APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Panama Canal Reorganization EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF EOH. JOHN J. ALLEN, JR. OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. ALLEN of California. Mr. Speak- er, the subject of legislation regarding the organizational aspects of the Panama Canal is being considered as indicated by the recommendations of the Special Subcommittee on Panama Canal Tolls, as set forth in House Report 1304, Eighty-first Congress, and the recom- mendations for legislation set forth in House Document 460, Highty-first Con- gress, in which was transmitied a report of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. A short time ago a former colleague, the Honorable Willis W. Bradley, sent to me an editorial published in the March 1950 issue of Marine Progress, setting forth the viewpoint of the merchant ma- rine, as understood by that publication, in order that I might have the benefit of the views expressed. In order that the Members of the House may be familiar with the article, I include it as a part of these remarks. The article is as follows: PANAMA CANAL REORGANIZATION Less than 5 years ago the first moves were made in respect to the modernization of the Panama Canal, and the maritime industry was first apprised of the tense controversy that subsequently became Known as the Battle of the Levels, waged by the proponents of the sea-level canal and the lock type with the added feature of a terminal lake at the Pacific end similar in function to that of Gatun Lake at the Atlantic end. In the subsequent studies it was reestab- lished that thé tolls received by the Canal authorities were expected to pay for whatever reconstruction or modification that was to be attempted. An alerted shipping industry watched developments carefully, and later, when President Truman, on the advice of Canal officials, ordered an i1l-percent in- crease in tolls, the protests were both imme- diate and forceful. The toll increase was progressively postponed until it now stands at April 1, but with every likelihood that it will be either rescinded or indefinitely post- poned until the entire Panama Canal situa- tion is clarified, not only as to the proper rate of tolls but also as to modification so as to get the best canal possible. CHANGING VALUES Since the atomic bomb was developed and with a hydrogen bomb in the making, the question of defending the Canal has been relegated to a position considerably behind other factors affecting the operation. If a successfully placed bomb of atomic or hydo- gen power was detonated in the Canal area there would be a deactivated canal, no mat- ter whether it was a sea-level waterway or a lock canal. That leaves the marine operat- ing factor high on the list of desirable char- acteristics of whatever waterway is to be developed. The emphasis on the costs of the canal modernization brought attention to the ques- tion of what burden the tolis now carried, in other words what did commercial ship- ping pay for aside from being taken from one ocean to another? I developed that toils were paying for practically all expenses of operating the Canal Zone, such as schools, administration expenses of all kinds, main- tenance of cemeteries, transit of Government vessels, highways, garbage disposal, police and fire departments, and many others. It is the contention of the shipping industry that these expenses should be borne by the departments resnn~sih'e and not charged against the “ers ‘= ¢ i-s waterways. As @ result of the interest the tolls ques~ tion has stirred up, plus the ever-present question of adequate modernization, the President transmitted to the Congress the re- port of the Bureau of the Budget on the organization and operation of the Panama Canal. in his letter of transmittal the President informed the Speaker of the House that he had issued two Executive orders, one dele- gating to the Governor of the Panama Canal the authority to determine the internal or- ganization of the Panama Canal and the second which transfers certain business op- erations from the Panama Canal to the Panama Railroad Company. The object of this last is to facilitate future transfer of all business operations to the Company. These moves were in accordance with the recommendations of the Bureau of the Budget but the President said that there were others that required congressional action. The first of these is the authority to transfer the Panama Canal to the Panama Railroad Company. The second is for the change of the name of the Panama Rail- road Company to the Panama Canal Com- pany. Third, to authorize the Company’s board of directors to establish toll rates, sub= ject to the President’s approval. Fourth, permit the company to retain and utilize toll revenues and, fifth, to authorize appropria~ tions to the company to cover losses which might result from changes in economic conditions. ‘The President recommended legislation to bring about these changes. INVESTIGATIONS Last August the President srdered the Bureau of the Budget to make a study of the Canal’s organizational aspects and this study has recently been completed and the report to the President made. In its study the Bureau uncovered a number of factors that have tended to stand in the way of a more flexible operation of the Canal. As a matter of fact it discovered that the executive order issued by President Wilson in 1914 outlining how the Canal should be operated is still the only order in force in the Canal Zone. The Bureau also informed the President that the Panama Railroad Company, as a cor- poration owned by the Government, was on a self-supporting basis, was run on a busi- nesslike basis, had control of its revenues insofar as operation, maintenance, and ex- pansion were considered and paid into the Treasury such surplus as was earned in the form of a dividend. The Panama Canal, on the other hand, is a Government agency, its revenues are turned over to the general fund of the Treasury and the money for its opera- tion, etc., comes from an appropriation by the Congress, TOLLS POLICY The controversial tolls situation was studied by the Bureau and the report made on this phase of its studies was as follows: “The treatment of the Panama Railroad Company and the Panama Canal as separate entities for financial and accounting pur- poses has not provided a clear basis for a sound tolls policy. Although the 1937 Spe- cial Committee on Panama Canal Tolis and Vessel Measurement recommended that in considering and revenues the Canal and its adjuncts, including the corporation, should be regarded as a single enterprise, this practice has not béen followed. “Under the existing formula, revenues from tolls, together with profits from the Canal’s business operations and miscellane- ous revenues from licenses, fines, etc., are A3191 expected to produce an amount sufficient to cover oneretirg expenses of the Panama Canal (:.¢0uc 27 evil government, heaith, and $f2...01.02) and a 8 percent return on the capital investment. Neither the reve- nues nor the expenses of the corporation are included in the tolls base. Consequently, the Canal would now automatically lose the benefit of the profits of any business activity transferred from it to the corpora- tion. This fact has naturally led to opposi-~ tion by the shipping industry to any such transfers. “?To uniform paitern has been established for oUneatme to the corporation its share of perer.iumoe i, health, and sanitation, tien fs reauizod to pay for hos- mon “3s (but not cut- coal au ‘y service), garbage collection, police and fire protection of its own facilities, but it contributes nothing toward the upkeep cf ™rricine’ nolice and fire protection, the Ci” fro ce wool system, cemeteries, streets, highways, and sewers, The cost of the latter services is borne en- tirely by the Panama Canal. The corpora-~ tion does bear its full share of the costs of overhead administration, such as the Gov- ernor’s office, accounting department, and so forth. “The most controversial aspects of tolls policy are (1) the interest charge on the capital investment; and (2) the question of whether any of the costs of constructing, onerating, ond maintaining the Canal should be alioce .cd to national defense. “The principle that Federal business enter= prises should pay a rate of return on the Government’s investment equal to the cost of the money to the Treasury is now well settled. The President recommended in his 1948 budget message that ‘Corporations should be required to reimburse the Treas- ury for the full cost of the money advanced to the corporation.’ There is no reason why the Panama Canal and its adjuncts should be exempted from payment of interest since they are essentially Federal business enter-= prises. However, at current average long= term rates the Panama Canal would be trequired to pay interest at the rate of approximately 2.3 rather than 8 percent. “Whether any part of the capital costs of the Canal should be allocated to national defense presents a problem to which there is no positive answer. The Canal admittedly does serve a dual purpose—defense and com- merce. However, any attempt to establish which purpose was primary at the time the Canal was built would be an utterly fruit- less undertaking. An equal number of state- ments on either side can be found, often by the same individual, to support whatever conclusion one wants to reach. “Studies made by the Bureau of Efficiency in 1931, and by the special committee in 1937 determined that no major part of the capital costs of the Panama Canal should be allocated to national defense. The only additional feature of the Canal which might not have been included if it had been con- structed exclusively for commercial use is the increase in the width of the locks from 100 to 110 feet. Actually the additional width has been an important factor in facili- tating the approach to, and handling of, com- mercial vessels in the locks. There would appear to. be no significant added costs in the construction of the Canal attributable solely to national defense. “The subsidy to national defense comes not from a failure to allocate capital costs but from the fact that military and other Government vessels do not pay tolls. While a record is maintained of such free transits, no allowance its made for them in the tolls base. ‘This policy stems from an interpreta~ tion of an Attorney General’s opinion in 1915. That interpretation need not be controlling for, while the Attorney General did hold that free transits would not constitute a treaty viclation, he did not rule that it would be aol “ we
A3192 illegal either to require the payment of tolls by Government vessels, or to credit them in the tolls base. “The cost of transiting a military vessel through the Canal is just as much a national- defense cost as the cost of operation of the vessel itself. It is in no sense an essential part of the cost of operating and maintain- ing the Canal. Yet, the cost of free transits is now included with the other costs which the commercial user of the Canal is expected to meet by the payment of tolls. While during the period from 1921 to 1939, free transits have averaged 4.1 percent of total Canal tolls, during what may be considered the war years (1940-45) the volume of free transits averaged 26.2 percent, and in 1945 reached 64.5 percent. The total amount of free tolls from 1921 to 1949 amounted to $64,194,574. “The military pay for most of the other services which they obtain from the Panama Canal, such as hospitalization, water, elec- tricity, garbage collection, etc. The only major item of this type for which the mili- tary do not pay is the school facilities for children of military personnel and civilian personnel employed by the military. Over 45 percent of the school population of the United States rate schools at the present time consists of children whose parents are members of the armed forces or employed by the Army, Navy, or Air Force. “The Coast Guard reimburses the Panama Canal for the maintenance of two of the most distant offshore lighthouses, but the Canal meets the cost of the other offshore lighthouses. “To look at the other side of the picture, the Canal receives certain services from the military without reimbursement. These consist principally of Army and Navy per- sonnel assigned to duty with the Canal. Salaries paid by the military to such em-~ ployees of the Canal amount to approxi- mately $430,000 per annum.” TRANSFER OF THE CANAL There has been considerable opposition to the Hoover Commission recommendation that, “There be established 1n the Depart- ment of Commerce a grouping of all major nonregulatory transportation activities of the Federal Government.” This means, ac- cording to some officials the inclusion of the Panama Canal, while to others it means nothing of the kind. The Budget Bureau report agrees with the Hoover Commission and stated that the Canal would clearly come under the definition of a transporta- tion activity. The Bureau also sees that some of the disputes that arise could be eas- ily settled by such a change. It reported to the President, “The Governor under existing arrangements operates at a serious disadvan- tage when he attempts to persuade the Sec- retary of the Army to overrule his military advisers, Often the best he can hope for is no action. Some of these questions could undoubtedly be settled more expeditiously by across-the-board discussions between the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Defense. It would only be on rare occasions that unresolved issues would have to be tak- en to the President.” The New Isolationism EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, in his usual clear and penetrating way of thinking and expressing his thoughts, the noted columnist Walter Lippmann analyzes the recent address of Herbert Hoover, particularly that part of his address in which the former President advocates a reorganization of the United Nations. The effect this would have on our foreign policy and the inescapabie meaning of such a step is clearly indi- cated by Mr. Lippmann as a withdrawal to isolation. I believe every Member of this House should give thought to this matter, and for that reason I am plac- ing Mr. Lippmann’s column from the New York Herald Tribune of May 1, 1950, in the RecorD: Topay AND TOMORROW (By Walter Lippmann) COMMUNISM AND THE ISOLATIONISTS Mr. Hoover’s address to the American Newspaper Publishers Association will help many who have been trying to understand the views and the intentions of the old- guard Republicans. The main puzzle has peen how to reconcile their warlike and crusading fervor against communism and Soviet Russia with their growing opposition to ERP, military aid, point 4, and all the other measures of that sort. The old-guard Republicans in the Senate talk as if they were about to advocate a declaration of war. But increasingly they are disposed to vote as isolationists. . Mr. Hoover’s speech provides the key to this paradox. It is that the old-guard Re- publicans wish us to retire into isolation during a great roar of anti-Communist noises, “The world needs,” said Mr. Hoover, ‘‘mobil- jzation against this creeping Red imperial- ism. The United States needs to know who are with us in the cold war against these practices and whom we can depend on.” With these bold, brave, and resounding words, Mr. Hoover declared: ‘Therefore I have a proposal to make.” And what was the proposal he had to make? It was that if the United Nations cannot be reorganized without the Commu- nist nations, if, in other words the Soviet Union and its satellites cannot be expelled, then a definite new united front should be organized of those people who disavow com- munism., In plain English Mr. Hoover is advising us to withdraw from the United Nations and therefore to break it up, and then to form a new united front of those who disavow communism. In his view, ap- parently any nation which does not vote to expel the Soviet Union and its satellites from the United Nations has not disavowed com- munism. Mr. Hoover’s new united front, which he would organize after withdrawing from the United Nations, is, he says, “specifically not @ proposed extension of a military alliance or any color of it. It is a proposal based solely upon moral, spiritual, and defense (sic) foundations.” Mr. Hoover made it quite plain elsewhere in his speech that he means it when he says that the united front is not to have the color of an alliance. For at every opportunity in his address he sneered at the idea of helping countries which, when they Oppose Soviet Russia, run risks and need support. Thus, of military aid, Mr. Hoover could say only “in persistence of an old habit we are taking up the check.” ‘ So the new united front, if Mr. Hoover has his way, will consist of the United States plus those nations which, without costs to the United States, feel able unaided to take such avitalstand. Thus, Mr. Hoover’s new united front against communism is not very new. It is certainly not very united. It is not much of a front. It is a proposal to scuttle the United Nations, and—though Mr. Hoover does not quite say so—the existing western APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD framework of collaboration through the secu- rity pact and the Marshall plan. The new united front against communism, as Mr. Hoover virtually admitted, is the new isolationism. “It may be,” he said, “that the non-Communist world is not willing to take such a vital stand’—not willing, that is to say, to wreck the United Nations, not will- ing to challenge the Soviet imperial power without guarantees, alliances, and support. Mr. Hoover is prepared to see the new united front come to nothing. Indeed, he expects it to come to nothing, saying that “it may be the non-Communist world is not willing” to follow him. What then? “At least it would clarify what we have to do.” What do we have to do? Mr. Hoover never quite clarified that. But what he means oozes out of every phrase in his address. He proposes to live alone, associated only with those who are as purely and perfectly anti-Communist as he feels he is. If the American people would follow him, they would then have re- pudiated the whole foreign policy of the United States, and indeed the history of the world, as it has developed since Mr. Hoover left the White House. Again we would with-~ draw into isolation—there to brood once again upon our own moral superiority. Thus we see how the new isolationism works: how with the drums and the trumpets of an anti-Communist crusade the old guard is beating a retreat from what Mr. Hoover calls, truly enough, ‘‘an expensive and dan- gerous cold war.” Mr. Hoover has made it all much plainer, and that, in a way, was a public service. World Government EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HAROLD D. DONOHUE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I should like to include an article on World Gov- ernment, by Thomas L. Stokes, which appeared in the May 1, 1950, issue of the Worcester (Mass.) Evening Gazette. Mr. Stokes’ comments on and review of this important subject are timely, thought provoking, and very interesting. They illustrate quite vividly that “hope springs eternal in the human heart,” especially for peace in this modern, troubled world. The article follows: WaSHINGION, May 1.—-When things look discouraging, as they do now in the world, it is helpful—without being pollyannish about it—to look at the constructive efforts being made for peace and to recognize the real vigor they possess despite all distrac- tions. More than ever is there reason for re- doubling those efforts through organized ac- tivity. Cold war tension is perhaps at its peak as we observe this week the fifth anniver- sary of the opening of that meeting in San Francisco that created the United Nations. The United Nations still 1s a going in- stitution. It is doing lots of good through- out the world through various of its agencies, slowly spreading understanding and good will in many ways, even though it is handi- capped in tackling some of the major di- lemmas that confront the world because of the impasse between us and Russia,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Last week, simultaneously, there were also observances up and down our land, for which governors of States and mayors of cities had issued proclamations, to campaign anew for the next step—for a world federal govern- ment with world law. This is the only way, in the end, to check the recurring violators of peace, the aggressors who seem to rise periodically through history, a manifestation of distorted human nature and greed for power that we probably always will have with us, human nature being what it is. FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT The vigor of this movement in our Nation was being exhibited last week in earnest men and women who, in increasing numbers, gathered together in public meetings, includ- ing church meetings and other specially ar- ranged functions, to rededicate themselves to peace under world law. They turned aside from the disturbing news of the day to look hopefully forward and to intensify their activity before it is too late. How effective these people have been—and there are millions of them supporting plans for strengthening union among nations of the world—is revealed in checking over achievements, which it is well to do at this time. Pending in Congress are several proposals looking toward this objective which are pub- licly supported. in one form or another, by more than a third of the membership of the House and Senate. Twenty-one State legis- latures have passed resolutions endorsing the idea of world federation, which shows the grass-roots pressure behind it. Five of these States—Connecticut, Florida, Maine, New Jersey, and North Carolina—have adopted resolutions asking Congress to call a conven-~ tion to propose a constitutional amendment to “expedite and insure American participa- tion in a world federal government open to all nations.” SAYS OPPOSITION COMMUNIST Supporters of the various proposals include persons from all walks of life and of all ranks, high and low—a great middle group. The noisy opposition is agitated by Communists on the extreme left and by groups of the extreme right, a familiar combination. Nor is the world federation movement con- fined to this country. It is active and grow- ing in strength all around the globe. There are live and alert world federation groups now in Canada, China, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, and Poland. Significant is the fact that France, Italy, and West Germany have causes in their new constitutions enabling them to participate in a world federation when other nations agree to create it, so that no further authority is needed in those cases. All of this has real meaning, which it is hopeful to consider now in the flood of de-~ pressing news. It shows that millions of people all over the world are thinking, speak- ing out for themselves, and working. . Hon. Hyman Rayfiel EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 1, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, all of the borough of Brooklyn was grieved several weeks ago at the loss of one of its finest and most-beloved citizens, for- mer Judge Hyman Rayfiel, who died at the ripe age of 89. He was the father of our former colleague in this House, Leo F. Rayfiel, who now graces the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Hyman Rayfiel was a great scholar of the old school, one who was as well versed in modern law as in the ancient trea- tises of the Hebrew Talmud. He was a man of deep religious convictions, yet tolerant of men of all faiths; he was a man of high ethical character. He never forgot the humble beginnings from which he stemmed. A penniless immi- grant from eastern Europe, he found much for which to be thankful in this country. He loved his adopted land with unbounded devotion. His service to his community was attested to by the throngs who attended his funeral. They came from every walk of life, public and private. I had known Hyman Rayfiel for many years. All who knew him loved him. As humble worker or merchant, as court in- terpreter or clerk, as lawyer, magistrate or special sessions justice, he was the genial philosopher always teaching brotherly love. He will be missed by all, The following tribute appeared in the Brooklyn Eagle of April 30, 1950: Hyman RAYFIEL, Frmnp To Every LIvINe Tarne THat CrossepD His Pato (By Katherine Dangerfield) Easter Sunday I went to a funeral home in Church Avenue for a last look at Hyman Ray- fiel. I shall not call him former Magistrate Rayfiel nor former Special Sessions Justice Rayfiel because I did not know him, never saw him after he had achieved these dis- tinctions. It was in the New Jersey Avenue police court that I knew him, beginning when that court opened in 1907 and he became chief clerk. He was new to his job and I was not old in mine—court clerk and petti- coat cub reporter. In my mind’s eye I can see him now seated at his desk in the complaint room on the second floor of what was once the home of the Brighton Athletic Club. He is scatter- ing kernels of corn to a dozen pigeons which fiock through the open windows. It is $ in the afternoon and there is a lull in the sordid grind of the police court. The pigeons are his friends and he is theirs. They perch on his shoulders and feed from his hands. When he calls to them they answer with a cooing that can be heard