THE TEXT IS LIGHT IN THE BOOK THE TEXT IS FLY WITHIN THE BOOK ONLY
OF AMERICA PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Sr% CONGRESS SECOND SESSION Appendix VOLUME 96—PART 15 APRIL 21, 1950, TO JUNE 7, 1950 (PAGES A2863 TO A4294) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 19590
. &E . * ta : 4 NT e Nee United States of America ‘ongressional PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Sr? CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION ecord Metional Capital Sesquicentennial Celebration EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MARGARET CHASE SMITH OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the ReEcorD an address by the Honorable ALBEN W. BarkKLey, Vice President of the United States, at ceremonies marking the official opening of the sesquicenten- nial celebration on the Capitol Plaza on April 15, 1950. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Distinguished guests and fellow Americans, we are celebrating this year the Sesquicen- tennial of the city of Washington as the Capital of the Nation. In particular, we mark the anniversary today of the laying of the foundation stone of the Federal City which has in time become not only a noble Capital befitting the Government of a great and free people, but a symbol of the hope and strength of freedom to people every- where in the world. At about the time when the city of Washington was beginning to rise along the edges of the marshes which lined the Potomac River, Tom Paine was writing his famous book, “Rights of Man.” Paine, who said of himself that, “My country is the world, and my religion is to do good,” had come to America penniless and self-educated, as he was not the first and by no means the last to do, to one of the great glories of our Nation. In the Rights of Man, Tom Paine was seek- ing parallels between the American Revolu- tion and the French Revolution which our land had stimulated. In arguing that the American revolution had broken the ice, as far as revolutions were concerned, and that it was only natural that revolutions would follow in other places, Paine said this, “That the probability is always greater against a thing beginning than of proceeding after it had begun.” Tom Paine was one of the relatively few people anywhere in the world in his day who understood the full significance of the American revolution. He knew that this was no mere result of complaints against ab- sentee government. He knew that it was not solely the consequence of taxation without representation, and that it was not alone the result of dissatisfaction with rule under the XCVI—App.——-181 Appendix British crowh, He recognized that the changes which would be wrought by the revolution in the American colonies would be vaster than a change in allegiance from a foreign to a local government. He under- stood that this was a fundamental recon- struction of the purposes of government and of the society on which that government was based. This was the revolution for the estab- lishment of the rights of man. Paine could not really have thought that there was much improbability in the staging of a revolution in America. That revolution grew straight out of “he developing character of the American people. Different action on the part of the British parliament and lead- ers might possibly have changed the date of the American revolution; but at mest it would have been postponed. The particular types of people who felt the call of America and came to her shores, the nature of the boundless country to which they emigrated, together demanded the right to independ- ence for their colonies, and more particularly for themselves. They demanded the ulti- mate dignity of freedom. “The revolutions which formerly took place in the world,” Paine wrote, “had nothing in them that interested the bulk of mankind. They extended only to a change of persons and measures, not of principles, and rose or fell among the common transactions of the moment. What we now behold may not be improperly called a counterrevolution. Conquest and tyranny, at some earlier period, dispossessed man of his rights and he is now recovering them, and as the tide of human affairs has its ebb and flow in direciicons contrary to each other, so also is it in this. Government founded on a moral theory, on a system of universal peace, on the indefea- sible, hereditary rights of man, is now revolv- ing from west to east’—that is, from Amer- ica to France—“by a stronger impulse than the government of the sword revolved from east to west. It interests not particular in- dividuals but nations in its progress and promises a new era to the human race.” Paine thought that it was more difficult to win freedoms in the first place than to maintain them after they were won. I am not sure that this is the case. Party plat- forms are rarely known for their quality as abiding literature. But one sentence from the platform of a political party in 1924—it ‘was the Progressive Party of Bob La Follette— has become a part of our heritage. “Every generation,” it said, “must wage a new war for freedom against mew forces which seek through new devices to enslave mankind.” That has been relentlessly true in our own country. Itis true today as we face the most powerful and aggressive foe in our history asa nation. If the American and the French Revolutions were triumphs for the rights of man, what the world is offered today is the counterrevolution of tyranny, and let us make no mistake about it. What is hidden in the vestments of a utopian Marxist world of peace and plenty is a perverted and gnaw- ing lust for imperial power which in its magnitude of scope would have made Caesar pale and Alexander tremble. The propagandists for this foe call us war- mongers. They claim to be the scle cham-~- pions of peace, and they maintain the largest military machine in the world. The propagandists for this foe claim to be aposties of freedom, yet in their so-called labor camps are more slaves than have been kept in bondage by any nation at any time in the history of the world. ‘No citizen is free from searches and sei- gures of the secret police. Trial by unim~- agined tortures take the place of trials by jury. There is no freedom of expression, no freedom of the press, no freedom to worship in one’s own way, no freedom of enterprise, no freedom to enjoy the profits of one’s labors. This we know, and this as free citizens of a great nation, and as leaders among the forces of free men throughout the world, we can face, confident in our rightness and our strength. But there is another foe of our freedoms, no less insidious, no less danger~ ous. And this lies within ourselves. The sharpest threats to the freedoms which we enjoy here in America have come, up to now, not from outside sources, but from within. And it is often precisely when we are threatened with a loss of our freedoms from the outside that we hear voices among us demanding that we cede away some of our frecdcom heze at home in order to protect ourselves from this cutside threat. And these same forces which would abridge our freedoms sow rumors and suspicion among us. The plain truth is that our freedom is our sword. Ours is an imperfect freedom, but year by year, generation by generation we have tempered it and made it strong, pol- ished the dark places to make them glisten like a beacon. Being human, we make mistakes as peo~ ple, as a government, as a nation. But if we now diminish, abridge, and reduce this precious heritage of rights and freedoms we shall have made a mistake fatal to the rest of our freedoms, and, in the end, to our existence as a nation. On the contrary, we must extend our rights and freedoms, we must perfect our own democracy here at home, we must vigorously seek the means of equal freedom for all the world’s peoples. We must see that our own Revolution fulfills the prophesy of Tom Paine, that it truly brings a “new era to the human race.” In times such as these there is usually a troubling and pernicious threat to freedom of thought and freedom to hold our own ideas, unpopular though they may be. Tom Paine was one of the real molders of the thought of our infant nation, although he was regarded by many then as peculiar and A2863
A2864 unrespectable, perhaps even dangerous. To- day he might be charged with being subver- sive. To those who might so regard him now it is well to recall that Paine wrote that in his day—and it should be pointed out that he was talking about European govern- menits—‘we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every cor- ner and crevice of industry and grasping the spoil of the multitude.” We can hear those sentiments still echoed frequently by highly respectable people. There is a clear danger in attempting to halt the give and take of ideas, for it is here in the realm of reason, and by the test of morality that we shall truly and finally win or lose the battle which is before us. Those who seek to restrict ideas are those who have no real confidence in America, its people, and its institutions. “Those who deny freedom to others,” said Abraham Lincoln, ‘deserve it not for them- selves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.” In the 150 years since the establishment of the seat of the Federal Government in the city of Washington we have seen our Nation grow in size and in might until now it stands at the very forefront of all free and demo- cratic nations. We have seen this city grow out of the marshes to become one of the most magnificent cities of the world. This has been accomplished in part because of a vigorous and growing population, partly be- cause of a wealth of readily available re- sources. But just as responsible for the growth of this Nation and its power and position in the world has been the insistence on freedom which has welled up from the hearts of every generation of Americans. Our generation will meet all challenges to its freedom, as past generations have done. We shall work and pray to the end that we shall deliver to our children not only a free nation but a free world. The Fair Deal in Virginia EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an address entitled “The Fair Deal in Virginia,” de- livered at Richmond, Va., on April 18, 1960, by the distinguished junior Sena- tor from Minnesota [Mr. Humpurey], one of the outstanding and most con- sistent liberals of the country. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: I want to express to you my deep apprecia- tion for the opportunity to visit your State— the birthplace of democracy—and to meet with you here in Richmond. I know that frequently it is difficult for those of you who live in Virginia to realize with how much awe and respect those of us from other sec~ tions of America look upon your native State. I well remember my school days as a youngster in a small town in South Da- kota, reading about Monticello and Mt, Vernon, and studying the lives of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and the many other illus- trious figures in American history. I re- member my sisters and my brother and my- self talking about those early days and about the great State of Virginia with my father. Later, as a young man in Minnesota and as a student and a teacher of political science at the university there, the picture of Vir- ginia as the birthplace of Presidents took shape more clearly. During my first visit to Washington not so many years ago, I re- member that in my mind I looked forward as much to visiting Virginia—the cradle of great American tradition—as I did to visiting our Nation’s capitol. In many ways, therefore, it is with deep sincerity that I say how pleased I am to be with you tonight and to talk with you about affairs of state—problems of our democracy. I was invited here tonight to participate in a debate with your senior Senator. I wel- comed that opportunity and accepted that invitation, because I realized that whatever differences of political philosophy we may have, and whatever differences we may have about our interpretation of current trends, all of us share a common belief in the demo- cratic process and in the importance of free discussion to our democratic way of life. One of the most essential parts of the Amer- ican tradition is a respect for differences of opinion honestly held, and a recognition that a society without these differences of opin~ ion is not a free society. I also accepted the invitation to debate here in Richmond, Va., because I was con- scious of the vital hictorical role which the public debate has had here in your own State and in the early development of our country. I need merely to mention the name of Henry Clay to illustrate that role. I assume that the officers of the Virginia Commonwealth League and the representa- tives of the affiliated organizations sponsor- ing this meeting invited me here because I had the occasion in recent months to make clear and public my opposition to some of the activities of your senior Senator. Most par- ticularly, I took issue with the activities of a committee of which he is chairman. It is the merits of my proposal to abolish that committee which was assigned as the topic of this evening’s discussion. Iregret very much that the senior Senator from Virginia found it impossible to be here tonight, and to accept your invitation. I do feel that under the circumstances it would not be proper or courteous for me to debate that question in his absence. I do hope that we will have an opportunity to do so soon. In the spirit of free discussion, however, I want to take this opportunity to discuss what I consider to be one of the most signifi- cant new developments in our American po- litical scene. I refer to the growing partici- pation of people in politics. At the outset, before I begin to tell you what I have to say, let me make very clear what I do not intend to say. If your Vir- ginia newspapers quote no other portion of my remarks tonight, I hope they will quote me to the following effect: I am not going to discuss your State and local affairs. In spite of the fact that the State of Virginia and the State of Minnesota are both States with approximately 3,000,000 population, and with the same proportion of rural and urban population, and with many of the same problems, I fully appreciate that it is impossible for me, & citizen of Minnesota and a former mayor of Minneapolis, to at~ tempt to tell you here in Virginia and in Richmond how you ought to run your gov- ernment affairs. I shall not attempt to do so. I know that you, the people of Virginia, are fully able to make whatever changes may be necessary in your own way, in your own time, and in accordance with your own judg- ment. We in America have passed through a very interesting period in our political history. There was a time not so long ago when it was possible for an American citizen to live his life, with but few exceptions, relatively free from direct contact and association with his APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Government. Ours was a simple society. Yes, we paid taxes, but not too much of that. Affairs of government therefore were fre- quently and in many States a concern of the few. In the early days it was the concern of those who owned property. In the latter days it was the concern of those who had a business interest to advance through par- ticipation in government. Let us not forget that not too many years ago, only those who owned property and were considered men of means had the legal right to vote. There are only a few States in our Nation today who have any remnants of those undemocratic and aristocratic practices left. And even in those States, certainly in your own State, the poll-tax requirement is on the road to oblivion. It was, therefore, quite understandable that with only the few participating in the political process, only the few were cared for through the political process. Here is one of the greatest problems our Gemocracy had to face. Democracy is based on the principle of majority rule. The great teachers of democracy have taught us that the judgment of the majority of the people is a far better judgment to follow than the judgment of any single minority, whether it be the few who own property or the few who control wealth. They had that faith pecause democracy to them meant participa- tion by all the people in the political proc- ess. And the political process to them meant that the people would rule through their votes, after becoming informed and intelli- gent through debate and discussion and a free expression of their views. The development of American history since that early day has been one of broaden- ing and extending democracy. It has been a continuous striving to attain that goal so beautifully described by Abraham Lincoln when he said that ours was to be a “govern- ment of the people, by the people, and for the people.” It was striving to make a po- litical reality out of the immortal idea cre- ated and championed by that noble Virginian Thomas Jefferson, when he said “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Cre- ator with certain inalienable rights.” . That tradition of human equality, of hu- man brotherhood, and of increasing democ- racy has been championed in the twentieth century by Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Tru- man. It is receiving its greatest expression today in the program and political Ufe of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. This, my friends, explains the intensity of the opposition faced by the Fair Deal and the New Deal. The people are beginning to express themselves and as they express them- selves the few and the privileged who have looked upon political activity and politics as their business and only their business are fighting to maintain their power and posl- tions of privilege. Make no mistake akout it. The programs of the New Deal and the Fair Deal have helped business. Profits are at the highest level that they have ever been in the Nation's history. The New Deal and the Fair Deal have been good to them at the same time as those programs have provided for our wel- fare—yours and mine—and the millions of American farmers, workers, and small-busi- ness men, There is only one logical reason for their opposition and their bitter hostility to the New Deal and to the Fair Deal. It is their realization that with the New Deal and the Fair Deal they no longer make the decisions; it is the people who make the decisions. Nevertheless, it is good constantly to re- evaluate the principles of the New Deal and the Fair Deal and subject that program to criticism and constant debate. I would per-~ sonally far prefer to discuss the issues repre- sented by the New Deal and the Fair Deal
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD rather than the slogans which the opposition has seen fit to repeat. But, I am prepared to discuss the slogans, too. I was amused recently to read in the New York Herald Tribune that Governor Dewey delivered a lecture at Princeton University in which he said that it must have been some clumsy Republican who first used the slogan of the “welfare state” to label the Truman administration. You and I know, of course, that it is not only the Republicans who have used that label, but a great many who call themselves Democrats and who use that title behind which to hide their Dixie- crat and Republican ideologies. In the election of 1948 the Fair Deal pro- gram of the Democratic Party faced the op- position not only of the Republican Party but also of the so-called Dixiecrat Party and its allies, many of whom did not have the courage to call themselves Dixiecrats. That Republican Dixiecrat coalition failed in 1948 to take away from the American people the benefits of the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and they will fail again. You in Virginia know what I mean. All around you you see the signs of a well-laid plan to combine the Republican and Dixie- crat Parties into a seceret alliance to defeat the national Democratic administration and place in power a program and philosophy which would overthrow the principles of the Fair Deal and the New Deal, which we and the majority of the American people believe in and voted to support. For many years now those of Us who call ourselves liberals or New Dealers or Fair Dealers have been accused of trying to change our form of government and our form of society. Our critics say we are trying to create a welfare state or a Socialist state. In my opinion the use of these slogans is an attempt to confuse the issues and to escape facing the issues. It is an attempt to frighten the American people with words by repeating these words over and over again. I would not deny that there is some merit to the Republican claim that the Fair Deal program seeks the welfare state as an ob- jective. The welfare state is a legitimate objective—one that is perfectly consistent with our traditions and with the current wishes of the American people. A state which is devoted to the welfare of its mem- bers, a state which looks upon man and his welfare as an end in itself, is one I support and urge you to support. The United States began as a welfare state when its Constitution charged the Govern- ment with the responsibiliy of the general welfare of its people. In a sense this was one of the great differences between this new country which was born and the tired nations of Europe in the eighteenth century. From that day until this day the history of the American development has been a history of providing greater welfare for its people. As early as 1806 Thomas Jefferson of Vir- ginia, as President of the United States, asked Congress to approve a donation of lands for a National Establishment for Edu- cation. It is fair to characterize this step as one of the earliest forms of Government subsidy, since land was a financial asset. The use of land during that early period played an important role in developing the concept of Government subsidies. Our Gov- ernment eventually granted 250,000,000 acres of land for various welfare purposes: for education; for wagon roads so that everyone, not only the rich, could travel easily; for canals and levees; for public buildings; for railroads. Let us not forget too the significant role played by the Homestead Act of 1862 in de- veloping our Nation and in bringing it to @ position of power and responsibility In the world. For those who were not able to make an adequate living in the industrial areas or the East, Congress gave away vast areas of public lands to individual families. Today the Federal Government no longer gives land grants. The modern expression of that program, however, is legislation in behalf of unemployment insurance and social security. Today the method of payment is changed. But land or money, income-pro- ducing property, or income, there is no change in principle. To provide financial assistance for welfare programs has always been a part of America’s tradition. Furthermore, I issue the challenge tonight that it is an American tradition which even the opponents of the welfare state want to preserve. The only question which remains an issue is the question of ‘whose welfare.” As early as 1791 Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton—the symbol of con- servatism—made a plea before the House of Representatives for Federal subsidies to manufacturers. During the nineteenth century the United States Government gave to the railroads a total of 179,000,000 acres of land. At this very moment the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Export-Import Bank assists private industry financially. I suggest that Mr. Guy Gabrielson, himself one of the leading exponents of reaction in America and spokesman for the Republican Party, is in favor of continuing that form of Government subsidy since the Carthage Hydrocol Corp., which he heads, has received the total of more than $18,000,000 in loans from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. In this connection I have one further ob- servation to make. I am a member of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Com- mittee. In our committee is a bill to raise postal rates. The same magazine and news- paper publishers who daily attack the Fair Deal as a welfare state and oppose Govern- ment subsidies for the American people are daily in my office and before our committee, insisting the Government postal subsidy to their business be maintained. Last year the newspaper and magazine publishers of Amer- ica received a subsidy upward of $200,000,000. Many of these Government subsidies to pusiness are desirable. But if they are de- sirable to help profits, they are desirable to help people. Those of us who would advance proposals for welfare legislation do so because we are striving for a more perfect democracy in which the American peoplo through their Government can build a constantly improv- ing society. Abraham Lincoln said in 1854, “The pur- pose of government is to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves or cannot do so well for themselves.” That is philosophy which the New Deal and the Fair Deal represent and which I today rep-~ resent. What we strive for can best be put in the phrase “economic democracy.” That phrase means “a system which preserves the political fabric of democracy and the free- doms traditionally associated with it at the same time as it searches for increased eco- nomic freedoms.” A wise man once said, “hungry stomachs do not make good political advisers.” It is our objective to use the great wealth, the greater resources, and the great genius which is ours toward strengthening the establish- ment of a society free from economic insecu- rity. We are moving into the second half of the twentieth century, a century which has seen America’s productive strength grow beyond the dreams of even the most visionary of our national founders. Today we have the natu- ral resources and the technical knowledge to open up a new vista, President Truman’s re- cent messages to Congress have demontrated the possibilities that are open to us. Merely by continuing our past rate of growth we can within five years increase in production 20 percent, which would mean increasing the A2865 average family income by about $1,000 a year. Within our grasp in the next 50 years we can treble today’s standard of living which would mean average family incomes of $12,000 a year. We have an opportunity for the first time in the world’s history to establish a society in whigh every family can ha~e a decent stand. ard of living and in which luxury living will be available to an increasing number of our citizens. It can be a society in which all have enough without unduly limiting the re- wards available for the more industrious and the more able. Yet as these possibilities come to mind, there also comes to mind the increasing com- plexity of our society. In the not too distant past opportunity was open to all. If a man was willing to make the effort he could have the richest land and the richest resources for the asking. Tcday millions of families are dependent on jobs that may disappear tomorrow with no others available. Millions of families live on tiny worn-out farms eking out a bare sub- sistence. Many of them live right here in Virginia. In this the land of plenty—in this the cen- tury of progress—we in America still have al- most 10,000,000 families, or about one quarter of our population, trying to get along on less than $2,000 a year. Many of them live right here in Virginia. Here is the crisis we face. Here is why we need a Fair Deal program working toward an increasing welfare program working toward greater economic democracy. There are some who feel that the realiza- tion of the dream which is before our eyes cannot be achieved without sacrificing the free enterprise system—and they prefer the free enterprise system. They are of little faith. I believe in the free-enterprise system—I am not a Socialist. No other system could have made the prog- ress we have made in the past 150 years. But the free-enterprise system in America as we have seen it has always been one receiving encouragement, stimulation, and protection from Government activity—from Govern- ment welfare programs. Let us not forget that the protective tariff, the darling of big business for so many years, was one of the most flagrant examples of governmental interference in behalf of business. The greatest threat to the free enterprise system in America is not social security, min- imum wage, aid to education, rural electrical programs, and the like. The greatest threat to free enterprise in America is growing monopoly in America. There are those who would have us he-~ lieve that an unbalanced budget spells the end of free enterprise in America. That is monsense. I am more concerned about the fact that the Federal Trade Commission re- cently reported to Congress another half a dozen industries which are dominated by 4 to 6 companies making a total of 19 highly concentrated industries out of 26 studied. I am more concerned that 3 companies con- trol 95.3 percent of the tin cans and other tinware industry; that three companies con- trol 92.1 percent of the linoleum industry; that another three companies control 88.5 percent of the copper smelting and refining industry. In this connection Anaconda Copper alon2 controls almost half the capital assets of the whole industry and another quarter of the capital assets of the copper industry is controlled by Kennecott Copper Corporation. I am concerned about the future of the free enterprise system when I learn from the Federal Trade Commission reports that 113 companies, all with assets of more than $100,000,000, own almost half of the manu- facturing plan and equipment in the whole of our United States.
