A3$39 It is becoming more difficult for domestic workers with families to get jobs in compe- tition with imported contract labor. In some areas of California it is a definite handi- cap, often a fatal one, for a farm worker to have a family and to ke a local resident. Centract workers are preferred because they are single and must live on the farm. They must room in the ccrporation bunkhouse, thus becoming internes who are unfamiliar with the customs, practices, and standards of the outside community and who for that reason are easy marks for the many subtle forms of exploztation practiced upon them. We of the National Farm Labor Union have no hesitation in saying, in the light of our experience over the past 4 years, that the labor-recruiting agreements have been used to support a Nation-wide attack on the wage scales of farm labor. A major part of the present crisis in the Central Valley of Cali- fornia is due to the immediate and direct, as well as to the remote and indirect, effects of these agreements. The conversion of the great Central Valley into a hunger bowl dur- ing this winter is a national spectacle for which the authors and admiuistrators of those agreements must take a large share Of racqaynethilitn Govt. t.1ec wage cuts could have been accomplished only by the weakening of the borcrininz power of the domestic agricul- uzf¢l wolers This, too, has been a prac- tical byproduct of the agreements. The Di- Giorgio Fruit Corp. of California used more than a hundred contract nationals behind a picket line at the most critical point in a strike that has now been going on for more than 2 years. More recently, legalized “wet- backs” and nationals worked behind the picket lines in the September 1949 strike of cotton pickers, who successfully resisted the attempt of the corporation farmers to reduce the wage scale from $3 to $2.50 per hundred pounds. There 1s no large-scale farm enterprise in the United States where a peaceful, lawful effort to maintain wages of domestic workers is not threatened with failure by the actual or potential use of Mexican contract labor. Guided by our own experience in this mat- ter, we can already suggest some of the prac- tical results of the agreements as they af- fect labor. These agreements have already accomplished, in greater or lesser degree, the tcetlowirt: 1. ‘isc; lave excluded organized labor from the negotiations preceding such agree- ments. 2. They have undermined wages and col- lective bargaining for domestic farm workers. 3. They have encouraged the infiltration of other crafts and trades such as building and food processing, by underpaid, unor- ganized and unorganizable labor. 4. They have facilitated the dumping of Mexican unemployment into the United States. 5. They have set up the principle of the determination of domestic wage scales in a foreign country exclusively through gov- ernment channels. 6. They have set up the practice of gov- ernment officials negotiating for workers without the right or power of the latter to change or revoke the resulting agreements. i. They have established the principle of compulsory arbitration. 8 They have enabled the National Gov- ernment of one party to the agreements to surrender the constitutional rights of its eitizens 9. They have made illegal entry into the United States the basis of a labor contract. 10. They have set up different standards for wages and working conditions for do- mestic and foreign workers. 11. They have invested government offi- cials with the right and duty of acting as agents for finance farmers and other cor- porate interests who operate on a national and international scale. 12. They have prohibited the collection of union dues. 13. They have evaded domestic law and existing international machinery bearing on the matters with which the agreements have been concerned. 14. They have restricted collective bar- gaining by the supposed beneficiaries of the agreements. 15. They have fostered and given wide currency to musconceptions and fallacies which will not stand up to honest reporting and forthright analysis. On each of these counts, a good deal might be written. Suffice it to stress two of them. The violation of existing laws is, I think, involved every time foreign labor is con- tracted without the previous public hearing and investigation by the United States At- torney General called for by Federal statutes. In addition, the legalization of the status of illegal entrants for the purposes of a labor contract is a usurpation of congressional authority. Had the Federal Congress wanted to amend the immigration law to make il- legal entry into this country anything other than a felony, undoubtedly 1t would have done so. The amendment, however, was ac- complished by an executive agreement at the recommendation of the Department of State. Cn a different plane We can say, with justi- fication, that the negotiators of these agree- ments also evaded or ignored existing inter- national machinery that by this time might have been adapted to the proper, orderly and necessary movement of farm workers hbe- tween Mexico and the United States. But here also the negotiators have chosen to fol- low a bilateral, semisecret course. The Pan American Union and the International Office of the United Nations exist for the declared purpose of achieving international friend- ship through the protection and improve- ment of living standards. However, in the matter of the recruitment of Mexican work- ers for employment in the United States both institutions have been ignored. More extensive comment is called for under the head of misconceptions, fallacies, and economic myths which have been given currency by the apologists of these agree- ments. These myths are four in number: (1) that contract workers have not displaced domestic workers; (2) that domestic workers are not available; (3) that the need for con~ tract labor is determined by the free play of the labor market, and (4) that wages for foreign contract labor are set on the basis of a@ domestic prevailing scale. The agreements have specifically pro- hibited the displacement of domestic workers by contract laborers. Displacement, never- theless, has been and is taking place on a large scale. There is direct displacement, as in California, where nationals and legal- ized “wetbacks” are given jobs at lower wages when domestic labor refuses to work for those wages. We have checked field crews in which the proportion of nationals to domestic workers was as high as 6 to 1. Direct substitution of nationals, however, is the lesser of the forms of displacement. There is indirect displacement which takes the form of a series of waves of migration of domestic workers from the border areas northward. These migrants are retreating from the low- wage pressure created by nationals, prin- cipally in the Imperial and Rio Grande areas. The Mexican colonies in California’s Cen~ tral Valley are growing rapidly by the accre- tion of families long established in com~- munities just north of the border. This chain reaction has forced thousands of fam- ilies to take to the road again, forming a body of displaced persons for whom Con- gress has as yet provided no relief, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The notion that domestic workers are not available and that therefore the importa- tion of contract labor for agricultural em- ployment is justified rests on a personal interpretation by Federal officials as to what constitutes availability. The following in- terpretation was set forth by one employ-~ ment official of the State of California when he said that “foreign labor will not be used except as a supplementary labor force when domestic workers are not available and will- ing to accept the job offering.” Now, this job offering is never made in terms of a decent minimum wage or other minimum standards. To these officials the refusal of a domestic cotton picker in 1949 to work for $2.50 a hundred pounds would constitute unavailability and would justify certification of need of foreign labor. That is what has happened also in the Citrus Belt of California and in the Cotton Belt of the South. There is no such thing as availability pure and simple. Conditions are always inherent in a job—wages, hours, treatment accorded employees, etc. Stripping the employer- worker relationship to an economic fig leaf is merely a device to protect negotiators of international labor agreements from indecent exposure. Thira in the list of current myths is the one that runs to the effect that certification of need is determined by the free play of forces in the labor market. But determina- tion and certification of need do not run this inexorable course In California, certifica- tion of need actually starts with the county farm labor advisers. It rises through eche- lons of other advisers, past State employ- ment Officials who believe it to be an axiom that some crops and certain areas require foreign contract labor, and up to the USES and the Department of State, whose approval is automatic, Certification of need under these procedures 1s not an economic but a political process loaded against the workers. In brief, there are no agreed standards sub- ject to open hearing and public inquiry by which need can be measured and certifica- tion justified. Finally, there is the fallacy that foreign contract workers do not push farm wages down or serve as instruments for depressing labor conditions because they are paid the prevailing wage in the area of employment. This is the argument that has been most persistently thrown at organized labor by government and corporation farming apolo- gists of the agreements. Outside of agriculture, the concept of the prevailing wage is clear enough. The Davis-Bacon Act and the Walsh-Healey Act, for example, both specifically state that the prevailing wage in a craft or trade is the wage which has heen set by the Secretary of Labor. The determination is made after a check of wage rates based on union con- tracts In California, the labor code specifi- cally states that the prevailing wage is the wage determined by the public body which awards the contract. It seems obvious that outside of agriculture the elements of a prevailing wage are, first, determination of wage rates for the given type of employment as set forth in collective bargaining agree- ments, and second, a declaration by a public agency fixing the actual level of the pre- vailing wage Neither of these conditions exists in Cali- fornia agriculture, nor, so far as I know, any- where else. There is no public body that makes a declaration fixing the prevailing agricultural wage. There are no union con- tracts upon which such a declaration might be based. The State Department of Agricul- ture of California has said that there is no so-Called prevailing wage in that State. The United States Department of Agriculture has said that there is no so-called prevailing wage in agriculture. Every official agency of the Federal Government seems to know that
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD there is no so-called prevailing wage for farm labor—everyone, that is, except the United States Employment Service and the Depart- ment of State. The closest the State em- ployment service of California comes to this concept is the “most common wage rate’”’ which it uses in its weekly reports. Since the prcv-itiv+ --pge does not exist in United State iin .cr ite, the use of that ex- pression must be regarded as an unconscious or deliberate economic myth. Why is it so persistently used as such? The answer seems to be that it distracts attention from the actual, practical methods by which wages are set in agriculture. This is the way it is done in California. Wages are set by meetings of growers in each major crop. These meetings take the form of “wage conferences” tor cotton, grapes, raisins, and other products. The conferences are held under the auspices of organizations directly influenced by or highly sympathetic to the labor views of the Asso- ciated Farmers of California. Workers and labor contractors are invited to these con~- ferences, but neither of these groups may vote. Resolutions and action upon proposals may be taken only by the growers’ delegates. The aims, methods, and intent of these “wage conferences” have been aptly described by one who has had much experience in or- ganizing them in the following words: “(the conferences) are subject to the wishes of the growers.” Their object is “‘to enable growers to discuss and recommend a prevailing wage rate covering the harvesting of their crop.” Here, then, is the real prevailing wage rate. It is the rate set by the growers under the auspices of a private organization controlled or influenced by corporation farming. Then, by what would appear to be sheer coincidence, some Mexican Government offi- cial announces in Mexico City that his gov- ernment is willing to accept a certain pre- vailing wage for contract laborers. Thus, in the spring of 1949, when the wage-cutting offensive in California was just getting under way, the Mexican Government announced that it would accept a minimum wage of. 60 cents an hour. This was from 20 to 30 cents an. hour less than farm labor was receiving in various parts of California. Again, in September 1949, there was the same notable coincidence. While the corpo- ration-dominated San Joaquin Valley Agri- cultural Labor Bureau was reducing cotton picking rates from $3,00 to $2.50 a hundred pounds, the United States and Mexican nego- tiators of the current agreement had agreed on $2.50 a hundred as the rate to be paid the contract Mexican workers. It would ap- pear, therefore, that the so-called prevailing wage is the scale fixed by finance farming, certified by our Federal Government and ap- proved by the Mexican Government. In the face of all this, we continue to read statements coming from Washington and Mexico City that the Executive agree- ment of August 1, 1949, is actually helping to raise farm wages in this country; that do- mestic workers are not being displaced; that domestic workers are not available; and that prevailing wages are being respected. But since these assertions do not fit the facts, a theory is needed to explain the tenacity with which the agreement is defended. The only theory that seems to be in accord with the facts as the National Farm Labor Union sees them is this: the Department of State is keeping the Mexican-United States labor recruiting machinery in a state of what might be called activated moth balls. The Department appears to be expecting a return, sooner or later, to a crisis like the one in which the original agreement was born. When that next crisis is reached, this labor- recruiting machinery can simply be ex-, panded. It need not be negotiated, arranged, or assembled. . This, it would seem, is what makes the American farm worker a peacetime expenda< ble 1n the eyes of the State Department. If that 1s the way it is, let us face it and stop kidding. However, let us also face the con- sequences, immediate and possibly remote. First of all, there is the possibility, slowly emerging as a fact, that the machinery of diplomacy may be used throughout the Western Hemisphere to undermine living standards and labor’s rights. There is more than one example of this on the record besides the Mexican-American labor agree- ments. Secondly, by this device encouragement is also given to undermining the faith of the workers in international, multilateral ar- rangements which are supposed to work for their good and welfare. Today the farm workers of the United States and Latin America have no reason to place their trust in either current diplomatic practices or in existing inter-American or international in- stitutions that are so far removed from the pressing, everyday problems of bread and butter, of good faith, and mutual considera- tion. The National Farm Labor Union proposes @ reconstruction of the entire approach to the recruitment and employment of foreign farm workers in the United States. That reconstruction should be made along the fol- lowing lines: Certification of need of foreign workers should be made by public body of which the American Federation of Labor should be represented. Determinations should be made after public hearing and through investigation of agricultural labor conditions. Wage rates should he based on prevailing wages as established in collective bargaining agreements with the corporation type of farms. Availability of domestic workers should be determined on the basis of compliance by employers with standards as to wages and living conditions as set in collective bargaining agreements, If it is established that under these safe- guards there is an actual, demonstrated need for foreign-contract labor, such labor should be contracted on the basis of equal condi- tions for all. Bona fide, free trade-unions should be parties to the agreements. Work- ers should be members of such unions with transferable membership for the duration of the contract. The unions should also have full status for active participation in the negotiations for such contracting. We believe that these premises are sound, They would vork under changing conditions. They would make it possible to entrust the routine administration of such agreements to competent international organizations. They would also remove Mexican-United States labor relations from the dubious com- pany of economic arrangements between both countries which today make the farm workers the pawns in the game. The union would welcome a factual investigation by the Congress of the United States of those arrangements between the two Governments which on the hand push the people of Mexi- co into steadily more desperate poverty and on the other drive them out of their coun- try to seek temporary relief on the farms of the United States. There is a connection, we contend, between the exodus of Mexican workers to the United States, and, for in- stance, the steadily rising electric light and power rates In Mexico, and the critical short- ages of meat and other staple foods. During the dangerous days of World War II hundreds of thousands of Mexican citi- zens helped save the crops in the United States. They also helped to swell the profits of corporation farms that have made the last 10 years a boom decade in American agriculture. We of the National Farm Labor Union do not propose to forget, however, that in both A3931 Mexico and the United States farm workers are dying in poverty and starvation. We do not propose to forget that thousands of farm families in both countries are living in shacks and even under trees. We do not propose to let the diplomats of either or both countries force the workers of Mexico and the United States to share a deepening pov- erty. We, as wo‘kers and citizens of the Americas, will find the way toward a more decent life for all, But to find that way we must first dispel the fog in which we find ourselves today. I Am An American Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. LOUIS B. HELLER OF NEW YORE . IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. HELLER. Mr Speaker, it is on I Am an American Day that all citizens of our great and beloved country become acutely conscious of their precious demo- cratic heritage of freedom. On this day all Americans—whether Catholic, Jew, or Protestant, and no matter of what national descent—rise to acclaim the ideals and truths embodied in our Con-~ stitution and symbolized in Old Glory. It is in this spirit that I insert in the CONGRESSIONAL REcoRD an inspiring I Am an American Day speech by his eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman, archbishop of New York: FREEDOM BY RicHT DIVINE (Address of His Eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman, on the occasion of I Am an American Day in Lawrence, Kans., April 29, 1950) I am come to Lawrence to be one with you who have gathered here from many cor~ ners of this heartland of our country, proud- Iy to participate in the observance of I Am an American Day. The name “Lawrence” has a familiar ring to me, for the city of Lawrence is not far from the New England village where I was born and educated in our blessed American way of life. Your city of Lawrence not only carries the same name as the great industrial center in my native Massachusetts, but it was, I learned, actually settled in the mid- nineteenth century by pioneers from the Bay State, men crud women who bravely made their way across vast, unsettled regions, to what is now this State of Kansas, in the very center of our glorious and free United States. In devotion and gratitude, fervently I implore God to bless, protect and prosper the people of Kansas, and all America’s varied peoples who, living and working as one, make great our free and noble Nation, And I ask you to join with me in thanks to God for His many gifts to us, and make of gratitude a litany; for liberty more dear than life, for faith and strength to face the prob- lems of a world adrift. For these and other priceless gifts, let us now bow, and pray for all our Nation’s valiant sons who fought and died to win and save for us God’s gift of liberty, the liberty that gives to you and me, and every Man down through the centuries to be blest by birth or adoption, the privi- lege to say “I am an American.” Liberty is America’s beacon flaming from every hill and spire. Liberty is America’s pledge to peoples yet unborn, both near and far, to pass on God's torch of freedom, its
