A326 replied that I did, that I was attached to the Fifth Army. He said, “Come with me.” In a moment the tree-shaded yard was filled with several score of as old and for- gotten a group of human nondescripts as you can imagine, all chattering and inquir- ing in quavering, nonmusical tones. But through all that trembling cacophony, one heard, ‘‘Tl Generale Clark, il Generale Clark.” The little leader led me to a little chapel of wood and stone. We stooped to enter the interior, dark but for the light produced by two or three candles flickering at a shrine on the wall. Within the shrine appeared a faded newspaper picture of General Olark. “Eccolo!” exclaimed the old man. “Ii nostro benedetto benefatore, il Generale Clark.” At that moment a nun came in, her wide, white bonnet enclosing an open, intelligent, and kindly face. I bowed to her and she said, “Commander, 2 months ago this place was to have closed its doors. In the war we were completely forgotten. There was absolutely no food, not a crumb of bread. The inmates were ready to throw themselves from the cliffs because they could not return to the city, where starvation was inevitable. One of our sisters saw your great General Clark at Sorrento and told him the story, and the next day a truckload of food arrived. He saved the lives of these poor people, and now the Commune has taken up our support again. But had it not been for General Clark, this haven of refuge for the homeless and forgotten would have ceased to exist. He must be a great and kind man and we shall never forget what he is doing for our poor mutilated Italy.” General Clark, the gratitude of that name- less and humble little community ig only a symbol of the admiration and veneration with which you are regarded throughout Italy. We Americans of Italian descent here join with that group and, in the chapel of our memories we also have fashtoned a little shrine of admiration, and if you will permit, of affection too, for: The noblest soldier of the day, The greatest Roman of them all, The man we in Pittsburgh are privileged to call our friend, Gen. Mark Wayne Clark. Army Court-Martial System Under Fire EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include herein a statement I made on January 17, 1947, with reference to court-martial trial of a constituent of mine, Pvt. Joseph A. Marques, of Lynn, Mass.: The Army identifies him by the number on his “dog tags.” I prefer to call this American by his name—Joseph A. Marques, of Lynn, Mass. This young man never had a police record in civilian life. In fact, he had just turned 18 years of age, when he entered the service. When his “hitch” was up, he was honorably discharged and given a good-conduct medal. He reenlisted and was sent to Austria as a member of the Nine Hundred and Forty- sixth Military Police, While engaged in an altercation and de- fending himself against an armed Russian, his gun was accidentally discharged, killing an Austrian civilian. He was accused of murder. He was tried, not by a jury of his peers, for no men in the ranks are permitted to serve on a military court martial. Officers alone qualify as prosecuting attorney, de- fense attorney, judge, and jury. In this star chamber type of proceedings, the scales of justice are tipped against any enlisted man. Joseph A. Marques, American, is a victim of this antiquated and unjust system. He has been convicted, given a dishonor- able discharge, and sentenced to be confined at hard labor for the rest of his natural life. And who were the witnesses against this soldier of ours? An Austrian civilian, an Aus- trian doctor, and other Austrian officials so recently enemies of everything American. It would appear that our officers, trying to impress the Austrians with their fairness, leaned too far backward, seeing only the Austrian side of the case, and ignoring the rights of a mere enlisted man. The unfostunate incident took place on December 11, 1946, long after the war had ended and long after the time when an ar- bitrary military trial could be justified. The officer class, however, is reluctant to surrender its special powers and privileges. In their eyes, the men in the ranks who must forever “sir” them, command less respect than civil- fans of another nation who are beyond their authority. Americans will endure this oner- ous system in time of war but not in time of peace. In justice to Joseph A. Marques, I am ask- ing the War Department to review his case and grant a new trial; this time an open one, where the American people will have a chance to know all the facts. Furthermore, I believe that the Congress should ask for a thorough airing of the Army's court-martial set-up. Enlisted men must be permitted to sit on juries which try enlisted men, so that the men in the ranks will get a fair break. Ask any one of the millions of veterans about this, and you will get the very definite opinion that reform is needed. Cuban Sugar Crop EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. GLENN BEALL OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. BEALL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include in the Recorp the following resolution adopted by the Independent Retail Food Dealers Association of Western Maryland: Whereas for the past several years a very large part of the Cuban sugar crop has been allocated and shipped to foreign countries, such shipments amounting, in 1946, to 1,600,- 000 tons of the total 3,800,000 available for allocation by the Combined Food Board; and Whereas Cuba is not only the major for- eign source of sugar supply for the United States, but this country has, since 1902, acted to advance and maintain the economic sta- bility of Cuba, which stability largely de- pended upon her sugar exports to the United States; and ‘Whereas, as a result of such allocations, it has been necessary to require heavy sacrifices on the part of American consumers and to impose a rigid system of rationing, which control is still in effect more than 18 months after VJ-day; and Whereas, prior to the inauguration of such arrangements, these countries were accus- tomed to paying prices for sugar which, in the typical case of Yugoslavia, were more APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD than three times (13.86 cents per pound) the prices of Cuban sugar (3.84 cents per pound), which premium encouraged maxi- mum production on the part of such coun- tries; and Whereas the socialist and communist states of Europe are not likely to decree or plan for increased domestic production of sugar so long as Cuban sugar is available to them at prices far below what they are accustomed ‘to paying and far below the minimum neces- sary to bring about increased production; and Whereas for the reasons stated the alloca- tion of nearly one-half the Cuban crop for export amounts to an unnecessary subsidy to the recipients of such relief at the expense of American consumers: Be it Resolved, That the appropriate authorities in Washington be urged to notify the various countries to which Cuban sugar has been allocated in the past that no allocation will be made at this time, and that if and when additional allocation is made, same will be drastically reduced; and be it further Resolved, That Congress be requested to interest itself in this situation to the end that more Cuban sugar may be made availa- ble to American consumers; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to Congressman J. GLENN BSALL, Senator Mruanp E. Typrvas, and Senator HexsseT R. O'Conor. H. R. 1000 Recognizes the Right of Each American Prisoner of War To Obtain Justice on His Individual Claim EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, in re- sponse to a resolution adopted by the Forty-seventh National Encampment of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, I introduced H. R. 1000, providing for the establishment of a claims commission to examine and ren- der final decisions on al] claims by Amer- ican nationals who were members of the armed forces of the United States and who were prisoners of war of Germany, Italy, or Japan. Under leave to extend my remarks in the CoNGRESSIONAL ReEcorp, I wish to in- sert at this time an article by Mr. Omar B. Ketchum, director, national legisla- tive service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, which clearly describes the basis for this proposed legislation and also discusses the salient features in the bill. Mr. Ketchum’s article is as follows: INHUMANE TREATMENT OF POW'S—DOES IT GIVE RISE TO INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LIABILITY? (By Omar B. Ketchum, director, national leg- islative service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States) The veterans of Foreign Wars has asked the Congress to enact legislation which would set up a claims Commission to examine and render decisions on claims of former prison- ers of war against Germany, Italy, and Japan based on violations of the Geneva Prisoners-of-War Convention. The VFW bill, H. R. 1000, introduced by Congressman JAMES E. VAN ZANDT (Repub- ean, Pennsylvania) on January 18, 1946, represents months of research and study
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on the part of its National Rehabilitation Service and National Legislative Service. More than anything it was without prece- Gent because it represents a changing con- cept in international civil law, based on the violation of a treaty between nations then at peace. The treaty in question is the Geneva Convention—an international agreement, the original purpose of which was to improve the condition of wounded soldiers of armies in the field. The agree- ment was originally drafted at Geneva in 1864 but was later replaced by the Con- vention of July 6, 1906, which was also adopt- ed at Geneva. The latter is the one known as the Geneva Convention and was accepted by 35 nations, only Turkey, Salvador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Colombia abstain- ing. The Geneva Convention was confirmed in the Hague Convention of 1907 with the avowed intention of the signatory powers that the regulations dealing with treatment of prisoners were no longer in the discretion of such powers, but were binding on them. Briefly then, here are the articles which Germany and Japan, particularly the latter, both signatories of the convention, are guilty o. violating. The considered opinion of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that the violations of these articles gives rise to international civil liability, is the basis for this bill. “ArT. 4. They (prisoners of war) must be humanely treated * * * personal be- longings * °* * remain their property. “Art. 7. Prisoners of war shall be treated as regards food, clothing, and quarters on the same footing as the troops of the govern- ment which has captured them.” In addition the following prohibitions were also placed by the Hague regulations on the means of injuring the enemy: “To kill or wound treacheroualy individu- als belonging to the hostile nation or army. “To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion. “To declare that no quarter will be given. “To make improper use of a flag of truce.” The repeated violations of the above ar- ticles and regulations by responsible func- tionaries of the Imperial Japanese Govern- ment and the German Wehrmacht have been recounted so often as not to bear repetition here. The victorious powers seized upon these violations as the basis for criminal in- Gictments. Hundreds of Nazi and Japanese officers, noncommissioned officers, prison and concentration camp officials have already been convicted and executed pursuant to the judgment of international tribunals and army-of-occupation courts; many more are awaiting indictment and trial. The international world-state is thus exacting the debt owed it by those who flaunted the laws which bound nations to the perpetuation of a peaceful world society. What then of the rights of the individual? Is the exacting of a debt for a crime against the state ipso facto a settlement of the debt owed the individual whose injury represented the crime? No system of jurisprudence of civilized nations recognizes such debt iden- tity as between civil and criminal liability. When A assaults B, the state punishes A for a crime against the people. However, B has @ cause of action arising out of the assault based upon a dential of a basic right in B of security of his person. What, then, of the right of Corporal A, who was permanently maimed by Captain B, a sadistic prison com- mandant? Captain B has been imprisoned by an international war tribunal. Does it follow then that Corporal A’s injury is with- out remedy as against Captain B and/or the state he served? As the legal classicists so aptly put it—is it a case of damnum abaque injuria (an injury without damages)? . Take the case of X Corporation, an Amer- ioan concern doing a thriving business in Manila on December 7, 1941. The initial Japanese aerial attack destroyed the property of X Corporation with damages estimated at $200,000. Y Corporation was an American concern doing business in Tokyo, Y¥ Cor- poration was seized by Japanese authorities. Estimated loss to stockholders in the United States is approximately $100,000. The termination of hostilities finds millions of dollars of Japanese property in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian. Who has the frst claim against this property? The stock- holders of X and Y. Corporation, who seek to recoup their property loss, or Corporal A, who will never walk again because of brutal treat- ment at the hands of his captors and Pri- vate M, who will never see again because of a starvation diet in Camp O'Donnel? The question is a timely one because the Mixed Claims Commission set up after World War I recognized the recoupment of losses arising out of property damage. Also late in the Seventy-ninth Congress several bills were introduced which sought damages for Ameri- Can nationals and corporate interests based on property damage. At first glance this concept represents a callous indifference to American prisoners of war whose bodies were brutally maimed and broken in defense of the Nation and, incidentally, the property of American na- tionals. Actually, the glaring disparity in value appreciation goes much deeper. Inter- national agreement with respect to prisoner- of-war treatment is relatively new in the his- tory of warring nations. However, the pat- tern of exacting tribute and reparations from Gefeated countries has existed since that time “when the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” No thought has been given then by enlightened nations to the con- sideration of reparations or confiscated enemy property as the means whereby these former prisoners of war might satisfy a claim for damages based on the violation of an agreement solemnly entered imto by the nations concerned. The failure to hereto- fore appreciate this new concept of civil lia- bility—as well as criminal Hability—must be attributed to the mass thinking of enlight- ened nations which submerges the individual in the world-state though tending to dignify him in the national state. The forty-seventh national encampment, Veterans of Foreign Wars, in September 1946 sought for the first time to attach the right of the individual, as well as nations, in the enforcement of international treaties. This, then, is the basis for the VFW’'s bill relating to prisoner-of-war claims, which without precedent, yet supported by the fundamental precepts of Anglo-Saxon and Roman law, seeks to create a right for individual dam- ages arising out of treaty violations. The exacting of a penalty in criminis from indi- viduals has materially strengthened the po- sition of exacting a penalty in civilis from the States as principals to the agent indi- vidual violators. The June 30, 1944, annual report of the Alien Property Custodian reveals that the total value of enemy property in the United States 1s $567,000,000 and the value of prop- erty vested in the Alien Property Custodian is approximately $200,000,000. The VFW bill would set up a claims commission to which this property would be transferred and de- posited in German or Japanese special de- posit accounts. The commission would adju- dicate and render final decisions on claims of former prisoners of war based on viola- tions of the Geneva Convention respecting prisoner-of-war treatment. The figures of the War and Navy Depart- ments reveal that a total of approximately $2,000 prisoners were in the hands of the Japanese, about 12,000 of whom died in cap- tivity; and approximately 100,000 prisoners in the hands of the Ge: , about 1,000 of whom died in captivity. Many of the deaths resulted from wounds received previously in action while on the other hand many deaths resulted from brutal and inhumane treat- A327 ment at the bands of the captors. Certain limited survivors of those dying as a result of inhumane treatment would be permitted to file a claim before the Commission in behalf of the deceased. This distinction is neces- sary because the damages sought rest on treaty violations; which would not serve the cases of the survivors of those who died as the result of action against the enemy. The latter's remedy must continue to rest with the nation the deceased served. An agent would be appointed by the Presi- dent through whom all claims would be processed. The evidence already on file in the War and Navy Departments which was used as the basis for criminal indictments against the war criminals would be available to the Commission in adjudicating the claims, The Veterans of Foreign Wars, should this bill be enacted, proposes setting up a special bureau in its national rehabili- tation service under Director George E. Ijams to handle claims on behalf of all for- mer prisoners of war who institute claims for damages against the offending nations. The administrative costs, as well as the awards approved by the Commission, would be borne by the special deposit accounts es- tablished with enemy property in possession of the United States. The bill provides that Gamages awarded by the Commission would have preference over the claims of nationals and corporate interests for damages due to property damage. Should these special de- posit accounts be insufficient to pay these claims, then the bill provides that the deficit shall constitute a lien on reparations from the nation concerned. Should the Congress enact this legislation @ great and notable step will have been made in the recognition of the dignity of the in- dividual in the world state. Such a law would strengthen the foundation of international common law—a corpus juris for the individ- ual in our “one world,” the cornerstone of which foundation was £0 dramatically laid at Nuremburg in October 1946. Speech of Hon. Katharine St. George, of New York, at a Dinner Given by the Washington Editors in Honor of Gen- eral Collins EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD, I include a speech I made January 27, 1947, before a mect- ing of trade journal editors held at the Statler Hotel, Washington, D. C.: When I first ran for public office, I wanted to state as simply and clearly as possible my thoughts and convictions on the vital ques- tions of the day. With the help of some trusted advisers, we drew up a 12-plank platform, so that I could clearly define my position. And so that everyone would know, if they cared to, how I stood on vital issues. The sixth and seventh planks in this plat- form referred to labor and management and I would like to talk a little about them: 6. I favor all of labor's hard-won gains, and hope and believe that labor will go ¢ven further in its march forward. The ultimate goal is to have every union member a cap!- talist.
