APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD endum would be held and if two-thirds or more of the producers voted in the af- firmative the program would go into ef- fect. This national parity quota—the predicted normal domestic consump- tion—would be apportioned to the State boards by the National Board and thence to the county committees and fi- nally to the individual farmers on the basis of past production, present capaci- ty and cptimum production under gocd soil conservation practices. The farmer would te assured of full parity on his share of the national parity quota. If the farmer wished to sell more than his share of the national parity quota, he could purchase from his county commit- tee additional marketing quotas. ‘The proceeds received from the sale of these extra marketing quotas would be used by the National Board to finance the dis- posal of surplus. Farm surpluses would be channeled in- to world trade in a manner consistent with the commitments of the United States or they might be distributed to the needy under a food-stamp plan, or through school-lunch programs. An- other way that the Board would dispose of surpluses would be through develop- ment of new nonfood commercial uses for farm products. If, at the end of the year, the National Board found that it had collected too much from the farmer for these surplus marketing quotas, the balance would be refunded. Sales of commodities would be governed by marketing certificates which would be controlled by the county committees. Trading certificates or the converting of them from grain to live- stock or poultry products would be al- lowed. Comparative units for feed grains and pork, beef, poultry products, and so forth would be used. As an ex- ample, a farmer would be allowed to market his share of the national parity quota either as feed grain or converted into livestock or poultry, or combina- tions of both. Full parity loans by the Commodity Credit Corporation would be allowed upon a farmer’s quota and also on his sur- plus. However, to obtain a full parity loan on surplus he would be required to purchase additional marketing quotas from his county committee. On-the-farm and existing commercial facilities would be used for storage. The National Board, under my bill, is directed to investigate the possibility of using private credit facilities to make insured loans to farmers. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you an example of this program in operation as it relates to the food-feed group. The food-feed group are such commod- ities as corn, wheat, barley, oats, rye, grain sorghums, hay, grass, and other products used for livestock feeding, and hogs, cattle, sheep, poultry, chicken eggs, and dairy products. Let us take the case of Farmer Jones. If the program were in effect the farmer-elected ¢ounty committee would give Farmer Jones his quota for the year. This quota would come to him in such a form that he could market any or all of the items in the food-feed group. Let us assume that his quota is of an amount entitling him to sell 8,000 bushels of corn. It could also mean a comparable amount of the other items in the food-feed group. We will assume that Farmer Jones elects to market his quota as corn; the parity price upon which at the time is $1.50 per bushel. He would have suffi- cient marketing certificates to sell his 8,000 bushels of corn at the market place. Ii that is all that Farmer Jones had pro- duced, he would have to do nothing more than haul his 8,000 bushels of corn to market and collect the market price— which would be at least $1.50 per bushel. But let us assume that Farmer Jones produced 9,000 bushels of corn, or 1,000 bushels more than his quota. If he wished to sell this additional 1,000 bush- els, he would simply purchase from his county committee sufficient marketing quotas to sell this 1,000 bushels. Let us assume that the county com- mittee charged him 75 cents a bushel for additional marketing quotas. The Na- tional Board might use that 75 cents a bushel to finance a food-stamp plan or it might be used to develop new uses for corn or to export it. . The money the Board had left over from Farmer Jones’ purchase of addi- tional marketing quotas would be re- funded. Under the conditions I have just de- scribed, Farmer Jones would net at least $1.50 per bushel—full parity—for 8,000 bushels of corn, his share of the national parity quota. He would net only 75 cents per bushel for his 1,000 bushels which was the surplus. Farmer Jones could also receive a full parity loan on his surplus corn after he had purchased additional marketing quotas. Under this program acreage controls are eliminated. The farmer himself would control production. It is pre- sumed that production of surplus would be discouraged because farmers would not receive as much for it and would cut down. Mr. Speaker, I wish to stress one point that is important in dealing with any plan for agriculture. That is the role of the so-called family sized farmer. He is the backbone of America. I call your particular attention to the section of the bill which states: It is the prime purpose of this act to as- sure that existing family sized farms will continue to be independently operated, and to encourage the establishment of addi- tional independent family sized farms. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a very important section because it is the little fellow who usually gets hit the hardest by any decline in prices. Therefore any farm plan must be predicated on the family sized operator. Mr. Speaker, another important pro- vision to which I respectfully call your attention is to the second title of the bill dealing with soil conservation. I believe we all recognize that the Nation’s soil is its most valuable resource and realize that the Government must offer techni- cal and financial’ assistance to promote its orderly development and conserva- tion. I felt this of sufficient importance to clearly spell out the intention of the Congress and direct the National Board A3657 to make a thorough study and report its findings. ‘ Through this grass-roots plan, the farmer would be assured of the level of income necessary to meet his cost of pro- duction and provide him with the things for himself and his family which he has a right to expect from life under a pro- gram managed by himself and his elected representatives without being constant- ly under the thumb of bureaucratic regi- mentation and control. Furthermore, the rest of the American people could benefit from a prosperous agriculture without the financial burden of a heavy drain on the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, there is an immediate problem which causes me a good deal of concern. That is the problem of the na- tional debt and the financial program of the President which requires this coun- try to engage in deficit spending. We have all sought ways of solving this prob- Jem. I call your attention to the fact that there is now between $4,000,000,000 and $7,000,000,000 tied up in farm sur- pluses—surpluses that are doing no one any good—but which are costing the taxpayers money every day. The plan that I offer provides a method of dispos- ing of these surpluses in an orderly man-~ ner and preventing the reoccurrence of similar situations. This feature alone would save enough tax money to balance the budget this year. Mr. Speaker, consumers are not happy when they see warehouses bulging with surpluses, bought with their tax money, which are serving no useful purpose in the economic or humanitarian pattern of society. They cannot understand why they should be taxed for such a thing. My plan would solve, this dilem- ma. It would lift the tax burden of use- Jess surpluses from their backs and di- vert any excess production toward a more profitable and enjoyable life for all of us. While I am speaking of consumers, I do want to make one point clear. That is that consumers do not gain from low farm prices. They always lose. At the bottom of the depression, although farm prices Were disastrously low, the share of the consumers’ total income required for food was the highest in a decade. This was because their total income was pro- portionately lower. In 1938, when farm prices dropped, consumers did not bene- fit from lower food prices. The shares of their income spent for food remained the same or was higher because their total income had declined in ratio with farm incomes. On the other hand, in 1943-44, although farm prices were at or above parity, the share of consum- ers’ total income required for food was the lowest in history. The basic reason for a farm program is to protect the farmer, who now is the one person in our modern economic pat- tern who has littie or nothing to say about the prices he receives. He has to take what he can get. ‘To overcome this stumbling block of our complex modern economic structure there must be a farm program. I believe I have a plan that will effectively serve the farmer and his
A3658 family and at the same time serve the best interests of the entire Nation. In approaching any farm program we should strive for a solution that gives the highest degree of free enterprise and the fewest controls. It must be one that will react to the best interests of both pro- ducers and consumers. Furthermore, any farm program must be divorced from dependence upon the Federal Treasury for financing. Farmers do not like to be placed in this position and the howl that has gone up among consumers proves that they do not like it either. This re- sentment is proof of the dire necessity of a program free from the year-to-year whims of Congress and maneuvering by self-centered pressure groups. As Joseph Davis, director of the Food Research Institute of Stanford Univer- sity, some time ago said: America wants an agriculture that earns its way, instead of being continually and in-~ creasingly dependent upon Government props, vulnerable to political shifts, and forced to accept the accompanying regimen- tation. It wants an agriculture that, proud of its strength, competes in domestic and foreign markets on the basis of efficiency and fair play. I believe that this program of agricul- ture should be based around 100 percent of parity for the farmer. Mr. Speaker, here is why: Our economy can be compared to a large department store. If the store manager prices his products so law as, say, 75 percent of the needed price to operate properly— parity—he will land in the bankruptcy courts. In the same way, if the United States permits its price level to drop to 75 percent of parity, then we lose 25 per- cent of our ability to consume; we have 25 percent unemployment and national deficits which will eventually force us into bankruptcy. With about 26,000,000 persons on the Nation’s farms today, and millions more whose living comes directly or indirectly from farm production, it is apparent that prices must be stabilized toward a con- tinual flow of new income from farm production. Price stabilization on these crops will also stabilize our credit dollar and the purchasing power of the wage earner. Whether or not we like large expendi- tures for foreign aid, defense, and do- mestic programs, we have to face the hard, cold fact that we must have a high national income to finance such expend- itures. I have pointed out that farm in- come and national income are closely related by a seven-times turn. 'There- fore, if we as a nation are to meet our obligations, we must have a high farm income. Mr. Speaker, in these days of the cold war between the United States and Rus- sia, it is desperately important to main- tain American prosperity. Joe Stalin is patiently waiting for an economic bust in this country as the opening crack in our cold-war defense. In the interests of peace we must keep farm income and national income high. To maintain farm prosperity the farmer must have 100 percent of parity. In other words, he must make enough money so that he can buy what he needs and wants. Give him less than 100 per- cent parity—or buying power—and you give him that much less buying power. It is my belief that it is impossible to operate the economy of the United States on a basis of full employment, a balanced national budget, and pay off the national debt unless an average of at least 100 percent of parity is maintained at the market place for agricultural pro- duction for domestic use. Any compromise or influence that re- duces farm prices below 100 percent of parity in the market place will reflect the same percentage in the loss of business volume and departure from full employ- ment. The effect on the national income is just seven times what it is on farm incomes. Mr. Speaker, when I was in South Da- kota last fall between sessions of the Congress, I discussed this plan of mine with farmers in 32 round-table meetings. I received many good suggestions and I believe that the farmers who attended these meetings were in general agree- ment with my objectives. Mr. Speaker, I do not say that this plan is the sole or only solution to the farm problem. I am positive, however, that its objectives are sound and that it is consistent with the free enterprise and pay-as-you-go system which we like to think of as being typical of the American way. I believe that the proposal I have submitted is worthy of careful considera- tion by all of us who are interested in sound economy for the farmer and con- tinued prosperity in this great land of ours, The First Dealer EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. ANGIER L. GOODWIN OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following editorial from the Boston (Mass.) Herald of May 12, 950: THE First DEALER During nearly 20 years of dealism, New and Fair, Americans have forgotten the man in the White House who started this deal business. He was Theodore Roosevelt and his deal was Square. He was a great leader, @ great President, and a great Republican, even if he did almost break up the party. Many of us have forgotten, too, that the later Roosevelt by no means held a monopoly among White House phrase makers. No monopoly either on phrases that could ring with conviction and truth. It was well known among his intimates that the late Franklin Roosevelt had a near hero worship admiration for his illustrious cousin of the opposite party. Throughout his public life there were many evidences of the T. R. in- fluence, not the least of which was his hav- ing a deal of his own. They were both coun. try squires of suburban New York. Back. grounds very similar, too. T. R. built a trophy room jutting out from his Sagamore Hill home. Later F. D. R. did the same at Hyde Park. The similarities were superficial or affected. Philosophically, their differences were fundamental. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Franklin Roosevelt could never have be- lieved the following even if he might have said something similar. The words are those of T. R.: “Business and labor are different sides of the same problem. It is impossible wisely to treat either without reference to the in- terests and duties of the other—and without reference to the fact that the interests of the general public, the commonwealth, are paramount to both” (1917). “No republic can permanently exist when it becomes a republic of classes, where the man feels not the interest of the whole people, put the interest of the particular class to which he belongs, or fancies that he belongs, as being of prime importance” (1904). “I wish to preach, not the doctrine of ig- noble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife; to preach that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph” (1899). “We have inherited and developed a su- perbly self-reliant individualism in this country. I most earnestly hope that it will not be lost, that it will never be exchanged for a deadening socialism. The only perma- nently beneficial way in which to help any- one is to help him to help himself; if either private charity, or governmental action, or any form of social expression destroys the in- dividual’s power of self-help, the gravest pos- sible wrong is really done to the individual’ (1907). The Nation should be indebted to the Roosevelt Memorial Association for purchas- ing the Theodore Roosevelt home at Oyster Bay, N. Y., to make of it a national shrine to aman whose high qualities of leadership his country could well use again. Habana Charter of International Trade Organization Will Not Work—It Is Socialism Applied to Foreign Trade EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, Iam including as part of my remarks an illuminating statement by Mr. Elvin H. Killheffer who attended the Habana Conference as a member of the United States delegation, appointed by the State Department. As a result of Mr. Kill- heffer’s experience at the conference he takes a strong and positive stand against the bill now before the Foreign Affairs Committee. His statement follows: I attended the Habana Conference as a member of the United States delegation in the capacity of an adviser. The organizations for whom I speak be- lieve in the concept of world-wide economic cooperation and precisely for that reason oppose the Habana charter. Cooperation means to work together for a common ob- ject or objective. It is claimed that such genuine coopera- tion is provided in the charter. We deny the truth of that claim. There can be no genuine cooperation when there is no real agreement as to objectives. That there was no real agreement at Habana is obvious to anyone reading the charter,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD which records and provides for continuance of the disagreements. Moreover, the record as written in the charter 1s in language so ambiguous as to make certain there will be more and serious disagreement in the future—and I may add that much of the amhiciitv is not accidental. The London d:atz in erucle 22, paragraph 4, provided the sure foundation for eventual agreement among members to assist them in developing policies. Even in the London draft it was buried and in later drafts much of it was deleted. This idea was all disre- garded at Habana and an attempt was made to force immediate agreement on policies and rules. The attempt was premature because of the lack of agreement on fundamenials. Looking for a momeni at some principal objectives, we find— Article 20 forbids the use of quota restric- tions. That is the United States position. Almost no one else agreed unless and until continuance of the forbidden practice was assured under the exceptions provided sn ar- ticles 21, 22, 28, and others. Article 17 providing for continuous tariff reductions is the United States position. Tariff reduction for other countries 1s mean- ingless because they can continue the more restrictive quotas, exchange controls, etc. Article 17 provides for elimination of pref- erential tariffs. They are not eliminated but are continued under the exceptions of arti- cle 16 and new preferences are provided ior in article 15. United States opposes discriminatory prac- tices. The charter in article 23 and else- where continues them. The president of the British Board of Trade told Commons that Britain will use the alter- natives provided in GATT and ITO “where by discriminations they can get additional im- ports.” Delegates at Habana declared they would “give due regard” to the principle of nondiscrimination but would practice dis- crimination nevertheless. United States and several others, notably Belgium, Sweden, and Switzerland, wanted equitable provisions protecting foreign in- vestment. Other nations did not agree, hence article 12 written by the Australians, Why the United States did not stand and fight for its principles is a mystery to me. Certainly we will never be in a stronger posi- tion than when the whole world looks to us for financial aid. Foreign investment provisions of the char- ter are written from the point of view of the recipient country. The protection afforded is to such recipient. In the opinion of those intimately concerned, the inducement and protection afforded for the investor is not adequate. The provision begins: “The members recognize that international investment, both public and private, can be of great value in promoting” (art. 12-1 (a)). The words “both public and private” are significant. With investment as with facili- ties, the mere possibility of their availability through government on less exacting terms and perhaps politically motivated, almost precludes satisfactory private agreements. The recipient country has the right to ex- propriate or nationalize the investment now or in the future (art. 12-1 (c) (ili)). Re- sistance was determined and successful to any provision for fair and prompt compen~ sation or expeditious transfer of funds in case of expropriation. To be sure there is provision that members by prior negotiation may secure more favorable terms. But that course is open without a charter. Remember that members are governments. The trend is clear. ‘If others want con- trolled economies, that is their privilege, but there is no good reason why we should adopt their concepts or obligate ourselves to pro- vide the resources for their experiments. The United States is opposed to cartels and chapter V embodies this but with dubious agreement by many delegations, particularly the United Kingdom who fought to prevent more expeditious treatment of complaints. Moreover, chapter VI embodies the British ideas of intergovernmental commodity car- tels. We have some familarity with these on commodities like diamonds, tin, cocoa, sisal, etc. We could say the charter is inconsistent in its creation in government hands and in more complete form what it holds to be iniquitous in private handsin any form. Yet the inconsistency resolves itself when we rec- ognize the concept of world wide planned economy which is here outlined. The United States does not agree with this concept. We know that private enterprise has produced more for more people than any other system ever tried. The record I have cited 1s a record o: dis- agreement. In no instance is there genu- ine agreement The most serious disagreement of all con- cerns a planned versus a free economy. The charter 1s a catalog of what governments will do. The members of the proposed interna- tional bureaucracy called ITO are govern- ments. The charter recognizes state controls and ownership and state trading. This, in turn, requires state planning and all of this 1s state socialism the antithesis of private en- terprise which we in the United States be- lieve in. There is provision for a whole series of such intergovernmental commodity agree- ments originally limited to primary commodi- ties un burdensome surplus. That hmuita- tion has been removed (art. 56-3). Among the objectives of such agreements 1s this: “to provide, during the period which may be necessary a framework for the consideration and development of measures which have as their purpose economic adjustments designed to promote the expansion of consumption or a shift of resources and manpower out of overexpanded industries into new and pro- ductive occupations, including as far as pos- sible in appropriate cases, the development of secondary industries based upon domestic production of primary commodities,” (art. 57 (b)). Here we have government agreements which contemplate measures involving shifts of resources and manpower, as well as de- ciding which productions are overexpanded. It might involve cotton, wheat, lard, tobacco, or potatoes. In making such an agreement, provision is to be made so that there shall be increasing opportunities to supply mar- kets from sources from which such require- ments can be supplied in the most effective and economic manner (art. 63 (c)). It is said that the commodity agreement is the framework or transitory measure af- fording time for the members to study the problem and arrange to take individual reme- dial action, hence there is no central plan- ning or managing. That argument is not convincing. Members will study the prob- lem as an ITO group. Assume that a cartel is created. The charter provides for a com- modity council (drt. 64-1), on which the interested members have representation (art. 64-2). The decisions, taken by this council are obviously international and not national. Consuming countries shall also have a voice in the decisions on matters of substance. Their vote shall be equal to that of the pro- ducers who want to export the commodity (art. 63 (b)). ’ The decisions on the vital matters to which I have referred are certainly matters of sub- stance. If then it was decided that cotton is produced most economically by India or Bra- 2il or China, and that United States man- power should be shifted to something else, the United States might find itself a magnif- icent minority of one. And the decision would not be made by the United States. They would be made by this international ITO. A3659 This is definitely a planned and managed economy. If you still doubt it, look at some of the other objective, such as developing natural resources and the expansion of pro- duction of primary commodities (art. 57~ (ad) (e)). These are not functions of gov- ernment, national or international, in a private enterprise economy. I want to call particular attention to a disagreement masquerading as agreement that is of vital interest to our industry. You gentlemen may recall that 1t was a Democratic Congress that had the wisdom to recognize the key importance of the chem- ical industry in the national economy and security. In encouraging the building and growth of such industry it was determined to provide adequate tarifis. World condi- tions at that time were unsettled and values in foreign lands difficult or impossible to re- liably determine. In order to overcome that dificulty and obtain an actual value at which the goods were sold in the ordinary course of trade under fully competitive con- ditions, American selling price was made the basis for valuation in fixing duties on competitive imports. Despite charges to the contrary this worked out to automatically reduce the amount of duty every time prices were reduced through increased efficiency and the com- petition among the many American pro- ducers. And the Treasury could and did regularly inspect the books of the American companies to see that the prices were accu- rately given. Obviously, such checks of foreign records have been and are impossi- ble. The Habana charter forbids the use of such a value which is an actual one and would substitute as actual value that is de- fined in article 3 (b): “ ‘actual value’ should be the price at which, at a time and place determined by the: legislation of the country of importa- tion, and in the ordinary course of trade, such or like merchandise is sold or offered for sale under fully competitive conditions.” But this is no agreement at all, for differ- ent countries may designate different times and places. The words “at a time and place determined by the legislation of the coun- try of importation”’ are susceptible of more than one meaning, although each in com- plete good faith. One country can desig- nate the time and place as the time and port of export. This in essence is what we call. foreign value. Another nation can des- ignate time and place of import, thus ar- riving at some form of domestic value. This is not agreement. It is not a reliable defi- nition, for it can and will be interpreted in opposite ways. We should not be unmindful of the se- rious disagreements to come. There is a wide area of decision and interpretation inevitably to be made by the organization. Some are decisions specifically delegated, including releases from or waivers of obli- gations. The far greater number will be necessitated by ambiguity in language of the charter. It has been said in effect that much of this was intentional, that the char- ter is only a framework within which the substance will be developed through estab- lishment of precedents and the growth of a body of cases. If this 1s the case, who will de- velop this substance? Obviously, it would be the ITO, 1n which the United States has one vote. It 1s fantastic to expect the United States to sign such a blank check. If ITO, through its decisions, will create a body of new international law, it will in effect have legislative powers. That very definitely is an invasion of sovereignty. Moreover it would mean acceptance of ad- ministrative law in the international sphere. More government of men—less government under law. ‘The obligations of the charter are terribly one-sided now because of the exceptions