A8932 light undimmed by the mock-light of atheist minds. Liberty is America’s glory, for, in this land liberty was born; in this land freedom to exercise God-given rights was won; in this land hunted minorities found haven and homes; in this land enterprise and labor have prospered. Throughout the life-span of our United Statzs unnumbered millions of America’s sons have bravely died, ss unnumbercd milhons have no less nobly lived in sacri- fice, those millions who have lost their loved ones, those veterans who have lost their limbs, their eyes, their normal lives, to pre- serve for us our hberty—and—they hoped and believed, our peace. Hosts of these soldier-dead stand suppliant beside us, countless trumpets warning us not to re- treat but staunchly to live and united work for peace, lest their triumph dearly bought for us with priceless blood should yet be lost. What they did yesterday for us, we now must do for them, and bear the burden dropped from out their devoted, dying hands, lift up the torch that they put down, this torcn—America—the hope of all the world, But if we are to endure as a Nation of free, strong-hearted men, we must, in unity, stand sentinel against the potent, growing Gangers of faithless, traitorous Communists and Communist-sympathizers who are using their freedom to destroy our freedoms. They are the host of traitorous men and women who, living beneath the protection of our American flag, enjoy the priceless privilege of being citizens of our republic, while their own allegiance is actually pledged to an em- blem representing a theory of government op- posed to everything for which Old Glory stands. And on this I Am An American Day, and every day of our years, it is the privi- lege and the duty of statesmen entrusted with the richest heritage of any people in the world, as well as the duty of every man who tills the farm, who toils in the factory, who tends the shop, who teaches in the school, who preaches in the pulpit, who graces the home, to pledge his plighted word devotedly to live and work courageously to fight and bravely to die if necessary, to pro- tect America from violation, this America, our America, the world’s treasure-house of free- dom. From the very birth of our country all her varied peoples have lived and worked to~ gether to make and keep our country con- secrate. Yet we, their heirs, have often failed to put the proper price upon the precious things of life that our forefathers and sons bought for us with blocd. Freedom is one of these. But freedom 1s not a treas- ure, which, once possessed, cannot be lost, and it will be lost for us and for our children and their children unless it is cherished, de- fended and preserved as it was fought for and won, Loudly, proudly man may proclaim “I am an American.” But that isnot enough. Men must prove their pride and love for America by daily deeds of loyal, selfless living. They must remember that the very history of our United States is the story of the ceaseless struggle to Keep alive the ideas and ideals of liberty and democracy and to defend them from enemies within and outside our borders. We must awaken to the truth that America is not immortal. Is America any safer from mastery by communism than was any Euro- pean country where we witnessed the killing and enslavement of whole peoples by Com- munists who, with the shedding of blocd, became as if drunken with it? I have seen the ruins of great cities and countries, civilizations that were seemingly indestructible, yet ruined through internal decay. And we Americans must not delude ourselves that we can go on forever despite our enemies, and, above all, despite ourselves. In this atomic age of discord, with nations not only warring against one another but divided within themselves, where men make _ meckery of the meaning and majesty of faith, America stands before all nations and peo- lec, envious of none and fearing none, desir- cus of nothing from other nations save thelr respect and cooperation in the rehabilitation and salvation of mankind. We shall our- selves be guilty of contributing to our coun- try’s destruction if we do not protect her against the lust-born hates of Communist treacheries sweeping like scythes across the world, marring and despolling even the fair face of free America. For we are free men with the right to be free, defending the American way of life; free to adore the true God, loving His heart and believing His mind; free to overcome want for body and soul by sweat of our brow in gainful pursuits; free to conquer fear of losing God-given rights through godless laws and ungodly foes. Our righ*s are ours by right Divine, eternal to have and to hold against all aggression; to be cherished not as grants by law or gifts of men of power for we are free men because God is free—and we are His image and likeness. From out the loins of every land under the sun came forth men and women of all races and peoples made one by the common will of all their sons, freely to work and wor- ship as they built their common home— America. Their strong backs bent beneath the log chain and the tow rope. They toiled beneath the blazing benediction of the sun, and their arms and faces bronzed in the wheat fields and the logging camps. They teemed into this promised land of America from across the far plains of Europ?, from the Mediterranean basin to the storm-beaten shores of Baltic countries—scene of the re- cent murders of the latest of America’s mar- tyrs. They came, labored, and suffered as ail men are fated to and they sought and found here their daily bread as they had done of old in their fatherland. There was, however, this difference: They earned their bread here sweetened with the hope of security and personal liberty, a peo- ple conscious of the Fatherhood of God, willing to contribute humbly yet generously to the brotherhood of man. And it should be the self-imposed command of every Amer- ican citizen and patriot to live, to love, and if need be to fight and to die for God’s glory, our country, and our brother, as, with avowed allegiance to his faith, his flag, and his fel- low man, he aspires to become as were his forefathers the inspiration, not only of his own generation, but generations of Ameri- cans yet unborn. Yes, to fight and to die for a cause is heroic; but to love and live for God, country, and neighbor is no less glorious. Therefore, do I pray you all, open wide your hearts to God, let His love pour in and nourish you as in the full-bloomed glory of His grace you find within yourselves a strength beyond even the strength to die; a strength which is the strength for what we love, to live. This was the supreme spiritual strength which fortified our forefathers as they trod their way of the Cross, bearing in their bos- oms the torch of freedom which God Him- self lighted with the fires of His Spirit. Heirs are we of the bequeathing ages as our country stands today on the top of time,’ on its sunlit summit Icoking down the slopes which humanity has scaled from base slavery to rightful liberty. Heirs are we of the God of freedom; free men by law and by God. And free men we shall always be or die mingling our blood with the blood of our sires, who chose a thousand glorious deaths to the inglorious life of slavery. We dare not be traitor to their sacred trust—our Nation’s heritage and the world’s hope. We dare not barter liberty for lunacy. We dare not sell free rights for the gold of conquest, defying God, who from Mount Sinai flashed His will to be free through sinless sons living by His ten laws; betraying the hardy patriots of old who blazed the trail to freedom through the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Magna Carta; playing false to the trust of American patriots who framed the Bill of Rights on the wall of history. Standing here among you on this full, fer- tile, grain-giving, life-sustaining, yes, this sacred soil of KXansas, I long that each of my fellow-Americans realize that no man of any other lance is so rich as the poorest of us; none greater than the last of us. For within the protective mantle of this mighty Nation, though a man may by circumstance be stripped of wealth, land, home, or fame, nothing and no one can strip from him that right in which are rooted all the God-given liberties of man—the right proudly to say, “I am an American,” for lhberty is ours by right divine. Liberty is God’s gift to Amer= ica, and faith in God 1s America’s might, “America, cur America! Thou art not alone, Nor can’st thou ever be, Helpless and hopeless, The prey of fears within, The pawn of plots without, Amid the tumult of nations, Wandering like homeless waves, Roaring like hungry winds, Breaking against thy coasts, Spirits of the vasty deeps, Leaping to rend thee. “America, our America! Thou art not lonely, Nor can’st thou ever be, Thine eyes look to the hills Untroubled against the sky, Whence help shall come, Aglow with radiant light, Itself the shining shadow Of the matchless vision That companies thee always In places dark with death, In hours weary with wars. “America, our America! Thou art not lonesome, Nor can’st thou ever be. The vision is thy sentinel, Circling thy borders, Guarding thy threshold, Shedding rare light That is life itself— The life that lives on love, The Voice ever beating out On souls, the song of songs, On hearts, the song of service. May God bless America, May God keep America—Americal” Address of Hon. Edward J. Hart, of New Jersey ‘ EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EUGENE J. KEOGH OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrec- orp, it is an honor for me to be permit- ted to insert the following address de- livered Friday, May 19, 1950, by our dis- tinguished colleague, Representative Epwarp J. Hart, before the Propeller Club of the Port of New York at the an- nual dinner in commemoration of Mari- time Day. Representative Hart has made a forceful address pointing to many of the problems facing the Ameri- can merchant marine and about which problems all phases of the industry should be, and undoubtedly are, deeply
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD nterested. Those of us who know Rep- ‘esentative Hart know that he will most sompetently discharge his duties as ‘hairman of the Merchant Marine and "isheries Committee and will be a yvorthy successor to his predecessor, icn, Schuyler Ctis Bland. The address s as follows: Mr. Toastmaster, it is with a deep sense of ppreciation that I stand here tonight as a juest of the Propeller Club of the Port of Tew York. I assume that the invitation to 'e your guest came to me primarily because £ my recent assumption of the chairman- hip of the House Commuttee on Merchant farine and Fisheries. That chairmanship ‘evolved upon me as the result of a circum- tance injurious to the whole country, but specially to be regretted in its relation to he welfare and progress of the American 1erchant marine. I refer to the lamentable leath of our late, great chairman, Hon. ichuyler Otis Bland. Mr. Bland was a great entleman—a great man. He was a man of igh principle, of splendid endowments, of rue wisdom, and of generous heart. For 5 years I served with him on the Merchant farine Committee, all but 2 of them un- er his chairmanship. His passionate re- ard for our merchant marine was matched nly by his amazing knowledge of the com- lexities of the shipping industry and the \nsparing energy with which he applied imself to the solution of the intricate and ometimes baffling problems which constant- y confront both, During these many years of service to- ether, I was content to follow his judg- rent and support his leadership. It is my ope that in that time I have acquired some- hing of his spirit and also much of his faith 1 the capacity of our merchant marine to row increasingly greater, and more and ore fitted to contribute to the power and ifluence of the Republic. I think it may ke truthfully said that the 1rembership of the committee which I head ave, to a man, an absorbing interest in he future of the American merchant ma- ine. Why should not such be the case? t is a truism to say that its commerce is the feblood of a nation. And an American 1erchant marine, adequate to the tasks that 'e before it, is indispensable to our country f her commerce is to be served and pro- 1oted at the highest level of benefit to her wn interests. The importance of the shipping industry a and to our national economy is most pro- \ounced. It can, and should, be greater. &t represents a money value of well over 2,000,000,000. Last year, the total wages de- ived from it amounted to almost one and a alf billion, and it directly produced tax evenues for our Government well in excess f $200,000,000. But most important of all, fact admitted to be the basis of our mer- hant marine legislation, and so often as- erted by our top military and naval au- horities as to be now axiomatic, an ade- uate, wisely balanced American merchant aarine is absolutely vital to our national ecurity and an indispensable arm of our ational defense apparatus. While our merchant marine may be even tow an object of pride for all Americans, it 3 not all it should be, nor, if we are wise, 3s it what it must become. While it may be rue that the existing American fleet of mer- hant freighters and tankers is the finest in story, as is so often stated, we must not ose sight of its shortcomings nor be lulled ato a false feeling of satisfaction and ecurity. On the facade of a certain public building n my State, there is carved a legend. It éads; “If you stand well, stand still.” Noth- nog more fallacious was ever written any= vyhere. Paradoxically, one can continue to tand well only if he moves. The movement XCVI—App.——-248 must be ever forward and in pursuit of pro- gressive ideas and policies, Two questions we must keep before our minds are these: (1) Is our merchant marine adequate to fulfill its rightful part m the realization of our commercial potential- ities? (2) Is 1t as ready as it can and should be to serve in the highest nrsehie de~ree the requirements of our‘ii. iG. 8’) Une less affirmative answers can he confidently given to both questions, then work remains to be done. Before this audience, knowledgeable as it is in such matters, it is neither necessary nor desirable to dweil upon the low estate to which the shipping industry had fallen be- fore World War I, and again in many of the years preceding World War II. It is pain- full to recall the vast expenditures our Gov- ernment was compelled to make when both these calamities befell us, in order to bring our merchant marine in hne with our desperate requirements. Lack of planning and lack of intelligent interest 1n our mer- chant marine were primary causes of the ap- palling waste involved. However that may be, we have every right to be proud of the achievements of our merchant marine in eventually meeting our wartime needs. When the end of hostilities came America was the leading maritime nation of the world. According to figures recently sub- mutted, American flag vessels, in 1946, car- ried 67.6 percent of our foreign trade. But in each succeeding year this percentage has dropped severely, until in 1949, our ships carried less than 50 percent of our foreign trade. This ominous fact should cause us to stop, look, listen, and act. Yes, the picture has changed very, very substantially in just a few short years. Other maritime nations have been striving with might and main to narrow the gap between themselves and us. And they are fast ap- proaching the point where it will be closed altogether. Today they have ships more eapacious, more up to date, and speedier than any we can boast of. More and more the advantages provided by their respective governments are enabling these foreign fleets to displace American vessels in the carriage of great segments of the world’s trade. The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries is aware of these conditions. Its chairman, I assure you, is aware of them. Likewise, we are aware of other conditions equally dangerous, or nearly so, to the main- tenance of such a privately owned, privately cperated merchant marine as America must have at her service if she is not to lose the mantle of leadership with which events, under God’s providence, have invested her. Lastly, we are aware of the obligation of our Government to furnish such assistance as is demonstrably necessary to prevail over these conditions, I, for one, desire to see in America a self- sufficient merchant marine. I want no de- pendence placed on the ability of so-called friendly nations to furnish us with desper- ately needed ships during a war in which, if it should come, our very existence shall be at stake—on nations which hitherto have been unable to supply their own wants in this respect in their time of direst need. I want to see a better balanced merchant marine. I want to see more passenger ves- sels flying the American flag in peacetime, of such a character as can be quickly converted to effective troop transports capable of car- rying our forces wherever they may be needed for the defense of that flag in wartime. I want to see our domestic shipping services brought out of the doldrums and made again an active, virile force in the upbuilding of our national economy. I want to see a speedy revival of our ship- building and ship-repair industries which shall not only afford employment to thou- sands of men now idle, but shall foster and maintain the technical skills indispensable to a satisfactory merchant marine. A3933 I want to see renewed the stabilization of our entire merchant marine policy so that men’ of vision and faith may be further en- couraged to supply the capital necessary for the expansion of the shipping industry in all of 1ts various branches. The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries has before it many problems of grave import for its consideration. It will address itself to these problems with an equally grave consciousness of its responsi- bility to the country and of its duty to af- ford the necessary degree of cooperation to each and all of the elements of the shipping industry—ownership, management, and la- bor—without which no American merchant marine, worthy of the name, can continue to exist. Don’t Sell the American People Short EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH A. GAMBLE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, having received unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Appendix, I insert herewith portions of a speech by my friend, Rogers C. Dunn, head of the Dunn survey, of Greenwich, Conn., delivered at Canton, Ohio, on Apri] 12, 1950. In my opinion there is a lot of truth in it whichever side you are on. Following and attached to the speech is a copy of an editorial from the New York Journal-American of April 28, 1950, approving the speech. The speech and editorial follow: Don’r SELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHORT (By Rogers C. Dunn, of the Dunn Survey) I shall tell you about some of the facts we have found, and the conclusions I think they justify. First of all, it seems to me that each of us should try to understand what is the basic struggle now taking place in American Gov- ernment. I think the answer is clear. We are in a fight that is determining shall the American people be master of their Government, or shall the Government be master of the people. This is the basic struggle. All issues and all men in public life should be accepted or rejected on their position in this fight. History shows that the so-called welfare state is only the sugar coating serving as bait for totalitarian government, which means the government is master of the people. . Both the New Deal and Republican leaders are educating you to believe the American people have endorsed a system of Govern- ment handouts that make the welfare state. This belief is false. It is not founded on fact. But as you, and each citizen, accept this idea, the welfare state becomes stronger. For when we lose faith in the character and intelligence of our fellow Americans, we are admitting that the people are not qualified to be masters of their Government. If any of you have come to believe that a majority of voters have abandoned the tradi- tional concept of American Government, I want to say I think you are mistaken. The people are lost in the wilderness of propaganda because they have been de-~ prived of the opportunity to choose between two ideals or philosophies of government...