out in the reporter’s room-——the only blessed sound to drown out the court’s babble of tears, prayers, oaths, and bitter laughter. His desk is the common roll-top piece of office furniture, but there are several things about it which make it of more than passing interest. You discover there a few things never found on any other business desk. First there is that dish of corm from which the pigeons help themselves when the chief clerk is busy with complaints. Then there is a@ brass coiled snake, a sly-looking thing with venomous cunning in its eyes, and a forked tongue ready to strike. The chief clerk tells me he would not be without that coiled snake on his desk. It serves a good purpose when he finds in a complainant the same sly look, the same venomous cunning in the eye, and the same forked tongue ready to strike. SEE NOT, HEAR “NOT, SPEAK NOT Above the snake hangs a small bronze tablet of Hebrew characters; the same to be found on the doorpost of any Jewish home. Beside it, where his eyes rest upon it every time he lifts his head, Kipling’s poem, “If you ean keep your head when all around you are locing theirs, and blaming A3193 it on you.” Under the poem a book written in ancient Hebrew, its contents old when Christianity began, and close by two antique Arabic figures, a philosopher and @ warrior. There, too, are the three little monkeys of the Chinese—See Not, Hear Not, Speak Not. All of these things are not just ornaments or knickknacks on a man’s desk. To the chief clerk of the New Jersey Avenue police court they are fingers pointing out the way. Be- tween that hoary little volume on his desk and the complaints which he makes out there is a long road running through cen- turies, but the sinful and the sorrowful who wear a beaten track up the courthouse steps to the complaint room have reason to know that between the two there is a very close communion; for many @ wound has been healed, many a shame kept hidder from the world, many a life redeemed, because Hy- man Rayfiel regulates his life by those yel- lowed pages, every line of which breathes kindness, charity, justice, and the brother- hood of man. In the New Jersey Avenue police court, as a petticoat cub I am often up against it. There I am competing with seasoned newsmen from all Brooklyn and New York papers, some of them veterans from head- quarters and city hall. My big worry is my job. I have to make good or lose it. I can- not afford to lose it. I need the job, need it desperately, and the money it pays. Some- times I do not sleep nights thinking about it. This especially when copy falls down, city editors wax cantankerous, and the whole world seems to go wrong. Then I betake myself to the complaint room und unburden myself to Hyman Rayfiel. He hears me with infinite patience, a quiet smile in his deep gray eyes. COARSE FARE, EMPTY PURSE After I have exhausted myself with petty complainings, he tells me of his own early struggles, of the hard road he has traveled; the early misfortunes which dogged his steps; the obstacles he had to overcome; the diffi- culties he had to surmount; the hod he car- ried; the horsecar he drove; the coarse fare and the empty purse. He winds up by read- ing to me a little from Moses, from Buddha and Christ, until I feel that I am a weak, dissatisfied creature unworthy of many biess- ings and opportunities enjoyed. And then when he leaves his desk to lend a support- ing arm to tottering steps, maybe those of fishmonger or a charwoman; when I note him lift his hat to an aged beggar woman who smells of salt herring; and when I see him give of his substance to white and black, Jew and Gentile, to Catholic and Protestant; see him pay small fines to keep small of- fenders out of jail, I deny that the chief clerk of the New Jersey Avenue police court be- longs to any special race or creed. I hold him God’s gift to a troubled worid. He was in his forties when he came to the New Jersey Avenue police court. He was born in Austria. When he came to this country he carried his earthly possessions in a small bundle. He was poor, so poor in fact that later he wondered how he ever got by Ellis Island. An Irish contractor, one Patrick Mooney, of New Brunswick, Can- ada, gave him his first job as a hod carrier. He ‘carried with him to New Jersey Avenue— and maybe to his grave—the envelope in which he received his first pay for that hod- carrier’s stint, and the calloused shoulder which the hod left to him. Under that hod his health broke down, and then he took a job in Meyerbeer’s silk mills at Hoboken, N. J., and later became a conductor on the Second Avenue trolley line in New York. Hyman Rayfiel was 30 years old and had eight children when he began to study law. Long before, while working in mills and fac- tories, he had studied at night, keeping him- self awake by attaching a pin to the candle which lighted his books, the pin jabbing him in the forehead and bringing him back to life
A31$4 whenever he fell prostrate across the table, worn out in body and mind. While studying for the bar he took the civil-service examina- tion for court interpreter, passing first on the list with 9830 in German, 96.70 in Hebrew and English. He was appointed a court in- ternroter in the fourth municipal court and vis hol oe. that office when Magistrate John F. Hylan named him chief clerk of the newly opened New Jersey Avenue police court. GALL AND WORMIWOOD Meanwhile the political star of Hyman Ray- fiel had risen and he became a figure in Brooklyn politics. His activities centered in the Twenty-third Assembly District. Here the Irish and the Jews held common ground and were friends or enemies as the fortunes of the political situation decided. Politics made enemies as well as friends for Hyman Rayfiel. The humble, penniless Jews who had loved him through years of tribulation and had trusted him above all men, began to have doubts when the rich Jews and the Irish began advancing him for public office. “He has used us for his own purpose and now he delivers us into the hands of the enemy,” they said. To be mistrusted by his own, the poor with whom he had broken bread, with whom he had sat so often in the light of Sabbath candles, with whom he had smiled and wept, was gall and wormwood to the soul of Hyman Rayfiel. Honors are but empty if they find you without the gates, a stranger to your own. And so the heart of the chief clerk of the New Jersey Avenue police court was troubled; and this troubled heart he laid bare to me so many times, just as I had gone to him with my own burdens. Meantime, the rich Jews of Brownsville would have wined and dined him, clothed him in royal purple, but he would have none of it. And this while the poor ones did not understand. All he wanted out of politics were better housing conditions, cleaner streets, madern schools, libraries, sanitary workshops, and a fighting chance for Browns- ville tenements. ATER 40 YEARS I left the New Jersey Avenue police court before he did, going to newspapers up-State and over in Jersey. From odd paragraphs here and there I heard of his appointment as a city magistrate and later as a special sessions justice, but with a silent “good luck to you.” Tlet it go at that. You see, when the friend or neighbor you have known moves up in the procession, should you not wish to have your motives misjudged, perhaps, you will quietly withdraw to the sidelines and from there keep the old regard in kind and end--"in®y remembrance, Bo 1} -te Sunday, after 40 years, I went down to that funeral home in Church Avenue for one last look and a Godspeed to Hyman Rayfiel on his long journey into the sunset, Before starting out I set out on a table two small Arabic figures, one a philoso- pher, the other a warrior, which he gave me from his desk 40 years ago, telling me then what the world might well heed today—the philosopher is a better guide than the war- rior, Of this, I feel certain: Some day when Brownsville in the Borough of Brooklyn shall raise a monument to its pioneers who laid the foundation of what it is today, that monument will carry the name of Hyman Rayfiel, the humble Canadian hodearrier who went to the bench of the court of special sessions, and who left behind him, besides the tinsel of life’s small honors, the truly golden nuggets of Kindly deeds that will live forever in the hearts of the poor, the un- happy, the sinful and the downtrodden. Brownsville owes him a lot. Like me, it may remember him, not as he was on the bench as magistrate of justice but as the chief clerk of the New Jersey Avenue police court, a rriend to every living thing that crossed his pa Presidential Commission of Inquiry on Germany EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JACOB K. JAVITS OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, the resolu- tion for a Presidential Commission of Inquiry on Germany introduced in the Senate on April 17, 1950, by Senator Git- LETTE, for himself and Senators PEPPER, HENDRICKSON, IvES, LEHMAN, KULGORE, Doveras, and CHavez, was today intro-~ duced in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis by the following members: Representatives JoHN A. BLaT-~ NIK, Democrat, Minnesota; EMmanurL CELLER, Democrat, New York; Herman P. Eperwarter, Democrat, Pennsylvania; Foster Furcoito, Democrat, Massachu- setts; Watt Horan, Representative, Washington; Henry M. Jackson, Demo- crat, Washington; Jacos K. Javits, Re- publican-Liberal, New York; HucH B. Mritcrer., Democrat, Washington; Bar- RATT O'Hara, Democrat, Illinois; Franx- LIn D. RoosEvEtt, JR., Democrat-Liberal, New York; and Cuase Gornc WOODHOUSE, Democrat, Connecticut. It was also en- dorsed at the same time in a statement by four additional Members. In introducing the resolution, the sponsors in the House made the follow- ing statement: We are convinced that Germany remains the principal front of the cold war and that as she goes Europe is likely to go. In the European-recovery program, $552,900,000 is provided for western Germany, and through our aid to Great Britain and France (which are also occupying Germany) and the main- tenance of our occupation establishment we estimate that the aggregate cost of the Ger- man occupation will be not less than $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year 1950-51, In voting funds for the continuation of our occupation of western Germany, we feel that the House of Representatives has a serious joint responsibility in respect of such occu- pation policy with the Senate. It has been charged that the dismantling of industrial plants, particularly in the Ruhr, and that economic restrictions are hampering western Germany and therefore western European recovery. Ata time when economy in government is the order of the day, the uncritical acceptance of these argu- ments could lead to a premature turn~-over of full control to the Germans themselves with the gravest consequences to Germany and to Europe. If at this stage full German control should lead to unification of the eastern and western zones of Germany, re- militarization and a new Soviet-German alliance, open or covert, a new and even graver threat of aggression than the world has ever known would be presented. The drive toward German unification which is gaining so much ground today could well make of Germany a new Soviet satellite, for the Soviet under present conditions has everything to trade with—the eastern prov- inces from which come the 9,000,000 ex- péllees who are Germany’s great problem, and eastern markets. A Germany, unified on Soviet terms, would in the minds of most Europeans seal their fate. A full development of all the facts with regard to any community of interest be- tween ultranationalists and ex-Nazis in the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD western zone and Communist elements in the eastern zone as well as a complete ex~ position of how the effort to bring democracy to western Germany has fared is essential information for the American people. A vigorous United States policy along per- manent lines is essential. The opinion is fairly general that the political and economic federation of Europe 1s vital to European security and is an essential framework within which to attain the full economic revival and even ultimate unification of Germany. If we are to continue heavy expenditures and responsibility in the occupation of Ger- many it must be with our eyes open and with an undeistanding of the reasons and the objective. We believe that High Commissioner Mc- Cloy, whose impressive talents and record we value, will welcome this inquiry and that the support which it will marshal among the American people will be invaluable to him in the firm and unalterable resistance to Communist pressure in Berlin and elsewhere in Germany which he has already shown. The four Members endorsing the in- troduction of this resolution in the House are Representatives CLIFForD P. Cass, Representative, New Jersey; T. Miniter Hanp, Representative, New Jersey; Rosert W. KEAN, Representative, New Jersey; and Jonw W. HESELTON, Repre- sentative, Massachusetts. Their state- ment follows: The resolution reflects the acute anxiety which the American people feel as to the future of Germany in relation to world peace. A thorough review of the specific problems with which the resolution deals, as well as of our over-all policy in regard to Germany is most desirable. The text of the resolution follows: Whereas, in common with the other free nations, the United States has a vital in- terest in the maintenance of democratic in- stitutions in Germany; and Whereas the United States has a vital in- terest in the develormort of sich economic, social, and cul a. conti. © * in Germany as will further the growth of democratic in- stitutions; and Whereas the United States has a vital in- terest in preventing any alliance between Nazi, militarist, or other antidemocratic ele- ments in western Germany, and the totall- tarian communism of the east: Therefore be it Resolved, That the President of the United States is requested to appoint at his earli- est convenience a bipartisan commission composed of six (or elght) members and to direct such commission to conduct a study of all matters relating to the conduct and status of American policy in Germany and ils coordination with American foreign pol- icy, and to delermine— (a) whethe= poiticn. parties or groups based on ir icernee:t .c ideologies exist and are obstructing American objectives as stated above; (b) whether German cartels and trusts have reemerged contrary to Allied policy and constitute a threat to German political de- mocracy and world peace; (c) whether the present German educa- tional system has successfully developed means to further the dissemination of demo- cratic.ideas and information about demo- cratic institutions and practices; (ad) whether there is siqrificant oviderca of militaristic, Ulisalchads., act Se ie or other antidemocratic propaganda in the present German press, periodicals, and cin- ema and over the German radio; (e) whether the German war potential is being restored to an unwarranted extent and whether German military or paramilitary organizations have appeared:
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (f) whether and to what extent persons with prior Nazi affiliation or antidemocratic convictions have penetrated into the politi- cal, judicial, economic, educational and cul- tural life, and the civil service of Germany; (g) whether prodemocratic elements have been deterred or discouraged from active participation in building postwar Germany; (nh) whether the German people are being encouraged to look beyond purely national- istic aims toward participation in a broader association of free nations; (i) whether economic power in Germany has shifted into new hands or is again gravi- tating to or has been regained by the same individuals, families, or groups who held that power before the outbreak of war; (j) whether Economic Cooperation Admin-~ istration funds have been utilized to strengthen prodemocratic elements and ten~ geacies in western Germany; and be it fur- her Resolved, That the President is requested to direct the commission to make a prelimi- nary report to him, for transmittal to Con~ gress, within 90 days of its appointment, and to report to him, for transmittal to Congress, on or before December 31, 1950, the final results of its study, together with specific recommendations for the future con= duct of American policy in Germany. Housing Act of 1950 Liberalizes GI Loan Privileges EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. JOE L. EVINS OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, under unan- imous consent, I include in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an article from the April issue of the magazine the Gold Star, which sets forth in a brief and concise manner the provisions of the so-called Housing Act of 1950 as they apply to our veterans, their widows, and dependents. The article is as follows: - Widows of men who died in service or as @ result of direct service-connected disabili- ties are now eligible to apply for Govern- ment-guaranteed loans for the purchase of homes or small businesses. This new amend-~ ment to the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act went into effect with the passage this month of the Housing Act of 1950. HOUSING BILL PROVIDES DIRECT LOANS TO VETERANS In addition to the inclusion of the widows in the program, the act greatly facilitates the procurement ‘of loans and authorizes the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs to make direct loans to those eligible for the pur- chase or construction of houses or for the construction or improvement of farmhouses. New regulations would provide that, upon application by a veteran or widow eligible for the benefits who has not previously used his guaranty entitlement, the Administra- tor may make a direct loan upon two condi- tions. The first condition is that the Ad- ministrator must have found that in the area in which the dwelling or farmhouse is lo- cated or is to be constructed private capital is not available to finance the purchase or construction of dwellings, or the construc- tion or improvement of farmhouses. The second condition is that the veteran must show (1) that he is a satisfactory credit risk; (2) that the monthly payments under the loan bear a proper relation to his pres- ent and anticipated income and expense; (3) that he is unable to obtain from private lending sources in such area at an interest rate not in excess of 4 percent a loan for such purpose for which he is qualified; and (4) that he is unable to obtain a loan for such purpose from the Secretary of Agriculture under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act or the Housing Act of 1949. A loan under this provision would bear in- terest at 4 percent, could not exceed $10,- 000, and would be subject to applicable re- quirements or limitations prescribed under the existing regulations of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act. The total amount of these loans could not exceed $150,000,000 and the authority to make them would ex- pire June 30, 1951. California’s Indian Funds EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HELEN GAHAGAN DOUGLAS OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 23,1950 Mrs. DOUGLAS. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks, I should like to bring to the attention of this body, which is at present debating the Interior Department appropriations bill for 1951, communications that have come to my office protesting against the failure to include in the committee bill any appropriations to California for serv- ices on account of Indians. As a result of what appears now to have been highly questionable informa- tion by certain persons before a subcom- mittee of our body in February last, on the wishes of the Indians and the needs of the State, California alone was singled out to be deprived of Federal Indian funds. Not only would California’s edu- cation and health programs be serious- ly affected by this unjustified cutting off of much needed funds from the Indian Bureau in California and in consequence from the State of California itself, but also our entire social security, construc- tion and irrigation programs, of which our Indian work is an integral part. While it may be true that the country’s entire Indian policy and procedure may need reevaluation, this drastic curtail- ment of funds from California alone does not seem to me to be appropriate, either in time or in method, to a solution of our Indian problems. A telegram from the California 'Teach- er’s Association, representing 56,000 teachers, and a factual letter from the superintendent of public instruction of California’s State Department of Edu- cation, are given below: San Francisco, Cau., April 11, 1950. Congresswoman HeLEN GAHAGAN DOUGLAS, House Office Building, Washington, D. G.: California Teacher’s Association compris- ing 56,000 teachers by official action protests discrimination against California by failure to include California in appropriations of Indian funds. Education and health pro- grams will be seriously affected. We strong- A8195 ly urge your support in restoring the Callie fornia Indian appropriations. ArrTHur F. Corey, Executive Secretary, California Teach- er’s Association. Sravre or CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Sacramento, April 10, 1950. Hon. Heten GaHaGan Dovuctas, . Member, House of Representatives, Washington, D. GC. Dear CoNcReSswomMan Doucias: It has come to our attention that Purl Willis, who represents himself as a counselor for certain Indians in California; Norman M. Littell, who represents himself as an attorney employed by certain identifiable groups of Indians in California; Adam Castillo, president of the Organization of Mission Indians; and five Mission Indians from the Mission Reserva- tion in southern California, testified before the Subcommittee on Interior Appropria- tions on February 28, 1950. According to our information this testimony resulted in the deletion of all of the proposed appropria- tions to California for services on account of Indians. Included in this appropriation are the funds for the contract between the In- dian Bureau and the State Department of Education of California for assistance to school districts which have serious problems resulting from unusual needs for Indians who live within the boundaries of the school districts, and a capital outlay item to pro- vide school facilities in the Hoopa Valley Unified School District which is entirely within the Hoopa Indian Reservation. Other funds included assistance to the health de- partment, policing, Sherman Institute, and other facilities which have been recognized as a responsibility of the Federal Govern- ment on account of the Indians living in California. We are particularly concerned with the deletion of those funds which represent aid and assistance to the Indians of California, particularly in view of the fact that this de- Jetion was made only in the case of the State of California. The funds for the Indian contract repre- sent $322,000, and the Hoopa Valley school buildings which have been approved by the Congress of the United States in the amount of $800,000. The funds made avail- able to the Department of Education under the Indian contract were allocated to 130 separate school districts in 27 counties in California during the current year and pro- vided assistance to approximately 2,300 In- dian children. This assistance in no way whatsoever is a part of the regular funds ac- eruing to school districts on account of the average daily attendance in the districts. All Indian children in California are per- mitted and are required to attend the regular schools of California. However, Indian lands, if publicly owned, represent no valuation for taxing purposes. Our State apportionment plan provides that a large share of the sup- port for the public schools is derived from local property. School districts which con- tain any substantial amount of Indian reser- vation property provide little or no local re- sources. Consequently, the children in these districts are deprived of their full share of educational opportunity unless assistance is made available. The funds are used in every instance to benefit the Indian children themselves. Much of it is used for school Junches, transportation, physical welfare services, and providing additional teachers who otherwise could not be employed by the districts. ‘ The school estimated to cost $800,000 has been authorized to be constructed in the Hoopa Valley Unified School District. This school district is located entirely within an Indian reservation. Consequently, there is no assessable property, as has been indicated