AS660 and escapes for other countries. And it new matters of substance could be intro- duced through the procedure of interpreta~ tion, the charter should be rejected forth- with. Unfortunately, just such procedure was followed at the recent meeting of the Interrm Commission in Geneva. By means of interpretation, the concept of monetary compensation was introduced. The charter provides that where the interests of a mem- per are prejudiced, only retaliatory measures for their redress should be resorted to, such as withdrawal of concessions. While the Australian delegate pointed out that the charter was being amended substantively through interpretation, the United States delegate agreed with the interpretation. You can guess the probable target for mone- tary damages. A fundamental disagreement running through the whole charter cannot be stated too often. It is the conflict between the doctrines of State socialism and the pro- fessed objective of freer trade and exchange among nations. Greater government con- trols are the very essence of State social- ism just as they are the antithesis of free- dom and private enterprise. In the Habana charter the doctrines of State socialism are paramount. The charter concetns itself greatly with production and employment. For example, article 8 states that “Each member shall take action designed to achieve and maintain full and productive employment.” Thus full employment would become an end in itself. This pledge would undoubtedly be accom- plished by unbalancing the budget, inflating the currency and imposing exchange controls. But each of these in turn would lead to contraction rather than expansion of inter- national trade which is the supposed pur- pose of the charter. Under this chapter the United States would be required not only to take action to achieve and maintain full employment within its own territory, but also to co- operate with other nations through the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, on such international measures as might be determined desirable to produce the same full employment in all member countries. In view of the widely divergent opinions expressed by Members of the Con- gress at the time it was considering the Murray full-employment bill of 1945 and the Employment Act of 1946, and the un~ willingness of Congress to legislate full employment within the United States, we certainly should not now accept any charter which would commit the United States to international full employment, If a member's ability to achieve full em- ployment without resort to trade restrictions is handicapped by a persistent maladjust- ment in balance of payments involving other members, such members respectively shall make full contribution and take ap- propriate action to correct the situation (art. 4-1), These vague terms must be in- terpreted by ITO. In a balance of payments situation like that between the United King- dom and the United States, what is “appro- priate action” by one and “full contribution” by the other? Even if clearly defined, it presupposes planned international economy coextensive with the commitments. The provisions of the charter on economic development are duplications of what was promised as the function of the Interna~ tional Bank for reconstruction and Economic Development, The more recent point 4 at- ° tempts to deal with the same thing. Of course the bank has tried to make sound loans. The authors of the charter provisions are more open handed. The facilities for economic development and reconstruction are listed as capital funds, materials, modern equipment, technology and technical and managerial skills. Then this obligation: “Members shall cooperate in providing or arranging for the provision of such facilities within the limits of their power” (art. 11-1 (a)). ‘These are hardly trivial obligations. What is the limit of the power of government? The facilities described are in the United States privately owned and operated, the very essence of private enterprise. While the Habana charter is submitted for approval as an executive agreement, I pre- dict that it will be regarded both abroad and in the United States for what it is— namely, a treaty. And as a treaty, it will be the supreme law in the United States and yet no individual has any legal recourse against the decree laws of this international bureaucracy. This 1s contrary to the rights guaranteed American citizens under the Con- stitution. Some proponents advocate ratification, bad as it is, and then improve it by amendment. We say that it is wholly unrealistic so expect to alter a contract in your favor after you have signed it. It is also suggested that the United States can later withdraw if it is not satisfied. That is not only a poor but also a very dangerous suggestion. Political considerations might make such a step impossible. Pronovents of the Habana charter are still ‘yr’ aay attractive generalities of the prospectus. But the charter is the contract which either does or does not implement those high hopes. And I say that a careful study of the document shows that it does not do so. We ask that the Habana charter be re- jected as the first necessary step toward a good charter. Our real choice is between an effort to ob- tain a charter of limited scope on which there would be genuine agreement and the Habana charter which embodies ideas and practices of state socialism which we in the United States do not want and are under no com- pulsion to accept. It is our opinion that if we negotiated a new charter returning to the concept of an organization initially having only consulta- tive and advisory functlons, the very exercise of these functions could in time lead to gen- uine agreement on principles and on the rules stemming from them. But the agreed rules should then be submitted for approval to the legislative bodies of the members. Laws would then be made in orthodox fash- ion and unless so ratified by legislatures would not become law. I realize that this is too slow for the world planners, but on the other hand, a mighty oak is not created in a few months or years. Most of the greatest successes any of us know grew from very modest beginnings. How Safe Is America? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. L. MILLER OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following ad- dress made by me before the Nebraska State Medical Association, Lincoln, Nebr., on Wednesday, May 3, 1950: How Sars Is AMERICA? Members of the Nebraska State Medical Association, it is a pleasure to be back in Nebraska, speaking before the association which honored me as their president in 1939, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD After 8 years in Congress, I am about con- vinced that I know more about the practice of medicine and surgery than I do about the practice of being a Congressman. It is in- teresting work, because in Congress you are giving service to 325,000 people, and this is not unlike the work you physicians do for your patients, except in Congress we are try~ ing to relieve the economic and social ills of our Government and the world. It was 25 years ago, this month, that I first gave a talk before the Nebraska State medi~ cal society on the subject of Uncle Sam practices medicine. I do not propose to explore this subject at this time. I prefer to group a few remarks around the subject, How Safe Is America? I wish my medical colleagues would remember that in this frus- trated and troubled world, we must act, think, and believe in America. You ought to be either a Republican or a Democrat, or a Socialist if you desire, and you ought to vote, put first you ought to be an American. I trust you will not interpret my remarks as being partisan, I merely wish to point out some troubled spots in Government. It is of passing interest that when I gave this paper 25 years ago, the Federal Govern-~ ment was then spending between three and four million dollars on public health work, At that time we had less than 500,000 on the Federal payroll; our debt was about $16,060,- 000,000. Today there are more than 2,000,000 working for the Federal Government, and we have a debt of about $260,000,000,000. It cost us about $5,000,000,000 to run all func- tions of Government 25 years ago, while to- day it is more than $43,000,000,000, plus a $7,000,000,000 deficit. Indeed the present administration, in 414 peacctime years, has spent more than 32 Presidents spent in the first 152 years of our existence. We also went through several wars and depressions dur- ing our early existence. You should remem- ber that the party in power has a majority of 90 in this Highty-first Congress. They have the votes to put over anything the adminis- tration desires. I remember when I gave my paper, Uncle Sam Practices Medicine, Dr. Young, who was then at Gering, and later moved to Cali- fornia, as well as Dr. Stark, of Norfolk, both of whom have gone over the Great Divide, suggested that I was a little too pessimistic-— that the Government would never go in for caring for people on the scale that I men- tioned, At that time none of us ever thought it would reach the spending of this year. Let’s take a look presently at the spending by Government for various forms of medicine and public health. It is more than $3,000,- 000,000 this year. Of the $3,000,000,000 two billion is Federal money and one billion is State funds. 'Those entitled to some part of this medical care total about one-sixth of the Nation’s population. Active military forces are not included. The great bulk of State medicine is for 18,250,000 veterans who are entitled to full care if they have service-connected disability, On March 1, 1950, there were 133 veterans hospitals in the United States, with 107,000 beds. At that time there were 99,000 vet- erans in these hospitals. It was estimated that 63 percent were there because of non- service-connected disabilities. The veteran with a non-service-connected disability must swear he is unable to defray the cost of pri- vate hospital care. The remaining six or seven million fall into special classes, such as the 2,000,000 Federal employees, 400,000 1n- dians and Eskimos; and 700,000 mental cases which generally are a State obligation. There are 40 Federal agencies which now give some medical assistance to employees and the citizens. There are nearly 8,000 doctors that work full time on the Federal and State payrolls. The Veterans’ Adminis- tration, in 1949, paid $16,600,000 to private doctors for the care of veterans. About '75,- 000 private doctors have indicated a willing~ ness to take part in the veterans program
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD outside of veterans hospitals. Indeed it has been amazing how Federal public health mreteets srom, The onmronric*fon pill for trie: rey a ‘wirie Jr all forms of public health work. It includes poliomy- elitis, heart disease, rheumatism, maternal and child health and many new research programs. There are several measures before Con- gress, which in my opinion, are a part of socialized medicine. I refer to the exami- nation and treatment of all children in public schools regardless of ability to pay. The social security bill has a disability clause which is socialistic. There is another meas- ure which gives aid to medical schools, med- ical students, dentists and nurses. We also have the Hill-Burton bill, which has for its purpose making Federal funds available in order to provide hospitals in isolated areas. There is $75,000,000 recommended by the committee. This has been raised to $150, 000,000. In my opinion it is time to fold up this program. Many communities are in a better position to build their own hospi- tals without Government aid. In my dis- trict, the cities of Gothenburg, Chappell and Bridgeport have proceeded without Fed- eral aid. Our Government 1s heavily in debt. We must stop looking to the Federal Gov- ernment for assistance. Now it would seem on the surface, that these preliminary remarks might not fit in too well with my subject on how safe is America. I have merely mentioned the growth of the Federal Government to bring home to you the fact that as Federal Gov- ernment becomes bigger and bigger, you and I as citizens become smaller and smaller. The Government, instead of being our serv- ant, can well become our master. When that happens you lose security and free- dom. The course Government is now follow- ing may well mean that you can no longer live your life as you see fit, but you will be under the complete control of Government and the alien ideology which will direct your activities from the cradle to the grave. When we consider how safe is America, we must consider the road which the Gov- ernment is now following. We have several socialistic programs before the Congress. Of course, in your mind, socialized medicine leads the way. There is still much interest in this program. Mr. Oscar Ewing, and the administration, are plugging hard along, with the left wing organizations to get the program started. It is still very much alive, even though Dr. Henderson, president of the American Medical Asscciation thinks it is not an issue in 1950. I am certain that the question of socialized medicine will be’ an issue in every congressional district. My opponent in the Fourth Congressional Dis- trict has already made it an issue. There is the Brannan Farm Program which is of unquestionable political interest and questionable economic soundness. It would bring about a complete regimentation and control of agriculture. If you doubt it, you should read the 15 pages of penalties in this 87-page bill. There is socialized housing, and the Spence bill, which is nothing more than a super- duper OPA, with all the trimmings. I want to impress upon my medical cole leagues, that you ought to be interested in all phases of legislation which would lead to further regimentation and socialistic trends. You should not forget that there are other measures which are just as social- istic as socialized medicine, and when once adopted, the country will find it difficult to retrace its steps, My colleagues complain that doctors are not interested in politics and fail to help their friends. Good government goes farther than just an interest in socialized medicine. You have one Member of the Nebraska dele~ gation who, it seems, is for compulsory health insurance. Elect 25 more members XCVI—App——231 cree bee sry like him to the House and I predict the whole socialized program of the administra- tion will be adopted. You doctors better wake up. You had better take an interest in good government and support your friends. You can be a powerful influence in every community. When we talk about how safe is America, you naturally wonder about the spending of government. I have told you about the amount spent in 444 peacetime years, more than $190,000,000,000, It 1s your money. You pay the taxes. The two Frankenstein mon- sters fr-iv~ **- nublic today are increased taxes.'ui “ « . Either one of these can destroy the American economy. In my humble opinion, our Government, banks, trust and insurance companies, who are unofficial custodians of the people’s money, should have as their first concern, sound currency. If we continue on the road of reckless spending, with deficits as a way of life, it can lead but to one conclusion, inflation and increased taxes. There are bills now pending before legislative committees which, if passed by Congress, would raise the Federal budget more than $20,000,000,000. In further exploring the subject of how safe is America, I wish to examine with you the number of subversives and security risks which are now, or have been, employed in the Federal Government. Mr. Peurifoy, the Under Secretary of State, testified before a Senate Committee recently that they found it necessary to fire or let resign 257 employees last year, and that 91 of this group were homosexuals. The Police Department of the District of Columbia estimates that there are about 5,000 homosexuals in the city and 75 percent are employed by government. I discuss this subject of homosexuality with some timidity. In looking over the literature on this topic, I find that it is seldom approached, even by the psychiatrist, and, being first a surgeon, and second a politician, I find it difficult to explore. I wil direct my remarks to their employment in government, plus a brief review of this prob- lem. Homosexuality can be defined as the attraction for individuals of the same sex to each other. The subject is as old as the human race. It is mentioned in the Bible, was recognized by the ancient Greeks, and is practiced extensively among the Orientals. It is important to note at this point that the Russians and the Orientals still lcok upon the practice with favor. Mr. Goering of German fame and General Roehn, who were executed, kept the list of homosexuals for Germany. They also had a list of these individuals in the State, Com- merce, and other Departments of our Gov- ernment. The Russians undoubtedly have similar lists. These espionage agents have found it rather easy to send their homo- sexuals here and contact their kind in sensi- tive departments of our Government. Black- mail and many other schemes are used to gather secret information, The homosexual is often a man of con- siderable intellect and ability, It is found that the cycle of these individuals’ homo- sexual desires follow the cycle closely pat- terned to the menstrual period of women. There may be 3 or 4 days in each month that this homosexual’s instincts break down and drive the individual into abnormal fields of sexual practice. It has been found that if the individual can be given large doses of sedatives and other treatments dur- ing this sensitive cycle, that he may escape performing acts of homosexuality. The problem of sexual maladjustments are most urgent and still far from a solution. In the Army, several thousand men were discharged because of homosexuality. When caught in the act, these men were generally discharged without honor, which means the loss of citizenship and the right to vote, or to belong to any organization A3661 of veterans, or to receive many of the re- wards we'ch ere cvorted to those who have served “.. cry r ~ is most serious. Many of the homosexuals failed to survive the rigors of warfare and the constant inti- mate association with men. They were painfully aware of their limitations. The majority were unable to conceal their tend- encies and were eventually eliminated with disgrace, and a stigma to themselves, their families, and friends. Jealousy 1s never encountered in true friendships. Never is the bond which unites two friends such that the acquisition of a new friend by one is regarded angrily by the other; but quite otherwise is the life among homosexuals. Here jealousy reigns supreme. It is similar to the love of a boy tor a girl, Male homosexuals will not share their fairy with anybody. His anger is un- limited for anyone who seeks to possess the object of his love. The sexual attraction exercised by a man on another male may be apparent in many ways. The homosexual will become excited by the mere presence of some man in a pub- lic place. They will often approach that man, even though he is @ stranger. On streetcars, intimate advances are made. A taxi driver often finds his fare making in- discreet advances. The true homosexual seeks any kind of contact with the male he adores. He has no sensation whatever in the presence of the most beautiful and se- ductive female. Her amorous advances to him may even be repulsive. The Bible apprises us of the fact that when the inhabitants of Sodom consorted physi- eally with the angels who descended to the pious Lot, God, in His wrath, entirely de- stroyed the city. From here comes the origin of the expression “sodomy.” Sodomy is used to designate a certain type of sexual pervert and homosexual. In the Third Book of Moses (Leviticus), the Lord said to the stranger, “If man lay with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomina- tion. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.” Perversion is found at all levels of society. Perhaps more frequently among the higher levels where nervousness, unhappiness, and leisure time leads to vices. The homosexual takes on many indiscre- tions. He has a tendency to lie and to lie on all occasions. It is a part of their de- fense. Two years ago, as chairman of the Commit- tee on Public Health in the District of Co- lumbia, I sponsored legislation directed at a new legal approach to the sex-pervert prob- lem. There were so many sex crimes in Washington, our parks and loafing places were no longer safe for the citizen. The police blotters of Washington contain the names of many individuals, some prominent, who are repeatedly brought to court for actions of sex perversion. Most of them merely post a $25 collateral and are never prought to trial. Under that law these peo- ple may be treated as medical problems, and can receive treatment at the discretion of the court in one of the hospitals of the city. The results are encouraging. Homosexuals are like birds of a feather— they flock together. Washington has several restaurants and dwelling places in palatial surroundings where these people worship at the flesh pots and cesspools of immoral sex demonstration. Recently the moral squad arrested 40 men in one house, worshiping at the flesh pots of iniquity. In some respects they are more to be pitied than condemned. Some have a pathologic mind. They might be compared to the kleptomaniac, who must steal, or the pyro- maniac, who sets a fire. Seldom a week. passes but what Washington and the sur- rounding territory has several atrocious crimes closely related to sex emotions. It is only recently that the press has given some