A3934 This is because the leadership of the op- position to the New Deal has lost its bear= ings and doesn’t know where the American people stand. This failing is covered up by blaming the people for falling for the siren call of the handout state. Up to now, there have been two ways of gaging what the American people want of their Government, j. Analyses of the vote cast in national elections. But, very strangely, the public has rarely been given eold election figures to prove that the voters are for or against the welfare state; for or against special privileges for union leaders; for or against special hand- outs from the Federal Treasury for farmers and other organized groups. 2. The acts of Congress, Since 1937, hardly a piece of New Deal legislation, conspicuous to the public, has been passed by Congress, except as it was cloaked in war-emergency programs. If you stop to think about the legislation Roosevelt and Mr. Truman have insisted that Congress pass, you will see that the real political division in this country is be~ tween two parties which I shall call the bu- reaucrat deal and the peoples’ representa- tives. ‘WORKERS It is generally accepted that the bureau- crat deal has won a great gain in labor vote. This gives an excellent illustration of how propaganda can hide the truth. Congress passed the Wagner labor law in 1985. JLabor leaders called it labor’s Magna Carta. It gave union leaders great powers. Union membership increased from 4,700,000 in 1936 to 15,600,000 in 1948, How did this affect the vote? ‘You have been told that the great gain in labor vote was a major factor in electing Roosevelt and Truman. Well, the cold facts tell the opposite story. And here they are: The Census Bureau lists 96 counties that comprise the 33 largest industrial areas in the country. This is where the great con- centration of labor is. It includes cities like New York, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, and San Francisco. In 1936, before there was a CIO-PAC, Roosevelt won 65 percent of the vote in the industrial area. His voted dropped to 57 percent in 1940. And it dropped to 56 per- cent in 1944. And it dropped to 51 percent in 1948 for Mr. Truman. The Democratic vote dropped 14 percent in 12 years in the great labor centers, de- spite all the benefits and organizations of labor unions. In the great labor citadel of Detroit, the Democratic vote has declined, in spite of a growth in labor population. In 1936 Roose- velt won 68 percent of the vote. In 1944 he had 63 percent. And in 1948 Mr, Truman. got 58 percent, So, when you look at the facts, you will see that the bureaucrat deal has been los- ing, not gaining, the confidence of the Amer- ican worker. If similar declines in the vote had occurred. in Republican communities, CIO-PAC and everyone else would say that Republican leaders were losing the confidence of the voters. Both labor leaders and Republicans have told you about the great Job CIO-PAC has done in getting workers to the polls. I don’t believe that anyone here would challenge that view. But, the facts tell a different story. In 1936, before ‘there was a CIO-PAC, 10,- ‘700,000 Democratic votes were cast in the industrial areas. By 1944, only 10,200,000 Democratic votes were cast. In 1948, with all the efforts and money of CIO-PAC, the Democratic vote continued to go down, and was only 10,100,000. Thus, in spite of the growth in labor popu- lation, and in spite of the activities of labor leaders, the facts show that the rank-and-file ‘worker has been turning away from the bu- reaucrat deal and away from the political views of top union leaders. I think that many local union leaders know this, but they can’t speak. A precinct-by-precinct study of the vote that we have been making for the past year is showing that the Democratic vote in the labor precincts has changed substantially the same as it has changed in the wealthy resi- dential and white-collar precincts. The country will soon be interested in pri- mary elections. Most of you know that a primary election affords an organized minor- ity its greatest opportunity to be effective at the polls. Have labor leaders delivered the vote they claim to speak for? They have not. In 1948, 382 Members of Congress who voted for the Taft-Hartley law sought re- nomination. Only 12 who were opposed by CIO-PAC were defeated, and of these only 3 came from communities where there was & substantial labor population. Only 3 out of 832. The CIO-Political Action Committee is the great American hoax. Itis nota voting ma- chine. It is a propaganda machine—but a most formidable one. I believe its long-range objectives will be reached, unless the opposition— 1. Wakes up to the fact that fewer workers are voting today than voted 10 years ago-—- and the significance of this fact. 2. Wakes up to the fact that the great body of American workers has not accepted the political views or leadership of the pureau- crat-labor-leader combine. 3. Wakes up to the fact that the door is wide open for the Republican Party to fight as the champion of the American worker. I want labor leaders to stand up and fight for what they believe is good for the workers and for the country. And I want an opposi-~ tion party which will stand up and fight for what it believes is good for the worker and for the country. We do not have the latter, I would be pleased if what I have told you would lead you to think that perhaps the worker hasn’t changed any more than most of us in this room. FARMERS I would like to touch on the farm vote for just a moment. In January 1948, when we reported that Mr. Truman would win and a Democratic Senate and House would be elected, we stated that Republicans would lose votes in the farm and suburban areas. This proved correct. It was our view that throughout all eco-~ nomic groups there had developed a dis- couragement and disgust with the Republi- can Party for its failure to be an opposition party; and the consequent loss of Republican votes would be most conspicuous in the strongest Republican communities—the farm and wealthy residential areas. After the election, Republicans have told you that the vast handouts from the Fed- eral Treasury “bought” the Democratic farm vote. Although still incomplete, our study is showing that for every 100 Democratic votes in the farm precincts in 1940 there were only 84 in 1948, Democrats lost 16 farm votes for every 100 they had in 1940. No opposition party can be successful if its leaders constantly misappraise the Ameri- can people. PAYROLL VOTE The greatest misrepresentation of the will of the American people has resulted from the use of the Federal payroll vote to win na- tional elections. This completes the meaning of, “Tax— spend, and elect.” I shall try to give you the high lights, rather than discuss the many details of me- chanical operation. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Statistical studies, confirmed by the ac- curacy of our pre-election reports on the vote, show that Federal employees account for an average of four Democratic votes apiece. Two million Federal employees mean eight million Democratic votes. The employees can be distributed among the States with an exact knowledge of the number needed to win each State. Iam sure that tens of thousands of Federal employees either do not vote, or vote Re- publican—but the average is four Demo- cratic votes. For any Republican who would doubt our statistical finding, I point out that before the 1944 election and before the 1948 elec- tion, we asked Republican Senators, Con- gressmen, governors, State chairmen, and national committeemen for their estimate of the payroll vote. Ninety percent of those replying estimated an average of three, four, or five Democratic votes per Federal em- ployee. Fifteen years ago we first found that there is a way to have a constant knowledge of the division of the Republican and Demo- cratic vote in each State. This has shown that from 1936 through 1948 Roosevelt and Truman received never more than 44 percent of the vote cast by those not directly influenced by the Federal payroll. This is the maximum vote that Roosevelt or Mr. Truman would have received without the Federal payroll vote. This means that a maximum of only 44 percent of the voters have ever endorsed the acts and policies of the New Deal or the welfare state. Since 1940 the highest Republican leaders have refused to even study the relation of the Federal payroll to national elections, As a result, every time the New Deal wins 51 percent or more of the vote Republican leaders generally acknowledge that the voters have endorsed New Deal issues. This is why there is no opposition party with the intelligence or courage to go to the American people fighting for a program in contrast to the welfare state. CONCLUSION Substantially all that I have told you the Dunn Survey first pointed out and warned against in 1938—and many times since. As for the future, I continue to expect the tentacles of totalitarian government to grow stronger and reach further—unless Republi- can leaders soon recognize that they have been constantly misinterpreting the vote, therefore misinterpreting the will of the American people. When this is recognized, a whole new vista of the American people will be revealed. It will be seen that the majority of Ameri- can people still cherish and want the concept of government that was America from 1776 to March 4, 1933. Republicans would no longer feel required to indulge in the expediency of “me too, but.” And when Republican leaders wake up to this, they will see the means to make this majority opinion effective at ‘he polls, and in the Congress. In the meantime—each of you can make @ great contribution to your country by re- newing your faith in the character and spirit of the majority of American people—and by getting behind those people who are fighting with this faith. [From the New York Journal-~American of April 28, 1950] WIN WITH AMERICANISM A misreading of election results in the years of New Deal-Fair Deal ascendancy has corrupted the effectiveness of the political opposition. As a result of the me-too approach, the stay-away vote has become of colossal pro- portions.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Rogers C. Dunn, of the Dunn survey, in a recent speech at Canton, Ohio, gave the statistical basis for an effective campaign of genuine opposition based on authentic Americanism. Unless the Republican Party has the wit and the courage to develop this patriotic theme, it will die on the vines of ineffective- ness. Mr. Dunn revealed that between elections realists in Congress have found an effective way to block New Deal-Fair Deal legislative panaceas through a coalition between Re- publicans and southern Democrats. “Since 1987, hardly a piece of New Deal legislation, conspicuous to the public,” Me, Dunn said, “has been passed by Congress, ex- cept as 1t was cloaked in war-emergency problems. “You will see that the real political di- vision in this country is between two par- ties which I shall call the bureaucratic deal and the people’s representatives.” Mr. Dunn revealed that the New Deal-Fair Deal never again received as big a slice of the labor and farm votes as in 1936. Referring to the 95 counties comprising the 33 largest industrial areas, where the biggest concentration of union membership dwells, Mr. Dunn disclosed that in 1936, be- fore there was a CIO-PAC, Roosevelt won 65 percent of the vote in the industrial area. His vote dropped to 57 percent in 1940, and to 56 percent in 1944. Mr. Truman’s vote fell to 51 percent in 1948. The Democratic vote, Mr. Dunn showed, fell 14 percent in 12 years 1n the great labor eenters, despite all the catering to the unions. Mr. Dunn reported a similar drift in the farm vote, saying “although still incomplete, our study is showing that for every 100 Democratic votes in the farm precincts in 1940 there were only 8&4 in 1948.” Mr. Dunn concluded that a maximum of only 44 percent of the voters (not including those directly influenced by the Federal pay-~ roll) has ever endorsed the acts and policies of the New Deal, or the welfare state. Mr. Dunn concluded that the New Deal- Fair Deal has been winning elections throvgh the bought vote of those on the Federal payroll. He estimates that each pay- roller brings in four votes. Mr. Dunn concluded that when the effect of the payroll vote is fully evaluated, a whole new vista of the American people will be revealed. The statistician said: “It will be seen that the majority of the American people still cherish and want the concept of government that was America from 1776 to March 4, 1933. “And when Republican leaders wake up to this, they will see the means to make this majority opinion effective at the polls, and in the Congress.” Mr. Dunn’s analysis reveals how to get the wasters and the political blue-sky operators off the backs of the American people next November. Truman Palls Rug From Under American Workers EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, May 19, 1950 Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, President Truman and his Fair Deal, through the so-called reciprocal trade agreements, is pulling the rug from under the workers of America. Some union leaders will admit this is true while there are others who will not. I have here a letter from Harry H, Cook, president of wha Flint Glass Work- ers of America, AFL, mailed from its headquarters in Toledo, Ohio, to retail merchants throughout the United States threatening a boycott of all merchants who handle and promote the sale of im- ported glassware. This letter cites the excessive unem- ployment existing now 1m the flint-glass indusiry as the result of importations of cheap glassware from countries abroad. The letter states that it is the intention of the glass-workers union to enlist the entire membership of the American Federation of Labor, number- ing 8,080,000 workers, in this boycott. Whether inadvertently or intention- ally, Mr. Cook’s letter to me and the let- ter sent to the retail merchants, makes no reference to the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Probably Mr. Cook is not aware that this Fair-Deal-conceived measure, which is the real cause of the large unemployment in the flint-glass industry, was enacted in part at the in- sistence of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations. At any rate, Mr. Cook has gotten his cart before the horse in writing his letter to retail merchanis threaiening a large- scale boycott if they continue to han- dle and promote the sale of imported glassware. He attributes the unemploy- ment in the flint-glass industry to the eagerness of merchants to give their cus- tomers glassware at the lowest possible price, but he fails utterly to attribute the situation to a law which actually en- courages importations of cheap-labor glass products from countries where wage rates average less than 25 percent of those in the United States. For the benefit of Mr. Cook and Mem- bers of the Congress, I wish to point out that the ad valorem rate on glassware in 1930 was 60 percent and continued to be so until the Department of State chose to use the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act to cut the ad valorem rate one-half. It is now only 30 percent. So it is that for- eign glassware producers, paying wages that average 90 cents a day, are able to pay American import duties and still undersell glass made in America, where the same industry pays its workers from $9 to $10 a day. Of course, the State Department, which most of us know has little knowl- edge of tariffs and cares less, uses this power over American import duties in . part as a diplomatic weapon in the cold war; but the State Department also uses this power in part as a domestic politi- cal weapon against what the Fair Deal administration calls big business or these selfish interests. It strikes me it is about time for in- dustrial unionists to get wise to what is happening. It is time for them to real~ ize that sooner or later, as things are going now, they will be ground to pieces between two millstones—the one being the hatred of successful free enterprise in the hearts of the Fair Deal Socialists; the other being the policy of the Fair Deal internationalists to build up for~ A3935 eign industry, even though at the ex- pense of industrial job holders in Amer- ica. It is time for unionists to combat this reciprocal trade-agreement busi- ness as something far more inimical to their interests than to these of anyone else. That some trade-union leaders already do realize their mistake in sup- porting the Reciprocal Trade Agree- ments Act, and are honest enough to admit their mistake, is shown by copies of letters sent to President Truman by the Consolidated Glove Cutters Union of Fulton County, at Gloversville, N. Y., which recently feil into my hands. This AFL union came out decisively against the Reciproca: Trade Agreements Act. The glove cutters union based their demand for a change in our tariff policy on the fact that more than 5,000 union members currently are drawing unem- ployment benefits, while an additional 1,600 have already exhausted their bene- fits. This they pointed out to President Truman is the direct outgrowth of trade agreerments whereby import duties on leather gloves have been drastically re- duced. But the glass workers and the glove cutters are not the only American indus- trial workers now suffering miserably as a result of the Reciprocal Trade Agree- ments Act, which in turn stems from so- cialism and internationalism in the Fair Deal and in union leadership. There are thousands of shoe workers in Massa- chusetis and other States, jobless be- cause of low tariffs which permit im- portation of slave-labor-made shoes from Czechoslovakia at prices American industry cannot hope to meet, unless American shoe workers are willing to work for far less than a dollar a day. Still another instance of the subver- sive effects of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act is provided by the fine watch industry of the United States. In this instance, the consequences are likely to be extremely serious as affecting na- tional security. Already the Waltham Watch Co., one of the oldest in America, has gone into bankruptcy, and other companies of the kind have been forced to seek Government loans—all because import duties on watches and watch parts have been reduced to a point where American companies cannot compete against the low-wage industries of Switzerland and some other European countries, I have said that the failure of Ameri- can watch manufacturers—and more may fail unless tariffs on watches and watch parts are moved upward—will ad- versely affect our national security. Such failures would do so simply because these companies are the only ones which have the equipment and the know-how to make fine radar equipment and the delicate precision parts of Norden bomb- ° sights snd the improvements thereon. Many other American industrial com- panies than those I have named here al- ready are feeling the effects of the mis- taken Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act and the ill-judged administration of that act by the State Department. More and more Americans are being thrown out of work. The time has come for a change.
A3936 For a long time I have felt that tariffs are not the province of the State Depart- ment, or any other department of Gov- ernment. That is one reason why I have always opposed the reciprocal trade agreements bill, We have a United States Tariff Commission. Why not let it do its job? Some new blood, and per- haps a little more authority, is all the Commission needs to enable it to do the tariff job on a scientific basis. Then we might be able to use trade agreements as a potent weapon in the cold war, with- out penalizing American industry and American workers for the benefit of slave-wage employers abroad. We Believe in the Inviolate Rights of Men, Women, and Children To Live in Freedom EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR G. KLEIN OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Speaker, that my independence of thought and action has more than once brought me into con- flict with various organizations, even with some with which I usually agree fully, is a matter of general knowledge. It was not many weeks ago that I had a disagreement with the national organ- ization called B’nai B’rith over a specific incident when I decided that the or- ganization was following a wrong pro- cedure. However, in the current issue of the National Jewish Monthly, an official publication of B’nai B’rith, I have found a statement of the principles and objec- tives of the-organization which is sim- ple, dignified, and profoundly moving, and insures my continued cooperation with B’nai B'rith. These words are from the message of the national president, Mr. Frank Gold- man, to the triennial convention here in Washington last month. Iam happy to insert them in the ConcressionaL REc- orp that the world may know of the noble objectives of this Nation-wide or- ganization of responsible American citi- zens, rejoicing in the democratic proc- esses of our country and looking forward always to a fuller realization of our op- . portunities for service: We Have Our Worx To Do We are not an organization in search of a program. We have a program. So long as there is a Jewish people, so long as human rights are not everywhere fulfilled, and the recognition of human dignity is not a tenet of universal faith, we have our work to do. We need plow no furrows save those which move straight to objectives clearly under= stood. We need tack our sail to no wind save that which blows in the direction of service to our fellow man. The whole of humanity is our workshop, and the eternal principles of Judaism are our guide and lodestar. There is but one B’nai Brith. It is the same B’nai B’rith in every town and hamlet in this country. It is the same B’nai B'rith on this continent and in lands overseas. We pelieve in the dignity of the human being. ‘We believe in thc brotherhood of man. We believe in the inviolate rights of men, women, and children everywhere to live in freedom, but with full understanding that as there are rights, so there are obligations. We be- lieve in a community of interests among all citizens of all states—and of the state’s re- sponsibilities to its citizens. We believe that B'nai B’rith came into existence because it was needed—because it fulfilled a basic need among our people. We believe that it has been blessed with a long and vigorous life be- cause it has continued to fulfill that need. Our program flexible, our many instrumental~ ities of service ever aware and ever alert, our order plays a high and significant role in Jewish life. Surely B'nai Brith must never stand still, never mark time; it must be in action al- ways, in repose never. It must move forward, not backward; it must serve in the truest and purest meaning of the word. To all men and women who are joined to- gether in this splendid order, let me say this: in B’nai B’rith we possess, and we are breath and bone of a precious thing. It is each of us, and all of us. Ours is the obliga~ tion; ours is the challenge; ours is the op- portunity. Let us, in the days to come, not fail to be worthy of whatever we may be called upon to do; and may it never be said of us that whatever was done was less than the very best that we could do. (From Presi-« dent Frank Goldman’s Message to the Trien- nial Convention of B’nai B'rith.) Addresses on the Occasion of the Publica- tion of Volume 1 of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ELBERT D. THOMAS OF UTAH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp the ad- dress delivered by the President at the Library of Congress on the occasion of the publication of volume 1 of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson on May 17, 1950, and also the address of Douglas Southall Freeman entitled ‘The Paradoxes of Jef- ferson” delivered at the same ceremony, There being no objection, the addresses were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT I accept with great pleasure the first copy of volume 1 of the Papers of Thomas Jeffer- son. On behalf of the people of the United States, I congratulate Princeton University and the Princeton University Press on under- taking to edit and publish the great series which this volume begins. I should like to add a personal word of appreciation and encouragement to the edi- tors for the years of hard work that are still ahead of them. I am very well acquainted with what many people call paper work, and I appreciate the immense amount of pains- taking effort which each of these yolumes requires. We should also be grateful to the New York Times for the financial assistance which APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that newspaper has given to help compile this complete edition of the writings of on Of the greatest Americans. This edition wil be of lasting value to our Nation for genera- tions to come. As many of you know, I returned to Wash- ington yesterday from a visit to the Pacific Northwest. Traveling at what is today a very leisurely rate, in 9 days I went nearly 7,000 miles through 16 States. In 1803, Pres- ident Jefferson sent out two young pioneers to explore the same area I had just been through. Jefferson wanted to find out what was in the great new territory he had just bought from Napoleon. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark took 28 months to make the round trip from the banks of the Mis- sissippi to the mouth of the Columbia River on the Pacific coast. Where they found only Indian villages, herds of buffalo, and track-~ less wilderness and sagebrush, I saw great cities, immense structures like Grand Coulee Dam, and rich farm land. These sharp con~ trasts are only a few of many that point up the dramatic changes that have occurred in our country since Jefferson’s day. Since the United States today scarcely resembles the United States when Jefferson knew it, why should the publication of his letters be so important to us? The answer should be obvious, as we turn the pages of this first volume. Throughout his life, Jefferson waged an uncompromising fight against tyranny. The search for hu-~ man liberty was a goal which he pursued with burning zeal. The spirit of democracy shines through everything he ever wrote. Today, when democracy is facing the greatest challenge in its history, the spirit which Jefferson expressed in his battle against tyranny, and in his search for hu- man liberty, stands out as a beacon of in- spiration for free peoples throughout the world. Jefferson lived in a time of great struggle, when this Nation was trying to establish itself as a democracy of freemen. We today, in a different time and under different con- ditions, are in a great struggle to preserve and expand human freedom. Our stage is larger—our struggle must be waged over the whole world, not merely in our own country. But the essential nature of the struggle is the same; to prove, by hard work and practical demonstration, that free- men can create for themselves a good society, in which they live together at peace, and advance their common welfare. When. freedom is at stake, we need to draw upon every source of strength we can. Jef- ferson thought deeply about how to make liberty a living part of our society, and he proved the rightness of his thinking by prac- tical demonstration. That is why I think it is particularly important that we are re- asserting Jefferson’s ideals by publishing these volumes. History can be fairly written only when all the facts are on record. Jefferson has suf- fered at the hands of unscrupulous biog- raphers and biased partisans ever since his death. The publication of his papers should correct the mistakes that have been made about him and should help prevent misin- terpretations in the future. There are others like Jefferson whose lives have enriched our history, but about whom we know too little. Many of them have been victims of unfair treatment at the hands of historians; others have been neglected be- cause the record of their work is scattered about in remote places. I hope that this edition of the writings of Thomas Jefferson will inspire educational institutions, learned societies, and civic- minded groups to plan the publication of the works of other great national figures. In far too many cases, there are incomplete and inaccurate editions of the writings of the great men and women of our country.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In some distressing instances, we have only tragmentary records of men whose ideas and actions have helped shape our history. I am convinced that we need to collect and publish the writings of the men and women who have made major contributions to the development of our democracy. I am, therefore, requesting the National Historical Publications Commission, under the chairmanship of the Archivist of the United States, to look into this matter and to report to me. I am sure this commission will wish to consult with scholars in all fields of American history, and to report what can be done, and should ke done, to make available to our people the 2--h'*e ona private writings of men whose «: “\:, to our history are now inadequately repre- sented by published works. I am interested not just in political fig- ures, but in the writings of industrialists and labor leaders, chemists and engineers, painters and lawyers, of great figures of all the arts and sciences who have made major contributions to our democracy. Obviously, we cannot hope to collect, edit, and publish all the writings of all such lead- ers, but we can and should select the works of those who have been: too long neglected and who need to be better known if we are to understand our heritage. This is a big undertaking. It will take a long time. It ‘should be done as far as possible by pri- vate groups and not by the Federal Govern- ment, although the Federal Government can and will be of assistance whenever possible. The editions should be in every instance completely objective and should maintain the same high editorial standards that are evident in this first volume of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson. They should aim to place the facts beyond debate and distortion. At a time when democracy is meeting the greatest challenge in its history, we need to turn to the sources of our own democratic faith for new inspiration and new strength. These volumes of Thomas Jefferson will be a great reservoir of hope and faith during the critical years ahead. I sincerely hope that similar editions of the writings of other great men and women who have made our Nation’ what it is today can be placed with them. I shall give my full support to this en- deavor. Thank you very much. THE PARADOXES OF JEFFERSON - (Address by Douglas Southall Freeman, in the Library of Congress, May 17, 1950, at the ceremony marking the publication of the first volume of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson ) Is it possible for Princeton scholars, well furnished though they are, to make grist for the American mind from the vast plantation Thomas Jefferson cultivated? John Foley, using the sickle on the high heads only in the fields of Jefferson’s wisdom, gathered 9,228 maxims into that tight bin he called the Jefferson Cyclopaedia. These cradlers, Dr. Julius P. Boyd, Dr. Lyman H. Butterfield, and Mrs. Mina R. Bryan, are to harvest and glean 18,000 letters and are to gather them into the barn of 52 volumes, provided from funds generously given by the New York Times and by Princeton University. The editors know that the cloak on Jeffer- son’s shoulders gave him what appears to be the scholar’s stoop but that he had the florid robustness of 6 feet 214, that he was scarcely second to Washington as a horse- man, that he made it his inflexible rule to rise as soon as he could see the hands on the mantel clock, that he said the sun never caught him in bed in 50 years, that as a _ student he worked 15 hours a day, and that from the time he discovered as a boy the - delights of reading, he never sat in idleness an hour. This unexcelled energy, this awesome dili- gence of Jefferson will not frighten students who almost rival it, They sense his invin- cible zeal and understand precisely what he meant when he said, “I fear that my zeal will make me expose myself to ridicule * * ¥* but this risk becomes a duty by the bare possibility of doing good.” These scholars will not fail to follow Jefferson through the five languages he mastered and the diversified subjects he had investigated so thoroughly that it was easy for him to make one function of the Presidential office the discriminating patronage of all the arts and sciences. The editors appreciate, as every American gratefully may, what Ben- jamin Rush meant when he said “The ob- jects of Jefferson’s benevolence were as ex- tensive as those of his knowledge.” The spiritual life and the long faith of Jefferson similarly are patent. They were compassed in as plain words as ever an honest states- man wrote: “Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of providence.” He meant precisely what he said when he wrote his daughter Martha from a Paris already muttering of the griev- ances that went into the cahiers, “Be good and be industrious and you will be what I most love in this world.” It will not be diffi- cult for Dr. Boyd and his staff, to see in one profile of Jefferson the Pico della Miran- dola, the uomo universale, of the revolution. Significantly and by avowed preference when Jefferson was in England, he wrote of gar- dens, not of the Guildhall or even of West- minster. He could say in one breath, “Music is the favorite passion of my soul” and in the next, “Nature intended me for the tran- quil pursuits of science, by rendering them my supreme delight.” Readers and editors alike will understand how Jefferson came to loath the calumny of politics and to realize that distinction did not compensate for vili- fication. “There are minds,” he groaned as early as 1788, “which can be pleased with honors and preferments; but I see nothing in them but envy and enmity.” Although -he had told Dr. Rush he would “go to hell to serve his country,” he protested to Madi- son in 1799, “I am giving everything I love -in exchange for everything I hate.” Thus far and even further it is possible to penetrate and to understand. In much that Jefferson wrote there is clear light “unto the feet” of those who follow after, and unto the eyes of all who read; but when the fold in the last of those 18,000 letters of his is opened and the final reflection from 25,000 incoming papers is put in focus, is the en- tire man there? Can editor or biographer assert, “Here is Jefferson; this is the image of his soul; see in these words, the kernel of his creed?” If that can be said of any complex per- sonality—and what personality is not com- plex?—it is an achievement. In the case of @& man like Jefferson, who wrote for more than half a century of revolutionary change, it will be a superlative triumph of scholar- ship. Were there no other obstacles, the apparent contradictions in Jefferson’s own writing are well nigh countless on super- ficial view, and, if taken from their context may appear to prove either side of scores of propositions Jefferson put forward. In that very fact may be cne secret of the man. You dwarf him if you demand of him the “consistency ... of little minds.” His po- litical philosophy bespeaks not confusion but experimentation. His greatness is, in part, his willingness to face the inherent paradoxes of government and the always- dangerous adventure of administration. Who contended more vigorously than did he for the “natural rights of man”; but did he not write officially in 1790, “All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law,” and as late in his career as A3937 1816, did not he draw a sharp-edged distinc- tion: “No man has a natural right to com- mit aggression on the equal rights of an- other, and this 1s all from which the laws ought to restrain him”? Again, hear him on the paradox of science and art in government, “Freedom is the first- porn child of science,” he said, but he held that government, the guardian of this free- dom, was an art and “that the whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.” To Jefferson, likewise, we owe per- havs the clearest statement of the paradox of leade rsh-y and Penwesamtetion. Tn the year the Talc ge ee eee was drafted he thus perfectly expressed one of its high and hard ideals: “To inform the minds of the people and to follow their will is the chief duty of those placed at their head.” This manifestly calls for patience and self- control beyond the reach of time-serving mediocrity. Yet, the very word “inform” is a signpost to another cross-road paradox, that of education and ignorance, of at- tempted self-government in the face of in- difference. “Government cannot be gocd,” Jefferson told John Adams in 1819, “but under the control of the people,” and again, “the natural progress is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground,” but over against that set his familiar and eternal- ly glorious declaration of faith: “truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless, by human interposition, disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate”, To the attainment of truth, the way was that of education. Where are words that sound with loftier challenge the bugle call to war on ignorance? “For promoting the public happiness, those persons whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue, should pe rendered by liberal education, worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens; and they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth, or other accidental condition or circumstance.” He believed in stability—“My God,” he cried to Monroe from France, “how little do my countrymen know what precious bless< ings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy”; but he said unhesitatingly, ‘a little rebellion now and then * * * is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government,” and he cheerfully, aye, happily, told John Adams in 1796, “‘this, I hope, will be the age of experi- ‘ments in government, and that their basis will be founded on principles of honesty, not of mere force.” All the while, and to the end of the tests and ventures of his own public service, he warned America: “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association.” That there might be no doubt what he considered this first principle of association he wrote it down forthwith— “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.” These “rights of the people to the exer- cise and fruits of their own industry,” he told Isaac Tiffany that same year, 1816, “can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers not subject to their control at short periods.” Here, as Jefferson saw it, stood government in the grapple with greed and in the con- test with circumstance that neither can be foreseen nor deflected. The paradoxes of Jefferson do not end with those of natural right and law, of leadership and representa- tion, of political science and governmental art, of self-rule and personal ambition. You will find like paradoxes in Jefferson’s con- .cept of benevolence and political partisan- ship, of continuing Federal debt and the
A3938 unescapable mortality of the generation that ereates the debt, of the general welfare as desirable in se andas“lace{d] * * * up strictly” to use his own metaphor, ‘‘within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.” Few men lived, as Jefferson did, to the fiftieth anniversary of their greatest declara- tion, and fewer still to see the work of their hands prosper in the peace of a nation. ighty-two when he died and afflicted with personal misfortune beyond the meet and measure of most men’s woe, he kept his faith in America. The spirit of his last years, the spirit of this hour, is that of one of the final lines of a lovely letter to Mme. de Corny in Paris, October 1787: “The sky is clearing,” he said, “and I shall away to my hermitage.” For us as for him, the sky will clear; and he will remain with us in his new hermitage, this book, Contributions of Hon. Herbert H. Lehman, of New York, to the Dairy Industry EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the Metropolitan Milk Producers News, a publication of the dairy industry in New York, recently carried an editorial prais- ing the contributions of our colleague, the junior Senator from New York, Sen- ator Leaman. I think the Recorn might very well include this editorial from this very fine and outstanding publication. I ask unanimous consent to insert this editorial in the Appendix of the Rrcorp. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Senator LEHMAN Wovutp Know Facts With due respect to other Members of the United States Congress, we feel safe in saying that no other has the intimate, first-hand Enowledge of the complex problems of milk marketing as does Senator Hersert H. Len- MAN, of New York. Neither has anyone had closer knowledge of the problems of the com- mon man and the underprivileged, than he. This knowledge has been gained by his early determination to use his ability and his opportunities to the fullest possible extent in being of service to others. To do this he first makes sure that he thoroughly understands the problem and then he squarely shoulders every responsibility that is his. His respon- sibilities have been heavy, his accomplish- ments have been worthy. He became governor of New York State at the low point of the depression (19383) when the dairy industry was at the lowest ebb in its entire history. He served as governor for 10 years during which time the pioneering of Government assistance in helping cooperative associations handle their marketing problems was started. By trial and error the present system was developed, protecting, as he in- fisted, the principles of cooperative market- ng. It is, therefore, not surprising to us that it was Senator LeHmMan who quickly diag- nosed the problems arising from the un- restrictec. sale of yellow oleomargarine, and who put his finger on the two vital points that require careful study. In introducing the two resolutions, which are printed on pages 2 and 7, Senator Lex- MAN said, “These resolutions would provide the necessary protections for the consumer on the one hand, and the necessary informa- tion on the basis of which we might take steps to avert serious damage to American ag= riculture on the other.” The action that he has taken is that of a statesman who is determined to serve all citizens and who appreciates the vital posi- tion occupied by dairy farmers. The resolutions are typical of the man who introduced them. We are fortunate and grateful. Okio Poll on Farm Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN W. BRICKER or OHIO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a press re- lease from C. Maurice Wieting, director of information, Ohio Farm Bureau Fed- eration, and a preliminary report of a poll taken in Ohio by the Ohio Farm Bu- reau as to what the farmer membership of the Farm Bureau in our Stzte desires in regard to the farm program. I do this largely because of the advance informa- tion which was given publicity in the Washington papers and other newspa- pers of the country generally as to the result of the poll approving the Brannan plan. The poll clearly shows that there is a very small percentage of the farm- ers who are in favor of any such plan as that. There being no objection, the press re- lease and poll were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: OHIo Farm Bureau Porn SHows SENTIMENT For AMENDING 1949 Farm Law WASHINGTON, May 24.—Preliminary returns from a poll now being taken by the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation show there is strong sentiment among farmers for amending the present Agricultural Act of 1949. John W. Sims, executive secretary of the Ohio Farm Bureau, told the Ohio congres- sional delegation at a luncheon today that “many Ohio farmers believe that the present farm program is not working well; 50 percent of those we polled want amendments made and only 18 percent favor the Agricultural Act of 1949 as it now stands. However, it should be remembered that this poll shows that 63 percent support the principles of the present law.” Sims is heading a delegation of 43 Ohio Farm Bureau men and women who are the congressional spokesmen and home and com- munity congressional representatives of that organization. These people met this morn- ing with their own Congressmen and then entertained the entire Ohio delegation at a luncheon at the Congressional Hotel. The Ohio Farm Bureau representatives met with President Truman this noon and com- mended him for his support of farmer coop- eratives. They also had an appointment with Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan, at which time they discussed with him farm programs. Conferences were also scheduled with: Senator Gzorcr D. AIKEN, Republican, of Vermont, and Senator Mar- Garer CHASE SmiTH, Republican, of Maine. “While there is widespread discussion in Ohio concerning the Brannan plan, only 15 percent of those farmers voting in the poll favor it when identified by name,” Sims re- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ported. “However, it is significant that 39 percent believe th-* r-ece*icy payments should be used for .%'--" ¢e One conclu- sion is that farmers think the 100-percent price supports guaranteed by Government are too high, since only 25 percent agree with that provision of the Brannan plan.” One of the most unexpected results of the poll, the farm leader said, is that 32 percent of the farmers are for no Government plan at all. “Perhaps this is a reaction against the confusion which has surrounded the writing of farm programs and not a true indication that farmers want no Govern- ment plan at all,” Sims stated. Though instructed to vote on only one plan, about 10 percent checked two possibili- ties. “Farmers in Ohio, as revealed in this poll, have definite ideas about the principles upon which a farm program should be built,” Sims told the Ohio Congressmen. FARM SURPLUSES Asked in the first section of the poll what should be done with farm surpluses, farmers made these suggestions: (1) Promote research to find new uses for surpluses (76 percent); (2) store enough of the storable crops to stabilize supply (65 percent); (3) encourage the establishment of more cooperatives (57 percent); (4) distrib- ute surpluses to State and county relief agen- cies (56 percent); (5) encourage the estab- lishment of an animal agriculture (46 per- cent). On the other hand farmers are reluctant to vote marketing quotas (15 percent) or the use of acreage allotments (22 percent). SUPPORT LEVELS The second section of the poll deals with the level at which the Government should guarantee farm income. The largest vote is for a price level to prevent national farm income from reaching depression levels (38 percent). Flexible price supports ranging from 75 to 90 percent of parity received the nod from 26 percent of the farmers, which when added to the 38 percent asking for a guaranty against depression levels makes 64 percent favoring flexible price supports at some level. A quarter of the farmers (25 percent) think that farm income should be supported by the Government at a rate equal to the average of the first 10 of the last 12 years, which is practically 100 percent of parity. This is one of the proposals which has had the strong support of the Secretary of Agri- culture. At the other extreme 27 percent of all farmers want no Government guaranty at all, while 18 percent of those polled made no answer to these questions. HOW A FARM PLAN SHOULD OPERATE Farmers are asked in the third section of the poll to give specific suggestions on how they thought a farm program should operate. Though they answered other parts of the poll 25 percent left this section blank. Of those who answered, 39 percent think that a combination of price supports for storables and production payments for per- ishables is feasible. Again 36 percent want no supports at all, 17 percent said use price supports only; while 8 percent want to use production payments for both storables and nonstorables. VOTE ON SPECIFIC PLANS Asked to vote for the farm program they favored most, 21 percent of the Ohio farmers who had answered other parts of the poll left this section blank. One conclusion that can be drawn is that farmers are greatly confused by the present farm debates now going on in Congress and over the country. While only 13 percent favor the present Agriculture Act as it naw stands, an addi- tional 50 percent will go along with it if amended. Some of the amendments favored