A328 7. I believe management and labor have an equal responsibility to the consuming public, and that it is the Government’s re- sponsibility to prevent development of dis- putes that jeopardize public rights and serv- ces, We know and must acknowledge that labor unions are responsible for the greatly im- proved living and working conditions under which their members live and work today. My industry is the coal industry, and I am therefore going to take it as my example. Anyone who went through the anthradite region in Pennsylvania 80 years ago and re- visits it today must admit that it is like comparing daylight to darkness, and the union can rightly take credit for this im- provement in living conditions today. It may sound farfetched to say that you want to see every union member a capitalist, but it is happening under our very eyes. Why cringe at the mention of capitalism? I venture to say that every one of us in this room is a capitalist. The United States is the greatest and best example of capitalism in the world today. No one need be ashamed of the name. On the contrary, we should go out and convert the whole world to capitalism, just as the Communists go out and try to convert the world to communism, and for that they de- serve our admiration. They have the crusad- ing spirit which we unfortunately have lost. We must regain it if we are to survive. We must recruit more adherents to our cause. We can well point to our achievements. The highest standard of living in the world. ‘The greatest per capita wealth. The greatest. program of free, higher education in the world. And finally that this Nation has never lost a war, and that in the last 35 years it has twice saved its allies in two world wars, turning defeat into victory. All this has been achieved under the American capitalist system. The only sys- tem under which free enterprise, and free labor can exist. And for these reasons we want all our people, union and nonunion, to become capitalists. The second thought is that now that labor has come of age, now that it has its full strength, certain restrictions must be en- forced, and certain self-discipline must be practiced. This lesson had to be taught to management and they learned it the hard way. You all know of the gentleman who said publicly, “The public be damned." We all Know that today no one, however brash, would dare make such & remark. Labor leaders today, in some instances, have acted as though they felt that the pub- lic could be kicked around with impunity. Who, and what is the public? The public is the majority of the workers in the United States, and they are not members of unions. There are about 15,000,000 people belong- ing to labor unions, if we accept the CIO's reputed 6,000,000 members. Many experts consider this figure too high. There are outside of union members and agricultural laborers 32,820,000 workers in the country today. These independent work- ers are the public, and they have their rights and under our system our Government must see and must insist that their rights are safeguarded and that they, too, shall have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For that reason our Government has a solemn duty to prevent the lives, livelihoods, and existence of the public from being jeopardized. We have now developed two strong giants that owe their existence to capitalism and nothing else. They are management, rep- resenting free enterprise, and the union, representing free labor. Now, our task is to coordinate them, and here Government must play its part with justice and impartiality, a9 that it can function as the arbiter trusted by both management and labor to such an extent that they will submit to arbitration. Thus we will perfect and strengthen what we have built. Thus we can and we must take another step forward in the epic of America. New York Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EUGENE J. KEOGH OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rsc- orp, I include the following address by Walter H. Van Hoesen, president of the New York Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association, Inc., at the an- nual dinner of the association held at the Roosevelt Hotel on Tuesday evening, January 14, 1947: Members of the New York Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association, Inc., have honored me with election as their prest- dent for the coming year. Needless to say I will make every effort to justify their con- fidence and it shall be my purpose to try to increase the cooperative effort which has al- ways marked our relation with every other group in the field of transportation. It seems most appropriate at this gather- ing of more than 1,000 men representing every branch of foreign trade to dwell for a moment on a few of the problems which confront us today. The year just ended has seen a tremendous upturn in world commerce. Exports from the United States reached a total of nearly $8,800,000,000 and imports were more than $4,000,000,000. In 1947, a further increase which may reach @11,000,000,000 for exports and 86,000,000,000 for imports, is predicted. When you stop to think that almost half the Nation's foreign trade passes through the port of New York, it will be understood why we should give thought to properly guarding and caring for what is really the very life- blood of this great city. Foreign trade has been carried on during the last year under very great difficulty. We, freight forwarders and brokers, have been aware of the problems perhaps more than any others, because it is our job to arrange and see to the execution of all details in- cidental to transportation of goods from supplier to consumer, Steamship operators, railroads, truckmen, and other groups have each had their own particular headaches, but forwarders and brokers have been con- fronted with an accumulation of all the ills attacking foreign trade. If New York is to retain its position as the leading port of the world, steps must be taken to prevent recurrence of the para- lyzing succession of strikes which hampered activities in 1946. Steps must be taken without delay to relieve the congestion on piers and at rail terminals. Docking facili- ties and the handling of cargoes must be modernized. The constant increase of ship- ping expenses must be halted. The problems faced by all of us engaged in foreign trade are related and we shall all lose if there is a bottleneck anywhere along the line. It has been the practice in the past, for each group, to seek sOlution of its problems without particular thought or re- gard to the over-all picture. The time has come when we must join forces for the common good and act through a central APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD council or committee, if you will, to strive for better conditions. The services performed by the freight for- warders and brokers are essential if our for- eign trade is to prosper. In the past we have been blamed by the shipper whose goods could not be transported and even in Wash- ington there has been a disposition to make our lot more difficult by seeking to regulate our activities. What we need ard plead for is cooperation. There is a tendency on the part of the Government, shippers and others to demand more and more in the way of services from freight forwarders, and at the same time to seek means of reducing our financial returns from such services. I do not like to think what would happen to American goods abroad without the for- eign freight forwarder. He maintains di- rect contacts in every part of the globe, and is constantly called on to advise on problems confronting shippers and transportation in- terests alike. In short, he helps to carry the flag and through his efforts American goods are known in al) nations and to all people. I am happy to refer to the excellent Patriotic services given by foreign freight forwarders in helping to transport essential materials and supplies through the recent war, United States Military Government in Germany EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. SOL BLOOM OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Speaker, at the re- quest of the Army and Navy Journal, Gen. Joseph T. McNarney, United States Army, commanding general, United States forces, European theater, pre- pared the following article on the record of the United States Military Govern- ment in Germany. General McNarney has been in command of the United States Army forces over there since the appointment of General of the Army Eisenhower to be Chief of Staff of the Army. General McNarney soon will be relieved in Europe by Lt. Gen. Lucius D. Clay, United States Army, and will take over his new duties as Army Air Force representative on the Military Staff Com- mittee of the United Nations. General McNarney’s authoritative re- port on the record and accomplishments of the United States Military Govern- ment in Germany is particularly valua- ble in light of the recent discussions and criticisms. It follows: {From the Army and Navy Journal of January 18, 1947] THE MISSION OF UNITED STATES MILITARY GOV- ERNMENT IN GERMANY (By Gen. Joseph T. McNarney, commanding general, United States forces, European theater) As we cross the threshold of a New Year, some 20 months after VE-day, it is time to take stock of the responsibilities, difficulties, and accomplishments of United States Mili- ‘tary Government in Germany and to assess the progress that has been made toward the attainment of our objectives. The negative aspects of our occupational polictese—demili- tarization, denazification, decartelization,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and decentralization—are well on the way toward accomplishment. The second part of the task, now under way, is the long-term Job of guidance of the German people in their economic, political, and social rehabili- tation according to democratic principles. Great strides have been made since May 1945, when once powerful Germany, now dev- astated, disorganized, and demoralized, be- came the charge of Military Government, Even before th: guns had stopped firing, the Allies had set up local governmental ma- chinery on a provisional basis. Shortly after VE-day each of the four occupying powers was assigned a zone of occupation and the Allied Control Authority was established in Berlin to deal with matters affecting all of Germany. The headquarters of United States Military Government was first located in Frankfurt and later moved to Berlin, while the headquarters of United States Army occupational forces was placed in Frankfurt. Reconstruction in the United States zone began immediately. Lines of communica- tion and transportation were gradually re- stored, and a limited industrial production was achieved. However, the German people were engaged primarily with the problems of obtaining food, fuel, and adequate housing. They were too apathetic and bewildered to be much concerned with more than their own personal security. Food, which was the immediate problem in the early days, has remained of para- mount concern. At the beginning of the oc- cupation the official daily ration for adults ‘Was only 900 calories, palpably a starvation diet. The prescribed ration scale has been increased steadily for the past year and a half, until the present basic ration provides 1,550 calories for normal adult consumers and substantially more for heavy laborers and expectant and nursing mothers. Even in the past, Germany had never been able to grow enough food for its peopie and with battle-torn fields and destroyed farm machinery is less able than ever to do so. In order to maintain the present ration stand- ard, the United States has had to supply more than 1,000,000 metric tons of food to the United States occupied areas of Ger- Many up to the end of 1946. To pay for these imports, Germany will necessarily have to build up exports of items which she can, and which we will allow her to produce. Only by such permissible exports can she obtain dollar credits with which to pay for her imports. Ultimately it is expected that the German Nation will achieve a level of economy which will make her independent of our support. Definite and measurable progress has been made in this direction with plans to export more than $100,000,000 worth of manufactured goods from the United Btates zone in 1947, representing an increase of more than 400 percent over the 1946 export level. These exports will consist pri- martly of toys, chinaware, light vehicles, mu- sical instruments, cameras, and other goods of purely peaceful use, and dollar proceeds from them will be applied against the cost of bringing food and other vitally needed sup- plies into Germany. In keeping with the Potadam Declaration, the control of German economy by military government will con- tinue to the extent necessary to assure the production and maintenance of goods and services required to meet the needs of the occupying forces and displaced persons in Germany and essential to maintain in Ger- many average living standards not exceeding the average of standards of living of Euro- pean countries. At the beginning of our occupation Ger- man industry was throttled by a number of strictures, including shortages of coal, elec- tric power, and raw materials and a lack of skilled laborers and adequate transportation. These deficiencies are gradually being over- come, The over-all industrial production in the United States zone, which was only about 26 percent of the 1936 level in January 1946, had risen to 44 percent of 1936 by the end of October. This progress represents, however, gains in heavy industries and not in lighter manufacturing. Increasing production in lighter manufacturing—the source of per- mitted exports—still remains of utmost im- portance. Maximum possible industrial progress in the United States zone alone would not mean the revival of the German economy to the level envisaged by the signatories of the Potsdam Declaration to be the lowest on which Germany could survive peaceably. That level will be achieved only when Ger- many is treated as a single economic unit. An important effort toward making Germany self-supporting was made in July 1946, when the United States invited the other three oc- cupying powers to join her in the economic un'‘fication of Germany. Great Britain re- sponded to this invitation, and an agreement for economic unity of the United Kingdom and United States zones was signed in New York in early December by American Secre- tary of State Byrnes and British Foreign Secretary Bevin. Joint Anglo-American fi- nancing is to be made available over a 3-ycar period, with the expectation that at the end of this time the economy of the combined zones will have been stfficiently rehabili- tated so as to make unnecessary further im- ports of food and supplies at the expense of American and Britith taxnayers. Bizonal ad- ministrations in economics, food and agri- culture, communications, transportation, and trade and commerce are being conducted by German specialists under Anglo-American supervision. Two-power cooperation is an auspicious beginning; four-power cooperation is our ul- timate desire. The invitation to France and the Soviet Union remains open, and they are cordially welcome to participate with Anglo- Americans in abolishing the economic bar- riers still cutting Germany into three parts. It has been constantly pointed out to the German people that the basic cause of their suffering and distress was the war which German militarism and nazism brought upon the world. It is crystal clear that Ger- many will have to do her part to repair the devastation wrought by her upon her neigh- bors. Germany's natural reconstruction has, therefore, been complicated by the need for