A3662 freedom to the open discussion of the topic. The subject is still taboo among family news- papers. Tt does seem to me that if we are to keep America safe this type of individual ought not to be permitted to serve in key positions of government. The Congress is writing into several appropriation bills a clause which will permit the secretary of a department to dismiss individuals who might he security risks. It always includes homosexuals. In considering how safe is America we must also look at the report of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. They have a list of 54,174 known Communists who are in every State of our Union. These men possess & fanatic loyalty to their masters abroad. They have boasted that for every member of the party they have 10 willing and subservient stooges to carry on the party program. That would mean they have 544,000 people in the United States who support the Communist philosophy. t have been asked about the McCarthy case. While I believe the Senator has old lists and named individuals who are not now in the employ of the State Department, there are Communists still in Government. It must be remembered that these same indi- viduals, who are now trying to put Mc- Carrey in a pillory, were the same ones who defended the convicted Mr. Hiss and the 141 Communists in New York. While Mc- Carruy may have done some temporary dam~ age to the State Department, it is absolutely necessary to expel these communistic skunks from Government positions. Communism is a blue-hued, cancerous growth that has for its purpose the overthrow of our Govern- ment. Last week, Mr. Budenz, who at one time was one of the top Communists in this country, testified before a Senate commut- tee, stating he was giving the FBI an addi- tional 400 names-of known Communists in the United States—some still employed by Government. It was the testimony of this same Mr. Budenz that convicted the 11 Com- munisis in New York City. Indeed, communism has grown since the end of World War Il. At that time the Rus- sians controlled about 300,000,000 people. Today it is nearly 2,000,000,000 people. J. Edgar Hoover reported that while they had examined some-2,000,000 Federal loyalty forms, they had found only 11,403 marked for further investigation and considered sub- versives. This is rather a small number among 2,000,000 employees. Mr. Hoover further reported that the Com- munists have intensified their program. There is still a great danger facing our country from activities of the subversives, who are trying to overthrow our Govern- ment. These people find ways and means of en- tering the United States legally and Megal- ly. There are more than 3,000,000 aliens jin the country today. They come in as stowaways on vessels, They come in over our unprotected borders on the North and South. Last year the Immigration Service picked up and sent back 239,400 who had en- tered the country illegally from Mexico. Mr. Hoover reported that there were 4,000 dangerous Communists in the country who ought to be deported. Approximately 100, who are faithful to their foreign ideology have been marked for deportation, but it has been impossible to get permission to ship them back behind the iron curtain. They gre permited to roam our country, spewing their venom of hate for all to see and hear. Even the 11 Communists have asked the court for permission to go on a lecture tour. I trust the court refuses the request. Just how safe can our country ke under these conditions? The foreign agents are active in our coun~ try today seeking and getting information on atomic research, radar, jet propulsion, guided missiles, and securing topographical maps of our coasial lines, airports, and mili- tary landing fields. They gather informa- tion on biological warfare and on our indus-= trial and military resources. They work day and night to secure our know-how and send it to the iron-curtain countries. One of the greatest dangers of communism is the ability of its agents to infiltrate and corrupt various spheres of American life. They attempt to exploit youth, veterans, civil rights, foreign groups, éducational and church organizations. They have the great- est propaganda machine of all time. Mr. Hoover reports they are developing an underground apparatus which will decen- tralize their operations. They have tripled their Communist Party groups. They no longer carry cards. They have gone under- ground. These same Communists, pinks, and fellow travelers are trying to destroy the FBI. We can be thankful that we have men like J. Edgar Hoover and his group to help protect this country. In considering, How safe is America? we must take into consideration that we are spending more than $13,000,000,000 at home in keeping prepared. We are spending an- other $5,000,000,000 on the Marshall plan and other foreign-aid programs. It should be remembered that 35 cents out of your tax dollar goes for defense and 18 cents for different foreign-aid programs. I believe we have the top scientists, and the industrial know-how to keep far ahead in technical and scientific developments. The production of the atomic and hydrogen pombs is a reality. The recent development of jet planes, guided missiles, virus warfare and other, yet unpublished and still re- stricted, work should give us @ comfortable feeling that those in charge of our Nation’s defense are not asleep at the switch. Nat~ urally, one is disturbed when he finds the President of the United States giving out optimistic reports on foreign affairs, and yet his advisers in the Defense Department in- forming Congress that conditions are worse now than at any time in the history of our country. They even talk of an early attack launched by Russia. Is it propaganda for more appropriations, or is the condition really serious? Certainly the President and his ad- visers are getting their information from different sources. Iam convinced that if the American pecple had knowledge of all of the new inventions and developments, not only for aggressive, but defensive warfare, they would have a comforiable feeling that the Congress and our military men are not leaving a stone unturned to protect our country. The awful destruction of the hydrogen bomb, plus virus warfare are capable of completely destroying civilization. It is my sincere hope that the leaders of the world may find it possible to sit down around a conference table and outlaw these weapons of mass destruction. Eleven years ago, before this last World War became a reality, in my acceptance ad- dress as your president, I said that war then seemed imminent and that physicians must hold themselves in readiness to answer the call to our colors. War did come and I am proud that my profession turned in such a brilliant record in this great conflict. Some dastardly act by the iron-curtain countries could precipitate another conflict at any time. The medical profession, I am sure, will not be found wanting. I must also remind you that America has grown great because, fundamentally, we are a Christian Nation—a praying people. Our country has more than 266,000 churches, ca- thedrals, and synagogues, with more than 70,000,000 members. This brings a strength to a nation that cannot be measured in terms of dollars or material wealth. A Christian nation is a powerful nation, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD We also have the know-how of production. Our scientific attainments stand out as a bright, shining beacon, pointing always to progress. I would remind you that these great de- velopments have been possible because free people, with fre> minds, have been able to work under our enterprise system. Adopt all the socialistic schemes that are presently on the trestle board of government and you will find that free eniterprise—the will of free people to do things for themselves—will be greatly restricted or destroyed. The medical profession has made more progress in the last two decades than it has made in the previous two centuries. Disease is being conquered. Research is probing the unknown—asking questions and finding an- swers. Life is being prolonged. Your pro- fession is a part of this great human drama, marching down the road of progress. If we all work together—the citizen and the Gov-~ ernment—we can build, not only here at home, but in the rest of the world, a new society which our children will enjoy and cherish because we of this generation have given our best. Decisions on Southeast Asia EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHESTER E. MERROW Or NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. MERROW. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following editorial from the New York Times of May 15, 1950, entitled “Decisions on Southeast Asia”: Decisions ow SoOurTHEAST ASIA The communiqué of the Foreign Ministers of Great Britain, France, and the United States, issued at the conclusion of their con- ference on Saturday night, is necessarily gen- eral in its terms. In respect to the critical area, of southeast Asia, whose problems were explored, there is no detailed plan of action given. Possibly that is because of the gen- erality of the declaration and possibly also because there has not yet been formulated one single unified plan to ba implemented. Concrete actions, such as the proposed United States aid for Indochina and Thailand and British reinforcement in Malaya, are still not welded together. For that reason the communiqué will be explored for every sign of agreement in policy, since it is upon the basis of such an agrec-~ ment that a workable single program can be evolved. According to the communiqué, there was a substantial area of agreement and several specific decisions were reached. They represent a major step forward in dealing with the area: 1. The three western powers agrce to en- courage and support the newly independent states in the reglon in their defense against the threat of Communist expansion. This obviously refers to Burma, Indonesia, and the Philippines and certainly in the French view would extend also to the Bao Dai gov- ernment in Indcchina and the new States of Laos and Cambodia. The promise of United States assistance seems to indicate that this country coneurs in the French view. 2. The western powers are agrecd upon the desirability of regional collaboration to develop the area and to raise standards of living. All governments in the area should work toward that end, it was stated, and
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that presumably includes those not fully independent, such as Malaya and Indochina. 8. There was an interchange of informa- tion on steps being taken in the discharge of responsibilities. Such an interchange, if continued, can be of the utmost importance and without it adequate planning is im- possible. 4. It was decided to coordinate efforts to prevent gun running into the area. An ob- viously sensible agreement. 5. It was agreed to intensify propaganda efforts directed against Communist imperial- ism and its false use of genuine nationalist feeling. There is a lot of catching up to be done on this score and some of the infor~ mational activity might well be exerted in the western powers themselves as well as in southeast Asia. These areas of agreement and these deci- sions do not in themselves constitute a suf- ficient basis for a vigorous policy of the con- tainment of aggressive communism, nor do they, as they stand, make a solid commit- ment to defend the area. They do, however, recognize the danger that exists and take some of the steps toward meeting it. They are positive, and not negative, in their char- acter. Upon them much can be built, but there is much building to do and still fur- ther foundations to be laid for it. The Biggest Family Party EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH A. GAMBLE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 9, 1950 Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I insert herewith an editorial in the New York Herald Tribune of Saturday, May 6, 1950, entitled “The ‘Biggest Family Party.” There were 3,015 in attendance at the dinner held by the New York State Republican Committee which was the second largest dinner ever held at the Waldorf, and the largest political dinner held in the State of New York. It repre- sents a resurgence of the Republican Party in New York. My colleague, Chairman PrErrrer, and Vice Chairman Jane Todd did a magnif- icent job in taking care of the enormous outpouring of Republicans. The large ballroom and the two mezzanine floors as well as three large dinner rooms were all occupied. The dinner was followed by an address by Governor Thomas E, Dewey whose speech on that occasion, in- serted in the ConcrEssIonaL Rrecorp by Senator Ives on Monday, May 8, 1950, capped the climax: The editorial is as follows: Tur Biecest FaMiny Parry A remarkable air not only of enthusiasm but of confidence infused the State Republi- cans as they sat down on Thursday to the biggest family dinner ever held by any political party in our State. Here were the accents of vigor, youth, imagination and, above all, of solid accomplishment. The Governor gave it to them hot. But it was not so much the characteristic sizzling sar- casm. which he flung at the Democrats that awoke the response, as the long catalog of concrete achievements—housing, highways, hospitals, disability benefits, educational aids, job opportunity, all provided on a bal- anced budget with tax rates still held within reasonable limits. This 1s efficient govern- ment in action—efficient government, under an intelligent guiding head, dealing, without too much worry over theory, with the con- crete problems of a community as they arise. None of the biting jibes which Mr. Dewey tossed at the opposition was as effective as the simple and patent contrast between the way things are done in Albany and the way they are done—or too often not done—at the city hall. At Albany for some years we have seen clear and concrete policies pursued with energy and clarity of purpose to definite ends; we have seen at city hall a welter of conflicting political calculation, policies pursued by fits, starts, back-track- ings and sudden inspiration, with results that have been sometimes good and sometimes lamentable. New Yorkers, who are dues- paying members of both institutions, can take their choice between the two methods of government. But the Republicans of this State have a record of effective service be- hind them which entitles them to all the confidence with which they face both the future and their fellow citizens. So much for the problems of New York. Those of the Nation always loom behind every political development in the most populous and influential State. But the Republican role in the larger stage is bound to turn, in the end, upon the success with which the party demonstrates its com. petence in those areas where it is 1n control. Governor Dewey has devoted himself to showing that within the framework of its principles the party can, where it is in power, render efficient service to all the peo~ ple and provide more of genuine welfare than is actually supplied by the doctrinaire and now rather tired disciples of the welfare state. And it is deeds which count. Opposition to ITO Piles Up EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, opposition to the charter for an In- ternational Trade Organization is in- creasing. The bill now before the For- eign Affairs Committee should be killed in committee. I include as part of my remarks an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post today: Tuosr “Yxrs, Bur Bors” . The executive committee of the United States council of the International Chamber of Commerce has added its name to the lengthening list of opponents of ratification of the ITO Charter. Consequently it is now numbered among those “yes, but boys” whom President Truman denounces as eco- nomic isolationists. ECA Administrator Hoffman is one of the group’s most promi< nent trustees, and he will, no doubt, be sur- prised to hear that he is allied with a short- sighted, selfish group that would cut down international trade, force down living stand- ards of other free peoples and ours, too, and let the Communists take over. Perhaps Mr. Truman will be surprised, too, to hear that Mr. Hoffman is a very lukewarm supporter of the charter. Although he dissented from the executive committee position, Mr. Hoff- man admitted that he was concerned about various provisions of the charter and realized that there were “very valid objections” to it. A3663 As the council committee points out, many political changes have occurred affecting countries that participated in the drafting of the charter, making it obsolete and unsat- isfactory as the basis for an international trade organization. It considers the charter dangerous, because it gives priority to cen- tralized governmental planning of foreign trade, leaves the way open for discrimina- tory trade practices, and in effect commits all ITO members to state planning for full em- ployment. Another strong argument ad- vanced against ratification 1s that under the terms of the charter, other nations may dis~ criminate against this country while it is ex- tending most favored nation treatment to all ITO members. Adherence to the provisions of the charter would also make it impos- sible for the United States to follow inde- pendent policies to encourage multilateral trading. We agree with the council’s view that the ITO charter does not meet the needs of the present or the immediate future. Further- more, the hands of the administration are full trying to create conditions at home fa- vorable to trade expansion and to encourage other countries to abandon restrictive trade policies. Until more progress has been made in eliminating import controls and obstruc- tive exchange regulations, an international trade organization would be comparatively impotent. The chances for establishment of a strong and permanent organization of this kind will be much better if we delay action until the world’s trading nations are eco- nomically stronger and politically more se- cure. As an alternative to ratification of the charter, the council members suggest that the United States take the initiative in es- tablishing a commission on commercial pol- icy under the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations that would be a meet- ing place for debating important issues “without incurring the Mability of the exist- ing charter.” It is a proposal well worth consideration. No Room for Compromise EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH R. BRYSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RecorD, I include the following editorial from the New York Times of May 11, 1950: No Room ror COMPROMISE Ever since the First World War the Nation’s railroads have been fighting with their backs to the wall against the rising tide of com- petition from newer types of transportation— the passenger car, the motortruck, the air- plane, and the pipelines. This has placed a high premium on the achievement of in- creased operating efficiency. In recent years the carriers have found that one of the most effective instruments for this purpose was the introduction of Diesel-electric locomotives, Indeed, in the case of a good many roads, the shift to Diesels has just about meant the difference between earning a slight profit and operating in the red. Since the movement toward Dieselization became general, however, two railroad broth- erhoods—the firemen and the engineers— whose jurisdictional rivalry is only slightly less intense than that of a blood feud, have vied with each other to hijack the railroads, as it were, and appropriate for themselves
A3664 the economic benefits represented by this costly investment program. When Diesel power was first introduced on the Burlington system in 1924 the locomotives were success- fully and safely operated with one man in the cab, an engineer. Shortiy thereafter, however, the Burlington was compelled under threat of a strike to add a fireman to lts crew. And now for nearly a decade the two unions have been trying to push still further this “packing” of the engine crews, the one de- manding a second engineer, the other insist- ing on an additional fireman. In 1943 a Presidential fact-finding board found that there was no justification what- soever for adding elther more engineers or more firemen. In other words, the demands were rejected as being purely featherbeddirg, or make-work proposals. Although nothing had changed in the meanwhile to alter the situation, the firemen renewed their demand in 1947. After negotiation and mediation had fatled President Truman named another fact- finding board. Like its predecessor, this poard, in a ruling handed down last Septem- per, declared that the union suggestion was devoid of merit. Although a Presidential fact-finding board is the court of last resort under the Railway Labor Act, the firemen’s union appealed over the board’s head to the White House, accompanying the appeal with threats of a strike in defiance of the labor act and the judicial opinion of the President’s own appointive board. Yesterday the fire- men put those threats into action. Their chieftain, David B, Robertson, pulled 18,000 members of the brotherhood off four of the Nation’s key railroad systems in a strike Which can only be described as a calculated out- rage against the railroads, the Government and the American public. Although the number of railway firemen affected in this walkout is comparatively small, it is regarded as only a question of time before the strike produces a national emergency, crippling production in all parts of the Nation. This is a walkout which was coldly embarked upon, not in an effort to remedy some injustice, real or otherwise, but to impose by economic terrorism a demand which had been twice adjudicated by the highest railway labor tribunal in the Nation and twice found to be completely without justification. It is a strike to test whether the interest of the community is, or is not, paramount to that of any labor group which happens to find itself in a position to exploit the public to further iis ends, however de- monstrably unworthy and objectionable these may be. And it should not be neces- sary to say that in such a test there can be no room for compromise. An Urgent Amendment EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN J. ROONEY OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, under the permission heretofore granted me by unanimous consent of the House I in- clude with these remarks a splendid editorial which appeared in the Il Pro- gresso Italo-Americano on May 10, 1950. This editorial commends the distin- guished and able gentleman from Penn- sylvania [Mr. WaLTER], chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Committee on Judiciary. I join in ex- pressing commendation of the splendid work of our colleague from Pennsylvania as chairman of this important subcom~ mitiee. It is highly important that our present Immigration Act should immediately be amended so as to provide that the par- ents of children now residing in the United States be accorded the same pref- erential status for entry to this country that children living overseas now have. Such parents should be entitled to enter the United States as non-duota immi- grants. I venture to say that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, the dean of our delega- tion mm the House, my friend and col- league, the gentleman from New York (Mr. CeLLer], would favorably act upon such a suggested amendment to the im- migration laws. I wish also to commend the president and editor of the Il Progresso Italo- Americano, Mr. Generoso Pope, Jr., for his splendid editorial which reads as follows: AN Urcenr AMENDMENT For some time we have been urging that our Government take the necessary legis- lative steps to permit the entry into our country of a number of immigrants equiva- lent to the quotas unused during the war. We always felt and continue to feel today that in advocating this measure we are asking for nothing more than simple Justice and a warm human approach in the execu- tion of our law as it is on the statute books today. In short, we have not been pleading for a fundamental revision but for a funda- mental humanization of our execution of the existing law. Here we hasten to add