APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sion into parties is based primarily on prin~ ciples and concepts of government. Thus he wrote: “Both of our political parties, at least the honest part of them, agree conscien-= tiously in the same object—the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side thinks it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the other by a dif- ferent one. With whatever opinion the body of the Nation concurs, that must prevail.” Thus does Jefferson describe the only prac- tical, if not possible, way in which a democ- racy in a great country can function. Elimi- nate parties, and democratic countries, the people unorganized, undirected, undisci- plined, would fall into chaos, and thus pave the way for the man with the bludgeon to establish “order’’—resting on the buried lib- erties of the Nation. But 1f political parties, so much derided by arm-chair theorists better acquainted with books than with men and more familiar with theories than with realities, are an essential part of the democratic machinery, there must be party leaders—and these are politicians. VI Even the most rigid of the critics are driven to admit that leaders in the higher strata of the parties may be of some service to the country; so they fall back on the assumption that the minor party workers down the line are engaged in rather disreputable business. The leader they praise at the top could not be there but for the tireless and usually un- rewarded work of the minor politicians at the bottom. An organization, to ke efec- tive, must extend down to the lowest politi- cal unit—the precinct. The precinct com- mitteeman, to be effective, must have the respect of the people in his precinct where everyone is known. He may be a young law- yer, or the corner grocer, or the village black~ smith, and in 9 cases out of 10 he is not an aspirant for office. He accepts the drudg- ery of the work because he is good party man, interested, if only instinctively, 1a the prin- ciples and policies it preclaims. “Politics is a duty,” said Jefferson; and the precinct committeeman renders a service to the State. If true of him, it is equally true of every other member of the party hierarchy; for without these local politicians parties would speedily disintegrate, and with their disinte- eration democracy inevitably would fail in face Tomas In. the higher ranks of the hierarchy, the political leaders attain their position through a demonstration of their political ‘capacity. On these devolve the task of for- mulating the political policies on which the party maxes its appeal to the people; and the more consummate they are as politicians, the greater will be the effort to adopt policies in conformity with the public good or the pub- lic will, And that is democracy in action, The sweeping charge of “corruption” against politicians is pure poppycock. Not that there are not corrupt politicians, any more than that there are not corrupt busi- messmen, corrupt financiers, and immoral preachers. After all, the corrupt action of three shipbuilding companies which, ‘through collusion in bidding, stole millions of dollars from the taxpayers was exposed and stopped by Josephus Daniels—a politi- clan. And the corrupt action of some very respectable oil men in the case of Teapot Dome was exposed and stopped by Senator Tom Walsh—a politician. Cases where cor- ruption among businessmen and financiers have been exposed by politicians acting for the Nation could be multiplied In America innumerable times. Equally superficial and unfair and untrue is the charge of the theorists that politicians are “incompetent.” Too popular is the silly notion that while, of course, a doctor cannot take over the management of a factory, or a banker substitute for a lawyer, or @ manu- facturer assume the teaching in a studio, XCVI—App.—§ 243 the doctor, the banker, and the manufac. turer can, by some magic, master the intri- cate mysteries of government without experl- ence or training. The drawing-room states- man in his brary, the dilettante theorist in his study, and the village roustabout in the poolroom are often impatient with the “in- competence of politicians’ and “only wish they had a chance” to straighten out the muddle. Such are living in a fool’s paradise and suffering from a delusion of grandeur. After all, it was a man who had devoted his life to “7'*irs rot the financiers, who snatched .:«¢ Ni cn from the edge of the precipice in the spring of 1933. It is interesting to find that a man of the study, but an historian, like Oliver, shares this umpatience with the critics when he says: , “If we eventually escape from our present perplexities, it will not be because theorists have discovered some fine new principle of salvation; or because newspapers have scold- ed and pointed angry fingers at this one or that; or because we, their readers, have be- come excited and have demanded that ‘some- tlinactad.i be cw.2.’ I will be because these erece “ode, esto. cheerful, valant, eA ADCUL PC.1 .c: 2.5. whose mysterious business it is to manage our affairs by break- ing one another’s heads, shall have carried on with their work as if nothing extraordinary washappening * * * and shall have ‘jum~ bled something’ out of their contentions that will be of advantage to their country. The notion that we can save ourselves without their help is an illusion; for politics is not one of those crafts that can be learned by the light of nature without an apprenticeship.” vit It may be possible to lift the average in po- litical life but it never can be done so long as able young men, intellectually and tempera- mentally fit for public service, are led to believe that there is something rather shame- ful about it. How different in England where @ political career is considered one of serv- ice to the state and to society, and where the old nobility are prone to dedicate one of their sons to politics as a patriotic duty. The young man so dedicated begins his prepara~ tion at Oxford, concentrating on the studies that may be useful to the state, distinguish- ing himself perhaps in the debates of the Ox- ford Union, and passing speedily from the academic halls to Parliament where he makes his career. Nothing in the old nobility of England sets it so much apart from that of other nations as its recognition of an obliga- tion to participate in politics as a patriotic duty. The son is not thought vicious and smearing the family name or lowering its prestige by rendering public service in the halls of Westminster. The political tradi- tion to generation as in the case of Robert Cecil, the Minister of Elizabeth whose de- scendants have carried on down to Salisbury, Balfour, and Lord Robert Cecil of today. Chatham meticulously trained his son, Wil- liam Pitt, and Holland found time to drill his son, Charles James Fox, and so, too, Glad-~ stone, Chamberlain, Asquith, MacDonald, and Churchill have carried on the fine family tradition of giving in their sons men of great capacity to the State, One finds it hard to understand the preju- dices of Americans who think of themselves ag sensible men, against political ambition in the young. Is it possible, as our enemies pay, that we really feel that the only road to real distinction is in the acquisition of money, and that the prejudice against pub- lic life is because you can’t make money in politics? Is it possible that the average American really feels that the accumulation of wealth is the only career worth while? Or that the American does not compare with the English in feeling any responsibility to organized society? Or does it spring from the fact that newspapers, columnists, the wisecrackers of stage comedies, and even A3853 novelists by insinuating that men in politics are fools or crooks have made the impression on half-baked minds that there is something low in public life? That, I am sure, was not the opinion of Jefferson who urged the young to enter po= litical life, drilled not a few, including Mon- roe, for public service, and hoped that the University of Virginia he was sponsoring would become a training field for public service. . What we need in America today is not the elimination of politicians but more politi- cians thoroughly trained for public service. There can be no finer career. But to render such service in the highest sense calls for a preparation beyond that of our forebears. The complications of modern social and busi- ness organization present intricate problems requiring special knowledge. Our fathers dealt with fundamental political principles put we of today, within those principles, can and must find solutions for economic and social problems. It is not enough now to saturate oneself in history and political philosophy; one must master the mysterics of economics and of sociology to deal with the political problems of this new day. And since modern invention has wiped out dis- tance and made all nations neighbors, in- terdependent upon each other, the young man preparing for a political career should make a special study of international rela- tions. Thus prepared intellectually, he should study political psychology to the end that he may advance his cause intelligently through honest and wise propaganda. And nothing is more vital than a study of the science of political or party organization down to the precinct, for only through vic- tories at the polls can he reach or hold a position in public life in a democracy. In brief, he must study to be a politician. VITL To recapitulate: Democracies operate best through political parties. Political parties function only through politicians. Eliminate politicians and you wipe out parties, Wipe out parties and you throw democ- racies into a state of unorganized, undiscl- plined chaos. And when in a democracy the people are unorganized, undirected, undisciplined, the Fascist has his excuse and the tyrant ap- pears to dominate the Nation by brute force, That is the reason the Mussolinis, Hitlers, and Francos hate and exterminate the poli- ticlans; and that is the reason it is so stupid,in a democracy to Join them in their hue and cry. And that is the reason why the theorists and scoffers who sneer at representative gov~ ernment, political parties, and politicians are consciously in some cases, and uncon= sciously, let us hope in most, making their contribution to the Fascist effort to destroy democracy in the United States. The Hiss Case EXTENSION OF REMARKS fe) HON. JOSEPH R. McCARTHY OF WISCONSIN ‘IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, May 22 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp an article entitled “‘The Hys- teria of the MHisslings,” by Norbert Muhien, from the New Leader,
A3854 There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: THE HYSTERIA OF THE HiIssLINcs (By Norbert Mahlen) Memories of public life are notoriously short. Political events not personally ex- perienced are scanned in today’s papers and forgotten by the time tomorrow’s hit the streets. Thus many people believe that rowdy congressional investigations are a new in- vention, a vicious weapon of the cold war. But congressional investigations have been ferreting out undue, illegal, and sometimes criminal group influences on the life and liberty of the Republic for more than three decades. From 1909 to 1937, the suspicion that big money corrupted national politics led to at least a dozen such investigations of business leaders—from the Pujo Committee To In- vestigate the Concentration of Money and Credit through Teapot Dome to the Special Committee To Investigate the Munitions Industry (of which Alger Hiss was counsel). These probes were frankly partisan affairs; for the most part, the Democratic and Bull Moose legislators were out to prove wrong- doings in the Republican administration. The investigaiing Congressmen and legisla~ tors were exempt from libel, and fortunately so. Otherwise they could not have financially withstood the interests they attacked. The flery accusations and the cheap oratory that went with them often overshot their mark. At the time they certainly seemed to do great harm to business, if not to the community at large. Often grave charges were leveled at innosents and reputations were smeared. But, as we can see today, all the noise did not harm the innocent victims, one of whom was Bernard Baruch. These partisan investigations publicly aired every shred of suspicion, every con- ceivable bit of evidence. They led to several court convictions; a few financiers and high Government oficials were sent to prison. New laws were drafted which forestalled repetition of the scandals; and the social climate, as well as the economic intercourse of the country was revitalized in a cleaner and healthier way. In recent years, the attention of con- gressi¢nal committees has been directed to- ward vhe infiltration and misuse of govern~ ment by giant dictatorship rather than by big business. With the battle being run along partisan lines, its tough fighting has unfortunately sometimes clouded the Com-~ munist issue itself, which is equally vital for both parties. But the most abused of congressional committees unearthed the treason of Alger Hiss, whose guilt was finally confirmed by a court. And while that com- mittee and other committees did attack presumably innocent people, those people recelved every opportunity to defend them-~ selves publicly in the press and even in the committee rooms. The investigation is directed against two groups of fraudulent Communist helpmates in government—first, the agents who are unfit according to law; and second, the fcl- low-travelers and dupes who seem unfit, ac- cording to common sense (for a while at least), to hold positions of political trust. The present probe has followed the course which the prewar investigations of fraudu- lent big money had healthily taken. Al- though such investigations start rather late, are sometimes handled in unskilled, silly and worthless ways, and have a lot of re- grettable accompaniments, yet few Ameri-« cans can have any quarrel with their main purpose and effect; to keep this country from being turned into a concentration camp, and to save freedom from being submerged by fear, What is amazing is the extent to which many well-meaning non-Communists give emotional support to those suspected of Com- munist collaboration—and even to those wha have been found guilty of high crimes. To the same extent, we find widespread hostility against the men, media, congressional com- mittees and courts of law who have been prosecuting those Communist collaborators. The passionate sympathy shown in some quarters for Alger Hiss is the perfect illus- tration of this attitude. The excess of tears shed by some people for Mr. Hiss is sometimes explained as genuine charity for a sinner’s tragic self-destruc-~ tion. But why, then, do the same people exhibit such frantic hatred of the confess- ing and repentant sinner, Whittaker Cham-~- bers? A look at the Hiss partisans and Chambers-haters is most revealing. To ex~ plain the motives of the majority of Hiss’ defenders, let us examine the argument heard most often in his defense. “Hiss,” say his sympathizers, “has done only what was very decent and patriotic while he did it— he believed in friendship with the Soviets just like everybody did at the time.” Except for the fact that his special usefulness to the Russians led him to a friendship con- siderably closer than that of the average sympathizer, it is undeniable that Hiss played with communism when playing with commu- nism was most fashionable, from the am- passador down to the last little analyst. And for precisely this reason, the vast mass of former sympathizers and ex-fellow travelers identify themselves—sulkconsclously at least—with Alger Hiss. But the conflicts and confusions which turned them into fellow travelers originally are still at work—inside them, now, when they have ceased being full-fledged fellow travelers, They have not yet solved their constant wavering between moral ends and immoral means. Because they “believed” in American democracy as well as in Commu- nist comradeship, they still hold a muddled allegiance to a number of contradictory ideas. Their loyalty to America provokes their bad conscience, because of their past and, to some extent, present allegiance to ideas of the united front and wartime alliance. Iden- tifying themselves with Alger Hiss, they feel that the public judgment on his guilt is a judgment on thelr own past guilt. But they are unable to frankly admit their guilt as a thing of the past, which they have got over with and regret. Since, on the other hand, they have moved too far from pro- communism to still proudly defend treason, they remain in an emotional quandary. Chambers was able to do what these for- mer sympathizers could not do. He finally and completely broke with his aberrations. He found a home in a new security. This was enough for the ex-fellow travelers. Having identified part of their selves with Mr. Hiss, they identified the other part with Mr. .Chambers, and dirccted all their resistance against him. This is the psychological mechanism of exterlorizing transference and ensuing aggression, a mechanism which de- livered the former sympathizers from their predicament. They could now hate the man who made a clean breast of his guilt—which was their guilt. And they would defend the man who was publicly convicted of his past doings—which were their doings. There are two archetypes of the former fel- low traveler of 1950. There is Mrs. Bleeding= Heart who, in the 1930's joined so many com- mittees for good causes whether they were run by and for Communists or not. Then there was Dr. Win-the-war, in the 1940's, who deliberately repressed his resistance to, and even courted, communism, while the strange alliance between the Babbitt and the Bolshevik lasted. These two are still articu- late figures on the American scene when it comes to the defense of the past as an issue of the present. In the conflict between their APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD new anticommunism and their past procom- munism, they must, as the psychological textbook predicts, have recourse to ration- alizations to defend their contradictory and irrational views. Few people have the strength to revise their past opinions, even if they directly contradict their present views. So we hear again the old united front and wartime al- liance slogans, in lusty discord with the present resistance to tyranny line. And these are fortified by ideas borrowed from the integral pacifists and civil libertarians (a group of watchdogs valiant and useful by themselves, though rather alien to the crowd of Hisslings). To defend the vestiges of procommunism in an anti-Communist society, the Hisslings rationalize that some procommunism—about as much as they themselves have practiced—must be part and parcel of our democracy. This, of course, is nonsense, but it helps political neurotics feel comfortable amid their con- flicts and confusions. It also helps the Communist conspirators continue their present work. Twisting their image of political reality until it fits into and confirms their con- flicting political emotions, the Hisslings re- gard the investigation of suspects as a witch hunt, the prosecution of legally indicted suspects as the persecution of innecent her- etics. The guilt of the conspirators for slav- ery disappears in their minds behind the personal (and therefore incidental) deprav- ity of a few anti-Communists, and the defa- mation of character and motives of all anti- Communists. The partisan investigation is transformed in their minds into nothing but a free-for-all between two parties for their own sake. In the end, they are completely able to forget that this country is defending itsel{—-so far with restraint—against the agents of the concentration camp state. To repress the facts which would make a shambles of their carefully constructed de- fense mechanism, they have been supplied (from Communist Party sources) with a magic word. This word marvelously does away with all irritating Insights. The word is “hysteria.” Whatever is done in defense against the Communists is hysteria. When a New York teacher who Hed about her Com- munist past is fred, the Hisslings call it per- secution of free Inquiry. When an appli- cant for a Job with the supersecret Central Intelligence Agency is turned down for un- known reasons, the banal happening is de- scribed in a series of pitiful and insinuating articles designed to make the reader indig- nant over the injustice done his fellow man (as if every non-Communist had a right to be employed as a spy, and as if it were hys- terla to pick the best man). <A few isolated Incidents like these are all the Hisslings need to prate noisily about hysteria in the United States. Equally repressed in the minds of the Hisslings is the fact that the Communists— by their very doctrine—have to try dosper- ately to get footholds everywhere including the camp of the enemy, including anti-Com- munists if you will. There is sufficient proof that they have succeded here in this effort. The great amount of pro-Soviet propaganda appearing in conservative and evon reaction- ary newspapers and magazines is ample evi- dence of this fact. Even Algor Hiss, let it be remembered, never joined a front organiza~ tion or publicly extolled the politburo. The investigation of Communist auxillarics be- comes hysterical only if one disregards this fact and the facts of the planned Soviet ag- gression (as the Hisslings and their mentors try to do). At its summit, the fellow-traveling propa- ganda for American submission to Moscow had taken in almost a third of our popula- tion. Given the tremendous turn-over of sympathizers with Communist aims over the last 20 years, almost ane out of two Amer- icans may at one time cr anothor have been
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD caught to some degree in the Communist web of lies. While many of them have com- pletely recovered from their one-time mis-= takes, quite a few others still cling to the petrified ideas of their past, feel guilty about their conflict, and try to save their con- science by a relapse into new delusions. Just as they once clamored for Moscow tri- umphs leading to Yalta and Potsdam, they now clamor for the rights and privileges of the Communists to conspire in our midst without being hindered by investigations and eventual prosecutions. If they had their way, the consequences of their own present hysteria might be as grave as the conse- quences of their past delusions are today. The Hisslings are always ready to yell hys-~ terically about “hysteria,” and to rally behind any argument, man, or movement which ob- structs the weeding out of Communist agents and influences on our politics. For their own delusions, dreams, and areas of ignorance concerning world communism, as well as present American reality, have not yet been weeded out. Science Foundation’s Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 18, 1950 Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, with permission to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I am happy to attach an edito- rial, Science Foundation’s Goals, from the Milwaukee Journal of May 12. It reveals an understanding of the very great importance of this legislation, in whose sponsorship and enactment I was pleased to play an active role. As a member of the conference com- mittee which reached the compromise agreement on the final version of the measure signed by the President, I hope that its advantages and potentialities will continue to get intelligent exposition of this kind. The editorial follows: ScreNcx FOUNDATION’S GOALS When President Truman signed the bill establishing a national research foundation he called it a major landmark in the history of science in the United States. The principal features of the bill and its prime purposes have been considerably ob- scured. This has been largely due to the hubbub raised over the questions of secrecy and of loyalty tests for scientists and schol- ars who would conduct research under foun- dation grants. Those collateral issues seem. now to have been satisfactorily settled by compromise in the final measure, after 5 years of controversy. The function of the new foundation is to promote basic research in such fields as medicine, biology, engineering, physics, and the like. Such research is almed at dis- covery of basic facts without particular con- sideration for possible later application, use- fulness, or profit. It provides the raw ma- terial on which applied science works in the development of all sorts of new machines, materials and techniques, for peace or war. America has excelled in the field of applied science. America has lagged in the fleld of basic research and leaned heavily on Europe. Even the atomic bomb was developed on basic research that had been done abroad. War and the iron curtain have dimmed hope that we shall benefit from much new basic scientific research in Europe for some time, however. For security and progress, our Nation must provide a stockpile of basic knowledge so that applied science and invention may be productive. That is the purpose of the new National Science Foundation, It will take nearly a year to set up the machinery. After that, the foundation is expected to be ready to distribute some $15,000,000 a year to scholars, scientists, lab- oratories, and colleges for selected projects in basic research. It will collaborate with the Defense Department and the Atomic En- ergy Commission, which have their own re~ search programs. There is no denying that the last war, the cold war, and the possibility of future war provide the most impelling reasons for Setting up the new program. A happier aspect is that the results, in the long run, may mean far more in terms of human wel- fare than in terms of weapons. The New Threat From Germany EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HERMAN P. EBERHARTER OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I am including excerpts from an address de-~ livered by Arthur L. Mayer at the meet- ing of