A38196 above. The Hoopa Valley Unified School Dis- trict has a, tax rate of $1.55 per $100 of assess- ed valuation and this tax produces only $560 per year, resulting from taxes on personal property. It is the only high school avail- able for approximately one hundred persons scattered throughout the valley. The en- rollment for elementary and high school has increased from 207 to 335 in the past 3 years. Seventy-five percent of this number are In- dian children. . The laws in California provide that a school district must provide its own buildings and many do so by voting bonds on the assessable real property of the district. Since there is no assessable real property in the Hoopa Valley School District, it is impossible for this district to provide buildings of any kind. The present buildings are extremely inade- quate and were originally built by Federal funds. The fact that the school is located on Federal property presents a very serious problem in connection with any State assist- ance which may be available to the school district. It is true California recently voted to expend $250,000,000 of state funds to assist distressed school districts with their building problems. The question arises as to whether these State funds may be used for buildings to be located on Federal property. We have many similar situations in California which involve military installations. So far the State has not found it possible to provide buildings on Federal installations and in the case of the military installations, the Federal Government has assumed much of the re- sponsibility for housing. The fact that the Congress approved the construction of the buildings on the Hoopa Indian Reservation is in complete harmony with the practice and policy which has been carried on in Califor- nia for a number of years regarding Federal property. The Hoopa Valley Unified School District is a regular school district established under the laws of California which all children liv- ing in the district may and must attend. The school is not limited to Indian children, nor are they excluded. In fact, this is true in every school district in California The statement has been made that since all chil. dren, including Indian children, are eligible to attend the State school system, there can be no justification for the Wi'r~ 27 a school in the Hoopa Valley |. «¢ envi District, notwithstanding it has been ex- pressly authorized by an act of Congress. In answer to the statement that the schools of California are available to all Indian children, it should be pointed out that while this is true in the particular instance at Hoopa, the district is without resources to construct a school and it was on this basis that the Congress of the United States auth- orized the building in order to provide edu- cation for all of the children living within the boundaries of the Hoopa Valley Unified School District. The fact that a small pro- portion of the children are non-Indian is without importance because the building was planned primarily to provide education for the Indian children. It has been reported that California was able and willing to provide all school fa- cilities, including school buildings, for all of the Indian children in the State of California. From the statements in the pre- ceding paragraphs it should be clear that while California is willing to do its full share toward the education of all its citizens, nevertheless, it is unable to meet the require- ments of the Indian children who reside on property belonging to the Federal Govern- ment or on property which has such low assessed valuation that local funds are not available to the public schools. It has been reported that testimony was given to the effect that $882,000 for the edu- cation of Indians in California is a waste of money. It has been reported further that with this money Indian children are actually prevented from going to the public schools and securing an education. Since 1933 In- dian education in California has been under the jurisdiction of the State of California with the same prescribed course of study and standards as are required in any other public school in the State. Some of the schools are located on the reservations merely for the convenience of the Indian and non- Indian children who attend the schools. The testumony apparently attempts to give the impression that any assistance given to the schools on behalf of the Indians of Cali~ fornia is preventing them from getting an education and 1s preventing them from going to the public schools. As a matter of fact, every school 1n California, with the exception of Sherman Institute which is operated by the Federal Government for Arizona tribes, which Indians attend is a public school open to the attendance of all children within the district, whether they be Indian or non- Indian. On page 24 of the hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appro- priations, Purl Willis is quoted as stating that the Hoopa Indians are wealthy pecple and they tried last year to take the cost of the construction of the proposed school out of the $6,000,000 judgment fund. We have no knowledge whatever that the Hoopa Indians at any time advocated taking the cost of the Hoopa School out of the judg- ment fund. As a matter of fact, every transaction having to do with the construc- tion of school buildings in the Hoopa Valley Unified School District has been conducted on its own merits without reference what- ever to any other funds. We also are unable to understand who Mr. Willis means by “they.” Mr. Willis further states, or at least gives the impression, that children from the Mesa Grande Reservation would be a part of the student body which would attend the school in the Hoopa Valley Unified School District and that this school would be treated az an Indian school. This absolutely is untrue because the Mesar Grande Reserva- tion 1s in southern California and the Hoopa Valley Unified School District is in north- ern California. They are separated by a dis- tance of between 800 and 900 miles. I have pointed out before that the Hoopa Valley Unified School District is a regular school district and there has been no attempt in the past, at the present time, or contem- plated in the future, to consider it in any manner other than as a _ public-school district. ‘We hope it has been made clear that either the direct testimony of Mr. Wills and his associates is incorrect, or his statements have been such as to give the subcommittee incorrect impressions. Mr. Willis, on page 80 of the record, reportedly made the state- ment that the Indian Bureau staff in Cali- fornia is controlling the expenditure of whatever is paid the State under the John- son-O’Malley Act and that the Indian Bu- reau has sct up its own State-wide school staff with the result that the Indian Bureau actually is interfering with the State’s free public schools. The Bureau of Indian Education is a part of the Division of Public School Adminis- tration of the California State Department of Education and the Federal Indian Bureau does not in any way interfere with the opera- tion of the free public schools of this State. The funds are allocated to the schools for the benefit of the Indian children and deci- sions in regard to these allocations are fully in the hands of the officials of the Califor- nia State Department of Education. ‘It is further understood that the proposed appropriations for the entire United States were approved by the subcommittee with the single exception of California, and that all of the proposed appropriations for this State were completely eliminated, chiefly due to the testimony of Purl Willis and his as. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sociates. To single out California alone and remove the appropriations for this State, leaving all others intact, purel¥ upon the word of im-c-pors‘h' persons who neither represent - Lau. the facts, nor any of- ficial body of the State of California, would indeed be a miscarriage of justice. It is our hope that the subcommittee or other official bodies of the Congress of the United States will see fit to restore these ap- propriations so that the Indian children of California will not be discriminated against. In conclusion, it should be pointed out that inasmuch as the Indian children are a part of the regular school system of Califor- nia, any injustice done to these children has its effect not only upon them but upon all other children attending the public schools, Sincerely yours, Roy E. Stmpson, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Director of Education, To a Good Friend EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. CECIL R. KING OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I have on several occasions been asked by Mr. Liynhart to place his poem, To a Good Friend, in the CoNnGrRESsionaL ReEcorp. I therefore, under unanimous consent, extend my remarks and include therein Mr. Liynhart’s poem: To a Goon Frrenp Humane dnd kind he was, but if You found by pure coincidence He had a heart, he made out gruff And barked at you on small pretense. So fierce in love of life he stood And in concern for who was nigh His strength, his kin and every friend, He found no time to slowly die. —R. TT. Liynkart. Thoughts on Beating Communism EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, some timely thoughts on a problem that is giv- ing nightmares to many, are expressed in the May 1 issue of New Republic by Mi- chael Straight. His article, The Right Way to Beat Communism, is food for thought on this subject. He asks: “Why, at the peak of our power, should we be afraid?” 'That great president, the late Franklin D. Roosevelt, at a time of na- tional emergency, told the people of this country that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. Should another emergency arise, the American people will not be afraid to rise to the situation, Our problem is how to avoid that emer- gency, how to stave off disintegration from within and destruction of our free- dom from without, I am certain many
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of my colleagues will find this article absorbing reading: THE Richt Way To Beat COMMUNISM (By Michael Straight) A major debate on America’s world policy is inevitable and necessary. The alternative for our democracy is continued drift and ultimate defeat. This debate will take place within the framework of an attitude common to all save extremists of left and right which rec- ognizes that Soviet communism is today the greatest organized evil in the world. Within this area of agreement there are profound differences concerning the size and nature of the effort required of the free na- tions. These differences have been con- cealed by the fears engendered by hysteria, the sparring for strategic gains in partisan politics, and the belief among all people of good will that as long as negotiation seemed possible with Russia, our task was to pre- serve fluidity in world politics. There are no longer many opportunities for America to cooperate with Soviet com- munism. But there are major choices to be made in the means of opposing commu- nism and of strengthening the non-Com- munist world. The survival of democracy depends quite substantially on the clarity and honesty with which these choices are Placed before the American people. As the choices are unraveled, two basic approaches may emerge. They cross the shifting lines of party, class and faith as these lines have formed to meet traditional problems of the past. Yet ultimately they correspond to the classical definitions of con- servatism and liberalism as these attitudes have expressed themselves in the past. The first approach stresses institutions; the second, human values. The first sees in power the means of combating communism, the second stresses progress. As further illustration, take five aspects of the present struggle and contrast in each the conservative and liberal points of view. We find on the liberal side bold men such as Paul Hoffman and George Marshall, and on the conservative side “leftists” whose in- tent seems to be the division of society into the damned and the condemned: those con« signed to the outer darkness as “fellow trav- elers” and those who accept the inevitability of war. THE BASIS OF WORLD COMMUNISM In analyzing the basis and appeal of world communism, the conservative begins by a defense of the status quo. He may concede that two-thirds of the world’s people’s live in hunger and poverty caused by low productivity and exploitation. He does not concede that these millions are demanding rapid improvement in their lives with a force that cannot be denied. For the same reason he does not concede that com- munism, which agitates for rapid change, has any mass appeal. Consequently the conservative is compelled by his original premise consistently to underestimate the appeal and the threat of world communism, Yet, the threat is only too clear. The con~ servative undertakes to explain it in terms of the power of Russia as a police state, backed by its agents and by its armies. James Burnham, the arch conservative in the sense in which the term is defined here, is totally indifferent to the conditions that give rise to communism, and largely uncon+ cerned with economic programs to alleviate those conditions. In his new book, the Com- ing Defeat of Communism, he is concerned solely with power, and not at all with the purposes for which power is used. Russia to him is a national power, opposed by the national power of the United States. The task is to destroy Soviet power by the ex- tensive use of Soviet techniques. Since his program is devoid of all social principles XCVI—App.——202 and concerned only with the destruction and the creation of power, it appeals equally to the amorality of the ex-Communist and the reactionary. In contrast, the liberal approach to com- munism has been a humanist approach. Its first premise has been the insistence that for two-thirds of the world’s people the status quo is intolerable and demands rapid change. Therefore it has acknowledged the potential of the Communist appeal. A classical statement of this apprcach was made 30 years ago by Lord Keynes: “Whatever the content of Russian com- munism may he, it represents a gigantic human enterprise. In it men have reso- lutely embraced a purpose of reform and live tensely under the discipline that faith instills in them. It is simply a misunder- standing of the European to expect that he can hear unmoved that call to new action when he has no standard of a cause as great to unfurl in opposition.” Theat high point of respect for the Commu- nist appeal was maintained in the thirties by the contrasts of capitalist depression and the need for a common front to Fascist ag- gression. It was maintained in the war years by the Soviet military effort. Since the war Soviet communism has emerged as an aggressive dictatorship. Con- sequently the liberal attitude to Russia has moved swiftly toward the conservative in- terpretation. Yet the liberal still insists that for poverty-stricken peoples to whom democ- racy means foreign exploitation and Moscow is a vague name, the potential of commu. nism still remains. An indifference to that potential, a decision to oppose communism on the military front alone, while commu- nism is fighting on economic, social, political, cultural, and psychological fronts, is to guarantee the destruction of the free world. THE OPPOSITION TO COMMUNISM The opposition of American democracy to Soviet communism requires a program, and it requires allies. A program in turn requires Government action and Government funds. Since they are committed to cutting taxes and reducing the role of the Federal Govern- ment in our economy, the conservatives are compelled to minimize all programs. They hesitate on rearmament; they resist en- deavors to aid world economic reconstruc- tion by the public investment of American resources. Both major parties, for example, are com- mitted to full support of the United Nations. both are committed to the point 4 program as a means of strengthening the United Nations and of preventing further Commu- nist encroachment in backward areas. This year the conservatives in Congress have sent the point 4 program off to a flying start with appropriations cut down to one-hun- dredth of 1 cent in evéry dollar of our national income. Burnham once again rationalizes the op- position of the conservatives to the expense and effort of world economic reconstruction by explaining that in the absence of a political “offensive” these efforts are doomed to fail. “The Marshall plan,” he explains, “can have no more than a negative success; it cannot produce positive gains.” The real problem is “the shattering of the iron cur- tain,” “the smashing of communism” and “the alteration of the power balance.” Brave words! Second, a policy of opposing communism requires allies, The American conservative lacks allies in today’s world. His loneliness tends to re~ inforce his natural reliance on his inherit« ance of America’s nationalist and isolation- ist past. Once again Burnham, the philoso- pher of the conservative approach, rational- izes this deep-seated prejudice. ‘World poli- tics.” he explains, “is * * * the field of ptruggle between the United States as repre- A8197 sentative of western civilization * * * and communism with its primary bese in the Soviet Union.” This argument, absolving other peoples of their responsibilities, like Burnham’s further assertion that there is no real distinction between cold war and shoot- ing war, plays right into the Communists’ hands. Where alliances are necessary, the con- servative, fearful of positive programs, seeks allies among those who profess anticom- munism. Our best allies, Burnham, explains, are those “who can be relied on to resist com- munism to the end.” General de Gaulle qualifies at once, since he alone in France is firm. Franco, presumably, is such another. A united front with the Vatican is a first priority; the supposed argument that the Catholic Church is * * * a totalita- rian movement is, quite apart from its ab- stract truth or falsity, simply irrelevant. To the liberal, in contrast, democracy is not a relic, to be paraded on ceremonial eccecasions, but a principal weapon and means of salvation. America’s first task to the liberal is to raise the living standards of the world to the minimum level at which democratic gov- ernment becomes feasible. The method is by strengthening the existing and potential forces of democracy, if necessary in opposi-~ tion to their rulers where these rulers repre- sent a feudal past or a contemporary police state. The point 4 program is one example of this conflict which remains unresolved. The majority of the backward areas for which technical assistance and capital investment are proposed are governed by unrepresent- ative and reactionary rulers. These rulers are aiso our present allies in the cold war. To be effective, technical assistance to these regions will lead directly to social reform and therefore to social upheaval. Faced with these alternatives, the con- servatives will choose to keep the areas back= ward for reasons of short-term strategic ad- vantage; the liberal will seek long-term secu- rity by the promotion of social reform. There is no guiding rule in every case. The deci- sion may often be a matter of pace and degree. Yet the choice is present and press- ing on @ world scale. Land reform in Italy, tax reform in France, the destruction of cartels in Germany are social issues implicit in our present economic programs, which we have refused to face and yet cannot for long ignore. THE HANDLING OF COMMUNISTS Neither liberal nor conservative has a final answer to the perplexing contrast between constitutional principles and Communist practices. Yet a contrast in views is clear. The Communist works away among lower income groups and within progressive organ- izations, often calling for the same short- term objectives as those of non-Communist left. The conservative lacks understanding and sympathy for the non-Communist left, its objectives and its organizations. With faith in its ability to defeat the Communists, and no belief in progress as the alternative to communism, he turns toward repression by legislation, For Burnham, outlawing the Communist Party in ali free nations is simply the first step. The objective is liquidation. De Gaulle is favored in the belief that he alone is willing to line up the 100,000 hard-core French Communists against a wall and exe- cute them. The liberal, in contrast, has assumed that once suppression starts, it has no end. He has worked with Communists in the helief that disagreement on ultimate aims did not preclude cooperation on short-term objec- tives. That policy was clearly wrong. Ultimate aims and short-term aims can never be sepa-~ rated, and in the case of Communists and
A3198 liberals are in basic conflict. Nor are there good and bad Communists. The Communist Party is a recruiting ground for subversion and espionage. Whoever joins it, either through guilty conscience or idealism, ends by losing all conscience and all ideals. Yet for the liberal suppression is no an- swer. Instead, it breeds a totally false sense of security. For America’s front lines in this struggle are not on Times Square but in the jungles of Indochina and the streets of Berlin. In addition, Russia is so far superior to America in matters of suppres- sion that once we decide to fight with her weapons we are lost. “The search for truth cannot go forward in the absence of heresy and opposi- tion. * * * When the unity of a demo- cratic society is maintained through arbi- trary imposition even over a very small area, it ceases to be the kind of unity that is ap- propriate to a truth-seeking society. * * * Error is always the result of a defeat suffered by truth on its own territory. Every attempt to fight error as if it were born beyond the frontiers of truth * * * not only fails as a matter of course but prevents the applica- tion of the only effective remedy. * * * We can liquidate error only as we absorb and transcend it.” These are the words, not of a sentimental liberal but of A. Rossi, a one-time executive committee member of the Comintern. In his pook, A Communist Party in Action, Rossi concludes: “The citizens must confront the Commu- nists in the factories, in the streets, in the villages. * * * The state should step in only when Communist action takes a form that private citizens simply cannot cope with. THE DEFEAT OF COMMUNISM With great precision Burnham analyzes the weaknesses of world communism. With equal force he argues that our policy makes sense only if it foresees communism’s ulti- mate defeat. He recommends measures of psychological warfare that are valuable. But none begins to add up to defeat. And no wonder. For the truth is that concentrating on the cold war will never permit a solution to the underlying conflict. The Russians know this. Their program is to achieve world conquest by exploiting the inner weaknesses of democracy, To the ex-~ tent that we concentrate on the cold war and ignore the developing imbalances within our society, we play into Soviet hands. America’s strength in the Berlin airlift startled the Russians. Yet it was entirely within their frame of reference. America’s failure to collapse in a postwar depression really shook the Russians. It was a develop- ment outside their realm of discourse and in defiance of their theology. The cold war was largely a fight over the breakup and division of the world. Today the world is more or less divided. A shift in concentration from the cold war to the strengthening of the non-Communist world is our first task in defeating Communism. The elements of strength for the non- Communist world include its military power, its economic stability, its solidarity and the faith of its peoples. On each of these issues choices are develop- ing that cannot be ignored. Gen. Omar Bradley has indicated that the military power of the non-Communist world can be increased only by the aban-~ donment of nationally balanced armed forces in favor of a unified western force, Paul Hoffman has added that Europe’s economic stability can be obtained only if the econo- mies of western Europe and America advance toward unification. John McCloy has de~ clared that the solidarity of the non-Com- munist world can be preserved only if western Europe is federated, in close asso~ elation with America and with the British Commonwealth. All these endeavors rest, as soldiers and statesmen know, on continued full employment in the United States. And they need to be joined under a concept and a flag that peoples can recognize and under- stand. These are the next steps that the defeat of world communism requires us to take. Far from moving ahead to these solutions, we have yet to recognize that these are problems that require solution. Even if agreement were achieved on the size and nature of the effort required to defeat communism, conflicts concerning time and emphasis would need to be resolved. But there is not yet any agreement on the effort itself. The liberals are largely silent on these issues in this campaign year. The conserva- tives are seeking reelection not by challeng- ing new undertakings in prospect, but by attacking present programs already inade- quate and close to conclusion. Our election, which should be the occasion of a debate on America’s future, is more likely to be an irrelevant sideshow featur- ing slander and stories dug up from a past that is dead and gone. The decisions that we face cannot be taken without recourse to public opinion. There is no short cut to public enlightenment through frank debate. As time passes, and we drift, imbalances accumulate and solu- tions become more drastic and harder to achieve. THE POWER OF IDEAS Prevalent in high circles is the enervating conviction that the American people are weary of major international endeavors and hostile to new ideas. If this is true then we are in danger, even if we continue economically to progress. Thirty years ago Keynes noted that the ap- peal of communism was not primarily eco- nomic and could not be countered by eco- nomic action alone; it consisted not of the substance but of the fervor