that the response in Congress to our proposals has been rather receptive. We did not look forward to unani- mous acceptance. Of course, we did not expect to arouse the narrow-minded or bigoted. We realize that there are still some Members of Congress whose social- economic vision is yet to grow out of and beyond the pale of their own district. We understand that it takes time to grow out of the narrow limitations of local community politics, narrow neighborhood interests and approach. But, fortunately for Congress and the American people, there is still hope for an equitable and practicable decision to be made on the not distant future in regard to our appeal. In its handling of the entire question of immigration, the House of Representatives is to be commended and congratulated on having as the chair- man of its special subcommittee the capable, earnest, and far-sighted legislator from Penn- sylvania, Congressman FRANCIS E. WALTER. IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION “Though we are hopeful for the future and will continue to work untiringly for the admission into our country of a number of immigrants equivalent to the number in the immigration quota unused during war- time, yet we realize that there are certain lesser phases of the entire present immigra-~ tion law which need speedy attention and basic revision. We approach all such phases in the same spirit as we approach the major issue of using up the unused immigration quotas. We cannot repeat too often that it is our firm belief that America’s best interests and ideals would be most served vis-a-vis Europe if we were to use up the unused quotas. In the same sense and spirit do we now propose for immediate enactment the fol- lowing provision as an amendment to our present Immigration Act: The parents of children now residing in the United States should be accorded the same preferential status for entry to our shores that children living overseas now have. These parents are APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to come io the United States as nonquota immigrants. Of ccurse, as with chiidron coming from overseas, those bringing their parents will have to assume full responsi- bility for their support so that they will not become a public charge. Arithmetically speaking, the number of parents who would thus be enabled to come to the United States on the basis of the above amendment to our present Immigration Act may not be large. But the entire question is far more than a problem of numbers. It is much more than a question of arithmetic which confronts us here. It is a human issue that we face. We must meet it in a humanitarian manner. No matter how com. paratively few may be the number thus ad- mitted, or how little the misery thus elimi- nated, our country’s demonstration of gen- erosity of spirit and humanitarianism in ac- tion can only aid greatly the enhancement of America’s moral prestige abroad. WILL HELP AMERICA Moreover, such an amendment to the pres~ ent Immigration Act will also have a whole- some effect on the morale of our citizenry directly involved in and affected by the bringing in of their parents now abroad. There can never be too many humane ways in which the Government can and should lift the morale of our own people. A little consideration by our Government for even a limited number of its citizenry will go a long way toward raising the contentment of all the people in our land. We sincerely urge every Member of Con- gress to heed our appeal. We urgently plead with Congressman Watrer to lose no time in introducing a bill which will amend the Im- migration Act to provide for parents the same preferential status as nonquota immigrants that children now have. This amendment is to operate in all other respects in the same manner as the present provision covering children does, We cannot emphasize too strongly that prompt favorable action on our proposal will serve as a timely, positive factor for improv- ing the attitude and deepening the friend- ship of many peoples In Europe for our coun- try and our Government. In this critical hour when our Nation is battling against the poisonous propaganda of barbarous and des- potic communism, the enactment of such legislation will not only increase the number of our friends and augment the already ex- isting friendship for America but will at the same time also strike a hard and telling blow at the Communist slanderers of the Ameri- can people, Supreme Court of Great State of California Has One Hundredth Birth- day EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLYDE DOYLE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 20, 1950 Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, the Su- preme Court of my native State of California had its one-hundredth birth- day this March 1950. So many Members of this great Con- gress are members of the bar of their respective States, I know they will be interested in this fact. .It is undoubtedly a fact that members of the bar who actively practice before our highest courts learn to cherish and
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD respect the great learning—and also the common sense—of our highest jurists. Being myself a member of the Cali- fornia State Bar, I am pleased to call to your attention a most interesting article about the California Supreme Court and its first three chief justices, which was printed in the California Centennials, the official news letter of the California Centennial Commission. History records California as the thirty-fifth State and that President Fillmore did, on Septem- ber 9, 1850, sign the measure admitting this sturdy infant to the Union. How- ever, not until a month later, when the steamship Oregon docked in San Fran- cisco, did the Californians know that they had been in the United States of America for a month previous. How long will it take the residents of Alaska and Hawaii to know the news if they are admitted to Statehood? The article is as follows: CaLIFORNIA’s SUPREME Court Is 100 YEARS OLD MarcH 1950 A lawyer, citing authorities, would refer to lt as Smith et al. v. People (1 Cal. 1). However, no new or hitherto undefined principle of law was established in this case, 80 it is referred to infrequently, if at all. Ac- tually, only the historian is even mildly in- terested in this, the first decision of the first Supreme Court of California. For the law set forth concerned a right that goes back to Magna Carta—the right of habeas corpus. Even. so, that right was applied somewhat in reverse. Appellants Smith, et al., were not exactly injured parties. They had en-~ gaged in a bit of Indian slaying and tepee burning in the Nappa Valley. But, circum~ stances being as they were, the sheriff of the district of Sonoma was directed by the Su- preme Court of California to admit the de- fendants to bail, due to the fact that there is no jail or prison in which the prisoners can be kept with security, The Supreme Court of California, together with nine district courts of first instance, was provided for in the constitutional convention at Monterey in the autumn of 1849. The three justices of the first supreme court were named by the first legislature, meeting in San Jose December 15, 1849. By March of 1850 the supreme court was holding its first session in San Francisco— and Smith et al. v. People was the first case heard and ruled upon. S. Clinton Hastings was the first chief jus- tice; Henry A. Lyons and Nathaniel Bennett, the first associate justices. In his preface to volume 1 of the California Reports, Mr. Justice Bennett points out the handicaps under which the first justices of the supreme court labored in their efforts to establish a sound basis for legal prece- dent in California. Say Justice Bennett: “All the other State of our confederacy had, previously to their admission into the Union, an established government, on which their State organizations were based. The people of California, however, were driven by extreme necessity, growing out of the political and legal chaos in which they found themselves, to the formation of a State gov- ernment. A large amount of labor, conse- quent upon the unorganized state of society, ‘Was necessarily imposed upon: the tribunal of last resort—the labor of searching for au- thorities in an unfamiliar language, and an unfamiliar system of jurisprudence; of ascer= taining the law as laid down in the codes of Spain, in the royal and vice royal ordi-+ nances and decrees, in the laws of the im- perial congress of Mexico, in the acts of the republican Congress, in Presidential regula- tions, in decress of dictators, and acts of pro- consular governors, “Many ordinances and decrees, claimed to have the force of law, had not been printed even in Mexico; and they, as well as all other books upon Spanish and Mexican laws, could be procured only with great difficulty and at great expense, and, indeed, at first they could not be procured at all. In addition to these causes of embarrassment, great doubts were entertained as to the force, as a rule of decision, which the laws of Spain and of Mexico, never but partially enforced in the remote province of California, should have, after the acquisition of the country by the Americans, in the construction of contracts made between American citizens who had set- tled in California in such numbers as greatly to exceed the native population.” Mr. Justice Bennett’s labors did not cease with this task of running down the author- ities. During his term on the supreme bench he was high man in production of opinions, turning out almost twice as many as the other two justices combined. Serranus Clinton Hestinz: was born in Jef- ferson County, N. Y, Never ner 21, 1814. He was admitted to the bar in Terre Haute, Ind., in 1836, removing immediately to Muscatine, Iowa, then a part of the Territory of Wis- consin. He was one of the two first Members of Congress from Iowa and served a year as chief justice of that State. He came overland to California, arriving in August 1849. He served as chairman of a mass meeting in Sacramento to consider a State constitution in 1849, was elected almost unanimously by the first legislature to serve as chief justice. At the close of that term he was elected attorney general of California. In 1878 Hastings gave $100,000 to establish Hastings College of Law as part of the Uni- versity of California, and became first dean of the college. He died a millionaire in San Francisco, September 18, 1893. Henry Augustus Lyons was born in Phila- delphia in 1810. He came to California by way of the Isthmus of Panama in 1849, set- tling in or near Sonora, An unsuccessful candidate for State Senator from the San Joaquin district, he was elected by the legis- lature to the post of justice of the supreme ‘court. He wrote only a few opinions during his term of office. It was said that he spent most of his time furthering private business interests. Nathaniel Bennett was regarded by the legal profession as the strong man of the court. Born in Clinton, N. Y., June 27, 1815, he was first admitted to the bar in Ohio and jJater in New York. He came to California around the Horn, arriving in San Francisco in June of 1849. He mined in Tuolumne for some months, with fair success, then was persuaded by a friend to join him in the practice of law in San Francisco. Elected to the first legislature, he served on the judiciary committee, resigning when elected to the supreme court, He worked closely with the legislature the winter of 1849-50 for the adoption of the common law as the basis of California jurisprudence, Justice Bennett died in San Francisco on April 20, 1886. Truman and the Hoover Proposals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HAROLD H. VELDE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 ‘-Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks Jn the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the A3665 Peoria Journal of Saturday, May 13, 1950: TRUMAN AND THE Hoover PROPOSALS President Truman has made a great show of endeavoring to reorganize the executive departments of the Government to promote greater efficiency and economy along the lines suggested by the Hoover Commission. The truth of the matter is, however, that @ considerable number of the reorganization proposals made by Mr. Truman ignore, rather than follow, the recommendations presented by the Hoover Commission. A case in poin* is “he r7. 1 submitted to Congress by the "s+ ett ~ week for re- organization of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and assignment of some of its duties to the Commerce Department. The Hoover Commission had made a rec- ommendation for a change in status of the RFC but proposed its taking over by the Treasury instead of by Commerce. Presi- dent Truman, for reasons not yet made clear, prefers that Commerce assume the lending duties of the Corporation which has served its purpose and is now apparently to be dis~ banded. A similar case was the President’s unsuc~ cessful effort to abolish the office of general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and to divide its present powers be~- tween the Board as a whole and its Chair- man. He included that recommendation among 20 others, many of which followed Hoover Commission proposals, which he submitted to Congress on March 18. The NLRB mat- ter was inserted almost in the middle of the 21 recommendations as No, 12 and the gen- eral impression was given out that it was in line with the Hoover Commission’s findings. Such was not the case. The Citizens Com- mittee for the Hoover Report refused to take any stand on plan 12 on the ground that it raised a question of national policy as well as one of organization. Mr. Hoover reported that the specific problem of the NLRB gen- eral counsel was not even discussed by his Commission. Plan 12, of course, was an attack on the Taft-Harley Act. Balked in his efforts to bring about repeal of that piece of legisla- tion, Mr. Truman sought to emasculate it by abolishing the office of general counsel which has been the sole agency to insist upon application of many of the principles of the Taft-Hartley law. The President tried to achieve his goal by including the NLRB proposal in a bunch of executive office reor- ganization plans that had been suggested by the Hoover Commission, The Commission headed by former Presi- dent Hoover embodied some of the best brains in the Nation, including some of the men upon whom Mr. Truman himself relies for advice and counsel. If their advice is not to be followed there was little reason for the Commission to be created. Hon. Fred L. Crawford, of Michigan, Praised by Michigan Papers for Halt- ing Spendthrift Arizona Project EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CLAIR ENGLE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES . Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. ENGLE of California. Mr. Speaker, the recent action of the gen- tleman from Michigan [Mr. Crawrorn) in the Public Lands Committee, which
A3666 put the brakes on the Nation’s most ex- pensive and infeasible project in central Arizona, was greeted with loud and de- served praise in the Booth newspapers of Michigan. The article appearing on April 28, 1950, in the Grand Rapids Press is as follows: CRAWFORD’Ss COMMITTEE AcTIOoN PUTS Hatt ro WATER ProszuctT (By William F. Pyper) WasHINGron.—An example of what senior- ity and parliamentary know-how can do in the House of Representatives Friday had far westerners groggy. Representative Crawrorp, of Michigan, No. 1 Republican on the House Public Lands Committee, showed Californians and Ari- zonians how it is done. The result is the central Arizona project, calling for billions in taxpayers’ money and for diversion of Colorado River water which had been ear- marked for California, has been shelved, at least temporarily. Californians on the committee who had been hoping for such an action with some misgivings jubilantly credited Crawrorp with having killed the bill for this session. The next show-down, however, comes June 15. Passed by the Senate, the central Arizona bill has been before the Public Lands Com- mittee for more than a year. Its chief spon- sor is Representative Murpock, Democrat, of Arizona, No. 2 Democrat on the committee. The issue is of vast importance to the Southwest. Southern California years ago entered into an agreement by which the sup- ply from the Colorado River was earmarked. Arizona refused to participate, but within the last few years has developed its project to divert some of the water. It would mean growing communities in California would be without sufficient water and that vast devel- oped irrigation areas would dry up. CRAWFORD had been expected to oppose the Arizona proposal, but his postponement res- olution came as a surprise. It passed, 13 to 10. What he proposed was that a list of statis- tical questions be submitted to the Director of the Budget. Pending reply, action is de- ferred to June 15. The questions are tech- nical, and there remains some doubt the Budget Bureau can come up with the answers in 45 days. But every question is one which taxpayers in Michigan should like to have answered before contributing to the project, The surprise move evidently hit the com- mittee between the eyes. California sup- porters grasped it as the delaying action they needed. Arizona backers could hardly fight a move to get the facts. “The truth of the matter is that we lack the facts,” Representative CrawFrorD ex- plained later. “Here is a highly controver- sial subject and the proponents haven't made their case. Representative Murdock couldn’t have had his bill reported under the clrcum- stances, and if it had reached the floor, it couldn’t have passed. “While the California people are hailing this action as a victory, I think I convinced Murpock and his supporters my resolution gives their bill its only chance.” An Indefensible Strike EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH R. BRYSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- ORD, I include the following editorial from the New York Herald Tribune of May 11, 1950: AN INDEFENSIBLE STRIKE The strike on five great railway lines comes at the end of a 2-week special truce and after exhaustion of all the processes of delay and mediation provided by the Railway Labor Act. It 1s not surprising, considering the position of the railway union, that ne- gotiations have thus far been futile. For the union is concerned, not with hours, not with wages or working conditions, but with a simple measure of featherbedding. Twice impartial fact-finding boards have denied the need for a second fireman on Diesel loco- motives; but the union continues unre- mittingly to demand this unnecessary and wasteful addition to the crew. What neither safety nor convenience requires, and what sound oneratine procedure emphatically re- jects, tle un:ci. insists upon, even at the cost of disrupting a large part of the economy of the Nation. The conversion to Diesel locomotives has been one of the most hopeful signs in Amer- ican railroading. The pressing need of im- proving service and lowerimg fares and freight rates, to meet competition from other forms of transportation, has found the prom-~- ise of a real answer in the development of the Diesel engine. Private capital has sup- plied the necessary investment; the Govern- ment has encouraged the conversion. It would be an economic tragedy if the gains thus envisaged were to be cast away by union short-sightedness. Technological unemploy- ment is resisted by labor with an ardor for which the public may frequently have sym-~ pathy; but where this resistance takes the form of featherbedding as crude as in the present instance, and where the gains of technological progress are so direct for indus-~ try—and in the comparatively short run for labor also—mere obstruction can seem a fatal policy. It is especially so in an area of labor where responsible unionism has long been the tradition, and where a widespread stop- page places such burdens on the public. The present strike is indefensible. If the union has got itself into a position where negotiation is no longer fruitful, and where only retreat is possible, then for its own sake it will have to retreat. Editor Has Indigestion—Hope It Is Contagious, by November Becomes Epidemic EXTENSION OF REMARKS fe) HON. CLARE E. HOFFMAN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, May 5, 1950 Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, long, long ago, some here in Washington—it was my privilege to be one of the number—could not stomach New Deal political maneuvering which in those days, according to Democratic committees, used money appropriated for the relief of the unfortunate, to pur- chase political support. Unfortunately, when we protested vigorously and continuously, all we got was a handful of mud from New Deal and pink publications and commenta- ors. But the tide has turned and some courageous editors are not only seeing APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD clearly but writing frankly. An example is an editorial from the Detroit Free Press of May 9, which reads as follows: Omuirrep From THE “NonporiricaL” Tour— Mr TRUMAN STEERS CLEAR OF THE MISSOURI “Hear” The leader of the Democratic Party is now making a nonpolitical tour of 16 States in an effort to elect a Fair Deal Congress in Novem- ber. Accompanying him are 60 or more persons. The cost of this 9-day political junket should be borne by the Democratic National Com- mittee. But Truman, with studied dishonesty and deliberate untruth, has sworn that his trip is nonpolitical. Therefore, by this cheap trick he makes the taxpayers finance his circus. Starting with a bald falsehood, can what he says be considered truthful? It is writ- ten in the ancient common law, “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,” which still stands in the law books of the United States: False in one thing, false in all. Among the 32 States which Mr. Truman will not visit is Missouri. The reason why he will not visit it has been in the news for weeks. The ghosts of Charles Binaggio and Charles Gargotta might rise from their graves in Kansas City and ask why the President of the United States and the leader of the Dem- ocratic Party has not permitted the FBI to clear up the stinking mess that led to their political murder. Gargotta and Binaggio, two criminal-po- litical racketeers, were shot to death in the First District Democratic Club in Kansas City on April 5, 1950. They had tangled with the Pendergast mob of which Mr. Truman is proud to be a dues- paying member. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch points out nelther President Truman nor his Attorney General has ordered a Federal investigation of the Binaggio-Gargotta murders. The Justice Department said, at first, that @ Federal grand jury had no jursidiction. Yet a Federal grand jury had subpenaed both men and intended to indict them. The Post-Dispatch, a democratic news- paper, continues its editorial indictment: “Now the Department refuses to order an FBI inquiry, for lack of concrete evidence that the Killings were connected with the testimony of the murdered men. Does the Department expect the killers to step forth uninvited, or does it intend to excuse itself for lack of evidence which it will not even permit the FBI to look for? “Federal justice was obstructed. Federal witnesses were shot down. Will the Truman administration let the underworld get away with bloody defiance ot the Government?” The Truman administration, with its alll- ance with notorious criminals, has made pos- sible the escape of the gangsters who blasted the county vaults to steal and destroy the evidence of vote frauds perpetrated to de- feat Congressman Slaughter, whose purge had been personally ordered by Mr. Truman. That theft of evidence occurred on the night of May 27-28, 1947. The statute of limitations will make prosecution on the charges involved impossible after the night of May 27-28, 1950. The Truman administration has had 3 years lacking a few days to clear up this case and bring the criminals to justice. Just 18 more days for the gangsters to go free on a technicality. Yet it has done nothing and will do noth- ing while there is still time. Whether that administration will do any- thing to discover and punish the Binaggio- Gargotta Killers is in the light of this record @ purely rhetorical question. The answer is: It won’t, It doesn’t dare.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Any doubt on this score is resolved by the way the administration has rigged the Senate investigation of crime syndicates and their relitier! cortacts. A real .