A2866 The free enterprise system is in danger but the danger does not arise from welfare pro- grams. The danger arises from the fact that from 1940 through 1948, according to the Tederal Trade Commission, more than 2,450 formerly independent firms in the manu- facturing and mining industries alone dis- appeared as a result of merger and acquisi- tions. The asset value of these firms amounted to about $5,200,000,000 or nearly 5 percent of the total asset value of our manufacturing corporations in America. Moreover, nearly one-third of the companies merged were absorbed by the very largest corporations, those with assets exceeding $50,000,000,000. It is monopoly which threatens a free America. I do not consider unbalanced budgets to be desirable objectives. Unbal- anced national budgets, however, are not indications of the basic health of the Ameri- can economy. The Republicans would bal- ance the budget but they would do so I suggest at the expense of unbalancing the American economy. I remember well the days of the balanced budget under Ogden Mills, Andrew Mellon, and Herbert Hoover, and I remember that those balanced budgets spelled unbalanced family life for millions of Americans. I am more concerned with palancing the daily lives of Americans and their families so that they have full employ- ment; so that they can enjoy the fruits of their labor; so that they can participate in the good life which is possible in our society. You in Virginia have clear evidence of the effect which the New Deal and the Fair Deal have had on your State and the welfare of your citizens during the past 15 years. Let me address myself for a few moments to those of you who are farmers or who are interested in agricultural problems. I know what Iam talking about. I grew up in a farming com- munity in South Dakota. I was a young man in South Dakota when the depression and the drought combined to play havoc with the farm families. I learned a great deal about agricultural problems from first-hand expe- rience—as much as some men learn in the ivory towers of State colleges. I know what it means to own a farm or try to live on a farm with declining farm prices, with mort- gages past due, with poor soil conservation and soil erosion, and with big debts. In 1932 the cash income of the farmers in Virginia was $70,000,000; in 1947, after 15 years of the New Deal, the cash income of the Virginia farmers was $413,000,000—an in- crease of five times. This is the welfare state of which you are to be frightened. In 1929 nearly $92,000,000 in mortgages was outstand- ing in Virginia; in 1947 these debts had been reduced to $72,000,000, in spite of the fact that the value of the dollar decreased; and this is the welfare state of which you are to be frightened. Since 1933 the Farm Credit Administration has given assistance to nearly 12,000 Virginia residents to buy farms through loans of approximately $29,000,000. This has encour-~ aged and made possible the ownership of family-size farms. This has strengthened the institution of private property and free enterprise in Virginia. This is the welfare state of which you are to be frightened. Today more farmers are able to produce their own food by their own labor and on their own land than ever before. Here is the essence and the finest expression of free com- petitive enterprise that this or any country could offer. This was made possible through the program of the New Deal—through the welfare state, if you please. Is it economical? I ask, could we afford to do anything else? The investment of approximately $29,000,000 to help Virginia farmers has done more to preserve free enter~ prise and the American way of life than any other single investment of like amount that I can think of. The alternative is a land system under which the banks, absentee landlords, and gentlemen farmers in the city own all the good farms. But I must confess to you that in addition to promoting family farm ownership, the Roosevelt and Truman welfare programs are guilty of another grievous sin insofar as the farmer and his family are concerned. Do you know what they have done? They have very nearly destroyed the market for kerosene lamps on Virginia farms. Now, isn’t that awful? Yes, through the REA Virginia farmers, acting together to form cooperatives, have strung in the first 12 years of the REA 14,555 miles of rural lines. They have brought service to 50,000 farms which never enjoyed the benefits of electricity pefore. When the REA was set up in 1935 less than 8 percent of the Virginia farmers had electric lights. I am told that today that percentage is in excess of 80 percent. I now fully understand why the Virginia citizens voted for Harry Truman and Alben Barkley in 1948, even though they did not receive encouragement from within their own State to do so. More than two-thirds of Virginia’s farmers are participating in the agricultural conser- vation program of the Production and Mar- keting Administration. Soil has been con- served and restored. Farms have been im-~ proved. Farmers have been enabled to ob- tain fair prices for their crops. Farm mort- gages have been reduced. Tenants are now able to buy farms and make rented land their own. Farmers and farm people appre- ciate the benefits of electricity as much as you and I in the city. Today the farmers of Virginia are able to get telephone service through the use of REA funds by coopera- tives. Incidentally, this market for tele- phones and electrical appliances will com- pensate the city folk many hundreds of times over the kerosene-lamp market. Let me go on with a few additional direct examples of how the Fair Deal program affects the residents of Virginia. In 1947 nearly 115,000 Virginia residents received direct benefits from the Federal Security Agency in old-age pensions or unemploy- ment insurance cr child care. In 1947 alone more than $13,000,000 went to Virginia for these programs which benefited every resi- cent of your State through improved health, education, vocational] rehabilitation and so- cial security. You should have received more, and more was available to you from the Federal Government. But more than 41,000 residents of Virginia received unem- ployment benefits in 1947. I have already made it clear that the Fair Deal and the New Deal programs have helped all the people—and that includes thegbank- ers—the bankers who forget the year 1932 when banks were closing and bankers were committing suicide. In 1983 nine Virginia banks with deposits of $879,000 failed and closed their doors. Today there are deposits of $1,800,000,000 in 314 banks in Virginia. None of these banks have closed and all of these deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. We still have many problems to concern ourselves with, but the closing of savings banks is not one of them. I thought all of you bankers in the audience would like to know that. Let me say a few words about the educa- tion of your young boys and girls. It might be that the State of Virginia doesn’t need Federal funds for education—I don’t know. It might be that Virginia has the finest set of schools anywhere in the country—I don’t know. But you did receive $105,448,147 in Federal funds for education during the first 16 years of the New Deal beginning in 1932. Furthermore, in 1947 the Veterans’ Admin- istration spent $30,769,778 to educate the veterans of World War II in Virginia. This is the welfare state of which you are to be frightened. In the dark days of 1938 President Frank- lin Delano Roosevelt warned the American APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD people. He said: “Democracy has disap- peared in several other great nations, not pecause the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and _ insecurity. * * * In desperation they chose to sac- rifice liberty in the hope of getting some- thing to eat. We in America know that our democratic institutions can be preserved and made to work. But in order to preserve them we need * * * to prove that the practical operation of democratic govern- ment is equal to the task of protecting the security of the people.” Yes, this program and these principles which I state have international implications as well. America must prove to the peoples of the world that political democracy and political freedom is not synonymous, as the Communists would have them believe, with industrial anarchy, growing unemployment, and the monopoly state. American democ- racy must prove that political freedom and political democracy can bring about an econ-= omy which is a healthy economy—one which is concerned for the welfare of the people. In fact, political democracy and economic oligarchy are incompatible and there can be no lasting political freedoms so long as eco- nomic control is in the hands of the few and so long as economic security is missing in our society. America has a responsibility in interna- tional affairs. It is a responsibility to pre- serve democracy in the world. It is a re~ sponsibility to preserve the peace of the world. In a speech in the First Continental Con- gress in Philadelphia on October 14, 1774, the great Virginian, Patrick Henry sald, “I am not only a Virginian; Iam an American.” We today have a responsibility to say “We are not only Americans; we are citizens of the world.” If we are indeed sincere about preserving democracy as a way of life for us and for our children, we must understand that democracy has to be protected all over the world. Those who would oppose assist- ance to the peoples of Europe—striving to keep their heads above water—are opposing efforts to preserve democracy. They are performing a great disservice; not only a hu- manitarian disservice, but a great disservice to our own interests and to the interests of our children. In conclusion, my friends, I make a plea for a rational rather than an emotional ap- proach to the problems of government. I make a plea that we respect the facts. It is difficult for the American people to understand when Mr. Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., head of the board of General Motors, makes a statement on January 15, 1950: “In recent years economic incentive hes been weakened by the ever-increasing take of Government. I fear the effect is beginning to be felt on the economy.”” And then for General Motors to announce that it had earned $600,000,000 profits in 1949—more than any other com- pany has ever made in the history of Amer- ican industry. Isuggest this is not a rational approach to discussing political issues. Since the war American big business ac- cording to the Federal Trade Commission has been making approximately 20 percent profit on its invested capital after taxes. This com- pares with about half that figure before the ‘war. If our political opponents wish to label the program we stand for as a welfare state— then let it be so. Call it what you will— one fact, however, stands out in bold relief. This program has raised the living standards of the American people. It has given ao modicum of security to all areas of our popu~ lation. It has provided a floor on living standards. It is furnishing relief from the apprehensions and anxieties which lead men to surrender their freedom. It is providing minimum protection against the hazard of old age and unemployment. It will provide
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD prevention from catastrophe of sickness and disease. It is giving decent shelter to more and more of our people. It is putting a floor under wages. It will provide Federal aid to education so as to give every boy and girl equal educational opportunities so that none will remain the slaves of ignorance. These programs are strengthening the ring of freedom that centuries of struggle has drawn around western man. These programs are providing the incen- tive and will set the example which will undermine totalitarianism wherever it may be, Jefferson, Jackson, and Politics EXTENSION OF REMARKS F HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON OF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an address I delivered in Denver last night to the annual Colorado Jack- son-Jefferson Day banquet. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: After all these years of hope deferred, I eannot tell you how honored and pleased I am to be the speaker at the traditional dJefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Denver. ‘Those who asked me must have been shocked by the immodest speed with which I ac- cepted. Ordinarily I play hard-to-get, like a pretty girl who loves to shop around, but this time I spoke up fast. Frankly, I feared that it might turn out to be one of those pleasant dreams which fade with awakening, so I shouted “Yes” before the ink was dry. Just 20 years ago when I was candidate for the office of lieutenant governor a very dear political friend, Max Schradsky, who, like all true friends, was brutally frank, said to me, “You will get along with the people all right but the party leaders will never like you.” I have pondered that severe observation through the years. And then came this surprise invitation by the unani- mous vote of the party leaders. So, at long last, here I am. I am deeply indebted to the Democratic Party of Colorado. They have honored me with high offices and they have been very patient with me through the years. Our party won a sweeping victory in Colorado in 1948, but it was not an accident. It was according to plan, well thought out and well executed by our party leaders. State Chairman Joe Little and Vice Chairman Fern Miller did a superb job and George Rock, president of the Truman-Barkley Club made political history in Colorado, National Com- mitteeman Barney Whetley and National Committeewoman Marguerite Thompson lent a thousand “assists” in a thousand different ways through the campaign. President Truman and Vice President Barkley gave us the kind of political leadership which counted most, All in all it was a magnifi- cent job. To a lawyer a place on the bench is a spot near heaven. Therefore, the rest of us are glad to see the man we love, Governor Knous, become Federal Judge Knous. If ever & person deserved the best of Demo- cratic Party has to offer it is Governor Knous. His candidacy in 1946 marked the beginning of the come-back trial for the party in Colorado. Twenty years before, in 1926, the dean of Colorado politics—the be- loved Billy Adams and Judge Knous’ counter- part—the two men have a strong family resemblance—started the party back from an unemployed status without compensation to a place of trust and responsibility. In 1926 and 1943, a Democratic designation in Colo- rado was almost as hopeless as a Repub- lican nomination in the solid South, but a miracie happened. The party owes much to both of these humble but stalwart men of noble character. Unpretentious but wise: warm-hearted but firm; self second but Colorado first, their careers stand out like the great mountain peaks which adorn this State. The rich qualities which made Jeffer- son and Jackson the patron saints of the Democratic Party whom we honor tonight predominate in Billy Adams and Lee Knous. Like them both Jefferson and Jackson feared the public debt and all four of them have made the “pay-as-you-go” fiscal policy their passion. Jackson, as you will recall paid of the national debt while he was President, and is the only man in history to turn the Presidency over to his succes- sor entirely free from debt. Some sort of a monument ought to be erected in his honor to commemorate that notable achievement. Governors Adams and Knous proved to be not only faithful guardians of the exchequer but they were faithful to every interest of the people. Governor Knous will go on to make the Nation a great—a really great trial judge. His own struggle in life has given him a clear understanding of the tribula- tions which worry mankind and his big heart, tempered by his firm adherence to simple justice, will make conspicuous his career on the Federal bench. It gives me genuine joy to congratulate my old friend and member of the Johnson clan as “His Excellency the Governor of Colo- rado” and to greet his lovely better half, Mrs. Walter Johnson, as the “first lady” of this great State. In you, Walter, Colorado will have another careful, faithful and economy- minded chief executive. I wish both of you the success and happiness you so richly de- serve. The Walter Johnson family and the Truman family have so much in common. Both of these first families are humble, sen- sible, God-fearing commoners whose public careers are dedicated to the promotion of mankind’s highest and best aspirations. The solemn words “promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to our- selves and our posterity” so significant in the preamble of the Constitution, will guide and inspire Walter Johnson just as they have Harry Truman. Last night in Washington the Colorado Society held a banquet in honor cf Colo- rado’s two Cabinet members, Oscar Chapman. and Charles Brannan, Without precedent it is a mark of real distinction for one State to have two men sitting in the President’s Official family. Most States would feel hon- ored to have one Cabinet member, but now the Centennial State has two. It makes us feel mighty important. Both are recognized as distinguished national figures. Both stand out as very able and greatly respected men and officers. Just 5 years ago upon the sudden death of America’s beloved President, Franklin De- lano Roosevelt, in deep sorrow Harry Tru- man was called to the most difficult task on this earth. It is hard enough to follow in the footsteps of a man the whole world wor- shipped, but when Harry Truman succeeded to the Presidency the war still raged on two fronts. With the end of fighting came the transition to peace by a Nation geared to war as the economy and activity of a Nation were never geared to war so completely be- fore. But Harry S. Truman, often with the misgivings of the people, took it in stride. After his surprise victory in 1948 we have quit worrying about Harry S. Truman. Colorado has four Congressmen. Three of them are Democrats who deserve a big hand A2867 from the party. JomN Carroit~ proved to be the “freshman Congressman of the year’ when he was first elected and he has con- timued to grow in stature and favor in Wash- ington from that day to this. WayNe AsrPi- NALL and JOHN MARSALIS are top men among the newscomers in the Capital today. Sam RaYBURN, the beloved generalissimo of the House, a few days ago said to me, “Where do you Colorado miners dig up all the spien- did men you send to the House?” Really, folks, I have never seen two rookie Congress- men take hold of things the way Marsalis and AspinaLL have. It has been a joy to labor in the congressional vineyard with them, We are gathered here on an important occa- sion. This is “kick-off” night. This is the time and place in which the Democrats open the 1950 political “hope chests” in Colorado. From now until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November it will be buzz and buzz; and yakity-yak, yakity-yak, yakity- yak-—for in the springtime of even-numbered years old men’s fancy turns to politics. Seek- ing political office, however, is both honor- able and vital in a democracy, so on with the array of political hopefuls. I hope, too, the Democrats may have many women candidates this year. Politics would be stupid indeed without the active participation of candi- dates and workers from the gentler sex. And especially workers! Even though events justify it, tonight I shall not follow the time-honored and shop- worn ”point with pride” and “view with alarm” blood-and-thunder-roaring type of political speech. While this is a partisan group who might enjoy that kind of straight- faced kidding, I hope to be more philosophical in what I have to say, but doubtless less entertaining. God and country both come before party; put since Government is our most vital and serious business, politics in election years is entitled to our undivided attention. Never- theless, we must remember always that a po- litical party is the servant of the people and not its master. A political party is not a religion, a social scheme, an economic phi- losophy, a system of government, or a way of life. A political party is not an end; it is a means to an end. A political party is merely a convenient and realistic instrument of the people through which, by collective action, they are able to participate effec- tively in the affairs of state. For more than 160 years we have maintained the world’s old- est government and the world’s foremost de- meocracy through the political party tech- nique. In Europe many democracies have more than a hundred political parties. There every political faction and every political phi- losophy has its very own party. There, after the election the leaders of the splinter parties mect in a smoke-filled room and decide the fate of the country through coalition. Over here we have succeeded in holding the num- ber of political parties to the barest mini- mum. Over here we have Just as many shades of political thinking but we form the coali- tion before we vote instead of afterward, thus escaping from the uncertainties of loose po- litical affiliations, Nevertheless we have failed miserably and traditionally to get out the vote in the United States. In the democracies of Europe more than 90 percent of the eligible vote. Over here we do well in a red-hot Presidential campaign to get out 50 percent of the eligible voters. Equipped as America is with modern communication and transportation conven- iences, coupled with our generous provisions for absentee balloting, there is no comforting explanation for this disquieting situation. Neither of our great parties can be very proud, of the disturbing and unpleasant fact that 45,000,000 eligible voters failed to cast a ballot in 1948. Such indifference is danger- ous to the Republic. It is a national disgrace