the executive committee of the American Jewish Committee, April 30, 1950. Mr. Mayer, who is chairman of the committee on Germany of the American Jewish Committee, served abroad in 1943 and 1944 as assistant to Basil O’Connor, chairman of the American Red Cross. In 1944 and 1945 he was film consultant to the United States Secretary of War, Robert P. Patterson. In 1948 and 1949 Mr. Mayer was chief of the motion-pic- ture branch of military government in Germany. The remarks of Mr. Mayer are as follows: The new statute of occupation has recently gone into effect. Under its terms we have returned to the German people a close ap- proximation of complete control over their political and economic affairs and an absolute control over their educational institutions. This will not come as a surprise to anyone who participated in military government, for at all times the task of reconstructing the German mind was deemed secondary to the task of reconstructing German industry and finance. Under the Army regime only one-third of 1 percent of the total American expenditures in Germany was for educational purposes. ‘We have restored Germany to 100 percent of its prewar industrial strength but left it with 100 percent of its prewar spiritual weak- messes. Of course, the factories had to be reopened, transportation had to be reestab- lished, the people had to be fed. But they should have been fed not only the vitamins of fresh vegetables and health-giving fruits, but also the vitamins of fresh faiths and health-giving standards of conduct. In the terrific pressure of the early days of the occupation, these basic needs could understandably be overlooked, but it is Inex- cusable that at this late date we have com~ . suade, A3855 pletely surrendered to the Kultur ministers of every German state—many of whom, if not ex-Nazis, are rabid nationalists—undis- puted authority over curricula, textbooks and the selection of teachers. I do not need to describe to you the inevitable consequences of such a complete surrender of education on our part. Immediately upon the cessation of fight- ing, the Russians entered Germany with carefully prepared textbooks. At the end of 2 years they had eight textbooks per child in their zone, while we had only one and one- half. The Bavarian Kultur minister, Dr. Hundhammer, boasted that he had person- ally blocked spending a mark on new text- books. When I left Germany 5 months ago, we were still using some textbooks dating back to Nazi days, but a bright military mind had arranged that pages containing harmful material be pasted together. Kids are the same all over the world, and you can guess what pages they read most assiduously. The schools were honeycombed with ex-Nazis. Out of 12,000 teachers dismissed from the Bavarian schools in 1945 for national socialist affillations, 11,000 were back on the job. We passed a compulsory education law for all boys and girls up to 16 years of age but we failed to build the schools that were neces< sary to make the law a reality rather than an agreeable dream. The Russians in thelr zone may not be making much progress in converting the adults, but they are teaching the kids that communism is the sole answer to their natural craving for more food, better hous< ing and jobs for all, while we are failing utterly to instill In the children of the Western zones any faith or even under- standing of the blessings of free speech, rep- resentative government, and the protection of minority rights. It is high time in Gere many that we spent less energy saying how bad communism is and spent more energy showing how well our system works. * * * LJ a CRITICAL SITUATION The rationalization for our premature re- lease of power to the Germans over their political, economic and educational life is that democratic principles as well as the acquisition of experience in self-government requires the operation by the Germans of their own affairs. This is much like saying that little Johnny, although he is still an ill-trained, bad boy, should be allowed to de< cide when to go to bed, whether to go to school and what guns to play with. It ase sumes that the Germans are prepared for self-government, an assumption which few of us who have actually labored in the vine- yard rather than read reports in Berlin headquarters were prepared to accept. What has happened was exactly what we predicted. The Allies can no longer com~< mand; they can only exhort and try to per~ There has been a tremendous resur~ gence of reactionary nationalism and mili- tarism with strong Nazi overtones. Democ~ racy in Germany has been utilized to bring National Socialists back into important pri< vate and public positions. For instance, in, the Bavarian ministry, 60 percent of the em- ployees in the finance department are for-' mer Nazis, 77 percent in food and agricul ture, and 81 percent in justice. Out of 31 senior members of the embryo foreign serv-' ice of the new Republic, 14 are reported to be ex-Nazis. The return of power to Ger- man hands has meant the restoration of a narrow-minded hierarchical civil service of the traditional German variety, lacking any concept of democratic principles or ideals, It has permitted nationalist parties and neo- Nazi groups to come burgeoning back into existence, There are at present three major groups of this nature which we estimate represent approximately 6,000,000 people. They have
A3856 not yet been able to coalesce and form a united front, but with the inevitable advent of some talented demagogue there is grave likelihood that they will be able to do so, and the German people are as ready today, as they were before Hitler, to sell their souls for assurances of security, race superiority, and plenty of loot. Our hands are tied in great measure by the fact that we must co~- operate with the present leading parties in the German Parlament as our only potential democratic bulwark against these intense re~ actionaries of the right and of the left and, consequently, any Allied rebuke to the gov- ernment redounds to the benefit of the ex- tremists. Unfortunately, moreover, not only have the neo-Nezis made progress in recent months, but, even more disquieting, German poll- ticians who had been considered compara- tively safe and sound muiddle-of-the-road concervatives are giving evidence of arrant nationalism. When, in a tactfully worded letter, Mr. McCloy asked for reconsideration of an income tax reduction measure, which would, in the absence of compensating rev- enues, have added to the financial assistance we are extending Germany, he was accused by the German government of unwarranted in- terference and an affront to the government’s financial experts. Unemployment has been growing steadily—it has now reached close to 2,000,000. German indusirialists and businessmen, who are surreptitiously ex« tending credits behind the iron curtain, weep crocodile tears that United States controls are ruining their business with the east while the British and the French stifle German competition in the west. The government is running out of sops to throw to the German population, such as the recent elimination of rationing, erman politicians have not been entirely successful in their efforts to shift all the blame for economic difficulties to the United States. So new diversions are called for. Adcnaucr is making desperate efforts to rally support on issues of foreign policy; hence the Saar wsroar, acmcee his repeated calls for a united Curcye wii. Germany as an inde- pendent equal. Other politicians find it eas- ler to make the good, old-fashioned national- ist appeal: to cry that war guilt is not con- fined to the Germans alone; to insist that they wore always right about the Russian menace. Germans used to say with a wry grin to me, “Germany is always ahead of the United States. We have our ruins 5 years before you have yours.” Actually, we are making our concessions to the Germans and building up their in- dustrial potential, which can easily be con-~ verted into a war potential, in the conviction that in any future emergency they will surely be on our side, It is undeniable that the overwhelming majority of Germans are bitterly anti-Communist, but they, lke others before them, are victims of the dan- gerous fallacy that you can use the Com- munists rather than be used by them. Neither past history nor a careful appraisal of the possibilities for future trade and terri- torial concessions, which the Soviets can offer in competition with the Western World, justify any certainty that the Germans will surely select us as the more desirable ally. We are making an error for which our chil- dren may pay with their lives if we permit any remilitarization of Germany, or a level of steel production in excess of peacetime needs, or any further weakening of our present far too weak controls. What we are preparing as a bastion may well prove to be a boomerang if we proceed on the assumption, as we seem to be doing, that we can win the support of the German people by cooperating with the small group of cartel-minded industrialists and pork barrel politicians, whose devotion to our institutions is in direct proportion to the amount of our annusl appropriations, but whose deep rooted antagonism to a demo- cratic way of life found clear expression dur- ing the German clection last fall. Conces- sions on the dismantling of factories, the internationalizgation of the Ruhr, or the value of the mark, are not interpreted by the Ger- mans as gestures of good will, but as mani- festations of apprehension. If after five brief years we are ready to swap our bitterly bought laurel leaves for an Olive branch, let us at least be sure to extend that branch to the right and not to the wrong people. Postwar profiteers and the still wealthy industrialists who financed Hit- ler are gorging themselves with rich foods in the luxurious restaurants of Frankfurt and Hamburg, while the workers and professional classes and their children are still under- nourished. The Germans, on the basis of the Weimar and Bonn republics, associate democracy with incompetence, insecurity, and human misery. They fully intend by blackmail, cajolery, or double dealing to utilize the American-Russian impasse to reestablish their own European hegemony. They may hate communism even more than they dis- trust democracy, but in choosing between them they will be guided not by ideological considerations, but solely by motives of self- interest—and by self-interest I do not mean the best interest of the German people but of their politicians, their landed aristocracy, and their militarists who, under the new regime as under the old, are still their undis- puted masters. ANTI-SEMITISM IN GERMANY Approximately 45,000 Jews still live in Ger- many in a population of 65,000,000, but the malady of anti-Semitism lingers on. Of those who remain, 20,000 are German Jews and the remainder, displaced persons. Most of them are well advanced in years—34 per~ cent of the Jews in Berlin, for instance, are over 55 years of age. Personally, I think all except those too old or too infirm to emigrate are ill-advised, not to mention lacking in self-respect, to remain in Germany. Anti- Semitism has not yet assumed a definite or- ganizational form but it has become again one of Germany’s major “exports.” Not only does it penetrate such neighboring countries as Belgium, France, and Swiizer- Jand, but it contaminates our occupation troops in Germany. There is complete ab- sence of organized liberalism to combat its spread and to denounce its manifestations adequately. These manifestations take varlous forms: the desecration of synagogues and cemeteries, usually ascribed falsely by the police to adolescents; insults to inoffensive, helpless people by housing officials, railroad conduc- ” tors, restaurant owners; disturbances at pub- lic gatherings by hoodlums, who shout: “The trouble with Hitler was he didn’t kill enough Jews,” actual riots such as I saw in Munich, with mounted police charging unarmed Jew- ish DP's parading peacefully to protest an anti-Semitic letter in a newspaper; most omi- nous of all, ovations to men like Veit Harlan, producer of the notorious film, Jew Suess, when he was declared innocent of charges of anti-Semitism; and of the rabblo-rouser, Herr Hedler, a member of the Bonn Parlia- ment, against whom an unsuccessful action was instituted when he stated that ‘‘Hitler’s anti-Jewish laws were all right, although, maybe, gassing was not the right method to enforce them.” A BROAD PROGRAM The problem of Germany is, however, far more than a threat to Jewish welfare; it isa world problem, and in our effort to cope with it we cannot let it appear for one moment to be a purely Jewish matter. At the first meeting of our committee, which, let me point out, is not entirely a Jewish com- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD mittee and whose non-Jewish membership we propose to broaden, our purposes were stated as follows: 1. To formuate a specific program to which all liberal-minded men could adhere for the building of a free Germany, which will add strength (moral as well as physical) to Euro- pean democracy, and reinforce effective op~ position to all forms of totalitarianism, 2. To arouse the American public to an awareness of the dangers inherent in the re-~ surgence of extreme German nationalism, the failure of the denazification plogram, the return of former active Nazis to positions of power, proposals for the reestablishment of a German army and air force, and the neglect of the reeducation program; 3. To cooperate with other organizations similarly minded as our own in obtaining representation in Washington and abroad, and support in the press and on the radio for publicizing and furthering our program. I should like 1o emphasize, however, that, in contrast to some other groups in this country, ours is definitely not a fault-finding committee. We have faith in Commissioner McCloy’s high ideals and genuine zeal for humanitarian causes. He is in no way re- sponsible for the present German dilemma and is doing everything within his power, in our opinion, to stem the tide of reaction. No clearer exr7ession of an approach, in the best Amerzc:.n trad:tiom, to the German issue has ever been offered than Commis-~ sioner McCloy’s Stuttgart speech and his re- cent testimony before the House Appropria- tions Committee in connection with his pro- posed budget. This budget proposes to ap- propriate $18,000,000 for educational pur~ poses and although this is still far from adequate, in our opinion, it is a big advance over previous budgets and probably all that could possibly gain congressional approval at the present time. Indeed, that battle for congressional ap- proval is the first one into which our com- mittee has thrown itself. A letter recently appeared in the New York Times, prepared by General Taylor and sinned by several other members of the comm'tce together with Mr. George Brett, of the Macmillan Co, We believe that this letter, urging that the full educational snprorriaticn be granted, is a cemons ration of ihe type of support we are seeking to extend and will continue to extend as far as possible to the State Department. * « * “ * A resolution has been offered in the Sen- ate by Senator Ginuerrz, in conjunction with several colleagues including administration stalwarts Uke Senators Letrman, Peprmr, Dovatas, and Kitcorz, which recpucsts Presi- dent Truman to create an investigatine com~ mittee to separate facts from rumor in Germany and to learn how grave is the threat of various conspirational move- ments in that country. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that an objective and dispassionate review of - the facts and trends in Germany, con- ducted by a highly qualified nonparti- san group of leaders in American public life, and supported by an expert techni- cal staff, would produce salutary results in the form of statesmanlike recommen- dations with regard to the future con- duct of American policy in Germany. My hope is, therefore, that this construc- tive proposal for a nonpolitical, fact- finding presidential commission will find favor with both the Congress and the administration. It is a proposal which deserves the support of the American people, and it may prove a major con- tribution to the democratic effort to win the peace.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ABC Takes Wise Action EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 18, 1950 Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, with permission to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I attach an editorial, “ABC Takes Wise Action,” from the Milwaukee Journal of May 16. It is a matter of justifiable pride that Milwaukee and Wisconsin played an im- portant part in ending long-standing dis- crimination in the American Bowling Congress. The State’s attorney general had pressed the matter vigorously with State ABC officials. Milwaukeans had signified a real interest in seeing that the ABC meeting in 1952, scheduled for the city’s new arena, would be free from the discrimination which has marred the event in the past. We promise an ..5C promoting Ameri- can sportsmanship for all Americans on an equal basis a real welcome in 1952. The editorial follows: ABC Takes Wise Acrion In a gratifying and almost unanimous vote the American Bowling Congress hus opened its membership to all men without regard to race, erced, or color. It is an act of Americanism and sportsman- ship that is welcomed by everyone who has been opposing the ABC race ban, which limited membership in bowling’s ruling or- ganization to white males. It is another victory in the war against discrimination in America and an act that cannot fail to bene- At the ABC. , They were, as Michael Dunn, ABC attorney, told the recent ABC convention, “sound, practical reasons” for the rule change. The ABC was engared in costly court battles aimed at its practice of discrimination in at least four States and was expecting similar suits in other States. It had already lost its light in the State of Illinols, where the ABC was chartered. And, as Dunn sald, even if it won all its court firhts .t would “still lose in the court of public oplnion.” But there were moral reasons for the change, too, and opponents of the race ban are willing to assume that those reasons were as compelling as any of the more “practical” reasons. There is reason to hope and believe that the ABC acted not through force but because its members accept the fact that discrimination is not moral, ls not good Americanism and is not good sportsmanship. It remains for the future actlons of the ABC to justify that hope. Battles over race problems are never pleas- ant and almost always bitter. The ABC has taken the major step in healing the scars of the race battle in which it was involved. Its critics in that fight must heal the wounds further by accepting the ABC action in good faith, by congratulating the ABC for its sportsmanship and by hanging out the wel- come mat in the cities where the ABC, for the last several years at least, has been something less than welcome. Milwaukee, where the fight has been heat- ed, can feel greater satisfaction than most communities in the ending of the ABC race ban because this is the organization’s head- quarters. This community commends the ABO for its straightforward action and will give a warm welcome to the organization’s 1952 tournament here, . “Tin Hat” Antique in Civilian Defense EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues in the House as profit- able reading an article written by the Honorable Curt HoLirIELp, Representa-~ * tive of California’s Nineteenth District, and which appeared in the Washington Post of yesterday, Sunday, May 21. I have read this splendid article care- fully and with much interest, because of my own deep concern over the subject covered by Congressman HOLIrIELp. No one in Congress is better qualified than our colleague from California to discuss civilian defense. It has been one of his prime interests, beginning with his first term in Congress. Few there are who have given the time and study to this most important problem in these past few years. No one realizes better than Congressman Ho.rrrenp that ci- vilian defense planning cannot wait until disaster strikes. He has become a leader in the fight to make certain America does not start too Jate in this field. It has been my personal pleasure to serve with the gentleman from Califor- nia [Mr. Ho.rrreip], first on the former Military Affairs Committee, in 1945 and 1946, and since 1946 he and I have served together as two of the nine House Mcem- bers on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. I, therefore, feel that I know the important role our colleague from California has and is playing in formu- lating plans for our Nation’s security. Mr. Hozirre.p’s article follows: “Trin Har’ ANTIQUE IN CIVILIAN ‘DrFrENsE (By Cxuer Honirmip, Member of Congress, Nineteenth District of California) In this atomic age, civilian defense Is a matter that strikes home to every individual. The possibility of mass destruction by the most terrible weapons ever cdevised—with even deadlier ones on the drawing boards— cannot be put asido as a mere fancy. The possibility is real; it hovers about us in the shape of a huge mushroom that could blot out cities and peoples. And, because everyone is exposed to the potential horror, everyone shares in the re- sponsibility for civilian defense. No longer can we assume that defense js wholly the job of soldiers in uniform, Civilian defense is a pervasive kind of activity that must reach into the community, the neighborhood, and the home. Civilian defense must also become a new kind of activity. The tin hats and sand buckets of the last war would seem rather pathetic in the awful glare of an atomic blast. New techniques and instruments must be made available for widespread use in the event of an emergency. Radiological moni- toring sounds like gobbledygook; the Geiger counter and the dosimeter are gadgets un~ familiar to the ordinary citizen; but these terms will become household words in any adequate program of civilian defense. It was well stated by a witness before the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy that the science of protecting and saving people is years behind the laboratory selence of killing people. Our military lead< A3857. ers like to boast now and then about how much damage we could inflict on an enemy. More sensible discussion, as this witness pointed out, might well be applied to the matter of protecting ourselves. He esti- mated that 30 percent of the casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been pre- vented by adequate preparation, The effective development of a civilian de- fense program is staggering in its complexity. Not only must the scientific findings of the laboratory be translated into instruments of common use, but intricate problems of Government administration must be solved. All levels of Government are necessarily en- meshed in this program. How shall we co- ordinate these diverse activities while pre- serving the basic rights of American citizens and our traditional structure of democratic government? What responribilities shall be allocated to the Federal Government, what to Stale and local governments? How can each compli- cated network of community facilities and services be adapted to perform in emer- gencics without impossible burdens of cost? How shall the Federal Government arrange its own administrative organization for effi- cient civil-defense planning and operations? Is new legislation needed to back up this ad- Minisirative organization? These are some of the questions which must be answered, and Congress as well as the executive branch is grappling with them now. While we can azree that the need to take effective measures of civilian defense is ur- gent, we must realize that the job cannot be finished overnight. Civilian defense is hard ahd prosaic work; it is continuing work, So long as we live in a world troubled by the prespect of alomic war, we must work at this steady occupation called civilian defense. Where do we stand today on this whole matter? In the Federal Government, we are mainly in the planning stage. Of course, there are many criticisms that the plans are Aeficient in one or another respect, and there is an understandable insistence that we talk Jess and do more, However, the fact that progress is slow should not be taken to mean that the Government is indifferent. Rather, it reflects the magnitude and difficulty of the task. On the legislative side, we are studying clvilian-defense requirements with great care. The Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, of which I am a member, is conducting hearings, some in executive session, some public, on civilian defense os it relates to atomic atiack. The Senate Armed Services Committee is examining miliiury aspects of this matter. Serious altention is being given to my bill for the creation of a special commission to study the feasibility of an alternate capital for use in case of an attack on Washington, I propose this purely as a precautionary measure. The continuous operation of Gov- ernment, in the event of devastating atomic attack, is vital to continued national survival. On the administrative side, the National Security Resources Board, an agency charged with broad responsibilities to advise the Pres- ident concerning defense and security needs, is heading up civilian defense affairs. This Board is working under a directive from the President to assume leadership in civil-de- fense planning and to develop an adequate program. * Major departments and agencies of the Government are being assigned different parts of the planning job. For example, the General Services Administration was given the primary responsibility for planning for wartime civillan disaster relief. The GSA says it will develop plans for civilian and military participation in activites designed to minimize the effects of enemy attack upon our civilian population, facilities and serv~ ices, anc for repairing the damage rosulting from such attack.