*.c..:,4.0n of this underworld network by the Senate Judiciary Committee was proposed by Senator Estes KEFrauver, an earnest young Tennessee Democrat who takes his responsibilities seriously. The administration was thrown into con- sternation by this nonpolitical suggestion, Senators Frercuson, of Michigan, and Don- NELL, of Missouri, two Republicans skilled in just such prying into the underworld of crime and politics, are members of the Judi- ciary Committee. They might ask questions. They might insist upon scraping the bottom of the cesspool for evidence. Administration leaders avoided any such unpleasant possibilities by proposing a spe- cial, five-man committee to be named by Vice President BarK.ey for. the sole purpose of keeping Fercuson and Donne, out of the inquiry. This ruse won only by the vote BaRKLEY cast to break a tie. Senator KErauver will be chairman. The two Republicans will be the innocuous WiLEY from Wisconsin and Tosry from New Hamp- shire. The Democrats are O’Conor from Maryland and Hunt from Wyoming who are expected to do as they are told. The real investigation of the rising reign of criminal terror in the United States has been succesfully blocked. What else can be expected, when the head of that administration has prevented the 1946 vote frauds in Kansas City from being cleared up in 3 years? When he declares, with a poker face, that his current vote-seeking jaunt is nonpolitical in order to defraud the taxpayers of its cost? At Lincoln, Nebr., yesterday, Mr. Truman opened his very first nonpolitical speech with the cliché that “if we are to win through to peace, we must maintain a healthy and strong economy.” A healthy and strong economy cannot be maintained on a foundation of moral rot- tenness. Yes, there’s an excellent and obvious rea- son why Harry S. Truman is not revisiting Missouri at this time. Three paragraphs from Iffy, the Dope- ster, in the same paper, comment in this way: A Republican has been elected to Congress from Texas so I guess it is all right to believe in them flying saucers and other strange things that are being reported. When Harold Stassen said that Harry Tru- man was the worst President we ever had he must have meant the only one in our his- tory who has deliberately protected well- known criminals. That makes him unique. Kansas City is getting ready to celebrate its centennial. Will all visitors be asked to check their sawed-off shotguns? Personally, I have some ideas about the way Mr. Truman’s outfit has pro- tected some racketeering labor leaders and gangsters, for I recall very distinctly the hearings I held in connection with the release of the notorious Capone parolees, who, through extortion, took something around a million dollars from the rank and file of a union. Some of those gangster parolees are still at liberty, through the grace of Mr. Truman’s administration. Perhaps the gentleman who wrote the foregoing editorials will some day get around to support those who desire legislation—and its enforcement—which will protect not only the public but the rank and file of labor unions. While there is life, there is always hope, California: A State Full of Younger Folks, Too—Oldsters Percentage Decreasing EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. CLYDE DOYLE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, here is a factual statement from the Long Beach Press-Telegram newspaper of recent date which will bring you and my col- leagues in this House of Representatives the down-to-date fact, which is, that my native State of California is being occupied by a healthy, vigorous, youth~ ful population—from other States, too. But, then figures speak for themselves. CALIFORNIANS YOUNGER Although commonly believed, the notion that California is a State filled with old peo- ple is highly inaccurate, according to figures just released by the Social Security Board. And it is more inaccurate now than it was in 1940. Most of the States showed @ gain in the proportion of their population over age 65 during that 8-year period. California reg- istered a decrease, so it now ranks twenty- second among all the States in that compari- son. In 1940 it was eleventh. The explanation is not that California is failing to attract oldsters. It is that the vast numbers of newcomers during the war and postwar years were workers. They made pos- sible the industrialization of the metropoli- tan centers. Their decision to stay here after the war made California one of only five States to show a proportionate decrease in the elderly group. Disregarding the percentages, however, California is still well favored by those who have reached the age of retirement. In 1940 it had 558,755 persons in that category. At the end of 1948 the number was 790,239. The California total, again irrespective of per- centages, is topped only by New York, with 1,178,534, and Pennsylvania’s 813,718. In 1900 only 4.1 percent of the Nation’s population was 65 or older. In 1940 the pro- portion had risen to 6.8 percent, and in 1948 to 7.5 percent. This remarkable gain in the mumber and percentage of elderly people in the last half century may be attributed to advances in medical science and, generally, to higher standards of living. It has also introduced new problems of economics. The latest survey by the Social Security Board showed that 39 percent of this age group depended on public and private as- sistance, 34 percent worked or had a business, 18 percent depended on pensions, and 9 per= cent got along on income from investments. Theories of the Amerasia Case EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HAROLD H. VELDE oF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following editorial from the Peoria Star, Wednesday, May 10, 1950: A3667 THEORIES OF THE AMERASIA CASE Events in Washington, day by day, indi- cate that the secrecy of the Amerasia case is going to be broken. We are not relying en- tirely upon Senator Typrne’s promise that his subcommittee would investigate the mystery. The interest in this 5-year-old State Department secret has grown to such an extent that the public will not be denied some kind of satisfactory explanation. The gossip about the Amerasia mystery has reached the point where people are speculating on why the State Department hushed the scandal back in 1945. Joseph C. Harsch, chief of the Christian Science Monitor’s Washington news bureau, published three interesting theories recently. The scandal may have been soft-pedaled, he says, to keep the Russians from learning at the time that their spy ring had been broken and its members were known to our intelligence agents. Another theory is that it may have been considered impolitic in 1945 to have a Rus- sian spy story breaking in Washington when official relations with the Soviet Union were friendly. “Also,” adds Mr. Harsch, “it might have been something more sinister.” His readers are permitted to guess what he means by “something more sinister.” Were the employees of the United States Government who were arrested in the Amerasia case protected by Communists in high positions in the Government? Or did the Administration fear the political con- sequences of their exposure? Hither ex- planation could come under the classifica- tion of “something more sinister.” The first theory would not explain the Adminstration’s present reluctance to ex- plain the mystery. The Communists have had several American spy nets broken. Why not one more? Neither does the second theory explain why a congressional investigation is now necessary to dig out the facts. Revelation of all the facts in the Amerasia case would not make the Soviet Union more hostile than it now is. It seems, by the process of elimination that the “something more sinister” theory is the most plausible of the three advanced by Mr. Harsch. We have long believed that the key to much of the mystery of Communist opera- tions within the Government in Washing- ton is the Amerasia case. And we think it should be fully explained, no matter what the consequences may be. Security First, Economy Second—Secre- tary of Defense Louis A. Johnson Makes Supplementary Report on Defense Spending: “We Must Be Strong Enough to Deter Attack, Capable Enough to Defend Ourselves Against Attack, and Powerful Enough Ulti- mately to Defeat (Any) Aggressor” EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. DWIGHT L. ROGERS OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr, Speak- er, there is no greater need in the United States today than economy in the opera- tions of the Federal Government; and
A8668 nowhere in the Government is true econ- omy more necessary than in the Military Establishment. Money spent on defense brings us no return except in security, and tax dollars appropriated for defense must be so spent in a way that can be justified to the American taxpayer. The maximum defense must be bought with every dollar spent. Defense is a business which must be operated with soun] business methods. A few weeks ago the Secretary of De- fense published a report on 6 months of operations in 1949—specifically, the first half of fiscal year 1950 now drawing to a close. Only this week he has made a supplementary report in the form of an address before the 1950 convention of Kiwanis International at Miami, Fla. In view of the appropriations now under consideration by Congress, and matters of the gravest import with which we are faced on the international scene, Secre- tary Johnson’s report is timely, informa~ tive, and encouraging. In the first year of Mr. Johnson’s tenure of office as Secretary of Defense he made notable strides in making unifi- cation, which was the intent of the Na- tional Security Act of 1947, a living thing. Often, in achieving unification, his more apparent success was in elimi-~ nating duplication. But all along, by taking corrective actions to eliminate rivalries, waste, and inefficiency, as well, in each of the three services he was achieving real unification of effort, effec- tiveness of operations, and true econ- omy of result. He states of the three Services: Now I can say without any reservation that with their loyal support tremendous progress has been made. Unification has become a fact. The combat efficiency of all of our forces has been increased. Hundreds of millions of dollars already have been saved. We are a team and we are working together to achieve our common objective of peace through strength. Secretary Johnson, however, is not a man to rest on past achievements; nor can any of us, in these critical times, feel that any job has been completed until peace has been made more secure. Secretary Johnson continues: Iam taking this occasion * “ *® to in« form the American people and to serve public notice on the services themselves, that the achievements of the past are but a stimulus for more intense action, and that we will not be satisfied until we can stand up before the American people, the stockhold-~ ers of our national defense enterprise, and say to them without any equivocation: “You are now getting the fullest possible defense out of every defense dollar you have entrusted to us.” Henceforth, therefore, we can expect even greater economy from Mr. John- son’s administration of the *Department of Defense, because even greater econ- omy is his announced goal. The empha- sis will not be on the elimination of in- efficiency so much as on more productive use of the defense dollar. By improved management techniques, money saved from administration will be applied to operations. In his address to the Ki- wanis convention, Secretary Johnson cited among other examples the effect of one economy alone. By combining the service print shops of the three armed services, and placing that one print shop on a business basis, $118,000 has already been saved, and that $118,- 000 will buy the gasoline and oil for more than 1,300 flying hours of flying by a B-29 superfortress, the type of plane that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. Perhaps the achievements of the Mili- tary Air Transport Service, especially in conducting the Berlin airlift, are best known of all the examples of unification in the Department of Defense. But even in this organization new economies can be effected, and nonessential facilities, routes, and flights are already being eliminated. Economy and experience will add greatly to the effectiveness of this aspect of combined military defense operations. Savings in fuel, parts, sup- plies, and personnel for this year are re- ported to be in excess of $6,000,000; but more important is the fact that the re- organization of MATS will increase cur- rent readiness for D-day, if D-day should come, Secretary Johnson reports that from savings made out of fat and not out of muscle, we have been able to allocate to the Department of the Army an addi- tional $24,000,000 for research and de- velopment of special weapons, without adding a dollar to the budget; Marine air combat squadrons have heen raised from 12 to 16; combat strength of the Army has been increased by 4,400; and an aircraft carrier and other vessels have been added to the Navy. President Truman’s dramatic an- nouncement, on September 23, 1949, that an atomic explosion had taken place in Russia, has increased our awareness of the need for effective defense, and has necessitated an increase in the defense budget. Secretary Johnson, acting on the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has within the last 15 days asked for $350,000,000 in contract authority and in cash, above the budget submitted in January for fiscal year 1951, It is heart- ening to know that this money, as well as all funds appropriated by Congress to the Department of Defense, are being handled by a Secretary so conscious of the necessity of economy and of his ob- ligation, as steward, to the American taxpayers. With such a report as Secretary John- son has just made before the Kiwanis International Convention, we should have no hesitation in appropriating the requested funds. We know that the De- partment of Defense is battling con- tinuously against waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary overhead; and we know that it is striving constantly for increased combat efficiency. Budget making, as Secretary Johnson reminds us, is a continuous process. Needs and plans are predicated on world conditions and anticipated emergencies which are either anticipated or actually arise. Current events appraise us of the need for additions to the budget in the light of changing conditions; the Ameri- * can people will approve of the additions as they understand the conditions and have confidence that the administration handling the funds will eliminate waste- full practices without eliminating one jot or iota from our total defense, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Mr. Speaker, under unanimous con- sent to extend my remarks, I insert the text of Secretary Johnson’s supplemen- tary report on economies in the Depart- ment of Defense in the ConGRESSIONAL RECORD. The address by Secretary Johnson is as follows: Tum BUSINESS OF DEFENSE I want to speak to you today in the spirit of Kiwanis. It is my understanding that your interpretation of the combination of Indian words that are pronounced in Eng~ lish, kiwanis, mean, in the literal transia~ tion that you have placed upon them, ‘to make oneself known by his deeds.” That js, indeed, a worthy aim. The corollary must follow that Kiwanis not only wants to be known by its deeds, but hopes to be judged by its works. That is fair enough. That is a solid test of promise and perform~- ance for any organization that looks to the American public for confidence and support. That is the test that I trust every Ameri- can citizen will apply to the administration of the Department of Defense, which I have the honor, privilege, and responsibility to head at this crucial time. When I took over my duties a little more than a year ago I promised the American people a business administration in the De- partment of Defense. I pointed out that national defense was the business of free- dom; that it was the most important busi- ness enterprise in American life today; that it was a business that touches the life and pocketbook of every citizen and had to be run on a sound business. basis. I called attention to the rivalries, duplications, waste, and inefficiency then existing among the services, and expressed my faith in the readi- ness of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to forget their differences and to-make unifica- tion work. I knew that every one of them was as anxious as I was to get more defense out of every dollar entrusted to them by the American people, and I counted upon their cooperation, Now I can say without any reservation that with their loyal support tremendous progress has been made. Unification has become a fact. The combat efficiency of all of our forces has been increased. Hundreds of millions of dollars already have been saved. We are a team and we are working together to achieve our common objective of peace through strength. Less than 3 weeks ago in the semiannual report for the perlod ending December 31, 1949, I gave the American people a detailed account of our accomplishments and the extent of our readiness. The newspapers gave extensive coverage to the report, which I trust most of you have read. I shall there- fore not repeat any part of the report at this time nor call attention to the specific econo- mies we already have effected. I am taking this occasion, however, to inform the Ameri- can people and to serve public notice on the services themselves, that the achievements of the past are but a stimulus for more in- tense action, and that we will not be satis- fied until we can staxid up before the Ameri- can people—the stockholders of our national defense enterprise—-and say to them, without any equivocation: “You are now getting the fullest possible defense out of every defense dollar you have entrusted to us.” The job of achieving even greater economy than we already have attained will not be easy. It will require special efforts and special techniques, and we shall fit our proc~ esses to what the situations may demand. Hitherto, the crash technique may have suf- ficed. The areas of possible savings were visible on the surface. We had been con- fronted with duplications in ports, and land- ing fields, overlapping hospital facilities, ob- solete military posts, and camps and stations selected originally for outpost service against Indians and air bases and navy yards beyond.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD present needs. Here were inefficiencies that any intelligent citizen could have recognized. Now we must go after less obvious, but still equally important, blocks to the attainment of our economy goal. We must find more productive use for every dollar not contribut- ing directly to the security of our country and put it into channels of defense where it will contribute to the better advantage of national security. For the shock strategy of the past year, we are now substituting the scalpel tactics of today. It will take a surgeon’s delicate probing and a surgeon’s skillful knife to find and remove any tissues malignant or otherwise that still retard the development of a healthy national defense program. The management committee of my office, who were my shock troops in the economy campaign of the past 6 months, are now at work, literally on 100 different projects, in the effort to bring about better use of de- fense dollars through the elimination of nonessential expenditures and through the application of improved management tech- niques. Their primary objective is to make available funds with which to increase com- pat effectiveness. What the results will be in total dollars, I cannot yet foretell. What I do want to emphasize is that the fight for economy and efficiency still goes on, and I hasten to add that the services themselves have joined in the spirit, and are coming up with plans of their own to effect these pur- poses. . A notable example is the Military Air Transport Service, or MATS as it is more popularly known. MATS is probably the earliest and certainly one of the more suc- cessful ventures in unification. It is headed by Maj. Gen. Laurence S. Kuter of the United States Air Force, but represents a joint Air Force—Navy effort where differ-~ ences of services origin have little or no effect on operations. They work together. They live together. At Hickam Field, the Air Force base in the Hawaiian Islands, for instance, the admiral in command lives in a house built for an Air Force general. General Kuter is assisted by two admirals, and the unification is so complete that the admirals sign their names with the title “Rear Admiral, United States Navy” and “United States Air Force” in parentheses following the title. At the time the management committee indicated an interest In MATS and con- sidered the advisability of establishing task forces to analyze its activities, the Depart- ment of the Air Force that has the primary responsibility for the operation requested pemss on to conduct the investigation ioreevrdis rir staff and Bureau of the Budget as task force members. This request was in line with management committee policy to utilize existing agencies or groups in carrying out its mission wherever possible. Approval was readily given. ' The Air Force is doing a fine Job in re- organizing MATS operations. As a result, nonessential facilities, routes, and flights are being eliminated. A new priority system governing materials to be transported by air is being established. Military personnel saved as a result of these curtailments are being released for other assignments. Sav- ings in fuel, parts, supplies, and personnel are reported to me to be in excess of $6,- 000,000 this year and the amount will in- crease as this job progresses. Even more important than the dollar saving, is the fact that the reorganization of MATS will now permit it to meet initial airlift requirements under emergency condi- tions. In other words, equipment, fuel, spare parts, and maintenance funds saved by the elimination of nonessential MATS activi- ties will be used to increase current MATS readiness for D-day. Here is an example of improvement in operations, and reductions in, expenditures, at the same time. A similar field for savings has been de- veloped in the maintenance and operation of administrative vehicles. By an admunistra- tive vehicle, we mean a passenger or cargo truck of a commercial type as distinguished from a military vehicle such as a tank. In the shock phase of the management opera~ tion we eliminated 34,000 vehicles which were uneconomical to operate and saved more than $10,000,000 this year in gasoline, oil, maintenance, and other expenditures. More- over, we released 2,186 military drivers for assignment to duty with combat elements. These deactivated vehicles we are now selling. With the proceeds of the sales we will buy new vehicles. This process enables us to get additional modern equipment with- out calling for extra appropriations. This procedure, so obvious to the businessman, was a long time in coming to the Armed Forces. Now with the shock phase completed we are in the scalpel process of reducing waste and in the slower and more difficult search for ways and means of getting more defense out of every defense dollar. We are improving shop lay-outs, inspection systems, working standards, administration, and organization. Nothing that promises any savings is being overlooked. For instance, front wheel bearings of commercial type ve- hicles are now inspected every 6,000 miles. We are conducting tests to determine the advisability of changing the routine to every eight, ten, or twelve thousand miles. If these tests indicate that front-wheel bearings can be inspected every 10,000 miles instead of 6,000 without increasing additional risks, savings to the Department from that simple change alone will total many thousands of dollars annually. The business of getting a maximum of service of a military nature out of every member of our Armed Forces is, to us, a prime objective. One of our services today has 2,600 general court-martial prisoners whose sen- tences specify that they shall be discharged from the service on the completion of their sentence. Of the 2,600, about 700 have a possibility of rehabilitation and are being trained and encouraged to resume their places on the military team. The other 1,900, hardened criminals, are dead weight and not only do they contribute nothing to defense, but they serve as a drain on military personnel, facilities, and funds. Now we ara working on a project to have them trans- ferred to the Bureau of Prisons and thus gain room in our ranks for 1,900 recruits of poten~ tial useful military service; and with 1,900 men properly trained we can man two addi- tional battalions of infantry, or a Navy car- rier, or a medium bomb wing. The most promising field of great economy and efficiency, we are finding in military and naval operations of an industrial or commercial nature—closely akin to what there is in civil life by way of automobile overhaul shops, print shops, coffee-roasting