A2868 that our great political parties were so lack- ing in appeal that 45,000,000 electors said, in effect, “I want no part of either of you.” Neither party can point with much pride to that bad record and, in truth, to the advan- tage of the Republic both might well view it with soul-searching alarm. Unless the two parties do a better job of appealing to the voters we may have to go to the splinter-~ party system here, too. As Democrats, then, it is our first duty to make our party so attractive and compelling that we will get out our share of those 45,000,000 nonvoters in 1950 and thereafter. Since 1946 for the first time in many years only two political parties are represented in the United States Senate. That does not mean, however, that there is greater political unity in that great deliberative body or in this country for that matter; nor does it signify that the only division of political thinking is between the traditional Repub- lican and Democratic Party philosophies. Far from it. I have never seen sharper division in po- litical thinking than exists today in the United States Senate. The Republicans have 42 Senators and 4 distinct factions. The Democrats boast 54 Senators and are bur-~ dened or blessed, however you view it, with at least 8 very well-defined schools of thought. That is not the whole story by any means. Almost every Senator, in some degree, follows his own ideas. Too, many Members of both parties talk one way in the cloakrooms and vote the other way on the floor. That does not necessarily convict them of being politically fickle or guilty of gross double talk. Senators never forget— nor should they—that in this Republic they represent the people of their States and are duty bound to cast their votes on the basis of what they think the people at home want. I feel that it is to the credit of the Senate and to the country that we do have these 7 well-defined political schools of thought and probably as wany as 50 lesser well-de- fined political philosophies in the Senate. It proves conclusively that there is no thought regimentation in America. It means that in the Senate we have that friction of minds which is so essential to political in- dependence and freedom. Should a bandit hurst into this room and rob some of the wealthy Republicans who honor us by their presence tonight and who have become prosperous through these many years of Democratic rule from us Demo- crats, the police would get a wide range of descriptions of the robbers. One would say the bandit was lean and hungry looking; while the ladies—bless their hearts—might describe him as tall, dark, and handsome. Some would swear he wore an overcoat, while others would insist it was a zoot suit. Parade the social and economic facts of life before the 96 Members of the Senate and we come up with 7 different verdicts. That is an indication of the complexity of life in the midyear of the twentieth cen~ tury. It takes all of those 96 concepts blend-~ ed together to cover the whole field of our social and economic problems, Three blind men examined an elephant and then tried to describe its appearance to their wives. One tall fellow felt of its massive side and said an elephant is exactly like a great wall. A short chap wrapped his arms around the elephant’s ponderous legs and decided that an elephant for all the world is like a tree stump. The third observer took hold of the elephant’s trunk and concluded an ele- phant is very much like a rope. Taken sep- arately these blind men badly missed the appearance of a pachyderm. But their col- lective conclusions properly put together make sense. It requires many minds to make a sound decision. That is why we put 12 men on a jury and 9 good and true men on our Supreme Court. What a congestion there would be in the world if every human being wanted to live in Colorado, or California, or Canada, or New York City. How hungry would we get if everyone insisted upon spending his life fishing or painting or writing poetry or building highways? What a dreary world it would be if every male were a playboy and every female a glamour girl or, on the other hand, if every youth were austere and every damsel wore a veil. God was wise in making us different mentally and physically. It takes all kinds of people to make a world. No one is sufficient unto himself. Why, then, should we expect uniformity in the interesting field of politics? Why not a little variety there, too? The Demo- cratic Party is a big tent. It houses a wide range of political thinking. Across the tracks is another tent. It harbors many factions, too. Each of us has his own rea- sons for selecting either one tent or the othcr That free choice is precious and must endure. But the choice within the tent is precious, too, and if the tent is not to be torn in shreds, the right of in- dividual thinking within the party must be respected and accepted as proper and ad- vantageous to the political party housed there. No wise parent expects all of his children to be exactly alike in their appearance, as- pirations, habits, tastes, and deportment. No wise party leader would insist upon his whole membership being peas-in-a-pod. If we want our individual political views re- spected as being honest and sincere when they are honest and sincere, we must respect the political views of others. The freedom to be wrong is just as vital as is the freedom to be right. The saddest human performance reported by the press these days is a Sunday election in a totalitarian state. One ticket, one can- didate, one bayonet in the buttocks, and 95 percent of the eligible electors voting like sheep, is the most depressing story of intel- lectual degradation which can be told. Re- bellion rages within me when I hear my fel- low Democrats advocate voting the party line, meaning their own narrow conception of the party line and in deadly earnest in- sisting that other members are dirty so-and- sos because they have minds of their own. I recognize such thought oppression for what it is—a Klu Klux Klan concept with disaster for the party lurking under its white robes of good intentions. It is the identical in- tolerance and bigotry which made Hitler infamous. For Democrats to despise other Democrats for their honest convictions and honest political conclusions is a concept of insane regimentation foreign to the Jeffer- sonian philosophy of freedom. The fiery in- dependence and spontaneous abruptness of Jackson and the revolutionary nature of Jefferson have intrigued me always. Iam a Democrat because regimentation is repugnant and abhorrent to me. There is something way down deep in me which in- sists upon reaching my own conclusions in my own awkward way without the domina- tion of anyone or interference of any kind. I feel strongly that God wants me to be that way. With rebellion in my heart I became a Democrat when I was 19 years of age. My whole family were stanch party-line Repub- licans who looked upon Democrats as evil« minded political heretics. It has always seemed to me that, until Teddy Roosevelt, Republicans followed the party line religiously with conformity and regularity their great party objective. I couldn’t and wouldn’t take it. But Teddy planted some seeds of insurrection in the GOP which are bearing fruit today. I re- joice for them and I rejoice for America that they do have four factions in the Senate today. It makes their party bosses uneasy and uncomfortable but it is the most whole- ' Some thing that has ever happened to them, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Perhaps it will make them angry for me to make an observation about their failure to win elections lately, but everyone else is doing it soI shall venture one anyway. Once the GOP learns that shades of opinion is not a crime; once it discovers that 1ts party be- longs to the people, too, and that special in- terests do not have the divine right to call the shots; once 1t welcomes heretics, free thinkers, and political sinners, to sit at the banquet table with full rights, it will be summoned to power again at least part of the time. The Republican Party tent does not need a purge; it needs to open the en-~ trance flaps a little wider, which will permit some of those 45,000,000 nonvoters to enter and add their counsel and advice to the smug exclusiveness which too long have characterized it. If the Democratic Party becomes the er- rand boy for self-serving pressure groups, if it becomes haughty, cocksure, domineer- ing, bigoted, intolerant, and Hitler-like to- ward all who dare to do their own think- ing; if, with purge in its heart and regimen- tation its goal, it casts a Jaundiced eye with nasty suspicion toward other Democrats; and if on the other hand, the Republican Party opens up its tent and its heart to all who want better political service, you will see the minority and the majority parties change positions in America. That is not going to happen because the Democratic Party will not be that foolish nor the Re- publican Party that wise. But where does such a philosophy leave party responsibility? After all, the only jus- tification for a political party is to carry out the will of the people and give the individual voter a voice in government by associating him with others of like mind, thereby con- ferring upon him the advantage of collec- tive action. The thing to remember is that “like minds” is a very general term and does not mean “identical minds.” This is how it works in the United States Senate: Each party elects its party leaders in the good old democratic way and these leaders do what they can in the party caucus and in personal contacts to obtain the collec- tive action of their respective groups. Each party has a policy committee whose duty it is to determine what are and what are not party issues. Any Senator pushing specific legislation has an open invitation to appear before his respective policy committce and try to convince that group that his legisla-~ tive proposal is sufficiently important to des- ignate it a party issue. However, fortunately for the country, not 1 bill in 20 is made a party issue by either party. In the Senate, party platforms are not taken seriously. They are written in such glittering generalities traditionally and are so manifestly election propaganda docu- ments that they cannot be much of a guide. All party platforms are against sin, and all are “for the people.” So most Senators re- serve to their own judgment how best to combat sin and how best to serve the people. Too, most Senators resent and rebel against party pressure except in justifiable and in- frequent instances. They like to think that they serve God first, country second, and their party third. Oh, to be sure it is nearly always possible for Democrats to serve all three simultaneously. I want to confine my discourse tonight to political philosophy without getting into the field of specific political issues, but I am com- pelled to discuss one issue briefly which, however, does border on political philosophy. Our foreign policy should not be deter- mined on a partisan basis. Once we get be- yond that 3-mile shore line, partisan politics should end. During the war, F. D. R. very wisely made the war’s prosecution biparti- san. The Atlantic Pact, the Chapultepec Conference, and the United Nations San Francisco Conference, out of whose loins came the United Nations Charter, were set
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD up by him on a strictly bipartisan basis. President Truman followed that policy re- ligiously for 4 years. However, since the election in 1948 our bipartisan foreign pol- icy has been falling apart at the seams. Both parties equally are to blame for this unfortu- nate state of affairs. The situation has been high-lighted in recent weeks by the McCarthy charges and countercharges. In an uneasy and dis- traught world, washing our dirty linen in public has been bad—very bad. The net result has been, temporarily at least, to embarrass and destroy our Gimtcm7*ic serv~- ice throughout the world. Irc-i.c. Tru- man is trying hard now to restore the bi- partisan status. His appointments to the State Department of former Senators Cooper and Dulles, who are partisan Republicans, are steps in the right direction. More, much more, needs to be done. The United States must settle down to the facts which are embarrassing the world, with candor, sobriety, and full comprehension. While the tension in Europe and Asia is growing alarmingly, the dangers of a shoot- ing war are remote, but our arch-enemy, Russia, may be expected to wage an unre- jenting cold war against us during the whole foreseeable future. Russia is especially pro- ficient in that kind of warfare. Her oriental concept of limitless time, and her known ability at international chess, make her a formidable foe. We dare not lose it for a cold war can be as dangerous as a hot war. The nation which does not win the aggravat- ing cold war, in which we are presently en- oozed, facac fructts > economic instability, ord peice: a> sluwion. May we ponder that shocking dilemma prayerfully. We must start playing chess too. Russia has her Politburo of 14 master minds where every international issue is weighed and analyzed with meticulous care. To combat that excellent technical strategy for prose- cuting a cold war we must organize at once a@ bipartisan councli of 14 of our ablest men. Seven of them should be partisan Republi- cans, not so-called Truman Republicans but partisan Republicans chosen by the Republi- cans whose love of country rises above parti- san considerations in foreign affairs, and seven of them should be the same Kind of Democrats. They should be given every shred of secret information on foreign developments and international maneuvers which we are able to gather. Given the facts, they could de- velop long-range strategy, make realistic plans and outline international policies, Regardless of what party was in power in Washington, they would remain on guard. Great Britain is the most successful world power in the field of diplomacy of history. Her foreign policy does not change with her elections. Under Tory, Liberal, or Labor Parties Great Britain’s foreign policy remains the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Such stability in itself insures success. Under our Constitution the President can- not be bound by the decisions of such a council as I have outlined. Under our sys- tem the President is supreme in inter- national affairs, subject, of course, to certain limited congressional checks, but it is in- conceivable that any President of any party would not make the proposed council his good right hand. As I see it, that is the first step in combating Russia’s cold wa‘ which is forcing us so rapidly into uncontrolled in- flation and bankruptcy. Personally, I would go so far as to amend our Constitution and provide by law for such a council, spelling out its duties and responsibilities and mak- ing its decisions binding upon all. And now in conclusion: While I enjoy having the Democratic Party the top dog I believe in the two-party system with all my heart. The people of this State and this country need vigorous party competition. I can think of r-thire more detrimental to the progress ¢ C’!l->.co than to have but one political party. Party rivalry along con- structive lines is the people’s best political insurance. Of course, no one can find fault with the Democratic Party if it plans to render such an excellent service that a majority of the voters will support it. That is what we are here for tonight. That will be the heart and soul of our 1950 political campaign but none of us want the opposing party to roll over and play dead. We want them and we expect them to fight to the last ditch for their policies and their principles. Out of such a contest will come better government. I want the party of my choice to render the people a progressively better political service. I want to see it attract to its folds as many of the 45,000,000 nonvoters as it can—not by glittering promises of unearned gifts and special privileges, but by espousing the principles of our patron saints, Jeffer- son and Jackson, and on such a basis appeal- ing for confidence and approval. I repeat that it is a reflection upon all political parties that 45,000,000 eligible electors in the United States see so little in any political party to inspire them today that they refuse to bother about voting. That great army of voluntarily disfranchised Americans is our * party’s greatest challenge, and our party’s grandest opportunity. Address of Hon. Thurmond Chatham, of North Carolina, Before the National Association of Wool Manufacturers EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLYDE R. HOEY OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix to the Recor» a very splen- did address delivered by Representative THURMOND CHATHAM, the able and dis- tinguished Representative from the Fifth Congressional District of North Carolina. Representative CHatHam has had broad experience in domestic and international affairs, and this address deals with most important and vital questions relative to our international problems. It will be found both interesting and informative. The address was delivered before the National Association of Wool ifanufac- turers in New York on April 12, 1950. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS Of course I am happy to be here among my friends and associates of former times. I spent many pleasant years as an active mem- ber and director of this association, and, in my whole experiences, I have never encoun- tered a group of men who were more forward- looking, patriotic and hard working than the members of this company. Through peace and war, you have tried to do your part for the building up of our country and our gen- eral welfare. I have not always agreed with the policies of the association, nor with the policies of my competitors, nor, in fact, with the policies of my own associates in the manufacturing and merchandising of Chat- ham blankets, but I have never felt that A2869 disagreement was unhealthy—at least in business. I may have to reserve my opinion of the political healthfulness of disagree- ing—at times—with one’s own administra- tion. If you disagree today with many of the things I am going to say, I will be more pleased than if you take it for granted that I am following some party line and that my observations and opinions are not worth the energy required for an argument. I feel very fortunate to have had practi- cally a front row seat in the world’s theater during the past 11 years. I was in England when the war clouds were gathering in 1939, and I was there when the German-Russian agreement was announced, and I shared the apprehension and derrecrion which that news created. I was there wien the German legions marched into Poland, and I was within 4 hours steaming of the ill-fated Athenia when she became the first major casualty of the new war. I came home fired with the determination that I would try to do something to help us avoid war. I had served in the United States Navy during the period 1917-19 and my experiences on various fighting craft were not pleasant. I, therefore, made several speeches in North Carolina in the fall of 1939 and my theme was “Get Prepared.” I was severely criticized by a large segment of the press of my State and called a war- monger and perhaps a war profiteer. These articles and editorials are a matter of record. When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, I was called into the service of the Navy as a former Reserve and served 4144 years in various capacities. I was asked to organize he lend-lease section of naval ordnance. I dealt with our allies, including the Rus- sians, for 15 months. I then went to sea as third in command of the U.S. S. Phoeniz, one of our light cruisers and the flagship of Crudiv 15, Phoenix, Boise, and Nashville. I was at Casablanca for a brief time and then in the Southwest Pacific where I saw action against the Japanese for many months, and was recalled to Washington to serve with my good friend, James Forrestal. I had a front seat during the closing months of the war because I was with a man who will prob- ably go down in history as one of our all-time all-Americans. Came the final peace—VJ-day—and a few months later I returned to normal life—but not to normal condiitons. The problems of peace can be just as great as the problems of war, and since I had been out of active service in business for some years, I entered the political field—arena might be a better word. I was persuaded—quite easily—to run for Congress in the spring of 1946, and, be~ cause I had given up the active direction of my business, I felt that I might be of further use to my country—the one that had done so much for me, and the one that I had done so little for between World Wars I and II. I feel very embarrassed in giving you such a personal account of my own activities but I hope that you will appreciate the fact that I have had the fortunate experiences of taking an active part in world events that has been afforded to few people—certainly to few people of my age and training. What I say now will be on my own—my own sum- mary of the present situation and my esti- mate of a view through “the looking glass.” I am not here to talk Democratic or Re- publican politics. I hope I am able and qualified to talk American politics. I am convinced that our prewar world has gone forever. We, the United States of America, are the main cog in a big wheel— whether we like it or not. At the end of the war we thought we had agreements among our allies, and that we faced a long era of peace—an era to repair our wartime casual- ties and form a firm foundation for con- tinued progress. No one of us ever thought we would at once enter into a new sphere of uneasy peace. It was inconceivable.