of Communist faith. “If the Communists win power in France [adds Rossi today], it will be because France is a country in which the bonds of com- munity have grown weak; a country in which almost everyone is ready, at a moment’s no- tice, to call into question the moral founda- tions of national unity. For where unity can be had on no other terms, men finally seek it in some political movement that is able and willing to impose it.” In this context, the central threat of con- servatism is its complacency and its resist- ance to new ideas. Liberalism, on the con- trary, welcomes new ideas and thrives on impatience. America was born in rebellion against colonial oppression. We fought a civil war to resolve a moral issue. We inspired the League of Nations and the United Nations. We lifted ourselves from depression by the New Deal. We said in depression that we had nothing to fear. Why, at the peak of our power, should we be afraid? Federal Aid to Education EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. L. GARY CLEMENTE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 1, 1950 Mr. CLEMENTE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I include in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp an address on Federal aid to education given by Mr. Aloysius J, Maickel, Friday, April 21, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 1950, before St. Anne’s Council 2429, Knights of Columbus, Queens Village, N. Y.: Feprerat Alp TO EpucaTION In the building of our country’s future, the education of our youth should come first. The war has reminded us of many virtues and ideals that we had forgotten. One of them is the duty we owe to our children in the provision of their education; not educa- tion merely in terms of books, credits, diplomas, and degrees, but education also in terms of living and of preparation for future living. There are two important facts to remem- ber about all American youth. First, there are about 11,000,000 of them between the sixteenth and twenty-first birthdays, the group who will be the immediate lcaders of our Nation in the future. Secondly, no two of the 11,000,000 are identical in intelligence and aptitude, in occupational interests and outlocks, in social and economic status, in mental health, and in physical well-being. The aforesaid are only the principal points of difference existing among all American youth. The common qualities of youth are fully as important to education as their differ- ences. All American youth are citizens now; all will be qualified voters in the future; all require education for civic responsibility and competence. All American youth are members of family groups now, and will be- come members of other family groups in the future; all require an understanding of fam- ily relationships. All American youth are now living in the American culture; all re- quire an understanding of the main ele. ments in that culture. <All American youth need to maintain their mental and physical health now and in the future; all require in- struction to develop habits of healthful liv- ing, understanding of conditions which fos- ter health, and knowledge of ways of pre- venting disease, avoiding injuries, and us. ing medical services, All American youth will be expected to engage in useful work and will need to work to sustain themselves and others; all therefore require occupa tional guidance and training, and orienta- tion to current economic conditions. All American youth have the capacity to think rationally; all need to develop this capacity, and with it, an appreciation of the sig- nificance of truth as arrived at by the ra- tional process. All American youth must make decisions and take actions which in- volve choices of values; all therefore need insight into moral values. Particularly do they need to grow in understanding the basic tenet of democracy, that the individual hu- man being is of surpassing worth and dig- nity. When we refer confidently and inclusively to “education for all American youth” we mean just that. We mean that all youth, with their human similarities and their equally human differences, shall have educa- tional services and opportunities suited to their personal needs and sufficient for the successful operation of a free and democratic society. All these youth are children of God and equal citizens of our Nation whether male or female, black or white, halt or hale, Jew, Catholic, or Protestant. Birth and en~ vironment have tended to make some of them more alert or more shrewd or more bold than others. Environment and education have made them rich or poor, law-abiding or de- linquent, employed or idle. Yet they are Americans all. Their names are Dumbrow- ski, Cohen, Ryan, MacGregor, Romanelli, Schmidt, Smith, and Smythe. These youth— all of them—are creatures of the same Divine Fatherhood and members in the same broth- erhood of man in American society. They are to be the heirs and trustees for all that is good or bad in our civilization. What hu- manity will achieve a generation hence de- pends largely on them and on their education
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD now. Each of them is a human being created by God, more precious than material goods or systems of philosophy. Not one of them is to be carelessly wasted. All of them are to ke given equal opportunities to live and learn. Education of all American youth has created a fundamental educational problem in modern American society. Simply stated, the problem is based upon equalization of educational opportunity for all our youth. Sufice it to say, equalization of education is impossible without equalization of fiscal as- sistance. Educational systems cannot exist without a financial basis. How much money we spend on education shall always deter- mine the cauality of education and the caliber of its product-—-the American youth. Prop- erly financed, the school system can flourish well; improperly financed, it can never meet the needs of the community and all Ameri- can youth. Money spent for education is an investment. ‘ There are two opposing points of view re- garding expenditures for education. One, discredited but unfortunately still persist- ing, holds that education is a luxury—and an expensive one at that. The money spent is largely wasted. For the great mass of pecple, it is enough that they learn to read, write, and keep simple accounts. They will be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. Let them get on the farms, in the factories, or begin to learn a trade as soon as possible. A favored few should go on for advanced training to supply necessary tech- nical service and leadership, but these few only who may not be your children. Ac- cordingly, say those who hold this view, cut out the “frills,” keep school expenditures down, and stop trying to make silk purses out of sows’ ears. No intelligent person to- day can take such a position when he has facts laid before him. An accumulating mass of evidence shows more and more clearly that expenditures for education are a good investment. If children are our most pre- cious resource, where can we invest our money to better advantage? Their proper development returns untold values to the society which nourishes them. That a sound educational program has far-reaching, bene- ficial effects is part of our American faith, Our people believe that through education, their lot and the lot of their children can be improved. Respectable research is supporting our people’s faith. In the first place, studies of delinquency, crime, and other forms of anti- social behavior, show that far more offenders come from the ranks of the uneducated, or poorly educated, than from among the well educated. A number of school systems have won increased fiscal and public support merely by delving into the records of chil- dren who, over a period of years, quit school, and comparing them with the records of those who remained until graduation. The “drop-outs” invariably show a much higher percentage of subsequent delinquents, char- ity cases, criminals, and undesirable citizens. It is apparent that sound education in good schools, properly financed, develops desir- able character traits and moral standards in our children. Secondly, several investigations, including an extensive one promoted by the United States Chamber of Commerce in 1945, have pointed out the close agreement between the level of education of a country and its stand- ard of living. This study has shown that among the various nations of the world, a high standard of living is always accom- panied by a fine educational system, gen- erously financed. By way of contrast, the re< port showed that Colombia and Rumania, each possessing immense resources of min-~ erals, forests, water power, and rich soil, have poorly educated peoples, a poor educational system inadequately financed, and a result- ant low standard of living. The economic argument can be pushed further, It has been shown that within our own Nation, variations in the level of educa- tional financing from region to region are ac- companied, in general, by corresponding var~ jations in economic well-being. In other words, a high level of education and a high standard of living go together even within the boundaries of our own Nation. It is evi- dent that only through spending to educate the minds and to stimulate the imaginations of men, can resources be developed, can peo- Ple want more goods, become better pro- ducers, and thereby furnish expanded mar-~ kets and higher standards of living for all. Clearly, the self-interest of the businessmen is not promoted by dilapidated, one-room, rural schools with poorly clad, under-~ nourished, and poorly taught youngsters. By now the question must be in your minds, “How much does it cost to provide a good educational program?” Educators esti- mate that the expenditure necessary to sup- port a good educational program is $200 per pupil per annum. Below this level on the financial scale, the educational program ap~ pears to be stunted and lacking in both breadth and depth. Above this level are found our better, more wholesome schools. How near we are in the United States to realizing a minimum expenditure of $200 per pupil is indicated by the figures for 1947. In that year, the range in expenditure per pupil was from about $18 to well above $300. The average expenditure was $99. In other words, half of the pupils in our schodls in the entire Nation in 1947 attended schools financed at the $99 level or below. Less than 10 percent of our pupils benefited from studying in schools costing $200 or more per pupil. Over 90 percent were attending schools costing less than $200 per pupil, where it is unlikely that a full flowering of the educational program can result. Al- though there was a slight upward revision of these figures since 1947, there is much ground to be gained before the battle for adequate, effectively free education for all is won in our Nation. Our public schools are supported almost exclusively by money derived from taxation. Local, State and Federal levels of government have each been charged by the people with the responsibility for levying and collecting taxes for schools. The bulk of the burden thus far has been borne by the local property tax, with State taxes second, and Federal taxes a poor third. The typical pattern of school support is for more than half of local school costs to be raised by taxes on local property, almost all the rest comes from State sources, with a very small percent- age, if any, from the Federal Government. As the cost of formal education has in- creased, a perennial problem has been that of how to spread the burden equitably. So long as a fair measure of each man’s wealth was the amount of property he owned, the local property tax served rather well as the base for school support. But the farther we have progressed into the twentieth cen- tury, the more evident it has become that real property holdings can no longer be relied’ upon as an index of wealth. With the in- creasing industrialization of our country, the rise of giant corporations employing tens of thousands of wage earners, and the tre- mendous increase in the number of public employees, it became apparent early in the century that an income tax was necessary if governmental services were to be financed. The income tax, as history shows, is an ex- cellent revenue producer. The lion’s share of the income tax revenues goes to the Fed- eral Government. With each level of Government more or less specializing in certain forms of taxa- tion, it would at first glance seem as if the problem of financing their activities had been solved. Actually, it was not; incomes A3199 and expenditures did not vary proportion- ately at the three levels. Local govern- mental costs, including school costs, have risen greatly almost without interruption. But the income from the local property tax has not risen proportionately. Local school districts, then, have had to seek funds from the other governmental levels which pos- sessed a broader tax base. The first source of school funds to sup- plement those raised locally, was the State treasury. In effect, the people of the State, speaking through their legislators, instructed the State officials to raise some money for schools on a State basis and distribute it to the local school districts. The movement for State support of local schools has been under way for about a century in this coun- try. With the result that all States have some plan or other for so doing. That prace tice is well established and accepted. During the last 25 years, a growing group of people has been realizing that if formal education is to be adequately financed, the immense taxing power of the Federal Gov- ernment must assist. Many of our States, with their present resources, are too poor to be able to finance their school system at an accepiable level and to equalize educa- tional opportunity and services for all our American youth on a national basis of agree« ment, without outside help. We now face the consequences of accepting Federal aid plans; so that the burden may be shared three ways. It is not that we have had no Federal aid for education already. Actually, according to a tabulation mrcde by the National Edu- cation Association in 1946, 160 Federal-aid laws have been passed by Congress since 1785. No consideration of a national role in education could be complete without an examination of education in a national his- toric perspective. The historic development of American so- ciety has set the ideas, aspirations, knowl- edge, and working rules which prevail today, and set the task of American education. The past, distant and near, has given us our society, including all the material, in- tellectual, and moral manifestations with which education must work. American independence was secured through revolution and war, accompanied by intellectual concentration, storm, and stress. America had broken with the past in many respects and had founded govern- ment on a new base—sccial purpose as dis- tinguished from the prescriptive rights of class. The leaders of the infant Republic were set upon realizing a better life for the free members of American society. The Re-~ public’s founders were concerned with more than the material aspects of life. They were public personages, imbued with a deep sense of social and moral responsibility. They had staked their lives and their fortunes on independence and the welfare of the Republic. Having used their all in the crea~ tion of a nation, the ablest among them gave unremitting attention to the study of public affairs and the methods calculated to preserve and improve the independent society which their ldbors had brought forth. In the long run, the founding fathers established a government that came to rest on a wide popular base; and with tne passing of time, that base was broadened by constitutional enactments and political practices. The fate of American Govern- ment and society was increasingly entrusted to the wisdom and knowledge of an ever- widening mass of people. This pattern of Fopular government was greeted by many as a fulfillment of the principles proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, and 2s marking a humane departure from the despotisms of Europe. Lucidly, the declara- tory principles, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with
A3200 certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that goverments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and that pecple have the mght to alter or abolish any form of government which becomes destructive of these ends, had been enmeshed in the eperational pattern of American Govern- ment. The future was to decide whether any government so conceived and so dedi- cated could long endure. Having committed themselves to govern- ment by popular verdict, to a government with high social and moral responsibilities, many founders of the Republic turned to education as a guaranty that a government of this type would endure. The founders were esnccal’y concerned with political edu- cation, 7.1.2. Tic preparation of the people for self-government. Knowledge and a moral sense were required to sustain demo- eratic processes and to make them con- structive, rather than destructive. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, wrote: “In proportion as the structure of govern- ment gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be en- lightened. * * * Promote, then, as our object of primary importance, institutions for the geneal diffusion of knowledge.” Un- doubtedly, such promotion was to come from a national level. In the Constitutional Convention we find James Madison, Charles Pinckney, Gouver~ neur Morris, and Thomas Jefferson promot-~ ing for the fostering of education by the in- troduction of specific motions for action, Unfortunately, the motions were lost, Madison had proposed that Congress be em~ powered “to establish a university,” and Charles Pinckney urged a broader provision: “To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences.” At a later time in the Convention, Madison and Pinckney joined in moving for the creation of a university. Upon their project, Gouver- neur Morris remarked: “It is not necesSary. The exclusive power at the seat of govern- ment will reach the object.’ The motion was lost. Nevertheless, no express provisions were made in the Constitution for the pro- motion of education, but leaders among the men who framed that document certainly believed that the power to perform this na-~ tional service was certainly implied. The framers of the Constitution had set an impressive example to all those of succeed~ ing generations that education is an enter- prise forever linked with the destiny of the Nation. That George Washington advocated Fed- eral aids to education, was made evident in his first annual address to Congress: “Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowl- edge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their im- pressions so immediately from the sense of the community as in ours, it is propor- tionately essential. To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways. * * * Whether this desirable ob- ject will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients, will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature.” Washington had a broad view on education from the basis of aid. The periods following the birth of the American Republic marked an intense re- action to the educational outlook of the founders. This reaction in our historical development was fostered by internal polit- ical struggles in our country. A national role in education was completely ham- strung by emphasis on the sovereignty of individual States, by laissez faire in Fed-~ eral policy, by the march of egalitarian de- mocracy, and by a passionate sense of rug- ged individualism, These forces stimulated action opposed to a national concept of edu- cation. Formal popular education found its origins in State and local enterprise for over 150 years. The concept of George Washington that the promotion of educa- tion be urged by national action disap- peared from educational practice and theory. By a strange fate, while American educa- tion became a matter of individual and local enterprise, other contrary forces were at work 1n our national history. The energies of individual enterprise trained under State and local auspices linked all parts of our country together by systems of transporta- tion, communication, and bound its sections and industries into a homogeneous national economy. So it has come about that public education, as in 1789, is once more linked with national economy and _ interests. Through the influence of common ideals, methods and associations, popular mass edu- cation itself draws into a unity of thought and purpose which is national in its reach. Recent years show an increasing tendency on the part of the Federal Government to en- gage in the fostering of national education. The Federal Government is now spending three and one-half billions of dollars an- nually for educational purposes, with the cvmce* proeir’ion relegated to funds for in- Cire ual ecuce .o. benefits to our veteran population. The Congress has been increasingly con- cerned with the fundamental problem of equalization of educational opportunity for our citizenry. Educational and political leaders are strongly aware that the inequali- ties in American educational opportunity constitute a threat to the whole fabric of American democratic institutions. Thus the question of Federal aid to education has be- come an issue of primary concern to con- gressional leaders. The current controversy has centered around the method of distri- bution and who should benefit from the Federal funds. ‘This controversy is in truth violating and inciting others to violate the very rights and freedoms upon which our democratic scverrmen+ was founded. It is a controverry that holds primary import to every American Catholic. President Truman’s Fair Deal plan for Federal aid to education has been engulfed in the House Committee on Labor and Edu- cation by a flow of bigotry, ignorance, and malice. The anti-Catholic apostles of bi- gotry, intolerance, and discrimination have triumphed in the spawning of a monstrous fabrication plan for Federal aid known as the Barden bill. Advocates of the Barden bill, pitting American religious groups against American religious groups, seeking votes to sustain and enforce it, are today conducting a@ craven crusade of religious prejudice against Catholic children and their inalien- able rights. The Barden bill justifies and .urges unjust, unAmerican discrimination against our parochial-school children. The southern Congressmen, lead by Congressman GraHam A. Barpen, have virtually killed Fed- eral aid to education. Within afew pages, the Barden. bill seeks to perpetrate a monstrosity of injustices. Its unjust provisions forbid the States to use any of the $300,000,000 in Fed~ eral funds for non-public-school children, even for such public-welfare purposes as school-bus transportation, nonreligious text- books, and common health aids. The Su- preme Court has upheld the right of the States to make such use of public funds. The Senate’s $800,000,000 Thomas bill al- lowed disbursements “for any current ex- penditure * “ * for which educational revenues derived from State or local sources may legally and constitutionally be expended in each State.” APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Before discussing the provisions of the Thomas general aid-to-education bill (S. 246), let us distinguish it clearly from two other bills involved in the Federal-aid con- troversy. ‘These dther bulls deal only with specific areas of aid to education—school lunches and health services. They are hence very limited in purpose, are not general aid- to-education measures and, though involved in the debate, are not nearly so controversial as the general-aid bills, The School Lunch Act has been in force since 1946. The relevance of this law resides im one all-important provision—the way its benefits are made available to all American school children, not merely those attending public schools. This is the famous with- holding provision of the School Lunch Act. According to this provision the Federal Ad- ministrator is required to inquire of State authorities whether they may disburse the school-lunch funds for the beneft of public- and non-public-school pupils. If they can, as happens in about one-half of the 48 States, the Federal Administrator allots the State its full share. If the State officials de- clare that under the State’s laws they cannot disburse Federal funds in favor of non-pub- lic-school children, the Federal Administrator is required by the School Lunch Act to with« hold Federal allotments in an amount pro- portional to the number of children in non- public schools. The share of Federal funds thus withheld is then used to reimburse nonpublic schools for part of their expense incurred in serving lunches to their pupils. This law has been in effect for 3 years and was so manifestly fair that few voices have ever been raised demanding that American pupils in non- public schools be deprived of their daily bottle of milk and hot lunch, simply because they were carrying out thelr parents’ consci- entious belief in religious education. The Senate also passed a school-health~ services bill (S. 1411) on April 29, 1949, by a voice vote. This bill, like the Senate’s gen- eral Federal-aid bill, was also introduced by Senator THomas and consequently bears his name. There are therefore two Thomas Sen< ate bills in the fleld of Federal aid to edue cation. Fortunately, the school-health-serv- ices measure includes the same withhold- ing formula which has made the School Lunch Act a model of fairness. So far, the House has taken no action on the bill. The health and lunch bills have embodied the nondiscrimination principle for auxiliary services for all American youth. We now come to the piece of legislation over which the country became exicited last summer. This is general Federal aid to education. The term requires definition. Aid to edu- cation is general if the funds are made available for the over-all support of educa~ tion, instead of being earmarked for very specific uses such as lunches or health serv- ices. Actually, the various general-aid pro- posals presented to Congress in recent years have restricted the use of such funds to current expenditures. This restriction rules out capital outlays for new buildings but includes expenditures for teachers’ salaries, heating, lighting, general maintenance, free textbooks, and bus transportation. The general-aid measures also differ some-~ what from the specific-aid measures in the way they apportion Federal funds among the several States. Suffice it to say that the Thomas general aid, in effect, divides the States into two categories—the 30 wealthy States, nearly all Northern, and the 18 needy States, mostly Southern, Southwestern, or border States. The professed aim of the bill is to raise the current expenditures for education in each State to at least $50 per child an- nually. Since the wealthy States spend more than that sum, they will receive only the minimum amount of Federal aid, ¢5