plants, and similar units. For the most part, establishments of this mature among our services were not run on a strictly busi- ness basis. In fact, there was little incentive to save or improve operations. Funds came by way of appropriations. Expenditures had to be accounted for but performance was judged only in a general way. Let us take, as an example, the business of printing which, of course, is essential to the opera- tion of any going concern, particularly one that handles billions of dollars. Not so long ago there were in Washington three print shops, one Army, one Navy, and one Air Force. They received annual appro- priations for operations. They Kept infor- mal inventories. They did not charge for their work. Any agency that needed forms, charts, or pamphlets merely called up the print shop and ordered the job done. The print shops performed the work, paid their employees, used the paper and the ink, and provided the machinery. They had no cap~ A3669 ital. They did not have to show any profit or loss in their operations. Today, we have in Washington but one service print shop. It is operated by the United States Navy for all three services. Instead of more than 400 employees between the three establishments, we now have less than 300 in one shop. The print shop has been capitalized at $1,700,000. All of its stock has beer cerefu!' inventoried. More than $70,000 \« ..: (« machinery has been removed from the floors of these plants and put in storage for reserve. Now when a unit sends in a request for a job, it is in- formed of the cost and when the job is done, the print shop takes credit on its books for labor, supplies, and overhead and charges it against the entity for which the job was performed. It is surprising how quickly demands have been reduced, and to what extent the number of copies of each job have been curtailed. Already this one operation in Washington has saved $118,000 or the equivalent of the cost of gasoline and oil for more than 1,300 hours of flying by a B-29. There are 197 print shops in the services. We are experimenting with consolidations and combining operations wherever possible, saving a dollar here and there, confident that the sum total will be considerable, and that operations will become more efficient and more stimulating to those engaged in them. What has been accomplished in the print shops is possible in every other activity in our defense structure of a commercial nature. There is no doubt of the existence of gold in these hills, to be extricated by way of savings, and thus made available as more money with which to buy so-called mili- tary or fighting hardware, and organize and train more combat units. It is out of savings such as these, made out of fat and not muscle, that we have been able to allocate to the Department of the Army an additional $24,000,000, which it had not counted upon, for research and develop- ment of special weapons, particularly in the antitank field and their procurement for the use of ground troops. Out of such sav- ings as these we have accumulated enough dollars to raise our Marine air combat squad~ rons from 12 to 16; increase the combat strength of our Army by 4,000 and add an aircraft carrier and other vessels to our fleet. Thus, on the one hand, we battle con- tinuously against waste, inefficiency and un~ necessary overhead, enabling us to effect a reduction in our civilian employees of more than 170,000. On the other, we fight for combat efficiency and strive to divert every possible dollar from administration expend- itures to the procurement of up-to-date eficient fighting equipment. Budget making is a continuous process. Our needs are under constant study. Our plans are under continuous scrutiny. They are predicated on world conditions and our need to cope with emergencies. It might be interesting to see the evolution of our procurement program as an example of this continuous process, When we were working on our budget in July, the Russian atomic explosion that was heard around the world, had not yet been confirmed. There was still resistance to com- munism on the Chinese mainland. We thought in terms of $1,100,000,000 for aircraft procurement for the Air Force and $700,000,~ 000 for aircraft for the Navy, or a total of $1,800,000,000. But when the time came for the President to submit the budget to the Congress in January 1950, the impact of unfavorable in- ternational developments had caused us to ask instead for $2,000,000,000 for aircraft— one billion three hundred and fifty million for the Air Force and six hundred and fifty million for the Navy. By that time, the atomic explosion in Soviet Russia had be- come a matter of record. Chiang Kai-shek
A3670 had withdrawn to Formosa. Poland had sur- rendered control over its armed forces to its aggressive imperialistic neighbor. By that time, too, we learned more about the development of the Russian submarine men~ ace and the Navy was given a $'79,000,000 increase for antisubmarine warfare equip=- ment. It is important to note that although we raised by $200,000,000 our requirements for aircraft production, we did not ask for an increase in the total amount of the budget. We were able to stay within the budget be- cause of savings in other activities. More- over, the $79,000,000 for antisubmarine war~ fare equipment was realized without any request for an increase. Today, in the light of even bolder threats to our peace we have found it necessary to ask for even more. About three weeks ago, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are my military advisors, after a very thorough analysis of world 'conditions, reported to me that the time had come for a further augmentation of our strength, par- ticularly our air power. As a result, it was concluded we needed one Dillion five hun- dred and fifty million for the Air Force and seven hundred and fifty million for the Navy for aircraft procurement. This was for contract authority for three hundred mil- future fiscal years and since the money could not be spent in 1950, we had to have contract authority therefor in the new budget. I lost no time in putting the matter before the President and appearing before the Con~ gressional Appropriation Committee, I asked for contract authority for three hundred m1l- lion above the budget submitied in January and fifty million in cash for conversion and operation of additional destroyers and small ships needed for antisubmarine defense. For- tunately, our January budget was planned so carefully and our savings in the mean- time made so efficiently that the sum total of our added need can be accomplished by an increase of less than 2% percent of our original figure. These increased amounts that we have asked for in the last 15 days—the $350,- 000,000—will all be used for the procurement of matériel—two hundred million for air- craft procurement in the Air Force, one hundred million for aircraft procurement for the Navy, and fifty million in cash for con- version and operation of additional destroy- ers and small ships needed for antisubma~ rine defense. The need for these additions in the light of changing conditions I am confident are clear to the American people. We must keep in mind always our pri- mary mission—to be strong enough to deter attack, capable enough to defend ourselves against attack if it comes, and powerful enough ultimately to defeat our aggressor. To deter, to defend, to defeat continue to be our watch words. It is security first and economy second. We shall never deviate from these objectives. We shall always keep them in that order. I repeat—security first, economy second. What we do now in our business of de- fense to achieve these objectives, and how we at this time protect the traditions of freedom bequeathed us by our forefathers will become the deeds by which we of this generation will be known to our posterity, and we cre going to be proud to make our~ selves xu.0%n ky our deeds because, in Ki- wanis fashion, we are doing something con- structive, vilal, and durable. We are paving a road toward security and prosperity on a firm foundation of peace through strength. We shall achieve it In the spirit of Homer, the immortal Greek poet, who expressed the faith that— “By mutual confidence and mutual aid Great deeds are done, and great discoveries made.” Call for Sacrifice EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BROOKS HAYS OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend by remarks in the Appendix, I include the following excel- lent editorial appearing in the Nashville Tennessean on May 11: CALL FOR SACRIFICE What is peace worth to the free nations? Secretary of State Dean Acheson posed the question in London on the eve of the three power talks, and then gave the answer. Peace is worth the greatest possible sacri- fices, even to the point of affecting purely na- tional interests. This does not, as we see it, mean the yielding of national sovereignty, but it does mean that there must be occa- sions when the good of all must take prece- dence over that of any single nation. In effect, Mr. Acheson has told Britain and France that the United States would be pleased with more signs of cooperation and less of self-interest. And he has implied that the United States will not be found wanting whenever there is a desire for unity of action that means definite progress in winning the cold war. Without vainglory, he, might have added that the United States at the present mo- ment is sharing as never, before its wealth and strength to support associated democ- racies in their fight for survival. In the same connection, Mr, Acheson as- serted that Western Germany would be wel- come as part of our company. This is a virtual invitation to this republican govern. ment to join as equals with friends of liberty for survival. When the alternative is considered, this is a sound decision. For though the risks of making an ally of West Germany are obvious, the danger of leaving its government and people in a position where they will be con- tinual targets for Russian pressure is greater. Five years after VE-day, it becomes inexpe-~ dient to temporize further with the issue. Once West Germany has joined with the Western Powers, the plans of Russian unity are wrecked beyond repair. At some distant time, it may develop that the German Nation will be united again, but if allled plans bear fruit, it will be under the banner of liberty. Our foreign policy begins to unfold, and it reveals courage and statesmanship. If it be- comes the policy of the Big Three also, the problem in Europe will be clarified and the prospects of success greatly increased. EE The Outlook for the Future—Text of the President’s Speech in Pendleton, Oreg. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY M. JACKSON OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. JACKSON of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the press is unable to report completely the texts of the President’s speeches on his trip to the West, I am inserting in the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Recorp the text of a speech made by the President at Pendleton, Oreg., on May 10. I should like to call one aspect of the speech to the attention of the Members of this House. There is a great deal of discussion about the so-called devalua- tion of the American dollar. It is gen- erally assumed that the progress we have made here in America—in increasing average incomes as well as the total of goods produced—means very little, be- cause the dollar is not worth what it used to be. But the President has taken pains, in this speech, to take into consideration the purchasing power of the dollar in describing the progress that has been made in the past 10 years. Our total production has increased by 60 percent, average income for each citizen is up 40 percent, and corporate profits, after taxes, are up 100 percent. These are real increases and not inflated money increases. I commend this speech to my col- leagues. Iam glad to be heze in Pendleton today. I am always happy to visit the Pacific Northwest. You xnow, I have come out here to dedicate Grand Coulee Dam tomorrow. On the way out, I have been reporting to the people on some of the problems that our Nation faces, and the progress we are making in solving them. At different towns and cities, I have talked about world peace, and the farm program, and the develop'-ent of our natural re- sources. All these things are tied together, because we need to build a strong United States—strong morally and strong materi- ally—as the basis for our own expanding future, and as the basis for world peace. Today, I want to talk with you about the economic progress of our country. The growth of the Pacific Northwest is a symbol of the kreath-taking economic prog- ress of the United States. . In one century, you have grown from a few people pushing back the wilderness to thriv- ing States with several million people. One hundred years ago, ox teams were the power for your covered wagons. Today, you use the energy of the Columbia River—and in a few years more you may be harnessing the tremendous force of the atom for peaceful work, These changes did not come about by themselves. They are the result of the dar- ing and independent spirit which has always characterized this area. The people of the West have always looked ahead. In their private actions, and jointly through their local, State, and Federal Gov- ernments, they have been eager to take bold and imaginative steps toward a better future. So long as we hold fast to the frontier spirit of the West, we need never fear the greatest danger that could overtake our Na- tion. That is the danger of timidity—of being satisfied with things as they are—of failing to seek ever higher goals. Throughout our history, there have been timid people who have been afraid to move forward. They opposed all the progressive measures we now take for granted. These timid folk once tried to reverse the trend toward free education and political democ- racy. They called this trend “mob rule.” Today, the spiritual descendants of this timid group are afraid of bold, progressive measures to achieve an abundant and ex- panding economy and to distribute its prod- ucts more fairly among all our people. They call these measures “statism” or “socialism.” The use of the powers of Government to achieve a higher living standard and a fair
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD deal for all the people {ts not statism and it is not socialism. It is a part of the American tradition. Every day, we should thank Almighty God that the progressive trends of American life and progress have never been stopped for long. We have moved steadily toward a higher conception of human needs and human freedoms, and a greater appreciation of the rights of the average man. This progress in American life has not been accomplished without a struggle. It cannot be continued without a struggle. Repeat- edly, the common sense of a majority of the American people has had to assert itself in the face of the opposition of those who wanted to cling to the past. Much of this struggle has dealt with whether our vast country with its wealth of resources should be developed for the benefit of the many or the few. The issue has been whether we should stop trying to provide all our citizens with a good standard of living just because a few people already had more than enough. The timid minority do not believe that prosperity for all our people is a goal that we should fight for. Many of them are sin- cere and well-meaning individuals. The trouble has not been always with their hearts; it has been with their eyes. Not only were they blind to the prospects of the fu- ture; they could not even see backward clear= ly enough to understand what had already happened. Let us look at some of the recent progress of the United States. Twenty years ago, we had entered upon the greatest depression in our history. We suf- fered huge losses for more than three long years. Then we began vigorous policies of recovery and reform. Our recovery was 50 successful that, by 1939, our total national output of goods and services was actually higher than it was in the last boom year before the great depression. Since 1939 we have gone on to make further gains—tremendous gains. Iam going to give you some facts. The calamity howlers don’t like to look at the facts, because the facts prove how wrong they are when they tell you what a terrible fix the country is in. They have been saying over and over again, for years, that the coun- try is being ruined. But the facts show that things have been getting better. So, what do they do? They just ignore the facts. Well, we are not going to ignore them. We are going to keep the record straight. We are going to see what has actually been happen- ing to our economy. The best over-all measure of a nation’s economy is its annual output of goods and services. In the United States the annual output of goods and services has increased in the last 10 years about 60 percent. Now, how does this affect the individual citizen? You know, a favorite theme of the boys who are always trying to run our coun- try down instead of trying to build it up is that the Government takes all our gains away by high taxes. But the truth jis that the annual per capita income of our citizens— after taxes—has increased in the last 10 years by more than 40 percent. And some of the people who are doing the loudest yelling are the very people who have got the biggest increases. Most of them are better off now than they have ever been be- fore in their lives. However—and for this I am very.thank- ful—the increased incomes have not been confined to a favored few. Annual wages and salaries of employees increased almost 75 percent in the last 10 years. The income of farm owners, although it has fallen off in the last 2 years—and has fallen off more than it should—is still more than 50 percent higher than it was in 1939. You would think all this would be enough to convince anybody that the country is doing very well. But some people are hard to convince. They say this administration looks after labor and looks after the farmer, but that it just doesn’t give the businessman @ chance—that business is being taxed to death. Let’s examine that. The fact is that the annual income of corporate businesses, after taxes—I repeat, after taxes—has increased about 100 percent since 1939. That’s right, 100 percent. It seems to me that free private enterprise is doing pretty well. I am glad that it is. I want business to be prosperous, and I am going to do all that I can to see that it remains prosperous. There are some die-hard reactionaries who won't give up even when all the facts I have mentioned are pointed out to them. So they say, “Well, maybe so, but the dollars people have won’t buy as much as they used to.” That argument is just as phony as all the rest of the arguments the pessimists use. In all the figures I have given you allow- ance has been made for changes in the pur-~ chasing power of the dollar. The increases I am talking about are real increases, not just dollar increases. In dollar terms, the gains would be even larger. During the last 5 years, we have success- fully met one of the greatest economic tests that can ever confront a nation: We have come through the adjustments following a great war without a depression. We have had depressions after most other wars and many people expected that we would have one this time. Instead, we have weathered the readjust- meht period with relatively few hardships, and now we have good prospects for continued prosperity. Almost every newspaper you pick up gives new evidence of increasing business activity. We have avoided the calamity of a postwar depression because our whole economy has been strengthened by a program of action which began 17 years ago. This program has been directed toward the humanizing of our economy and toward the humanizing of Gov- ernment. This program has been marked by such measures as bank deposit insurance, regulation of the security markets, old-age and unemployment insurance, minimum wages, slum clearance and low-rent housing, resource development, and protective farm legislation. We have had a Government that was— and is—working for the people, not for special interests. These measures have helped to distribute buying power more widely among the peo- ple. They have provided larger markets for the increasing products of our factories and our farms. They have protected our econ-~ omy against shock. They have provided business with a stronger banking structure and a more flexible credit system. They have helped to sustain farm income. These results have not been achieved through public action alone. In private enterprise as well, employers and workers have placed more emphasis upon the human element. They have learned more about how our economy functions. They have con-~ stantly adopted more enlightened and pro- gressive policies. There is a great lesson to be learned from what we have accomplished. We have learned that it is within our power as a peo- ple to make full use of our tremendous resources of farm, and factory, and human skill. We can use that lesson—-and we must use it—to build for the future. There are two conflicting schools of thought about the future of our economy, just as there are about its present condition, A3671 Those who can see nothing but evil in the present situation, can see nothing but gloom for the future. They have been saying all along that our programs could not succeed—even though the programs were succeeding, at the very time they were denying it. Now they are saying the same old things—that the country is going bankrupt, that depression lies ahead, and that the only thing to do is to pull in our belts and save what we can from the wreckage. ‘I don’t agree with them. I believe that we know more now than ever before about how to keep our economy strong and prosperous. I believe that we can continue to rely on the programs that have served so well for the last 17 years—use them and improve them. I face the future with confidence that our Nation will continue to grow in freedom and in material and moral strength. I am sure that the people of Oregon and all the Pacific Northwest share that confi- dence. It is the character of those of you who live in this region to dream big dreams and plan big plans. You will not join with the little men who throw up their hands and cry, “It can’t be done” when we set up our goals for future prosperity. I want to tell you about some of those goals—and I assure you that there is nothing fantastic about them. They are merely based upon the belief that we can improve as rapidly in the future as we have in the past. I am sure we can do that well and even better if we follow wise policies that are for the benefit of all the people and not just for the special interests. Here are some of the things we can do. In the next 10 years we can reach toward higher standards of living for all. We can lift our annual output of goods and services to more than $350,000,000,000 by 1960—a one-third increase within 10 years. And I am talking about real output, meas- ured in dollars of today’s purchasing power. We can increase real wage and salary in- comes, and farm incomes, as our economy grows. We can increase the profits of busi- ness, not through higher prices or higher profit margins, but through increased volume in a growing economy. I have said before, and I repeat, that by 1960 we can and should achieve a far better standard of living for every industrious family in the city and on the farm. ‘Now, I want to tell you about some of the things we must do to achieve these goals. First. The efficiency and capacity of our industries must be increased. Despite the large investments which industry has made since the war, there is urgent need for further investment and improvement, to meet ex- panding markets and to take advantage of the rapid gains in technology. This is a job for private owners and man- agers—in manufacturing, in power, in trans- portation, in many other industries. It is also a job in which the Government must participate—through resource development, sound tax policies, housing and small busi- ness programs, and many other ways. Second. Purchasing power must be ex- panded to develop and maintain markets for our increased production of goods. The final market for all products is the ultimate consumer. Our economy cannot expand as fast as it should as long as we have a large number of families with substandard incomes. One out of four American families now has an income of less than $2,000 a year. Our goal over the next decade should be to lift every hard-working American family to an income of about $4,000 a year-—not @& mere dollar increase, but an increase in the real standard of living. We have the re- sources to do this by balanced national growth.