A2870 Let’s bring it down to our own businesses. We have weathered a crisis, and we breathe a sigh of relief—smooth sailing should le ahead. We wake up and find one of our main partners completely out of step. We wake up to find a trusted partner has turned out to be undependable, secretive creepins, untruthful, and dishonest. How en: so: 00 business With a partner like that? In busi- ness, if he was a minority partner, you would throw him out. If he was a majority part- ner, he would throw you out. If he was an equal partner, you would have to fight it out with him. We ave today fighting 1t out with him— move and countermove. Our battle lines have formed, and the strategy of each side is becoming plainer every Gay. If you agree with me that weaklings seldom win, you will also agree with me that we must hever again be classed as weallings. I would like to quote something that I heard from my preacher many years ago. Ee ils now a bishop, but then he was a young munister speaking to a small group on Wavy Day 1927. I take 1t from my diary. After tell- ing us that we should each do something for our country and of our oligations to our country, he said, “As a minister of the Gosp2l, I speak of peace, but also as @ min- ister of the Gospel, I commend to you the yords of the Apostle ‘When a strong man, armed, keepeth his palace, his goods are in say peace. I commend this to you. To each of you. As a cor tccitic im +e Congress, and as & membe: « . “1 . Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, I am still sitting im the front row. I am whole- heartedly in favor of our present foreign policy. It 1s a policy unique in American history, but I believe that to them that ao gcod will come the rewards. The Marshall plan is unique but it is working and will continue to work 1f our own fifth column Goes not sabotage it. When General Marshall set forth his plan at Earvard in 1947, western Europe was in turmou. Here was a meeting of a man and a date with destiny and one of those oppor- tunities so seldom afforded 1n the history of our civilization It was a new concept of the Golden Rule for, without hope of re- ward, we, the American people, were ad- vised to give of our sustenance to those in distress, friend and foe alike. I couldn't take it in—I was too dumb. And then I pegan to think. I was raised in the shadow of the Civil War—the War Between the States. On one of my ~revdfother’s knees, I heard the stories of 1... I. of Second Manassas, of Shiloh and Missionary Ridge. On my otht: .* +14. 7" Knees I heard the story of Lia. ra ducts of the hit-and- run principle of “getting thar f’ustes with the mostes’.”. But more than that, I heard of the plight of the South during recon- struction. I heard of the loss of the South’s best friend, Abe Lincoln, of Andrew Johnson who was persuaded to punish the prostrate rebels—of Sumner and Stevens and the long bitter years of recrimination. Suppose the North—many of our own blood kin, had offered the South a Marshall plan? Suppose the North had said, “We have won the war, we are now one people and we are going to give you money and technical sKills— and sympathetic understanding. We are go- ing to help build you up in a partnership, forgetting past differences, forgetting past bitterness and forgetting everything except that we are Americans.” Supposing they had said that? Don’t you think we would have been ahead 50 years and that we all would have profited enormously by the transaction? That’s my own argument for the Marshall plan. I have seen it in action—in western Europe during the last few months, Recov~ ery beyond belief—recovery among friends and foes. The tide of communism, so ram- pant in 1947, pushed back within its own constricted borders. Recovery 1n Holland, Belgium, France, Italy, western Germany, and slowest, but not least, in Great Britain. Of course, 1t is not perfect. Is your own bus- iness? But recovery just the same. The forces of democracy have made so many touchdowns against the forces of commun- ism, that the score 1s becoming one-sided. As i see it, we have got to become interna- tional-minded We have got to forget about what is happening in Fall River, New Bed- ford, Lawrence and Eikin, what is happen- ing in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia, and begin thinking what is happen- ing 1n Belsium, France, Italy, Israel, Egypt, India, Pakistan, and China. We had better begin thinking about our selling agents in a world so tiny that we could go around it in less time than our grandfathers took to cross Rhede Island. Lli get a little confidential. I have always been very pro-British, although they have out-traded me all my hfe. They have proved to be our most dependable allies when the chips were down. I have fought by their side and I know personally that when the going is tough, they will step in where angels fear to tread. But today, the project of western union—the almost necessary combination of western European nations, 1s in my mind, being held up by our British cousins. They can’t see that their survival depends upon the ~~ -1p something they have not ‘ ind prestige of the nineteenth c’ “, Empire. I stand before you as an advocate of our present foreign policy—a strong foreign pol- icy. To be strong we must be prosperous, and we cannot be prosperous nor strong alone. I stand before you and exnress my confidence in the direction of our State De- partment. I think Secretary Acheson 1s one of the greatest Secretaries of State in our histery. I agree w.th Senator VANDENBSERG that polities should be out, and I think that Dean Acheson 1s just as capable of directing our foreign policy as Albert Butler 1s capable of running Chatham Manufacturing Co., and that s saying a lot—verse, chapter, and book. I think that our President has lately made a series of outstanding appointments, even if he has turned down my own postmasters in North Carolina, Gordon Gray, Stuart Sym- ington, Frank Pace, and Tom Finletter are ace high inauyrcemnen> We are in a warm war and we dc-tez: ic.’ reed good men. We have got a lo. oc. the: If I could pick Franklin Hobbs, Lew Hird, Dean Walen, Har- oll Walter, Mose Pendleton, Everett Kent, Win Schuster, John Hutcheson, Chet Wiese, and some of the rest of you to run the United States of America, I would say that it would be in fairly good hands. We might even put our friends Bennett and Riemer in charge of propaganda, but the cotton fellows would say that we were playing politics. I would make Hugh Bolton my General Vaughan and Vern Fisher Director of the Budget. If I cod scnct* Tom Sheehe as Protestant C.t A oa C+ o.., we would really have a team, Forget foreign competition ‘You are never going back to the “ocd o.d days,” because there never were any “good old days.” If we have a prosperous, peaceful world, we will prosper. We are lucky to be alive and kick- ing and to be the wonder and envy of the rest of mankind. Forget politics as such and go out and do some work for your Govern- ment, and I don’t mean contracts. Consider a foreign hook-up, ar you used to consider a branch in the Seurh Why don’t you think about helping build up the standard of living in other lands? Just as the United States of America is your best market, help make a market in countries friendly to us. Ameri- can industry, and I speak especially of the woolen industry, has a once-in-a-lifetime onportunity. Think seriously of point 4, giving technical know-how to other coun- tries. xorget tariffs and concessions, Think a ‘ APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of your survival and preach the advantages of more things for everybody. We came up by our own bootstraps. How about helping some other nation do the same? We in the South came from nothing and the worst that covld happen to us would be to go back to nothing. That would be just where we started, and I can’t see anything frightening about that. If I had you with me in government, and we could make Arthur Besse Secretary of State and Ed Wilkinson Secretary of the 1n- terior, we wouldn't hear many squawks about Socialist trends. I wish I could put over the fact that we are in a new age—you know 16 as well as I—and that if we can have peace, we have not scratched the surface of pros- rority. The world is our oyster, but you— you here before me—-have got to take your responsibilit.es. Don’t come moaning to me about what is°*+.t:> cn. Do something about it im your own bet 1 -ey. I’m sick and tired of my business friends coming to me and saying that the country has gone to hell and that they want me to do something. If you send a man to Washington to represent you, what he does there is your resnonsibuity. You had better come down South and find out why we have so many important com- mittee churmearchee You had better look around . . “ Rieve controls so many votes in Congress. I admire Emil Rieve becattse he sticks to his knitting, and so many of our group constantly drop stitches. If you can go to bed tonight and say that you have done something today that will for~ ward the causes of democracy, I will take off my hat and make my best bow. But don’t go to bed thinking that you have out- traded Davis and Furber or Crassicn ovd Knowles when you had bettc. +: Dey about a good foreign pelicy and what you— you—could do for your country. I leave you with a word of advice—how easy 1t is to give and how hard to take— and I say it seriscusly: Send your business abroad. Send rotr her: into Government. It’s yor oiweriess and your Government. It’s my business and my Government. Our Government has got its hands in your pocket, and my pocket, and as long as we fail to take an active part in the manase- ment, we should not have the right to say much about its policies. Personally, I lold you responcible for the actions and decisions of my cullsaytes in Washington. I have seen very few of you there, although you are important stock- holders in the United States of America. I am almost bitter in my feelings toward those who criticize so freely and dodve so adroltly. We talk of budgets and balances--we talk of farmers and unions. Why don’t you jump in and see whether the swimming is flne? We have been blessed beyond belief, and if everything doesn't go to suit you, don’t blame it on Harry Truman or TirurmMonp CHATIIAM, Or your own Representative. Take @ look in the glass and see if you can say to me—I’ve done the best I can. Defense Department Press Releases Con- stitute Dishonest Hoax Upen Aiversft Workers REMARKS or HON. CARL HINSHAW OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 20, 1950 Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Speaker, certain press releases have been emanating from
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the Office of the Secretary of Defense, such as one which I will include in the RECORD as part of my remarks. This article is as follows: Arr Force aNp Navy To Buy 2,048 PLANES FOR Nz42ty $2,000,000,000 (By John A. Giles) The Air Force and Navy are purchasing 2,048 new aircraft this fiscal year. The Defense Department, announcing the award of plane contracts yesterday, said the Air Force would get 1,250 planes at an esti- mated cost of $1,297,500,000 and that the Navy would buy 798, costing an estimated $557,500,000. The largest Air Force contract went to Boeing Airplane Co., for B-47 Stratojet bombers, costing an estimated $303,600,000. A Stratojet set an unofficial transcontinental record of 3 hours and 46 minutes, flying 2,289 miles from Moses Lake, Wash., to nearby An- drews Air Force Base last February. The Air Force will spent $267,800,000 with Consolidated Vultee for the controversial B-36 bombardment planes. HELICOPTERS ORDERED The only new type of procurement by the Air Force is for helicopters. It will buy H-21 Arctic rescue helicopters, or Flying Bananas, from the Piasecki Helicopter Corp., for $9,300,000. The Navy will spend $4,156,064 with Piasecki for helicopters. North American Aviation, Inc., received a $130,900,000 Air Force contract for building F-95 interceptor fighters, while the Lockheed Aircraft Corp. was awarded a $120,000,000 contract for F-94 two-place radar-equipped interceptors. Fairchild Aviation will build more C-119 Packets, capable of hauling 18 tons of men and equipment, at a cost of $40,000,000 for the Air Force. The Navy’s largest award went to Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. for twin-jet FoF Panther fighters, costing $92,902,841. The same firm also received a contract for $41,- 308,714 for building AF Guardian single-en- gine attack bombers. SIXTY-EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS FOR BANSHEES McDonnel Aircraft Corp. received a $68,- 637,434 contract for building the F2H Ban- shees, which the Navy has said was capable of knocking down the B-36 at altitudes in excess of 40,000 feet. The Navy will spend $36,700,941 with Lockheed to provide additional P2V Neptune jet bombers. A Neptune holds the world’s long: distance record. Other Air Force contracts: C-97 t.ansports, $32,800,000, Boeing; T~29 transport navigational trainers, $9,800,000, Consolidated Vultee; C~-124 troop carriers, $84,500,000, Douglas Aircraft Co.; SA-16 am- phibious air-sea rescue planes, $7,800,000, Grumman; T-33 trainers, $26,900,000, Lock- heed; F~86 Sabre fighters, $34,400,000, North American; T-28 jet trainers, $15,600,000, North American; F~89 Scorpion all-weather fighters, $81,800,000, Northrup Aircraft, Inc.; F-84 Thunderjet fighters, $37,400,000, Re- public Aviation Corp. MORE NAVY JETS Other Navy contracts: F8D twin-jet fighters, $61,666,933, Douglas; AD single-engine attack planes, $12,121,360, Douglas; TO single-jet trainers, $1,265,000, Lockheed; P5M two-engine bombers, $31,- 700,941, Glenn L. Martin Co.; AJ twin-engine single-jet attack bombers, $16,583,982, North American; F4U single-engine fighters, $9,- 112,000, United Aircraft Corp., Chance Vought division. The Air Force said additional aircraft pro- curement of ubout $94,300,000 is being obli- gated for related items of service, such as transportation, ground handling equipment and modification of existing types. It added that minor adjustments in costs and total number of aircraft might take place before June 30. The Navy said that in addition to con- tracts already awarded for aircraft and air- craft equipment, $174,700,000 of procure- ment, primarily for Government furnished equipment, is being negotiated. Mr. Speaker, the Defense Department, the Air Force and Navy, are not issuing new plane contracts and did not do so yesterday. These articles constitute a cruel hoax upon the aircraft workers and all persons connected with the aircraft industry, as it leads them to believe that new planes are being ordered. Asa mat- ter of fact, these planes were ordered last October and November pursuant to ap- propriations made last year for plane purchases. Nearly all of these contracts were announced in the press at the time so that this is only a rehash of what was published 5 months and more ago. In consequence of reading these articles to- day in the newspapers, unemployed air- craft workers are flocking into their union headquarters and into aircraft plants looking for their old jobs. Some of them have made contracts for the purchase of homes in the expectation of getting work or having assurances of continued work. Others have contracted for other types of purchases on the strength of these articles. This consti- tutes a dishonest hoax upon the aircraft workers of the United States, and news releases like this should not be permitted to emanate from the Office of the Secre- tary of Defense. Members of Congress are not fooled by these releases because they understand the terms used, but air- craft workers and the local merchants and others do not understand. They think that new orders are just now be- ing placed. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the num- bers of planes stated in these releases fool the people because the ordinary cit- izen is lead to believe that all the planes listed are combat types, whereas many planes in the totals are trainers or transports. Mr. Speaker, I append hereto the orig- inal news releases from the Department of Defense which served as the basic in- formation upon which the many news articles were based. The news releases referred to are as follows: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OFrFicze orf PUBLIC INFORMATION, Washington D.C. April 18, 1950. Am Forct PurcHAstne 1,250 Armrcrarr From Fiscan Year 1950 Funps The United States Air Force is purchasing 1,250 new aircraft from fiscal year 1950 air- craft procurement funds at a total estimated cost of $1,297,500,000 The estimated cost for complete aircraft and spares is $1,203,200,000. The airframe manufacturers listed below will receive ap- proximately one-half of these funds for the manufacture of airframes only, and the re- mainder of the estimated cost will go to other manufacturers for engines, propellers, armament, communicat’ons equipment and other related items of procurement. Additional aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $94,300,000 are being obligated for related items of equipment or service such as transportation, ground handling A2871 equipment, modification of existing types, and other costs to support the aircraft pro- gram which are not chargeable to the pur- chase of specific aircraft models. Estimated cost 0: ‘ Air-frame Model complete manufacturer (millions) $303. 6 | Boeing. 82.8 0. 267.8 | Consolidated Vultee. 9. Do. 84.5 | Douglas. 40.6 | Fairchild. 7.8 | Grumman, 120.0 | Lockheed. 26. 9 0. 34.4 | North American. 130. 9 Do. 15.6 Do. 81.8 | Northrop. 9.3 | Piasecki. 87.4 | Republic. Subtotal. . 2. 1, 203. 2 Transportation, 94.3 ground handling equipment, modi- fications of exist- ing types, ete. Total.......-- 1, 297. 5 The Air Force aircraft-procurement pro- gram for fiscal year 1950 is under continuing study and minor adjustments in estimated costs and total number of aircraft may take place before the end of the fiscal year. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OFFICE OF PusBLic INFORMATION, Washington, D. C., April 18, 1950. Navy PurcHASING 798 AIRCRAFT From Fiscan Yerar 1950 Funps The United States Navy is purchasing 798 new aircraft with fiscal year 1950 aircraft- procurement funds at a total estimated cost of $557,500,000. The estimated cost for complete aircraft and spares is $550,600,000 and the remaining $6,900,000 will cover related items such as ground handling equipment not chargeable to specific models. Airframe manufacturers will receive approximately one-half of these funds for the manufacture of airframes only, and the remainder of the estimated cost will go to other manufacturers for engines, pro- pellers, communications equipment, and other related items of procurement. The amounts indicated below represent contracts let to date for each model for both airframes and other aircraft equipment. Contracts awarded Model Air-frame manufacturer $61, 666, 933 Douglas Aircraft Co., ne. 12, 121, 360 Do. 92, 902, 841; Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. 41, 308, 714! 0. . 36, 700,942) Lockheed Aircraft Corp. 1, 265, 000 Do. 31, 406, 562| Glenn L. Martin Co. 68, 637, 434) McDonnel Aircraft Corp. 16, 588, 982] North American Avia- AJ. ----n ene tion, Inc. HUP..-...-...---- 4, 156, 064 Piaseeki Helicopter F4U. 2122-2 9, 112, 000 use Aireraft Corp., Chance Vought divi- sion. Total contracts | 375, 900, 000 awarded to date, In addition to the contracts already awarded for aircraft and aircraft equipment, $174,700,000 of procurement, primarily for Government-furnished equipment, is in the process of negotiation.