A3858 Because civilian defense must be consid- ered largely a matter of atomic defense, the basic information for planning and operat- ing derives largely from the Atomic Energy Commission. The Commission has been as- signed the important task of supplying au- thoritative data concerning the effects of atomic explosion. What happens to people or to buildings or to cities when an atomic explosion occurs, are questions on which the AEC has already provided considerable infor- mation in published form. RUGGED INSTRUMENTS Detection of radiation is a basic factor in civilian defense. Obviously, we can’t train everyone to be an atomic physicist. There- fore, instruments of detection must be de- veloped to withstand hard knocks and to be operated easily after brief instruction. The Commission reports practical results, in the manufacture of low-cost, rugged instruments to detect the danger spots caused by deadly gamma rays after an atomic explosion. The Commission is establishing short training courses in laboratories throughout the coun- try for doctors and radiological monitoring experts. Private companies also have been stimu- lated to experiment in producing radiation detection instruments. When the AEC took over the atomic program in 1947, there were about 9 companies manufacturing about 19 different types of instruments. Presently there are about 60 firms in this fleld, includ- ing those that manufacture accessories or components Follow-up studies on the survivors of Hiro- shima and Nagasaki are providing important information on the after efccts of exposure to radiation. Although newer and more deadly bombs make these observations dated, there is a note of encouragement in the fact that the survivors of Hiroshima and Naga- saki appear in pretty good shape. No in- crease has been noted in abnormalitics in new-born children. It was found that the Ions of the eye is particularly susceptible to radiation, and form of cataract is now afflicting the Japanese survivors. Efficient methods of decontaminating food and water and objects exposed to radiation are being studied by the commission. New arugs to control infection and to treat bleed- ing are being developed. Anemia will be controlled by transfusion. And these radia- tion studies undoubtedly will result in new medical discoveries of far-reaching impor- tance in the treatment of disease. BASIC PRINCIPLES In concluding this article, I wculd like to suggest a few basic principles of civilian defense which seem persuasive, the more I study this problem. First, the measures must be practical. We cannot allow ourselves to become panicky and resort to fantastic and impossible schemes. America is not about to go under-~ ground or become a nation of cave dwellers. We must work within the framework of the existing economy and with the resources and facilities that are or can become available to us without inordinate financial outlays. Civilian defense should proceed by steady, careful, and well-integrated stages, rather than by erratic spurts in all directions at once. Second, the major part of the work must be done locally. We want no top-heavy bu~ reaucratic control in Washington imposing orders on everybody. The mainspring of civilian defense lies in the initiative and energies of the people themselves and in their local facilities for community service. Of course, the Federal Government has an important responsibility for effective plan- ning, guidance, and assistance. But no Gov~ ernment agency at the top can substitute for the resourcefulness and teamwork that must bé applied at the bottom—where civil- ian defense measures are expected to work. The interest and constructive criticism which municipal officers like Mayor Fletcher Bowron of Los Angeles have brought to bear on civilian-defense planning, indicate that many local units of Government are pre- pared to assume their rightful share of re- sponsibility in this task. Third, civilian defense must be managed by civihans. This job is too far reaching in its impact, too close to the daily lives of our citizenry, to be delegated to the military. Indeed, I am convinced that the military authorities do not want the heavy addcd responsibilities that civil defense entails. They have enough to do in their own sphere of responsibility for national defense. Some proposals have been made that civil- fan-defense planning be placed within the Department of Defense. I cannot agree with this line of thinking. All the objections that can be made to the control of civilian de- fense by a rigid bureaucracy in Washington apply with even greater force to military control. Let the “garrison stale’ be con- fined to military life and let it not be ex- tended to American life as a whole. Fourth, and implicit in the three preced- ing principles, civilian defense must he carried out in the American, democratic way. With the new possibilities of atomic warfare have come new burdens which strain our resources and our institutions to the ut- most. Iam confident that America can carry these burdens without losing hold of the ideals and the ideas by which we live. The self-reliance of our people, their common sense, their resiliency, their tremendous ca- pacity for cooperative endeavor at the com- munity level, augur well for the future. Atlantic Integration EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHESTER E. MERROW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. MERROW. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orD, I include therein an editorial from the New York Times of May 22, 1950, en- titled ‘Atlantic Integration’’: ATLANTIC INTEGRATION With the momentous decisions of the Lon- don conferences of the Atlantic powers spread upon the record of history, there de- volve upon the Atlantic governments and peoples the task and the duty to take speedy and concrete action to transform the paper agreements into living reality. These deci-~ sions are the logical and inevitable conse- quences of the present international situa- tion, in which the only remaining milita- ristic and aggressive power—Soviet Russia— challenges the rest of the world. But they are also so far-reaching and carry such broad implications, that they break through all traditional thinking and make unprece- dented demands upon the statesmanship, the faith, and the realism of all the nations concerned, For what they do is to carry the concept of the Atlantic community to a point incon- ceivable a few short years ago. Hitherto, under the Marshall plan, the West-European Union and the Council of Europe, the idea of political, economic, and military integra- tion has been largely confined to Europe, with the United States providing both aid and encouragement in these projects. Even APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the North Atlantic Pact was originally con- ceived as a traditional defensive alliance between completely sovereign and independ- ent nations, with each reserving the right to pursue independent policies and to deter- mine the nature of its action in case of attack, But under the London decisions the con- cept of economic, military and, at least in foreign policy, political integration has been extended from Europe to the whole North Atlantic community. And of all these proj- ests, the proposed military integration is the most important because it involves and necessitates the other two. This military integration is implied in the project to create balanced collective forces by means of the most economical and effective utilization of the forces and the material at the disposal of the North Atlantic countries, which amounts, in effect, to the creation of a multi- national but integrated and virtually supra- national military establishment. Under this plan the United States will expand its Air Force and its Navy, rather than its ground force, and assume responsibility for strategic, including atomic, bombing, and, in combination with European naval forces, fer keeping the ocean lanes open. The Eu- ropean nations, in contrast, will assume the prior task of forming large ground forces, and Britain and France will also assume the task of developing tactical airpower in support of such forces. This is quite in keeping with the North Atlantic Treaty, which pledges the pact nations to “unite their efforts for collec- tive defense and for the preservation of peace and security,” and for this purpose, “by means of continuous and cifective self- help and mutual aid, to maintain and de« velop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” But it is also sclf- evident that if the fulfilment of this under~ taking is to rest not on the joint action of palanced national forees, as formerly, but on a collective force organized according to national specialization, the effectiveness of the whole will inevitably depend on the effectiveness of any part of it. No chain is stronger than its weakest Unk, and that maxim, when appled to the integrated col- lective force of the North Atlantic com- munity, carries with it cerlain corollary obligations which it is necessary to keep in mind, One of these obligations is the duty of each and every uation to do its full share toward the development of the military specialty allotted to it. Another is the duty of all pact nations to contribute toward mutual aid according to thelr best ability, both in the matter of miMtary supplics and in everything essential to economic progress, on which depend both the political stability and military rcHability of the individual nations. A further obligation would seem to be for all the pact nations so to con- cert their forelgn policies as to present, at all times, a solid front. But the first and foremost of all these obligations would seem to be that, beyond all previous technical reservations in the North Atlantic Pact, all the nations providing the collective force must be ready to act in concert the instant any one of them is attacked. That docs not and cannot abrogate the oxclusive right of Congress to declar war—a right which loomed so large during the pact debate. But it does strengthen the moral obliga- tion to use armed force, if necessary, as provided by the pact. For the defection, or even hesitation, of any one nation would immediately and inevitably wreck the whole collective force and expose all to defeat and subjugation. That is a risk which must be avoided at the cost of every sacrifice, in- cluding the seecrifice of some measure of national sovereigniy which this obligation may involve.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Essays by Barbara Hayes and Sue Bam- mesberger, Students of North Syracuse Central School, North Syracuse, N. Y., on Democracy Versus Socialism EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. R. WALTER RIEHLMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my remarks and include the following essays delivered by Barbara Hayes and Sue Bammesberger. I had the pleasure of hearing these essays de~ livered. The former won first prize and the latter second. Two hundred and thirty-five boys and girls from the towns of Clay and Cicero participated in the contest conducted by the Lake Shore Republican Club. The gratifying fact to me is that every one of these boys and girls wrote on the subject which is in the minds of every American these days— why they prefer democracy to socialism, My concern over the Nation’s drift to- ward socialism is somewhat lessened by this youthful demonstration that those who preach absolutism have not pulled the wool over the eyes of our youth. Those who have attempted to call so- cialism by so many other names have not been able to demonstrate to our younger generation that our hard-earned democracy should be cast away no mat- ter what the blue-sky promises of Fair Dealers may be. I think that a great deal of credit, and our thanks, should be given to Mr. C, R. Robbins and Mrs. Marion Rich, principal and teacher, of North Syracuse Central School for their fine training of these young people. Fol- lowing are the essays: Wry I Prerun Dumocracy To Socianism (By Barbara Hayes) Did you ever stop to think of how lucky you are to live in a democracy? No, I don’t believe very many of us have. Let us com- pare democracy with some of the dictated forms of government and see Just how lucky Wwe are. A democracy is a representative form of government. The people may govern them- selves directly through town meetings, or in- directly through elected representatives in city, State, and national affairs. The basis of our democratic form of gov- ernment for a period of over 150 years, has been the Constitution: This document, adopted in 1789, is comprised of our many freedoms and liberties. Even though it was written for the benefit of a nation of 4,000,000, it is expandable enough to serve today a Nation of 150,000,000. The main parts of our Constitution are the preamble, the body (consisting of seven articles), and the amendments. The first 10 amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights. The importance of the Bill of Rights can scarcely be overrated. It serves as the cornerstone of American democracy, Under its protective freedoms and guaranties, Americans can re- sist the abuses and injustices which people of dictator nations have been forced to accept. Liberties which the Bill of Rights guarantees are freedom to act, think, he- lieve, speak, write, hear, read, worship, as- semble, and possess. The importance of these liberties lies in the fact that they are guaranties to everyone. In no other country in the world could people live their lives with such an air of in- dependence. Even the youngest school chil« dren have had some contact with their Gov- ernment. They have seen policemen direct- ing traffic at busy corners; they have heard the President of the United States speak on the radio; they have heard of judges, trials, juries; or have seen people stand in line at the polls to vote on election day. However, the heads of all governments do not always report to the people on the affairs of the nation. The people in other nations do not always have the chance to elect the officials who govern them. These privileges are granted only to people in democratic countries. Socialism, on the other hand, is in an almost direct contrast with democracy. It is quite difficult to define the word socialism in such a way as to include all the shades of meaning which have been given to that word, Some consider it a very dangerous and revolutionary idea. Others believe it to be a@ desirable way of life and they presume it would bring about a better way of living than any other form of government. Socialism is often confused with commu- nism. The main difference between them is their viewpoints on government-controlled goods. Socialists believe that the govern-~ ment should control and regulate only pro= ducer’s goods, They include railroads, ma- chinery, factories, and raw materials. Com- munists believe that the government should control not only producers’ but consumers’ goods. Constmers’ goods consist of food, clothing and shelter. The father of modern socialism as well as modern communism is Karl Marx. Marx felt that the only way to overcome the evil struggle between classes was to have only one class—the masses of workers. The Com- munists believe in bringing about this over- throw quickly through revolution, as has been done in Russia, The Socialists would bring about this change through constitu- tional means. In spite of much opposition it is certain that the theories of Marx and his followers have greatly influenced thought in the mod- ern world. In a totalitarian state the government is tie master of the people, who exist for the benefit of the state. While in a democratic state, the state is the servant of the people and exists for their good. This principle is based on the great faith placed in the indi- vidual in a democratic state. Also, in a socialist state all reading and culture is dic- tated by the government. This is due to the fact that everything is led by one party and the people are powerless, However, even if the defects of capitalism are admitted, capitalism has brought about a much higher standard of living for a larger number of people than any other system. This has been due to two very powerful fac- tors—individual initiative and the right to private property. These are the forces which develop individual responsibility, energy, in- ventive skill and a progressive spirit. Al- though socialism would not crush out all private property and initiative, most Amer- icans feel that freedom in these things has been the driving force that has made Amer- ica great. Wuy I Prermer DEMocRACY TO SOCIALISM (By Sue Bammesberger) America, our country and our people~ we are a great Nation. But are we great enough to overcome the problems of the day that swirl about us? It depends upon whether we look at the whole fruit of the work of free men or see only the blemishes. We know we have not reached every one A3859 of our high ideals, but we are still trying. Today we face the problems much the same as our forefathers did. There has always been a struggle, but we didn’t quit; we have kept on working and striving. Today there are two theories of govern- ment competing with each other in the world—Communist ideas against demo- cratic ideas. The split-up of the world into two rival blocs is the most serious single problem facing us today. The solution of specific problems, such as the control of atomic energy, conclusion of peace terms, reconstruction of devastated areas and others, is affected by the rivalry between the United States and Russia. Soviet determi- nation to expand its sphere of influence is matched by American determination to “make the world safe for democracy.” As the leading spokesman for the demo- cratic nations we oppose the spread of com~ munism by other than lawful means. If a nation of its own free will chooses to accept communism, our policy is not to interfere in. what we consider basically a domestic matter. But if communism is forced on weaker countries by outside military pres- sure or infiltration of foreign agents, our policy is to oppose such aggressive expansion, So much is said against communism, just what is it and why are we the people of America so intent on keeping it out of our country and the countries of our allies? It is hard to give one single definition because it means so many things. Often it means one thing in theory and another in practice. Communism is a complicated web of ideas, many of which have come from the past, In the 1800's there was a strong Socialist movement under the leadership of Karl Marx. In France in 1870 this movement split into the Socialist and Communist branches, the latter being inore radical. Only in Russia and its satellite countries did it result in the establishment of “a dictatorship of the proletariat” when the czarist regime was overthrown by the Communist revolution in 1917. Communism has since spread in vary- ing degrees to many countries. One prin- ciple all Communists, or Socialists, agree upon jis that governments or the represent= atives as a whole, should own all the means of production, such as factories, machines, farm land, banks and should operate them for the benefit of all rather than the profits for the few. When the Communists speak of democracy they obviously do not mean our version of the Bill of Rights. They believe that the state is omnipotent and that individ~ ual human belngs are unimportent. This belief is exactly the opposite of the demo- eratic idea which has been the basis of our democracy; of our freedom, of our edu- cational system, and our social customs; an idea which not only has made possible our way of life but has been largely responsible for economic progress and our wealth as a Nation. What is this idea? It is faith in the possibilities of human personality, that given the opportunity, men and women have the ability to take charge of their own lives. Proof of this idea is our United States Con~ stitution which has served as the basis of our Government for over 150 years. The Communists say that their new Rus- sian constitution is an excellent one. They point to the civil rights it promises— freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of street processions. The Communists call these pledges of freedom, but if anyone took them seriously he would not last long. These civil rights may be wed only to strengthen the Communist system. They were not granted to give the people liberty. The pre- amble of our Constitution states as one of lis clauses that the Constitution was estab- lished in order to secure the blessings of likerty to curselves and our posterity. In & real democracy, freedom means liberty to