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD are: Establishment of a bipartisan agricul- tural committee to advise with the Secre- tary of Agriculture, with wide discretionary powers in determining the methods and level of price supports (82 percent); put flexible price supports into effect now (17 percent); and use modernized parity for- mulas only (10 percent). No Government plan at all is the answer given by 32 percent of the farmers polled. The Brannan plan receives the support of 15 percent of the farmers when it was listed by name. However, it is interesting to note that two features of the Brannan plan: sup- port of farm income by Government at 100 percent of parity receives the vote of 25 percent; and that production payments for perishables is approved by 89 percent. HOW THE POLL WAS CONDUCTED Sims stressed that these returns are only preliminary and that many more polls are still to be received. The questionnaire was printed in the May Ohio Farm Bureau News, official publication of the Ohio Farm Bureau, and went to all 63,000 members. The poll was also sent to some 20,000 Farm Bureau families who participate in home dis- cussion groups called Advisory Councils. A discussion guide, Building a Sound Farm Pregram, is being used by these 1,500 groups during May. Final results of the poll will be reported to the Ohio Farm Bureau board of trustees at their June meeting. Returns have been received thus far from 8,233 people, and an additional 3,000 returns are expected to be received by June 1. PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF AN OHIO FARM BUREAU POLL-—-WHAT KIND OF A FARM PROGRAM DO YOU ‘WANT? I. What do you think we should do when we have farm surpluses? (Check all those statements you agree with.) (Total of 3,233 returns, 4.1 percent failed to answer this question.) Percent 1. Store enough of the storage crops to stabilize supply_----------------- 65 2. Distribute surpluses to State and county relief agencies___._.------ 56 3. Vote marketing quotas upon our- selves to keep production down... 15 4 Use acreage allotments to prevent the production of surpluses__._-- 23 5. Distribute surplus abroad through CARE, CROP, etc.----------~---- 338 6. Maintain one price at home and sell at a lower price abroad__-._.---- 11 7. Use a food-allotment plan to get food to low-income families._.--.--.-- 35 8. Promote research to find new uses for surpluses__.---.-...--------.---~+ 76 9. Encourage the establishment of more cooperatives. --..---~------------ 58 10. Encourage the establishment of an animal agriculture_...-.--------- 46 11. Let surpluses take care of them- selveS_...-.----------- ween nen e 27 II. At what level should we ask the Gov- ernment to guarantee farm prices or in- come? (Check one item.) (Total of 3,233 returns, 12.8 percent, failed to answer this question.) Percent 1, There should be no Government guar- anty at all_._..__.--...-.---------- 27 2. Farm income should be supported at a level which would guarantee farmers a rate equal to the aver- age of the first 10 of the last 12 years, which is practically 100 per- cent of parity__.-..--------------- 25 8. There should be flexible price sup- ports (ranging from 75 to 90 per= cent of parity) depending upon sup- ply and changes in cost of produc- tion__-.-.---.~-----+---------- = 26 4. A price support to prevent national farm income from reaching depres- sion levels___....-._--.---.-.----.- 88 IiI. How do you think a Government pro- gram should operate? (Check one item.) (Total of 3,233 returns; 24.7 percent failed to answer this question.) Percent 1. Use price supports only_-....--.---. 17 2. Use production payments only for both perishables and nonperish- ables _..._----~.---.---~-~------- 8 8. A combination of price supports for storables and production payments for perishables _..---__---.---.... 39 4. No supports at all...---.---_----..- 36 IV. Which of these proposals for a farm program do you favor most? (Check one item.) (Total of 3,233 returns; 21 percent failed to answer this question.) Percent 1. Do you favor the Agricultural Act of 1949? _-_---__. e+e 13 2. Would you favor amending the Agri- cultural Act of 1949 as follows__... 50 (a) By putting flexible price sup- ports into effect now... 17 (b) By using only modernized parity formulas____--_--. 10 (c) By establishing a bipartisan agricultural committee to advise with the Secretary of Agriculture, with wide discretionary powers in de- termining the method and level of price supports._... 32 (d) By other amendments_-__-. 4 8. Would you favor the Department of Agriculture plan propcsed by Secre- NoTE.—Because of the fact that some checked more than one item, the response in percentages may total more than 100 percent. National Affairs Platform of the American Veterans Committee EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Rrcorp the national affairs platform of the American Vet- erans Committee, adopted by its fourth annual convention held at Chicago, Il, in November 1949. I am informed by the Public Printer that the manuscript will make approxi- mately 2% pages of the Recorp, at a cost of $184.50. There being no objection, the plat- form was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: NaTioNaL AFFAIRS PLATFORM PREAMBLE We believe that the United States, having the greatest productive capacity in the world and a heritage of freedom and democracy, has outstanding opportunties and responsi-~ bilities to set examples of high social, polit- ical and economic standards which can lead mankind to a freer, more abundant life. In order to strengthen our democracy and our economy so as to enable us best to carry out and fulfill these responsibilities and oppor- tunities, we support the following basic prins ciples: A3939 ECONOMIC SECURITY Economic security and personal freedom are consistent objectives which can and must be achieved in an ever fuller degree. Full employment and full production: In the tremendous productive capacity of the American economy we have the potential to eliminate want and to provide a decent liv- ing standard for all our citizens. To achieve these ends we must maintain a high level of production, full employment, and opportuni- ties for all our people to share fairly in our vast production of goods and services, Par- ticularly, we must utilize all public and pri- vate means consistent with the preservation of essential individual freedoms to prevent recurring depressions with resulting mass unemployment, widespread business failures and devastating losses of our productive re- sources. Private responsibility: Labor, manage- ment, farmers and consumers must cooper- ate toward achieving a constantly expand- ing and stable economy. To facilitate this cooperation, the Federal Government must assure a free and strong labor movement, eliminate monopolies and restraints of trade so as to restore and strengthen competition, assure opportunities for private business ex- pansion, take other action to aid and assist small business and assure a fair return to agriculture for abundant and efficient pro- duction. The Federal Government must as- sure the conditions under which a free and strong labor movement can exist. Government responsibility: All govern- ments, Federal, State, and local, must pro- vide the environment necessary for sus- tained prosperity. The ultimate responsibil-~ ity for full employment and full production, however, rests with the Federal Government. The Congress and the executive branches of the Federal Government have and must ex- ercise the powers to accomplish the full and efficient utilization of our human and mate- rial resources through such measures as: (a) Monetary policies; (b) Taxation; (c) Spending programs; (a) Credit control; . (e) Trade policies; (£) Conservation and development of nat- ural resources; (g) A long-range Federal program of atomic research and development for peace- time purposes, INDIVIDUAL SECURITY Individual economic security is predicated on a stable and expanding economy. Equality of opportunity: The rights to equal economic opportunity for all are essen- tial not only to individual security but also to a strong and free democratic economy. Private responsibility: In our complex and interdependent economy the ability of the individual to provide personal economic se- curity is limlted. ‘Therefore, in their eco- nomic relationships with each other, labor, management, and farmers must provide ever- increasing protection against such economic hazards as old age, accidents, ill health, and seasonal unemployment. Government responsibility: The ultimatp responsibility for a rcoasonable minimym level of economic security for all marta rests with government. The entire govern- ment economic and social security program should be greatly expanded with respect to persons covered, level of benefits, additional types of risk such as illness, adequate public housing, and educational aids. A success- fully functioning American economy can well afford to provide security for all its people. CIVIL RIGHTS _ The fullest measure of individual liberty subject only to the minimum restraints nec- essary to assure maximum freedom for all the people must be our goal. . Protecting civil rights: It is vital to our free democracy that we resist all attempts to
A3940 make inroads on our basic civil hberty. We have complete confidence in the intelligence and discernment of the American people to reject undemocratic ideologies and in the efficacy of our Constitution and judicial sys- tem to protect our democracy without hys- teria and thought control. Expanding civil rights: Discrimination, segregation, and intolerance have no place in a democratic society. They must be fought aggressively by legislation, education, and in the courts. CONCLUSION We reiterate our faith in a free democracy and a vigorous competitive economy. We pledge ourselves to fight for expanding civil rights and against all inroads designed to weaken or destroy civil liberties, RESOLUTIONS ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS Housing Housing Act of 1949: We commend the Congress for its enactment of the General Housing Act of 1949, which lays the basis for a national housing program by providing for slum clearance and urban redevelopment, low rent, federally subsidized public-housing projects, additional farm housing aids, and increased housing research. We now call on local communities to take prompt action to implement the provisions of this act by ap- plying for Federal loans and grants and we urge AVC chapters to take the lead in bring- ing action by local housing authorities, mu- nicipal councils, and State legislatures. Middle income housing: We do not believe, however, that the national housing job is completed. Millions of our fellow citizens, including many veterans, in the middle-in- come brackets, need nonsubsidized housing at rents they can afford. We therefore call on Congress to enact promptly the so-called Sparkman bill, S. 2046, which provides for direct Government long-term loans at a low rate of interest to housing cooperatives, Standardization: We urge revision and in. creased standardization of building codes throughout the Nation so as to lower the cost of housing by taking advantage of recent technological advances, Temporary housing: We ask for an investi- gation of the permanence of temporary housing facilities to determine how long they may be used for decent, sanitary housing. Discrimination: We further urge that there shall be no discrimination or segrega- tion in the sale or rental of housing units, financed or aided by public funds, for rea- sons of race, creed, color, national origin, po- litical beliefs, or family status. Rent control: We call for the strengthen- ing and continuation of rent control in all areas where there is a continuous shortage of adequate housing at reasonable rents. We specifically urge local AVC chapters to be on the alert to prevent selfish interests taking advantage of the local-option clause to lift controls where they are still needed. TAXATION National Taxation Commission: One of the most pressing needs of our Government today is a revision of the National, State, and local tax programs to gear them to the needs of a fully employed and expanding economy with special reliance on the prin- ciple of taxation according to ability to pay. Toward this end, we urge the President of the United States to appoint a special non- partisan, technical tax commission similar in principle to the Hoover Commission, this commission to work with the Council of Economic Advisers to set up a sound, just, and stable tax program. Sales taxes: We oppose Federal, State, and local sales and excise taxes because they fall proportionately more heavily on lower-in~ come groups, not being based on ability to pay. We urge the immediate repeal of all wartime excise taxes and substitution of more progressive taxes to make up the losses in government revenues. Taxation stabilization: As recommended as early as 1947 by the Committee on Eco- nomic Development, we urge the revision of our present national taxation policies by stabilizing various income and other tax rates for a period of 5 years, based on an agreed desirable level of employment and annual national income to be stimulated by all means possible. Equity investment and small business: With a view toward giving incentives to equity investment and new and small busi- nesses, we urge the following revisions of our present national taxation policies: (a) Formulation of a program permit- ting profit carry backs and loss carried for- ward for new small businesses. (b) More effective enforcement of section 102 of the Internal Revenue Code, with the appropriation of additional funds for this purpose if necessary. COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT We endorse the cooperative movement as an extension of economic democracy. We recognize the value of the farmer-owned and farmer-operated ccoperatives and urge closer relationship with urban and rural agencies. We support the Rochdale type of urban cozi- sumer cooperative. We oppose any proposed taxes on the funds of cooperatives used to pay patronage refunds.. We oppose specif- ically the tax proposals of the National Tax Equality Association. AGRICULTURE We urge the continued national stabiliza- tion of farm purchasing power through adoption of a plan such as proposed by Sec~ retary of Agriculture Charles F, Brannan, PUBLIC WELFARE Department of Public Welfare: We recog~ nize the need for and urge the creation of a Federal Department of Public Welfare un- der a Secretary with Cabinet rank. Social security: We urge the United States Senate to enact the “Social Security Amend- ments of 1949” (H. R. 6000) as passed re-~ cently by the House of Representatives, ex- panding the coverage of workers. Unemployment benefits: We support the extension of unemployment benefits to per-~ sons who are unemployed because of illness or injury not connected with employment. Health insurance: We support legislation providing for national compulsory health insurance to be incorporated within the Federal social security program. LABOR In order to implement the policies of AVC with respect to labor, we seek to accom-~ plish the tollowing objectives: (a) Immediate repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and reinstatement of the principles of the Wagner and Norris-LaGuardia Acts. (b) The appointment of a General Coun- sel of the National Labor Relations Board under the Taft-Hartley Act will impartial- ly represent the best interests of labor, management, and the public as a whole. (c) Elimination of jurisdictional strikes. (d) A universal minimum wage under Federal and State laws of not less than $1 an hour. (e) Enactment and enforcement of Fed- eral and State laws establishing adequate safety and health standards for ail workers in hazardous industries. (f) Transfer of functions of State unem- ployment offices to the Federal Government. PUBLIC WORKS We strongly urge the President to have the administration of the Fublic Works Agency immediately undertake in coopera~ tion with State and local agencies the plan- ning of an adequate public-works program. These shall be aimed at providing a potential shelf of public works and Jobs to be used in time of possible economic depression. We APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD support this in order to encourage State cons tributery programs, NATURAL RESOURCES Columbia Valley Authority: Recognizing the necessity for efficient development of the natural resources of the Nation, we urge im- mediate establishment of a Columbia Valley Authority as a logical next step in carrying out the principles and procedures so suc- cessfully demonstrated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. We specifically urge pas- sage of the CVA bill (S. 1645) which in addi- tion to providing for a better development of natural resources, would help to maintain full employment and strengthen national defense. Such an agency should continue the present Federal policies of favoring wide- spread public distribution of electric power and the development of family-size farms. Reclamation: We sume the present Fed- eral irrigation, revae.'i forestry, and grazing policies, and favor retention of the 160-acre irrigation and reclamation limita- tion. David E. Lilienthal: We commend, upon his resignation as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the outstanding public service of David E. Lilienthal. We are con- fident that the relinquishment of his present burdensome responsibility, which he has so ably executed in the face of persistent at- tacks by those less far-seeing than he, is only the beginning of a new phase of his long career of devoted public service. ECONOMIC CONFERENCE We recommend that the National Planning Committee invite all major like-minded or-~ ganizations in this country to participate in a national economic conference to be held some time during the first half of 1950. The purpose of this conference will be to discuss and formulate ways and means of avoiding another disastrous depression such as the world experienced in the 1930’s, these find~ ings to be publicized through the press and the organizations represented at the confer- ence, so that influence may he brought to bear on our legislators to see that they are fully aware of their responsibilities in this critical period in our history. EDUCATION Federal aid to States: While we are op- posed to segregation and discrimination in schools, we support as the best bill possible at this time the Thomas bill, as passed by the Senate in 1949, which provides: (a) Aid to States in terms of the need for such assistance and the ability and willing- ness of the States to cooperate in the pro~ gram. (b) That segregated schools must be given their proportionate share of Federal assist- ance in States where such funds are used. (c) That as to auxiliary services to non- public schools, the question of Federal aid is to be left to the States. We call on Congress to establish a system of Federal financial assistance to qualified students without regard to race, creed, or color seeking college and advanced training. Social science research: We further call on Congress to appropriate funds to foster re- search in the social sciences. We urge the passage of State fair educa- tional practice laws similar to those laws passed in New York and Massachusetts. AMERICAN TERRITORIES We urge Congress to enact legislation promptly: (a) To enable the Territory of Hawaii to become a State. (b) To enable the Territory of Alaska to become a State. {c) To provide organic acts for Guam, American Samoa, and the trust territory of the Pacific islands and to provide ade- quate funds to effect the orderly transfer of administrative responsibility for these is-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD lands from the Navy Department to a civilian agency. (ad) To extend the benefits of Federal grants-in-aid programs to territories under United States jurisdiction to the fullest ex- tent possible. RESOLUTIONS ON CIVIL RIGHTS The American Veterans Committee believes that the dignity and freedom of the indi- vidual citizen are the foundations of demcc~ racy, both at home and abroad. In furtherance of these beliefs we espouse the following resolutions: RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS SEGREGATION, DISCRIMi= NATION, AND INTIMIDATION We oppose all forms of racial discrimina- ticn and segregation—in housing, education, the armed forces, places of public accom- modation, employment, and in all walks of life. Distinctions based on race are contrary to the ideals upon which this country is founded. We urge the following measures to narrow the gap which now exists between those ideals and the practice of discrimi- nation and segregation which is now unfor- tunately so widely prevalent in our country: (a) The repeal of all State statutes and municipal ordinances which compel dis- crimination and segregation based on race. (b) We urge the immediate adoption of effective measures to curtail filipusters and the enactment of Federal laws requiring fair employment practices, punishing lynching, outlawing poll taxes, protecting the right to vote, and the creation of a civil rights divi- sion with adequate funds in the Department of Justice. (c) The extension of Federal, State, and local civil-rights laws. (da) Inclusion in all Federal legislation making grants to States, cities, or private in- stitutions of a provision requiring the ben- efits of those grants to be used without dis- crimination or segregation on the basis of race or religion. (e) Termination of all Federal tax exemp- tions of institutions practicing racial or re- ligious discrimination, whether by segrega- tion or otherwise, except religious or sectar- ian institutions discriminating only on the basis of religious creed. (f) Amendment of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 to end discrimination against Catholics and Jews. : (g) Passage of antimasking legislation where necessary and enforcement of antir masking legislation already passed as 4& means to check the Ku Klux Klan. (h) Action of AVC’ers to boycott the American Bowling Congress and the Ameri- can Contract Bridge League and other simi- lar national bodies which practice discrimi- nation. (i) We urge a Federal program of promo- tion of the attainment of full rights of citi< zenship and economic self-sufficiency of the American Indians through existing Federal agencies. (j) We urge the end of segregation and dis- crimination as practiced in the Panama Ca- nal zone and urge the abolition of those conditions that give rise to the term, “Gold and silver standard.” (K) We urge that economic discrimination be combaitted by requesting the manufac- turers and retailers so to label their goods clearly to indicate that they are made under conditions free from practices of discrimi- nation based on race, creed, or color and by bringing pressure through consumer groups to purchase only products so labeled, (1) Appropriate legislation or judicial ac- tion to compel the Federal Housing Admin-< istration to operate in accordance with the Federal Constitution by ceasing to guaran- tee the loans of financial organizations which in turn refuse loans to applicants because of race or color or which grant loans to minority groups only on houses in areas inhakited by nonwhites or to building and developers who practice discrimination because of race, creed, or color. (m) Cocperation with other organizations in conducting community civil-rights audits similar to the Montclair, N. J., project, cov- ering various phases of discrimination in housing, education, medical care, employ- ment, and social attitudes toward minority groups. (1) Enactment of legislation removing the last vestiges of discrimination against ori- ntals in the Federal immigration and natu-~ ralization law and in the Federal Reclama- tion Act. EDUCATION We urge that no educational institutions shall henceforth accept grants which are not available to members of minority races and that no nonsectarian educational institution shall henceforth accept grants which are to be available only to members of certain religions. We oppose all discriminatory practices in our educational institutions that deprive Americans of the right to an education be- Cause of race, religion, or national origin, The quota system and every form of racial gEegregation must be eliminated from the educational system of this country. We urge AVC to take action to achieve these ob- jectives, including obtaining public state- ments from educational cfficials on this mat- ter and seeking to have eliminated from application blanks any questions relating to race, religion, or national antecedents, and any photcgraph requirements. We recognize the right of sectarian insti- tutions to prefer students of their own reli- gious affiliation. We urge that until segregation in schools is eliminated in those States which now re- quire it the Federal Government should im- pose strict supervision to insure the equal distribution of Federal aid-to-education funds to white and Negro schools. MILITARY AFFAIRS We urge NPC and all the chapters to gath- er and publicize documentary evidence from all veterans in their respective communities regarding discrimination on basis of race and religion in the armed forces at the pres- ent time and during the war. We are encouraged by the progress already made by Secretary of Defense Johnson to- ward the elimination of discrimination in the Navy and the Air Force, and we urge the immediate extension of this policy toward a@ final successful end with the full inclu- sion of the United States Army. We call upon the various State councils ard their constituent chapters to adopt a vigorous program aimed at legislative action to eliminate discrimination in the National Guard units in their respective States and to pattern this legislation after the laws in re- gard to the National Guard units in the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The District of Columbia, which should be @ symbol of democracy, is a graphic illustra- tion of decay in our great tradition of civil liberty. Racial discrimination and segrega- ton in our Nation’s Capital adversely affect our international relations and impede prog- ress in racial relations throughout our coun- try. AVC, therefore, urges, in addition to other civil-rights measures which we re= quest for the country, that Congress enact legislation establishing a Commission on Human Relations for the District of Colum~ bia and that such legislation authorize ap- pointment of the Commission’s members by the President of the United States and not by the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, which now sanctions racial se- gregation in the District of Columbia. We endorse the bill, passed by the Senate and now before the House of Representatives, to grant to residents of the District of Co- A341 lumbia the right to local self-government and the right to vote. We urge all chapters to call upon their Representatives in Con- gress to sign the discharge petition so that tke bill may be brought to the floor of tha House for vote. FRDOEDOM OF SPEECH AND CONSCIENCE We oppose the hysterical attempt at thought control evidenced by bills intro- duced in the Congress, in numerous State legislatures and city councils, which would require teachers and other Federal, State, and city employees to take loyalty oaths. We urge the abolition of the House Com- mittee on Un-American Activities. We oppose attempts by congressional com- mittees to force Americans to state publicly their political affiliations under penalty of being cited for contempt. We urge the repeal of those provisions of the Smith Act which endanger freedom of speech and freedom of political opinions and beliefs. We urge that Executive Order 9335, estab- lishing the Federal loyalty program, be amended to require that no person shall be discharged from Federal employment on loy- alty grounds except where such employment jeopardizes the national security, and then only on the basis of competent evidence and in accordance with a procedure which pro- vides for a fair hearing based on specific written charges, with full opportunity to answer all charges and examine all wit- nesses, and the right of administrative and judicial appeal. We further urge that no organization be branded subversive without a fair hearing. We deplore such outrageous assaults on minorities by subversive mob action, as at Peekskill, N. Y., Groveland, Fla., and in Chicago, Tll. We condemn the tacit approval of such assaults on decency and democracy by the officials concerned. We denounce Governor Dewey, Mayor Kennelly, and other officials concerned for crass neglect of duty in failing to enforce the law or even rebuke the mob-cooperating officials under their control. We commend Mayor Zeidler, of Milwaukee, and his commission on human rights for his courageous, effective, and prompt action in halting mob rule by anti-Democratic ele- ments in his city. Spending Ourselves Into Prosperity EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Record, I include the following excerpts’ from a speech by Albert C. Agnew, vice president and general counsel of the Fed- eral Reserve Bank of San Francisco, de- livered before a convention of the Amer- ican Institute of Banking at Salt Lake City, Utah, May 17, 1950: Iz, Is Timez To DEBUNK FatsE DOCTRINE OF SPENDING OURSELVES INTO PROSPERITY Not many months ago we were told that economy was the order of the day and that substantial reduction of our national mort- gage was on the program. But now we hear again that old, repudiated and discredited cry, ‘We will spend ourselves into prosperity,” and more of that buncombe to the effect that, since we owe the money to ourselves, the size of the national debt is immaterial.