A2872 Address by Hon. James M. Mead Before the Baltimore Organization of the Better Business Bureau EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT R. O’CONOR OF MARYLAND IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr, O’CONOR. Mr. President, a dis- tinguished former Member of the United States Senate, the Honorable James M. Mead, now a member of the Federal Trade Commission, addressed the Balti- more organization of the Better Business Bureau recently regarding the role of the Federal Trade Commission in fur- thering and safeguarding the American system of free enterprise. The facts and views presented by Mr. Mead will interest the great body of businessmen throughout the country, I am sure. For this reason I ask unani- mous consent that Mr. Mead’s address be printed in the Appendix of the RECORD. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: The president of your organization sent me a copy of the notice of your meeting today which stated that the subject of my remarks would be threefold: Why there is a Federal Trade Commission; How its operations affect your business; and The part the FIC plays in promoting and protecting the American free-enterprise system of business. That is a large order for a few remarks after lunch, particularly from one who has only been recently appointed as a member of the Commission. However, during the period in which I was in the House of Rep- resentatives and the Senate, I had on occa~ sion the opportunity to observe the work of the Commission and I was impressed not only py its past accomplishments but by the opportunity the Commission had to foster and promote fair practices in Amer- ican. business. Our political and economic principles are pased on the concept of free enterprise. For enterprise to be free, however, it must be fair. That concept is basic. You are not free to transact your business if you are stifled and suppressed by monopolies or be- set by unfair competitors. The consumer does not buy on a free competitive market if the price which he pays has been fixed by conspiracy or monopoly or he has been in- duced to purchase commodities by deceit or fraud. Most of our people demand that our commerce be free, competitive, and fair. Be- cause of that demand there is a Federal Trade Commission. A little historical perspective may be in- formative and of interest. After the indus- trial revolution and the advent of the ma~ chine age in the latter part of the nineteenth century the problems presented by the con- centration of productive wealth and the resulting monopolistic conditions were growing apace. In 1890 the Congress enacted the Sherman Act which made illegal con- spiracies in restraint of trade. In the early part of the twentieth century, due to the constantly increasing problems of monopoly and other unfair trade practices, there was a strong demand for new legislation to sup- plement the Sherman Act. This demand culminated in President Woodrow Wilson sending a message to-Congress in 1913 in * which he recommended the creation of an Interstate Trade Commission. President Wilson said: “The opinion of the country would in- stantly approve of such a Commission. It would not wish to see it empowered to make terms with monopoly or in any sort to as- sume control of business, as if the Govern-~ ment made itself responsible. It demands such a Commission only as an indispensable instrument of information and publicity, as a clearinghouse for the facts by which both the public mind and the managers of great business undertakings shall be guided, and as an instrumentality for doing justice to business where the processes of the courts or the natural forces of correction outside the courts are inadequate to adjust the remedy to the wrong in a way that will meet all the equities and circumstances of the case.” That is a very good general answer to the question of why there is a Federal Trade Commission and most of it is pertinent as of today. For the purpose of brevity, the answers to the next two questions assigned to me for my remarks can be combined, that is, how the operations of the Commission affect your business and the part the Commission plays in promoting and protecting the free-enter- prise system in American business. The Commission was created by the Fed- eral Trade Commission Act passed by the Congress in 1914. The act provides for the appointment by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of five Commissioners for terms of 7 years each. All policy and other important decisions of the Commission are made by a majority of the Commissioners. The work of the Commis- sion may generally be divided into economic and legal or fact reporting and law enforcing. However, no clear distinction between the two can be made because economic studies and fact finding often present legal ques- tions which must be solved, and the prob- lems of law enforcement in our particular field are partly economic. In matters relat- ing to monopoly and unfair competition, economics and law overlap, and the one is frequently a part of the other, As one of its functions, the Commission makes general investigations and reports thereon to the Congress for the purpose of aiding the Congress in initiating and con- sidering legislation. For illustration, the in- vestigation by the Commission of the meat- packing industry was largely responsible for the enactment by the Congress of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The utility investiga- tion by the Commission was greatly respon~ sible for the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission. As a result, you and others have more and better information available to you when you purchase shares of stock in corporations. You are perhaps more interested in our law-enforcement activities. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act makes it illegal to engage in unfair methods of com- petition or unfair or deceptive acts or prac- tices in interstate commerce. You may ask— how do these provisions affect you or your business? If you live in this country and do not live in a complete vacuum, these pro- visions affect you very strongly and very di- rectly. For illustration, you are interested in building an addition to your store or factory and cement must be purchased for such construction. ‘You believe of course that you are entitled to purchase cement at a competitive price. You will not be quoted a competitive price if the manufacturers of that cement agree on the price they will sell you that cement. It is our Job to see that they do not agree on that price but sell at a competitive price so that you will enjoy the benefits not only of price competition but also of quality competition as well. As this is true of cement, it is also true of all other APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD types of commodities sold in interstate com- merce. Without the spur of competition quality stagnates and salesmanship becomes more of a question of who knows and likes whom rather than selling on the basis of price and quality. All of us, even the large manufacturing corporations are consumers, as no person or corporation makes all of the things he or it uses. All of us, therefore, are interested in buying at a competitive price although there are some who are adverse to selling at a com- petitive price. Another illustration of how the opera- tions of the Commission affect you is that you may be a retailer and after an argument with your supplier about prices, about terms, or about anything else, you are cut off. Your supplier tells your other potential suppliers that you are a bad fellow and, in the bonds of comradeship, all of the suppliers agree not to sell you any more merchandise. You may know that you are not a bad fellow and that the supplier has wronged you put because you cannot get the proper merchandise you begin to lose business and are faced with bankruptcy. However, you can appeal to the Federal Trade Commission if your sup- pliers are engaged in commerce and agreed to boycott you. You may never need the help of the Commission in a matter of this kind but it is comforting to know it is there and it is available. The very fact that this help is available largely makes its use un- necessary. Another illustration is that you may be in business selling a first-rate product. A competitor, however, disparages your product and injures the reputation and the business of your firm. You may appeal to the Com- mission as it is an unfair practice under our statutes to make false, disparaging statements in respect to a competitor’s prod- uct, his business or his financial credit. Your competitor may also violate the Fed- eral Trade Commission Act if he atternpts to pass off his product as your product, if he engages in commercial bribery, if he induces the breach by your employees of thelr em- ployment contracts, if he threatens you and others in bad faith with patent infringement suits or engages in other unfair competitive practices which may injure competition. In our business we are constantly learning about the other fellow’s business, and that is a liberal education. I did not know until recently that there is a substantial business in second-hand hats—men’s hats, that is, Sometimes these hats are referred to in the trade as “ashcan” hats. This is probably due to the fact that when some men grow too tired of the old fedora they throw 1t into an ashean. In any event, these old hats are cleaned and blocked, and new sweatbands inserted, and they are then offered for sale. The Commission does not object to this busi- ness, but we only ask these sellers to inform their customers that they are buying used hats. I submit that this is not an unrea- sonable request, but we have been called upon to make It. Another tremendous field in which you are directly affected whether you are a con- sumer or a competitor is the field of advertis- ing. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year for advertising, and it is the duty of the Federal Trade Commission to sce that these advertisements made in connec- tion with goods sold in interstate commerce do not contain false or deceptive statements, It is an unfair trade practice to advertise falsely or deceptively In commerce. If your competitor advertises his merchandise falsely and the customers are thereby induced to believe they will get a better deal from him than from you, they will buy from him instead of from you. ‘You are injured in your business, and trade is unfairly diverted. The customer or consumer is injured because he has been led to believe he will maceive an arti- cle different from that he a lly receives.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ‘Both you as 2 competitor and the consumer may appeal for help to the Federal Trade Commission. In connection with this question of adver- tising, a member of the staff recently invited my attention to a copy of a magazine pub- lished in the late nineties. There was an article in the magazine describing the ac- claim given to Admiral Dewey when he re- turned from his great victory at Manila Bay, but what interested me in a professional way were the advertisements. There were a number of advertisements giving glowing accounts of cancer cures, sure remedies for baldness, and other answers to nearly all of man’s problems. You may object to the ad- vertising you now hear over the radio and read in puklicatiors. However, insofar as falsity aud decepiion are concerned, the advertising of today is a great improvement over the advertising of other years. Some advertising of course is still objectionable. We have not reached the millennium. Hu- man nature being what it is, some people will continue to misrepresent their wares in the market place, However, I am an optimist. and I believe we are improving. Much of the credit for the improvement in this field is due to the excellent work of the better business bureaus in this and in other cities. We have at times problems which have their lighter side in connection with the regulation of advertising. One enterprising chap advertised that he had a device which was guaranteed to kill roaches on the first application. He offered to sell his device by mail for $1 if the customer would send him a dollar. After sending the dollar, the cus- tomer received two blocks of wood with the direction that he place the roach between the blocks and press firmly. This was guar- anteed to kill the roach on the first applica- tion. This is rather an extreme illustration of an advertisement which may, as far as it goes, be literally true, but it is also fraudulent pecause it only tells half of the truth. The Clayton Act, which was passed in 1914, and was amended by the Robinson- Patman Act in 1936, authorizes the Commis- sion to prohibit discriminations in price which substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. For illustration, your place of business is located near a competitor and both you and your competitor purchase your merchandise from the same manufacturer in substantially similar quantities. However, the manufac- turer may sell to your competitor at a cheaper price than he will sell to you. Because of this cheaper price, your competitor resells the merchandise at a price lower than you can afford and your customers begin trading with him. You lose business. This is ap- parently a case of an illegal price discrimi- nation and you may appeal to the Commis- sion for aid. In addition, if the seller offers your competitor advertising or other allow- ances, he must offer it to you on proportional equal terms if you continue to be a customer of that manufacturer. That sounds like common sense. It is common sense and, more than that, it is the law. The Clayton Act also prohibits tying-in contracts. You may want to buy a keg of nails. Your supplier offers to sell you a keg of nails provided that you also purchase from him a case of left-handed catchers’ mitts. You tell him you do not want the catchers’ mitts and, besides, you are not left-handed. But your supplier is adamant and to get the nails, which you must have, you purchase the mitts. That is a tying-in sale which is pro- hibited by the Clayton Act and you may appeal to the Commission for aid. There are other provisions of the Clayton Act admin- istered by the Commission which I shall not take time to describe. The Webb-Pomerene Export Trade Act, another of the acts administered by the Commission, was passed in 1918. As I have stated, concerns engaged in domestic com- merce may not agree on prices or engage in common selling arrangements. Many for- eign countries do not have similar laws regu- lating the business of their nationals. Amer= ican business must usually compete in fore eign trade with cartels or Government trad-= ing agencies. Under the Export Trade Act American concerns engaged in the export business may organize an export trade asso- ciation and file their papers with the Com-= mission. They may sell in export trade through the association and agree on com- mon selling terms provided they do not re= strain our domestic commerce or the busi- ness of an American exporter who may not be a member of the association. By utilizing the terms of this act, American exporters may therefore compete on more equal terms with foreign cartels or state trading agencies. This act can well be utilized by groups of small business concerns in order to pool their resources and share expenses 1n selling in export trade. The Wool Products Labeling Act which was approved in 1940 is administered by the Commission. As a consumer, when you and your family purchase clothing which pur- ports to be wool, you are entitled to know that it is properly labeled and whether or not it is virgin wool or reprocessed or used wool. The Commission also administers parts of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act approved in July of 1946. Under the terms of this act the Commission protects you as a competitor and as a consumer by applying for the cancella- tion of registered trade-marks which are de- ceptive, immoral or scandalous or which have been obtained fraudulently or which are being assigned for the purpose of misrep- resenting the source of the goods. You may be interested in the procedures of the Commission relative to alleged false and misleading advertising. A questionable advertisement may be brought to the atten- tion of the Commission by e1ther a complaint from a competitor, or from a member of the public or through the observation of adver- tising by a member of the staff of the Com- mission. The Division of Radio and Periodi- cal Advertising of the Commission conducts a continuous survey of advertisements ap- pearing in newspapers, magazines, radio broadcasts, etc. If a complaint is filed by a source outside the Commission, that is, by a competitor or a consumer, the identity of the complainant is kept confidential. Most of these matters relating to alleged false or de- ceptive advertisements are settled by the Commission in an informal manner. It may pe that the practice has been discontinued and a statement to that effect from the adver- tiser may be taken and the matter closed without further action. In false and misleading advertising mat- ters as distinguished from antimonopoly eases and from cases involving fraud or dangerous drugs, the advertiser, within the discretion of the Commission, may he of- fered the privilege of stipulation. Pursuant to this procedure, the advertiser may volun- tarily enter into an informal agreement to discontinue the false or deceptive advertise- ments in the future. If the particular prac- tice complained of appears to be widespread or prevalent in the industry, the Commission, consistent with the objectives of the statutes which it administers, has initiated and de- veloped the trade practice conference pro- cedure. Under this procedure representa- tives of the members of an entire industry meet in conference under the supervision of the Commission. These conferences are for the purpose of enlisting the cooperation of the industry in considering, and when ad- visable, in drafting rules for the purpose of simultaneously correcting unfair or other- wise illegal trade practices which may he common in an industry. These are referred to as trade practice conference rules. The Commission has found this procedure has been very successful and has been informa- tive to members of industry and has pro= A2873 moted fair competition and at the same time has protected the public interest. If the various yoluntary procedures used by the Commission are not effective in stop- ping the use of apparent false and mislead-~ ing advertisements, the Commission may is- sue a formal complaint alleging that the resnsordert hee engaged in unfair practices. To o:evrv..: is served on the respondent and tunerearter a trial of the issues is held wherein the respondent has the right of presentation of evidence and the cross- examination of witnesses. If the record made in the course of trial sustains the allegations of the complaint, an order is issued requiring the respondent to cease and desist from the unfair practices. The re- spondent may, within 60 days after the is- suance of the order to cease and desist issued pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act, appeal to the courts for the reversal of such order. We welcome the review of our proceedings by the courts. It is always helpful for a public official to have someone looking over his shoulder. When I was in Congress, it was my constituents. At the Commission, it is the courts. My previous remarks have briefly outlined the affirmative procedures which may be used by the Commission in preventing illegal practices in interstate commerce. I have generally described how the work of the Commission affects you in your business and the part the Commission plays in protecting the American free-enterprise system of busi- mess. However, I believe, and I am sure that you will agree, that the most effective deter~ rent to unfair practices is the conscience of the individual businessman. I believe that the great majority of businessmen are honest and ethical and are interested in selling their merchandise on the merits of such merchan- dise without the use of any fraud or decep- tion or other unfair trade practices. The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of FTC v. The Standard Education So- ciety (802 U. S. 112) stated: “The fact that a false statement may be obviously false to those who are trained and experienced does not change its character, nor take away its power to deceive others Jess experienced. There is no duty resting upon a citizen to suspect the honesty of those with whom he transacts business. Laws are made to protect the trusting as well as the suspicious. The best element of busi- ness has long since decided that honesty should govern competitive enterprises, and that the rule of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) should not be relied upon to reward fraud and deception.” Iam sure that the hetter business bureaus throughout the United States are in hearty accord with those statements made in an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Commission appreciates the great contribution that the better business pureaus are making in the field of fair com- petition. The Commission stands ready to cooperate with you in your endeavors and to help you in any way which we can under the statutes which we administer. I thank you for the privilege to be with you here today. Washington’s 150 Years EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MARGARET CHASE SMITH OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