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for every child of school age (5 to 17 years) under their jurisdiction. The amount of Federal aid per child granted to each of the needy States, on the other hand, will vary according to the amount required in each State to- bring the annual current expenditures for education up to the minimum of $50 per child annually. In Mississippi, for example, about $29.18 in Fed- eral aid per child will be required to reach this standard. In North Dakota, one of the four Northern States, to qualify for more than the minimum, only $5.97 would be required. It should be made clear that no needy State will qualify for any Federal aid at all unless that State is already spending and continues to spend what is considered to be a@ properly proportionate share of its per capita annual income on publicly supported education. The most controversial issue in regard to the Thomas bill is this: “It leaves with each State the option of whether it will or will not use a very small fraction of the Federal funds it will receive for bus transportation for children attending nonpublic schools.” In other words, it allows the States to dis- criminate against sectarian-school children when expending Federal funds. It seems strange that the people of New York State allow public funds for education to be used to transport children attending parochial schools, while the people of Wis- consin in 1946 voted by a majority of 100,000 to deny such service to parochial school chil- dren. You would think that an American child is an American child in Wisconsin as in New York. You would think that it would be heartless to deny a warm, dry ride to a lit- tle child on a cold or wet day in Wisconsin as in New York. I wonder how the Wisconsin school-bus driver feels when he picks up four children standing in the rain on a corner and leaves two others standing in the down- pour, simply because they are Catholic- school children. If this is “equal protection of the laws,” then democracy is hypocrisy. Unfortunately, the discriminatory tech- nique of the State of Wisconsin is repeated in @ number of other American States. The Thomas bill would permit the continuance of this crazy-quilt of discrimination against American children. The Thomas bill excuses itself from doing justice to Catholic-school children on the score that it “leaves it up to the States” to decide who should have bus transportation. The result could only be the outbreak of vicious discrimination and bigotry in the 48 States. The Thomas bill properly offers no such excuse regarding Negro school children. It is ready to take issue with anti-Negro feeling in the South, but not with anti-Catholic feeling in the country as a whole. To this extent, the Thomas bill is not only unjust but dis- honest. This “leave it to the States” to decide who should receive Federal funds for education, spells the abdication of Congress’ respon- sibility in the field of justice and turns our constitutional system upside down. No one, can believe that equalization of educational opportunity is guaranteed to all American school children unless Federal laws grant fiscal aid to all school children on an equal, impartial level. Help must be guaranteed for all needy children, including Catholic needy children. All the inequities of the Thomas bill were to be further expanded by the Barden bill, This bill makes a mockery of the alleged pur= poses of all Federal-aid measures—to more nearly equalize educational opportunities. 'The Barden bill, unlike the Thomas bill, does not even insure to Negro school children a proportionate share in Federal aid. To make sure that no parochial-school children receive a dime of Federal-aid funds, the Barden bill set up a procedure whereby ariy- taxpayer could get an injunction against any school : to pay double school taxes. * poard accused of permitting what the United States Constitution and many State con- stitutions now permit—the use of public funds for at least incidental public-welfare expenditures for parochial-school children, What the Senate’s Thomas bill allowed and the Thomas school-lunch and school-health measures made mandatory, the Barden bill made illegal and subject to injunctive ac~ tion. This last provision showed Mr. Bar- den’s attitude. He was determined to make his bill a new weapon in the hands of anti- Catholic bigots. Barden devised a means of putting Catholics in a Federal strait-jacket by using a bill to equalize educational op- portunities as a device for bribing the States into completely excluding parochial-school children from even incidental public educa- tional funds. The Barden bill shows the depth of its malevolent prejudice and bigotry in its dis- bursing of Federal aid funds method. The bill awards the 29 wealthy States a minimum of $5 for every child of school age in each State, including those attending nonpublic schools, which means our parochial-school children also. But in the disbursing of funds, the bill limits the beneficiaries, for all practical purposes, to public school chil- dren only. For example, if New York State has 200,C00 school children 5 to 17 years of age, and of the total, 50,000 are attending Parochial schools, New York would get $5 times 200,000 in Federal funds or $1,000,000, of which $250,000, would be awarded by counting in the pupils at Catholic schools, When it came to disbursing the total of $1,- 000,000 however, New York would turn around and count out the 50,000 Catholic children, and every dollar of the money it received to equalize their education would go to the public schools only. Catholics in New York State would be taxed by the Fed- eral Government on the basis of the educa- tional needs of all the children of the State, only to have the needs of 50,000 of their own children ignored in the disbursing of funds, Such a disbursing plan is rank with injustice, pitted with illogical operation, and reflecting un-American plans of equality. Clearly, from analysis of the various plans of Federal aid to education, our Catholic school children are maliciously reduced to second-class citizenry status. They are be- ing deprived of equalized opportunity and assistance in every particular instance of legislation, Congress in cohsidering a bill to aid education in the States must be consider= ing the educational opportunities of citizens of all the United States. The responsibilities of the Congress are to the citizens of the United States on an equal basis. Congress, in granting Federal funds in aid of education to the States, cannot allow some States to discriminate against a certain class of citi- zens in the United States, We, as Catholics, are not asking the Gov-= ernment to build our schools. What we justly demand is this: When the Govern- ment, National or State, is appropriating public funds to give extracurricular bene- fits, such as bus rides, health service, free lunches to school children, and general aid, we want our children and all American chil- dren of school age to be included. This is just. This is American and democratic. What distant relation has the separation of church and State principle to the exam-~ ination of Johnny’s tonsils in a parochial school, or giving a free glass of milk, when the Government decides to grant these auxil- lary benefits to all its school children? None of logic, yet bigots, spreaders of dissension, and fanatics, violently charge we are violat- ing the first amendment and planning the creation of an established church in the United States. Such charges can only ema- nate from ignorance and passionate preju- dice. Our Catholic parents actually are required We voluntarily A3201 and independently contribute to the sup- port of our parochial schools while simul- taneously paying school taxes for public schools which some of our children do not use. Catholic taxpayers do not demand to be excused from paying school taxes for the support of public schools which some of their children do not use, but some consideration must be given to the sectarian schools their children do use. Catholic taxpayers save others of the Nation’s taxpayers half a bil< lion dollars yearly through voluntary sup- port of parochial schools in addition to the capital expense of the buildings. We do not expect others to take up this fiscal burden, but we cannot sanction the spending of $3800,000,C00 yearly in accordance with legis- lation that would be unjust and discrimi- nating against millions of our American chil- dren. Catholic schools are as much in the public interest as public schools. To deny general aids to parochial schools is to im- ply that their graduates are second-class citizens undeserving of equal rights. To condone taxation without Catholic partici- pation in its benefits for our parochial school children is tantamount to repudiation of the equality of American citizenship. Fearlessly, forcefully, we must unite to de~ mand equal rights for all American children, and in Christian justice must we oppose un- equivocally any bill which refuses to grant, or denies, at least nonreligious textbooks, bus transportation, and health services for all the children of all Americans. The parochial school is as truly an American school as the public school, and our Catholic school children are as entitled to their equal constitutional rights as public school chil- dren. Justice and equality to all is the American formula and practice. Prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance, have no role in the American way of life. Our Catholic schools are under attack right here in the United States. When we resist the effort of bigots to discriminate against our Catholic school children in Fed- eral aid to education, we are resisting what we believe will bring great harm to our Nation. We are fighting for freedom of re~- ligion and freedom of education. Our cause in upholding the rights of religious education is the only sure defense of the democratic ideal and the defense of our religious faith. Public Health and Welfare EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANK B. KEEFE OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, on May 9, 1949, I introduced House Resolution 207, which had for its basic purpose the ap- pointment of a special committee to investigate and study the economic and public-health aspects of the introduc- tion of chemicals into the food supplies of the Nation and to investigate and study the whole fertilizer question. A short hearing was held before the Rules Committee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin was permitted to make a short statement in support of the resolution. The many witnesses who were present and prepared to testify in support of the resolution have never as yet been given an opportunity to be heard. The chair- man of the Rules Committee has himself introduced a similar resolution and has
A3202 repeatedly promised to give to the pro- ponents of this resolution an opportunity to be heard. Up to date, and for more than 1 year, these resolutions have Janguished in the files of the Rules Com- mittee without any action thereon. It is of the utmost importance to the people of this country that this matter be thoroughly investigated with a view to the suggestion of legislative action in this field. A recent article prepared by Mr. Wil- liam G. Holman, of the city of Washins~ ton, throws considerable light on the necessity for the adoption of this resolu- tion, and I desire to incorporate it as part of these remarks: LEGISLATION NEEDED To Protect HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE A Federal Trade Commission report shows how a few fertilizer manufacturers acquired @ monopolistic control of the phosphate rock and acid phosphate market in this country, and Federal court records show how they have used this control to criminally exploit the farmers and endanger the health of the people. Eight Members of the United States Senate introduced a resolution on July 20, 1949, re~ questing an investigation of the monopolistic practices of the fertilizer industry. This resolution told of the leasing of public lands on which are found the principal pot- ash deposits to a few corporations, and of how this had enabled them to acquire a con- trol of 80 to 90 percent of the potash in this country. Thus we see monopoly in the saddle—all booted and spurred—and the farmers com~ pletely at the mercy of these predatory cor- porations. There is another phase of this matter that is far more shocking in its implications. Fertilizer money is being used to subsidize the research work of the Bureau of Plant In- dustry, and these gifts of money have re- ‘sulted in Keeping the people in the dark as to the harmful effects of present methods of fertilizer manufacture on the health and Welfare of the people. Is the corruption of public officials today Jess shocking in its implications than it was at the time of the Teapot Dome scandal? House resolution 207, introduced by Con- gressman Frank B. KeEre on May 9, 1949, requested the appointment of a special com- mittee to study the economic and health phases of this matter, and report its findings and recommendations to Congress, and on August 10, 1949, the dean of the House, Hon. AvoLPH J. SABaTH introduced a similar reso- lution. Both of these resolutions are now posting securely in the House Rules Commit- ee. Five years ago I wrote, and Congressman Wiiam LEMKE introduced, a truth about fertilizer bill, and he has introduced this bill at each session of the Congress since that time. It is still in a pigeonhole of the House Committee on Agriculture. 1 The farmers need a truth about fertilizer aw. This law should require the manufacturer to tell the farmers what materials have been used in making fertilizer, the number of pounds of each material, and the number of pounds of sand or other useless filler. The law should forbid the shipment of fertilizer in interstate commerce that contains more than 50 percent of water-soluble nitrogen. The enactment of this law would make it possible for farmers to grow better crops with 60 percent less fertilizer per acre, help to prevent plant diseases, and injury to the health of human beings. It has been known for a long time that an excess of soluble nitrogen in fertilizers makes all plants more susceptible and less resistant to disease, but only in recent years has there been any suggestion that food crops grown with an excess of soluble nitrogen are poi- sonous to farm stock, and injurious to the heaith of the people. Men of such eminence as Lyon and Buck- man, of Cornell University, have said that: “Of the three common fertilizer elements, (meaning, of course, nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash), soluble nitrogen is the only one which, added in excess, will result in harmful effects on the crops. It may de- crease resistance to disease.” Sir A. D. Hall, a man who achieved such eminence in the field of agriculture that he was knighted by the British Government, has told the public in a widely read textbook that, “The association of high nitrogenous manuring with susceptibility to disease may be seen in all plants.” In spite of the warnings of these eminent scientists, State fertilizer laws were amended and these amendments permitted the manu-~ facturers, (1) to increase the nitrogen con- tent of all fertilizers 21 percent; (2) to re- move from the fertilizer bags what were known as source tags which told the farmers what materials had been used in making the fertilizer; and (3) to use almost unlimited proportions of the cheap, water-soluble sources of nitrogen without letting the farmers know that this was being done. The use of so much of the water soluble nitrogen was soon followed by a scourge of destructive plant diseases that had never given the farmers any trouble prior to the time these radical formula changes were made. The use of so little of the organic sources of nitrogen forced the farmers to use at least 50 percent more fertilizer per acre in order to get enough organic nitrogen to feed the crops to maturity. Forcing the farmers to use 50 percent more fertilizer per acre costs them $250,000,000 a year more than would have been necessary if the fertilizer had contained the right pro- portions of soluble and organic nitrogen, and the ravages of tobacco, potato, and tomato plant diseases cause the farmers to suffer additional losses running into millions of dollars. These facts should be sufficient to incline the Congress to put an end to a racket of which the farmers have long been helpless victims, but there are other reasons which place a greater obligation on the shoulders of Congress. Not until recently has there been any sug- gestion that food crops grown with an excess of soluble nitrogen are injurious to the health of human beings and poisonous to farm stock. Dr. James Asa Shield, an eminent medical scientist of Richmond, Va., says that people whose food crops are grown with nature’s plant food—organic nitrogen—do not have sclerosis of their nerves, their blood vessels, blockage of their veins, or high blood pres- sure, or kidney or gall stones. He also says that: “People whose food comes from soils fertilized with chemicals appear to have more vascular diseases and more degenerative diseases.” Dr. Max Gerson, of the Gotham Hospital, New York, says that: “The human body lost part of its resistance and healing power as man left the way of natural nutrition for generations. The fundamental damage starts with the use of artificial fertilizer for vegetables and fruits.” Dr. William A. Albrecht, Ph. D., College of Agriculture, University of Missouri, empha- sizes the relationship between food and health in the following words: “Our health comes to us, after all, via our food.” Then comes the Yearbook of Agriculture, 1948, page 288, with the startling statement: “More than 1 or 2 percent of nitrates in Plants as a result of very heavy fertilization APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD or of excessive amounts in soils is known to be poisonous to stock.” A survey conducted by experts of the United States Department of Agriculture in- dicates that highly fertilized pasture lands may be the cause of -the X-disease that has killed so many cattle, and forced some cattle- men to give up the cattle raising business. The Spectator (London), October 17, 1941, said that rabbits have died after eating cab- bage grown with an excess of nitrates. Common sense tells us that anything that poisons cattle and Kills rabbits is undoubt- edly harmful to the health of human beings, and may be the cause of the great increase in the number of diseases that are taking the lives of our people. Two fertilizer labeling bills introduced early in the first session of the Highty-first Congress are still in a pigeonhole of the House Committee on Agriculture. These bills are intended to give the farm- ers information as to the contents of a bag of fertilizer that State laws do not now give them. One of these bills, H. R. 3045, introduced by Congressman Frank B. Kerre, puts a limit on the soluble nitrogen content of fertilizer shipped in interstate commerce, a necessary provision. The enactment of’ this bill will make it easier for State enforcement agencies to see that the farmer gets an honestly made fer- tilizer. I think the public is entitled to know how a few manufacturers acquired a monopolistic control of the fertilizer industry, and to what extent they have exerted an influence on of- ficials of the State and Federal Governments. An act of Congress, approved April 10, 1918, entitled “An act to promote export trade and for other purposes,” permitted a few fertil- izer manufacturers to form a selling agency combine which controlled practically all of the phosphate rock shipped from this coun- try to Europe. (See United States Statutes at Large 40, p. 516.) This combine first secured control of the prices and terms of sale of all phosphate rock sold in Europe by threatening to dump 200,000 tons of Florida phosphate rock on that market each year at reduced prices. (See Federal Trade Commission Report, May 1, 1946.) The almost complete control of such basic fertilizer materials as phosphate rock and acid phosphate enabled this small group of manufacturers to compel other manufactur- ers in this country to obey their wishes not only as to how fertilizer should be made, but as to what the selling price should be. Having established a ruthless control of the fertilizer industry, these manufacturers then set to work to have the State laws amended to suit their notions, and their ac- tivities in this direction resulted in their being indicted and fined in a Federal court in North Carolina for having exerted an il- legal influence on State lawmakers. However, the amendments to the State laws that they succeeded in having enacted are still plaguing the farmers, and endang- ering the health of the people. With a view to protecting the farmers and the health of all the people, I undertook to do two things: (1) prove with properly con- ducted experiments that an excess of solu-~ ble nitrogen was the cause of plant diseases, and (2) secure the enactment of a truth- about-fertilizer law that would put a reason- able limit on the water-soluble nitrogen con- tent of fertilizer, and let the farmers know the number of pounds of each material used in making it, as well as the number of pounds of sand or other useless filler. I knew that if I could prove that an excess of soluble nitrogen was the cause of plant diseases, it would be easy to convince the Congress of the need of the legislation I advocated,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Iwenty-siz of my experiments conducted in nine counties in North Carolina resulted in the growth of healthy tobacco plants free of disease. Dr. Earl H. Hall, professor of botany of the greater university system of North Carolina, expressed the opinion that my theory was physiologically as well as logically sound. Dr. A. L. Grizzard, associate agronomist, Virginia experimental station, had said that an excess of nitrogen “may cause over-stim- ulation and a weak, watery growth which is susceptible to disease,” and the Yearbook of 1929, page 413, had said that “sy high in water content are generally low in some of the carbohydrates, and are particularly susceptible to attack by fungus and bacterial disease. IT knew that starch was the form in which earbohydrates are usually stored in plants, and I was trying to prove that more organic nitrogen in fertilizers would increase the carbohydrate content of the plant and make it more resistant to disease. Sir Albert Howard, a man who had achieved such eminence in the field of agri- culture that he was knighted by the British Government, expressed the onirion in a letter to me that I had hit the ~z 11 sc ueretv on the head, and he was in entire agreement with me. Senators Barkley, Byrd, George, Tydings, and Reynolds, and three southern governors requested the Department of Agriculture to give its approval to a Federal grant to me for the completion of my experiments, and a bill was introduced in Congress to accomplish this purpose. Mr. R. M. Salter, Chief, Bureau of Plant Industry, opposed this bill, and the state- ments made by him to the chairman of a Senate subcommittee resulted in an adverse report. Mr. Salter told the subcommittee that fer- tilizer had nothing to do with the cause or control of blue mold, and then stultified him- self by saying that he had tried to get me to let him conduct tests with my fertilizer for- mula for the control of blue mold. Mr. Salter then made two surprising state~ ments to the subcommittee, one of them re- futing the other. He said that “several effec- tive and inexpensive control measures have been developed,” and then added