reparations. With respect to industrial plants allocated or designated for destruction in the United States zone prior to May 1946, 85 had been dismantled or destroyed by mid-November and 35,000 metric tons of equipment had been shipped to Allied Nations. Progress in delivery of reparations from the United States zone has not proceeded as was origin- ally planned, owing to lack of quadripartite agreement on measures to effect economic unity. The levels of industry ugreed upon by the Allies were based upon the assumption of economic unity and would have to be re- vised if one or more of the zones is forced to try to become self-sustaining without the mutual benefit of free economic interplay be- tween all parts of Germany. Until it is clear that Germany is to be treated as an economic whole, all plants scheduled for reparations cannot be dismantled or destroyed. Some may have to be retained to supplement zonal capacity for self-existence. The lack of four-power agreement on basic financial reforms has also impeded the eco- nomic recovery of Germany. There has been no common financial policy to control infla- tion, to revise the debt structure, and to Place the nation on se sound fiscal footing. We have taken every action possible to rehabilitate German finance in the United States zone. The Germans themselves, under our supervision, are undertaking a long- needed reform of their banking structure, Their guiding aim is to establish financial control in such a fashion as to make im- possible the manipulation of public funds A329 for the creation of a dictatorial and mili- taristic regime. External assets, carefully hidden throughout the world, have been sought out and blocked. The reckless Nazi flat financing has been replaced by a con- servative and realistic policy of heavy taxa- tion and carefully controlled expenditures. The Nazi practices of barter and clearing and the system of blocked marks have been eliminated, and a beginning has been made toward the establishment of an acceptable system of foreign exchange. We have gone far beyond economic and fiscal reforms in Germany. We have introduced democrntic processes into the civil service, and have widened its basis to include all full-time government employees. We have encouraged the free and extensive growth of trade and labor unions. We have restored to the Germans the basic freedoms which have long heen lost to them—freedom of thought and the free- doms of discussion and expression. Military government first purged the German prcss and radio of Nazi and antidemocratic forces and influence, and a rigid system of licens- ing was establishcd. By the end of 1946, 44 newspapers, with a combined circulation of over 4,000,000, were licensed for printing in the United States areas of occupation. This number does not include Die Neue Zeitung with a circulation of over a million, which is the only overt American newspaper published in Germany. The German press 1s not subject to prepublication censorship and is free to publish any material “except Nazi and militarist propaganda and material constituting a maliciovs attack on military government or aiming to disrupt unity among the occupying powers." The German radio stations have been reestablished on a similar basis, with balanced educational and recreational prcograms. The German schoo] system has been par- tially reestablished; by the end of 1946 nearly all children of compulsory school age were again enrolled, despite lamentable overcrowd- ing of classrooms. Serious difficulties with regard to classrooms, fuel, trained and ac- ceptable teachers, and suitable tcxtbooks still remain as some of our most difficult problems, Shortages in paper supply and inadequate printing facilities tend to aggravate the con- dition. Supplementing the forma] education of German youth, personnel of both military government and the United States Army of Occupation, and their dependents, ure par- ticipating in a brond-scale program of Ger- man youth activities. One of the most important milestones in the rehabilitation of Germany was reached in January 1946, when the German people were permittcd for the first time in many years to participate in free clections. Since that time every village, city, county, and state in the United States zone has elected its own governmental administrators, and Germun representatives of all three states meet to- gether regularly in a gzone-wide body, the council of states (Laenderrat), to discuss common problems. This organization con- stitutes the link between military govern- ment and the German states, and through this body proposals and recommendations are submitted to military government for consideration and approval. United States policy to decentralize German government has been carried out to the cxtent that each state has, for all practical purposes, auton- omy within its own boundaries. During 1946, military government fulfilled its policy of turning back to the Germans themselves re- sponsibilities for self-rule, until now only minimum supervision and control is exer- cised. Military government acts primarily In an advisory capacity. Direct administration of the United States zone by military govern- ment can be and, of course, will be reestab- lished at any time should the Germans stray from the path of democratic procedures on which they have been started, Constabulary
A330 units of the United States Armed Forces are located at strategic points throughout the United States zone for the purpose of enforc- ing military government decisions and co- operating with the German civil police in preventing the rise and spread of lawless ele- ments. Four major political parties, representing degrees of political adherence from Com- munistic to oonservative, are functioning freely in each state of the United States sone. It 1s encouraging, in this respect, to note that so far little tendency has arisen on the part of Germans to return to the conglomer- ation of minor, or “splinter,” parties through which Germany's political strength was dissi- pated in the latter years of the Weimar Republic. In July 1946 military government ap- proved a recommendation from the Denazifi- cation Committee of the German Council of States to make discretionary the application of sanctions against youthful offenders (those born after January 1, 1919) except for those classified in either class I (war criminals) or class II (active Nazis) under the law for lib- eration from national socialism and militar- ism. This general amnesty for the youths who were swayed by the insidious Nazi doc- trine and ideology in their most impression- able years was based upon the knowledge that it was exactly this younger generation upon whom we and the Germans would have to depend for leadership in Germany in the fu- ture. By providing them with full opportu- nity for rehabilitation, military government was able to give heart to those forces whith were anxious to get on with the job of insti- tuting democracy in Germany. In this re- sponse of military government to the pro- posals of the German Council of States the give-and-take policy of our occupation has again been demonstrated, a policy which, in this instance and in many others, has re- dounded to the benefit of all concerned and has further promoted the inculcation of dem- ocratic procedures. On Christmas Eve the amnesty was ex- tended to other persons charged as followers whose income showed no evidence of profit from membership in the Nazi Party. To these nominal adherents to the Nazi Party we have given an opportunity to take an ac- tive, constructive role in rebuilding a peace- ful Germany. The amnesty did not apply to members against whom specific evidence could be found to warrant their trial for war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. It should not be assumed that this amnesty indicates any softening in our original determination to eradicate Nazi in- fluence from the German Nation. Millions of personal and Nazi Party records have been examined, and countless numbers of Nazi adherents have been delivered to jus- tice. The task has been difficult, and it is not yet completed. Except for major offenses against the statutes of the Geneva Convention, which fall within the jurisdic- tion of the theater judge advocate, and other major crimes, which come within the purvey of the Office of Military Government for Germany (United States), the denazifica- tion of the United States zone of Germany is now administered by special German courts (Spruchkammern) in each German state un- der the supervision of military government, It may be a long time before Germany has been rehabilitated into a democratic state with a central government subject to the will of the people. We will not tire. We will work ceaselessly for quadripartite agreement on all issues which will contribute toward the creation of a German Nation who will never again threaten her neigh- bors and the peace of the world and who will take her place among the honorable and peace-loving nations of the world. The road back for the German people will be hard, but it is not the intention of the United States occupational policy to make it harder, As Secretary Byrnes stated in his Stuttgart speech of September 6, 1946: “The American people want peace. They have long since ceased to talk of a hard or soft peace for Germany. This has never been the real issue, what we want is a lasting peace. We will oppose harsh and vengeful measures which obstruct an effec- tive ‘peace. We will oppose soft measures which invite the breaking of the peace.” The United States must honor her sacrifice in the winning of the war by staying in Germany until the job is done. [From the Army and Navy Journal of January 18, 1947] One has only to read the article by General McNarney in this issue of the Army and Navy Journal to realize the tremendous and far flung responsibilities which he has discharged so successfully in Europe. A number of the “visiting firemen" who made hurried trips to Germany came home with distorted no- tions of the conditions they found and it was the comments they made upon their return that brought forth the suggestion that a con- gressional investigation should be instituted. As time passed the responsible Members of Congress began to realize that our forces in Germany under command of General Mc- Narney were doing an admirable job and that to emphasize the relatively few blunders, shortcomings, and crimes, which were being corrected as soon as discovered, would create an impression in Europe which would damage the prestige of our troops and even the dignity of the United States in the eyes of Europe. To go into a defeated country to change not only its mode of life but its mode of thought, to eradicate from its mind the idea of being the superrace, to destroy Hitlerism and to substitute democracy therefor, to provide for and get millions of hungry people back to work, to reorganize the businesses of the country and to place its finances upon a comparatively sound basis—-these were only some of the problems which pressed for solu- tion. No one can read General McNarney’s article without a better understanding of what has been accomplished and to give him and those who served with him credit for the welldoing of the task laid upon them. It may be that the Senate will institute an inquiry into the conduct of the occupation and the incidents which have occurred dur- ing its course. If so there will have to be exposed the intrigues which involve the other occupying powers. Such exposure would not improve the relations of the occupying powers. The Army has nothing to conceal and would be perfectly willing for the Senate to have all the facts, which we are certain would demonstrate the care and wisdom dis- played. We commend to Congress the article by General McNarney since it will give it light that will cause pride in the performance the Army has given. Peacetime Military Training—Its Benefits and Dangers EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER A. LYNCH OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. LYNCH. Mr, Speaker, one of the most important problems facing this Congress will be the determination whether peacetime universal military training is essential to the adequate de- fense of the country. There is no doubt that many persons, who a few years ago believed that a year of military training in normal peacetime APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD should be given to the youth of our coun- try, have radically changed their views. It is now admitted that thousands of our young men found themselves either in the front lines or within easy reach of the front lines after less than 4 months of basic training. It is my opinion that most parents, although hoping for peace, realize the possibility that their sons might be called upon to defend their country, and that they probably would not object to peace- time military training under reasonable safeguards and conditions. In other words, if we are to have military train- ing, then it should be with the least pos- sible dislocation to the lives of the youth of our Nation. The period should be as short as possible, the timing should be such that it would least interfere with the education of our youth, and, lastly, the training should be purely military with emphasis on the prevention of a military caste, and a jealous guarding of the bounds within which military training must be confined. If the youth of the country are in peacetime to be committed to the care of the armed forces for even so short a period as 4 months, then the armed forces must also assume reponsibility for the protection of their morals, and that protection must be based upon something more than physical health. I believe that Hon. John M. Lewis, one of the justices of the municipal court of the city of New York, stated the case in an address to the Delta Theta Phi law fraternity on January 10, 1947, in New York City. Judge Lewis served with the Seventy-seventh Division in World War I and received the Purple Heart. He is a past commander of the Three Hundred and Fifth Machine Gun Post, American Legion, which is composed of the outfit with which he fought through the war. He has also served as advo- cate of the New York City Post, Vet- erans of Foreign Wars. His son, John M. Lewis, Jr., lies in St. Avold’s Cemetery in France, a casualty of World War II. The address of Judge Lewis follows: My brothers in Delta Theta Phi, it is quite some time since last I spoke that greeting, yet the words came easily in the presence of so many old friends with whom I have been in touch since the good old days in Fuller Senate. A true friend, it has been well said, is one with whom you can be yourself. And these older brothers here have heen true friends indeed, to meet with whom meant parting with soul uplifted and a lighter heart. Would that I could entertain you now with tales of how they so often added to our common store of good humor, but I promised the members of the active senate @ talk on constitutional limitations in uni- versal military training of youth. The training must be military, I maintain—free from the youth-control features which mark the training in dictatorships—and, after some background, I have the cases, War veterans’ organizations have advo- cated universal military training since 1919, and there are many who now believe that such preparedness might have prevented World War II. The advantages of such train- ing, to the Nation and to the youngsters themselves, are now conceded by a majority of our adult population, according to polls taken on the subject. The statement that we may not be given time to prepare for our next war cannot be challenged. Congress has power, delegated by the Constitution, to raise armies and to provide and maintain a