A3860 criticize and oppose, as well as to Support. Our Government was set up to guarantee these liberties to us and it actually tries to carry out this guaranty. Most of us be= lieve it does so to an extent never before equaled in the whole world. And we also believe that any form of censorship of cre- ative ability or of criticism is dangerous. A democracy cannot flourish without criti- cism. Also, according to the Communist con- stitution of Russia, the citizen is given the right to rest and leisure. So the Govern- ment sees that he gets it. And he gets it through organizations that control his leisure from the time he is 8 years of age. Plays, songs, and movies in Russia are used for more than entertainment. Their primary purpose is propaganda—to glorify the state. We Americans are free in our leisure time. How good or how bad our neighborhood be- comes depends on each of us—individually. Some critics of our democracy say that because the world is so complex now, the individual citizen ought not to have a voice in his own government. In Russia there are what they term “free elections,” but there is only one party—the Communist Party. Voters are allowed to vote only “yes” or “no.” In America the people exercise their sovereignty by voting for candidates on either of two major parties or from sev- eral minority parties. Voting is a privilege conferred on the people by the state—it is not a right of citizenship. All those who are qualified to vote may use the privilege or not, as they choose, but it is generally understood to be the duty of citizens to exercise the privilege if our democracy is to function in the interest of the majority. After thoughtfully comparing life in a democracy with that in a Communist domi- nated country, I am proud to proclaim that I am a part of a government of the people, by the people, for the people. On every horizon new frontiers beckon to the young people of America who are now in school or college. In an atmosphere of freedom of thought, word, and deed, the growth and de- velopment of human character is made pos- sible, giving boys and girls a chance to dream dreams and make those dreams come true. That is why I prefer democracy to socialism, Rent Control EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE D. O’BRIEN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. O’BRIEN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following statement by Richard J. Gray, president, Building and Construction Trades Department, American Federa- tion of Labor, before the House Com- mittee on Banking and Currency: I appreciate this opportunity to testify because I feel that the subject of rent con-~ trol is vitally important, not only to the 8,000,000 members of the American Federa- tion of Labor, but to the lives and welfare of all American families. We are very pleased that a number of Congressmen have introduced bills to extend rent control, and we particularly appreciate the tremendous interest which the chairman of this committee has shown in this impor- tant problem. It would seem appropriate in presenting this testimony to discuss briefly a few of the chief arguments that have been advanced by the real estate interests in their effort to prove that there 1s no need for extending Federal rent control beyond June 30, 1950. The first point which real estate people emphasize is that there is no longer any shortage of housing. They point to the record volume of home building last year when the building industry began the con- struction of over a million homes, and to the continuing high level of construction during the first 4 months of this year. In their opinion, this makes unnecessary any continuation of Federal rent control. However, this analysis overlooks several important points. It overlooks the fact that last year’s volume of housing construction was not very much higher than 1925, a year when there were 35,000,000 fewer people in this country. It also overlooks the fact that the overwhelming proportion of the housing built during the past year has been for sale and not for rent. More fundamentally, the analysis of the real estate interests underestimates the char- acter and extent of the desperate housing shortage this country has been facing in the postwar period. Even with the record volume of new construction, the housing shortage is still very much with us. Its ex- istence cannot be denied. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently conducted a survey of vacancies in 25 metropolitan areas in all parts of the country. Some of the vacancy rates disclosed by this survey are as follows: Percent Atlanta, Ga_ i... nee Buffalo, N. Yu. Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn._. New York City, N.Y. Pittsburgh, Pa........~~-- St. Louis, Mo...-----.--.- Of the 25 cities surveyed, only two had vacancy rates of over 3 percent and only & others had vacancy rates between 2 and 3 percent. In all of the remainder, the va- cancy rate was less than 2 percent. This compares with a normal rate of 5 to 6 per- cent. Moreover, it is important to remember that the figures cited represent the over-all vacancy rate. They do not indicate that this percentage of dwelling units were ac- tually available for rent. As a matter of fact, the habitable rental vacancy rate in these 25 cities was 1 percent or less for all except two of the areas. These figures certain’y show that the housing shortyge is still very much with us. A second argument which the real-estate interests use against rent control is that it is unfair to the Nation’s landlords. Yet, the facts are that today’s rent-control law per- mits the landlords to obtain all increases in rents to which they would be entitled in a normal rental market. Rent increases can be obtained for any of the following: 1. For any major improvement which the landlord makes in the dwelling unit. 2. For increases in the price of fuel or any other operating cost which the landlord has to pay. 3. For cases in which the landlord was un- expectedly faced with a very low rent on the maximum rent date. 4. For cases in which the landlord is not receiving an adequate return for his prop- erty, During the past year the Housing Expediter has had to interpret the formula for “fair net operating income” written into the law last year. Under the law the Housing Expediter ruled that this requirement would not be met unless the landlord was obtaining a net income equal to 30 percent of his gross in- come for small buildings and 25 percent for APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD large buildings. I want you to know that the A. F. of L. felt that these requirements were unduly liberal, and when this procedure was announced a public protest was issued. Under the circumstances it is difficult to see how anyone can argue that the landlords are being treated unfairly by the provisions of the present law. Another argument which opponents of rent control are using concerns what is de- scribed as a ‘‘vast groundswell of public opin- ion” against rent control. According to this theory, it is only the heavy hand of the Washington bureaucrats which has forced rent control upon the unwilling American pecple. Let us examine this argument more closely. We must realize that there is included in the present rent-control law a very liberal section providing for decontrol of rents by the “local option” method. If opponents of rent control are correct, the American people would have acted to take advantage of these local-option decontrol provisions of the 1949 rmnt-control law. The facts are directly the opposite. Only a very few cities have utilized these provisions to remove rent controls. Despite intense pres- sure from the real-estate interests, the city councils of only 262 cities—only 7 percent of communities under rent control today—had elected to remove rent control by May 10 of this year. This total includes only 11 cities with more than 100,000 population and 14 others with over 50,000. It might be desirable for me to point out how these decontrolled actions have affected members of the American Federation of Labor. Recently we have made a special sur- vey of all communities throughout the country in which there are A. I. of L. central labor unions. The following table indicates how many of these areas have been dccon~ trolled and how many are still under rent control: Status of rent control in communities where there are A. F. of L. central labor unions, May 1950 Num- | Pers her cont Toto!) central labor unions in United Statesand Alaska... Lee. i ere Communities never under rent control COs ‘Total communities under rent control. (a 100.0 Decontrolled by local option... cee ee SY 12.9 Decontrolled by Housing Expediter... t0) 11.6 Decontrofled by recommendation of Joenl rent advisory boutd oe .eeneaeen WW 19 Decontrolled by State netion... 2... “a 32 Decontrolled by Emergency Court of ADDONS ace ceeee we Coenen enews 1 al Under State rent controls... _ Ch 9.4 Still under Federal controls... ne eeneee 421 co. You will note from the total that more than three-fifths of the communities (421 out of a total of 691 which have ever been under rent control) are still operating under Federal rent control. It is significant that only 87 or less than 13 percent have been de- controlled by the local option method. These are the over-all Nation-wide sta- tistics. When we examine the figures for particular States, it is easy to see how any sudden decontrol would fall with catas- trophic impact upon A. F. of lL. members. In Mlinols, for example, there are 53 com- munities in which there are A. F. of L. cen- tral labor unions. None of these communi- ties have been decontrolled by local option, and only nine of the smallest areas have been decontrolled by the Housing Expediter. In Minnesota, where there are 17 central labor unions, only 2 of its communities have been decontrolled, neither as a result of local option. In Michigan, Ohio, Pennsyl- vania, Minnesota, New Jersey, Missourl, North Carolina, Washington, and West Vir- ginia, only @ handful of communities havo
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD been decontrolled. In fact, there are 10 States in which not a single community with a central labor union has been decontrolled. This information very clearly refutes the contention of the real estate interests. Al» though there have been the most liberal ar= rangements for decontrol under the present law, only a very few cities have decontrolled rents under the local option method. The vast ground swell of public opinion which the real estate interests have tried to create simply does not exist. When your committee was considering the question of rent control last year, very few coramunities had as yet been decontrolled. Many of us felt then that decontrol would have a very serious effect on rent levels, but the actual facts in decontrolled com- munities have turned out to be even worse than our fears. We no longer have to guess about what happens when a community has been de- controlled. Within the past few months the Department of Labor has surveyed 14 com~ munities where Federal rent controls have been removed to determine the effect on rent levels. In 12 of the communities there are no longer rent controls of any kind while two of them, Milwaukee and Madison, Wis., are under a very weak State rent control law. The Department of Labor found that rent increases in these communities for those units for which rents were raised ranged from more than 12 percent in Madison, Wis., to nearly 41 percent in Beverly Hills, Calif. The survey also showed that from 17 to 64 percent of all the tenants in those cities were affected by rent increases. These facts have recelved support from a survey made by an organization which is thoroughly opposed to rent control, the Nat- jonal Association of Real Estate Boards. The NAREB recently made a survey of 100 decon- trolled cities in 30 States. It was found that rents increased for one-half of the tenants in decontrolled communities with a popula- tion of over 50,000 and for 55 percent in cities of 100,000 or more. The average increase for tenants who were forced to pay rent in- creases was 22 percent. Interestingly enough, the survey showed that rent increases were higher in the smaller cities than in the larger cities. The NAREB survey points unmis~ takably to two conclusions: (1) Nationwide decontrol would result in rent increases for millions of families. (2) Rent control is just as much a problem in many small areas as it is in the large cities. Thus far, I have been citing overall figures covering tenants in all income groups. I want to stress the fact, however, that the removal of rent controls would have the most serious effect on families in the lower income brackets because rent pay- ments loom as a larger proportion of family income for low-income groups than for higher-income groups. This is indicated by a survey made by the Federal Reserve Board indicating that in 1948 rent constitu- ted 23 percent of family income for families with incomes under $2,000 as compared with 12 percent for all families and only 9 percent for high income families with incomes of $5,000 or over. However, even this is not the whole story as to the particularly severe effect that rent decontrol has on low-income families. The Department of Labor surveys previously men- tioned show very clearly that in a clear maj- ority of the cities where income data were obtained, a larger percentage of families in the low-income groups were affected by rent increases than the higher-income families. For example, in Topeka, Kans., 48 percent of families with incomes under $2,000 had their rents increased after decontrol as com- pared with only 22 percent of the families with $4,000 or more. Knowing the significance of housing costs in the budgets of union members, the A. F. of L. has been deeply concerned with the problem of rent control. This has been evi- denced in a number of official actions which the A. F, of L. has taken during the past year. I would like to briefiy mention these statements, The sixty-eighth convention of the A. F. of L., which met last October in St. Paul, Minn., urged without a dissenting vote that “until the supply of low-price housing units can be equalized with the demand, effective rent control must be maintained so that families will not be faced with exorbitant increases in rents.” This action by the most recent A. F. of L. convention has been supplemented by state~ ments issued by the executive council at the two meetings it has held since the con- vention. At its January meeting the execu- tive council issued a statement urging the necd for continuance of the rent-control program until there is a large increase in the housing supply for families in the low- and middle-income groups. At its meeting held only 2 weeks ago the executive coun cil again emphasized the need for continu~ ance of rent control. At that time the coun« cil said: “* * ™ as long as the housing shortage exists, Federal rent control will be needed to prevent exorbitant increases in rents.” I can assure you that these official actions which the A. F. of L. has taken ir sverc:t of rent control have not been .v std To sustain any theory of Government control over our economy. On the contrary, the A. F. of L. has never been in favor of Gov- ernment controls unless they were absolutely necessary. It is only because we are con- vinced of the extremely harmful effect which would result from the sudden removal of all Federal rent controls that we are now urging the extension of rent controls for another year, The cold facts are that the removal of rent controls at the present time would have the same effect on millions of workers as & Nation-wide pay cut. This is what might be expected to happen. The average factory worker today doesn’t make much more than $50 a week, A worker with a weekly in- come of $50 spends 20 percent of his income for rent. That amounts to about $10 a week, <A rent increase of only 25 percent would be about $2.50 a week, and bear in mind that 26 percent is much less than the average increase in many of the communities surveyed by the Department of Labor. A $2.50 a week increase would represent 5 percent of his weekly income, and if it is assumed that he works 40 hours a week, it is the equivalent of a pay cut of 6 cents an hour. You gentlemen are certainly familiar enough with the history of the labor move- ment in this country to know that Ameri- can workers simply will not take that kind of treatment without protest. If rents are decontrolled on @ Nation-wide basis, I am absolutely certain that unfons all over the country will demand an increase in wages in order to maintain the current purchasing power of their members. We can reach dnly one conclusion and that is that Federal rent controls must be extended for another year. While the A. F, of L. has criticized the present rent control law, we think that it does constitute a min-~ imum basis for an effective rent control pro- gram, We are, therefore, recommending only one change in the present law. We believe that the local option pro- visions in the present law should be changed 80 that local option could be made a two-~ way street. Under the present law a com-= munity has no means of restoring rent con- trols once it has used the local option method to decontrol rents in its area. We believe that this should be changed so that communities could bring about recontrol by local option in the same way that they are now able to accomplish decontrol. We think that they should have this right to re- A3861 control by local option regardless of whether the decontrol was by previous local action, State action, or upon the initiative of the Housing Expediter. I should like to state briefly our position on the provision in H. R, 8276 which would remove Federal rent controls in any local community which failed to declare prior to December 31, 1950, by resolution of its gov= erning body or by popular referendum, “that a shortage of rental housing accommeda- tions exists which requires the continuaace of rent control.” In view of the very simple method of obtaining decontrol available to every community through the local option method, we are frankly at a loss to undér- stand why it is necessary to consider a pro- posal of this kind. Moreover, there is grave danger that unless such a proposal is sur- rounded with adequate safeguards, rent con= trol will go by default in many communi- ties even though a majority of the citizens recognize a continued need for it. A lethar- gic city council or one in which real estate interests were heavily represented might fail to take the necessary action required to retain rent controls in its community. We feel, therefore, that the present local option method is sufficiently flexible to permit any community where rent controls are no longer necessary to take the necessary action to re= move Irederal rent controls. This is no time to take chances with the welfare and pros~ perity of the American people. We, in the American Federation of Labor, believe that the issue is clear. Federal rent controls must ke extended beyond June 30, 1950. The failure to extend rent controls would mean sudden, large, and widespread increases in rents for millions of families who would be completely unprepared for such a blow. This must not be allowed te bonpen. We, therefore, urge that you -cesrmrae «to the Congress that Federal rent controls be continued for another year. Political “Medicine Show” EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, 1am including as part of my remarks an editorial which appeared in the Ra- cine Journal Times, of Racine, Wis., on Tuesday, May 16, 1950, apropos the Pres- ident’s political junket across the United States at an expense of $250,000 of the American taxpayers’ money: PourricaL “Mmprcing SHow” President Trumans’ tour, which ended at Chicago last night in a blaze of fireworks, real and political, has been called various things. He labeled it “nonpolitical.” His critics marked it down as a “barnstorming junket” to get votes for his party. But the Indianapolis News has picked another mame for it—a “medicine show.’ We don’t like to mention a President of the United States in the same breath as one of those old-time shows, with “the doctor” selling a “matchless remedy good for all the ils of man or beast,” under gas lights in a tent between and after performances by sec- ond rate jugglers, comedians, singers, banjo players and other artists. But the News, tt seems to us, has put the thing rather neatly, in this fashion: “In his opening speech Monday night at Lincoln, Nebr., and in two of three addresses
A3862 Tuesday in Wyoming, the President played polities of the most obvious sort. His strat- egy is simple: To make at least one speech pink with promises for each of the economic or regional groups in the Nation. “Before a farm audience at Lincoln, he vowed that farm income would be raised even higher, mainly through that economic night= mare, the Brannan plan. At Casper, he em- ployed the ancient political trick of play~ ing off one region against another. The East, horne of the selfish and shortsighted, is against the development of the natural resources of the West, he said. The Gov- ernment, he assured the westerners, is the best means ‘for development of power, navi~ gation, and irrigation.’ “Since Cheyenne is a fairly sizable com= munity, the President brought out his pana- cea for small business. The little merchant, he maintained—like the farmers and the ranchers—needs only to put his trust in the administration and Harry Truman. There ‘was no mention of the real troubles of small and big business alike—the confiscatory taxes made necessary by his supergovernment and wild-spending administration. “The President could answer a very real need on this trip if he would only discuss the issues that worry every citizen these days—the staggering size of the national debt, the growing inflation stoked by deficit spending, revision of the Taft-Hartley Act, the seemingly endless strikes, the Communist threat, both at home and abroad. The people of the Nation want to hear these prob-~ Jems discussed clearly and honertly. The man who should take the lead in presenting them is the President of the United States. “Instead, he is putting on a medicine show. And implicit in all his talks is the dangerous medicine that you don’t have any troubles that the Government can’t cure. Individual responsibility, personal initiative and enter- prise are played down for the universal pal- liative of a supergovernment. Even more alarming, it appears that Mr. Truman is per- sonally convinced that the Government can run people’s lives better than they can run their own. Such a man does not belong at the head of what is still a Nation of free people, for people are no longer free who look to government, not themsclves, for sal- vation.” Excise Taxes EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. LANE, Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include the following radio address I delivered over station WMEX, Boston, Mass., Monday, May 22, 1950: Repeaw Excisz Taxes Ladies and gentlemen of the radio au- dience, broadly speaking, business is boom~ ing at most levels, with the exception of some retail outlets on Main Street, U.S. A. The housewives of the Nation who, by in~ stinct and necessity, will not pay more for any article than it is worth, are staging a quiet but effective buyers’ strike. This is hurting many small-business enterprises through no fault of the operators themselves, Why? tt In definite protest against excessive taxa= on. As responsible citizens they recognize the meed for a Federal income tax, s corpora- tion tax, for gift, estate, and other direct taxes to pay for those public programs which they approve. This money is spent for the purposes of general government, to pay the interest on the public debt, for public works, education, housing, labor, to develop our natural re- sources, for military preparedness, foreign aid, help to veterans, social security, and aid to farmers. The average American, however, does balk against the now-you-see-it-and-now-you- don’t taxes variously referred to as hidden, wartime, luxury, or excise. Excise means: “An inland tax imposed on certain commodities of home production and consumption as tobacco, spirits, etc.” What we are mainly concerned about is this et cetera business, under which so many items have been added that the total result is a jigsaw puzzle that no one can put to- gether coherently. It has been proposed by the President that a@ number of these nuisance taxes be elimi- nated to the extent that the rosulting loss in revenue is replaced by revenue obtained from closing loopholes in the present tax laws. Without getting lost in the dense jungle of those tax laws, whose loopholes the average American can’t scem to find, I wish to say that the Congress will go the President one better and do a real bulldozing clearance on excise taxes. If the President should voto such savings, I believe that the Congress will override his blockade. Originally excise taxes were supposed to be regulatory. We