A2874 in the Appendix of the Recorp an edi- torial entitled ‘Washington's 150 Years,” published in the New York Times of April 17, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: WASHINGTON’S 150 YEARS The National Capital’s Sesquicentennial Celebration has been slow in getting started, despite a small congressional appropriation last fall and some talk since. On Saturday, however, it seemed to come to life with a 35-gun salute and some good words from Vice President Barkley. Mr. Barkley de- nounced a foreign slave power without actually mentioning it by name. Standing in the shadow of an 18-foot facsimile of the Capitol’s Statue of Freedom, he also urged his hearers to take care that our own precious heritage of rights and freedoms be not abridged. He suggested that Tom Paine, whose pamphlets reinforced General Washington’s tattered battalions, might be charged with being subversive if he were alive today. Perhaps Senator McCarrHy will some day find time to look into this matter. We hope that during the coming months Washington’s anniversary will receive the attention it deserves. In the long parade of history it is just a little while since the Federal Government and its 126 employees moved down from Philadelphia; since Abigail Adams hung the wash to dry in what is now the East Room; and since President John Adams addressed the Sixth Congress at the first session ever held on Capitol Hill, the plaster, paint, and chips still smelling. But Washington’s short history has matched in meaning that of the older capi- tals; a handful of pioneers have become a great Nation; the democracy of Lincoln has succeeded that of Washington and still grows; we who wished only to be let alone in peace must now exert our influence all around the earth; decisions fateful for all mankind are made here, whether or not we asked for that responsibility. These events should be celebrated, this year and perhaps next, solemnly and with the participation of the whole country. Educational Problems EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Appendix of the Rxecorp a very able address made by the Governor of South Carolina, the Honorable J. Strom Thur- mond, at the annual convention of the South Carolina Education Association, on March 31, 1950. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: One group of South Carolinians with whom feel at home is our school teachers. All my life I have fought for the cause of education in South Carolina. I have always been keenly interested in our educational prob- lems. For 10 years I was directly associated with our educational system, 6 years of this time as a teacher in the public schools and 4 years as county superintendent of education in my home county of Edgefield. As a member of the State senate, I sponsored legislation for higher salaries for teachers and longer school terms, and I was chairman of the senate committee that wrote the present school-attendance law. As governor, I rec- ommended, and the legislature passed, the best teacher-pay schedule in the history of the State, the State school survey, provision for the area trade schools, and many other progressive educational measures. Today South Carolina is at the highest educational level in her history. Our State’s educational effort has steadily advanced until we are now eleventh from the top in the percentage of income spent for educa- tion. A few years ago we were twenty-fifth. Our progress, however, is far from enough to make our schools the vital instruments of public service they should and must be. This year I recommended to the general as- sembly a forward-looking school program, which included increasing teacher salaries, an expanded in-service teacher-training pro- gram, restoration of sick leave for teachers, loan scholarships for teacher education, State aid for school buildings, better organ- ization of school districts, and an equitable formula for distribution of school-trans- portation funds. I reiterate my support of these objectives and will work shoulder to shoulder with you in seeking to bring them about. Our educational problems have been more difficult to solve because we have not been a rich State. We have been near the bottom among States in per capita income and in income per pupil in average daily attend- ance. While our effort has been high our income has been low. A number of those interested in educa- tion in our State have in the past sincerely believed that the speedy solution of our edu- cational problems may lie in the passage of legislation granting Federal aid for our public school system. Their theory has been that Federal aid will come to the rescue of the so-called poorer States by providing greater assistance when the need is greater. Today, I want to discuss this matter with you as honestly and frankly as I know how. Because of my interest in any proposal that will improve our educational system, the Question of Federal aid has deeply interested me, and I have given it my most earnest consideration. Several years ago I publicly advocated Fed- eral aid for public education, provided that such aid be without Federal control and the State public school system remain entirely under local control where it belongs. With the growing centralization of power in the Federal Government, and the flagrant violation and disregard of the rights of States and local authorities by the present national administration, I have been forced to the firm conviction that we cannot accept Fed- eral aid for our public schools without ul- timately losing control of them to the Fed- eral Government. I have also been forced to the conclusion that even if we should escape nationalization of our public school system in accepting Federal aid, restrictions will soon be imposed which will prevent the States with the great- est educational need from receiving Federal funds. The vital issue confronting us is whether we can maintain a locally supported and locally controlled public school system. This Nation has grown great because of our free public schools. They are the bulwark of our liberty and the backbone of our democracy. Less than 5 percent of the people who ever lived in this world have enjoyed freedom. Today less than 25 percent of the people of the world enjoy anything approaching the liberty which is our birthright under Ameri- can citizenship. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD No greater menace to that liberty and our democracy could arise than the transfer of the control of our public schools to the National Government in Washington. Can we now doubt that if the Federal Gov- ernment appropriates money for our public schools the Federal Government will control them? In view of the record of the present ad- ministration in Washington, no one can feel confident that it will not use Federal sub- sidy of education as a political weapon. Can an administration which has already sought openly to bend and twist the Constitution to give the National Government control over ballot boxes, over police power, and over local business, be trusted to renounce control over the education of the youth of the Nation, once it has established the prin- ciple of contributing Federal money toward such education? Within a generation, the principle of Fed- eral control of education would be an accepted fact. One deplorable result of Federal subsidy is the tendency to decrease the feeling of local pride and responsibility which has been the secret of our good schools. The local school inspires more pride and interest on the part of the average citizen than any other insti- tution, except the home and the church. The attitude and tendencies of the present administration in Washington give cogent evidence that restrictions could be, and would be, placed on Federal education funds—restrictions which South Carolina would be unable to accept or legally comply with under our State Constitution. The primary policy of the administration demagogues has been to eliminate the South's historic custom of separating the races. The most startling example of this policy was the recent refusal of the administration to extend housing funds to areas in which separation of the races is practiced. The ap- plication of Charlotte, N. C., for a housing development was refused on the ground that the housing would be restricted to Negroes, despite the admitted need for such housing. This action was taken by the administra- tion in spite of the fact that the Congress had declined to place any such restriction on the distribution of housing funds. Another example is found in the recent action of the Department of Justice in the matter of the Henderson case to be taken up by the Supreme Court during April. The Henderson case involves separate seating in railroad dining cars, a practice approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission. This Commission asked the Department of Jus~ tice to intervene in an effort to have the case dismissed. Solicitor General Perlman not only refused to assist the Interstate Commerce Commission, but he actually filed a brief in favor of Elmer Henderson, the complainant, opposing separate seating in railroad dining cars. It is perfectly clear that the Department of Justice would use the full weight of that Department to make certain that no Federal aid for education would be extended to schools which separate the races. The so-called safeguards of the Federal-aid bill now under discussion do not and cannot guarantee local control. There are three ways in which these safeguards can be cir- cumvented. Any one of these three would be enough to render the safeguards null and void. The first of these is the familiar congres~ sional device of amendment, commonly called rider. As you know, the Federal-aid bill pending in Congress, which we are now dis-~ cussing, Is merely an authorization bill. The money to finance the program must be pro- vided for in a separate appropriation bill. When the appropriation bill is written, it will be possible to attach a rider thereto which can limit distribution of the appro-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD priated funds. A rider providing that Fed- eral funds shall not be allotted to any State practicing separation of the races is certain to be offered and unquestionably would be adonted. The second way in which legislative guar- anty of local control can be circumvented is by the action of another Congress. One Con- gress cannot bind another, and action by the next Congress or any future Congress would Supersede the action of a previous Congress. The present Federal subsidy bill is merely a foot-in-the-door technique. It is only tem- porary. Its proponents know very well that, once they have established Federal aid for education, the next Congress can come along and insert provisions giving Washington the right to regulate our schools or place condi- tions on the funds that will make it legally impossible for South Carolina to receive them. The third way in which local control of schools may be nullified is by administrative fiat. The administration may arbitrarily re- fuse to give Federal funds to schools which separate the races, in defiance of the views of Congress. We have seen this happen in the distribution of housing funds. The dangers of Federal aid for education are clearly expressed by those in a position in Washington to know. Eminent among these is Hon. Sam Raysurn, of Texas, the Speaker of the National House of Representatives. Mr. RAYEBURN opposes Federal aid for educa= tion. He opposes it on the ground that, under it, Federal control of the schools is inevitable. I have a copy of a letter written by Mr. RayYBuRN on this subject a few weeks ago. Let me read you what this distinguished Texan, who has been in the Congress for 37 years, has to say on the subject of Federal aid. Mr. Rayporn said: “I am now, and have been, opposed to Federal aid for education. * * Once you start giving Federal funds you get Federal control too in the long run. * I know that the Federal Govern- ment contributes money to few things that it doesn’t ultimately run, in its entirety, or is in a@ position to do so, when it so desires. I can Rmagine our voting money, in hundreds of millions, then somebody gets up and offer an amendment providing that no part of these funds be used in any State where there is segregation in the schools among the races. If a roll call was had on that, it would cer- tainly carry—then we would be paying for something we weren’t getting.” An argument made in favor of Federal aid for education is that under Federal court decisions we shall have to equalize school facilities, and that we cannot do this with- out accepting Federal funds for local school purposes. Those making this argument evidently as< sume that we will get Federal money to help us continue racial separation in our schools. Everyone should know that this is directly contrary to present Federal policy. Every- one who looks at the matter realistically is fully aware that as soon as we become so de~ pendent on Federal funds that we cannot do without them, the Federal administrators will deny such funds to States which have separate schools for the races. We in South Carolina will then be faced with the neces- sity either of throwing our school children together in the same schools, or doing the best we can without Federal aid after hav- ing become dependent on it. The ultimate result is that we would be paying taxes for something we are not getting. We will con- tribute our share, but our schools will not get the benefit of the Federal funds. The other leading argument in favor of Federal aid for schools is that we are already accepting Federal aid for such programs as vocational education, agricultural education, and the like, without unreasonable Federal control. This is false reasoning. The proposed Fed~ eral aid bill is something entirely new. For the first time in history, it is proposed to extend Federal subsidy down to the level of our elementary schools and the very roots of our educational system. This would affect our children from the very first day they enter school, in every classroom and in every book they study. There is a vast difference between Federal aid for certain specialized programs, and Federal aid throughout the entire public school system. We have accepted #ederal aid for vocational and agricultural education, and a certain amount of supervision, because to do so has not affected our basic educational program. The temptation to regiment a nation through its children is certainly not present in such specialized fields. We can continue to accept such special assistance only so long as objectionable re- strictions are not placed upon it, and today we have plenty of cause to wonder just how long it will be before such restrictions are put into effect. We can never accept the slightest degree of Federal control over our public-school system if we hope to remain free citizens in a free republic. Seeing then, the unavoidable dangers of in= viting Federal subsidy of our schools, we must seek and find another solution to the educa- tional problems now pressing upon us. The job ahead is going to be an exacting one, and new financial resources will be neces- sary. There are at least three ways in which we can do that job without Federal aid: first, we can demand that the Federal Government return to the States and localities the tax sources which rightfully belong to them; second, we can demand greater economy in the Federal Government, which will léave more money in the State for educational purposes; and third, we can continue to push our industrial-development program to in- crease our income, and thereby our ability to pay for education. The best source of revenue will be an adjustment in the spheres of taxation which will clearly define the fields of taxation rightly belonging to Fed- eral, State, and local governments. We have permitted our various areas of taxation to become confused, and the Federal Govern- ment has gradually usurped practically all tax sources including those which should he- long to the States and localities. Our tax system is today a hodge-podge of overlapping, duplication, and injustices. Unless the unsurpation of tax fields by the Federal Government is checked, it will in- evitably turn our States and cities into mere subdivisions, or departments, of the Central Government. On the other hand, if the States are given back the fields of taxation that are rightfully theirs, and the revenue sources which belong to them, they can do their educational job without Federal assistance, and do it better and cheaper than the Federal Government. There is terrific wear and tear on a tax dollar which goes first to Washington and then comes back in the form of Federal aid. An equally important way in which we can have more money for schools is by demand- ing greater economy in the operation of the Federal Government. Experts have said that a financial saving amounting to billions can be brought about without affecting exist~ ing programs. A saving of from three to five billions of dollars a year could be saved simply through a more sensible and efficient Federal organization, without eliminating any present functions. The taxable income left in South Carolina by such a saving would be tremendous. South Carolina’s per capita share of @ $3,000,000 annual saving would be $40,000,- 000—considerably more than we now spend for public education, and three times greater than the $13,000,000 which it is claimed we would get from Federal aid to schools, A2875 The best way Uncle Sam can help South Carolina is by cutting down his expenses, not incerasing them. It is a strange sight in- deed, to witness a Federal Government already burdened with $260,000,000,000 in debts, proposing to extend financial aid to States whcse budgets are without exception in a sounder position than its own. The standing debt of all the 48 States, added together, is about $2,500,000,000. Thus the debt of the Federal Government is al- ready 160 times greater than of all the States put together. Yet scme people are asking Uncle Sam to go further into debt in order to help all of the States in the Union, including our own State of South Carolina, which owes not a dime in the world not covered by cash on hand or self-liquidating bonds. The low income of the Scuthern States handicapped them in the past in supporting their schools to the extent that other States have. The picture, heowever, is rapidly changing. In 1840 the 16 richest States had 46 percent more income than the 16 poorest States. In 1947 those 16 richest States had only 14 percent more income than the 16 poorest. All indications are that this differ- ential between the South and other States will continue to be cut down. Our greatest hope for additional support for our schools is South Carolina’s amazing economic development during the last few years. Our State today is in an era of eco~ nomic growth such as we have never known before. Our per capita income is rising steadily. Our industrial potential is expand- ing faster than that of any State in the Nation. Our agricultural might is growing, and most recently in the livestock field. As a result of this economic develop- ment, our ability to pay for education is steadily increasing. The day is not too dis- tant when our growing wealth will permit a vastly improved public-school program. We are already doing a far better job than we did a few years back. Our expenditures for public schools have more than tripled in the past 3 years. A survey by the Coun- cil of State Governments shows that South Carolina was the second highest State in the Nation in the percentage by which we increased our expenditures for education in 1948, as compared with 1938. Our increase was 41 percent higher than the national average. We are already improving our school pro- gram, and the control of that program should be retained in our communities and in the State, where our taxes can be made to yield their maximum returns. Will we gain by sending our educational dollars to Washing-~ ton, to be put through the Federal shrink- ing machine? We have more to gain by encouraging the sense of local pride and responsibility which makes better schools, and by emphasizing the higher values of moral purpose, character, and responsible citizenship which our de- mocracy needs. I want to repeat to you what I told the general assembly this year: “Let us resolve to provide whatever is necessary to educate our children through the marshaling of our State resources be- hind our public-school system, and keep that System free from Federal regimentation and “the intermeddling of Federal bureaucrats.” Schools that are close to the people will guarantee that our Government will remain close to the people. We cannot afford to take any step which will lessen the citizen’s responsibility for the education of his chil- dren, or which will undermine the position of our schools as strongholds of self-govern- ment and guardians of our freedom. Remembering that our children will be what they are taught to be, let us put our own shoulders to the wheel, with the deter= mination that our schools can be, and will be, greater instruments of service to our people. Let us rededicate ourselves to the
A2876 well-being of our schools, and go forward together in self-respect and self-reliance, with new confidence in our own ability to manage our own affairs. The Port of Baltimore and the Ship Subsidy Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT R. O’CONOR OF MARYLAND IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, some of the many and complex problems in-~ cidental to the present deplorable con- dition of the United States Merchant Marine as they affect employment and general economic conditions in the great port areas of our country are presented forcibly in an editorial appearing in this morning’s Baltimore Sun, entitled “The Port of Baltimore and the Ship-Subsidy Bill.” The editorial serves, among other things, to remind us that the problem of rehabilitating the American Merchant Marine is one that affects not only this one segment of American industry but a great many related phases of our Na- tion’s economy. In view of the import- ance of the problem discussed I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Baltimore Sun be printed in the Appendix of the RECorp. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THe Port of BALTIMORE AND THE SHIP~ Svussmy Biri The bill to give increased Federal aid to the country’s maritime interests is being accorded the long and careful consideration called for by the importance of the prob- lems involved. Our own Senator O’Conor, a cosponsor of the measure and a member of the subcommittee on maritime matters, is taking an active part in that task. That is as it should be. Maryland has a bigger stake in the bill than most of the other States because shipbuilding, ship repairing and water-borne commerce play such a big and direct part in our economic picture. The bill before Congress would liberalize the plan under which the Nation subsidizes its maritime fleet. It would extend that plan to bring within its provisions ship oper- ations not now covered by subsidies. It would ease the tax burden on private in-~ terests in water-borne commerce. And it would, according to its backers, assure this country an adequate mechant fleet in time of emergency. There are differences of opinion about the need for the bill and about the kind of aid it would provide. Those differences are being aired before the subcommittee on mari- time matters. The compromise stage (if there is to be one) has not as yet been reached, There is no need for present pur= poses to discuss the merits and demerits of « the measure. But two pertinent items in the news columns of the Sun yesterday illus~! trate the nature of the problems at which' the bill is directed. And each of those items: had to do with our own port of Baltimore, In the financial pages it was reported that the total business of the Maryland Drydock Co. for 1949 was $14,800,000 as compared with, $33,400,000 for the previous year. That more than $18,000,000 drop brought a correspond- ing contraction in employment figures at the company’s shipyard. And the worst of it is that a further fall off in business is expected for 1950. In the regular news columns it was reported that two big ore carriers which will start operating next year between Liberia and Baltimore will fly the Liberian, not the American flag. The two ships were to have been built at Sparrows Point. But the con- tract went to Glasgow, Scotland, to save 50 percent in construction costs. That was a single specific loss to the port, however wel- come the contracts were to the British. Now there will be the continuing loss resulting from the sailing of the ships under the Liberian flag. To cite those two cases is not to urge in- creased Federal aid for the country’s private maritime interests. They are presented merely to show the complexity of the mari- time problems under consideration in Wash~ ington and the great and direct interest Baltimore has in a sound solution for those problems, The Farmer Pays for His Own Price Support EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JAMES 0. EASTLAND OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a state- ment, under date of March 28, 1950, addressed by Mr. O. F. Bledsoe, of Green- wood, Miss., president, Staple Cotton Cooperative Association to the members of the association, on the subject the Farmer Pays for His Own Price Support. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorpD, as follows: THe FarMzr Pars ror Hrs Own PrRickt SUPPORT To Our Members: Within our artificial price structure, Con- gress found it necessary to support agricul- tural prices so the farmer could live and at the same time pay for his own price sup~ ports and Government support. Based on agricultural income, the best tax accountants in agricultural areas estimate the income taxes paid by the farmers were $2,247,000,000 for the year 1947, $2,124,000,000 for the year 1948, and $1,833,000,000 for the year 1949, which totals $6,204,000,000 for the last 3 years, while the Government accumulated $4,000,000,000 worth of surplus agricultural products. According to the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the per person farm income and the per person nonfarm. income was as follows: Farm income? $857 905 763 Nonfarm income} on 1947 eee nmeeenenenne wane! luenane 1,439 10 1948 ee eee wemnne 1,572 ©1949 ieee ene aw 1,555, ‘ This disparity of per person farm income of about one-half with price supports gives’ _the reason for the migration from the farms,. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The rural population, which is the lowest in the history of this Nation, is now less than 20 percent of our national population, while the Government entered the socialistic plan of building the former agricultural workers homes in the cities, which are already the hotbed of socialism, especially support by the Government. This movement from the eco- nomically sound farm group has given social- ism its greatest boost. The politicians look- ing for the big city vote will finish the job with such ideas as the Brannan plan. Of course, Congress is human and makes mistakes in trying to adjust prices within this artificial price structure, but the biggest mistake was to subsidize industry with the tariff wall, which produced this artificial price structure and prevented the export of our surplus agricultural products. The farm group with the smallest income put the money in the Federal Treasury to pay for these errors, as well as price supports. The air-conditioned city mewspapers and radio commentators are playing up these mistakes by telling the public only part of the truth, as their source of revenue comes from adver- tising subsidized industrial products. The putting into operation of the natural price-fixing laws of supply and demand with our natural allies who need our surplus agri- cultural products would remove from Con~ gress this great price-fixing responsibility. It would help to eliminate the bad feeling between the urban and farm group. It would also turn this Government away from artificial devices that promote socialism and governmental regimentation. The farm problem is not on the farm but in Wash- ington, directly behind the tariff wall with- out a gateway—an economic crime. If our agricultural problem is not solved on a sound, economic, free-enterprise basis, then good-by to the other sections of our economy that operate under a free-enterprise system. The Brannan plan should be ample warning, O. F. Buiepsor, President, Staple Cotton Cooperative Association. MarcH 28, 1950, Why Oklahoma Should Reelect Senator Thomas EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ELMER THOMAS OF OKLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a statement by Oscar V. Rose, cunerintendent of schools, Midwest City, la. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Way OxtaHoma SHounp REELECT ELMER THOMAS TO THE UNIrep Srares SENATE (Statement by Oscar V. Rose, superintendent of schools, Midwest City, Okla.) - The strength of either a Senator or a Con- gressman in the United States Congress is quite largely determined by the seniority he has gained through the length of his term of service. This is largely true because com- mittee assignments, as well as the positions held on the committees, are wholly deter- mined by seniority. At the present time, only two of the 96 United States Senators