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD navy, and the implied power to train the youth in military science and in the numer- ous skills used by the armed forces. Morale talks have always been considered part of military training and the three Rs would seem to be a modern military necessity, There is little opposition to the physical or technical training in the use of arms, given in the school of the soldier, or to its extension to the limit of the implied powers. Rather widespread, however, has become the fear that, once the youngsters are assembled in camp, they will be given nonmilitary courses of study they would not have been given in schools or colleges selected by their parents. It does little toward combatting this fear for us, who are advocates of the training, to point out: (1) That, under ar- ticles V and IX of the Bill of Righws, the natural rights of parents cannot be abridged by the Federal Government; (2) that, under article X, power over education is reserved to the States or to the people (in this case, the parents); and, therefore, we will never have youth control here in any counterpart of the Hitler or Russian method. There have been made public too many complaints about the orientation lectures given to servicemen overseas; and, last November, much publicity was given to a GI university (The U. 8. Armed Forces Institute), which supplies servicemen with courses in nonmilitary subjects. At a meeting of its directors, whose appointment seems as unauthorized as the setting up of the institute as I read the Constitution, it was decided to discon- tinue a book on economics against which the charge of communism had been made. The complaints, of course, point up the dangerous possibilities contained in this precedent being set for the armed forces, But the merits or demerits of any book on e-onomics, or of any fact sheet or informa- tional talk, are ell beside the point I now make. The all-important question in this controversy is: Can the War and Navy De- partments, existing through the power in Congress to raise armies and to provide and maintain a navy, go in for nonmilitary edu- cation, the supervision of which was, until this war, reserved to the States and strenu- ously denied to any Federal agency? And I say it is important to have that question de- termined before the idea of an Armed Forces Institute is carried over into the long-range legislation for universal military training of youngsters in their ‘teens. It must be well known in official Wash- ington that nothing short of an amendment to the Constitution would give the Federal Government power over education. It was charged on the floor of the Senate that the amendment proposed in 1924, to give Con- gress power to regulate the labor of persons under 18, was an attempt by Washington bureaus to get power over education as well. Recognized authorities on constitutional law, including the great William D. Guthrie, had not the slightest doubt that the word “labor” as used in the proposal would in- clude mental as well as physical exertion, and thet if the amendmeit were adopted as part of the Constitution, it would be a grunt of Federal power over education. During the unsuccessful campaigns for ratification, the women in the bureaus who had lobbied for the amendment denied any ambition to regulate education. Come 1939, however, when they conceded the disappear- ance of the child-labor problem, Miss Len- root, Chief of the Children’s Bureau, began talking about the need of a common goal in education. Under the guise of preventing child labor, then, the bureaus had sought to control education; and now, I say, under the guise of a year of military training, they seek Federal education of youths 17 and 18 years of age, for in 1944 the same Miss Len- root was quoted by a writer for the New York Times as authority for the proposition that a military training year should be used to its fullest educational advantage. In connection with the age provision, an interesting observation was contained in the script of a popular motion picture. Bing Crosby listened patiently to the complaint of an 18-year-old that her father was unrea- sonably restricting her freedom. Then said Bing: ‘When I was 18, I thought my father was pretty dumb too. But, when I became 21, I was surprised at how much the old man had learned in three short years.” What instructors or writers chosen by Fed- eral bureaus could do with 17- and 18-year- olds in a course on new concepts of citizen- ship (to mention one suggested by 4 colum- nist friendly to the cause) is a possibility of alarming proportions. Hitler did just that— took the youth off to camp and gave them new concepts of citizenship. The Russians did it before Hitler, and they do it yet. But, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in a case to follow, such ideas tcuching the Telation between individual and state are wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest. Our Congressmen know all that. There is no peril more clearly understood, no oppo- sition more appreciated by Congressmen than that to Federal invasion of education. In several Presidential campaigns, the plat- forms of both major political parties con- tained planks for Federal aid to the educa- tional systems of the States, to be adminir- tered by the States, without Federal inter- ference. That was to reassure the voters that the funds allotted by the Federal Gov- ernment would not bring Federal supervi- sion, and to meet the charge that such was the aim of the Washington Office of Educa- tion. If anybody misunderstands the opposition to the attempts of the bureaus to get a foot- hold on education, that misunderstanding cannot be laid at the door of Congress. There it is clearly understood that the parents back home don't want their children stand- ardized, and that the Federal Government cannot invade the natural right of parents to select the place where their children shall go for education. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that State gov- ernments cannot restrict that right, under amendment XIV to the Constitution, and amendment V places the same restriction on the Federal Government, In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Pierce v. Hill Military Academy (decided together and reported in 268 U. 5S. at p. 508), the court held unconstitutional an Oregon statute which required every parent or guardian of a child between 8 and 16 years of are to send him to a public school, and declaring failure to do so a misdemeanor. It was contended by the schools that the enactment conflicted with the right of parents to choose schools where their children shall be educated, the right of the child to influence the parents’ choice of schools, and the right of schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or profession, and was therefore re- pugnant to the Constitution and void. The court said: “Undcr the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska (268 U. S. 390), we think it entirely plain that the act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of chil- dren under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Con- stitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high A331 duty, to recognize and prepare him for addi- tional obligations.” In the Meyer v. Nebraska case, cited above, the State law forbade, under penalty, the teaching in any schoo] of any modern lan- guage, other than English, to any child who had not passed the eighth grade. - The court said: “The problem for our determination is whether the statute as construed and ap- plied unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff by the fourteenth amendment: ‘No State shall * * * de- prive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ “While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guar- anteed, the term has received much consid- eration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it de- notes not merely freedom from bodily re- straint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowl- edge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship Gad according to the dictates of his own conscience, and gen- erally to enjoy those privileges long recog- nized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by freemen.” I pause here to ask: Isn’t that an echo of the declaration that men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Plaintiff taught a modern foreign language. The court said further: “His right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the liberty of the amendment.” And further: “Perhaps it would be highly advan- tageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution—a desirable end cannot be pro- moted by prohibited means." The court then pointed out that Plato, for the welfare of his ideal commonwealth, sug- gested a law which should take children away from their parents. And that, in order to submerge the individual and develop better citizens, Sparta assembled the males at seven into barracks and entrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians. And snid the court: “Although such measures have been de- liberately approved by men of great genius, their ideas touching the relation between in- dividual and state were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest; and it hardly will be uMrmed that any lesislature could compose such restrictious upon the people of a State without doing violence to both Ictter and spirit of the Constitution.” As I indicated above, amendment V to the Constitution restrains the Federal Govern- ment in ulmost identical language: “No per- son shallbe * * * deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” In North Carolina v. Vanderford (35 Fed. 282), it was held that the fifth amendment only announces and re:ffirms the ancient principles of the common law, and prevents them from being unjustly invaded by the power of the Federal Government, Another annotation has it that this clause is a restraint on the legislative, as well as on the executive and judicial powers of fov- ernment and cannot be construed as to leave Congress free to make and process due proc- ess of law by its mere will. On the point that Congress cannot legislate on a matter over which the Constitution has given it no power, it has been held that every exercise of power must find its justi- fication in some authority delegated by the Constitution (in re American States Public Service Co., 12 Fed. Supp. 667). This case is also authority for the rule that what can- not be done directly because of constitu- tional restrictions, may not be accomplished
A332 indirectly by legislation which accomplishes the same result, since constitutional provi- sions, whether operating by way of grant or limitation, are not to be evaded by legisla- tion, which although not in terms trespass- ing upon letter and spirit, yet in substance or effect destroys the grant or limitation. And on the same point, you will find that those who have written on amendment IX construe it to bar legislation in the absence of specific power, although it reads like a catch-all for the protection of nonenumer- ated rights. Amendment X reads: The powers not dele- gated to the United States by the Constitu- tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In State ex rel Steinle v. Faust (9 N. E. (2) 912), as though it were axiomatic, the Court said, “Education is purely a matter of State concern and no rights, powers, or qauties concerning it have been either ex- pressly or impliedly granted to the Federal Government, within the limitations of the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” The Congress will consider the subject of universal military training in the light of all that has been developed in the debate to date. Both Senator Gurnry and Represént- ative WapswortH have stated that the train- ing should be military and the constitutional Imitations observed. They should have the support of all who want America strong enough to win the peace, without risking youth-control. In the words of the address of Junius to the people of England: “Let me exhort you never to suffer an invasion of your political constitution, however minute the instance may appear, to pass by without a deter- mined persevering resistance. One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was fact, today is doctrine. Examples are supposed to justify the most dangerous measures, and where they do not suit exactly the defect is supplied by analogy. Be assured that the laws, which protect us in our civil rights, grow out of the constitution, and that they must fall or flourish with it. This is not the cause of faction or of party, or of any indi- vidual, but the common interest of every man.” Congress Should Cooperate, Not Criticize EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ALVIN E. O’KONSKI OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. O’KONSKI. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orD, I include the following article by Jerry Greene from the Washington Times-Herald: Unless Congress is willing to spend a lot of money, the chances are better than bright that the two impending investigations into the safety of air travel and the causes of re- cent plane crashes won't be worth the time and money they will entail. The money is needed for men and equip- ment necessary to operate the Nation’s air- ways. There is nothing in the history of re- cent congressional sessions to indicate that the legislators will put up the dough this time. There have been, and will be, flamboyant charges made from Capitol Hill about “out- rageous” and “misleading” statements made to Congress by representatives of executive agencies about air safety. You can kiss these cracks off in a hurry. The simple truth is that not until Con- gress is able to pass a law which will elimi- nate the human element in flying can legisla- tion put a stop to air accidents. A check of the leading air-lines reveals that they will welcome any congressional investi- gation, insofar as safety regulations and crashes go. They say they have nothing to hide and they think they are doing a good Job. They know their crack-ups are spectacular and attract a lot of attention but one of the executives was wondering why the Senate didn’t probe the causes of split rails and human errors in judgment which have killed off quite a few in train accidents in the last year or 80. But the probes, one definitely set in the Senate by Senator Owen BrEwsTER (Repub- lican), of Maine, chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee, and another coming up in the House, won't prove anything from dig- ging in the wreckage of past crashes. That is what the experts say, and with emphasis. These air executives, civil, Army, and Navy, will tell you that a major percentage of the country’s plane crashes result from a mistake in Judgment on the part of the pilot—and he, like anybody else, wants to live. And most of the crashes result from the Pilot getting lost in lousy weather or from his efforts to land the plane somewhere un- der hazardous weather conditions. That means the United States has to keep up the latest navigation aids, has to improve its weather forecasting and has to pour men and money into the ground facilities if air accidents are to be kept to the human mini- mum. Either the Government or the pri- vate companies, or both, will have to pay for these services, Both the Army and Navy believe they know how to stop a majority of crashes but their system is costly—and still debatable. The services have established what they call “ground controlled approach” systems, through which, roughly, a man sitting be- fore a radar screen on the ground gives the pilot minute instructions when a plane is coming in during bad weather. The Army has recently given three of the GCA sets to the Civil Aeronautics Admin- istration, for installation in Washington, New York, and Chicago. Operation takes highly skilled grounc personnel and the sets cost about $170,000 each. These will be used on an experimental basis. Neither the Army nor the Navy regards GCA as experimental. The Army now has 21 overseas airfields equipped with the sets, has 8 bases in the United States in operation, and has recorded 35,000 GCA landings. The Navy has 19 operating GCA units in the United States, has pulled off 18,863 oper- ational airplane approaches in which the safety of the plane and crew was at stake 1,071 times, As a convincer, the Navy points to the record of “the hotshot,” a four-engined standard Douglas transport, or rather two of them. Each day for the last year and a half, re- gardless of weather, one “hotshot” has taken off from San Francisco direct for Patuxent,. Md., near Washington, and at the same time, the sister “hotshot” has departed Patuxent for California, There have been many times during the last 18 months when the aircraft on both coasts were weathered in. But not the “hot- shot.” Old “hotshot” rolled on, brought safely to earth by GCA. Just one “hotshot” fiight has been can- celed, About 2 weeks ago the roads were so icy around Washington that passengers couldn't drive to Patuxent, and they held up the plane. Most of the experts think it will be 3 to & years before commercial aviation really be- comes an all-weather service. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD It will take close work between the Gov- ernment and private industry to bring this about, There is room, they say, for investigation by Congress, but the investigators, while picking up fewer headlines, will find a richer field for probing in a study of what can be done to help than. in prowling around the twisted bits of old metal on & mountain hillside where a guy got lost in the fog. Temperance and Law Enforcement EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH R. BRYSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr.BRYSON. Mr. Speaker and Mem- bers of the House, yesterday, Tuesday, January 28, 1947, I had the privilege of speaking before the annual State con- vention of the South Carolina Federated Forces for Temperance and Law En- forcement at Columbia, 8S. C. His Excellency, Gov. J. Strom Thur- mond, spoke to the convention, as did Dr. Paul Wheeler, Dr. Edward B. Dun- ford, Hon. J. Hertz Brown, Rev. F. Clyde Helms, Rev. Albert D. Betts, and others. Under unanimous consent, I include my speech in the Appendix of the Recorp, as follows: Mr. Chairman, members of the South Caro- lina Federated Forces for Temperance and Law Enforcement, ladies and gentlemen, I am especially grateful to you of my home State for the high privilege you have accorded me. While I have been honored by invita- tions to many States to speak before tem- perance groups and have pending now in- vitations to several States, I prize this oppor- tunity above all others because it is at least, in a sense, a contradiction to that Biblical statement “a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country.” Coming as I do from our Nation's Capital, the wettest political subdivision in the world, I am glad to be among so many of you whose views coincide with mine on the liquor ques- tion. I, myself, am externally, iternally, and eternally against intoxicating beverages in all forms, It is good that we crusaders for temperance have united our efforts and now work toward the same objective. Most of the Christian denominations are united in their opposition to the use of beverage alcohol and they urge thelr members to abstain from its use. I am happy to cast my influence with the good Christian people of this Nation and to “stand up and be counted" among the drys. LIQUOR IS A BAD BUSINESS Liquor is a bad business. One of the first questions that insurance companies ask when you apply for a policy is, “Do you drink beverage alcohol?” With them it is not a moral question or a spiritual question, it is just a plain business question. They realize that drinkers are poor insurance risks. As @ matter of fact, bartenders and people who own liquor establishments have to pay higher rates of insurance. Liquor cannot be sent lawfully through the United States maile. The Supreme Court is on record as having declared that no man has an inherent right to make and sell alco- holic beverages. The liquor business is not like the mercantile business, the manufac- turing business, farming, public utilities, o# other agencies for the manufacturing of necessities of life. Ordinarily an agency is
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD created and permitted to exist for the good of mankind. They fill a public need. The world is better and happier because of their ex- istence. This is not the case with the bev- erage alcohol business. The world would be better off tf it did not exist. It corrupts politics, it poNutes society, it wrecks homes, it blights lives, it debauches character. ALCOHOL A HARMFUL DRUG Alcohol in beer, wine or whiskey—legal or bootleg—is a habit forming narcotic poison that befuddles the brain and depresses the nerve. Many people who, when sober, are kind, tender and dependable will often when under the influence of alcohol become over- bearing, brutal, dishonest and commit crime, NATIONAL For 18 yetrs America had national prohi- dition. The law was not perfect, but it was the best method the American people have found to deal with the liquor traffic. It ‘was never given a fair chance. Instead of giving it the proper enforcement and cor- recting any defects in it, we repealed ft and there have followed disastrous results in this Nation. PLENTY OF BOOTLEGGERS Advocates of repeal complained about bootlegging under probibition and said to relegalize the liquor traffic would end boot- legging. Eut the Federal Government in 1945 broke up over 8,000 bootlegging stills and caught over 11,000 bootleggers. Here Bre the figures from some of our neighboring tates: Wet South Carotina___- 5 Wet North Carolina_. 1, 450 Wet Georgia.........-.....--- 1, 666 With this reoord before us for various wet States in the Nation we can understand the truth of the statement of our retiring Governor when he recently declared: “That ‘as many liquor stilis as during prohibition days’ were in operation in South Carolina last year,” It was contended that with repeal only good and Government-inspected liquor wou'd be drunk. Such contention is not borne out in fact. People are drinking poisonous alco- hol concoctions as heretofore. One night last week in the city of Washington, D. C., aix peopie died as a result of drinking poison liquor. INCREASED LIQUOR CONSUMPTION Advocates of repeal said it would reduce drinking. This, like the promise of no boot- legging, has proven to be a joke. According to the records of the Bureau of Internal Rev- enue in Washington in 1034, the first full year of repeal, the per capita consumption of beverage alcohol was approximately 10 galions; by 1041 it had increased to 15 gal- lons; it climbed to 18 gallons in 1943; and by 1945 it was over 20 gallons for every man, woman, and little child in the Nation. Im 1945, part of the year during a bloody global war and the rest of the year while millions starved for bread in foreign lands, the American peopie drank the staggering amount of 110,000,000 gallons of wine; 190,- 000,000 of distilled spirits; and 2,527,- 000,000 gallons of beer, for which they paid the mammoth amount of nearly ¢8.000,- 000,000, INCREASED DRUNKENNESS Advocates of repeal said it would promote temperance and reduce drunkenness. The records of the Federal Bureau of Investigr- tion in Washington show that each year of repeal the ratio of drunkenness per 100,000 of the population has increased by an aver- age of 96 percent over 1932, the last full year of prohibition. Last year over a million people were arrested for offenses connected with . It is estimated by some very reliable sources that it cost this Nation $5,000,000,000 a year to care for her drunks alone. We have never received more than $2,600,000,000 in revenue. That means while the Government got @1 in revenue it had to spend 62 to take care of the drunks pro- duced by that liquor. How long would you operate a grocery store, a filling station, a hotel, or any other business that costs you €2 for every $1 that you took in? DRINKING DRIVERS The repeal of the eighteenth amendment has been followed by an increase in the num- ber of drunken drivers that race our streets and highways: Some 35,000 people were killed in traffic fatalities last year. The National Safety Council informs us that 1 out of every 6 persons killed in traffic accidents is due to a drinking driver or a drinking pedes- trian, which means of course that last year some 7,000 people lost their lives as a result of mixing alcoho] and gasoline. At Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Japan stabbed us in the back, killing some- where In the neighborhood of 3,000 Americun citizens. For that infamous act we called some 20,000,000 of our finest boys and girls from their firesides, sent them acroes the seven seas and spent billions of dollars to fight a global war. Yet right here in our own Nation last year on the highways and streets of this country the liquor traffic killed twice as many people as Japan killed at Pearl Harbor. I believe in defeating and outlawing the internal enemy of strong drink at home just as our fighting forces conquered the external enemy around this troubled worid. RUINED WOMANHOOD Perhaps the most tragic result of repeal is the way it has put the women of this country to drinking. The old saloon de- bauched the men and boys. This new repeal saloon is debauching the womanhood of this Nation worse than the old saloon debauched the manhood of the Nation. The relegalized liquor interest makes spe- cial efforts to get women drinkers. If you notice the blazing billboards they nearly al- ways show beautiful women holding beer glasses. The big magazines and daily news- papers carry alluring pictures of beautiful women drinking cocktails and highballs. The screens invariably have the heroines drinking the hellish fluid. Young women are used as cashiers, barmaids, hostesses, car hops, waitresses, and dispensers of this bev- erage alcohol with the result that it is as common to see drinking and drunken women as it is to see drinking and drunken men. About a year ago the American Medical Journal! carried the astonishing report that in 1982, which was the last full year of prohibi- tion, 1 out of every 5 persons arrested for drunkenness in Chicago was a woman; but in 1944 1 out of every 2, that is, every other person arrested for drunkenness in Chicago was a woman. America’s greatest ion is not her wooded forests, her fertile fields, ber vast prairies, her great railroads, her manufactur- ing and industrial plants, her extensive com- munication systems, or her immense wealth. Her greatest n is her womanhood. Here the liquor interest is striking a devastat- ing blow at the greatest influence for good in our national life, for as someone has said, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” ABSTINENCE NOT ENOUGH How shall we deal with this probiem of strong drink? Very frequently you hear people say, “Well, the boose business does not bother me. I never touch a drop. Iam & teetotaler.” The woods are full of bootieggers that never touch a drop of the stuff they sell. A333 Many saloons will not employ a bartender that drinks. Some of the largest distillers in the Nation will not permit drinking on the part of their employees. And yet these forces traffic in the beverage-aloohol business. So personal abstinence is not enough that only solves the problem for one individual. We musi do something to stop the traffic. We must prohibit others from making and sell- ing it and ruining other people. EDUCATION NOT ENOUGH You very frequently hear people say the way to solve this problem is by education. But the liquor industry with §100,000,000 @ year to spend on billboards, in newspapers and magazines, over the radio, advertising, and glamorizing the drinking of liquor can educate the American people to drink 60 much faster than the abstinence forces can educate the people not to drink that the liquor traffic hardly knows it has any compe- tition in the educational field. Thousands of dollars are spent daily to perpetrate the lie that beer is real food, while hardly a penny is given to publicize the truth that milk is nutritious. PROHIBITION NEEDED We have laws to prohibit stealing, cursing, gambling, and vice. Just personul abstin- ence from these sins and education against them are not enough. And that is the way it is with this liquor business. Not only must we personally abstain and teach our loved ones to abstain, and not only should we teach and educate the public on the evils of alcohol, but we must have laws for the pro- tection of the public against those who would traffic in beverage alcohol and victimize the public, TIIREE KINDS OF PROHIDITION There are three kinds of prohibition. Na- tional prohibition like we bad under the eighteenth amendment and which was re- pealed 13 years ago. State-wide prohibition as they now have in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. Some States permit the sale of beer but do not allow the sale of hard Hquors. That is the kind of prohibition the people of South Caro- lina voted for in an advisory referendum in 1940 but which the general assembly has fatied to ratify. In the third place there is local option prohibition. By local option prohibition we mean that a precinct, a town, a township, & county, or a subdivision as an independent political unit may call an election on the sale of alcoholic beveraces. Many States make provision for local option elections and they have proved a very helpful method for dealing with the liquor traffic if we are to Judge by the way the country is going dry under local option. I am happy to know that our new Governor in his inaugural ad- dress came out strongly for local option. LOCAL OPTION AREAS Massachusetts has 65 towns and townships with populations ranging from 40,000 down that prohibit the sale of all becr, wine, and whisky. New Hampshire bas about a hun- dred such dry towns and townships, Vermont has 120, Maine over 300, Wisconsin 359, Ohio 460, Pennsylvania 650, and the State of Illi- nois over 1,000 with nearly 2,000,000 people living in them. The State of Virginia has several whole counties that are dry. Louisiana has 16 dry parishes. Minnesota 20 dry counties; the drys have won 32 of the last 87 county-wide liquor elections in Arkansas; Georgia bas 67 counties that are dry; Alabama 47 dry coun- ties and only 20 that permit the legal sale of beverage alcohol; Mississippi has 63 of her 82 counties that prohibit the sale of all beer, wine, or whisky; and the State of Kentucky, known around the world for its famous brands of liquor, has 92 wholly dry counties, 14 others that are partially dry, and only 14 left that are wholly wet. In North Carolina 5 of her 100 counties prohibit the legal sale