AS672 Raising the standards of our poorest fami- lies will not be at the expense of anybody else. We will all benefit by doing it, for the incomes of the rest of us will rise, too. Third. We must maintain a sound balance in the programs of our Government, faced as it is with huge and unavoidable respon~ sibilities. Most people realize, now, that more than 70 percent of the Federal budget is required to pay for past wars and our work to prevent another war. However, they cften fail to realize just how vital the other 80 percent is to our welfare and progress. The costs of sound programs to improve the Nation’s health and education, to stabilize agricul- ture, and to develop resources, are sensible investments in a better future. I want to balance the budget of the Fed- eral Government, just as much as anybody else does. I would like to see taxes reduced, We will do both of these things just as soon as we safely can. We must continue to strive for every true economy in national affairs. But I will not join in slashing Government expenses at the cost of our national security or national progress. Fourth. We must continue to improve our economic relations with the rest of the world. We must develop a larger flow of interna- tional trade and international investment, on a sound basis. This will result in larger markets for ourselves, and larger markets for other free countries. Just as our Nation has grown through en- larged production and trade, from which all sections of the country have benefited, so the expansion of world production and trade can strengthen all the free countries. That is an essential step toward world peace. We must not be turned aside or slowed down in our efforts to help the other free nations get back on their feet by those who would retreat into isolationism in order to save a few dollars. We would pay for that folly many times over. It would greatly in- crease the chances of a third world war. As long as I am President, we are not going to put dollars above world peace. These things that I have been talking to you about—the growth of our economy and the policies needed to make that growth pos- sible—have a very definite meaning for you folks here in Pendleton, as they do for people all over the country. They are not just ab- stract theories. They are matters that will have a very important effect on your daily lives. Your wheat and livestock growers cannot prosper without good incomes and high con- sumption in the rest of this country, and in other countries, too. The same thing is true of the Columbia River fisheries. Oregon’s lumber industry will have good times only if our Nation builds the houses our people need. And it works the other way, too, The Na- tion needs the products of your agriculture, forests, and fisheries, The whole country be- comes stronger when Oregon and the North- west grow and prosper. ‘We are a Nation that advances by coopera- tion and mutual benefit. We do not want any State, or any group, to grow at the ex- pense of another. Our strength—the strength of free men—is in a society that works to bring better living to all our people. We have demonstrated in our country that we can all move forward together. I believe profundly that this forward movement Is going to continue. I believe that ultimately it will extend to the farthermost corners of the earth, and that, with the United States as a shining example, we shall suceed in bringing greater welfare and freedom to all mankind. Symington Energizes Resources Board EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ESTES KEFAUVER OF TENNESSEE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, May 15 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KEFAUVER. Myr. President, I know the Congress and the entire Na- tion are very proud of the way in which Stuart Symington, former Secretary of the Air Force, and now chairman of the National Security Resources Board, has gone about revitalizing the work of that very necessary organization. Mr. Sym- ington’s activities in that connection are very well deseribed in an article which appeared in the Washington Sunday Star of May 14, written by Raymond P. Brandt, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: SYMINGTON ENERGIZES RESOURCES Boarp— New ApMmInisrraton Is Eorn SALESMAN, Quick THINKER—DEFINITE ACTION Takxs PLACE oF CAUTIOUS PACE IN PLANNING (By Raymond P. Brandt) During the past 8 weeks the National Security Resources Board, the body that drafts plans for coordination of military, in- dustrial and civilian war mobilization, has been revitalized by Chairman W. Stuart Symington of St. Louis, dynamic former Secretary of the Air Force and former admin-~ ° istrator of the War Surplus Property Board. Even the dark hallways of the old State Department building seem lighter and NSRB officials and employces walk faster now that the 48-year-old industrialist-turned-public servant has taken over the management of the powerful planning group that will advise the President on how American manpower, money and materials can best be switched from civilian to war production. Under Reorganization Plan No. 25 which President Truman sent to Congress, Mr. Sy- mington would have greatly enlarged power. The functions of the board would be exer- cised by the chairman, and the several cabi-~ net members, supposed to direct the board’s operations, would become advisers. The plan, which will go into effect within 60 days unless either House vetoes it, also pro- vides for a vice chairman at $16,000 a year. The reorganization proposal indicates that Truman and the present board have realized that the existing setup, first headed by Arthur M. Hill, transportation executive, as chair- man and then by Dr. John R, Steelman, assistant to the President, as acting chair- man, could not meet the demands of the cold war or plan for the possibilities of a shooting war. POTENTIALLY POWERFUL GROUP Mr. Truman. said that “the tremendous re- sponsibilities of the National Security Re-~ sources Board and the heavy workload on the chairman fully warranted” the appointment of a vice chairman. Although President Truman in the past has persistently undervalued this agency, created by the National Security Act of 1947, it is potentially one of the most powerful groups in Government. Should there be a war, its recommendation would determine APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD how much every American would eat, work and earn, and what percentages of every vital resource would be devoted to war and to civilian production. Under the reorganization plan, Mr. Sym- ington, as Chairman, would have the practi- cal direction of the Board, composed of Sec- retaries Acheson, Snyder, Johnson, Chap- man, Brannan, Sawyer, and Tobin. This, in effect, 1s a War Cabinet representing the State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agricul- ture, Commerce, and Labor Departments. Mr. Symington will also be an active member of the top policy-making National Security Council, headed by President Tru- man and composed of Vice President Bark-~ ley and Secretaries Acheson and Johnson and himself. Other Cabinet officers and agency heads are called in when iternational problems affecting their jurisdictions arise. He will also attend Cabinet sessions on ap- propriate occasions, meaning when war ques~ tions are up for discussion. He will work closely with the Defense De- partment’s Munitions Board, headed by en- ergetic Hubert Howard, Chicago industrial- ist, Which has to arrange for the use of America’s great industrial machine for war production in the event of an emergency. Since its creation, the Munitions Board has made far more detailed plans within its zone of operation than has the NSRB. The extent of Mr. Symington’s success will depend on how far he is supported by Presi- dent Truman and how much cooperation he is able to get from the established depart- ments, which have always jealously guarded against invasion of an outsider. Immediately after his appointment, he declined to discuss his plans for his new assignment, saying that he wanted to case the joint before he started talking for pub- lication. This free and easy use of the vernacular was typical of Symington, the wealthy Yale man who was able to talk the same lan- guage as Communist Bill Sentner of St. Louls, when Symington’s Emerson Electric Co. was having labor troubles while working on war contracts. It also endeared him to the Air Force flyers, whose budget battles he fought in Congress and before public forums. Behind his gum-chewing, smiling face, there is the quick mind of an experienced admin- istrator and of a born salesman. AIMS FOR GOOD STAFF After 3 weeks, he could only give the broad- est outlines of his plans. “My first job,” he says, “is to see that we have good staff men, For the most part we have good men and they have done an ex- cellent job—far better than most people real~ ize. But we have to get a few more men out- standing in their professions and then we have to get practical plans—not plans just for planning’s sake. “This Job is necessarily advisory to the President, not an operational affair. Other- wise we would have to have many more than our 250 employees. Essentially, our recom- mendations will be concerned with alloca- tions of power—who is to do what in event of war. “After we get our staff in shape, we must reappraise the plans already made to see if they are practicable and fit existing and prospective situations. Then there must be a tremendous ‘selling’ job within the Gov- ernment and among the people, especially in business, industry, and in labor organiza- tions, so that all will know what Js needed of them in the event of war.” TWO EXPERTS BEFORE HIM Always the diplomat and discreet public official, Mr. Symington will not comment on
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the records made in the NSRB by his pred- ecessors, Hill and Steelman, or speculate on why Mr. Truman wanted his old senatorial colleague, Mon 0. Wallgren, of Washington, in as chairman, This writer, however, has observed the NSRB since its establishment under the sponsorship of the late Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal, and can offer some com= ments of his own. Mr. Hill was a transportation expert rather than an industrialist, and although he had served the Government well in wartime he was a novice when it came to dealing with established Government agencies, particu- larly the all-powerful Budget Bureau. Without any specific direction or approval from the White Heure he ettemnted to set up the NSRB as an “omets quel ove scr than as an “advisory” organization, which meant that had his plan been put into effect he would have invaded the province of many established departments. After he made a few actual moves in this direction, he was stopped cold" by Mr. Truman and several Cabinet officers. He resigned in a silent, dig- nified huff and refuses to discuss his differ- ences with the White House. The President revealed his underestimation of the board’s importance by appointing his Presidential assistant, Mr. Steelman, as act- ing chairman. Steelman is a labor expert and an experienced career man who knows the intricacies of governmental bureaucracy but lacks industrial and management experi- ence. He could talk with Cabinet members on an almost equal level. Mr. Truman fur- ther disclosed his own conception of the board’s value when he tried to appoint former Governor Wallgren to the chairmanship. His major qualification was that he was a crony of the President and could talk with him on intimate terms. DEALT WITH SMALL BUSINESS Because of his business and Government experience, Mr. Symington appears to be the ideal man for this big job. Born of wealthy eastern seaboard parents, he was in World War I while in his teens.and after his grad- uation from Yale, where he was in the ex- clusive clubs, he joined his family businesses as an executive. Leaving these establish- ments, he soon made a name for himself as a rehabilitator of depressed small businesses. It was in this capacity that he came to St. Louis in 1938 to be president of the Emer-~ son Electric Manufacturing Co., which had been having serious trouble with CIO United Electrical and Radio Machine Workers of America. William Sentner, an avowed Com- munist, was a power in the St. Louis local, but Symington was able to work out an amicable deal with him so that Emerson be- came a robust small business that developed into a fairly large business during the war. Before Pearl Harbor, Mr. Symington dem- onstrated his business acumen by going to England to study the latest airplane turrets and came back with orders for Emerson that eventually made it one of the largest airplane appliances plants in the country. His success at Emerson and his work for the Office of Production Management prompted Mr. Truman to offer him the chairmanship of the three-man Surplus Property Board in June 1945. Here he began the disposal of almost a hundred billion dol- lars’ worth of Government war properties. Shortly after he was confirmed for this posi- tion, Congress abolished the board setup to give him the sole direction of the organiza- tion. He continued in this job until February 1946, when he was named Assistant Secre- tary of War for Air. There had been no scandals in the Surplus Property Board de- spite the billions that had to be supervised, ‘In September 1947, he became the first Sec- retary of the Air Force under the unification plan, BACKED 70-GROUP FORCE As Assistant Secretary for Air and as Air Secretary he became the idol of the flyers because of his aggressive insistence for a 70- group Air Force as recommended by the presi~- dential committee headed by Thomas K. Finletter of New ‘York, Mr. Symington’s choice as his own successor. Even now, with the defense budget down to less than $14, 000,000,000, he is arguing that we should have the 70 groups as soon as the national econ- omy permits. Mr. Srmimgron has demonstrated that he knows business and labor organizations, gov- ernmental procedures, including appearances before congressional committees, and has a global viewpoint of defense planning. He has another intangible quality in greater degree than his predecessors—his ability to get along with people and make a favorable impression. Although he did not get along so well with Defense Secretary Johnson personally, he carried his fight for the Air Force to Congress and the public. He is on familiar terms with almost every high official in Washington. As the functional head of the NSRB, he will have far more authority than his prede- cessors but probably will need more tact and salesmanship than they exercised. The problems of the job are tremendous and intricate. One of his first objectives will be to get a definite war plan from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to enable him to plan the maximums and minimums for civilian and industrial mobilization. Here, because of his service in the Pentagon, he can talk the language of the military and make them be specific where, in the past, they have been general. There is also the civilian defense program, which has recently been put in charge of Paul J. Larsen, formerly head of the Atomic Energy Commission laboratories in New Mex-~ ico. This program has been languishing and only a few of the governors, upon whom the responsibility has been placed for civilian defense, have done anything in their own localities to prepare for war. Mr. Symington promises to have a full-scale program drafted by September 1. As examples of the details of coordination needed for civilian defense are the discov- eries by the NSRB that various cities and towns have varying sizes of fire hoses and connections and that one atomic explosion over a single city would require all of certain medicines that are now available throughout the entire country. The problem will be to simplify fire hoses and connections so nearby cities can help each other in event of an attack or sabotage and to build up stock- piles of medicines required after an atomic explosion. Another difficult problem is the drafting of legislation needed in the event of an emer- gency. The NSRB has made several detailed drafts for freezing of wages and prices and rents so that no one can profit from war and for allocations of materials. One of the sub- sidiary questions is whether to ask Congress to enact general legislation now, as strongly recommended by Mr. Baruch, to give the President power to act immediately on these items in the event of an emergency, or whether to have the detailed bill acted on at the serious threat or the actual outbreak of the emergency, Mr. Symington belongs to the White House school that believes the tentative drafts should be continuously under revision for immediate introduction in the event of an emergency. He says that even general legis« lation would arouse special interest groups such as farmers, labor organizations, prop- erty owners and other businessmen who would combine to defeat the measure. A3673 Under Acting Chairman Steelman the draft for the mobilization was classified confiden- tial and not submitted to the Cabinet mem-= bers on the Board for their rejection or approval. Mr. Symington promises that the latest draft will be circulating at the Cabinet level within 2 weeks and that after practical revisions he will have an approved copy by July 1. Symington is not daunted by the size or the complexities of his new challenge. After all, he handled billions of dollars worth of property in the Surplus Property Board and supervised the spending of billions for the Air Force. He says the job is lke the long-range budgeting and selling surveys of a gigantic business firm, such as Sears, Roe= buck, where there must be planning of fac- tories, transportation, acquisition of mate- rials, consumer markets and continuous sales over long periods. Loans for Small Business EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CARL ELLIOTT OF ALABAMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, this country cannot afford to have a full-scale depression. We must continue to have a high level of employment. To provide a high level of employment our economic system must continue to expand. Small business will play a great part in this expansion. Much attention is being given pres- ently toward providing a practical sys= tem of loans for small business. This is a matter of great and growing urgency throughout the country. The situation in the Seventh Congres- sional District of Alabama is acute, be- cause of the great unemployment with which we are afflicted. I trust that this session of the Eighty- first Congress will give full consideration to the financial problems of small busi- ness, and work out a system of loans that will stimulate our economic system to provide more employment for our people. TI include an editorial from yesterday’s Washington Post which deals with the problem at hand: SMALL Business At least three of the five major measures proposed by President Truman to overcome the financial handicaps of small business appear to us to meet long-felt needs. They are the recommendations for (1) Federal insurance of commercial bank loans up to $25,000 patterned after FHA~insured loans for home improvements, (2) establishment of national investment companies to provide equity capital and long-term loans for small business, and (8) a plan for setting up a clearing house in the Department of Com- merce to collect and supply scientific, engi- neering, and managerial information to small concerns that cannot afford to employ expensive research staffs of thelr own. There is a question as to whether the pro- vision for limiting the maturity of the pro= posed type of insured loans to 6 years may not be too restrictive. The Federal Reserve officials, for instance, allege that the 5-year