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD have a longer tenure of service in that body than Senator Exmer THomas of Oklahoma, The legislative processes of the United States Congress are achieved primarily through committee study and action. Upon introduction of legislation by a Member in either House, it is ummediately assigned to the appropriate committee. If it is to pass beyond that stage, 1t must receive a favorable report of the committee to which it is as- signed. A large majority of the bills intro- duced never recelve such consideration and therefore are never presented to the floor of either House for actlon. Whether they re- ceive commuttee consideration and study is largely dependent on the chairman of the committee. Of course, the various members of a committee may influence the chairman in the same manner as any other human en- deavor is influenced. However, the influence of committee members, to a great extent, is determined by their tenure on the commit- tee represented by the position they hold be- low the chairman, Thus the committee as- signments and positions held on the com- mittees are of tremendous importance in determining the effectiveness of a Member of either House in representing his con- stituents. Senator EL.Mrer THomas is not only the third senior Member of the United States Eenate but is chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He is also the second ranking member on the Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Ap- propriations for Military Affairs. Both of these committee assignments are among the choice positions in the United States Sen- ate. Since all States have agricultural in- terests, Senator Tuomas, as chairman of that committee, has an excellent opportunity to cooperate with Senators from all States in working out their respective agricultural problems. This places the other Senators in an excellent position to reciprocate his co- operation in fields over which they hold con- trol but in which Oklahoma is particularly interested. Certainly in this position the Oklahoma farmer has ari advocate which it cannot afford to lose. As chairman of the Subcommittee for Military Appropriations, Senator Tuomas has charge of the largest money bill in the Congress, the bill for de- veloping and maintaining our military es- tablishments. Certainly Oklahoma 1s inter-~ ested in the continuance of its four largest military establishments; namely, Oklahoma City Air Technical Service Command, Okla- homa City, Fort Sill, Lawton; Vance Air Force Base, Enid, and McAlester Naval Depot, Mc- Alester, Okla. It would seem logical that these installations will receive more consid- eration from an Oklahoma Senator than one from any other State. As the second rank- ing member on the Appropriations Commit- tee and a member of the Subcommittees handling Indian appropriations, flood con-~ trol, and power development, he is in an excellent position to contribute to the in- terests of Oklahoma. A Senator is not elected to the important position Senator THomas now holds and which is detailed above. A Senator gains this enviable position only through a num- ber of reelections by the voters of a State which enables him to gain the seniority nec- essary for such advancement. The voters of Oklahoma elected Eimer THomas to the United States Senate in 1926 and reelected him in 1982, 1988, and 1944. Because of this repeated confidence and support, he now holds a position which cannot be transferred to any other candidate, but will be lost to the citizens of Oklahoma should ELMER THomas not be returned to the Senate. In the committee organization of the he etee: States Congress each Congressman is given one committee assignment, and each Senator is allowed two committee assign- ments. They advance toward the top of the xXCVI—App.——182 commuttee as vacancies occur above their present position. The present relative po- sitions of the congressional representation of Oklahoma compared to 10 other Southern States on the committees of the United States Congress is shown below. Committee assignments Either as On upper State Total for] halfog | Chairman, State | committee | ScCoRG OF (percent) third place D! (percent) Oklahoma t_ 12 2or 17, Oklahoma ? 12 0 or 0. Texas... 25 7 or 28, Georgia... 14 9 or 64, Arkansas... 11 3 or 27. Louisiana_. 12 5 or 42, Mississippi_ ll 5 or 45, labama.-_... 13 lor 8. South Carolina. 10 5 or 50. North Carolina. 16 7 or 44, Tennessee... 14 4 or 29, Virginia3.__. 18 6 or 46. Total_.....-.- 139 | 104 or 75...) 52 or 38. 1 At the present time 4 of the 12 committee assign- ments for Oklahoma representatives in the United States Congress are in the s~r-- 77> 47% _“; the various . — te ™wo of these ' ‘tor Elmer - « * fourth plac « ‘+. and Cur- rency Committee i is held by : ‘ Congress- man, One, siz** ~"-~ " ‘i. © » Committee is held by the ~ us Cee ana 2 Since both of the first, sar i littee assignments are held by ’ : Pa s and one of the other “77> -—" wren *> #- +¥- > or one-half of committees is!" ' boyy « Congress- man who 1s not ‘ 1". +; will have no representativ nn committees in the United S$ «© (et = . > tor Elmer Thomas not be reelected 3 In the 10 Sout her states entitled to 139 committee assignmen*= wey Bnd WE wanapnt of tham, to be in theuppers. - ‘ . 52 of these 139 comm es ee ie re either as chairman, ~ _c b , These facts show conclusively that Okla- homa is, in comparison, already at a disad- vantage insofar as committee assignments are concerned. Certainly, it would not be advisable for the voters to place the further disadvantage on its congressional delegation, through eliminating its most powerful Sen- ate committee assignments at the present time. How About the Excise Cut? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN DAVIS LODGE OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 19, 1950 Mr. LODGE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rxcorp, I include the following editorial which ap- peared in the April 7, 1950, issue of the Bridgeport (Conn.) Telegram relative to wartime excise taxes: How AsovurT THE ExcisE Cur? Little is being said these days about the reduction or the total elimination of the troublesome wartime excise taxes. Former Speaker Marrin, in a speech deploring cur- rent unemployment, which he said was caused by the “economic quackery” and “ir- responsible political philosophy” of the New Deal and Fair Deal administrations, declared the removal of the wartime taxes would help to “reverse the tide,” especially here in New England where so many of the products taxed are made, and where incentive is needed for capital investment. Even Mr. Truman, in his last recommenda- tions on taxation advocated substantial re- A2877 auction of these burdens. These are the taxes on a sizable list of commodities and services, including the things we buy in the drug stores for the nursery, household uses, the sick room, and ordinary toilet uses; long distance telephone calls and telegraph tolls; transportation of both passengers and freight, and so on. Practically everyone is familiar with the tax that has been so ob- jectionable since the war ended. The President’s views on elimination of these taxes carried a proviso, however. He said that any loss of revenue must be off- set by new taxes, and asserted he would not approve any bill which did not accomplish this. Naturally, Mr. Truman is entitled to his own views, and because of his position, they may prevail. But the fact is that all manu~ facturers, retailers, and the people in general are against them. Most people agree that they present a definite barrier to trade and employment. They apply not to luxuries, but to necessities. There is only one sound way to make up for any loss of revenue the elimination of these taxes might cause. That is by cutting even further the cost of Government. The present temper of Congress seems to be in favor of eliminating the wartime taxes, and against any tax increase of any kind. It would be a blessing to all Americans if that temper would fiare into action. Congress by cutting these taxes has an opportunity to contribute to our economic stability—and incidentally, gather in a lot of votes in the fall. The Facts on Minnesota Farm Meeting EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, on April 17, I addressed the Senate regard- ing the State PMA conference held at St. Paul, Minn., April 3 and 4. In con- nection with the subject, I ask uani- mous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the CoNcRESSIONAL RECORD, an editorial which appeared in the April 11 issue of the Park Region Echo, which is published at Alexandria, Minn. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: PMA Facts DistorTep By STAR Two scathing editorials against the Produc- tion and Marketing Administration’s 2-day conference in St. Paul last week appeared Thursday and Friday in the Minneapolis Star. One was headed, “Political propaganda for captive audience,” and the other, “PMA: aid to farmers or political weapon.” We claim that the editorials were deliberate dis- tortions of the truth and the rantings of an editorial writer who had an ax to grind. What was possibly the most provoking to the Star editorial writer or reporter must have been the praise some of the PMA speak- ers gave Alfred Stedman, agricultural editor for the St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch. Mr. Stedman had aided the farm program for many years and later he had been of much help to the Federal set-up in giving advice at times when called upon to do so. The De- partment is still availing itself of Mr. Sted- man’s knowledge and he spends many off- hours along this line. It 1s natural that the
A2878 Star editorial CGenertrent should become jrate over the erie olan To state that the 2-day sessions were de- voted entiv-’- tt nch+'e7! propaganda is a deliberate. <9’ + .unt that the com- mitteemen were paid $8 per day for attending @ political rally is another faisiication of the facts. It is also an attempt to smear the good character of the 4,000 committeemen of the State uf they accept money for somethirg to which they are not entitled. The com- mitteemen on Moncay attended meetings of instruction pertaining to the 1950 farm pro- gram. Most of these talks on PMA matters were important and much needed 1n order to eerry on the farm progre.n this year. Like- wise, the Tuesday program was important in several respects and about the only part of it that could be called political was Senator Hompurey’s talk which was mere or less an added section of th» pro-7arm It was important 17.7 Scsre7.ty Charles F. Brannan come to the St. Paul conference to explain his much-discussed farm proposal. That his talk, modest in the extreme, can be distorted to be political propaganda is far from the truth. Mr. Brannan was not pre- sumptive in the least and he did not take advantage of the occasion to lambast the opposition, as the Star editorial writer has done. For the Star to state that the Brannan plan would make farm-income sucrant:es kigh or the support unusually b:h incic.tes the Star editorial writer either does not know the details of the plan or else intends to fool its readers. The supzcrt price is to ke set by a poard and if the masket price of the products are high the cost will be nil. Friday’s editorial cites the article from the Country Gentleman magazine in connection with the PMA administration in DeKalb County, TI. It sought to convey the idea that the farmers there were paying exces~ sively for the PMA administrative work, 580 man-days of work needed to complete the work. The Star stated: “That county had 178 part- and full-time Federal employees to provide services to the farmers. Minnesota is comparable.” If the Star editorial writer had taken Mr. Brannan’s irternretetion of this very case the statement Wwula have been different. The 590 man-days included the time spent by two office giris of the PMA and if this time is taken out, there would not be many man days for the 178 county committeemen. That this is an extensive set-up in the counties in Minnesota is a prevarication of the truth. Any farm plan that is as effective would cost equally as much. Undoubtedly, Mr. Stedman’s deserved. praise is going to bring more subseribers to the St. Paul dailies, but it can also be taken. for granted that the outbursts of the Star are going to deflect more subscribers in addi« tion to the process of adjustments. Because the Star failed to mention, at least in the edition reaching the Alexandria area, the tribute given Mr. Stedman by Frank Wolley, deputy administrator, we want to insert the words of acknowledgment: “We found a fund of well-documented his< torical information in the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Admunistration) annual re-~ ports, which were prepared, as some of you may know, under the leadership of an out~ standing citizen of this city, Alfred D. Sted- man, now with the Dispatch and Pioneer Press. “More than once Mr. Stedman has been called away from his writing duties to serve his country in important posts. As triple A’s first director of information, Mr. Sted- man helped build a solid foundation for the farm action programs which today enable farmers to work together in striving toward a sound agriculture and Nation. He may find some satisfaction in knowing that farm agen- eies continue to draw on his sound advice, through the written word.” Rendition in Richmond, Va., of Dixie by Toscanini EXTENSION OF REMARKS JON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on April 19 ihe great maestro, Toscanini, in con- ducting the NBC symphony orchestra, suddenly waved his orchestra into a renditicn of Dixie, which created a tre- mendous response from the audience. The reason for the excitement was that Toscanini’s classic symphonies are away up in the higher stratosphere of music, but his grandson, it is reported, who is a student at Yale, had educated the maestro into the subtleties of Dixie, and Toscanini had really done a research job on the score of the music. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Appendix of the Rzucorp the Asso- ciated Press dispatch describing the occasion, which was printed in many newspapers. There being no objection, the dispatch was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: RIcHMOND, V4., April 19.—Toscanini played Dixie. That’s right—Toscanini. That’s right— Dixie. You might call it the national an- them of the South. It happened tonight in the Mosque Audi- torium here as the 83-year-old maestro, ap- pearing with the NBC Symphony Orchestra, conducted his second concert of a cross- country tour of 20 cities. As the master unbent long enough for the unprecedented encore, rebel yells echoed to the rafters of the auditorium, jammed by a crowd of 5,000 which paid prices starting at $6. Prior to the climactic encore the program was staid enough. The finale furnished the excitement, and the surprise. The audience, stunned momentarily, rose with one accord, Yells, howls of surprise, and rousing cheers crashed through the music, And the maestro—who had kept a digni- fied austerity all night—grinned back at the sea of faces before him as he took bow after bow. The surprise rendition of Dixie is credited to Toscanini’s 20-year-old grandson, Walfredo Toscanini, a Yale University student. He’d been after the maestro for some time to interest himself in the South. But grandfather hadn’t ever played Dixie— hadn’t even heard of it, in fact, until 10 days ago. He halfway decided he’d play the tune somewhere during his current tour, which will take him into the deep South. Toscanini arrived here Tuesday. He went to Williamsburg, visited some of Richmond’s monuments—and made up his mind to play Dixie in the capital of the Confederacy. There were frantic rehearsals today. He heard one arrangement, didn’t like it, sent out for others. Finally, he settled on the authenticity of Dr. Frank Black’s music sheets—and he played Dixie as old Dan Emmett wrote it but as it had never been played before. Now he plans to repeat the playing of Dixie in Atlanta and New Orleans. And, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD said an orchestra spokesman tonight: “The maestro 1s more interested in the life of Dan Emmett than in Tschaikovsky.” Taking Credit for Prosperity EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HOMER E. CAPENART OFf INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CAPHHART. fy. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “Taking Credit for Prosperity’’, written by Dan Kidney, and published in the Indianapolis Times of Sunday, April 16, 1950. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Drar Boss (By Dan Kidney) TAKING CREDIT FOR PROSPERITY—-PRESIDENT TRUMAN MAY BE CHALLENGED ON STATE- MENT Wasuineron, April 15.—-Dear Boss: Pres- ident Truman proposing to take all the credit for nrosnerity can well be challenged by both the Ree EHightieth and Democrat Eighty-first Congresses. Leaders of the Federal Government’s leg- islative branch can just as well say that they brought about prosperity by refusing to cn~ act the Truman program, For that is exactly what happened. The President told his first press confer- ence at the White House since he returned from Florida that things are in fine shape after his first 5 years as Chicf Executive and that he intends to take credit for it. If the Federal Government had a great deal to do with prosperity though, it cer- tainly wasn’t brought ahout by enacting Truman’s Fair Deal promises into law. The GOP Congress did exactly the opposite. So the President stumped the country ecry- ing that the Eightieth Congress was do- nothiry The neos reelected him and gave him com... sole Dev verate majorities in both the House and Senate. But the Eighty-first Congress has turned out to be a super-co-nothin,, so far as the President’s program is concerned. And he plans to take Ure clump 4 jain Unis year, al- thought he isn'c up tor reelection until 1952, LITTLE OF PROGRAM PASSED Thus the President taking credit for good times now is about Hike the man who said he saved o fellow’s life—shot at him and missed him, Oleomargarine tax repeal, which hasn't even gone into effect yet, and a middle-in~ come housing bill, with the co-ops cut out, are as close to the Fair Deal program as this Congress has come so far. Nor do they have any intention of doing more of what FPresi-« dent Truman wants domestically before ad~ journing to go home and run for reelection, Only in foreign relations has the Truman administration won congressional support and that was done on a bipartisan or “un- partisan” basis as Senator ArTHuUR H. Van- PENBERG (Republican, Michigan), who prob- ably deserves more credit in that fleld than the President, calls it. So it may be well to review what President Truman didn’t get done. It is all spelled out clearly in a simply written pamphlet distrib- uted by the Democratic National Committee and entitled “Democratic Platform 1948 ° o
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The subtitle is “A Program of Progressive Liberalism.” “PROGRESSIVE” PROGRAM It starts out by bragging about all the New Deal accomplishments under the late F. D. R. No mention is made about that “progressive” program not having been expanded a bit since 1938, a fact which still holds true. On the domestic front the program prom- ises curbs on inflation which President Tru- man asked of the Republican Eightieth Con- gress and didn’t get. These he hasn’t asked for lately. Then there is this gem: “We pledge the continued maintenance of those sound fiscal policies which under Dem-~ ocratic leadership have brought about a bal- anced budget and reduction of the debt by $28,000,000,000 since the close of the war.” Instead the President has asked each ses- sion of the Democratic Congress for deficit financing of an unbalanced budget, and that is one thing that he did get. Repeal of the Taft-Hartley law was a Presidential promise which put all organized labor on the Truman bandwagon. The law still stands without even an amendment. Upping the minimum wage to 75 cents was passed, but that too was bipartisan. ONLY PROMISSORY NOTE An expanded and increased social-security program still remains a promissory note and compulsory health insurance a thing that kept Federal Security Administrator Oscar R. (Jack) Ewing out of the Cabinet. Federal aid for education is in the House ice box. It has been promised by the Demo- crats for years, but is as far from delivery as their civil-rights pledges on antilynching, poll-tax repeal, and FEPC. That the Democrats have done all right for themselves during these years of large prom- ises and no deliveries cannot be doubted. All you need to do is count the new millionaires in their midst, or those on the way to making a million based on their Democratic connec- tions. Maybe that is what President Truman means when he says he is so successful. If so, his attitude might be fittingly described by these lines from Oscar Wilde’s play, “Lady Windermere’s Fan”: “He thinks like a Tory and talks like a radi- cal, and that’s so important nowadays.” Carroll Binder Reports From Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, April 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I present and ask to have printed in the Recorp two additional reports written by Mr. Carroll Binder, editorial editor of the Minneapolis Tribune, relating to conditions in Europe. Five of the re- ports in the series have heretofore ap- peared in the REcorp. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: West Europe Rep Sports LIMITep To THREE— CoMMUNIsts CouLD THREATEN FRANCE, IraLty, WEST GERMANY (By Carroll Binder) Paris, FRaNcE.