A334 of hard liquor, but beer is sold in every coun- ty but 2. The State of Texas has 139 dry counties, and a recent newspaper survey re- vealed that 53 percent of the people 21 years of age or above would vote for State-wide pro- hibition if faced with the opportunity. The latest Gallup poll showed 83 percent of the American voters across the Nation as a whole favoring national prohibition. At present South Carolina laws do not per- mit local option elections. That is a big issue before the general assembly. I person- ally hope the legislature will give the good people of our State a law providing for a local option prohibition election. It is noth- ing but right, fair and democratic. If the people in a local community or county want to hold an election and ban the sale of bever- age alcohol they ought to be permitted to hold such an election. Why send our boys and girls around this troubled world to bleed and die in order that the people of Italy, Germany, Japan, and other countries may exercise the democratic privileges of holding free elections and casting their votes on pub- lic issues and then deny the people of our own State of South Carolina the privilege of holding an election on the issue of local op- tion? I, myself, am for prohibition but join others in the advocacy of local option as a means to the end. Congress Needs Bolstering EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER NORBLAD OF OREGON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. NORBLAD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following editorial from the Oregon City Banner Courier: CONGRESS NEEDS BOLSTERING The time has come for Congress to get some support from the tax-paying folks back home. If we don’t let our Senators and Representatives know that we expect cuts in both taxes and governmental spending, how are they to combat the pressure of government lobbies which pound away at the same old story of ‘‘some cuts are neces- sary, but not in my department’’? Take this proposed Army-Navy merger as a case in point. Old Army and old Navy men just cannot conceive the loss of their traditional inter- ests through consolidation. The two serv- ices have been so long independently op- erated that the top brass just cannot see how it can compromise or sacrifice in order to effect a merger in which both branches would be regarded as tops, as they look upon themselves at present. But, Mr. Congress, this matter is not a question of preserving the rights and privi- leges of top brass in either or both services, It is a two-horned question of saving the taxpayers’ money and improving national defense, Army and Navy departments duplicate facilities, installations, and agencies which, if combined, could give the Nation better defense for less money. We are completely disgusted with the archaic two-arm national defense set-up. It is ridiculous in these modern times, Both Army and Navy are maintained for na- tional defense—that is their main reason for existence. Impartial Navy and Army men admit national defense would be stronger and would cost far less if the services were unified, Well, what are we waiting for? We Should Have Fewer Government Workers EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. RAYMOND S. SPRINGER OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, while there has been a general widespread dis- cussion upon the subject of tax reduc- tions, and so many of the people have joined in the discussion of economy in government, we have now reached the point at which action must be taken in order to accomplish these worth-while objectives. We cannot continue to go forward with a loadstone about our necks. This leads me to a discussion of the problem to which I desire to address myself in this statement and in these remarks. Our Nation and the common people of our country have had the very great burden of very heavy taxes upon their shoulders for a long period of time. It is true that we have passed through the most devastating war of all times, and during this great emergency all of the people have toiled and struggled, they have saved, they have paid very high and unusual taxes, they have contributed to every fund for the benefit of the boys in the service, they have bought bonds un- til it hurt—they were the great army behind the lines who contributed so much to the end that victory might be ours—and this great contribution con- sisted in giving their boys to our Army, Navy, and Air Corps for active duty and service in this awful conflict. Mr. Speaker, when we view our present situation, following World War I, we find we are facing a staggering national debt of approximately $275,000,000,000. We must support and pay that debt. We must pay the interest upon that debt. This is not an easy or trifling commitment on our part. It is the largest debt faced by any nation at any time. But, whatever that debt may be, and whatever staggering sum the prin- cipal and interest thereon may attain, I am confident the American people want to pay and discharge it. We will pay our war debt—but we do not want more of cruel war foisted upon us. We want peace in the future and we want peace treaties consummated with other nations which will assure a lasting and a per- manent peace to our Nation. Mr, Speaker, it is my considered judg- ment that there are too many Federal employees in our Government. There are too many of such employees for ef- ficiency, and there are too many of such employees now sapping away the tax- payer’s money—taking that money away from the channels into which it should be allocated. Why does Uncle Sam have about three times as many job holders hanging on as he had during the prewar days? And, at this point, may I ask why is there today the unthinkable high ratio of almost one Government job holder for every 18 individual Americans engaged in private business and industry? These APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD are pertinent questions, and these are questions that the people are asking of the President and his many and various agencies and departments of Govern- ment. And, may I suggest, that I have often wondered why the bureaucrats in Wash- ington usually talk about more Govern- ment jobs instead of less and less em- ployees; why they usually involve the people in more and more Federal red tape, which has ever tended to strangle and stymie business, industry, and agri- culture, instead of less and less of those obstructions? And, all of us have won- dered why our Government, and those in charge of practically every agency and department, wastes its personnel in over- staffed offices and unnecessary em- ployees? This latter statement is the usual condition found by those who come here to work, upon the request of their Government, because they find, in many instances, they “have nothing to do” and they frequently resign and return home disgusted and dismayed. Many people come to Washington on business mis- sions, but upon arriving they find the agency of Government, with which they desire to transact business, so completely overstaffed and so crowded with person- nel that they are unable to find any per- son with whom to take up their partic- ular problem—and they, too, usually “beat a hasty retreat back home.” Then why, Mr. Speaker, does the Federal Gov- ernment have so many unnecessary em- ployees, and why does it retain this over- supply of needless workers on the pay rolls? That is the question the Amer- ican people are asking, and that is the question they desire answered by the de- partment heads and those in charge of the many and various agencies of Gov- ernment. Mr. Speaker, I venture some reasons for this condition, which I desire to ap- pear before the people for their con- sideration. When these bureaucratic officials have once experienced the power of having many people under their command, all serving them, they never want to sur- render that power. They do not desire to reach the time when their hordes of employees are dissolved or disbanded. They want to continue throughout the future with all the power their position warrants. They like it—and they want to keep it. We know, from experience, that power and great authority begets more power and greater authority, and that a bureaucracy begets more bureaucracy. We have witnessed that great growth and expansion throughout the past 14 years in our own country. Mr. Speaker, Uncle Sam pays salaries to department heads, and others in the top positions, which are based in part upon the number of people and subordi- nates which the director or supervisor has under him, and, thus, a large person- nel in any department is highly essential to him, and this fact alone encourages him to get more people on the pay roll in his particular agency and department whether he needs them or not. A large personnel tends to increase the prestige and the compensation of the bureau-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cratic head of that agency or depart- ment. And, may I add, there are many gov- ernment theorists, planners, designers, and schemers whose sole desire appears to be to centralize and consolidate more power in our Federal Government, and to reduce the power of the several States and of our local authorities into mere nonentities. What we need is more power in our several States and local communities and much less power cen- tralized in Washington. Our Federal Government is now top-heavy with in- flated power and authority—and this must end, with its controls, with its orders, and with its dominating grasp upon the throats of the people. So, Mr. Speaker, whatever our obliga- tions are, at the moment, let us face the facts and solve the problem of reducing our Government workers to a mere neces- sity, and thereby reducing our pay rolis accordingly; let us remove the necessity of the vast burden of taxes which now exists because of the unnecessary and nonessential employees on the Federal pay roll. We have the job of getting down to business, in a businesslike man- ner, by deflating the Federal pay roll to a prewar size, or even smaller, and let us demand of our Government, our Presi- dent, and every department and agency of Government that scientific manage- ment be exercised, all to the end that men, money, materials, and time may be saved. We must demand that our Fed- eral Government be decentralized and returned to the several States, and to the very grass roots of our Nation, where, I am convinced, it can and will be handled better and more economically than under this centralized system in Washington. Our Federal Government certainly can- not know all, control all, and do all in this great Nation. Why Income-Tax Exemptions of Low-ln- come Groups Should Be Increased EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALBERT J. ENGEL OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. ENGEL of Michigan. Mr. Speak- er, my distinguished friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, in- troduced a bill recently providing for what he calls a 20-percent reduction of income taxes “straight across the board” for incomes of $302,000 or under and about 10.5 percent reduction on incomes over $302,000. On January 9, 1947, my good friend, the Honorable Danme. A. Reep of New York, inserted into the Rrcorp a state- ment which gave his views, apparently supporting Mr. Kwursow’s proposal on the ground that such a tax reduction would be needed to bring about a con- tinued prosperity. Mr. Resp makes a very interesting statement, contending that the law of diminishing returns has been operating and that the Knutson bill would increase the revenues rather than diminish them. Mr. Knursom states his bill would cut the revenue $3,500,000,000. On the 19th day of March 1945, I introduced a bill increasing the tax ex- emptions of a single person from $500 to $800 a year and of the head of a family from $1,000 to $2,000 a year. On January 3, 1947, I reintroduced this bill increasing the tax exemption of a single person to $1,000, the head of a family to $2,000, reinstating the householder clause which recognized the fact that if a father or mother died the remaining parent should continue to have the full exemption of the head of a family be- cause the burden to continue the home and to keep that little family together is even greater than before the death of the other parent. Let me state my position clearly. First, and above all, we have to balance the budget. We cannot continue to bor- row; we cannot continue to go in debt for operating expenses of this Govern- ment. When I say “balance the budget” I want it distinctly understood that I want included in that budget not only the interest on the national debt but in- clusion in each annual budget of an amount which will liquidate that debt upon a sound plan of amortization. If there is anything left after we have bal- anced the budget, including an amount for amortized debt, the great masses of people in the low-income group who re- quire that money to live should be given the maximum benefit of that reduction. In the event that an increase in tax exemption as outlined by my bill cannot be made with a balanced budget, then I would increase the exemption of a single or married person only where the in- come of the single person or combined income of the husband and wife did not exceed $5,000. This would be reinstating the clause that was enacted in the Rev- enue Act of 1921 and would give the ben- efit of that increase only to the low- income group provided it can be done with a balanced budget. According to many published stories the Knutson bill represents the tax policy of the Republican Party which now has contro] of both Houses of Congress. This viewpoint finds some basis in the fact that both Mr. KNurson and Mr. Rexzp, the two ranking members of the Ways and Means Committee, are sup- porting the Knutson bill and the further fact that I seem to receive no appreciable support from other Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee nor from the Republican leadership for my ill, I like to think of the Republican Party as the party of Abraham Lincoln. Lin- coln once said, “God must have loved the poor because he made so many of them.” I am afraid the present leadership of the Republican Party does not agree with Abraham Lincoln in this view. Let us see just what the Knutson bill does. Let us break it down. According to a newspaper report it provides for a cut of 20 percent straight across the board for every taxpayer with an annual income up to about $302,000 and about a 10.5 percent cut for the taxpayer with an income above $302,000. The heading A335 of this article states “Knutson contends reductions in income tax raise revenue.” The article quotes Mr. KNUTSON as call- ing attention to the fact that the Federal debt was reduced by $8,000,000,000 from 1920 to 1930, and then quotes him specifi- cally as saying, “Despite these reduc- tions, tax revenues continued to rise so that there was ample surplus to provide for sizable reductions in the national debt.” This article also gives a table of deduc- tions which would be made under the Knutson bill. For instance this table shows that a single worker with a weekly wage of from $11 to $12 a week would pay 10 cents a week or $5.20 a year taxes. According to economists and cost-of-liv- ing experts it took $1.55 in 1946 to buy what $1 bought in 1939. Under the Knutson bill this man, unless he is over 65 years old, still has only a $500 tax exemption. On this basis $323 would have bought the same living items in 1939 when his tax exemption was $1,000 a year that the $500 bought in 1946. This worker would receive 2 cents a week or $1.04 a year reduction in taxes or tax relief while the financier who had a $100,000 annual income would receive $12,790 a year reduction in taxes. The same table shows that a man and wife with an income from $22 to $23 a week would pay 20 cents a week or $10.40 a year in taxes. They would have saved under the 20-percent clause 4 cents a week or $2.08 a year while the financier who had a $200,000-a-year income would save $29,795 a year. Let us take a man and wife with an income of $2,500 a year or approximately $48 a week. In 1939 he paid no taxes. Under the Knutson bill he would pay $3.60 a week or $187.20 a year. He would save 72 cents a week or $37.44 a year, while the financier with an income of $300,000 would save $48,985 a year. The average weekly wage in manufacturing, according to the Labor Department, is approximately $48 a week. This man and wife with a 1947 income of $2,500 would have $2,313 left after the payment of taxes. On the basis that it took $1.55 in 1946 to buy what $1 bought in 1939, this taxpayer could have bought the same living in 1939 with a net income of $1,613 that he bought in 1946 with his $2,500 income after taxes, and con- versely it would take $3,875 today to buy in living what his $2,500 bought in 1939 when that $2,500 was exempt. The sin- gle man with $1,000 a year income would have required $1,550 in 1946 to buy what his $1,000 bought in 1939 and conversely $645 would have bought the same living in 1939 that his $1,000 buys today. That $1,000 was exempt in 1939. I am assum- ing that these workers are under 65 years of age. HOW MANY PEOPLE CONSTITUTE THE LOW- INCOME GROUP? Let us examine the record and see just how many people we have in this low- income group that I am speaking about. Let us use $2,500 as the top figure for the sake of illustration. I addressed the House on this subject in 1945 and again in 1946. I had obtained from the Treas- ury Department tables showing the in- come of the various groups in 1944, one