A3942 Federal debt can only be paid by spending less than we collect in taxes. Practically speaking, not one cent of new wealth is pro= duced by Government. The tax bill in this country has almost reached the point of di- minishing returns and, unless we call a halt, will reach the point where private incen- tive is destroyed and the risk of new capi- tal is no longer attractive because of tax burdens. The next step is repudiation or still further dilution of dollar value, followed by economic chaos. The money representing the $256,000,000,- 000 Government debt has been spent. It has been consumed. It is gone. It went for shells and office supplies and welfare projects and Government salaries. Where did it come from? It came from you and me, from Amer- ican individuals and organizations who turned over their capital to be consumed by Government. In exchange for this capital they received Government bonds and notes which can only be repaid by further surplus production and earnings of the people. If a nation is to have better housing, more food, clothing, and shelter for its under- privileged, higher real wages for its workers and pensions for its aged, such good things can be had in only one of two ways, through increased production of economically useful things and services, or through the redistri- pution of what’s available; forcibly taking from those who have and giving to those who have not. The latter course is clearly the one being pursued by our Federal Gov- ernment today. Herculean efforts are being made to sell the idea of the so-called Brannan plan to the American farmer. I am told that special pamphlets, adapted to differing communities, are being sent out by the millions in an effort to popularize this idea. What is it? Merely that all agricultural products shall be sold on the open market at whatever price they will bring in competition and the dif- ference between the price thus realized and that fixed by the Government as “fair” shall be paid as a subsidy. At about the same time that this proposal was placed before this country, Sir Stafford Cripps, the British Chancelor of the Ex- chequer, presented the new budget to the British Parliament. He said that the food- subsidy program had grown far beyond any expectation. Losses for the current year, he said, were estimated at $2,250,000,000, ‘““That,” said Sir Stafford, “just can’t goon.” He also said, “When I hear people speak of reducing taxation, when at the same time the cost of social services is rising in response to the demands of the same people, I sometimes ‘wonder whether they understand the old adage that we cannot eat our cake and have it too.” Then Sir Stafford told the British people that there would be a rise in regulated prices and that the tax rate must remain at the same devastating level, 40 percent of the pay of the average worker. And mind you, we are only 15 percent behind Great Britain in this regard, for our tax bill is now 25 percent of national earnings. So far we have dealt with figures, but what about the more important if less tangible moral degeneration of our people which has been the inevitable byproduct of the loose thinking, profligacy, and violation of funda- mental economic precepts which, for the past decade, we have witnessed in Government? Fifty-eight percent, or 83,000,000 of our pop- ulation have no adult experience with a pre- war administration. Most of our teen-agers have lived their entire lives under the cloud of some sort of ism—socialism, collectivism, spendism, wasteism, taxism, or Uncle Sam will provide for you from the cradle to the graveism. They have been taught to spend as they go, and take no thought for the mor- row, to consider frugality an out moded cus= tom and to demand more and more pay for less and less work. Nor have these soporifics, administered in overdoses from Washington, been confined to our youngsters. Many of us oldsters have, perhaps unconsciously, come to applaud each successive assumption of State, local, and in- dividual burdens and obligations by govern~ ment until we are well on the road to com- plete bureaucracy. Slowly but surely, over the past 16 years, we have been approaching the so-called col- lectivist state. One by one the areas for- merly subject to exclusive State control have been taken over by Government. Public housing, minimum wages and hours, educa- tion, social security, and crop control are afew examples. Socialized medicine is next on the proposed agenda. I sincerely hope that none of us will ever forget the fact that once the dead hand of government is laid upon the private lives, the private fortunes, and the private enter- prises of our people, it is never released. So- called welfare and socialistic schemes have only one gearshift; forward, never in re- verse. One of the favorite and well-known techniques of those who would sell us down the river of socialism is to drive an enter- ing wedge by obtaining a relatively small appropriation from Congress just to try out some cockeyed scheme leading to utopia and then urge that because we have gone that far, the money would be wasted if we did not go on. No; my friends, beware of trial baloons in socialism and managed economy. They are filled with a powerful gas that will take us to heights a fall from which spells utter ruin. Address of Hon. Clare Bocthe Luce EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks, I wish to include the following address by Hon. Clare Boothe Luce at the gold-medal-award dinner to Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt at the Hotel Waldorf Astoria in New York City on Sunday, May 21, 1950: Ladies and gentlemen, no award is more prized in this great city than the Williams- burg gold medal. And surely you have cho- sen the perfect recipient for it—Mrs. Roose- velt. Perhaps not everyone tonight feels you have chosen the right speaker to give wit- ness to this happy event. Then, they do not fully understand why, among women, Mrs. Roosevelt is the best loved woman in the world today. She is and always has been glad to meet anyone on the common ground of charity. And anyone who wants to stand on that high ground is always honored to meet there the first lady of the world, Who can, in so short a time as 10 minutes, enumerate the many other reasons why Mrs. Roosevelt is so admired by her sex? You can’t even speak in that time of her extraordinary career. By count she has made the world headlines in 18 careers. The mother of five children, and a grandmother, she was the world’s best known wife. And she has been, to use a popular expression, the most operative first lady in history. She has been a school teacher, a business wom- an, a world traveler, a propagandist, and a APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD charitarian—or if you prefer, a crusading reformer—an editor, author, columnist, ra- dio speaker, television broadcaster, and now, in the United Nations, a stateswoman. Here is a life as variegated and colorful as Joseph’s coat. And like Joseph’s coat, it has sometimes inspired envy, less of itself than because it covered such a multitude of virtues. I can do no more than hint at two or three of these enviable virtues. Perhaps after the virtue of charity, which she possesses in abundance, one should put her extraordinary serenity. Said Thomas a Kempis, a saintly old Dutch monk of the Fifteenth Century: The person with “large tranquillity of heart * * * heeds neither praises nor censures.” Surely, Mrs. Roose- velt has had more of praise and blame than any other living woman. There are some people who still refuse to admire Mrs. Roosevelt for any reason what- soever. These are, for the most part, un- happy folk who have no higher concept of liberty than the right it gives them to heap personal insults on public characters with impunity. Such people often try to justify their malice by attributing to the characters whose public acts they dare not attack, the basest of private motives. This habit of imputing to our neighbors wholly evil motives for good deeds is a peculiarly modern one. It is a common thing these days to hear people say: “Oh, yes; he is ‘generous,’ and gives lots of money away, but it’s Just a guilt complex about the way he treated his family.” Or: “Oh, ye., she does spend herself visit- ing the poor, but that’s just because she’s hungry for power over her inferlors.” Or- and this must ring a bell—a loud bell—for Mrs. Roosevelt: “Oh, yes; he (or she) is on the right side of the issue—but it’s just because they’re trying to get votes.” Of course, only the saints do things purely for the love of God, and solely for the love of neighbor. That is precisely why they are saints! But the majority of mankind acts from somewhat mixed motives. And that is why honesty, if not charity, counsels all of us to refrain from judging the rest of us harshly. Now the plain fact is, Mrs. Roosevelt has done more good deeds, on a bigger scale, for a longer time, than any woman who ever appeared on our public scene. No woman has ever so comforted the distressed—or dis- tressed the comfortable. It follows, in an increasingly un-Christian world, that the interpretations of her activities are often as mean as they are silly. Perhaps that is because our generation has forgotten—or mustn’t we honestly admit, it was never taught in our public schools: “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” In the salty language of Al Smith, let’s iook at the Eleanor Roosevelt record. Since girl- hood, the thread of compassion for unfortu- nate and innocent victims of society has been dominant in the pattern of her life. To- night she is being given a gold medal for a lifetime of work among the underprivileged. She began, as @ shy girl of 18, at the Uni- versity Settlement on New York’s lower East Side, teaching gymnastics and dancing to the city’s poor children. No one can say how many individuals, as well as groups, she has since helped with her hands, her purse, her voice, her pen—and when necessary, her political influence. In my own short public life I was con- stantly made aware of how many people she had succored. And who knows how many more of these victims of the palpable in- justices that abound in our social system she tried to help, and could not, because no one person can do it all?
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I hope Mrs. Roosevelt and I are agreed that most of these injustices can he corrected short of stepping up the trend toward state socialism. The work of Williamsburg Settle- ment itself is proof of the dynamic effec- tiveness of voluntary soccial-aid patterns. Though may I say, in passing, even if we were not agreed, it is another of Mrs. Roose- velt’s virtues, that she would not mind my Giffering with her. She has always tolerated contrary opinions with good humor, even when they fundamentally disagree with her own, as—it is no secret—one or two of mine do. But to the virtue of tolerance, Mrs. Roose- velt adds that of fortitude. She has faced not oniy contrary and reasonable opinions with great sweetness, but—what is harder— harsh and irrational opposition with calm inflexibility. For example: Consider the criticism— which often degene’ated into foul abuse— that she suffered for her steadfast champion- ship of minority racial groups. Certainly not the bitterest foe of her political party or of her personal ideologies can deny that, since Abraham Lincoln no one has done more to lift the hearts and raise the heads of the Negro people. I spcke a few nights ago with a Roman Catholic bishop from the African missions. He told me of the great intellectual ability of some of his young colored priests in his Tanganyka dioceses. He said they conversed fluently in four languages, passing their phi- losophy examinations—in Latin—with grades that would be the envy of most white semina- yians. We agreed that the failure of our col- ored people to “register” intellectually was the result of their being persistently treated like third-class citizens—which is to say, not like citizens at all. He said that what is called the racial inferiority of the Negro is not the cause, but the result, of the dis- crimination practiced against them, even in our so-called democratic public-school sys- tem. But what we agreed on most heartily was that no woman in all American history had tried harder or done more to break down racial discriminations, through an appeal to humanitarian ethics, then the winner of to- night’s award. If Mrs. Roosevelt had never done anything else in her whole career, if indeed all else she has ever done had been ill done, there would remain the story of her fight for this cruelly used 10 percent of our population. It alone would earn her a glorious place among the heroines of democracy. But much else has been well done. No less an authority than Time magazine has called Mrs. Roosevelt “the greatest female political force in the world.” She has recently en- listed this great force against communism abroad. As one of the five United States dele- gates to the United Nations Assembly, and during her tenure as Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, she came to know, the hard way, how Soviet communism seeks to sabotage or denigrate American democracy. And she saw at last how it would destroy those very human rights for which she has fought her whole life long. Since then, in the United Nations, she has over and over again thwarted, and beaten down, and outargued, and when all else failed—outsat the Soviet delegates. In her column, in her speeches and broad- casts, she is the oracle to millions of Ameri- can housewives. She influences millions of American homes. When her justly notable tolerance and patience with the Communists finally gave out, that day tolerance of com- munism in America ended officially. It is safe to say that her resistance to Soviet communism is a more potent factor in win- ning the cold war than an extra billion dol- lars of Marshall-plan aid. “Who,” asks the Prophet, “shall find a valiant woman? Far and from the utmost coast is the price of her.” Well, far and to the utmost coasts, anyone who can read or write, and who is not iron-headed or iron~ hearted can find, with no trouble at all, a very valiant woman—in the beloved and fa- miliar figure, Eleanor Roosevelt. Sigh of Relief Day REMARKS HON. ROY 0. WOODRUFF OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. WOODRUFF. Mr. Speaker, I want to propose a new national holiday. It will be called Sigh of Relief Day, and it will be celebrated every year on May 28. ‘The purpose of the celebration is to commemorate the fact that on May 28 the Truman administration, and espe- cially the Justice Department, will be able to relax completely for the first time in 3 years. In case anyone has forgotten, it was on the night of May 27-28, 1947, that some-~ body dynamited the election commission- ers’ office in Kansas City and stole the crooked ballots that constituted the evi- dence in the 1946 Democratic primary vote frauds. That was the primary in which Representative Roger C. Slaughter was defeated on the direct orders of President Truman. For these frauds 71 persons were indicted. Everyone impli- cated have gone scot free, thanks to the ballot thefts. From that day to this, not a single person has been arrested for the ballot thefts. On this Sunday, May 28, the 3-year statute of limitations will run out, and the criminals will then enjoy com- plete immunity for the rest of their lives. Yes, there will be many sighs of relief on Sunday, and they will come from some of the best-known people in Washington and Kansas City, I am sure they will want to remember Sunday, and hence I think the day should go down in history as Sigh of Relief Day. Mr. Speaker, I include as a part of these remarks an editorial from the De- troit (Mich.) Free Press, which discusses this unsavory episode in a somewhat more pointed way than I have done: FREEDOM FOR THE CRIMINALS—Srx More Days This will be a critical week in Washing- ton for the Truman administration. In six more days the statute of limita-, tions—3 years—will have been reached and the criminals who exploded the vaults of the county house at Kansas City, to steal evidence of vote frauds in connection with the purging of Congressman Roger Slaughter, ordered defeated by President Truman, will be free of all danger of prosecution. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday—what a celebration the underworld bosses of Kansas City can put on. The Presidential grin will be beaming down at them lithographically from the walls as “a dues paying member of the club”— his proudest boast when he pardoned all the Pendergast gang and ostentatiously at- tended the funeral of his teacher and spon- sor, the notorious Pendergast himself who A3943 grafted uncounted millions from every known form of corruption. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch will say, again, today: “SIX DAYS “On the night of May 27-28, 1947, a safe in the Kansas City election commissioners’ office was blasted and vital evidence in the 1946 Democratic primary vote frauds was stolen. From that day to this, no agency of the law, not even the celebrated FBI, has brought about the arrest of the guilty per- son or persons. Since the statute of limita- tions takes effect after 3 years, the FBI has 6 days to solve this outrageous crime against the cornerstone of American democracy— free and honest elections.” In fairness to the heroic members of the FBI with their high vision of civic duty and their integrity, let it be said here that the St. Lous Post-Dispatch errs in one slight degree. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has no power to act. Under the law, all that J. Edgar Hoover and his men can do is to investigate and report to the Attorney General. Director Hoover and his staff are not al- lowed to even make recommendations. He is helpless. The Senate Committee on Crime should demand the FBI files on the whole Kansas City parade of corruption which has been so desperately covered. See if Mr. Truman will also refuse that. The always careful and painstakingly ac- curate weekly review, Newsweek, says in the current issue that administration leaders are determined to keep President Truman’s name clear of any involvements in the ex- posure of Kansas City crime and its connec- tion with Kansas City politics. How can such a thing be done in any hon- est investigation? Who ordered Congressman purged? . When the Kansas City Star exposed the vote frauds, why was it necessary to dyna~ mite the county vaults to steal the evidence? Who killed Charlie Binaggio and four oth- ers who were cailed to testify before a grand jury which, with only partial evidence, shocked all Missouri with its report of vice and corruption? Why were these people murdered as part of 23 politico-gangster killings in 2 years with none ever solved? The people can keep on asking this as there is no statute of limitations on murder. Why, and why again, did Vice President BARKLEY Violate custom and tradition, if not law itself, in picking his own, or the Truman administration’s, committee of five to go through the motions of investigating the national crime syndicate which has its ten- tacles deep into Kansas City? In violation of all senatorial protccol he himself picked the two Republicans to serve on the feeble little committee of five. Always before a minority party has been allowed to select its minority members. Ray Moiley, of Newsweek, famed authority on the science of government, calls upon the American newspapers to do the investigat- ing into the Kansas City mess, wherever it may lead. He says: “Tt is a story of high politics and low liv- ing, of great influence, badly placed loyal- ties, safe blowing, murder, gambling, hood-~ lumism. * * * In the national interest it should be rooted out and told. * * * It is becoming clear that the sordid tale will not be elicited by official investigations.” There is here a Pulitzer prize for a good reporter; but, as the Kansas City gunmen shoot straight and often his accolade might have to be pinned to his shroud. Slaughter
A3944. The Battle of the Budget Bulge EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HOMER FERGUSON OF MICHIGAN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, on May 2 I had the great pleasure of ad- dressing a luncheon meeting of the United States Chamber of Commerce, which was in session here in Washing- ton. The subject was the Battle of the Budget Bulge. I took as my theme the vital importance to American institu- tions of that battle, just as was the Bat- tle of the Bastogne Bulge in France. I sought to stress that the reduction of the Federal budget, with the ending of deficit financing, is a three-way effort. It in- volves Congress, which has constitutional authority over fiscal policies through its control of appropriations. It involves the President, who evolves policies and actually allots the money for spending. It involves the public, who ratify the policies that call for either big govern- ment and big spending or retrenched government and limited spending. Iam happy to report that the response to my remarks has been enthusiastic and gratifying. I think the people are recognizing that they have to pay for every bit of government they get, and that if they want to pay less they will have to take less. It remains for Con- gress and the executive branch to see that idea through, and to put forth our every effort in this Battle of the Budget Bulge which alarms the people. I now have a transcript of my informal remarks before the United States Cham- ber of Commerce, and I ask unanimous consent that they may be printed in the Appendix of the Recor. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THe BaTILe or THE Bupcer Bucs Members of the United States Chamber of Commerce, I come here today as one of those public officials who happens to be in the front-line trenches as far as the battle of the bulge of the budget is concerned, I have just come from a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee, where we were considering the rivers, harbors, and flood-control appropriations. I can tell you that the mud in those trenches is knee deep, and we dre not doing very well as far as the battle of the budget bulge is concerned. We have just heard from the Department of Defense on its budget. I am not going to criticize the Department of Defense. All of us want to have the best defense possible, but I think that you have heard in a way what we who are in the trenches are up against when it comes to trying to reduce the bulge in the budget. It would appear that every dollar is essential in this national de- fense program. Of course, we heard the same thing before we found that they could reduce the Civilian personnel in the Services by 163,000, which took off, as our good friend here has told you, just about a half billion dollars in the payroll. ’ We need a strong defense. But we are talking about a budget that is taking just about a third of your income. We are in a cold war. It is cold and getting even colder. When speaking of defense I think America must recognize that there is a great defect in our armor unless we can reduce the size of this bulge in the budget. Yes; we are told on Capitol Hill, and you are told out in the field, that 71 percent of the $42,000,000,000 that is asked to be appropriated is for non- reducible items, the cost of past wars, and future preparations. Seventy-one percent of the budget. However, it all depends upon what you call nonreducible. I would call truly nonreducible the $5,600,000 of interest to those who have put up those different bonds as being a nonreducible. I would say that certain salaries like that of the Supreme and the other courts, the reduction of which the Constitution prohibits, are nonreducible. Beyond those items that are irreducible by law there is nothing so sacred that it can’t stand scrutiny. The whole problem, my friends, is Just this: We have a budget, which, as the Presi- dent said when he sent it up to us last Jan~- uary, would call for a deficit of $5,100,000,000, But the Joint Committee on Internal Reve- nue has just recently told us at the present rates of receipts and expenditures the deficit Will not be $5,100,000,000 but $7,300,000,000. Now, I haven’t any idea just how much money that is. It happens to be very close to the total assessed valuation of my State of Michigan. It has taken the citizens of Michigan since 1837 to accumulate taxable estates of around $8,000,000,000. Here we are going to have almost that much in deficit spending at a time when we are said to be the most prosperous that we have ever been. Those are the figures that we are facing, and something, in my opinion, must be done about them. If I didn’t think there were chances of us losing this battle of the buige of the budget, then I would say let’s go ahead on this spend- ing spree; but when I see ahead what it means to lose this battle, as our distin- guished general saw over in France that to lose that Battle of the Bulge meant the loss of the war, I say to you today that if we lose this battle of the bulge of the budget, it can mean the loss of the great institu- tions of the United States of America. And don’t forget it. General MacAuliffe said at Bastogne, and from my position in the trenches on the Hill I see the same thing. The institutions of America, the individual enterprise system of the United States of America, can disappear from the face of this globe. And don’t say for a minute that it can’t happen here. No, we can’t just say, “Nuts,” and let it pass over. General Mc- Auliffe didn’t just say “Nuts.” He used his talents and his men to win that battle. I ask you this day to use your talents and your men out in the field to win this battle that we have to fight. I am pleased to be on your program today with our distinguished economist, Edwin G. Nourse, who was Economic Adviser to the President. He left that position 6 months ago, and he is going to speak to you today, quite frankly I know, about this battle of the bulge in the budget, - Dr. Nourse said this up in New York to the Economy Club—and he didn’t say it just be- cause he was speaking to an economy club because I know that he believes in it as he, too, has been in the trenches—he said that “the first order of business for this coun- try in 1950 is to turn from the easy accept- ance of deficit spending as a way of life to the making of specific and hard-headed bal- ance and getting back to black ink and a long-run program of sound debt manage- ment.” That was a warning. That was something that should be heeded. That was something that showed to everyone ahead that we were, if not careful coming into deficit spending. That was also a warning of inflation, Oh, yes; we have had a lot of preaching since 1932 about deficit spending. Lord Keynes was the hero on deficit spending. He APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD told you that you could spend your way along to prosperity, that you had nothing to fear, that you could spend and spend, and no matter how large your budget would get, no matter how large your national debt would get, it was of no great concern because you owed it to yourself. Well, if that is true, with our $25'7,000,000,000 of debt we all ought to be getting rich very fast because we have certainly been increasing the debt to our- selves. But be that as it may, be that the wisdom as he may have told us about it when we were in a depression, I say to you that it does not apply when we have the greatest employment and greatest dollar prosperity that we have ever had. Yet we are increasing our spending so that we are tak- ing a third of the national income, and in- creasing our debt accordingly. I want to read you something that was said by Franklin Delano Roosevelt about deficit spending. Of course, this was in 1932 when the President was a candidate and not when he was in office, but I think he was sincere and it has a lot of wisdom in it. He said this: “If a nation is living within its income, its credit is good. If within some crisis it lives beyond its income for a year or two, it can usually borrow temporarily on reasonable terms, but if, like the spendthrift, it throws discretion to the winds, is willing to make no sacrifice at all in spending, is taxing up to the limit of the ability of the people to pay and continues to pile up deficitis, it ison the road to bankruptcy.” ‘There is a lot of wisdom in that, Now, we have a lot of expenses besides the $12,000,000,000 that we have just heen hear- ing about as defense costs. The budget is going to run better than $42,000,000,000. So if you are satisfied with every dollar for the national defense, let’s talk about the other $30,000,000,000, and see what about those. This statement that I have just read to you said that the Nation would be on the road to bankruptcy. Well, I don’t think we can exactly apply this term “bankruptcy” to @ nation. A sovereign power, such as the United States, will not go into bankruptcy as you and I might go into bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means the inability to pay your debts and your creditors start to press you. That doesn’t happen in a Government such as ours. If the bondholders start to press the United States Government, we will just print more money, commandeer more credit. The President can request that more money be printed. You are not going into bank- ruptcy. You will print more currency, you will refund your bonds, you will extend the payment on them, you will pile up this deficit spending on top of this $25'7,000,000,000. That, my friends, is not bankruptcy. But it is inflation. You know what has happened since 1939. As far as currency is concerned, one of the hardest things that we have in Congress— and I know you have this back home—is to have people appreciate what a dollar is. To many, many people it is merely the name, a dollar, and if they are getting a dollar for something, they are not concerned with what that dollar may buy. Let’s just take what has happened since 1939. Let’s say that you bought—and I have a friend who did-—$10,000° worth of Govern- ment bonds at a cost of $7,500. In 10 years he was to get $2,500 dollars interest. He cashed them in in 1949 and he then had $10,000 on his table. But let’s look at the purchasing value of the dollar between 19389 and 1949. I will take the Govern- ment’s own figures from the Labor Depart- ment. They placed the value of a dollar at 100 percent at that time and they now place the value at 59.9 percent. Let’s use the figure 60 for a round figure. The man got back in buying power $6,000. Not only did he lose the amount of his interest, but he lost $1,500 of his capital. I asked that man what he was going to do with his $10,000 and he
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD said, “I am going to buy Government bonds again with it.” Why? Because there are very few places that he feels he can invest that money and the tax gatherer wouldn’t take it all instead of him losing the $1,500 dollars. He lost all his interest and a good part of his capital, but it was still better than confiscatory taxation. If we will take the pattern that is laid down in Great Britain we will see where they have taken by taxation all of the surplus money so that there was no place the people could realiy have any money to invest as so-called risk capital. The people of the United States today are spending more money on horce-racing and gambling and so forth, than they are putting into what you and I used to think was risk capital. There is a reason for that, and taxation is one of the reasons for that. Confiscatory taxation, like inflation, is the by product of deficit financ- ing. So we come down to this: How are we going to cut the budget? Well, I think that we can say that the budget calls for two types of functions in government, those .that al- ready have existed and those that we want to add. You are going to get the amount of government you pay for—well not quite, and at times I think it is a very good thing that you don’t get all the government you pay for, because if you did you would be worse off than you are today. [Laughter.] But let’s look at these functions that we are talking about, that you are paying for. You are paying for them because Government thinks or likes to think that you are demand- ing them. As far as I am concerned there are three groups of persons that have to do with the reducing of this bulge in this budget. I am going to say to you that the people of the United States of America are No, 1. Your representatives in Congress are No. 2. The President, who symbolizes and is in effect the executive branch of the Government, is No.3. All together are the Government, and each has its part to play in this battle of the budget bulge. Now, I wonder whether or not you have ever known a candidate to either the Senate or. the House who. was defeated in his home. district o1 State because he got big appro- priations for his district or his State. Have you ever known an organization to go out to fight a man for reélection because he was getting them big appropriations for their district or their State. No, but you have all known men who were defeated because it was felt that the Senator or Congressman wasn’t able to get enough for. their particu- lar district or enough for their particular, State. Now, you all have heard that politi- cians buy votes by these appropriations. You have heard the term pork barrel appropria- tions. But I want to say this to you, if votes are bought, they are only bought from those who cast them, and they happen to be the taxpayers of the United States of Amer- ica. If you ever come down here from your own district to insist upon getting something for nothing from Government, you are going to find out that you are going to pay more in tax dollars than you ever get back. I re- member the cartcon recently in one of the papers which showed John Q. Public and Uncle Sam together. Uncle Sam was hand- ing the tin cup out to the taxpayer, saying, “Put the money in the till, put the money in the cup. I have got to have more taxes.” Under Uncle Sam’s arm was another arm from John Q. Public, back to Uncle Sam, with the same kind of tin cup, saying, “Put it in there, Uncle; I have got to have more subsidies.” That is exactly what is happen- ing, except the tax eaters on the public pay- roll have to take theirs out before either one of them gets the services or the money that they expected. So I want to tell you that you, the public, have a big part in this battle of the budget bulge. If you want Government services and supports, you'll pay for them. If you don’t want to pay for them, you'll have to tell Gov- ernment that you don’t want some of those services and supports. We in Congress have our full responsibllity, of course. I don’t want to avoid any of that responsibility, and I didn’t come here to make any apologies. I think it may help if I tell you of some of our difficulties when it comes to putting Government economy into effect. I want to tell you what can happen to you when you are on the Appropriations Commit- tee—to show you how difficult it can be. I remember once when we were talking about cutting some item out of the appro- priation bill for the United States Post Office, It happened to be an executive hearing. I tell you, gentlemen, if you want a thing to get out quickly and go far, just say you have got an executive or secret meeting. The word seems to travel much faster and much better than if you held it in the open and published it. This was an executive hear- ing, and it was a question of cutting out some items of the Post Office appropriation. Ina very short time my telephone started to ring, and it seemed that all the lawyers in Flint, Mich., started to callme. They said, ‘What is the matter with you down there in Con- gress? What is the idea of breaking up the mail service?” They told me, “You have practiced law. You know what it is to go to court in the morning without having received your mail, when you are apt to-lose a good case just because you had to go over to court and stay there until noon, and you didn’t get your mail until noon.” Well, the first call kind of surprised me, and I said, “What are you talking about?” They said, “We just got word from the Postmaster that you are trying to cut an item in the Post™ Office budget, and they. have stopped the morning mail delivery up here in Flint as far as the businessmen are coxicerned.” It was not a very subtle way, but it was a” very effective .way. of putting pressure on members of the Appropriations Committee. - With all-due respect to my good friends in the Defense Department, I just happened to check one interesting. item before I came over. Do you realize how.-many public-rela- tions men they have on their payroll? Well, I am going to read it to you. They have a total of 2,706, and their payroll is $8,162,505. hat means there are 2,706 people who can go out into the highways and byways to propa- gandize the American people for that one department. And that’s just one depart- ment. The last time I could get the figures on public relations and propaganda, do you know How many were on your total Federal payroll? There were some 24,000, and the payroll was $74,000,000. There were 1,080 people on the payroll of the executive offices of the White House alone whose duty it was to give you the propaganda and to tell you, among other things, why you couldn’t reduce the bulge in the budget of the United States of America. [Applause.] There is one big source of- our difficulty in Congress. Yes; we have some remedies. I conceived one a few months ago, and I got a couple of Senators to go on the bill with me. It was a Senate concurrent resolution, No. 35, which would do this: Before any bill could be re- ported by any committee of Congress it would have to get from the agency involved an estimate of the cost of the administration of that law for the first 5 years of its exist- ence. Wouldn’t that be a good law? I sit in the Appropriations Committee and I hear the same question coming up every day. I ask why this or that increase is needed, and they will say, “But, Senator, new duties have been added by virtue. .of bill so-and-so. Extra duties or new functions A3945 have been added.” So TI say, “Why don’t we find out what it is going to cost to administer a bill before we pass it?” That may slow up the spending process at its initial and per- haps most important stage. Well, we have been able to get that bill onto the Senate floor. The first time it came up it was blocked by the majority leader. Let’s say they need a little time to study it. But I hope they will study it before the next call of the calendar and that it will go through so that we may determine what a law is going to cost us before we put it on the books. That is fundamental and basic. It will save Congress a whole lot of later skirmishes in the budget battles. Here’s another item that illustrates our difficulties. We appropriated money last year to the Housing Administrator, who runs rent controls, because they told us that each em- ployee would have to have 26 days off and 17 Gays for illness. A few weeks ago a bill came in for deficiency in that Agency. It seems the employees didn’t take this vacation, they didn’t take their sick leave, and now, when the rent control is about to end—and let’s hope it does end on the Ist day of July— [Applause.] Well, they came up for $1,600,= 000 to pay for this leave that the men felt they had coming because they hadn’t taken their time off. To me, it was no more or less than padding the budget of the United States of America to the tune of $1,600,000, so we started looking further. Do you know what the record now shows that is due and will be due in the future on this item for all Gov- ernment departments? Better than a bil- lion dollars for this so-called sick and annual leave that you have already appropriated money for but hasn’t been taken. Did any- body come in and say we will reduce the budget that much? Oh, no, certainly not. Now, there is one other matter I want to talk about-and to stress. That is the distinc- tion between an appropriation and an ex- penditure. I said the President had some- thing to do about this business of economy, along with you and me, and he does. In an- appropriation bill we say no more or less than “We will put this amount of money in the bank.” It is like telling your wife you Will give her. so much money-for the ex- penses. Now, some of our wives, naturally, want to spend all that is in the bank. [Laughter.] They say that if the bank gives them blank checks there must be money in the bank, or the bank wouldn't give-them blank checks. [Laughter.] Well, that is the same way up in Congress. Congress is the banker. They spend the money and then they come back and say, “We have over= drawn. We have got a deficiency.” Now, what is the difference between ap- propriations and expenditures. I said an appropriation was only putting the money in the bank. Expenditures are the: with- drawals on that account. The Department of Defense did pretty well with its bank ac- count last year. You know the House, the Congress, insisted that they take $735,000,000 for a 70-group Air Force. One hundred fifty- seven million of it was cash and 577 million was for contract authority. They didn’t use & bit of that money. - Isay to the President of the United States today the mere fact that your Representa- tives put all that money in the bank is no excuse for him to squander and waste it. Moreover, it is no demand that he spend it. He could do just like he did on the 70-group Air Force if he has a will to do it. He can save. So equally responsible with the Con- gress—and I will take my responsibility and my blame—is the President of the United States when he uses money out of an appro- priation. It is within his power to reduce expenditures even more effectively than for. Congress to reduce appropriations. - Now, my friends, I am not’ going to take. much longer, but I want to leave some of:
A3946 these thoughts with you. We are on the battle front and we need your help. You are the reserves. This is your Government, after all. It doesn’t belong to those who are 2,000,~ 000 strong on our public payroll. You have to pay the bill, but as long as any of you are coming down and demanding this item, this subsidy and that subsidy, and this payroll or that payroll, someone has to pay. I will never forget what an editor once told me about Louis Johnson cutting these 160,000 off the Defense payroll. He went in a barber shop out in Jackson to get shaved. After he got down in the chair he thought the barber was going to slash his throat. The barber said, “You are a fine citizen of the United States of America. Here you have been advocating this economy. You have been advocating this Hoover program. You laid out on the streets in Jackson petitions to the Congress to reduce the cost of Govern- ment, and what happens? This morning my son, who was on the Federal payroll in the Armed Services, is back home, and I am going to have to support him. You are a fine citizen.” All this was said while the barber’s razor was skimming my friend’s neck. So, you see, it isn’t all roses. No, this is a big job. This is a real battle. "There is a real bulge in this budget. We face a deficit of $14,000,000,000 this year and next, and it could be more. How can we win the cold war if we are going to give to Russia the greatest secret weapon she could wish from anyone, and that is an economically unsound America? My judgment is that Russia will never fight with the weapons of a shooting war when she can see America going down the road to an insolvency that will create more confusion and allow her to penetrate the United States of America, as she did the other nations, with her subversive elements and take over. Let’s consider that we must defeat her by depriving her of the use of this great weapon, an insolvent America. It is up to you, it is up to Congress, it is up to the President, it is up to every citizen of the United States of America to help win this battle. [Applause.] Happenings in Washington EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD MARTIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MARTIN, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp my twenty- fifth radio broadcast from Washington on the subject Happenings in Washing- n. There being no objection, the broad- cast was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: HAPPENINGS IN WASHINGTON (Program No, 25) My fellow Pennsylvanians, this is En Mar-= gin, speaking to you from the Nation’s Capi- tal, and bringing you another discussion of happenings in Washington. A little more than a month ago, on one of these broadcasts, I discussed the social-se- curity law. I explained its weaknesses and the new amendments now being written in Congress. I told you about the bill which the House of Representatives passed and how the Senate Finance Committee was striving to improve it. I am a member of that important committee, You know of my fight for a sounder, safer foundation under the social-security struc- ture. I believe the workers whose wages are subject to social-security deductions should have complete assurance that they will re- ceive the benefits when they become eligible without being taxed a second time. But, as I said in my earlier broadcast, that cannot be accomplished in this Congress. Since that time, I’ve had thousands of letters from Pennsylvanians. They expressed great personal interest in the law and the proposed changes. Many sought further in- formation. I am therefore taking this occasion to report once more on the latest developments. Of course, the bill is a considerable distance from becoming law. Some changes must be expected. But its general form is now sharp enough to give a reasonable picture of what the social-security future holds in store. In my opinion, the bill which emerged from the Finance Committee is a better bill than the one approved by the House. Sev- eral important improvements have been made. The first would greatly increase the num- ber of persons to be covered under old-age and survivors insurance. The House would have taken in eleven million. We finally decided upon the addition of nine and one- half million to the thirty-five million now covered, Mostly they would be the self-employed, except for professional men and women. The House bill would have forced in hun- dreds of thousands of State and local em- ployees now already protected by sound pension systems of their own. These people appealed to us not to make them lose what they had for the lesser Federal benefits, In the Senate bill, public employees already under a retirement system are not included on a compulsory basis. Voluntary coverage would be available for the million and a half State and local government employees who are not under a retirement system. The House would also have forced in those whose income comes largely from tips and gratuities. Spokesmen for these people ap- pealed to us to exclude them. They are not in the law now and, at their request, we have kept them out. The question of farmers and farm labor was handled much the same by the Senate Committee and by the House. Farmers and farm labor are excluded from provisions of the law. However, the Senate committee agreed to cover certain border-line agricul- tural workers. For the first time there will be coverage for domestic workers, except on farms. This will apply to both full-time and day workers but not to those who do a day’s work in one house and a second day in another. * The second big change is in the amount of the benefits to be paid. As we all know, prices of everything have been greatly in- flated since the law was first enacted in 1935. Benefits which were regarded as good in those days are too small by today’s stand- ards. So the Senate committee voted to increase benefit payments an average of 90 percent. Actually, those receiving the larg~ est benefits under existing law would receive increases of about 60 percent. Those in the lowest brackets would get increases of 100 percent, The 90-percent average increase in bene= fits provided by the Senate committee com- pares with increases averaging 70 percent, provided by the House, Although the benefits are greatly increased, the Senate committee decided that no higher payroll deductions would be needed until 1956. At that time the present 114-percent rate will be raised to 2 percent and then would increase gradually until 1970 when it would reach 8% percent. Many people think of social security only