that “at present $18,000 is allotted to blue mold in- vestigations.” The control measures referred to by Mr. Salter would have cost the farmers of one State $765,000, and to show that they were not effective I need only to assert that they are not even recommended today, and the ravages of blue mold are still resulting in enormous losses to the farmers. Furthermore, if Mr. Salter had found an effective control measure, why did he want to spend any more of the public funds on blue mold investigations? The statement made by Mr. Salter in a speech that he delivered at the fertilizer con- vention at Hot Springs, Va., on June 25, 1946, indicates that he was already under financial obligations to the fertilizer people, and was appealing to them for additional funds. This is what he said: “Probably you can spend a little more money advantageously in subsidizing research on special problems through fellowships and grants to States. A little financial oil applied to the squeaks in the research machinery often produces sur- prisingly good results.” The record shows that Mr. Salter’s state- ments helped to delay the day when the truth would be known that an excess of soluble nitrogen was the cause of plant dis- eases, and of injury to the health of the people. Mr. Salter must have known that my theory was logically and physiologically sound, or he would not have admitted in a letter to Congressman REID F, Murray that “Tobacco plants grown with organic nitro- gen can be expected to be higher in starch.” If that be true, then Mr. Salter cannot ex- plain away his efforts to keep me from trov- ing it, and the Congress should umcsuvcecly inquire into his motives. Could any problem be raised of more im- portance to the people than one that involves the corruption of public officials, the crimi- nal exploitation of the farmers, and trade practices that endanger the health of both man and animals? WILLIam G, HOLMAN, WASHINGTON, D. C. Majority Rule EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. TOM PICKETT OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, there recently appeared on the front page of the Malakoff, 'Tex., newspaper some ob= servations by the editor concerning ma- jority rule by the people who would be affected if certain programs sponsored by the administration are put into effect. The editor’s comments are pertinent and well worthy of serious consideration by all Members of Congress. They are as follows: Brii’s MILL (By Bill Scholl) We noticed in a city paper the other day that a poll of farmers throughout the coun- try showed a heavy majority as definitely opposed to the proposed Brannan farm plan, one which the President has repeatedly tried to “strong arm” Congress into passing. And, too, we have noticed all along, as have most people, that the country’s doctors are definitely opposed to the plan of health in- surance, a nice name for socialized medicine, or any other plan that would subordinate the country’s doctors to Federal red tape. And thirdly, we have heard and read of many noted educators throughout the coun- try who are in dead earnest in their opposi- tion to Federal aid to education of any type; men who firmly believe the task of education is up to the individual States. WHY THE LEGISLATION, THEN? Why, then should the administration in Washington, under the leadership of Mr. ‘Truman, insist in attempting to put through these proposals that are so opposed by the people who would be affected? Why is the Government insisting on harnassing these groups with more red tape, less efficiency, and Federal control when the people do not want them. Think it over. Do you want them? Mr. Truman seems to think it is his God- given task to make the people of the United States succumb to his theories of govern- ment. There are thousands of people all over the world who think that their ideas of government are the best and no other wil suffice. But does that make it true? We also have definite ideas of government, what the government should take as its ob- ligation and.what it should not. But we don’t insist that everyone agree with us. We believe that the majority of the people are the ones to decide what we should have in the Government, not the ones who run on the Democratic ticket to get elected and then veer off to a red-fringed socialistic program, The Democratic Party (the real one) does A3203 not stand for socialism, so why should its leaders propose to harness us with socialism? We contend that it is not up to them to tell us what to do, but that it is up to us, you and me, to tell our leaders what we want. We still contend that to be a good leader you have to be a follower and in the democratic way of life the leaders are supposed to follow the people’s wishes. True or false? Off the Cuff EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. BEN F. JENSEN OF IOWA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following article from the Shenandoah (Iowa) Evening Senti- nel of Thursday, April 27, 1950: OFF THE CUFF (By David Archie) It may be old stuff or I may be seeing ghosts, but I’ve become acutely conscious lately of what amounts to a growing anti- farmer campaign in the Nation’s press. If I were to piece together all of the resercuves to farmers I’ve seen recently, I believe the picture would run something like this. “Soybean Maize, the average American farmer, has been having a hard time finding @ place to keep all his Buicks lately because his buildings are filled with his fortune in corn. Soybean and Mrs. Maize had a tough time in the early thirties—but didn’t we all. Now that he has been able to buy his farm (with Government gifts), make it the most efficient possible, send his children to college with a convertible apiece and get his bank account in figures that he can’t even add— now isn’t it about time we stopped all this subsidy nonsense. The whole thing is a complete mess and he doesn’t need it any- way. Besides old Soy is just putting land into production that isn’t needed.” Mr and Mrs. Maize seem like strange char- acters to Iowans, but after you’ve been out of the Midwest for a while, you begin to real- ize how closely they resemble the conception many people have of farmers these days. I imagine a boy going away to school in an earlier time would have had to convince peo- ple his father wasn’t a “hick’? farmer. Now he has to convince them the old man isn’t wallowing in hogs, corn, and green acres of dollar bills. I’m glad that the estimation of the farmer has risen so greatly, but I’m afraid there is more danger than good in the situation. I honestly believe that the Mr. Soybean Maize type of attitude may eventually help to de- stroy our farm price support programs. The recent potato scandals have made people think more about the Government farm program than ever before,in its history. This think’-s is good if properly routed. The wr.uble ..«¢ in the gross misconception of the lot of the average farmer that has been generated in the city mind. Thi- rrsegresaticn tends to color what- ever “7 cs 7 “y's 3 On this very compli- cated and difficult subject. Most newspapers and magazines prefer to present the more glamorous and interesting stories of “rich” farmers through Government subsidies rather than explore the whole, and rather hard subject. In giving this one-sided response to the growing interest to the farm problem, they are rendering a distinct disservice to the country as a whole. But it is the farmers
A3204 themselves and the people who depend in- mediately on the farm trade who will suffer most if the present trena crve’ars into a current of antifarmer rc. enument. I should not be at all surprised to see us facing an antiagrarian problem in the near future if present trends continue. It 1s a problem of which every midwesterner should be acutely aware. More intelligent and farsighted leadership in Congress can do much to alleviate the problem. But if the ball is already rolling, as I fear it is, then farmers and farmers’ friends should be alerted so that they can promote better public relations for the agrarian population. Mr. Speaker, here are some excerpts from a letter to an old friend in my home county setting out my reasons for supporting 90 percent of parity for farm products, which I trust will answer those who are advocating the abolition of our support program for farmers: Dear Frienp: Let us not forget that farm prices were 66 percent of parity on an aver- age in 1981-32 and 1933, and that during those times not only the farmer, but the businessman, the laboring man and every- body in America were in a serious predica~ ment. I need not remind you of this, Iam sure, for I know you are old enough to re- member it. There was on an average of 14,000,000 American people who were unable to find work during that era, for the very simple reason that the farmer’s buying pow- er was almost nil. Now certainly that should be a lesson we dare not forget, re- gardless of our politics, faith, or vocation. Ever since my first year in Congress I have cooperated very closely with common- sense economic analysts and many Congress= men, most of whom are from farm States, in search of facts and figures to guide us in the right direction to avoid, if humanly pos- sible, another depression, and possibly the complete destruction of our system of gov= ernment and everything worth while in our blessed land. Here is what these many years of research have brought to light. For the past 20 years the records of the Department of Commerce, which are compiled from the records of the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, and from. other accurate sources in Government rec~ ords, show that whether it be periods of peace, depression, war, postwar, or prosper~ ity such as we now have, the national in- come has been and is now approximately seven times the farm income. The postwar prosperity which we have enjoyed since World War II has held up mainly because we have had a high farm income due to the fact that basic farm commodities have been supported by our 90-percent parity law. If you will remember, it was less than 2 years after the close of World War I that farm prices took such a terrific drop which brought about a national depression in 1920. And during the several years thereafter many farmers lost their farms and a lot of busi- ness houses closed their doors for the very simple reason that the farmer’s buying pow- er was almost nil. I remember that era only too well, as I’was at that time running a lumber yard in Exira, Iowa, dealing with farmers almost exclusively. Certainly that horrible experience should be @ lesson to all of us. It must not happen again. I am thoroughly convinced, after much study, that a slide-down support scale on basic farm prices will bring about a repetition of a like condition during the era which I have just described. Doubtless you have heard the argument it is necessary to reduce the price on farm commodities to avoid great surpluses from pling up, which the Government would have to buy and store in greater quantities than would be possible for the Government finances to stand. That argument falls flat with those who have made a deep study of what causes surpluses to pile up, which is, when the buying power of the people 1s not sufficient to purchase the goods they need for the high standard of living we Americans want and expect. The facts are that a greatly reduced American standard of living will very surely be brought about by a great reduc- tion in prices of farm commodities, since all wealth springs from Mother Earth, and because as I said before, the national income each year is approximately seven times the farm income; so, unless we maintain a high farm income sufficient to generate a high national income, and thereby securing high consumption of all goods, Americans will be in serious trouble, and you can bank on that. Here is something else to think about. Who in America would expect the good Lord to continue to bless us with such abundant crops as we have enjoyed the past 8 years? I am sure, you, like I, will agree that that would be too much to expect of Him who Tuns nature’s business. We are bound to have crop failures in some degrees most any year now, and should it become our lot to suffer, say even a 25-percent crop reduc- tion on an average for a period of 2, 3, or 4 years all over America, below the average of the past 8 years; how I ask in all sincerity would we feed and clothe the American people the way the like to be fed and clad. You will also hear the argument that un- less the Secretary of Agriculture is given the authority to reduce support prices, that sur- Pluses will pile up to such a degree that acreage control will again he necessary. That argument also falls flat when we know that it was cheap farm prices that brought about acreage control in the AAA bill of the early thirties. And the result of that pro- gram was that the farmers so fertilized and mined their allotted cash crop-producing acres, that they produced more than ever, and were obliged to do so as to meet their bills. The 90-percent support-price program on basic farm products, corn, wheat, tobacco, cotton, peanuts, and rice, has not cost the American taxpayer one thin dime to date. It has actually made a profit to the United States Treasury, to say nothing about the great benefits to the farmers of America and to our whole economy, and for these reasons I certainly will not be a party to a program which I honestly believe will be destructive to not only the prosperity of our Nation, but also to the peace and progress of our Nation and the world. You no doubt also have heard the argu- ment about the potato situation, I agree that potatoes which are perishable and can- not be stored for any definite period should not be supported at the full 90 percent of parity. The facts are that the Potato Grow- ers Association of America suggested to Con- gress that the support price on potatoes be materially reduced, If our national income is drastically re- duced the American market, which is the only stable and good market of the world today, will lose its buying power, and when that time comes we will neither be able to Pay our own way, nor help foreign nations with loans or free dollars with which to buy our goods or other nations’ goods, or to ward off communistic aggression any place in the world, America included. Records of the past 20 years also prove that for each dollar of gross farm income, labor (which includes all kinds, ‘blue denim, white collar, and professional) receives an income of over $4, so the laboring people have a mighty big stake in keeping the farmer’s income on a high level, the source of all wealth. Regarding the businessman’s interest in this proposition, I am sure I need not explain to them the need of keeping a high farm income, for they know that is APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the only thing which will insure good profit- able trade for them. A $42,000,000,000 annual Federal tax take from the American people means that each American family pays on an average of over $1,000 per year in direct and indirect Federal taxes. Add to this around $300 which each family is paying per year in local, county, and State taxes, it makes a total outlay in taxes per year for each family of over $1,300. That being a fact, we must surely do two things, keep our national income at the high- est possible figure and stop wasting the tax- payers’ dollars. I hope this will explain my reason for op- posing any law which will reduce farm income. Sincerely yours, Bren F. JENSEN, The American People Have a Vital Part To Play in the Attainment of the Goals of the Foreign Policy of the United States * EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JOE L. EVINS OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, the recent war, I feel sure We will all agree, could not have reached ultimate victory with- out the united and concerted efforts of every citizen of this country—whether in the armed services or on the home front. It was, in every way a total war which reduired complete unity of pur- pose and determination to gain the vic- tory. I do not believe that our ultimate victory in what we call today the cold war or total diplomacy can be realized without the same unity of spirit and purpose—and the same determination which made military victory possible. Every citizen of every free nation re- maining in the world today has a duty to perform in the interest of peace and lasting stability that is as vital as it was during the war. In this connection, I should like to have included with my remarks in the Appendix of the Rzcorp an address by Mr. Edward W. Barrett, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, entitled “The American People’s Part in United States Foreign Policy,” and which was recently delivered. The address is as follows: Tam AMERICAN Propue’s Parr uv UNrrep Starzs Forzian Pouicy (By Edward W. Barrett, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs) I would like to recall some facts about American foreign policy with which you are already familiar. I think that this is worth doing, because I believe that it is only a con~ tinuing examination of the obvious and the familiar that we arrive at what is useful andnew. Consider the atom: It was familiar to us—or so we thought—for a long, long time. But by dint of persistent study of a familiar impasse—which was that the atom could not be split—we finally came up with the discovery that it could be split, And we split it. I think that there is a real possibility that if we keep on examining the familiar ob- stacles to peace and security, someone may yet discover something that no one else has
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD noticed—a way to split them, a way to over- come them. A main source of our difficulties in seeking world peace and security is the refusal of the Soviet Union and its satellites to cooperate with the free nations, and the insistence of the Soviet Union in pursuing an expansion- ist, aggressive policy. The Berlin airlift showed us a possible way of expanding the area of workable agree- ments with the Soviet Union—that of giving the U.S. S. R. no practicable alternative but to abide by its agreements. Itis a way, how- ever, which can be pursued only by the direct action of the United States Government and other free governments working together. It is not an approach to the solution of east- west tensions which offers opportunity for direct action by the United States National Commission or by UNESCO itself. Communist policies, however, are by no means the only obstacle between us and our goal of putting the United Nations Charter into fuller operation. LACK OF UNITY There is not enough unity within the non- Communist world. This world includes a group of strong, democratic nations which are pulling together; others which are weaker and less convinced of the need to bear down in a common cause; and still others with hardly better than a neutral attitude toward the struggle between the advocates of a totalitarian way of life and the advocates of @ free, democratic way of life. There are many non-Communist countries so burdened with domestic and regional difficulties that the issue of a totalitarian versus a free world society seems very remote. They do not real- ize that they are part of the battleground on which the struggle for the allegiance of man is going forward. Even among the leading nations of the free world, we still do not have nearly the unity of purpose and action which is needed. We must come to closer agreement on poli- cies and programs for the solution of world problems and mobilize more power in carry- ing them out. We must work together to in- crease mutual understanding with the mar- ginal countries—those not yet convinced of their own stake in the world contest between oppression and freedom—and convince them that their own good lies on the side of free- dom. In the words of Prime Minister Nehru, we must convince these other nations that democracy is the way of life that will deliver the goods, both materially and spiritually. And we must make them understand the accompanying need for them to collaborate in establishing a democratic world society. Here lies a great opportunity for the na- tional commission and for UNESCO—that of winning the informed suport of the Ameri- can and of other peoples and mobilizing their support more effectively behind policies and programs which can bring peace and se- curity nearer. If we are to get where we all want to get in carrying out the purposes of the United Nations, the member nations must have the backing of their peoples. To get that backing, and the necessary deter- mination to make the United Nations suc- eeed, requires a mass education program which will tax the abilities of governments, of international agencies, and of private or- ganizations put together. We must face the fact that the United Nations and its aims still seem remote to most of the world’s peoples. The United Nations has hardly be- gun to reach them ia terms of their own daily lives. We must all work together to establish that vital contact between the United Nations and the peoples of the world. I would like to comment on some ways in which the United States is approaching these needs and some new trends which we are de- veloping in our methods of working. AFFIRMATIVE PROGRAM FOR FREE WORLD Such actions as in the Berlin blockade and aid to Turkey and Greece are intended to re- move immediate threats to peace and to con- tain and prevent the development of other threats, thus prolonging the “breathing space” in which to solidify security and in- ternational cooperation. We are also joining in activities of an en- tirely different order. These measures, as in our support of the United Nations, and our cooperation with other countries as in the European recovery program and in point 4, are not a reply to Communist policies and propaganda but an affirmative pregram of- fered to the free world. The success of this program of construction will ultimately put a final crimp in Communist schemes of rul- ing the world, but that will be a byproduct; that is not the single objective of what we are doing. If the Soviet bloc should miracu- lously alter overnight into free, democratic, cooperative nations, we should not change what we are doing, except to expand our co- operation and our aid to include them also. Indeed, we have already made that offer, in good faith, only to see the iron curtain pinned down more anxiously. This is an important fact for us to keep in mind and to impress on the rest of the world. We are doing what we are doing in order to preserve a climate of freedom and opportunity in the world for others and for ourselves. We are convinced that the only way to keep that climate is by building a new kind of world society, demo- cratic in spirit and practice. We want the American people and all other peoples of the non-Communist world to catch the vision of themselves as the fellow citizens of a truly free world, cooperating with each other in peace and friendship. In the United Nations, we already have the organization through which to carry out the affairs of that Kind of world. If we succeed in establishing that kind of world—-and we shall succeed— totalitarianism will be by-passed and left to collapse far behind the line of battle against the true enemies of man—disease, poverty, ignorance, and injustice. With increased un- derstanding of the reasons for our policies and the nature of our goals, the American people will act with unity to support them. It is equally imperative to give other neo- ples a better understanding of the United States and for us to have better understand- ing of them. This is the reason for the world-wide information programs which we conduct through the radio Voice of America, our wireless information services, our ex~ change of persons, and other cultural ex~ change programs. We are going among other peoples and bringing many of them here so that they may get to Enow us as we really are, and we may get to know them. Out of this kind of mutual understanding, grows mutual trust and a greater capacity to work together. STRENGTHENING UNESCO’S WORK In this matter of gaining the understand- ing and support of the American and of other peoples in the needs and purposes of the free world, it is wholly fitting and neces- sary that the United States should do every- thing in its power to strengthen UNESCO’s work. Weare in the happy position of know- ing that UNESCO’s services in improving in- ternational understanding will also serve to advance the national interests of all mem- bers of the free community of nations, in- cluding the United States. The aims of the UNESCO constitution exactly express our aspirations for the world. There are additional reasons for our inter- est in seeing an expansion in the work of the National Commission and of UNESCO in the fields of cultural exchange and circulation of information. First, such exchanges offer one of the most immediate ways in which the American people can take an active part in carrying out our foreign policy. To the ex- tent that the National Commission can step up such activities, they will broaden this opportunity for participation by individual American citizens, A3205 Second, we place a great value on a factual exchange with other peoples, and let me stress that word “factual.” We want other peoples to get an undistorted picture of us and we want to get an undistorted picture of them. We are willing to settle for the kind of factual exchange of information that UNESCO can provide as an objective, im- partial international body following the prin- ciples laid down in its constitution. I repeat, therefore, that the United States has strong reasons for giving strong support to the broadening of UNESCO’s work in cul- tural exchange, in education, in the ex- change of accurate information between the free peoples of the world. Naturally, the United States has important work of this sort to do on its own, and we are doing it. In fact, we are now preparing major pro- posals in this field for submission to the re- sponsible authorities. They will embrace important new steps for increasing the ef- fectiveness of the Voice of America, of our international information operation, arid of our educational program. NEED FOR WIDER UNESCO PROGRAM My deep interest in UNESCO, my faith in its ideals, my conviction that it can play a vital role in the world today—all these are known. But I say to you frankly that I do not think UNESCO has thus far measured up to what Director General Torres Bodet called. “its noble mission.” I hope the delegations of the free community of nations which will assemble at the UNESCO conference at Flor- ence will determine that UNESCO shall make this noble mission into much more than a phrase. To carry out this mission, UNESCO must have a program and a plan of action look- ing, not only to the distant peace, but alsa to the immediate problems which divide the world and threaten the rights and freedoms which give meaning to the UNESCO consti- tution. Unfortunately, UNESCO cannot reach ail the people of the world. In some countries the door is closed to its message, and its voice is altogether too weak to reach effectively the masses of the people. Therefore, its voice must be strengthened. I hope an important and constructive feature of the forthcoming general conference will be to strengthen very greatly the means by which UNESCO trans- mits its message to the world. Here in the United States we are witness- ing the benefits of UNESCO’s influence. We recognize the value of the educational ac- tivities which the National Commission is sponsoring here. It is of both practical and historical importance that today, in primary and secondary schools, colleges, and univer- Sities, millions of American students are studying the United Nations, getting to know something of international relations and seriously undertaking the job of understand- ing the traditions and ways of life of other people. The similar studies being conducted by organizations, clubs, and community groups are of equal importance. Out of this education we are bound to derive more unity among the American people in support of policies and programs for the strengthening of the free world. We can expect the Ameri- can people to take a more active interest and @ more active part in our foreign policy. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN FOREIGN POLICY The importance of this public participation is clear enough when we realize that, in the total aspect of our diplomacy, the whole United States is acting before the world as its own representative. People abroad look at everything we say and do, in trying to understand us and to anticipate our probable attitudes. We need to demonstrate to the rest of the world, therefore— That we are united behind a generous pol- icy toward others; . That we are in earnest about building in- ternational cooperation;