A336 of our largest national-income years. I found that in 1944 there were: First. Twenty-one million six hundred thousand individuals with annual in- comes of $1,000 or less, 12,250,000 of whom were single persons and 9,010,000 were heads of families. Becond. There were 12,430,000 indi- viduals, 7,450,000 of whom were married or heads of families with incomes from $1,000 to $1,500. ' Third. There were 11,990,000 individ- uals with incomes of from §1,500 to $2,000, 9,580,000 of whom were married persons or heads of families. Fourth. There were still another 7,550,000 with incomes of $2,000 to $2,500, 6,590,000 of whom were married persons or heads of families. This was according to the Treasury re- port furnished me taken from the income tax records. Summarizing we find we had in 1944, 53,230,000 individuals with incomes of $2,500 or under. If we as- sume that each head of a family in this group had at least one dependent, we find that we have 85,860,000 people in this country or 61 percent of the population who are dependent on individual or family incomes of $2,500 a year or under. MUST WE LEVY AN INCOME TAX ON THE LOW-IN- COME GROUP TO MAKE THEM TAX CONSCIOUS? The argument has been advanced that we have to levy an income tax, no matter how small, to make the low-income tax- payer tax conscious. On February 6, 1946, I made the following statement on the floor of this Heuse: Taking money we cali taxes from the low- income groups, which should be spent for bread, butter, milk and food to fill the stom- achs of hungry children will not avert in- flation. Such a policy can only bring about suffering, crime, immorality and poor citizen- ship. No policy of making everyone pay a tax to make people tax conscious can be justi- fled when the tax dollar collected forces the living standards of the taxpayer below a de- cent level. Taking 10 cents a week tax from a $12- a-week worker which he must take from his bread, milk or other food bill and then hiring thousands of clerks to handle these accounts at a cost of many times the amount collected to make that tax- payer tax conscious just does not make sense to me. In many States he pays a sales tax on everything he buys. Every- time he pays rent, he is paying the taxes on the house or room he rents. Every time he goes to the theater, if he ever has enough left to go there, he pays a tax. In fact, every time he turns around he pays some kind of a tax. If he is not tax conscious now, a withholding tax of 10 cents or 20 cents a week will not make him so. INCREASE IN TAXES MEANS INCREASED DEMANDS IN WAGES I have always felt that labor was on sound footing when it based its demand for increased wages on the increased cost of living. In bargaining between management and labor it is the amount of take-home pay which is used in de- termining whether or not the worker is being paid a fair wage. Take-home pay is, of course, tne pay after the vari- ous deductions including income taxes. Take, for example, the. worker with a wife who had a §2,500-a-year income. Let us assume that he lives in some city where it would require $2,800 a year for him to support himself and wife under a decent standard of living. The dif- ference demanded would not be the dif- ference between $2,500 and $2,800, or a demand for an increase of $300 a year. It would be a demand for an increase in wages between $2,000 and his take-home pay after deductions of $187 income taxes. The demand would be for the difference between $2,800 and $2,317 a year, or a demand for $483-a-year in- crease. I have not included any social- security and other deductions. This income tax paid by the low-in- come worker helps to bring about labor strife in that worker's effort to obtain a living or better wage. In this way the tax is passed by the worker to the em- ployer, who in turn adds it to his cost of production. The consuming public in the end pays the bill in increased prices. The unorganized worker, the govern- ment worker, the farmer, and the other low-income groups find it difficult to pass that tax levy back to someone else. They have no alternative but to pay it and reduce their standard of living ac- cordingly. HOW DOES REDUCTION OF TAXES AFFECT THE TOTAL TAX COLLECTION AND WHY? There are many people in both the Re- publican and Democratic Parties, in fact I believe they constitute a majority of those parties, who believe that if you will only give tax relief to the man on top the benefits will trickle or percolate down to the little fellow below. This is based upon the theory that by creating new investment capital the workers will obtain jobs. I cannot agree fully with this theory of government. I agree that under a capitalistic form of govern- ment or under a profit system, we must permit the retention of enough profit so that industry can expand. However all the capital in the world will not create jobs except insofar as it creates pur- chasing power in the erection of new factories, and so fcrth. The depression of 1929 to 1940 should satisfy the most skeptical that those benefits do not adequately trickle or per- colate down to the little fellow below. My theory is that in order to have per- manent prosperity one has to begin by increasing the purchasing power of that great mass of people—86,000,000—in the low-income group. It is only by increas- ing the purchasing power and raising the standard of living of this great mass of people that we can have real and perma- nent prosperity. By increasing mass purchasing power I do not mean taking the tax dollar from one taxpayer and giving it to another. I mean increasing the farmer's and worker's productive ca- pacity and giving them a greater share of the selling price of the thing they produce on the farm, in the factory, mine, or whatever it may be. If you will do this the man above is bound to obtain his share of the profit. Let me illustrate what I mean. If the wife of that low-income worker from whom we are taking 10 cents a week income tax should take the 10 cents a week and buy a spool of thread from the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD corner dry goods store to patch her hus- band’s pants, everyone from that corner store up through to the manufacturer of the thread and back to the farmer who grew the cotton that went into the thread would get part of the 10 cents. If that $2,500 a year worker could take a part of the $187 you are going to tax him under the Knutson bill to buy a suit of clothes for himself, or a dress for his wife, everyone from the store which sold him the suit or dress through to the manufacturer and back down to the farmer who grew the cotton or wool that went into the suit or dress is bound to benefit. But if that worker is not left enough to buy a suit or dress, everyone from the store where he would buy the suit or dress or whatever it may be, up to the textile mill and manufacturer who would make that dress and suit of clothes and back down to the farmer who raises the cotton or wool, will be the loser. It was for this reason and not because the tax relief was given to the higher bracket taxpayer that the revenue in the treasury for a time increased in the past, despite the reduction made in income-tax rates. I recognize the fact and I have said so repeatedly that we have passed that critical point in the rate of taxa- tion, where the law of diminishing re- turns is now operating. Under a cap- italistic or profit system you must leave enough profit to the businessman so he can have capital to expand his plant to take care of increased business. On the other hand no business can expand and no profit system can survive without profits and there is no profit on a pair of overalls, a suit or dress that the low- income group does not buy. Mr. Henry Ford, Sr., undoubtedly had this very policy in mind when for the first time he established what was then considered extremely high a “$5-a-day minimum wage” in his factory. Let me repeat that a sound peacetime prosperity can only be built upon that basis. It is only by building up the in- come and productive capacity of the low-income group that you can have a national income large enough to pay our minimum current operating expenses, pay our national debt, and not have fur- ther inflation. WHAT HAS BEEN THE REPUBLICAN TAX POLICY IN THE PAST? What has been the policy of the Re- publican Party with regard to tax reduc- tion in the past? Has the Republican Party during the years they were in power followed the policy as outlined by the Knutson bill, and which it now pro- poses to adopt as the Republican policy? Let us examine the record. Let us go back to the first revenue act that was passed after the Republican Party came back into power in 1921. This act in- creased the exemption of a married per- son from $2,000 to $2,500 where the ag- gregate income of the husband and wife did not exceed $5,000. It further in- creased the credit for each dependent from $200 to $400. Next came the Revenue Act of 1924. Under this act the tax rate on the income of the individual was reduced from 6 to 2 percent on the first $4,000 and to 4 per- cent on the second $4,000.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Next came the Revenue Act of 1926. This act reduted the tax rate from 2 to 142 percent on the first $4,000 and from 4 to 3 percent on the second $4,000, while at the same time increasing the exemp- tion of single persons to $1,500 and of married persons to $3,500. It left the credit for each dependent at $400. Then came the Revenue Act of 1928 which did not change the rates or exemptions but increased the earned in- come credit limit from $20,000 to $30,000. The fourth reduction in personal in- come taxes was under a House resolution which was enacted into law December 16, 1929. The House joint resolution re- duced the rate for 1929 on all individual incomes from 1% percent to one-half of 1 percent on the first $4,000 and from 4 percent to 2 percent on the second $4,000, leaving the exemptions and credit for dependents the same. Summarizing, the Republican Party passed five tax bills from 1921 to 1929 and in four out of the five the tex rate of the low-income group was given first consideration. The tax exemptions were increased from $1,000 to $1,500 for a single person and from $2,000 to $3,500 for a married person, and the exemption for dependents was increased from $200 to $400. In addition to these exemp- tions, of course, business and the man on top got a substantial reduction in his surtax and the tax rates. These bills decreased tax rates on incomes below $4,000 from 6 percent to 4 percent to 2 percent to 144 percent to one-half of 1 percent successively. This was the Republican tax policy from 1920 to 1932. I believe this policy was right then. I believe it is right now. CONCLUSION It is my contention that the Knutson bill is a radical departure from what has been the Republican tax policy in the past. If the Knutson bill is passed it will place into the hands of the Democratic Party the most effective campaign argu- ment any party can have; an argument which will appeal to 86,000,000 people in the low-income group. It may spell de- feat for the Republican Party in 1948. To pass the Knutson bill in its present form constitutes not only a total lack of political foresight but a complete lack of political “hindsight” as well. British Violations of Debt Agreements EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ROY 0. WOODRUFF OF MICHIGAN IN THD HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. WOODRUFF. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorjal from the New York Journal and Ameri- can of January 19, 1947: BRITISH VIOLATIONS OF DEBT AGREEMENTS The urgent warning was given Congress at the time of the British loan negotiations that the huge sum of money very easily could be ‘used to the injury of the United States and very likely would be so used. XCIII—App.——22 There is now a dramatic, but hardly aston- ishing, fulfillment of this warning, which was, of course, ignored when Congress ape proved the loan. Secretary of the Treasury Snyder has con- firmed that the American Government is gravely concerned over the recent trade pact concluded between Great Britain and Argen- tina, which is clearly in violation of the loan agreement. The Anglo-Argentine trade pact provides for payments to Argentina under the “plocked” British sterling system, and limits Argentina’s use of that money to “the Brit- ish sphere of influence.” This means that money received by Argen- tina in trade with Britain must be spent with Britain, thus excluding the United States and all other countries from any commercial deal- ings with Argentina based upon the improved Argentine financial position. Since the British Goverriment had agreed, as a condition of obtaining the American loan to abstain from the use of blocked cur- rencies in international trade made possible by the loan, the fact and extent of violation are apparent. Secretary Snyder attempts no concealment of the essential facts in this matter, or of his own displeasure. “We feel that we must live up to our agreement,” he comments. “Those are reached after careful delibera- tion and we expect both parties to live up to the agreements. “We signed the loan agreements with them (the British) some time ago, and ve just want them to live up to the agreements.” But the Secretary is vague about what the American Government will do in the situn- tion, All that the American Government seems to have done is to ask an interpretation by Great Britain of the effect of the Anglo- Argentine pact upon the Anglo-American loan agreement. What the American Government could and should do in the situation is to refuse further American participation in the loan agree- ment, since British violation constitutes both a legal and a moral nullification of the entire agreement. The British have already drawn $800,000,- 000 against the total] approved loan of §3,750,- 000,000. Why should they have further access to this gigantic fund, since they have failed to abide by the conditions under which it was sect up for their use? Why, indeed, does not the American Gov- ernment now do what it should have done in the first place—miuke American interests the first and sole consideration? The British loan was not made in the American interest, and it was not.made with the consent or approval of the American peo- ple—and in fact, the administration which