—Today Communists appear to be in a position to cause serious trouble in only three countries of western Europe— Italy, France, and western Germany. In the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and the low countries they do not have sufficient political or trade-union strength to seriously interfere with the play of free political and economic forces or military defense. Even in Italy, where they polled 30.7 per-~ cent of the vote in April 1948 and are the largest Communist Party outside Russia; France, where they polled 28.2 percent of the vote in November 1946; and in western Germany, where they got the fourth largest vote cast for any party (1,360,443 votes) in August 1949, the Communists appear to be less influential than they were. ECA GETS BLAME The Marshall plan is entitled to a con- siderable share of the credit for this set-back to Communist hopes. So, American aid to Europe is blamed by Communists for every- thing that is disagreeable from the flu to unemployment. Wage earners in the cities are told that the Marshall plan is responsible for high prices of foodstuffs. Peasants are told that it is responsible for the low prices they obtain for foodstuffs. At the moment Communists in France are making fewer overt attacks on the Marshall plan. They seem to fear that their attacks may have the undesired effect of acquainting Frenchmen previously unaware of American aid with what the United States has done for their country. But Marshall plan officials occasionally are subjected to hostile demonstrations. “France for the French, America for the Americans,” a Communist railwayman mut- tered to a Marshall plan official getting off the train to dedicate a hydroelectric project built with American aid. SABOTAGE CHARGED When the Communists heard that a group of American editors to which I belonged was to visit the Renault Automobile Works in Paris they got out leaflets urging hostile demonstrations to show French defiance of American imperialists. The Communists got set for a demonstration Saturday but our visit was not until Monday. No hostility was shown us and the workers generally were in- different to our presence. But anti-Communist French trade-union- ists who have spoken well of Marshall-plan aid report having had their tools mislaid and their machines sabotaged with a view to causing accidents. The Communists brand French, Italian, or German political parties which recognize the role played by Marshall aid in their coun- tries’ recovery as agents of Wall Street, loot- ers of strategic materials for the American ‘octopus, colonizers of Europe for decaying American capitalism. Russia is glorified as the paradise of the workers and the libera- tor of France by the Communists. TROUBLE EXPECTED The Communists believe that their finest hour will come in western Europe after Marshall-plan aid ends in 1952. They expect that discontinuance of dol- lar assistance will create the kind of eco- nomic dislocations which they seemed to be about to exploit so successfully when Ameri- can aid took the revolution right out of their grasp in Italy and France. The present diminution of the Commu- nist threat to western Europe thus cannot safely be assumed to be permanent. The Soviet leadership still believes that the world will not be safe for sovietism until capitalistic and socialistic democracies have been supplanted by Soviet regimes. It is prepared to take whatever time may be necessary to bring about such a con- summation. It believes it can outwait, out- smart, and outdo the democracies. A2879 Mayor Ernest Reuter, of Berlin, who is in the farther outpost of European democracy; German Socialist leader, Kurt Schumacher; British Minister of State, Hector McNeill; Anthony Eden, and Italian Foreign Min- ister Carlo Sforza all discount the possibility of early armed hostilities. American officials and newspaper correspondents with whom I have talked take the same view of Soviet tactics. DEFEATISM PUSHED But almost everyone with whom I talked also assumes that the democracies cannot afford to neglect either their mulitary or their social defenses. ‘The best way of avoid~ ing a military show-down is generally as- sumed to be to have sufficient military strength at the disposition of the democ- racies to discourage Soviet attempts to take by force what they cannot take by wile. There remain defeatists who object to their countries taking steps to resist possible Soviet military attack on the ground that western Europe would be overrun before Atlantic Pact countries could put up effec- tive resistance. The Communists assiduously cultivate this mood among western Europeans. Pravda gave the cue to its disciples on December 26 when it said: “The United States is now turning Marshallized countries into military bases with local people as cannon fodder. The purpose of the mili- tary-aid program is complete submission of Marshallized countries.” So Communist fire tends to be concen- trated more on MAP than on the Marshall plan at this time. At Soviet direction, Com- munist-dominated trade-unions have re- fused to handle cargoes for Indochina and are organizing demonstrations against the delivery of American military assistance to France and other Atlantic Pact countries. TROOPS USED Assuming that the Indochina cargo stop- pages are rehearsals for more audacious demonstrations against arms shipment to the democracies, French Defense Minister Rene Pleven has used troops to load goods for Indochina and threatened to cope with anti- MAP strikes in the same way. He also is taking measures to replace workers who go out on such Soviet-inspired strikes. These strikes reveal Soviet fears that France may become a formidable factor in the defense of western Europe if not thwarted by Moscow’s disciples. Pleven is proceeding with plans for using American equipment to mechanize a number of elite divisions which would constitute the back- bone of ground resistance to any military attack Russia might make. American military men who have studied the problem say that in 5 years France and the other western European countries can develop ground forces capable of success- fully resisting a Soviet attack in coopera- tion with our air and naval forces and the air and naval strength of Great Britain. Their plans envisage close coordination of ground and air forces and use of atomic bombs for tactical as well as strategic purposes. By being ready to use such defenses it is hoped they may never have to be used. Without such defenses and if rising tides of communism succeed in creating a de- featist mood in western Europe, there are likely to be Soviet coups a la Czechoslovakia every other week end until Russia has taken over the Continent. — Unirep STATES Arp Gives Evrore LIrr, BINDER Finps—SPirir or PEOPLE RISES aS JOBS AND Foop BECOME AVAILABLE (By Carroll Binder) Paris, FRANCE.—One has to know how crit- ical conditions were in western Europe 3 years ago to appreciate fully how much has
A2880 been accomplished with $8,000,000,000 worth. of Marshall plan aid. Western Europe’s remarkable recovery should not be lost sight of because of dis- appointment at its failure to integrate eco- nomically and politically. Even those who had seen western Europe recover from the ravages of World War I and appreciate its remarkable recuperative and staying powers did not dare hope 3 years ago that so much progress would be made as can be seen when one journeys through Britain, France, Germany, and Italy. While the specters of communism and run~ away inflation have not been panished permanently from western Europe they have lost their terror for the time being as a result of increased employment, production, and available supplies of food, clothing, and other necessities. Without the dollar purchasing power pro~ vided by American aid this state of affairs could not have been brought about. Despite their diligence, skills, initiative, and resources, the intelligent, hard-working people of western Europe could not have made as great a comeback without machin- ery, raw materials, food and other indis- pensables to be had only with dollars ad- vanced by the American people. Large numbers of western Europeans are unaware of the character and extent of American aid and many others think we had to give. But this should not obscure the more important fact that our aid helped make it possible for people who belong on our side of the east-west struggle by preference, geography, and institutions to remain there. CHEAPER THAN LIBERATION It will take continuing effort to keep west- ern Europe on the side of the free. But the recovery program has won time for that effort. Instead of having to liberate western Eu-~ rope for our security we have only to help it Jay the bases of enduring stability and in- dependence—a task far less costly in blood, effort, and dollars than liberation. The contrast between what I saw here in 1946 and what I have just seen is remarkable In many respects. It is not simply in the buildings rising out of the rubble of wartime destruction; the blasted bridges, culverts, docks, roads, rail~ ways, and canals again in normal service; the battle-scarred fields again yielding crops or the factories which had been razed turning out larger production than before they were bombed. It is the spirit of the people. Hope and confidence have returned to people who were still stunned by war, enemy occupation, col- laboration, social revolution, and other expe- riences of the previous decade, GAIN FOR UNITED STATES CITED This is the stuff of which much can be made for the free way of life if given time and the right direction. As the nation with the greatest stake in peace with freedom, jus- tice, security, and prosperity, we may feel that our investment here has not been in vain. We must not forfeit what we have invested and gained because all of our expectations have not been met. When one visits land-reclamation projects in overpopulated, land-hungry Italy or fields and factories in France and Britain one sees tangible evidence of benefits due to American aid. At the Renault automobile works here in France there are rows of transfer machines as up to date and efficient as anything to be found in Detroit, Mich. It is American equipment which could be obtained only with dollar aid. American assembly-line methods have been introduced into this establishment, which was almost put out of business by Allied bombardment because it produced war materials for the Axis. The destruction of obsolete equipment in wartime made it easier to modernize this in- dustry. Thus it is producing twice as many cars as it produced prewar with the same number of employees. Legislation which compels it to employ many more workers than are required so as to help absorb Italy’s labor surplus does not give the great Fiat motor works the same incentive to introduce American production techniques, But Fiat is putting modern American ma- chines bought with Marshall plan dollars to good use. Four hundred cars are being turned out daily and a new model is about to be marketed to help Italy’s economy. (Fiat, Renault, and other firms, as well as farmers who get tractors, pay full value in lire, francs, or pounds for American machin- ery. The proceeds go into special “counter- part funds” which can only be expended by the governments for purposes approved by the United States. Marshall aid is necessary because the governments lacked dollars with which to pay for essential productive equip~ ment. But individual beneficiaries do not receive “gifts” from the American taxpayers. Only the nation as a whole benefits from such aid in the sense that it does not pay for much of the dollar aid with dollar equivalent.) Renault and Fiat, which are only two of a wide variety of productive enterprises aided by Marshall plan funds, also use their own considerable resources to increase their pro-~ ductive capacity. They have helped them- selves to a far larger extent than they have been helped by American aid. The margin given by the United States helps provide employment, goods, and earn~ ing capacity, which in turn strengthen the economic and social structure of western Europe. We try to see that the lire, franc, and other local currency equivalents of our dollar aid— the counterpart funds—are used in ways that will permanently benefit the countries we are helping. In some countries part of these funds go for retirement of internal short-term debt because that serves to reduce inflation and thus furthers social stability. More visible to the observer are such proj- ects as the reclamation of great tracts of land in Italy which have been unproductive for centuries because of their swampy character, I have seen two and three crops a year being harvested from land which was use- less when I lived in Italy 20 years ago. By getting rid of malaria and putting in pumps and drainage canals and farm-to- market roads it ig being made possible for peasants to come down from their hilltop towns and live in the fields they cultivate. This saves hours of travel back and forth daily as well as increases tha amount of food and labor available to impoverished aly. It is estimated that extra employment can be provided for 500,000 Italians annually— nearly one-third of Italy’s chronic unem-~ ployed—by these reclamation projects par- tally made possible by American counterpart aid. Sardinia, hitherto only sparsely settled be- cause of malaria and related problems, is expected to absorb from 800,000 to 400,000 Italians from the mainland as a result of malaria elimination and land reclamation. By making American hybrid corn available to Italian farmers, the yield has been doubled in some parts of Italy and the average yield is up 30 percent. Readers of the stark tale of south Italian peasant hopelessness, “Christ Stopped at Eboli,” will be interested to know that ERP aid is bringing water and improved methods of cultivation to such long-neglected areas, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Index numbers show production in the 18 participating countries to be well above pre- war levels. Industrial production is 15 to 20 percent greater than it was at the highest prewar level. Agricultural production is between 95 and 100 percent of the prewar level. There are now no critical bottlenecks, no commodity shortages that can disrupt the industrial effort. Excluding Germany, the output on a man-year basis is 10 percent above the prewar level. For these encouraging figures American taxpayers can take considerable credit. So far so good. But our interest in Europe goes beyond its restoration to prewar levels of production. What we must continue to seek is the construction of a sound basis for the survival of western civilization. Since that is not yet assured, it is more im- portant to discuss what remains to be done than to report on what has been done. That will be the subject of remaining articles in this series. Reorganization of NLRB EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under Jeave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Minneapolis Morning Tribune of April 19, 1950: Puan No. 12 in TROUBLE President Truman’s bid to whittle away a portion of the Taft-Hartley Act in the guise of a Hoover Commission reform has run into a snag. The Senate Expenditures Commit- tee voted 9 to 4 against his proposal to abolish the Office of General Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board. The action means Senator Tarr’s resolu- tion of disapproval will reach the Senate floor with a favorable recommendation. If it wins the support of 49 Senators, Reorganiza~ tion Plan No. 12 will be junked. Mr. Truman justifies plan No. 12 on the basis of a general recommendation by the Hoover Commission that administrative re- sponsibility ought to be vested in the chair- men of regulatory commissions. The change, he said in his message of transmittal, would restore unified authority and responsibility to the Board. Obviously, the President was either misin- formed about what the Commission actually recommended or he is attempting a dubious maneuver for political purposes. For no- where in the Hoover reports is there any sug- gestion that the Office of NLRB General Coun- sel be abolished. In fact, none of the Com-~- mission’s final recommendations exclusively affect the Board. The Commission’s task force expressed concern about the General Counsel’s broad independent powers and felt that some changes might be desirable. It proposed that a council of labor under the chairman- ship of the Secretary of Lahor be set up to coordinate Federal labor policy and to ad~ vise the President. It would include the General Counsel and other officials concerned with labor problems. Examining the specific suggestion that the General Counsel’s functions be restored to the Board, the task force said:
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “To this the objection is made that the prosecuting functions should be separate from the hearing of complaints. But * * * only in part are his duties genuinely prose- cution. It may be that the administrative and policy-making functions could be sub- ordinated more clearly to the Board’s con~< trol while still maintaining an adequate separation of the truly prosecuting activi- ties.” When Congress passed the Taft-Hartley law the Office of General Counsel was made independent of the Board in response to complaints that the Board had been acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury in labor matters. Perhaps Congress is ready to change its mind about the desirability of separating NLRB functions. Perhaps not. The prob- lem, however, is one that needs to be con- sidered in relation to over-all Federal policy in labor relations. It should not be dis- posed of separately or by indirection. I Am an American Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, the an- nual I Am an American Day program will be under the general chairmanship of Col. Waldron E. Leonard, and I feel sure that these ceremonies on May 21 and 22 will be as impressive as the pre- vious ones that were organized by Colonel Leonard. The occasion of I Am an American Day has been set aside by res- olution of Congress and by a proclama- tion issued by the President of the United States. With our Capital City being referred to quite often as the capital of the world, I believe it very proper that we give spe- cial attention to this 2-day observance, not only as an inspiration to our new American citizens, but as a rededication of our energies and talents to the Ameri- can way of life. Under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include an article which appeared in the Washington Times-Herald, entitled “We're Proud of America”: We’rRE Proup oF AMERICA These programs are a fitting prelude for the big 2-day observance of “I Am An Amer- ican Day,” scheduled May 21 and 22. On May 21 which is a Sunday, Washing- tonians will celebrate this day, set aside by Congress and the President as a time for reaffirming their citizenship, in their homes and churches, The following day an enormous program will be held on the Capitol plaza. President Truman will make the principal address. Members of the House and Senate and Officials of the various Government departments will participate in the program. And, we think it would be an excellent idea if the Government departments were let out early enough for all employees to attend the ceremonies planned for 4 p. m. Arrangements should also be made to see that as many school children as possible have an opportunity to attend. The children will really enjoy this show because the committee in charge has received @ promise that Hopalong Cassidy will be present. Hopalong, hero of one of the favor~ ite comic strips appearing in the Times- Herald, is also the big rage among kids on television. The program will be climaxed with a rec- itation of the American creed. Music will be furnished by the service bands in this area. It will be a grand show and Col. Waldron Leonard, chairman of the committee in charge, is due for thanks from the commu-~ nity for working up the program. Let’s give him a great big hand and let’s see there is a turn-out at the Capitol big enough to show the rest of the Nation and the world that the people in Washington are proud to be Americans. Truth Must Prevail EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN KEE OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, April 21, 1950 Mr. KEE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following address delivered by our President, the Honorable Harry S. Truman, at a luncheon of the Ameri- can Society of Newspaper Editors, Hotel Statler, Washington, D. C., on Thursday, April 20. The President’s address car- ried a most timely message on using truth as the best weapon to fight the falsities of Communist propaganda. The President has directed the Secretary of State to plan a strengthened and more effective national effort to use the great power of truth in working for peace. His remarks are very much to the point and I am happy to place them in the Appendix to the REcorD so they may receive the atten- tion merited by their importance. The address follows: Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, mem- bers of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, I am happy to be here today with this group of editors. You and I have a great many important problems in common, and one of the most important of these is the responsibility we share in helping to make the foreign policy of the United States of America. That is why I am going to take this opportunity to discuss with you some aspects of that policy. No group of men in this country is of greater importance to our foreign policy than the group your society represents. In a democracy, foreign policy is based on the decisions of the people. One vital function of a free press is to present the facts on which the citizens of a democracy can base their decisions. You are a link between the American people and world affairs. If you inform the people well and completely, their decisions will be good. If you misinform them, their decisions will be bad; our country will suffer and the world will suffer. You cannot make up people’s minds for them. What you can do is to give them the facts they need to make up their own minds, That is a tremendous responsibility. Most of you are meeting that responsibil- ity well—but I am sorry to say a few are meeting it badly. Foreign policy is not a matter for partisan presentation. The facts about Europe or Asia should not be twisted A2881 to conform to one side or the other of a political dispute. Twisting the facts might change the course of an election at home, but it would certainly damage our country’s program abroad. In many other countries today, the papers print about foreign affairs only what their governments tell them to print. They can’t add anything, or cut anything. In the democracies, the papers have a free hand. Only in a democracy is there such mutual trust and confidence among citizens that a private group is given such an all-important role in determining what the Nation as a whole shall do. There is too much non- sense about striped trousers in foreign affairs. Far more influence is exerted by the baggy pants of the managing editor. There has never been a time in our his- tory when there was so great a need for our citizens to be informed and to under- stand what is happening in the world. The cause of freedom is being challenged throughout the world today by the forces of imperialistic communism. This is a struggle, above all else, for the minds of men. Propaganda is one of the most power- ful weapons the Communists have in this struggle. Deceit, distortion, and lies are sys- tematically used by them as a matter of Geliberate policy. This propaganda can be overcome by truth—plain, simple, unvarnished truth— presented by newspapers, radio, and other sources that the people trust. If the people are not told the truth, or if they do not have confidence in the accuracy and fairness of the press, they have no defense against false- hoods. But if they are given the true facts, these falsehoods become laughable instead of dangerous. We can have confidence that the free press of the United States and most of the other free nations will keep us from being de- ceived by Communist propaganda. But in other parts of the world the struggle be- tween falsehood and truth is far more in- tense and dangerous. Communist propaganda is so false, so crude, so blatant, that we wonder how men can be swayed by it. We forget that most of the people to whom it is directed do not have free access to accurate information. We forget that they do not hear our broadcasts or read impartial newspapers. We forget that they do not have a chance to learn the truth by traveling abroad or by talking free- Ty to travelers in their own countries. All too often the people who are subject to Communist propaganda do not know Americans, or citizens of the other free na- tion, as we really are. They do not know us as farmers or as workers. They do not know us as people having hopes and problems like their own. Our way of life is something strange to them. They do not even know what we mean when we say democracy. This presents one of the greatest tasks facing the free nations today. That task is nothing less than to meet false propa- ganda with truth all around the globe. Everywhere that the propaganda of Commu- nist totalitarianism is spread, we must meet it and overcome it with honest information about freedom and democracy. In recent years, there has been tremendous progress all over the world in education and the exchange of ideas. This progress has stirred men everywhere to new desires and new ambitions. They want greater knowl- edge, they want better lives, they want to be masters of their own affairs. We have helped and encouraged these people, but the Com- munists have seized upon their desires and ambitions and are seeking to exploit them for their own selfish purposes. In the Far East, for example, millions are restlessly seeking to break away from the conditions of poverty and misery that have