remember the taxes on to- bacco and liquors, even before we had a Fad- eral income tax. Of course in wartime they must ke placed on all so-called civilian goods, so that the raw materials and the productive energics of these industries shall be chan- neled into the war effart. In peacetime there is no justification for such regulatory taxes except to provide extra money to play around with, for those in Gov- ernment who want to spend over and above the needs for special programs. For our own information and guidance, lt is a pity that every article that is sold in the United States does not have affixed to it a stamp showing the toial percentage of Fed- eral taxes represented in the cost of each item. Then we would react promptly to the true score and as a Nation, we would not spend beyond our means, Where the excise take is clearly stated as in the purchase of fur coats, leather goods, and that et cetera business again, the con- sumer rightly gets up on his high horse and refuses to buy these penalties. When it comes to a loaf of bread or an egg or powder for the baby, the Government hasn’t got the nerve to tell people what it is taking from them for these basic neces- sities of life, The trick is to keep these taxes hidden. But I say that we should bring these out into the open so that public resent- ment will demand elimination or at least re~ duction of all consumer levies. Hold on to your pocketbook as you hear these facts, revealed by a private research organization known as the Tax Foundation. That loaf of bread on the table contains something besides wheat. You can’t see but maybe you can fecl the 151 different taxes that inflate its price. “The Egg and I” is not as simple as all that. One hundred anonymous taxes are also wrapped up in that little shell. Or the house in which you are now liv- ing. If it is a fairly new one, it has from 700 to 1,000 invisible rat holes through which your money has run out in taxation and is still running out. Perhaps you have a martini or a glass of beer in your hand. Don’t drop it when you hear that Uncle Sam gets a real flick out of taking each year well over $2,000,000,000 in taxes on liquor, The lady in the house together with her sisters throughout the Nation pay out in taxes APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD each year $210,000,000 on jewelry, $34,000,000 on cosmestics and toilet articles, $52,000,000 on furs, and $82,000,000 on luggage. And that is only the beginning of a long line of other confiscations. . No wonder its so hard to make both ends meet in our family budget, when Uncle Sam, our problem relative, picks up so much unguarded change around the house when we're not looking. Sometimes we wonder what the baby is crying about. Maybe its the pinch of taxa- tion that is bothering him, and, even though he doesn’t understand what its all about, he’s being hurt and he’s letting us know about it. Perhaps we, who are grown up, and can trace the origin of our financial anemia, will also complain, and insist that this excise blood-letting Le stopped, so that economic health and purchasing power will be re- stored, to us, and the Nation. American houscwives, who do most of the purchasing for 150 million people are hold- ing back until these wartime levies are crossed off the books and prices come down. They expect this to be done and they are waiting until it is done, before they will buy fresly. Their common sense is far ahead of the lawmakers. These unrealistic levies slow down trade. Shrinking demand from retail outlets, reach- ing back to the factories, curtails preduc- tion and causes unemploynient that is wholly unnecessary. As an example, let us look at the fur and leather goods industries because of sea- sonal factors aifecting them, and because their products are an important item in the average wolnan’s budzet. At the present time there is a 20 percent wartime excise tax on fur- and leather- luggage products. Summer is usually the busy season in the fur industry, and if any relief is to be pro- vided, it should be done without furiher delay. In the summer of 1949, one-third of the workers were unemployed, one-third wero working part-time, and only one-third had steady jobs. This industry employs over 100,000 per- sons, not counting the hundreds of thou- sands of farmers who serve as suppliers for the industry during the winter months. There are over 5,0CO small firms engaged in fur dressing and dyelng, manufacturing, and retailing. Last year they suffered from a drastic 30 percent drop in sales. Tax receipts went down accordingly, From the fiscal years 1947 to 1949, inclusive, they receded from $97,000,000 to $79,000,000 to $53,000,000. The cffect on the labor force in this trade is tragic. Most of the workers are middle- aged or over, having devoted their best years in acquiring a highly specialized skill, It is Impossible for them to get employment elscwhere. The burden of maintaining them is an added expense to Government which would not be necessary jf they were given an opportunity for productive employment, The unfair competition in the present tax Jaw is dramatically revealed by the fact that & $200-cloth coat with fur trimming is tax- free, but a fur coat costing $100 has $20 added to the price to pay for the Federal tax, In the northern half of the United States where extro-warm coats are a necessity, an office girl or mill worker in order to buy a relatively cheap fur coat costing two to three hundred dollars would have to work an extra 2 weeks just to pay the tax. This is a mighty high tariff! to impose on our own working people. The luggage industry is also stricken by the excise taxes which discourage buying. Winter and summer, the American woman must have a durable leather handbag. In it she carries and protects a wonderful assort~ ment of articles necessary to her morale,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from assorted keys to beauty aids to charge ecards and checkbooks, without it an Ameri- can woman would be lost, and so would retail business which puts so much merchandise into that handbag and takes so much money out of it. But the Government insists on a prior claim to its purchasing power, leaving less and less to the merchant who would give far greater value in return. It not only taxes the contents but the leather container it- self. As a result, there was a 30 to 40 percent curtailment in production last year in those plants manufacturing handbags, luggage, suitcases, and personal leather goods. Even the Government’s cut went down, which does not seem to be a successful re- sult, even from a tax viewpoint. When it takes too much the source dries up. But when it comes to classifying oils, creams, and powders that are necessary for a baby’s health and comfort as luxuries, with a 20 percent tax added, we cannot find words to express our exasperation. The taxation without representation against which our forefathers rebelled was nothing compared with this all-time low, Unless we reverse the tax trend, some ingenious tax spender may yet come up with the idea that we should tax babies for being born. Even the poor man’s entertainment, the movies, are saddled with a tax bite that makes a young fellow reach for a $2 bill before he can think of taking his best girl to the neighborhood theater. But, you ask, how is the Federal Govern- ment going to get by if these special levies are canceled? There are some obligations which cannot be repudiated. In other flelds some econ-~ omies could be effected through elimination of duplicating functions. This could be done gradually in some agencies without causing harm to anyone, by a go-slow policy in filling vacancies. How much revenue would the Government lose if the wartime excise taxes are repealed? About one and one-half billion dollars. Where will the Government get the money to replace this loss, assuming that there is no reduction in Government expenditures? Let’s take a look at the budget. It now includes the sum of one billion, nine hundred and twenty million to make loans and to purchase certain assets, many of which are already guaranteed by Govern- ment agencies. Guaranteed mortgages and loans comprise a major part of this item. What does this mean? In this case the Government is counting loans, as money spent beyond recall. But this is a recoverable asset. Most, if not all of this so-called expenditure will be paid back. Therefore, the actual expenditures in the budget can be reduced by this amount. And this sum alone is greater than the net loss of all wartime excise taxes. Therefore, we can eliminate these nuisance taxes without putting the Government further into the red. There is one other important point which the tax gatherers overlook. Tax reduction stimulates business activi- ty. It enables manufacturers, merchants and operators of service establishments to offer the public lower prices. This encourages people to buy. The volume of economic ac- tivity rises. And the Government is happily surprised to find that the larger turn-over of goods and services, thus inspired, increases the revenue it gets through normal income tax channels. This relief for a Nation can be accomplished without any sacrifice of essential Government services. We have only to look at England, where everyone is so burdened down by ever-pres- ent regulations and taxes that they have all they can do to get by without getting ahead, to learn that such a system is not the way for us. Excise taxes in the United States must be cleaned out. So that the housewife can buy, so that her husband may have satisfying employment, so that business may prosper, so that the United States which means all of us, can enjoy the incentives that make for genuine progress, Biggest Story A TENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rrecorp, I include the twenty-sixth article by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop on the infiltration of communism in our country: Biecrst STorY (By Frank C, Waldrop) The natural imbecility of communism was never more clearly demonstrated to the world than in the matter of seeking diplo- matic recognition for the Soviet regime in Russia, It wanted status, yet its acts every day were a warning to all against it. Here was a government which, in blood and terror, had seized power by revolution against the majority will of the people, had abolished all rights of property and indi- vidual freedom and had set up as its diplo- matic weapon, an international Communist conspiracy to sovietize the whole world. And as soon as possible, it had begun using Communist branches in every coun- try possible, actually to precipitate those revolutions. In the United States of America, those early acts of terrorism involved bombs in the mail, wholesale strikes that wrecked the unions involved and cost the industries irreparable harm, and the general public much more. . In Germany, already shaken and rattled by defeat and the abdication of the Hohen- zollern monarchy, the Communists were even more violent. Their Spartacus Bund drove police out of station houses, threat- ened the control of the cities, and came very near indeed to tearing the very foundations of organized government apart. As a matter of fact, the German Commu- nists of the perlod immediately at the end of World War I, not only came very near to taking over Germany but also the interna- tional Communist movement itself. They were defeated only by the narrowest margin simply because the Russians had a head start on prestige in the central agency, the Communist International. And so there developed the first big frac- ture in Communist international solidarity. What Tito did to Stalin in the perlod 1945- 49, the Germans foreshadowed in 1919-22, and the Communists of America repeated in a few years more. A chapter on this American episode follows in a few days. These internal fights demonstrated that communism’s international power plays would sooner or later have to be operated for the gain of one country against all the rest and that for all the big talk of Lenin, Trotsky and the others about the ‘“interna- tional brotherhood of man.” Communists, like everybody else, would have to choose between nations, Nothing was ever more important than this early disclosure of difference between Communist theory and Communist fact, A38865 For in the theory of Karl Marx’s socialistic science, nations and national interest were supposed to fade out in the face of com- munism. The “oppressed workers of the world” would join with one another, irrespec- tive of national identity, and all of man- kind would be equal. But when fact collided with theory in the years following, it was theory that took a licking. International communism quickly degen- erated to a weapon of national foreign policy for the government of just one nation, Russia. Thus, a Klaus Fuchs, stealing an atom bomb, did so not for the international brotherhood, but merely as a Russian spy. Three United States Secretaries of State refused to be fooled by the Soviet appeal for diplomatic status here. First, Robert Lansing, who warned caution to American businessmen against extending credit or tak- ing Soviet promises to pay. Lansing found it impossible to get along with Woodrow Wilson, then sinking into his last illness, and was succeeded by Bainbridge Colby. The first really analytical review of Soviet activities I have come across in my time was Colby’s letter to the Italian am- bassador, on August 10, 1920. Colby pointed out that the United States of America had been the first nation in the world to recognize the parliamentary gov- ernment set up in Russia after the abdi- cation of the czar, Nicholas II, and that our interest was wholly for a Russian republic on western lines. The Bolsheviks, he em- phasized, had taken by force and after two and a half years still had not allowed a popular election. Still, England, France, and European na- tions were, after their custom, inclining to go along. True, the utopian story was already falling apart. Decrees were being issued for punishment of workers who were 10 minutes late for work. The 10-hour day was extend- ed to 12 hours. Eggs were nationalized. But in England a Socialist government took office in 1924 and that broke the last ice. The mere de facto trade agreement that had been executed in 1921, became a formal exchange of diplomatic envoys. It was this same Socialist government, too, that put Rus- sia’s friend, Hewlett Johnson in office as dean of Canterbury. A sketch of this odd char- acter will be given later. The presidential election of 1920 came and went. In the course of it, the State Depart- ment let its polished foot slip and tried to smear Harding by releasing a little story to the offect that a Mr. Washington D. Vander- lip had been rummaging around Russia try- ing to talk, in Harding’s name, about Russia buying a lot of railroad engines here and thus warming American inclinations toward diplomatic recognition. But that bit of inexcusable mud didn’t stick. Harding was elected, Charles Evans Hughes became Secretary of State and Samuel Gompers, head of the American Federation of Labor, asked him what the outlook would be for Soviet recognition. On April 18, 1921, Hughes wrote Gompers his famous letter setting forth the common sense and more than that, the moral basis of judgment to be applied. Hughes stuck to that position against propaganda from all sides. One Alton B. Parker, on behalf of the Na- tional Civil Federation, and the Women’s In- ternational League for Peace and Freedom— familiar sounding titles?—-each tried him and got the same answer. So did various com- mittees of Congress. Hughes laid it down that the Soviet re- gime was bullt on involuntary servitude— slavery—and that it represented not an ad- vance toward the light but a retreat to- ward worse darkness than before. His doc- trine fixed a course for the United States of America, that had Stalin backed in a corner,
A3864 by 1938, for without United States recogni- tion, the Soviet world operation was fatally crippled. F, D. Roosevelt changed the course. And here 1s one little bit of history never before disclosed. The man who wrote Hughes’ first draft brief on the Communist issue was J. Edgar Hoover, now head of the FBI, Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, un- der unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I include the twenty-seventh article by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop on the infiltration of communism in our country: Eicersr STory (By Frank C. Waldrop) A fish peddler, a shoemaker, and a Har- vard professor can best be thanked for the worst that happened to the United States of America in 1920. The first two were Niccolo Sacco and Bar- tolomeo Vanzetti. ‘The Harvard professor was Felix Frankfurter. Sacco and Vanzetti were typical anarch= ists of that time, simple-minded believers that killing and robbing in the name of revolution would bring the United States to its knees. Frankfurter—well, someday I hope to get back to a study of this interesting gentle- man’s career that I started some years ago. Those who are interested in the work thus far can read in the Times-Herald of Novem- ber 1, 1942, the article The New Deal Riche~ lieu, Justice Felix Frankfurter. At any rate, Frankfurter in World War I was rummaging around Washington at works that have never been sufficiently well ex- amined. And by 1920, he had run out of other things to do except to run around Boston admiring himself in the shadow of Mr. Jus- tice O. W. Holmes. The Russian explosion and its echoes in Europe and in the United States were under. taken without anybody getting Prof, Narcis< sus Frankfurter’s consent, And then on April 15, 1920, in South Brain- tree, Mass., somebody held up and shot dead Paymaster Fred Parmenter and Alex Berar-~ delli, his helper, and made off with two cash boxes. Vanzetti was already under indictment for another hold-up in Bridgewater. And all this happened, you must remember, in the period of bombs in the United States mails, in Wall Street, and general violence. The minds of professors were unsettled, all around. They couldn’t explain what had repserod +9 the celebrated democracy the Tri.enw FE. of America was supposed to have made the world free for, in the just- ended war. Woodrow Wilson, their immaculate ideal, the fellow who had made it from the halls of ivy to the hall of fame, was running out of gas. He had got the United States into a war it didn't want, but he couldn't get it to swallow either his Treaty of Versailles or his League of Nations. The biggest victory won out of the war of 1914-18, except for communism, was the im- position of prohibition on the American Nation, Even that wouldn’t have been possible if the brewers of the United States of America had been Irish, French, or British, instead of having such names as Fleiglehammer, Bosch, and Schtinkel. About the only game left in town, there~ fore, was the Communist development, but it had room only for professionals. And the Amorican intelligentsia were still pretty much under the influence of the genteel tradition. An outfit that openly mocked at God Al- mighty, had just set up to destroy all vestige of private property, that was allowing people to marry by mere application at one desk and to divorce by equally simple application at another, had lttle enough charm for most. But then came Sacco, Vanzetti, and Frank- furter. The first two were nailed by the cops in short order after the shooting in South Braintree. And when it was discovered they were not only hold-up suspects but also an- archists, people in and around Boston got good and excited. Thelr case fit in with the May Day bombs and the strikes and the stories everybody remembered about revolutionary ‘‘expropri- ations,” polite word for murder and robbery in prewar Russia. Arguments broke out as to whether Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty of anarchy or of murder and armed robbery. Just the kind of dish for a Frankfurter, as see his appear~ ance 29 years later in defense of Alger Hiss, the Harvard traitor and Russian spy. In no time at all, the American intelli- gentsia had a cause. They could escape the embarrassments of Wilson and his peace by fixing on the martyrdom of Sacco and Van~- zetti. They jumped in and built a $50,000 defense fund for the “martyrs.” The case came on before one Webster Thayer, of Massachusetts Superior court, on May 31, 1921. On July 14, after a horse opera at least as wild and emotional as the Hiss case, both were found solidly guilty. Behind the yells and screams and campus ragings that attended all this the hand of Frankfurter was everywhere. The eminent poetess, Edna St. Vincent Mil- lay, shed tears in public. The notoriously clear-thinking and accurate journalist, Hey- wood Broun, even managed to get himself arrested as thousands cheered. Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OFf NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rrc- orp, I include the twenty-eighth article by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop on the infiltra- tion of communism in our country: Biccusr Story (By Frank C. Waldrop) What gave communism the emotional horsepower that sent it whirling across the American college campus in the happy years, 1920-30? What made it fashionable to talk the radical jargon? I suppose one explanation involves the mere novelty of it. But the more visible, potent influence was the celebrated trial of Niccolo Sacco and Bar- tolomeo Vanzetti, two anarchists charged with the hold-up and murder of a payroll APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD clerk and his helper at South Braintree, Mass, April 15, 1920. Many a word has been written about that case, Just as many a word will undoubtedly be written about the modern instance of Alger Hiss. And as in his, the arguments revolve around a claim that the accused was tried not for his acts but for his politics, That, of course, is not a novel claim, nor is it always a false one. Men have been tried and sentenced and shot for what they be- lieve, rather than for anything they have ever done. Joseph Stalin has had more people killed just for wrong thoughts, than any tyrant in modern times. Hitler was a piker, beside him. 4s to the case of Hiss, that is fresh enough for everybody to remember that he was given as fair a chance against the evidence as any man can ask, and yet he lost. The Sacco-Vanzetti evidence has long since faded from public memory and it is too in- tricate and prcetracted to review here. The main thing is ihat ihe record was all made in pubtic before Judge Webster Thayer of the Massachusetts Superior Court and the defendants had ample funds and dcfense counsel. And that they were held guilty. But that was not enough for Prof, Felix Frankfurter of the Harvard law school. Here was a chance for him to become a campus hero, to draw the scandalized criti- cism of established, settled adult Boston and be Achilles with the sophomores. There is one like that on every campus, and at Harvard there have always been young men with more money than brains, ready for any kind of idea or action that will express emotional revolt. The campus radicals adopted the Sacco-~ Vanzetti case as their own. It had every- thing. There was opportunity to hiss and boo established authority. A full professor of law was in charge of the phrase muking, and the silly rich could, blubber in their prohibition hooch about the persecuted dish peddler and the downtrodden cobbler. The fact that Sacco wis not only a fish peddler, but also a bellever in anarchy and that Vanzetti’s shoemaking was just a cover for his attachment to violent revolution, meant nothing. And so, when the brace of them were found guilty, the campus cry was “frame~ up.” As the appeals asainst the verdict hammered avyainst the doors of the court, the Sncco-Vansetti trinl became a world cause among radicals of all Kinds in all countries. Frankfurter wrote a dissenting opinion on the opinions of the established courts— though nobody asked him to—and things got so nolsy that the Governor of Massachu-~ setts finally had the case reviewed, He assigned it to the president of Harvard university, the president of the Massachu- setts Institute of Technology and a respected retired judge. They said the trial was fair and the record sound. Sacco and Vanzetti finally went to the chair, on August 23, 1927, in the midst of an international uproar. American embassies were assaulted in sev- eral countries. Crowds moaned in the streets of Boston. Bombs were set off in New York and Phila- delphia—and flnally somebody was thought- ful enough also to blow up the home of Judge Thayer. And still the case remained a perennial Harvard cause. When the college celebrated its three hundredth anniversary in 1936, up popped some Sacco-Vanzetti clubmen with a memorial entitled “Walled In This Tomb.” All in all, Frankfurter had managed to get himself thoroughly publicized. Sacco and Vanzettl had enjoyed 7 years of mag- nificent attention from romantics of all kinds, debutantes to millionaires,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD And the Communists had just what they wanted—some fashionable martyrs. Who, as it happened, were not Communists at all, but their mortal revolutionary ene« mies, anarchists. But that didn’t matter at all. As in the Hiss case, today, it wasn’t the facts but the fancy, that counted. It was not the facis of the Sacco-Vanzetti case that made it one of the most powerful of all weapons ever to fall into the hands of Communist boob-snatchers on these shores. It was simply that the collegiate glory~ hunters such as Frankfurter charged it with such emotional high voltage and thereby at- tracted the class of person—such as we always have with us—who so easily identifies one set of facts with another set of feelings. To challenge the record of the Sacco-Van- zetti trial was to show your colors in revolt against the Babbitts and the stuffed shirts— whom we also always have with us—and in a@ matter of two pins of Prohibition rye, to be singing the lini -cniu e. Discouraging Thrift EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. ANGIER L. GOODWIN OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by Edson B. Smith in a recent issue of the Boston (Mass.) Herald: DIScOURAGING TIIRIFT The House Ways and Means Committee tentatively has deciced to iinpose the corpora. tion tax at the existing rate (now 38 percent) on the retained income of mutual savings banks and savings and loan associations. This, in our opinion, would be thoroughly bad legislation. Savings banks and savings and loan associatlons are not profit inslitu- tions. In the case of a ‘ar-nes Dans most States compel the transferrence of a certain perce tare ot income to reserves to build up a fwd fur tne protection of depositors. It seems ironical that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts tell a savings bank that it must set aside a certain ' tcl. .ts in- come as a reserve and th. 1 v':. caer: Gove ernment come along and slap a tax on it. If the uncustributed earnings of savings banks are taxed it will mean Inevitably that either dividends will have to be reduced or the amount transferred to surplus be cut. The first would reduce the incentive to save and the second would weaken the condition of the banks. It cuz+ +o be pointed out that the money dem aicaii savings banks already has been Tancu. If the Federal Government really wants to discourage thrift, we can think of no better means to accomplish this end than by this proposed legislation, A Historic Week EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, under leave . to extend my remarks in the Rzcorp, I include the following article taken from the New York Times of May 21, 1950: A Historic Wrex This has been a memorable week for the Western World. Insofar as the great ac- complishments of these days are due to any one man, our Secretary of State, Dean Ache- s50n, deserves the most credit, and it is especially gratifying to be able to note this at a time when small men, constricted by partisanship and isolationism, have been do- ing their best to discredit him and the State Department. Americans have reasons for deep satisfaction in these recent develop- ments, but it should be a sober satisfaction, leavened by a large dose of caution. As we consider the present situation in the light of the past we see how far the United States has traveled toward a leadership by partici- pation in world affairs. As we cortorntete the future we can know that tl. rcs 'l to be traveled is long, hard and dangerous. The ovv+ wiv that was lost by the United =" ¢~ 2 ite end of the First World War, to the immense cost of every man, woman, and child in the world, has been grasped brilliantly and forcefully, if some- what erratically and fitfully, in these last 5 years. Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations were repudiated in 1919. Our tariff walls, our isolation, our neutrality as Ger- many, Italy, and Japan rose to their baleful power, were simply high lights in the sin of washing our hands while crimes against hu- manity were committed by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and the Japanese militarists. Under our Neutrality Act we would not sell a rifle to be put into the hands of those fighting for freedom—and it was our freedom, too. We sold scrap iron to Japan, and it was not until the bombs and shells made from it fell on our fleet at Pearl Harbor that the call to greatness was answered. How different a Nation this has been since that rude awakening. No country did more to make the United Nations possible. UNRRA was, In large part, ours. The Marshall plan saved western Europe from economic ectlance. With the Rio de Janeiro Tre vty cf Pee! wocal Assintanee we joined in the mutual defense of the Western Hemisphere; with the North Atlantic Pact we left behind us, no doubt forever, the illusion tliat we can live in peace and freedom if even one country of western Europe is invaded and enslaved. We helped to save Greece and Iran from Communist domination; we strersihersd Turkey; we have pledged our ria to Ted ebiia and the other free states of southeast Asia. And today? As he was leaving London on Friday amid the plaudits, heard and unheard, of the democratic world, Secretary Acheson could truly say: “I have used this occasion to inform the other peverrmerts that the United States has a coviinu:mys inieres. and stake in European affairs which will not end with the termination of the European re- covery program.’ He went on to reaffirm our deep interest in, and the determination to holp Greece, Turkey, Iran, and Indochina, The series of conferences that had just ended saw the thrilling offer of the French to pool their coal and steel industries with Germany's, the serles of measures pointing toward a greater puriicination of western Germany in European affairs, the North Atlantic Treaty conlerence with its decision to create a permanent board of strategy, the invitation to the United States and Canada to engage in a working relationship with the Organization for European Economic Co~ operation, agreements on Austria and on shipping. Western Burope and the United States had truly made a marked advance, as the final communique put it, toward genuine collective security and economic integration. One cannot point to any postwar period - of a weelt or 10 days in which so much was accomplished. Yet all this and more will be lost if we do not realize how much remains AS865 to be done. No meeting, no decisions, no plans can by themselves bring strength and peace to the democracies. They can only plot the paths to be followed and give a pledge of the determination to carry on to the journey’s end. The events of this weck would prove a tragic delusion if Americans or any of the peoples involved thought that by giving expression to worthy goals those goals had already been reached. The Presi- dent, the Secretary of State, and all their advisers will need public support and under- standing more than ever in the months to come. What Americans have to understand most of all is the tremendous strength and com- plexity of the forces that we are fighting. They are not to be overcome in weeks or months; they cannot be solved by brilliant improvisations or daring maneuvers. They are world-wide in scope; they reach deeply into the fields of economics, n-litier, military defense, social security, ava cpr wit and cultural relations from the handful of rice that a coolie must gather in the paddy-~ficlds of Indochina to the hydrogen bomb. A feat of organization unparalleled in world history faces us all. The United States has been called by destiny to bear the largest burden, but we would all fail without the support of the other free nations of the Western World. It is because this week has seen real progress toward the organization of the Atlantic com- munity that one is entitled to call it an historic week. I Am an American Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. NEIL J. LINEHAN OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. LINEHAN. Mr. Speaker, it is in- deed unfortunate that in our day and time the idea of freedom has been taken for granted by Americans. The recent war did awaken us to the realization that our freedom is a priceless treasure; but once again we are lapsing back into our old indifferent stupor. Freedom is not always clearly understood; it is not an unrestrained liberty to do anything, anylime and anywhere. It is a controlled privilege where individuals must respect their {clow man’s rights and desires. Our restrictions and controls, after all, were established not by one person but by all of us. As a basis for our belief in freedom, we must establish two things: that our freedom is largely the right to choose and decide, and secondly, that man is capable of continuing improve- ment. These two ideas are firmly entrenched in our political system of democracy. Our entire Government is built on the idea that men are capable of making decisions. And our way of life proves that men may continue to grow and improve. Our dem- ocratic society is concerned with the de- velopment of people. Compare that with the aim of a Lotalitarian society—to build up the powers of the state. Is there any wonder that freedom in such a situation is practically nonexistent? It is with pride and humility that I re~- call that this country is also willing to fight for freedom in those totalitarian
A3866 countries. In our short history, the Na- tion has fought repeatedly to defend human rights, to preserve our freedom, and to help other countries obtain or preserve theirs. But why all this talk about freedom, you ask? We have it; that is enough. But it is not enough; we must respect it, we must practice it, we must be aware of it. We are here today to celebrate I Am an American Day. This recognition of new citizens has cccurred in some form or another for many years. In 1940, however, President Roosevelt issued a proclamation to the effect that the third Sunday in May of each year should be set aside as Citizenship Day and it be designated as I Am an American Day. He further suggested that, at an appro- priate ceremony, someone address the new citizens on the privileges and re- sponsibilities of citizenship. So that, today, is my task. In welcoming new citizens to our fold, Tam addressing two groups. The larger group consists of native-born Ameri- cans who have attained their full rights of citizenship, having reached the age of 21. Thus they have shed their status as minors and are ready to accept the responsibilities of adulthood. The second group of citizens is com- posed of men and women born outside the United States. These people did not automatically become citizens when they arrived in our country. They had to go out and seek it. First they were obliged to prove their fitness for assum- ing the responsibilities of citizenship. Practically all of them have attended naturalization schools, where they studied the Constitution and history of the United States. Only after proving themselves qualified, were they granted full citizenship rights. Now that you have become citizens of this Nation, do you realize what is en- tailed? Some of the privileges you will enjoy are actually basic principles of our Government. We have freedom and equality before the law. This does not mean that all of us are born free and equal. It does mean, though, that there Js opportunity for growth and develop- ment if the individual wants it. In this country we have supremacy of the law—. we are governed by laws which we have helped tomake. We know that the Con- stitution is a living document, that it is a charter of human rights. There is re- ligious freedom here—complete freedom exists in our religious thinking. The press has absolutely no fetters and every= one in our country has complete liberty to say what he wishes. In addition, groups may assemble for meetings with- out fear or censorship. Privacy of one’s home and property is respected; indi- viduals are protected. The right to a fair trial is granted each man or woman; put a person cannot be brought to trial unless he has been charged with some offense by another person and indicted by a grand jury. . These are some of your new privileges, but now let us see what America ex- pects in return. America is as strong as its citizens; therefore, America ex. pects citizens to offer a strong personal character. Certainly, a sense of values is demanded. Values wise enough that you place duty above privileges, wisdom above cleverness, quality above quantity, and truth above mere phrases. Unity, too, is required. America expects un- qualified allegiance to this country; you must leave political conflicts, age-old feuds and hatreds behind you. Your new country expects knowledge—of our history, our literature, our language, and ourideals. Faith in our form of govern- ment and also faith in your ability to be a part of that Government. This in- volves your right to vote—a right which you should definitely exercise wisely. Remember, the right to vote is the right to rule. Effort is next. Our freedom of opportunity is interwoven with effort, or work. Above all, your new country expects patriotism. Not just on certain holidays such as today and July 4—but every day. It expects you to live so that America may grow and be a better place. It expects you to attest an unswerving devotion to America. When we say our country is a democ- racy, we mean more than the form of government. We mean a way of life— an attitude that is quite religious. We see something divine in man; that qual- ity makes us tolerant, understanding, reasonable, and proud. Proud that even though America is a Nation of people composed from different lands and origins, we are united. United in a de- termined effort to keep democratic prin- ciples alive—those same concepts upon which our Nation was founded and has since thrived and prospered. This is not a perfect country but it is good; it is kind; and it offers a good deal. Remember that you have a job in running our Government and build- ing our Nation. Making Child Desertion a Federal Offense REMARKS HON. TOM STEED OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. STEED. Mr. Speaker, the follow- ing statement was made by me before the Hobbs subcommittee on the House Committee on the Judiciary in support of legislation proposing to make the crime of child desertion a Federal of- fense when such deserting parent crosses a State line. Iam gratified at the growing interest, not only in Congress but throughout the country, in this important subject. I hope the information I have presented in this statement will be of value and interest to the Members. The statement follows: Mr. Chairman, this opportunity to testify on behalf of my bill, H. R. 6974, and similar bills now pending before this subcommittee on the general subject of child abandon- ment is a happy one, and one which I appreciate very much. In my Opinion, this legislation is of unusual importance for several very out« standing reasons, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD First, it is important because it proposes to put the force of the Federal Government behind the enforcement of laws against those who commit the crime of child deser-~ tion. Second, it is important because it offers one more means by which the constantly growing demands upon Federal and State tax funds to meet the child welfare problem can be curbed, if not actually reduced. Third, it is important because anything we do to curb the crime of child abandon- ment is a most worthy contribution in a moral sense to better American home life. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I desire 10 outline briefly some facts which prove these acsertions. Looking at the record, we find the aid to dependent children rolls, under the social- security program, carrying the names of around 600,000 children and costing a total of around $140,000,000 during the compara- tively unprofitable year of 1941. Today, these rolls have grown to an estimated 1,658,000 children, costing upwards of $400,000,000. Obviously, econcmic conditions are not as pad now, nor have they been as bad in any year since, as they were in 1941. It is safe to assume, then, that this increase of 1,000,000 children on these ADC rolls cannot be attrib- uted entirely to economic conditions. Basic Jaws governing this program have not been changed since 1941, so it also follows that a more liberal law has not opened the door to a greater child case load. As we study the trends, we find that the impact of demand for funds under the ADC program has not yet been completed—in fact, the domand is growing instead of de- creasing. To prove this more clearly than my own words, I desire to quote a better authority, Miss Jane Hoey, Director of the Bureau of Public Assistance, testifying be- fore the Fogarty subcommittce of the House Committee on Appropriations, cariier this session, On page 792 of there hearlurs Miss Hoey made this statement, and I quote: “It is estimated that the average number of recipients per month of old-age assistance in 1951 will be 2,860,000, an inereace of 180, 000, or 4.8 percent over the revised estimates for 1950; in ald to dependent children, the uuunber of children to be alded is 1,653,000, an. increase of 168,000, or almost 13 percent more than in the preceding year; and in aid to the blind the number of 78,500, an in-« crease of almost 7 percent, or 6,0G0."" This same statement showed an estimated need of $250,500,000 in Federal funds for de- pendent children for the 1951 fiseal yenr, which does not of course include any State funds for this same purpose. By examining these figures on the assist- ance program we see that in the most recent months, the dependent children rolls have been growing at an alarming rate--13 per- cent in a year, an unprecedented gain. How can this classification increasa at a percent of approximately twice the gain for the de- pendent blind and nearly three tines the rate for old-age assistance? There is only one answer, Mr. Chairman, that I have been able to find, I shall turn to reports and surveys made in my own State of Oklahoma to substantiate my view in this regard. At my request, some extensive re- search on this subject has been carried out by the Oklahoma Public Expenditures Coun- cil, I have here a report issued by that organization dated April 19650, which con- tains some startling figures: On page 84 of that report, the subject of dependent children is dealt with. ‘This re- port shows that Oklahoma has the greatest percentage of its child population depending upon the welfare rolls than any other State in the Union, the percentage being 7.8 as compared to the national total of 2.9 per- cent. Kansas to the north of Oklahoma has 2.4 percent, Texas to the south has 1.8 per~