A3674 limitation on industrial loans for working capital purposes that the Federal Reserve panks are authorized to make, or to under- write when made by member banks, is too severe. The President proposes to repeal this Federal Reserve loan provision and substi- tute a self-sustaining system of loan insur- ance by private banks, subject to compliance with federally approved standards. Under proper safeguards this insurance plan would, jn our opimion, strengihen, rather than weaken, the private banking system. For it would enable private commerCial banks to grant loans to small businesses for working capital purposes that they would not dare to undertake in the absence of such protection, thereby reducing the pressure for direct Gov- ernment loans. The proposed national investment com- panies are designed to meet a different kind of need—provision of equity capital and long-term loans for small business. our commercial banks are not in a position to assume the risks of financing the long-term capital requirements of small business. Moreover, it is virtually impossible for smail or even medium-sized businesses to sell se- curities in the open market. The cost of loan flotations in small amounts is prohibi- tive, and the issues of small companies are hard to sell. In the past small businesses have usually been financed out of the savings of owners and local people. But the so-called small business of today would have been consid- ered a few decades ago a big business. Costs have mounted, too, thus increasing the capi- tal needs of going businesses and the capital required to start a business. National in- vestment companies would, therefore, fill a gap in the financing structure by providing a channel through which pooled savings available for long-term use could be more safely invested. In the beginning such companies might not attract private investment support, since it will take a good deal of time to build them up, and the risks of loss, especially at the experimental stage, are considerable. For that reason, the initial capital of the new investment companies would probably have to be provided by public or semipublic agen- cies, such as the Federal Reserve banks, However, if successfully launched, commer- cial banks would doubtless find it to their advantage to invest in the new investment companies, even if the direct returns from their holdings were small, for they would benefit indirectly from the strengthening of the capital resources of local industries that are their customers, There is slight danger that the plans would lead to further Government encroachment in the private banking field, if private banks actively cooperate with the new investment companies and if private funds, supplied by banks and other investors, are forthcoming, Admittedly the proposal is experimental and there is some danger of its being launched on an overly ambitious scale. Color is given to this fear by the emphasis put on the im- portance of the program for increasing the credit aids to small business as a means of insuring a steady expansion of the economy and providing increased employment for a growing labor force. The program is rather a long-range reform that should contribute to the ultimate attainment of those objec- tives by strengthening the competitive stand- ing and ability to survive of small busi- nesses. But it would not have much imme- diate effect on employment or afford any great immediate stimulus to business expan- sion. It is not a relief measure, but a means of providing more appropriate and more ade- quate types of financing for small-scale en- terprise at all times through private banking channels, with a minimum amount of sup- pom and supervision by Government agen-~ cies. Addresses of the President in Idako EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. COMPTON I. WHITE OF IDAHO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, the people in the State of Idaho recently had the great honor and privilege of hearing several addresses made by the President of the United States during his trip through our State. The following addresses were made by the President at Pocatello, Shoshone, and Glenns Ferry, Idaho: REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT POCATELLO, IpaHo When I was here in 1948, along about early in the morning, I think it was 7:50, I remem- per they told me there wouldn’t be anybody up; and they were darn sure there wouldn’t be anybody up this morning, but you fooled them—and you fooled me, too, I don’t mind telling you. You may have heard I am an early riser. I get up early every day—ask these photographers and newsmen about that, I am used to tackling problems no matter what time it is. This morning, even though it is only 6 o’clock, I want to talk to you about the greatest scientific discovery of the century— or in history, in fact: atomic energy. The first atomic explosion in history took place down in the deserts of New Mexico in July 1945. I was in Potsdam and had been in conference with Winston Churchill and Joe Stalin, and we had been discussing world peace programs. When this notice came to me that the atomic explosions had taken place, I called a meeting of our military advisers—General Marshall, General Eisenhower, General Brad- ley, General Patton, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral King and several other able and distinguished gentlemen, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War at that time—and we discussed the situation and how we should approach the use of it. And I informed those gentlemen at that time that I would do my utmost to see that this mew discovery was used in a way that would make the world a better place in which to live. I have been working at that ever since. I had to issue the order for the dropping of the first two atomic bombs on our enemies. And I made that order after due considera- tion and in conference with all our military leaders. When they informed me that the landings in Japan would probably cost the lives of 200 thousand of the cream of our American soldiers and sailors, I made up my mind that the best way to save the lives of those young men—and the best way to save the lives of the Japanese soldiers, also— was to drop those bombs and end the war. And I did it. And I would say to you I would do it again if I have to. We have been making real progress in put- ting atomic energy to work. Already, atomic research has led to important discoveries in medicine, and there is real promise that it will lead to much better grains and livestock on our farms. Up in Arco, the Atomic Energy Commission is now constructing a reactor testing station. From the knowledge we gain there, it should be possible to develop machines to generate useful power to drive ships and airplanes. You know, nearly all the destructive wea- pons that have been discovered in times past have eventually been put to use for peace- time purposes. Now, if we are not ingenious enough and have not the sense to do that APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD same thing with the most awful release of the atom, then I am here to tell you that we probably ought to be destroyed. And I am here to say to you that we are not going to be destroyed, we are going to use this great energy for the welfare and benefit of the human race and not for its destruction. Arco is a truly cooperative venture. It represents the combined efforts of the Atomic Energy Commiussion, private industry, and universities and research institutions from coast to coast. We are pooling all the re- sources we have in this great undertaking to harness atomic energy for the beneficial use of mankind, Throughout our history, scientists and scientific knowledge have contributed to our progress as a nation. If you want to Keep up that progress, we need to stimulate scien- tific discovery and research, and train more young men and women for our laboratories and research centers. To carry out these objectives, I have just signed the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. This act is of tremendous impor- tance, because it will add to our knowledge in every branch of science. I am confident that it will help us to de- velop the best scientific brains in the Nation, It will enable the United States to maintain its leadership in scientific matters, and to exert a more vital force for peace. Whatever the future may hold, we must bend every effort toward our major objective, and that major objective is world peace and the welfare of all mankind, no matter what his race, creed, or color may be, no matter what part of the world he may live in. Now Iam making this trip around all over the United States to report to you as the President of the United States. I camo out here in 1948 asking you for votes. I am back here now, *x President of the Unitcd States, not running for any office but to report to you as I report to the Congress every year under the Constitution. Iam making to you personally and giving to you personally a message on the state of the Union and what goes on, and what I believe, and what I am trying to do, And if I tell it to you, it can’t be garbled, because when you hear me talk nobody can transfer those remarks to mean something else. When I come along later in the season, we will do a little politicking. But right now I am reporting to the Nation on its condition, on what it needs, and what I hope I can give it for its welfare and benefit, on what I hope to contribute to world peace, and what I hope to obtain for—as I said a minute ago—the welfare of all mankind. I can’t tell you how very much I appreci- ate this early turnout. It is surprising to everybody—I think it is surprising to your- selves, but I appreciate it most highly. REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT SuosrHone, InaHo I got up rather early this morning and had a meeting at Pocatello at 6 o’clock, and I never expected to see that many people out at that time of day. And here it is 8 o'clock in this great city, and more than ever am I surprised—and agreeably surprised. And this will surprise some of my reporter friends, too, who are along with me. Iam glad to be in Shoshone, in this rich farming section of the Snake River Valley. I want to talk to you this morning about one of Idaho’s great crops, potatoes. I was up in Maine in the middle of the war, along about 1943, inspecting an air base at Presque Isle, and they were telling me about a boy from Idaho, a private in the Air Force there, that had been sent to the guardhouse because he refused to peel Maine potatoes. Of course, I didn’t blame him much, Idaho has good reason to be proud cf its potatoes. Your growers have done a fine job
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of growing high-quality potatoes and mar- keting them in an efficient manner. The potato growers of Idaho and other States have been attacked a lot in recent months. There has been so much discus- sion all over the country about the potato situation an@ so much false information about it that I want to give you the facts. First of all, it is certainly not right to make the potato growers “whipping boys” for the costly potato surplus when basically the trouble is due to the laws which were passed back in 1947 and 1948. They provided pota- toes with a mandatory support price, but they gave no effective production and mar- keting controls. Instead, Congress said, “Try price supports without controls; give them a@ trial run.” Well, that is exactly what we have done for 2 years, and you know the result. I tried to get that changed just a short time ago and did not succeed in getting it done. It is just as we warned against. The Government has been required by law to buy millions of bushels of potatoes in order to maintain prices, and most of the potatoes bought by the Government have had to be disposed of for uneconomical uses, wasting millions of dollars. That sort of program is not in the farmer’s interest, it is not in the Nation’s interest. It can lead to public repudiation of the whole farm price support program. That is why the Secretary of Agriculture has pleaded with Congress to change the price-support laws on potatoes so that we could control production and marketing more adequately and thus avoid these big sur- pluses. Most of that surplus, of course, has to be destroyed. You can’t safely drive a ‘wagon or a car without a brake. The Congress has recently passed a law providing that support prices shall not be in effect for potatoes after this year’s crop, unless marketing quotas are also in effect. But marketing quotas for potatoes are not permitted under the present law. This is obviously only a partial solution. I have been urging the Congress to au- thorize both marketing quotas and direct production payments, in order to support potato prices without accumulating wasteful surpluses. This will bring a fair return to the farmers and at the same time benefit the consumers and the taxpayers. I hope you people of Idaho will rise up and demand that such action be taken by Con- gress. It is certainly in your interest to do so. You see, the situation as it developed is such that they could make a great big “pugaboo” out of potatoes. They are doing it with the idea of discrediting the whole farm program of the administration. Now it is to your interest to see that we get the farm program which we are trying to get and which will work not only in your interest but in the interests of everybody in the United States—all farmers everywhere, not only the potato growers, but wheat grow- ers and cotton growers and tobacco growers, and everybody else. I have been fighting for that ever since January 1, 1949. And if you will read my message on the state of the Union in January 1949, you will see there that I advocated a program that would have prevented all this talk about potatoes. That is entirely in your interest. I came out here to tell you what the facts are. Nobody else will tell you what the facts are, because those people who control the methods of communication want to see the farm program ruined and put out of busi- ness. And I am out here to tell you what the facts are. Ig you will use your head and your own. judgment and work in your own interest, we will get this thing settled in such a way that the farm program. will continue as it ought to Now it is a pleasure to me to be here with you this morning in this beautiful city. And I hope—I hope—that you will inform yourselves completely on just exactly what Wwe are trying to do for a farm program that will work. When you know what the facts are, you can not help but go along with what I am advocating; and I want you to know the facts, that is the reason I am here. I came out here to tell the people just exactly what I stand for, and why. I am not running for anything. I may come back a little later and try to influence you on what is to your best interests, but I will try to tell you the facts. — I have found in my long political experi- ence—and it has been over 30 years—that when you know the facts, honest men have no trouble in agreeing on what the results should be. Thank you all very much for this pleasure. REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT GLENNS FERRY, IpaAHO It is a pleasure to be here this morning, I can assure you. It is also a great pleasure to me to have warm weather again. When T left Washington it was 92 in the shade, and when I got out here to western Nebraska and Wyoming it was snowing. It is hard to tell what kind of clothes to wear in such changes of weather. Since early this morning, 1 have been traveling across southern Idaho through this great Snake River Valley. Here it is, only a little after 9 o’clock, and I have already made speeches in Pocatello and Shoshone. Now I am glad to be able to stop here for a few minutes at Glenns Ferry and talk with you about some of the problems that this country faces today, problems in which you are vitally interested and in which I am vi- tally interested. The reason I came out here was to give you my viewpoint and to find out what your viewpoint is directly, so there can be no misunderstanding of what we are trying to do and what we are trying to say. The biggest problem we have is that of maintaining world peace. We can build a peaceful world only if we remain prosperous and well off here at home. There is a very direct connection between farm prosperity and world peace. Farm prosperity is the foundation of the national economy of the United States. That was certainly true 20 years ago when the farm depression of the 1920’s led to the great de- pression. I think that the farm home and the small country town are among the strongest bul- warks of our democracy. We have got to see to it that our farmers prosper on farms which they own themselves. We shall cer- tainly go downhill if we ever have a large rural floating population who have to earn @ living by working in the fields of a few large-scale landowners. That is why I look with grave suspicion upon the development of the so-called in-~ dustrialized agriculture, the operation of farms that are nothing but factories for the production of crops. What makes this a great Republic and a great country are the small landowners, men who have property of their own on which they live and make a living. . These farm factories depend for their prosperity upon a large force of landless and underprivileged workers. These workers have to migrate from place to place without any opportunity for a decent life for their wives and children. The Federal Government has been doing a great deal in recent years to help men and women to own and improve their own farms. You folks here in Idaho know all about the new farms that are opened up by reclama- tion projects in former sage-brush areas. One of the most important things to re- member about our reclamation program is that it safeguards the family-sized farm, and does not give encouragement to the growth A3675 of these huge corporate farms I was talking about earlier. That is not all we have been doing. In the State of Idaho alone, more than $34,000,000 has been loaned for agricultural and home operating needs, and for purchase and enlargement and development of farms. We have also lent Idaho farmers over $1,- 000,000 to install needed irrigation and wa- ter facilities. The Farmers Home Adminis- tration is also helping hundreds of new farm families, a large number of which are veterans, to get started on new farms. When we first started doing something to help farm tenants buy their own land, back in 1935, you should have heard the outcries coming from the opposition. In those days the reactionaries set up an outfit which they called the American Liberty League. They issued a long blast against the Bankhead~ Jones Farm Tenant Act, calling it a social- istic experiment. Those words have been used ever since we started to work for the farmer back in 1887. A fellow by the name of Hatch from the great State of Missouri got a bill through the Con~ gress to appropriate $15,000 to each State that wanted an experimental station in con- nection with its agricultural college, and he was called a Socialist and a man who was going to tear down the Government of the United States. Yet nearly every agricultural college in the United States now works under that same Hatch Act. They said the farm-tenant program was Russianization of agriculture. Well, you people know that our farmers’ home program was and is nothing of the sort. Instead of being socialistic, it has been a real force in preserving and strengthening free enterprise. Now, I hope you didn’t believe that silly non- sense about socialism in 1935. I know you didn’t believe it in 1985, and I am very sure you don’t believe it now. No matter what such people say, we in- tend to go right ahead and improve the condition of agriculture, and carry out the whole ivair Deal program to secure good housing, good health, education, and social security. These are measures which will help us to preserve world peace—our greatest objective; and if we are going to get world peace, we ourselves must be economically strong. We must be in a position where our people are better off, have more things, and live better than any other people in the world. They are that way now, and we want to keep that up. It is my idea that if we can inform the people of those countries that are under tyranny of the facts of life as we see them here in these great United States, we will not have any more difficulty about getting a world peace that will last. My one ambition has been, ever since I inherited the Presidency on April 12, 1945, to obtain world peace—a peace that will last, @ peace that will help us all, a peace that will make all the peoples uf the world happy. Now, I know that is not beyond the bounds of possibility, and I know you believe me when I tell you that is exactly what we are working for, And we are going to keep work- Ing for it until we get it. You know, I have been up against some very, very hard propositions. I think you remember back in 1948, it was said that it was an impossibility for me to go riding all over the country to convince the people that I was on the right track and for their benefit. I did convince them, and we did win. Now we want to convince the world in exactly the same manner that we are on the right track, and we will win—because I think God is with us in that enterprise. I certainly appreciate the cordiality with which I have been treated in Idaho. I am out here—as I told you in the beginning— to tell you what I think, and what I am trying to do.