of these general conclusions, what should be our foreign policy? ‘ 1. To build up our military strength faster than Stalin is increasing his millitary strength. 2. To achieve the federation of western Europe and give adequate arms to that fed- eration. 8. To stand up with force to the threat of the Commudists in eastern Germany have announced that on May 28 they will march 500,000 youths from east Berlin into west Berlin. 4. To give far greater aid than we have been giving to resistance forces in all the Soviet satellite countries. 5. To help the Albanian exiles rescue Al~ pbania from the Communists, and thus give new spirit to all the enslaved peoples behind the iron curtain. 6. To give adequate and effective economic aid to Iran. 7. To prevent Communist conquest of Formosa. 8. To help the Annamites and the French throw the Communists completely out of Indochina. 9. To insist that the UN—now paralyzed by Soviet veto and boycott—function as if there were no Soviet boycott. These are but a few of the obvious steps that we must take immediately if we are to wrest the offensive from Stalin. Won't such a policy be terribly expensive? Of course it will be. Each one of us will have to make sacrifices—genuine sacrifices that will be hard to bear. We have allowed Stalin to acquire such strength and to take over such races, resources, and strategic po- sitions that nothing short of the full efforts of the American people will suffice to stop him. We are not technically at war; but we shali have to live and work as if we were at war. We know what happens to a people that refuses to face—in time—a mortal danger. Yet today cur Government is behaving as the French Government behaved from 1936 to 1939. In that period when the Germans were preparing for war and working 60 hours a week, the French cut their working hours to 40 a week. When the Germans were pro- ducing 700 planes a month, the French cut their plane production to 50 a month. They did this for ‘the same reason that we are now reducing expenditures for our military forces and for aid to our friends throughout the world. The people of France, like all other peoples, wanted a higher standard of living and leisure. They did not realize that a higher standard of living and leisure would soon give them a higher rate of dying. In 1940 Hitler destroyed the independence of France. We restored the independence of France. There is no nation standing be-~ hind us to restore our independence. It may be difficult for us to persuade our Government to change its present policies. President Truman has staked his political future on a program of handouts for crop support, housing, education, and other proj- ects which appeal to groups of voters. To get more tax money for the handout program which produces votes, he has cut down the defense program which might produce sur- vival. Our tax money is being used to buy surplus potatoes instead of jet planes. It will not be easy for him to change his . course; but our best hope lies in the fact he is a patriot. If we can let him know that henceforth we want to hear from him not what we can get from our country but what we can give to our country, we shall make it easy for him to take the course which will enable our Nation to survive. The burden of decision is on our Presi- dent. He, by our Constitution, controls our foreign policy. He commands our armed forces. If he is to act in time to save our country from conquest by Stalin, he will have to change his thinking quickly. He will have to experience something like the trans- formation which Saul experienced on the road to Damascus when “there shined about him a light from heaven,” and he became Paul the Apostle. We should hope and pray that a light from heaven Will fall on Presi- dent Truman; but we should also try to shed upon him a light from the public opinion of Americans who do not want to live soft for a few years and then be conquered, but do want to live hard and keep their country free, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 9 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an editorial entitled “Those Postal Cuts,” from the Jamestown Sun, of Jamestown, N. Y. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Tross Posrat Curs To the party out of power the Post Office Department is always run by either an in. competent politician who got his job for faithful work in the party vineyard or a bureaucrat whose sole consideration is build- ing up his bureaus with drones who slyly get around the civil service rules to swing a few votes at election time. The operation of the Post Office has always been the classic example of the inefficiencies which attend the Government’s attempts to run a@ business. Jesse Donaldson, having come up from the ranks of the civil service to head the Post Office Department, doesn’t fit very neatly into any of the categories reserved by the opposi- tion for the Postmaster General. He not only knows the operation of the Post Office petter than anyone to fill the office within memory, but he has also been a voice crying in the wilderness for greater postal effi- ciency and especially for requiring that those receiving concealed subsidies from the Department be made to pay a greater part of their share of the cost of operation of the Department. Congress proposes now to cut the cost of postal operation. So, as an economy meas- ure, Jesse Donaldson issues an order curtail- ing postal service to a single delivery a day in many places where residential delivery was on a two-a-day basis. This is calcu- lated to save about $30,000,000—the equiva- lent of 10,000 carriers and clerks added to the ranks of the unemployed. But Congressmen are howling. So are many who believe implicitly in economy until some specific act of economy is under- taken. This isn’t the kind of economy they were asking for. Their idea of economy is something which affects the other fellow. Moreover, it’s quite embarrassing to return home to campaign for reelection and face the embattled postal clerks and the voters wiio have had their mail service cut. Now, as a matter of fact, Mr. Donaldson’s order to curtail mail service and throw 10,000 carriers and clerks out of employment is of doubtful yalidity as an economy measure. It is more than just a drop in the bucket, but the question of its wisdom from an effi- ciency viewpoint is to be doubted. It is, however, a dramatic and forceful way of  pringing home to the voters the demands for postal economy. But anyone familiar with postal opera tions, as Mr. Donaldson certainly must be, knows that hundreds of post offices across the land are understaffed, rather than over- staffed; that better mail service, rather than curtailed service, is a crying need; and that @ general order of curtailment such as he issued can have only the effect of increasing confusion in the post offices and hampering work already too great for a staff to handle properly. There would perhaps be good reason for limiting home delivery of mail to a single