in terms of its most important feature—the old-age and survivors insurance, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD But this law includes other things. One of these is the public-assistance program, in which Federal funds are put up to match State contributions for the needy aged, blind, dependent children, and certain other smaller programs. + Now, when the social security law was passed in 1935, Congress had two principal things in mind. The first and long-term feature was the old-age-insurance feature, which called for contributions from the employer and the employee, and no Government handouts, The second, the public-assistance feature, was a purely temporary program. Let me emphasize that word—temporary. Under this the Federal Government would make matching contributions to the States to help the needy aged and other bene- ficiaries. But as soon as the insurance sys. tem was well established Uncle Sam would get out of the business of providing local assistance. That, it was felt, was a Job en-= tirely for the States and local communities, But things didn’t work out that way. The old-age and survivors insurance has been in existence for 15 years. It is far bigger than when originally created, with more than 85,000,000 men and women under its cover= age. Yet, despite this fact, old-age assistance and other direct relief programs, with match- ing Federal contributions, have continued to grow at such a rate that its beneficiaries now outnumber those of the insurance system. Do you know, for instance, that In the State of Louisiana 8 out of every 10 per-~ sons 65 years of age or older gets old-age assistance more than half of which comes from Federal tax money? Do you know that 6 out of every 10 in Oklahoma and 5 out of every 10 in Georgia and Mississippi are given this old-age assist~ ance? In our State of Pennsylvania, which con- tributes such a large share of the Federal tax money, only 1 out of every 10 persons over 65 years old receives these funds. And the Federal Government bill for public as- sistance is over $1,100,000,000 a year. Well, that was the way the so-called tem. porary feature has continued to grow. The bill which passed the House would have made it still larger. It would have the Fed- eral Government pay more and more into the fund. One firm advantage of the Senate bill is that it reverses the trend. It seeks to do what was intended in the first place—get more people under the social-security insur~ ance plan and fewer under old-age assist~ ance. By a change in eligibility require~ ments it provides that 500,000 more aged individuals would come under the insurance plan in 1951 alone. That is a sound and constructive move. In a number of other things, where there was a real need and where the strain on the taxpayers was moderate, the Senate com-~ mittee has been more generous than was the House. For instance, our committee increased Federal assistance to dependent children, Blind persons will be eligible for pensions even with earned incomes up to $50 a month. Pennsylvania receives no Federal funds for its aid-to-the-blind program because we do ‘not conform to the Federal pattern. We permit blind persons who earn as much as $1,116 a year to get the full $40-a- month State pension because we believe it gives encouragement to the blind to become self-supporting, in part, at least. We doubled the modest program for child welfare services in rural areas and increased from seven to twelve million dollars a House- approved fund for child welfare services to combat juvenile delinquency. We are recommending larger Federal grants to provide medical, surgical and other serv- ices for needy, crippled children.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD So you have now a picture of what the law is likely to be when congressional action is completed. But it will continue to be far from a perfect law. To operate successfully the system must be made sounder financially and more along actuarial lines than at present. It should be on a pay-as-you-go basis. I believe the administration of the law must be made as simple as possible. I believe a definition of employee must be written into this bill which will prevent future confusion. There has been much confusion and misunderstanding in the past. The common-law definition of an employee is probably the best we can do at the present time. Social security and public assistance must be kept separate. Public assistance is essentially a local func- tion. It should be taken care of by the local community, with financial assistance from the State. Only during great emergencies should the Federal Government step in and provide funds. Sound retirement plans now operating for the benefit of State and municipal em- ployees, teachers, policemen and firemen should not be forced into the Federal system. I believe the next Congress should give thought to the steps necessary to modernize social security and set it upon a firm, broad foundation. The working man who pays for old-age in« surance by regular weekly payroll deductions should get what he 1s paying for. Under the present system the Government takes this money and spends it for anything from submarines to flood-control projects. Then when the worker reaches the age of 65 and wants his insurance payments, the Govern- ment taxes all the people to get the money to pay him and others. The worker will pay some of those new taxes. So in effect, he will be paying twice for his social-security benefits. That prob- lem must be faced and solved before it rises up to plague the Nation as assuredly it will one day. My friends, I shall continue to fight for sound social security as long as I remain in Congress. This is Ep Marrtmn, speaking to you from the Nation's Capital. I will be with you again in 2 weeks. Thank you for your attention. Lynch Law for Ducks and Geese EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON OF VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article I have prepared entitled “Lynch Law for Ducks and Geese.” It deals with a meet- ing of sportsmen in Annapolis for the discussion of shooting regulations, at which the senior Federal judge of Mary= Jand, Hon. William C. Coleman, of Bal- timore, is alleged to have made the as- tounding statement that he did not in- tend to enforce the Federal regulations which prohibit the shooting of ducks and geese over baited waters. There being no objection, the article ‘was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Lyncs Law ror Ducks anp GEESE For the past 35 years I have been active in the cause of wildlife conservation. When I was a candidate for the State senate in 1915 one plank in my platform was the crea- tion of a State game department. It was my privilege as a member of the State senate in 1916 to sponsor that legislation. In 1926 Gov. Harry F. Byrd appointed me chairman of the Virginia Commission of Game and In- jand Fisheries and for the following 6 years IT headed that agency. In 1984 I sponsored a resolution to create a House Select Commit- tee on Wildlife Conservation and for the fol- lowing 12 years served as chairman of that committee. When the Senate Select Com- mittee on Wildlife Conservation was abol- ished by the Reorganization Act of 1946 I was instrumental in having organized a Sub- committee on Wildlife of the Senate Com- mittee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments of which I was then a member, God blessed the North American Con- tinent with a great abundance of wildlife and a habitat well suited for its maintenance. But in our mad rush to convert natural re- sources into gold we greatly damaged that habitat by the destruction of our forests, the pollution of our streams, the drainage of marsh areas, and the erosion of our topsoil through improvident farming. And that damage to our renewable wildlife resources was greatly accelerated by an ever-increasing number of those who loved to hunt and fish, who were skilled in the use of modern fire- arms and who were for the large part un- mindful of the heavy inroads upon brood stock that were being made. That is especially true of our migratory pird population Fortunately, Congress rec- ognized the value of that natural resource and the importance of preserving it and under the guidance of a conservation-minded President ratified a migratory bird treaty, first with Canada and then with Mexico, un- der which the Federal Government gained the power through Executive orders to be issued by the President, to control the future hunting of migratory birds. The treaty in question prohibited all killing of migratory birds except to the extent thereafter author- ized by Executive orders of the President. In the years immediately following the ratification of that treaty the supply of migratory birds and especially of ducks and geese was still so plentiful that liberal regu- lations for hunting were issued.’ The sea- son was 90 days, the bag limit was 25 per day on ducks and 4 per day on geese and it was permissible to shoot over baited waters. The destruction under that pro- gram, coupled with some adverse breed- ing seasons and an alarming increase in the drainage of nesting and feeding marshes, made curtailment in hunting privileges an absolute necessity. That curtailment, how- ever, was accompanied by the passage of the Pittman-Robertson Act, which I co- sponsored with the distinguished late Sena- tor Pittman, to create funds for the States for the improvement of the game supply and by the passage of the Duck Stamp Act which was sponsored by my House Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation to cre- ate a special fund all of which would be used for the benefit of migratory birds. And during the depression years those funds were augmented by allocation of special relief funds by President Franklin D. Roosevelt for the acquisition and development of ref- uge areas in the United States. Sportsmen interested in the problem of saving our ducks and geese organized a splen- did association which they call Ducks Un- limited. That organization has used money raised in the United States primarily for A3947 the purpose of developing and protecting essential breeding areas in Canada, But, in spite of all of these efforts, our sup= ply of ducks and geese has continued to de- cline and further restrictions had to be im- posed upon the kill to keep the essential brood stock from being exterminated. The very destructive practice of luring ducks and geese to the blind by the use of corn and chopped sweetpotatoes was prohibited. Shooting after 4 p. m. when ducks were re- turning to their feeding areas was prohibited. The daily bag limit on ducks was reduced to four and the open season reduced to 30 days. These restrictions upon the kill would have been effective but for an unfortunate development of a spirit of lawlessness and a deplorable disregard for constituted au- thority, to say nothing of a disregard for the future of a great natural resource. Well- informed witnesses testifying this year be- fore the Senate Committee on Wildlife esti-~ mated the unlawful kill at 25 percent of the total kill, It naturally follows if that type of lawlessness could be stamped out we could either have a longer season and a more liberal bag limit for legitimate shoot- ers or we could to that extent increase the available supply. In order to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement which was urgently needed, the Congress last year increased the price of the duck-stamp licenses from $1 to $2 which doubled the funds available to the Fish and Wildlife Service for the employment of en-= forcement agents in the field. Those agents, while still entirely too few in number, ‘have shown a commendable activity in appre- hending violators but unfortunately in some jurisdictions they have encountered Federal judges who, instead of discharging their sworn duty to uphold the law as well as set- ting an example for obedience to constituted authority, have deliberately adopted a con- trary course. A notable example is Hon. William C. Coleman, of Baltimore, Maryland’s senior Federal judge. The following is an excerpt from a recent issue of Conservation News of the National Wildlife Federation, a pri- vately financed institute dedicated to the conservation of America’s renewable wildlife resources. It relates to a recent meeting of sportsmen or those who claim that title, in Baltimore at which the shooting regulations of the Federal Government was the subject of discussion. “MARYLAND WATERFOWL MEETING A RIOT “The waterfowl forum recently conducted at Annapolis, Md., turned into a riot and bitter criticism of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, reports the National Wild- life Federation. Dr. Clarence Cottam out- lined the status of waterfowl as determined by the winter surveys in order to give the Marylanders the picture and then threw the meeting open for discussion. Hon. William C. Coleman, Maryland’s senior Federal judge, was the leader in leveling criticism at the waterfowl management program. He fa- vored baiting ducks throughout the area, claiming that 95 percent of the ducks killed in Maryland are shot over baited waters any~ way. He called for a longer season of 60 to 70 days with rest days and a larger bag limit than 4, stating that 4 ducks are not enough to make 1+ worth while to go out hunting. He stated further that the district attorney had come to his office about a month ago with 67 cases of baiting ducks, but he did not think it worth while to bring them to trial. With only a few exceptions the meeting seemed to be unanimous—so far as expressions were made—in favor of a long- er season for more killing of ducks. At the conclusion of the meeting it was put to an expression and it voted in favor of more shooting days and a bigger bag, in spite of the warning that this might result in a
A3948 closed season for 1951. Glenn Martin, presi- dent of the Maryland League of Sportsmen and well-known manufacturer of aircraft, ‘was among the few who urged those present to temper their demands and listen to rea- son. J. Hammond Brown said in his news- paper story covering the meeting, ‘there is little doubt that, 1f the Federal authorities satisfied the demands made at the meeting, most of the continent’s (waterfowl) popula- tion would be wiped out utterly within 30 days.’” Iam inserting this statement in the CON- GRESSIONAL RECorpD for the information of the Members of Congress and the twenty-five or thirty million true sportsmen of America in order that they may get a clearer picture of some of the problems confrent:r2 us in sav- ing our ducks and gec-e. ir .%is notice to the Federal judges of the United States proves to be inadequate, I shall at some ap- propriate time present to the Senate a de- tailed account of every violation in which a Federal judge ignores his oath of office, ignores the Constitution, ignores statutory law, and metes out lynch law to the ducks and geese. The Role of the Democrat in World Affairs EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Ap- pendix of the Rrcorp remarks I made on May 19 before the Women’s National Democratic Club, of Washington, D. C., on the role of the Democrat in world affairs. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mrs. Lehman and I both thank you very much for the opportunity to be here with you tonight, and we are grateful to you for your very friendly welcome. Neither of us is a stranger among you. The only new aspect of this occasion is my being introduced to you as a Member of the United States Sen- ate. That makes this a special occasion. At least, coming here as a Senator ought to make me feel a little different. But to tell the truth, it doesn’t. It merely feels good, as it always does, to be among friends. I never fail to obtain a great satisfaction from meeting with the National Democratic Women’s Club, and to see this continuing evidence of the vitality of the Democratic Party. Your organization is a witness to the leading part which the women of the Demo- cratic Party are how playing in the affairs of the Nation. It has not always been so. I recall that as recently as 25 years ago women, at least in my State, were given virtually no place in the party organization. They had little or no representation on the State committee, and their political influence was almost negligible. It was only when Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected Governor in 1928, that the importance of women as a political force was recognized and they were encouraged to demand full participation in the political organizations. Under the leadership of Mrs. Roosevelt, Mrs. Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Mrs. Harriman, Mrs. Good, Miss Marbury, Mrs, O’Day, and others, women were finally given equal representation on the State commit- tee. But it took a lot of fighting with old- line nolitical leccers to accemplish this. The title I originally gave to my remarks tonight was The Democratic Woman in Woman in World Affairs. I hope you will not be too displeased if I change this title a httle, and speak on the Democrat in World Affairs. I really cannot see the dif- ference between the role of a democratic woman and the role of a Democrat period. So, tonight, I shall speak to you not as women but as citizens, as citizens who have had the sound judgment to aline themselves with the Democratic Party. Titles given to speeches are not taken se- rlously anyway, certainly not by the speak- er. Those of you who have read the life of William Lloyd Garrison, the Abolitionist leader, may recall Mr. Garrison’s famous remark when he was invited by an organi- zation—perhaps it was a woman’s club—to make a speech, and was asked whether he could speak on some topic other than abo- lition, and if so, what his lecture fee would be. Garrison’s reply was, “If I speak on abolition, I will charge no fee. If I speak on any other topic, my fee is $200. But whatever the topic, I assure you that the subject will be the same.” So tonight, although I have changed the topic, the subject will certainly be the same, As a nation, we have never given as much attention to world affairs as we should. The fact that our immediate neighbors both to the north and the south of us were and are good neighbors, and the fact that on the east and on the west we bordered on vast oceans, gave us a false sense of security and detachment from world affairs. This illu- sion of separation from the rest of the world was reflected in the policy of which the Re- publican Party became the principal pro- tagonist, the policy called isolationism. But there is no doubt that this isolationist policy was deeply rooted in the feelings of the overwhelming majority of the American people during the twenties, You may be interested to know that the Republican Party was not the originator of even the name for the isolationist policy. The publisher of the Chicago Tribune and the junior Senator from Nebraska might poth be horrified to know that the term “isolationism” was actually borrowed from Great Britain. Around the turn of the cen- tury, a British foreign minister, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, father of the Neville Cham- pberlain of Munich fame, called upon his country to hold itself aloof from the quar- rels and alliances of the European Conti- nent, and to remain wrapped in what he called “splendid isolation.” England, at the peak of her power after the Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic wars, regarded the English Channel and the British Navy as certain guaranties that this splendid isolation could never be violated. England, of course, was awakened from her dream of isolation not long afterward, but not until her isolationism had very nearly destroyed her and the rest of the freedom-loving world. We in America were awakened from our dream of isolation, too. But if it had not been for the great courage and foresight of Franklin D. Roosevelt, we, too, might have been engulfed and totally destroyed, and the whole Western World with us. Happily we awakened just in time. But to- day there are those who would have us re- turn to the same illusion which once almost spelled our doom, Our modern-day isolationists, however, are not quite as simple or as consistent as the isolationists of 20 years ago. The current crop of isolationists are only partial isola- tionists. They are opposed to helping west- ern Europe economically, because, they con- tend, it is a waste of money. They are also opposed to helping western Europe muli- tarily because, they say, that, too, is a waste of money. But they are not absolutely op- poscd to helping Europe. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Oh, no. They are willing to help western Europe help us against Russia, providing the following conditions are met: 1. That western Europe agrees to pay us back for all our help. 2. That western Europe agrees not to ship into the United States any goods that can compete with American goods. 8 That Europe agrees to buy from us most of our surpluses. 4, That western Europe agrees to discon-~ tinue much of 1ts normal trade with eastern Europe. 5. And, finally, that western European countries agree to make all the changes in their political and economic philosophy that certain political sages in this country think are desirable for Hurope. So the latter-day isolationists are willing to save Europe from Russia, but only on terms which no self-respecting European nation outside the iron curtain could ever accept, That, in essence, is the European policy of the isolationists. But, for Asia, the iso. lationists have quite a different policy. For that continent, the policy changes from timid to bold, and from halting to headstrong. Into those distant parts, the isclationisis would send troops, guns, planes, ships, naval, air, and military missions, and dollars with- out limit. They would thus refrain from helping the traditionally democratic govern- ments in Europe, and would instead commit our resources to the support of an autocratic regime which has a political structure, but no people, the Chinese Government of Gen-~ eralissimo Chiang Kai-shek. For those who disagree with these For~ mosa firsters, for those who point out that such a policy has no hope of success but can only lead to the catastrophe of war, and war on the worst possible terms, the isola- tionists reply with accusations that their critics are Communists or are following the Communist Party line. It is strange, indeed, that the neoisola- tionists are able to stir up this entire coun- try, and place our entire foreign policy in jeopardy with unsupported accusations of communism rampant in the State Depart- ment, based solely on the circumstance that the State Department opposes our total in~ volvement in a hopeless adventure in China, What is the main evidence against the State Department? The main evidence is that the Communists also oppose giving aid to Chiang Kai-shek. But it is an equally interesting fact—and yet seldom noted—that in Europe the Com- munists favor almost exactly the same policy that our isolationists do. The Communists, too, are against the Marshall plan, and the Atlantic Pact, and the arms-aid program. Is this not evidence, by the same sort of reason- ing that is now so current, that Senator Ma- Long and Senator Wuurry and Senator Jmn- Neg are following the Communist Party line? I, for one, am willing to absolve them of such an accusation. I do not think that they should be investigated on this basis. Still I fail to see why sauce for the goose isn’t sauce for the gander, too. I hope that I have not given the impression that this latter-day isolationism is a phi- losophy peculiar to or is even exclusively identified with the Republican Party. Cer- tainly we Democrats have our own neoisola- tionist fringe. But the Democratic Party as such stands for an enlightened and liberal foreign policy, but a foreign policy based on . bipartisan support. I, myself, am a firm believer in a forward- looking bipartisan foreign policy. I think that in the present state of the world, we must show as little disunity on foreign policy as possible. I know that on the broad prin- ciples of foreign policy, the overwhelming majority of the American people—of what- ever political party—are firmly united. They are united for the defense not only of our