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cent, Arkansas to the east has 39 percent. States supposedly much less favored eco-~ nomically than Oklahoma suck ©- \fiz~*s-*erj are far below the Cklahoma ‘"e" + }° 5 sissippi has 2 5 percent of its children on the rolls, etc. This research organization has n.ade a continuing and intensive study of the situation in Oklahoma. As a result, 1t es- timates that, conservatively speaking, at least 85 percent of the children on the rolls in Oklahoma are there because they have been abandoned by able-bodied parents who could. and should support them. This survey also reveals that an overwhelming majority of these deserting parents have fled to Califor- nia and other States, beyond the reach of the law enforcement officers of Oklahoma coun- tics. Even in those cases where an effort is made by these counties to return these of- fenders against State law, the county all too often is without sufficient funds to pay for the return of the criminals, There are other reasons, of course, for part of this case load, such as bastardy and de- liberate divorce maneuvers on the part of parents to become eligible for aid under the law. Some of this problem obviously can- not be dealt with by Congress. But it seems to me that Congress can and should do something about the largest con- tributing group to this chiscling of public funds—those able-bodied parents who de- sert their children and escape across State lines to avoid criminal prosecution. I am convinced that a precedent fcr this sort of law is found in the auro thei, law and the livestock theft law. Surely, it is as much a Federal offense to steal the home from a dependent child and cross a State line as it is automobiles and Mvestock. I think it is a greater crime, because in the case of the dependent child the taxpayers are compelled to take up a burden of supporting the child. Until and unless Congress can give State and local authorities some help in curbing this rapidly growing crime of child desertion by such a law as is proposed here, I think it is safe to say that the burden of supporting these children at public exnense will con- tinue to increase. Mere parents are tempted to walk off and lerve their children when they see the first offenders escape any kind of criminal prosecution, If time would permit, I could read to the committee scores of letters from citizens throughout this Nation on this problem. I have here letters from Judges, prosecuting attorneys, bar associations, welfare organiza- tions, educators and many others endorsing this kind of law because these citizens are fully aware of this growing and unprincipled practice. This is something more than a mere matter of dollars, Mr. Chairman. It is bad enough, Till admit, to see the American taxpayer digging deeper and deeper every year to carry the load of dependent children, thousands of whom have parents who could and should support them. To me, it is even worse for a program as worthy and as commendable as our aid to dependent children program be- coming an instrument through which we are actually subsidizing the breaking up of homes. We have made it so easy for a parent to walk off and leave his children for the public to support that we have created a tempta- tion. I cannot understand a parent who has 50 little regard for his own flesh and blood, but the facts cannot be denied and we must face the fact that we do have countless thou- sands of such sorry and worthless citizens among us. We may not be able to instill any common decency or responsibility in this type or parent, and we may be compelled because of our Christian spirit to take care of needy children, regardless of how worthless their parents may be. But certainly, if we pass this law proposed here, we can make sure that a major percentage of such persons will languish in jail while we do take care of their children. By so doing, we can at least cut off the source of supply which is now pro- ducing so many children in this category. Iam not going to burden the committee or the record with a recitation of individual case histories. I do assure you gentlemen, however, that I have made a rather extensive survey in my own State and district—and I have been supplied information from almost every State by those who share my views— and I state here with as much emphasis as I can command that we are faced with a dan- gerous and despicable evil in this country. The time is long since passed when we should have done something about this mess. To delay further is, it seems to me, a thing we simply must not contemplate. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that I favor giving every needy child in this coun- try all the help it needs, regardless of its parents. But I also want to make sure that every parent guilty of criminal neglect of his children is punished to the full extent of the law. In the interest of common sense, com- mon decency, national economy and Chris- tianity, I appeal to you to act favorably upon this legislation. Let’s enact a law that will help purify these child dependency rolls and that will punish the sorriest citizens among us—deserting parents. Unification EXTENSION OF REMARES OF HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include the following editorial from the Lynn Tclegram-News, Lynn, Mass., Friday, May 19, 1950: Sree, FRAMEWORK For PEAcr . The French Government has proposed a program which could be made the basis for & real start toward an economic United States of Europe. The proposal calls for the governments of France and Germany to place their coal and steel production under unified direction and @ single system of regulations. The French Government’s statement on the proposal is imbued with the spirit of unity and concord, yet is aware of the realities: “A united Europe will not be achieved all at once, nor in a single framework. It will be formed by concrete measures which first of all create a solidarity in fact. The unit- ing of the European nations requires that the age-old opposition between France and Ger-~ many be culminated: The action to be taken must first of all concern France and Ger-~ many. “To that end, the French Government pro- poses that immediate action be concentrated on one limited, but decisive point: The en~ tire French-German production of coal and steel be placed under a joint authority, with- in an organization open to the other Euro- pean nations.” These words should be most welcome to all who want to see an end to the perilous divi- sion of Europe into competitive, suspicious and warring national states. Along with the hope and the promise, how-~ ever, one must not overlook the very great dificulties that stand in the path of the pro- posal, Powerful vested interests in western Eu- rope will fight it. The proposal depends for AS867 success on free convertibility of money in Europe. Prices and labor costs will present knotty problems. The unification does not of itself guarantee increased efficiency 1 production methods. Nor dces it automatically assure more steel products and lower prices for them for the masses of people in Europe. Consumers ought to have a voice in the new authority. % will take a lot of thought and work and planning to achieve real benefits for con- sumers. Such benefits should be a chief aim of uni- fication. If they cannot be achioved, the uni- fication will itself become a super-cartel in- stead of what it should be—an agency to block the rebirth of the old steel and coal cartels which were a cancer on Huropean economic and political progress. Obviously an immense amount of enlight- ened self-interest on the part of many na- tions will be required to form the combine. Britain, at this point, seems cool. FKcro’s a chance for John Bull to show his willing- ness to go along on a concrete proposition tor European unification. American support should be generous and firm. We, too, probably will need to resist vested interests. Certainly we share with forward-loking Europeans a vision of an ef- fective European federation which, as French Foreign Minister Schuman says is indis- pensable for the preservation of peace.” (Chi- cago Sun-Times.) The St. Lawrence Seaway—In Support of House Joint Resolution 271 EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, May 5, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I wish to include a statement which I made before the House Committee on Public Works on May 10, 1950, as follows: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state briefly the principal reasons why I feel that your com- mittee and the Congress should act favorably upon the Canadian-American agreement for the construction of St. Lawrence seaway and power project the earliest opportune mo-~- ment. The record of hearing before the Commit- tee on Public Works as well as other con= gressional committees on previous occasions has amply proved the following points: 1. From an engineering point of view, the highest authorities in the United States and Canada, including United States Army En-~ gineer officers, have approved the feasibility and have perfected their plans so that from 60 days after appropriations are made avail~ able, contracts may be let for the construc- tion of the project. 2. From an economic point of view, re- peated surveys have indicated the availabil- ity of traffic and the economic advantages of direct shipping via the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. Beginning with the International Joint Commission in 1920-21, the Department of Commerce under Her~ bert Hoover in 1926, the Corps of Enginecrs in 1933, the Department of Commerce under Hon. Jesse Jones in 1941 and under Hon. Charles Sawyer in 1947 and 1949, have all proved that substantial traffic is available to justify the construction of the seaway. 8. From a national defense viewpoint, it has been repeatedly asserted by the War De- nartment when Henrv Stimson and Robert
A3868 Patterson were Secretary; by the Navy De- partment under Frank Knox and James For- restal; by the National Defense Establish- ment under James Forrestal; and the pres- ent incumbent, Secretary Johnson; by the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Admiral Leahy, General Eisenhower, Admiral Nimitz, and Gencral Arnold were members; by the pres- ent Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Defense Security Resources Board, that the construction of the seaway will make an im- portant contribution to the national secu~ rity of the United States by (a) providing an additional transportation route, (b) permit- ting ship construction in the Great Lakes, (c) making new sources for raw materials, particularly iron ore, available to the war industries in the Middle West, and (d) sup- plying large quantities of low cost electric power in an area which has been short of such power for over a decade. 4. From a political point of view it is a matter of record that leaders of both par- ties and party platforms have endorsed the St. Lawrence seaway project. Every President of both parties in the past 30 years has been strongly in support of this essential under- taking. In the light of the irrefutable case for the construction of the seaway one must wonder why this project is delayed from year to year, particularly when the Congress has been so free-handed in approving many other public works in the East and South and the West. The answer, Mr. Chairman, is in the fact that the few opponents wield such economic power that they are able to propagandize throughout the country in a manner which neither government nor the proponents, al- though they have the merits of the project on their side, are able to match. The op- ponents are mainly located in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Or- Jeans. Their interest is centered in the rail- road lines which serve from Chicago to these cities, and in the power companies which serve New York and New England. They are the parties at interest and they are the ones that agitate the opposition throughout the country. When I note expressions of opposition from the South, the Middle West, the Mountain States, or any area outside of those named, I recognize the manifestations of economic controls from the eastern financial centers to the outlying regions of the country. Policies made by financial and economic interests in these centers of control, find expression in the South, the Prairie States, the Southwest, or the Northwest because many of the eco- nomic enterprises in those areas are con- trolled from the East, The opposition in those areas therefore, does not express local opposition but merely derivative opposition from the east coast. I bring this matter to the attention of the members of the Public Works Committee and the Congress because they must judge accurately the incidence and effect of the seaway on each part of the country; and they must assess the significance of the op- position they hear from sources not directly involved in this controversy. The real issue before the Committee on Public Works is whether the St. Lawrence seaway will hurt or benefit the eastern trunk lines and the New York power companies. If the answer is “No,” the opponents have mo case; if the answer is ‘Yes,” that possi- ply the seaway may be detrimental to these interests, then the committee must judge whether the national interest is superior to the particular individual interests involved. It is my contention that the eastern rail- roads and power companies are mistaken in their opposition, because without the seaway industry is likely to drift away from the places where these utilities derive their greatest revenues. It is not the first time in our history that the eastern railroad and utility managements have been wrong about their own and their country’s interest. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the kind- ness you have shown me and for the man- ner in which you have conducted the hear- ings, and I hope that your committee will consider the issues I have presented. Tariff on Rubber and Canvas Footwear EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusets. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing letters: Russer WorKERS UNION, Feperan Locan 21914, A. F. or L., Watertown, Mass., May 19, 1950. Hon. Eprrs Nourse ROGERS, House of Representatives Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear REPRESENTATIVE RoGERS: Enclosed is a picture of a very few of the more than 20,000 men and women employed in the rubber- and canvas-footwear industry. The picture also shows cases containing more than 56,000 cards sent to President Truman protesting changing the method of assessing tariffs on rubber and canvas footwear from the Ameri- can selling price to that of foreign value. The enclosed copy of letter to President Truman is explanatory and we hope that we can depend on your support to help us keep our jobs and to maintain the American standard of living. Sincerely yours, 8S. A. Prrcoco, Business Agent. RuBBER WORKERS UNION, Feprmat Locan 21914, A. F. or L., Watertown, Mass., May 9, 1950. Dear Mr. Presipent: Bill H. R. 8304 ts pending in Congress entitled “Customs Sim- plification Act of 1950” which would ellimi- nate what is known as the American selling price principle that is now used to compute costs in order to arrive at an equitable basis of applying tariffs on imports of canvass and waterproof rubber footwear. We are opposed to the abrogation of the American selling price principle because we are convinced that it will lead to drastic re- ductions of import duties on competitive footwear produced in low-labor-cost coun- tries of Japan and Czechoslovakia. We are satisfied that no workable system can be designed to give the’same protection as we have under the American selling price. We have been advised by experts in these matters that any such scheme would be im- practicable. We fear that the only results that cnn be expected from the abolition of the American selling price are further reduc- tions in the duties on imports. As you know, the process for applying duty on imported rubber footwear is simple under the American selling price policy. The im- ported shoe is compared with its American equivalent for which the manufacturer’s price is easily determined, and the duty is assessed on that price. It is obvious that any other scheme intending to reach the game result would lead to impossible com- plications. . We see nothing wrong with the American selling price method and see no reason to change it. This method of assessing import duties is a sound way toward equalizing APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD low labor costs abroad with the higher labor costs in American industry. Labor consti- tutes 47 percent of our factory cost. This is the labor of American workmen, and wages paid in our industry in this country are far higher than those in any other country. The materials used by American manufac< turers of rubber and canvas footwear «are with the exception of crude rubber, Ameri- can made, and here again we are at a dis- advantage. Materials produced in foreign low labor cost countries are much lower in price than the materials we use. The manufacture of rubber footwear is an essential part of our national economy. It is vital to our national defense. During the last war our industry furnished our armed forces with more than 45,000,000 pairs of rubber footwear. We also made life rafts, fuel cells, raincoats, and life vests. Without a going rubber footwear industry our Na- tional Defense Program would be scriously impaired. Thirteen companies are engaged in the manufacture of rubber and canvas foote wear and employ more than 20,000 men and women, with sales of approximately $100,= 000,000. Foreign manufacturers have copied our styles and methods. Their low labor rates and cheap materials combined with lower tariffs would mean the loss of jobs to thou= sands, not only in our own industry but in the factories of our suppliers, and in the stores and shops in our communities which serve our workers. ' The more than 56,000 protests sent to you today is indicative of the fears of our citi- zens about the loss of their jobs and stand~ ards of living, if through any means, tariff protection on canvas and waterproof rub- ber footwear is changed to permit Imports that will destroy our industry. The rubber and canvas footwear industry Js worth saving. Your help in seeing to it that the tariffs we now have are not lowered will certainly be appreciated by thousands of loyal American men and women workers, Respectfully yours, 8. A. Percoco, Business Agent, Arab Rearmament EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include the following resolution that I have re- ceived from the Lawrence Chapter, Sen- jor Hadassah, Lawrence, Mass.,: LAWRENCE, Mass., May 20, 1950. Hon. Txomas J, Lann, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Lane: Whereas it is known from reliable sources that arms of a quality and quantity indi- cating intended use beyond the purpose of internal security are being supplied to the Arab states in the Middle East, most particu- larly to Egypt, by Great Britain, and Whereas this Arab rearmament by Great Britain has the acknowledged approval of the United States Government, and Whereas at the same time, Great Britain has denied Israel arms for its defense, and Whereas the Arab League has proclaimed its intention to organize a united economic
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and military front of all Arab states against the struggling State of Israel, and Whereas we are convinced of the genuine concern of the United States for the peace and security of the Middle East: Therefore be 1t Resolved, That we, Lawrence Chapter, Senior Hadassah, in meeting in the Jewish Community Center, May 16, 1950, do call upon the United States to implement its proclaimed concern and desire for peace in the Middle Hast by providing Israel with arms to defend itself, thus lending its strong infiuence to the maintenance of peace in the Middle East. Respectfully yours, CHARLOTTE R. ROSENTHAL, Secretary, Lawrence Chapter, Senior Hadassah. Thomas Jefferson Still Survives EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, May 5, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I wish to include the following ar- ticle by Henry Steele Commager that appeared in the New York Times of Sun- day, May 21, 1950: THOMAS JEFFERSON SritL SURVIVES (By Henry Steele Commager) Jefferson is the central figure in American history and—if freedom and democracy sur- vive in our generation—he may yet prove to be the central figure in modern history. He was not only one of the founding fathers, the source and inspiration of much of Ameri- can democracy and of American nationalism; he was, too, a world figure. Certainly no other public man contributed so richly to so many chapters in modern history. He was, of all the founding fathers, indeed of all the men of the eighteenth century, the most contemporary. Both in his public and his private life he addressed himself contin- uously to problems of permanent and univer- sal interest. What he wrote and what he did—about the nature of society and of gov- ernment, the relations of man to government, the »wairirs cf rer ublicanism and democ- racy, ne «iyci'fceree of education and of tol. eration and of experimentation to democ- racy—is as relevant today as it was in the eighteenth century. It is, notwithstanding profound changes in politics and economy, as relevant for France and Germany and Italy as it was for the young United States. Nor has any other American revealed him- self or illuminated the history of his age more fully in his writings. Even his public writings constitute a record of incomparable importance: imagine our history without the Declaration of Independence, the Vir- ginia Statute of Religious Freedom, the Ordi- mance of 1784, the Bill for the Diffusion of Knowledge, the Kentucky Resolutions, the First Inaugural Address, the Louisiana Treaty. These, however, represent only a small part of Jefferson’s total contribution to our history. His writings are essential, too, for an understanding of many things which he did not himself create or sponsor. Thus, for example, the Northwest Ordinance, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Constitution, the Monroe Doctrine; thus, too, such institutions or movements as the political party, the at- tack on slavery, the role of the judiciary in XCVI—App.