A3206 That we have at home the strong democ- racy which we advocate for others. That we will work, in cooperation with every nation willing to join in a common effort, for the removal of barriers to the in- terchange of ideas, of persons, of materials, of goods, and services. Yes; that we genu- inely seek full and free communication and exchange with all peoples of good will, in whatever part of the world they live—as we move forward in our effort to build a peace- ful world. Effects of Imports on Employment EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REcorp, I include the following statement: STATEMENT OF O. R. STRACKBEIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT CoUN-~ crm oN Forreien Trade Pouicy, BEFORE THE Stexn SUBCOMMITTEE oF THE House Com- MITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ON THE EFFECTS OF IMPORTS ON EMPLOYMENT, May 2, 1950 This hearing represents the first congres- sional inquiry that has been addressed spe- cifically to the effects of imports on employ- ment and also represents recognition of the import problem in a new light. Mr. Chairman, your committee is to be congratulated for providing this opportunity for a fresh approach to an old question. The import problem has become so submerged in threadbare arguments, pro and con, that it has until this moment become almost im- possible to inject a new thought. We have repeatedly called attention to the fact that while the tariff argument has proceeded in its traditional channels, the very grounds have shifted beneath our feet and thrown old views out of focus. Nevertheless, the old ideas and views stubbornly persist. This hearing should go far to substitute present- day realities for these obsolete hold-overs of years gone by. The traditional view of protectionism has been that it stifles competition and there- fore contributes to the growth of monopoly and trusts. It has been looked upon as the instrument of the robber barons, enabling them to exact high prices from consumers and thus to grow rich and powerful. Lack of competition, moreover, It was sald, led to inefficiency and to indifference to public convenience and welfare. Altogether the protectionist was pictured as a sinister char- acter, quite devoid of any sense of social responsibility. This picture may or may not have been an accurate reflection of the facts in the past. In any event it no longer represents the facts today. Those who are most interested in protection today are those who face the loss of employment, the reduction of wages, and the prospect of curtailing output or even closing down as a result of foreign competition. It is not the huge mass-production indus- tries, not the monopolies, or near monopolies, that fear the Increasing competition in- duced by additional tariff reductions. Such industries have the advantages of assembly- line production, automatic or semiautomatic machinery and many economies that come from the installation of extensive and costly processes. Their man-hour productivity is generally sufficiently high to offset the rela- tively high wages that prevail in this coun- try. In other, words, they enjoy a relatively low unit cost of production and can generally outproduce their foreign competitors. It is rather the smaller industries, pro- ducers of a wide variety of goods that are consumed throughout the country, that do feel and will feel yet more the impact of foreign competition if tariffs are further reduced. These industries are scattered over the whole country, from coast to coast, and represent the source of livelihood of thousands of communities and hundreds of thousands of workers. Such industries and producers are not properly represented as plutocratic groups, harboring sinister motives, bent on plunder- ing the public and lining their own pockets. Nor are they inefficient or obsolete industries, as measured by any reasonable standards. They are industries dedicated to the produc- tion of goods for which there is a public demand and a public need. Their employ- ees are similar to those found in any other industries, possessed of the necessary skill and animated by the same sound and healthy desires to retain their employment in sound enterprises. It is a libel against these people to classify them as greedy or inefficient. It is wrong to look upon operations that retain a greater element of artisanship than is present in pro- duction lines, as backward or obsolete. Such work is psychologically preferable to the monotonous, fractionalized and impersonal. ized stint on the moving lines of mass pro- duction. There is nothing to apologize for on behalf of the smaller industries of this country. At the core they may be more sound than the giants. They certainly hold a@ vital place in our national economy; and anything that threatens them is a threat to that economy and to the political system supported by it. To identify their efforts to prevent unfair foreign competition with the old symbols, typically set forth in the form of corpulent, greedy, wealthy, and sinister figures, always in silk hats, is not only wholly unjustified but a false representation. If such figures are still on the scene, they are no doubt sing. ing the praises of tariff reductions, for that is where their interests He today. They have not found it necessary in recent years to do so since the Mberals who are the avowed foes of monopoly and who profess their friendship for small business, are very effi- ciently doing the work of the giant industries for them in this field. They once learned in college that trusts and combinations favored protective tariffs and they have not awakened to the new facts since. While these liberals are baying at the base of the old tree, the fox is doing very well somewhere else. Recently he has been found more and more frequently run- ning with the hounds. Today he is having considerable success in having the hounds chase themselves around. It is possible that this committee may be able to bring this picture into a new per- spective. The opportunity ls enhanced be- ceuse the committee is taking a new ap- proach. This will give it a new view, at a different angle from the old. It will look at the problem from its bearing on employ~ ment and relative wage and living stand- ards. The import duty or other form of im- port control thus becomes a different instru- ment from the obsolete one condemned by Woodrow Wilson and Cordell Hull. It will be accepted as complementary to other eco- nomic supporting devices to which as a na- tion we have subscribed, such as national minimum wages and parity prices for farm products; not as a device fashioned for the enrichment of a favored segment of the economy. The purpose of minimum wage legislation is to make it possible for the employers who pay fair wages to continue to do so without exposing themselves to destructive competi- tion from thase who would adhere to lower standards. The object of parity prices for APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD farm products is to prevent one very im- portant producing group from falling be- low other groups with respect to living standards and as buyers of industrial prod- ucts. The object of the tariff is to prevent our wage and labor standards from crumbling under the onslaught of foreign competition which finds its advantage in lower wages and poorer working conditions. What has this objective to do with build- ing of trusts and monopolies? What has it to do with creating inefficiency? What is the difference in principle between this kind of protection and that provided by mini- mum wages or price parity for farm prod- ucts? There is no difference. Justification of the one carries justification for the other. How, on the other hand, reconcile the maintenance of minimum wages and parity farm prices with the open exposure of our workers to unfair competition from across the border or from abroad, where our mini- mum wage laws do not penetrate and where our labor organizations cannot through their own efforts establish higher standards? The need for protection of the American producer against unfair foreign competition is therefore, if anything, more urgent than protecting one employer in this country from the unfair competition of other domes- tic employers who pay less than the pre- vailing wages. Obviously there is nothing in the present demand for protection of labor standards against erosion from imports that can be placed in the same category as the old pro- tective tariff grants that were described rightly or wrongly as “grabs.” There is little possibility today that the employer groups would retain for themselves the major ad- vantages gained from ptotection. In fact we do not ask that any margin of advantage be conferred upon the American producer. The request is simply for competitive parity with imports, no more, no less. This would pro« vide no margin for consumer gouging or for extra profit returns or for inefficiency. Needless to say, the problem before us is both complex and perplexing. Because of the special conditions brought about by two world wars we face internationally certain pressing effects of the economic dislocations produced by the two conflicts. Specifically, we are faced with the dollar-gap problem at the very time when it is Imperative, if wa ourselves would remain solvent, that this country maintain an unusually high level of national income and that it do not counte- mance deflation. ‘We need to maintain a very high level of employment, a high level of wages, and a high level of production. This alone will maintain for us the high level of national in- come which is necessary to carry the heavy tax burden, which in turn is necessary to meet our high national obligations. These are now somewhat above the $40,000,000,000 level per year, and considering the interest payments on the national debt, benefits to veterans and outlays for national defense, not to mention foreign aid, there is no im- mediate prospect of any very appreciable re- duction in the budget. It appears, therefore, that we are com- mitted, whether we like it or not, to a high level of prices. There is no possibility this side of economic disaster of going back to the 1989 price level or anywhere near it. In other words, we are not in the same position with respect to foreign competition as be- fore the war. We are highly vulnerable to the onslaught of deflation. We are on an economic plateau and must stay there for some time to come. If we come down, the descent must be gradual. The claim of consumers to the lower prices that imports would bring if they were ad- mitted without any impediment or under lower ones than now exist, loses its force under the circumstances. We cannot have
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD much lower prices than the present ones and maintain the national income at its nec- essary high level. Those who consider methods of meeting the stubborn dollar-gap problem almost uni- formly conclude that this country must in- crease its imports. Otherwise Europe can- not earn the necessary dollars. Therefore, it is concluded, we should open up our market to a greater flow of imports. Also, it is said that unless we do this our exports will dry up and workers will be thrown out of jobs. This is all true—as far as it goes. What, on the other hand, will happen if imported goods, fowing inward more freely because of lower barriers, take a greater share of the consumer dollar in a buyer’s market? Imports never affect employment adversely in a seller’s market. That is because a seller’s market by its very nature means a shortage of goods in relation to demand. Imports superimposed upon a buyer’s market represent something quite different. What then if several hundred million or a@ billion dollars of additional goods are to come in from Europe? Our productive proc- esses as it is are today not absorbing the additional hundreds of thousands who come from the schools and colleges into the labor market every year. Under such conditions what will be the effect of increased imports? What, especially will these impacts be if the goods come in, duty paid, at prices that our producers cannot meet? Obviously, the impact will create pressure on employment and wages. Both will de- cline. This decline will be reflected in the national income and this lower income in turn will show up in lower tax collections. Shall we then raise taxes? That would hardly put workers back on the pay roll. One of the sources looked to for greater employment lies in outlays for plant expan- sion, new investments in capital goods, etc. When a wide variety of industries face the prospect of keener foreign competition in the home market, enthusiasm for plant ex- pansion and capital investment is dampened on a wide front. Thus another avenue of worker absorption is narrowed by imports. To date the Economic Cooperation Admin- istration has played the spotlight upon im- ports from Europe. But this is only half the problem. The other part is Japan. The threat to wage and labor standards from the Far East is even more perilous to our econ- omy than from Europe. There is no evidence that the Economic Cooperation Administra- tion problem has been integrated with the Japanese problem so far as the import ques- tion is concerned. Yet it is highly important that this be done. Altogether the import flow, under present levels of the tariff and quite apart from pro- posed additional reductions, presents a defla- tionary threat of high magnitude. The Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson, has conceded public responsibility for the workers who may be displaced as well as for industry that may be driven out of business by increased imports fostered as a means of bridging the dollar gap. The problem is not as simple as that. The type of foreign competition that will close factories in our smaller miscellaneous industries will also have sufficient power to put in motion a deflationary spiral. It is assumed that other industries would be in a position to absorb the retrained workers. This is a gratuitous assumption. Those displaced by imports would be added to those who are already unemployed. Where would the openings for reabsorption occur? Would the pottery or glass or hat workers, or fishermen, or wallpaper crafts- men, or oil workers, or workers in watch or shoe factories, who had been displaced by imports, go to Detroit and knock on the doors of the automobile industry, or to Pittsburgh to be taken into employment in the steel industry? How far would they get? What would the personnel officers in these centers say to these clamoring applicants for jobs, assuming that the displaced persons had the funds to make the trip or that the Government had provided them with trans- portation? Would they receive them with open arms? Obviously a number of difficult and embarrassing questions would arise. ‘The disruption of industry in its ac- customed form creates problems that re- quire something more for thir solution than an exercise in some mental chess game. Simply to reduce the dollar-gap problem to @ syllogism and then to proceed as if the solution to the problem had been found will not dispose of the stubborn facts. Nor does it help to minimize these difficulties as merely local or to dispose of them by reduc- ing them to a flat percentage of the whole economy. What will be the answer when the error of these glib assumptions comes crashing down on our heads? Who will stand up then and say that those who pro- tested were merely spokesmen of selfish in- terests? Or, worse yet, merely sectional groups? Thus simply to say that unless we increase our imports, our exports will decline and with it will come unemployment, is not even stating the whole problem, much less offer- ing a solution. It does raise the question whether the export interests are endowed with some particular quality that raises them above producers for the domestic market. In other words, why are the export interests on the side of the angels? What bestows a halo upon them? It has been said that there is a greater labor content in products made for export than in those that are imported. This is a half-truth cunningly put forward to con- vince the unwary and the layman. The statement is based on the fact that a heavy portion of our imports consist of raw prod- ucts and semimanufactures while our ex- ports are principally in the form of manu- factured goods. In 1948, for example, 48.2 percent of our imports consisted of crude materials and erude foodstuffs and 23 percent consisted of semimanufactures, bringing the total for these classes to 71 percent of our total im- ports. Finished manufactures represented only 18.4 percent of our imports and manu- factured foodstuffs only 10.3 percent or a total of 28.7 percent for the two classes. On the other hand, 56.5 percent of our ex- ports in 1948 consisted of finished manufac- tures and an additional 10.5 percent was in the form of manufactured foodstuffs. This made a total of 67 percent of our exports in manufactured products. Only 22 percent were in the form of raw materials and crude foodstuffs. Semimanufactures amounted to 10.9 percent. This is quite impressive. More work is ex- pended on manufactured products, which we predominantly export, than on raw materials, which we predominantly import. However, from 60 to 65 percent of our im- ports are free of duty and therefore do not enter into the discussion. Among these duty-free items are an important array of raw materials such as crude rubber, coffee, bananas, cocoa beans, raw furs, wood pulp, tin, tea, etc. Now, it is notoriously true that these prod- ucts come principally from Latin America and Asia. Imports from Europe, exclusive of Russia, on the other hand, normally con- sist principally of manufactured products. From 1936-40 over half of our imports from Europe consisted of such products, or 51.6 percent. If semimanufactures are included the percentage rises to 80.6. Obviously, the labor content in imports from Europe is as high as it is in our exports; and it is principally the manufactured items such as we import from Europe, that are dutiable, as contrasted with the raw materials . that we import principally from South Amer- ica and Asia, which are principally duty free. A3207 Therefore, the assertion that our exports have a higher labor content than our im- ports is true; but it would be faise to say the same thing about those of our imports that are dutiable; and only if it could truth- fully be said of them, would the statement have any meaning. On this score there is nothing then that sets the export interests apart as deserving of special governjental solicitude. The fact is that our postwar exports have been maintained at swollen levels because (1) the war-torn nations were dependent upon us for survival and reconstruction and (2) during the war we undertook to supply markets vacated by Japan, England, Ger- many, and other exporting countries. Now, as these nations are recovering, two expected results are emerging: (1) They do not need as large a volume of our goods as before and (2) they are resuming shipments to their prewar export markets. All this adds up to reduced exports from this country. Postwar readjustments would normally be expected to follow a course of this kind, and when they do the trend should not be the cause of surprise. On the other hand, our exporters would like to retain the war-gained markets. In order to do so they want their associate producers in this country to move over and make way for a greater market here for European goods than the latter enjoyed before the war. This increased market is to be offered as a substitute, in part at least, for the prewar markets that Europe enjoyed elsewhere and that we now continue to hold precariously. The purpose is to keep the shrinkage of exports to a minimum. And our Government is giving full support to this strange act of brotherly love. It is marshaling all the arguments in support thereof that can be found. The giant mass- producing and exporting interests are the presumed beneficiaries of the policy; but of substantive proof of the so-called over-all benefits of this program there is none. It is a mystery why, as a matter of na- tional policy, we should strain to attain a dependency on exports such as other nations would give a kingdom to be rid of. What are the alternatives? Assuming thdt imports were permitted simply to take their course, without further stimulation, what trend would they be ex- pected to take? Undoubtedly they would in- crease, so long as our national income re- mains at its present high level. Imports from Europe would be expected to gravitate toward their prewar share of this market. From 1921 to 1935, averaged by 5-year pe- riods (1921-25; 1926-30; 1981-85) Europe sup- plied 30 percent of our imports (30.4, 29.9, 30.1 percent, respectively, for the 5-year periods given above). During the 1926-40 5-year period this dropped to 25.3 percent. There- after a decline set in until the low point of 7.1 percent was reached in 1943. By 1946 this had climbed back to 16.3 per- cent, after which a slight decline set in. In 1948 it was 15.7 percent and in 1949 it fell to 13.9 percent. . On the other hand, more of our imports have come from Canada and South America. Fourteen and eight-tenths percent of our imports came from Canada in the 1936-40 period. In 1949 this percentage stood at 23.4 percent. In the case of South America the respective percentages were 13.6 percent and 22.6 percent. How much of this shift is permanent is not known. Before 1910 over 50 percent of cur imports came from Europe. During the First World War (1915-20) this share fell to 20.3 percent. Europe was more resilient after that war, and in the 1921~—25 period Europe rose to 30.4 percent as a source of our imports. De- spite this springback, Europe never recap- tured her pre-War I share of our market. In fact, the 1921-25 share was the highest 5-year percentage attained since then. Perhaps Europe has lost further to Canada and South America on a permanent basis.
A3208 However, it should be expected that she would regain a greater share of our market in the next 5 years than in the past 5. The over-riding question is not how big a share of the market but rather how large a share of how large a market. In other words, the prime consideration is the con- tinued prosperity of the United States. The question then arises what line of action, in this field, will be most conducive to continued properity and which would have the greatest influence in the opposite direc- tion. Would, for example, the reduction of tariffs in order to increase imports give greater assurance of continued high employ- ment and a high national income than the alternative of continuing financial aid to Europe without stimulating imports by further taruf reductions? There is little question that the discon- tinuance of aid would check exports even more than they are due to decline in any event. In other words, discontinuance of aid would shrink the market for American products. This would spell unemployment in the export industries. Would it be more conducive then to con- tinued prosperity, so far as this is dependent upon action in this field, to stimulate im- ports by tariff concessions as 4 means of sustaining exports at a lesser reduced rate, than it would be to let the imports alone and make up the dollar-gap by grants and loans? Reduced tariffs would cause unemploy- ment in a wide variety of industries in this country. This would perhaps cost the Treasury as much as European aid. If so, nothing would be saved and, in fact, much greater unemployment would he risked through the onset of deflation. Continued cash outlays for Europe would spread the burden equally over the country. Europe would continue to buy here. Exports would be subsidized to the extent of the dollar-gap, as has been done under the Economic Cooperation Administration. If Europe can regain a share of our market ap- proaching her prewar share, without specific stimulation, she will earn a considerably greater number of dollars than in recent years, provided our economic Jevel has not declined. Our tariffs are already appreciably lower than in 1939. Two multilateral trade agreements have been negotiated since then, as well as several bilateral agreements. This course would avoid the grave risk of driving the smaller miscellaneous industries in this country to the wall, throwing hun-~ dreds of thousands of the workers out of em~ ployment and pressing heavily upon the la- bor market in the mass-production indus- tries. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the present investigation is pointed in the right direction. It is pointed at the phase of the import problem that most con~ cerns the workers in this country: namely, the effect of imports on employment and labor standards. As indicated at the be- ginning, there has been a great need of a new approach to the import question. This new approach has the supreme virtue of ad-= dressing itself to the most important phase of import competition, i. e., the effect on our workers and their living standards. No Appeasement EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE A. DONDERO OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Con- GRESSIONAL ReEcorp, I include therein an editorial by William Green, of the Amer- ican Federation of Labor, appearing in the April issue of the American Federa- tionist. This article should be read by every Member of the House. Our attitude as a Nation toward the Kremlin, having been one of appeasement, has undoubt- edly encouraged the Moscow Govern- ment in its policy of irritation, obstruc- tion, and opposition to world peace. No APPEASEMENT (By William Green) The crucial fact that blocks world peace ts the existence of an aggressive nation which at every important turn in national events reiterates its dogma the* cviitr ict. and com- munism cannot exist .o\" ler .: the same world, This dogma ignores the fact that they did exist together until the U. S. 5. R. set out to execute its plans for aggression after the Second World War. Looking back, we can clearly see that at every strategic phase of the war the conditions insisted on by the Kremlin were in accord with its blue- print for later aggression. . The Communist political commissars ac- companied the Russian Army with the secret police as camp followers. Trained commu- nists moved in as the military lines moved west. The essential conquest took place be- fore the West awakened to the “~pties*cws of the Soviet possession of tis 3. Kant. Likewise with Asia, where under secret terms of treaties we reversed pledges to our ally, China, while the U. S. S, R. made ready to move intg North China and into the heart- Jand of Asia, In a period of a few brief years, without formal war declaration but by strategy, trick- ery, and invention of nonmilitary methods of securing the fruits of military aggression, the U.S. 8. RB. now dominates eastern Europe to the Elbe, more than half of Asia, and has in- creased the number of people under Mos- cow’s rule from 200,000,000 to 800,000,000. The Kremlin is poised now in Berlin, where weeks ago the Soviet agents announced @ youth demonstration to take over the former capital. The Communists have mobilized east German police forces and are said to have numbers of Asian divisions either in Prussia or Poland. The U. S. S. R. is also hovering over southeast Asia in the hope of obtaining control of the almost unlimited re sources of that region. Turkey and Iran are also in danger as well as the dissident Tito of Yugoslavia. We are in a serious situation which the diplomats of the democratic world failed to avert. Our own Government and many of our people failed at first to understand Com- munist purposes and methods. There is yet time to prevent the iron cur- tain from shutting in if we move promptly and effectively. Many in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe do not have the faintest idea of what democracy is or what it means, But evidence of resistant groups still fighting against arbitrary tyranny, still trying to have a decent life proves that human detestation of tyranny has not been killed. The frequent purges in the U. S.S, R. and controlled areas, wiping out all who have liberal tendencies and who do not servilely follow each new twist of the politburo, indi- cate that the Kremlin seeks security at home for some new aggression. The American Federation of Labor is one organizatiomn that bas never trusted the Kremlin. We were long a voice in the wilder~ ness, calling for an international trade. union federation free from Stalin’s orders. At last such an organization has been estab- lished. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions is naw ready to function, It will be ably supported by the International Transport Workers Federation, the heroic APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD organization which rescued workers in Axis territory from Hiutler’s fury during the war and furnished aid to free trade-unions and to the resistance movements in many coun- tries. This is the organization that will rally freedom-loving seamen and longshoremen to land defense equipment in Europe under the North Atlantic Treaty. These two great or~ ganizations of free labor should have the active support of our Government. But this is not enough. All organized groups of democratic citizens in this and other countries should band together to get aid to the underground forces courageously fighting the cause of democracy for us. Em-~ ployers, technicians, professional groups, we ltiers oreenizaticrs should make their Clot jae? Wat 6rd werk steadily for the cause of liberty until totalitarian despotism is defeated. . This is not an easy undertaking. It will require sacrifice and devotion to carry 1t through, but each age develops those to do its distinctive work. Every sat ort ci con ciety should assume its res vu. "oot winning the cold war which 0° Warten initiated and are directing at our whole Nation. We have many citizens who are familiar with foreign countries and can serve our Na~ tion and the cause of human liberty by help- ing to organize and maintain resistance in the nations grabbed by Stalin. These re- sistance group? would provide the best possi- ble 1r.eiliyence sources to guide all our efforts in the cold war. This is one contribution all groups and all exiles can make for achieving lasting peace. Three Extremely Interesting News Items EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. COMPTON I. WHITE OF IDAHO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 26, 1950 Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, there appeared on the front page of the April 28 issue of the Washington Star a brief news item about ECA purchase of Canadian wheat for England, which should be of considerable interest to United States taxpayers. Then in look- ing through my files I came to another news item printed in the Star of Feb- ruary 23 reporting ECA purchases, grants, and importations which I am sure must be of interest to the American people. For fear that these news items might refer to the same transaction I conferred with the ECA to ascertain just how much wheat we were buying with our money from one part of the British Empire to give to another part of the Empire with the result that I learned that in the month of September 1949 that a British delegation above the min- isterial level came to this country and reported to our Government the rapid deterioration of the United Kingdom’s dollar and gold reserves and that a con- ference was had with the upper echelons within our Departments of State, Treas- ury, Agriculture, and the ECA, with the result that an arrangement was made for the ECA to purchase $175,000,000 worth of Canadian wheat to be given to the United Kingdom. It now develops that commitments for the entire $175,- 000,000 to purchase Canadian wheat
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD have been issued as well as $30,000,000 to procure United States wheat for the United Kingdom have also been issued. In view of this situation and these transactions financed by the United States taxpayers it is of interest to read the third news item concerning recent gold discoveries and mining develop- ment in South Africa taken from the May 3 issue of the Pathfinder. [From the Washington Star of April 28, 1950] EriraIn Gers ECA WHEAT Great Britain was granted $85,000,0CO today to buy Canadian wheat under the Marshall plan. The Economic Cooperation Adminis- tration said the grain-buying will begin im- mediately and continue until June 30. De- livery must be made by August 31, [From the Washington Star of April 23, 1950] BririsH Ger $45,000,000 rn ECA Funrs FoR Weat From UNIrep STaTEs AND CANADA Great Britain today received authority to buy $45,000,000 worth of American and Ca- nadian wheat under the Marshall plan. The Economic Cooperation Administration announced the recovery spending approval in new foreign-aid allotments to seven Euro- pean countries. ECA said the British funds will be used to buy $30,060,C00 of Canadian wheat. The remaining $15,000,000 is earmarked for wheat and flour from the United States. The Agency set a May 31 deadline for com- pletion of contracts for the wheat shipments. It said deliveries of the Canadian grain must be made by July 31 and the American deliv- eries by June 30. NORWAY REQUEST APPROVED It was the first big grain purchase by Brit- ain approved this year by ECA. Buying of the Canadian grain was okayed, ECA officials said, to enable Britain to meet its commitments under the international wheat agreement, ECA also granted Norway $2,150,000 to buy United States wheat and wheat flour. De- livery specifications were the same as for the British purchases in this country. OTHER COMMITMENTS The day’s transactions brought total Mar- shall-plan recovery commitments to $8,374,= 444,000 since start of the European recovery program nearly 2 years ago. Included in the latest grants were: France, $1,275,000 to buy crude oil and petroleum from the United States, the Middle East, and Latin America as well as $300,000 worth of nonferrous ores from Canada; Sweden, $730,000 to pay for industrial metals, chemicals, and professional equipment from the United States and Canada; Holland, $300,000 worth of nonferrous ores from Latin America and naval stores from the United States; Portugal, $220,000 to pay ocean-trans- portation costs; and Ireland, $148,000 worth of United States motor vehicles. [From Pathfinder of May 3, 1950] AFRICAN GOLD RusH In April 1946, near the little South African village of Odendaalsrust, 150 miles southwest of Johannesburg, a drill crew looking for gold cut a reef about three-fourths of a mile deep. Anxiously, they pulled up a sample piece of the rock. Assayers found the sample had enough gold, at $35 an ounce, to make a ton of sim- ilar ore worth $2,000—275 times richer than the average grade of ore from the Rand+ 1 Witwatersrand (Ridge of White Waters) is the famous gold field near Johannesburg and, until the Odendaalsrust strike, the greatest known concentration of gold. GOLD Unlike the rush of ’86, the rush of ’46 was to the London and Johannesburg stock mar- kets, not to the open fields. The open fields were controlled by five big Johannesburg mining companies. By last week they were spending £200,000,000 developing 13 mines— all within a 14-mile radius of a fast-growing boom town called Welkom. Four years ago on Welkom’s present site there wasn’t a single hut. Today there are 500 houses and 500 more are going up—most of them with electricity and hot water. Like New York City, Welkom’s biggest prob- lem is water. The miners strike plenty of it but it’s either salty or brackish. To get good water they had to build a pipe line from the Vaal River which is now pumping in about 500,000 gallons a day. By 1958—when all 13 mines will be operating—47,000,000 gallons a day will be needed. The man with the biggest stake in the Welkom gold mines is Sir Ernest Oppen- heimer, a modern Cecil Rhodes. As a multi- millionaire head of the Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa, Sir Ernest owns 7 of the 13 mines in the Welkom area. But that isn’t all the property Oppie owns. Born in Friedberg, Germany, in 1880, the son of a Jewish cigar merchant, Sir Ernest went in 1902 to head a London diamond concern’s South African office. In 1917 he got the break that helped make him one of the richest men in the world. Oppie heard of some gold fields in what is now Enown as the Rand, that seemed prom- ising. Unable to get his firm to bid for them, he went to London and got an intro- duction to Herbert Hoover, who in turn in- troduced him to J. P. Morgan. He persuaded Morgan to back him with £100,000,000 in United States credits, formed the Anglo- American Corp., and bought the gold fields. DIAMONDS Within a few years, and with the help of the South African Government, he got cons trol of some diamond mines, After forcing himself into the tight London diamond syn-= dicate, he started after the famous De Beers House. Quietly he bought 200,000 shares of De Beers stock and in 1926 told the directors that he wanted to be made a maember of the board. Three years later he was chairman. He brought his mining companies through the crash of 1929 and the depression. To- day, besides his gold interests, Oppie con-« trols 9 percent of the world’s copper, 45 per= cent of South Africa’s coal, 50 percent of its iron and steel production, and he sits on top of the diamond monopoly by controlling 95 percent of the world’s yearly output. From the 13 Welkom mines, when they reach full production, South Africa and Sir Ernest are expecting an annual flow of ore worth £50,000,000. Says Oppie, and he cer= tainly ought to know, “It’s the most exten-~ sive mining development the world has ever known.” Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr, Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I include the eighth article by Mr. Frank Waldrop on the infiltration of commu- nism in our country; A3209 BiccEest STory (By Frank C. Waldrop) The Washington, D. C., housewife who put her laundry in the home washer yesterday may not know it but she is a figure of scan= dal before the Communists of the world, from the Kremlin in Moscow to the State Depart- ment in this city. They have to see her in that light or else deny their own story of the world. And that no Communist dares to do. Just the same, she does in fact explode the politics and philosophy of the man who organized the Communist view of things, Karl Heinrich Marx, of Trier, Germany. Marx happened to live in a moment when the world was just learning what can be done with machinery. But he was crazy, so he spent the years of his life, 1818 to 1862, in a personal war against civilization, which he hated because it out- witted him. Civilization itself, in those years, learned how to make machinery produce and move goods at a rate and volume unimaginable to the world before. There were disasters as well as triumphs. But just the same civilization was on the rise, wealth and light were growing. But not for Marx. The machine, to his mind, was being used to depress and destroy. And he laid it down as inevitable that as machinery increased its grip on civilization, violent revolts would follow. Such is the starting point for the doctrine of scientific Marxism, which holds that as a nation becomes increasingly industrial the contradictions of capitalism make revolt automatic, inevitable, and irresistible. The chief industrial nations of Marx’s time were England, France, and Germany. And s0 Marx died convinced that the laws of his science would, as sure as the sunrise, estab- lish a dictatorship of the proletariat over the machines through revolution generated in their great manufacturing cities. He could not imagine a condition such as we have in modern America, in which ma- chinery has been made the household drudge, and luxuries beyond the reach of kings are made for one-room apartments and pre- fabricated cottages. If Marx could ride on the Pennsylvania Railroad between New York and Washington, today, and see the television aerials sticking out of even the shabbiest slums, he would have to declare either his eyes or his science a lie. But the basic idiocy of Marx’s story of the world was proved long before the arrival of television and automatic washing machines. Marx, in his ignorance, laid down the rule that the more industrialized a nation, the sooner its downfall and overturn to the scientific socialism of his design. That is why the embarrassment of facts strains scientific Marxism so hard today that Communists all over the world live under the most rigid and brutal discipline. They do not dare look at the world as others do, or let anybody under their rule do so. For the world of fact nowhere has obeyed | the dictates of scientific Marxism. For example, when a handful of Commu- nists actually captured a nation, they did so, not in the most industrial part of the world, as Marx had said must follow in ac- cord with his law of behavior, but in a land that had hardly emerged from the forest primeval. Of all the states on the continent of Eu- rope, Russia in 1900 was the least industrial and the most devoted to farm life. Such a nation, according te the science of Marxism would be the last to arrive in the Socialist wonderland. And so it came about that the last pre- tensions of truth in scientific Marxism were blown to bits by World War’I. The great industrial powers were in ter~ rible collision, then. Civilization itself was