——244 our constitutional system, and a variety of humanitarian and reform movements. When to all this are added private writ- ings on almost every aspect of American society and culture, and correspondence (a correspondence singularly elevated and felici- tous, with hundreds of public men at home and abroad), we can see that Jefferson fur- nished both the soil and the seed from which many of our national institutions grew. No one has yet exhausted the richness of that mind, a mind in many respects the most interesting of modern times. Jeffer- son’s versatility is by now a familiar, almost a hackneyed, subject. He was a scientist and an inventor; he was the greatest Ameri- can architect of his day; he was a farmer, experimenting endlessly with crops and stock; he was a man of letters; he was a bibliophile, collecting not one but two of the greatest private libraries in the country; he was something of a philologist; he was a student of the classics—as who was not in that age—and of the Bible, compiling his own for good measure; he was a lawyer and a collector of law reports. Also, he was something of a musician, play- ing the fiddle and collecting music and musicians; he was the first great educational statesman, not only the founder of the Uni- versity of Virginia, but the sponsor of far- reaching educational reforms; he was a horticulturist, and his garden book has per- manent value. What was he not? Even in an age of versatility his catholic interests are a matter of perpetual astonishment. Fortunately he was, too, an indefatigable letter writer. His famous epistolary record runs to over 600 closely written pages. Nor were his letters merely the hasty scrawls of a hurried man; many of them were minor treatises on politics or law or religion or education or philosophy. How he found time for it all, even in a life of 83 years, is one of the mysteries of his- tory; perhaps it was that he was untroubled by modern labor-saving devices and innocent of those squads of secretaries with which every modern statesman and businessman surrounds himself. Nor were all these interests, so richly revealed in his writings, the expression of dilettantism. It was said of one of the Lord Chancelors of England that if only he knew a little law he would know a little of every-~ thing. That could not be said of ‘Thomas Jefferson. He was curious about almost everything, but his curiosity was rarely irrelevant. Whatever he learned, whatever he knew, fitted into and enriched his philosophy. For of all American statesmen, Jefferson was the most philosophical. One abiding purpose rums through his whole life, one pervasive philosophy dominates it. He insisted that man should be free, and he was persuaded that, once free, mankind would progress toward happiness and virtue. He was enraptured with the vision of man- kind free from political tyranny, from the bondage of superstition and of ignorance, from the sins of the past, from poverty, from war. He had an elghteenth~century faith in the porfectibility of man, but it was not merely a visionary faith; it was faith rooted in the reality of New World experience. For here in the New World mankind had been given a new chance—mankind free from the tyrannies and oppressions, the poverty and ignorance of ihe Old World. Here men could live close to nature, cultivate the soil, raise large families, keep what they earned, benefit from learning and from science, es- cape war, advance—as was aid in the great Tirst Inaugural Address—“rapidly to des- tinies beyond the reach of mortal eye.” And as America was to be a model for the world, to prove what man was capable of when free, Jefferson devoted himself passion- ately to strengthening this Nation, expanding its territory, building up its resources, main- A3869 taining its security, fostering its culture and its virtue. The first strokes of his mature pen were a call for freedom; his last written words recalled that earlier faith. It 1s eminently fitting that The Papers of Thomas Jefferson should be launched as a national enterprise. All who cherish Ameri- can traditions, all who are zealous for the maintenance of freedom and democracy in the world, all who retain their faith in reason and morality, will rejoice at this reaffirma- tion of devotion to the principles to which Jefferson dedicated his life. “Thomas Jeffer- son still survives,” said John Adams on his deathbed; it was a prophecy which each gen- eration mus¢ justify anew. P. O. Davis on Heart Disease and Cancer EXTENSION OF REMARKS CF HON. CARL ELLIOTT OF ALABAMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr, ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Hon- orable P. O. Davis, able director of the Alabama Extension Service, devoted his column Along the Way in the May 1950 issue of This Month in Rural Ala- bama to the dread diseases of the heart and to cancer. He points out that nearly half the deaths of persons over 45 years of age are caused by heart disease. When we add to this figure the deaths caused by cancer, we reach the alarming result that most deaths of persons over 45 years of age in this country are caused by heart disease or cancer. If these scourges of mankind could be eliminated, undoubtedly we could lengthen the life span of our people in this generation. ’ Though a balanced budget is much to be desired, I do not believe that the American people want us to stop the re- search presently being carried on by this Government in an effort to conquer these death dealers, heart disease and can- cer. Rather, our support for research in these fields should be expanded so as to hasten the day when these dreaded diseases, and others, may lay as dead corpses at the feet of American medical ingenuity. I include the article of Director P. O. Davis as follows: ALONG THE Way (By P. O. Davis, Director, API Extension Service) One inevitable fact is that each person must die sometime, somewhere. There is, of course, nothing new in saying this; but there are new facts as to causes of death. And there are new and impcriant facts as to how to avoid illness and how o live longer with better health. These facts are of vital concern to each of ‘us. The United States Public Health Service has statistics on diseases and other things that end the lives of people. Three years ago (1947) diseases of the heart and blood vessels ended the lives of 626,000 people, or nearly 2,000 people daily in the United States. This group topped the list of human killers. No less than 21 distinct types of heart diseases are known, but three of them caused 90 percent of all damaged hearts. Cancer was next with 190,000 deaths in 1 yaar. Ala- bama had 2,800. Broken down, this means
A3870 three deaths per day in Alabama, or one for every 8 hours, for cancer alone. Accidents killed about half as many as cancer, the total in this group being 100,000. Nephritis (Kidney disease) killed 80,000, pneumonia 62,000, tuberculosis 48,000. Nearly one of each two deaths, after the age of 45, is caused by heart diseases. Add to these those caused by cancer, and we find that most people after middle age and older die of one of these two diseases—heart and cancer. This rcises a question as to what we in- dividually can do to prevent any illness but especially heart disease and cancer. Spe- cifics are not available but certain things are essential to healthy bodies and minds, They are: 1, Enough but not too much good food, containing all of the elements essential to a strong and healthy body. 2. Moderation in all that we do. Intem- perance in anything is bad and harmful. 8. Sanitary conditions for living and work- ing. 4. Plenty of outdoor exercise without ex- cesses. 5. Regular attention to all body needs. 6. Regular contact with a family physician for advice and service. I like to emphasize food. It is easy for anyone to get basic facts as to what foods to eat and amounts needed to supply the daily needs of a child or a grown person, -either man or woman, (See your home dem- onstration agent.) People who do heavy physical work re- quire, of course, more food than those who don’t. Information is available as to food needs for people living and working under different conditions. A quart of milk a day, for example, is needed by each child or young person. Older people don't need as much. Eggs are an ex- cellent food. A combination of milk, eggs, meat, cereals, and vegetables are, of course, big essentials. People who eat improperly endanger them. selves by inviting diseases and illness. This applies to too much, too little, or the wrong kind. A check-up by a physician as often as ad- vised by him is a mighty good practice. Often in this way trouble is found before it goes too far and js corrected before great damage is done. Cancer is a notable example of this sort of disease. It is not fatal, as many people be- lieve, if it is discovered in its early stages and treated properly. If it is not discovered until it goes too far it is fatal. I Am An American Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. PETER W. RODINO, JR. OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, citizen- ship is not a task to be taken lightly. We have many privileges and freedoms in our country; we also have duties and responsibilities. “I Am an American Day” serves to identify and clarify just what our country does expect of us. It is a day set aside to welcome the new citizens of our country. Our new citizens each year come from two vibrant sources: The youth of Amer- ica who have reached the age of legal maturity and the people who come to our country from foreign shores. Both groups bring great offerings to our coun- try; we are, indeed, proud to honor them on “I Am an American Day.” Under leave to extend my remarks in the RrcorbD, I wish to include the follow- ing editorial which appeared in the Inde- pendent Press of Bloomfield, N. J., under date of May 19, 1950, expressing its sen- timents on what this day means to all of us in this great country of ours: I Am an AMERICAN On Sunday, by virtue of a proclamation of the President of the United States, we cele- pbrate I Am an American Day. To those young men and women who for the first time take on the full obligations of citizenship in a democracy it is a day of sol- emn implication. For those mature men and women who have foresworn their allegiance to the old, to give their full measure of loy- alty to our own democracy, it is a day of prayerful thanksgiving. And for those of us who have long been able to proudly proclaim “I am an American” it is an opportunity for @ rededication to the ideals and principles upon which this country was founded and which through travail and trouble it has tried to learn to express. There are many scoffers who say that our democracy is a mockery—because it is not complete—because in spite of its high boasts of life and liberty for all, it has discriminated in ‘many instances against groups of its citi- zenry—and because it has not given equal opportunity to all. Certainly our democracy is not perfect, but a democracy, being com- posed of individuals, is a living, growing thing, and it has progressed and is still pro- gressing steadily. Despite any defects, the American form of democracy still offers to everyone a greater measure of freedom and opportunity than any other country on carth, But I Am an American Day is not a day on which to discuss what democracy has or has not done for its citizens. Democracy is com- posed of its citizens, and it is up to them as individuals to ive up to the ideals of their country and so to raise the standard of the country as a whole. When we say “I am an American” we make it an individual matter. It becomes an indi- vidual right and an individual obligation. And for the duties involved in such a proc- lamation we can do no better thing than to turn back for our instructions to the epistle of Paul to the Romans, when he counseled them: “Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honor prefer- ring one another; * * * rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing in- stant in prayer; “ “* “ Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not the high things, hut condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise In your own conceits. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Pro- vide things honest in the sight of all men. * “+ * Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Upholsterers International Endorses Fogarty Resolution EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN E. FOGARTY OF RHODE ISLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 5, the Upholsterers Inter- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD national Union of North America held their convention in the city of Philadel- phia. Among the various resolutions which were adopted on this occasion was one which placed the union on record in favor of House Resolution 270, which I introduced and on which hearings were held before the House Committee on For- eign Affairs recently. In speaking, I wish to express my ap- preciation to my distinguished colleague, the Honorable Jonw Ken, of West Vir- ginia, the chairman of the committce, for his splendid courtesy in making the re- cent hearings possible. For 5 hours a succession of witnesses presented state- ments and gave testimony in favor of the Congress taking action in behalf of a united Ireland. It is, therefore, most gratifying to me to find that continued endorsement and approval is being given to my resolution by various socicties and organizations throughout the country, especially by labor organizations, which are ever vigilant cf the needs of the op- pressed and are eager to support the cause of freedom and independence throughout the world. It is not surprising then to find labor organizations protesting against the un- just partition of Ireland and the con- tinued maintenance of a dictatorial type of government in the northeastern six counties of Ireland. For the benefit of my colleagues I take pleasure in having the resolution of the Upholsterers Inter- national included in these remarks. The text of their resolution is as follows: Whereas the restoration of freedom and nationhood to subjugated peoples and the protection of minority groups wherever they exist are ideals to which our people have pledged themselyes and to which our Gov- ernment is officially dedicated: and Whereas our Nation is currently engaged in an intense struggle throughout the world to effectuate this policy: and Whereas our own security and way of life will benefit in proportion to the degree to which our foreign policy succeeds; and Whereas the Irish people are unwilling victims of a policy of imperiallsm by which their country is partitioned, and by which the democratic rights and privileges of the partitioned populace are denied them; and Whereas the situation was condemned by the American Federation of Labor at their recent national conventions; and Whereas our continued indifference toward this matter gives the le to our protestations of sincerity and weakens our own security by making it {mpossible for the Irish Nation to join in the common defense of western civilization: be it therefore Resolved, That we petition the House For~ eign Affairs Committee at Washington to take favorable action cn the Fogarty Res- olution, House Resolution 270, which seeks to extend to the people of Ireland the right to decide how their country shall be gov- erned; be it also Resolved, That we petition Chairman Tom Connatiy of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to call open public hearings on a similar resolution by Senator Leuman, which has been referred to his committee; in addi- tion be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and the State Depart- ment, and to the metropolitan press and the press agencies.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD London Talks Add to Prestige of United States EXTENSION OF REMARES OF HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RecorD, I include the following article taken from the New York Times of May 21, 1950: Lonpon Tates App To Presticz or UNITED SratEs—EHunopeans Salp To Have More CONFIDENCE IN ACHESON AS RESULT oF PaRLEYS (By Raymond Daniell) Lonpon, May 20—The series of diplomatic conferences just ended in London has pro- duced new confidence in United States policy in the chancelleries of western Europe. It also has brought about a new respect for United States diplomacy, which throughout the meetings was conducted with skill and finesse by Secretary of State Dean Acheson and his delegation. The program that was adopted with more unanimity and wholehearted support than had marked most post-war meetings of for- eign ministers was essentially a United States program. Mr. Acheson may not be taking home with all that he sought when he came here but he has gained a good deal more than many observers thought he would before the meetings. Western Europe has accepted the United States thesis that security must have equal priority with economic recovery. It has acknowledged that all must bear a fair share of the burden of rearming. And the western nations have accepted the principle that they can become strong most cconomically and efficiently by building their forces with the view to their being used jointly against a common enemy. Before the conferences there was a fcel- ing In Europe that there was no concerted United States policy in foreign affairs. That illusion has been dispelled. Briefly stated, the policy that has emerged from. these series of mectings is that the United States wants to bring Germany into a@ permanent and profitable association with western Europe. In the Far East the United States seeks to assist in the development of the new democratic native states, while recognizing legitimate European colonial interests. In the Near East the United States seeks to preserve the status quo by encouraging the national governments there to improve- the standards of living of their people and at the same time give them a tacit guaranty of security. The idea long held in Washington that the security of western Europe could be guaran~ teed only by linking western Germany irrevo- cably with the West has been endorsed and steps have been taken to treat Germany less and less as a conquered former enemy and more as a cobelligerent in the cold war. The United States on its part has weakened the position of the advocates of a policy of neu- trality in the struggle between the east and the west by declaring its continued interest in Europe after the Marshall plan expires. What may prove to have been the most im- portant piece of unfinished business of the conference was the French plan for the in-~ tegration of the coal and steel industries of France and Germany under an international authority. This was not even on the agenda but it has provoked a good deal of discus- cion and almost certainiy it will come up for d.scussion and perhaps decision at subse~ quent meetings of the western Foreign Min- isters. Although the:2 is no reason to doubt that the announcement of the plan by Robert Schuman, French Foreign Minister, was as great a surprise to Mr. Acheson as it was to Ernest Bevin, British Foreign Secretary, the fact remains that similar ideas had been ex-= pressed by United States officials as long ago as 1947, long before the French were willing to consider any kind of partnership with the Germans. At any rate the picture has changed from that of a France fearful of a renascent Ger- many and reluctant to form any association with her to one in which the British Foreign Secretary is under pressure from both Paris and Washington to ‘make good his famous pronouncement of January 1948, in favor of European unity,” to use the words of the New Statesman and Nation. Perhaps that is putting it too bluntly but it is certainly true that the Schuman idea has received warmer and less qualified sup- port from Mr. Acheson than from any Brit- ish source. To Britain’s Labor Government it raises grave problems in connection with its con- trols and full-employment policies in the event of joining in the plan and of ruinous compctition if Britain remains outside. There is no doubt that the Labor Govern- ment would feel easier about the proposal if there were some assurance that the Ger- man iron and steel industries were to be nationalized under a popular mandate and that trade-unions received assurance of their right to participate in the projected inter- national authority. That may be one reason behind the calling of the International Socialist Conference in London to discuss the plan. Both the United States and Britain will want to be assured that the proposed inter. national control is not a mcre camouflage for a new cartel to restrict markets and hold up prices. This is the main economic issue involved, and M. Schuman has given his as- surance that the concept aims not at the restriction of production but to increase effi- elency, lower costs, and expand export markets. In support of this, the sponsors of the plan say that the original concept proposes al.so- lutely free trade in the products of heavy industry and that the participating countries would agree to forego customs tariffs or im- port quotas on coal, iron, and steel. There is a political question that may have to be weighed more carefully in Washington than in London, however. That is the effect of laying the foundations of a separate Euro- pean bloc that agitators for “neutrality,” especially in France and western Germany, might use as a means of trying to withdraw Europe from the cold war. There is strong public opinion in both countries for disso- ciation with the United States in its struggle with the Soviet Union, however unrealistic it may seem and far as it may be from an understanding of the Soviet tactics of expansion. One of the decisions reached at the con- ference was that the west should do more to mobilize public opinion on its side. Idward W. Barrett, Assistant Secretary of State in Charge of Public Affairs, arrived today and consulted with Christopher Warner, head of the British Foreign Office information de- partment, on plans for countering misrepre- sentations by Communist sources of the ob« jects of the North Atlantic Treaty. AS871 Displaced Persons and the Problem of Europe’s Uprooted Millions EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FRANCIS E. WALTER OF PENNSYLVANIA . IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the ReEcorpD, I include the following address by the Honorable Edward M. O’Connor, Commissioner, Displaced Persons Com- mission, before the civic dinner, Marian- ist centennial celebration, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, on May 16, 1950: It is my privilege to present to you this evening an analysis of one of the largest and most humane of the postwar problems con- fronting the nations of the western world. It is a problem marked by considerable mis- understanding due to misinformation gen~- erated for the most part by selfish prejudice. It is also a problem which goes right to the core of the desperate struggle we now en- gage in, with the eccrerstion of other free- dom-loving nations, :cy ~he preservation of western civilization. This is the problem of displaced persons—those unfortunate people who have been torn from or forced to flee from their homelands by one or another form of totalitarian aggression. These people can~ not now return to their homelands for fear of their lives and liberties because of race, religion, or political belief. For an objective understanding of the problem of Europe’s uprooted nillions we must turn back the pages of history to 1034, The scene is Germany, where an evil tyrant has come to power. The false theory of a superior race is being put into practice. The equally false theory of an inferior race is also being put into practice, and the Jew is made the scapegoat. These practices caused thousands of Jews to flee Germany and to seek haven in other countries of good will. The passing of a few years found hundreds of thousands of Jews incarcerated in concen~ tration camps and those who survived became displaced persons at the end of hostilities. Before the fall of the Hitler regime thousands of Christians were also put into concentra-~ tion camps because of their active opposition to the Nazi regime. The second stage of devsion~ment was 1939, the year Poland was ':-jued * prearranged plan and agreement between Navi Germiny and Soviet Russia. Poland was invaded si- multaneously from the west and the east, Here we find a small nation caught between, the powerful pincers of two totalitarian states. After several weeks of valiant but hopeless resistance, the Republic of Poland was conquered. Hundreds of thousands of Polish people fled eastward seeking to escape the invading Germans only to he greeted by the Invading forces of the Soviet Union. It is estimated that well over 500,000 Poles entered territory under military occupation by the Soviets. Due to the intervention of General Sikorsky, supported by representa- tions from the Government of the United States, these Polish refugees were allowed to make their way as best they could across the vast expanse of Russia until they eventually reached the hospitable border of Iran. It is a@ well-established fact that thousands upon thousands of those refugees died along the way due to lack of food, clothing, and ade- quate shelter. Those refuzces who did reach Iran were given temporary haven in that