made the loan has since been repudiated by the people, and one of the foremost factors which contributed to this repudiation was the British loan. Amateur Sports EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr. Speak- er, under leave extended to me by the House, and due to the aroused public in- terest in good and clean sports, I am in- serting in the Recorp an address de- livered by Francis T. Murray, executive A337 director of Philadelphia Inquirer Chari- ties, Inc., at the fortieth anniversary dinner of the Middle Atlantic Amateur Athletic Union held at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel, Philadelphia, on Janu- ary 16, 1947: Precedent dictates that on an occasion of this sort the members of the organization celebrating its fortieth anniversary are to be congratulated and lauded, each one, for the individual contribution made, which added much to the strength of the present-day society. Time has relegated many of you who once worked hard to more or less advisory assignments, but while the ycars may have slowed physical capacities, they have only served to sharpen your interest in the Middle Atlantic Amateur Athletic Union, which for the last 40 years has served our community 50 well. The younger members of your union should be congratulated also, for recognizing in the work of the charter members the lofty ideals of amateur sportsmanship, which are just as true and practical today as they were when first conceived and codified back in the year 1888, and for their efforts toward furthering this work. Usually when an association has been suc- cessfully in operation for a span of four dec- ades it becomes difficult to imagine new chal- lenges to be faced, fought out, and conquered. Yet tonight each and every one of us inter- ested in amateur sport is facing one of the most crucial challenges of all times, not only in regard to the interpretation of amateur- ism, which some people are twisting to suit their own conveniences for various reasons, but also the equally vital interpretation of what constitutes an honest competitive effort. Fortunately the original constitution of your union clearly and unmistakably defincs and interprets both issues. Unfortunately, however, customs and times on occasion make it fashionable and more expedient to apply to both issues an interpretation falsely considered more pructical. The exponents of this latter school of thought, I am happy to say, represent an infinitesimal portion of those competing in and those interested in amateur athletics. The vast majority, which includes men such as yourselves, find the precepts of this small minority group shocking, sickening, revolting, yet undeniably they are present, gnawing away like termites at the very foundation of our amateur society. Like a foreign enemy who might invade our shores, the adherents of the school of thought, of which I speak, are out to destroy our system of sports for sports’ sake, sports for the betterment of the community and country, sports for the physical, mental, and moral improvement of the athlete. Because of its nature, rather than any seri- ous inroads it is makine, the time to act is now, and the thing to guard against is fatal Mental apathy. Our program calls for toughening up morally, along with physical and mental ex- ercising. It is difficult to conceive of an athlete who has spent untold years of hard work developing an athletic skill lending an ear to some unscrupulous person suggesting that he debase his art for material gain. Yct, oddly enough, the very idca, at least commer- cially speaking, has a certain inherent lure. Therefore, it calls for mental adjustment, at least to the point of determining in what spheres of endeavors the material profit mo- tif applies and in what activities, such as amateur sports, tt has no place whatsoever. Municipally supervised and institutionally administered sports point up for those who perform in the brilliant spotlight of sports for sports’ sake, the contro] of inherent, ani- mal behavior. Championship performances in the past placed great accent on the physi- cal and mental side of the picture; however, because of this new challenge we are facing,
A338 the moral integrity of the champion of the future, as well as of those encouraging par- ticipation in sport, looms more important than ever. Lion-hearted, intellectual courage and solid moral integrity must be stressed by our coaches as strongly as the track instruc- tor stresses the importance of a fast start. Moral reflexes must be exercised and tough- ened to respond just as quickly to un- scrupulous advances as our muscular systems compensate and shift to guard against un- expected offensive flashes and take advantage of openings, which disappear just as sud- denly as they come about. Local, State, and Federal legislation will help make it more difficult for those iden- tifled with the shabby side of sport to oper- ate, but the operation will never come to a standstill until everyone connected with sports lashes out at the invaders with a vigor, which is instinctive and individual, but which is still common to all) athletes. The pursuit of sports has always been soul- satisfying and materially productive. In this era, the thrill of competing will be even more intensified and the material results more productive because the physical com- petition will be stiffer than ever before, and coupled with the incentive of battling for a principle. Moral ruggedness will be playing a major role. If sporting figures are idols to youngsters and, I believe they are, then present- and future-day athletes have a tremendous obligation to those who will follow to see to it by their behavior that the shadows of doubt which have crept into the athletic pic- ture are eliminated in their entirety. Few are the organizations that can boast of a record of service and accomplishments, such as yours. The purposeful which you advocate and the lofty goals and standards of amateurism which you have set are ideal. The doctrines which you preach become more true with each passing day, and be- cause of your efforts, untold thousands of athletes have found it possible to experience the thrill that comes only from an honest sweat, worked up in honest competition. We at the Philadelphia Inquirer wish to congratulate you on the excellent work you have done, are doing, and will continue to perform. We stand ready to assist in any- way possible, and come the 1948 Olympics, the whole world will become aware of what we in Philadelphia and the surrounding com- munities know so well. That is, the Amer- ican amateur athlete is second to none and the Philadelphia product at least the equal of any in this great country of ours. Where Does It Go? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES B. HOEVEN OF IOWA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orp, I include the following interesting article written by Mr. M. O. Cox, editor of the Farm Weekly agriculture supple- ment of the Sioux City Journal. I am sure it will be of interest to those who do not have an intimate knowledge of agri- culture: Many an easterner, upon driving through the great Midwest for the first time, asks: “What in the world do you do with all that corn? Who eats it anyway?” Through Mli- nois, Iowa, southern Minnesota and eastern South Dakota he travels mile after mile bor- dered by masses of corn. He sees, too, fleld after field of small grains. Then he wonders what happens to this gigantic Midwest pro- duction, corn First in importance, of course, is corn, of which over 3,200,000,000 bushels were har- vested last fall. Only a small percentage of the corn crop goes for industrial purposes and human con- sumption. The bulk of it goes into the pro- duction of steaks, chops, milk, and eggs. The net movement of corn from farms is only about 10 percent. Nearly 20 percent is sold off the farm but 10 percent is bought back as commercial feeds, leaving only about two hundred and fifty to three hundred million bushels for industry, exports, and other uses off the farm. Livestock consumes 80 percent or more of the corn crop. USDA figures show that about 0.71 percent of the total crop goes for seed; 2.08 percent for export; and around 8 percent for industrial uses. Food processors and industry use corn for ary process products, alcoholic beverages, wet process products, breakfast foods, and flour, OATS As a feed crop oats ranks second in im- portance, topped only by oorn. The bulk of the 1,500,000,000-bushel 1946 crop will be utilized as a livestock feed. In general, in the United States, the oat harvest never leaves the farm. In a few areas such as Iowa, the No. 1 oat State, oats move through trade channels for industrial uses. Some oats go into commercial mashes and feeds which in turn are brought back by the farmer. Another small percentage of the total United States crop goes to make various oat cereals, One of the world's largest oat cereal mills is located in Iowa. If you eat 6.9 pounds of oats each year you are getting your average share of prepared oats, SOYBEANS The Midwest soybean crop is sold off the farm and goes to feed mills and processing plants. A large amount of the industrial by- product, soybean-oll meal, is bought back by farmers for livestock feed. The 200,000,000 bushels of soybeans pro- duced in 1946 will be turned into valuable oil, livestock feed, glue, plastics, rubber sub- stitutes, ink, enamels, linoleum, soap, and a hundred other items. Wheat is another crop that stays in the United States. The 1,100,000,000-bushel crop harvested in 1946 will go for three principal purposes: Human food, livestock feed, and seed. The price of corn and oats largely de- termines whether or not the farmer will use wheat as a livestock feed. During the war years, when wheat was more valuable as a human food, the bulk of it went for flour and other food products. The percentage used as livestock feed is Bmall. United States exports of wheat have dropped off, too. In the last 10 years net ex- ports have averaged leas than one-half of 1 percent of the total wheat produced. FLAX Flex is another crop that moves from the farm as it has limited use as a livestook feed before being processed. The bulk of the flax crop is marketed soon after harvest, The farmer APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. SOL BLOOM OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Speaker, I reported to the House last August that from October 21 to 26, 1946, there would take place in the Library of Congress a meet- ing of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers. It is my purpose now to report to you on the work of that distinguished body dur- ing a week of manifold activities. Daily sessions of the main body and of the sev- eral federations that make up the Inter- national Confederation took place throughout the week. The Librarian of Congress, Dr. Luther H. Evans, cooper- ated enthusiastically with these men and women of letters who came from many countries to be present at the first session of this body to be held in the United States, I may point out that this Washington meeting was an extraordinary congress arranged at the annual meeting in Paris in March 1946, for the purpose of mak- ing plans for the international congress already scheduled for London this year. At the Paris meeting, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Pub- lishers, through its general manager, Mr. John G. Paine, invited the congress to meet in Washington so that the Ameri- can society might be in close touch with the confederation's activities in return- ing to normal prewar operation. The chief purpose of this international confederation is to maintain the integrity of intellectual property throughout the world. For 20 years now this confedera- tion has been functioning. Its work is largely the work theretofore undertaken by smaller and more limited groups. Within the confederation are four fed- erations, concerned respectively with dra- matic rights, music-performing rights, recording rights, and the rights of per- sons active in the field of letters. Our own national stake in this confederation is the membership in the second federa- tion of the American Society of Com- posers, Authors, and Publishers—more familiarly known to most of us under its alphabetical designation, ASCAP. It is my belief and earnest hope that other movements in this country soon will avail themselves of the machinery of this con- federation. Iam convinced that the cre- ators of intellectual property can find no more adequate means of protecting their rights than through such machinery as In its last plenary session before the World War, at Stockholm, in 1938, dele- gates attended from 46 European s0- cieties, and from 8 societies of the West- ern Hemisphere. ‘The confederation’s first postwar congress was in Paris in March 1946, where steps were taken to restore prewar operations, and where the delegates gladly availed themselves of an
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD invitation to sit in extraordinary session in. Washington in October 1946. It is of the Washington session that I report. I am happy that this confederation was received most courteously, not only by its affiliated members in ASCAP but also by the representatives of our own Government. The visitors overwhelmed me with expressions of praise and grati- tude for their kindly reception by the Department of State, the Library of Con- gress, and other governmental agencies that had opportunity to facilitate the work of their congress. I believe I speak with a certain de- gree of authority on international re- lations. It has been my privilege to serve for many years on the House Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs and for a long time as its chairman. I have partici- pated in the United Nations organization from its beginnings in San Francisco to my attendance at the latest session of the General Assembly in New York. I have taken an active part in the efforts of representatives of many countries to reach amicable solutions of a multitude of problems. I have long been aware—and it is with sincere gratitude that I note the State Department has become aware—of the incalculable value of promoting interna- tional understanding through the cul- tural intercourse of the different peoples involved. Intellectual property knows no geographical limits. We who are try- ing to compose differences in our think- ing on international problems know that if there were a political language as uni- versal as the language of the arts our difficulties soon would disappear. As we try to build a structure of international amity, the confusion of tongues often frustrates our efforts. As art knows no national barriers, artists may be our most potent ambassa- dors of good will. Paderewski as a statesman was limited by national boun- daries and policies, but as a pianist he spoke a language that the whole world heard with delight, and the whole world respected his statesmanship because it understood his art. Paderewski’s inter- National language is typical of the cul- tural forces which we must invoke as our greatest diplomatic asset. These thoughts with me are not of re- cent origin, but they have taken new significance following my close relation with the work of the confederation. It is from the standpoint of interna- tional relations that the Congress of Authors and Composers was superla- tively important. The men and women who came here as delegates from their respective societies are the people who, in their own countries, write the news- paper articles, the magazine articles, the novels, the dramas, the musical com- positions that mold the public opinion of those countries and stir the emotions of their compatriots. We here, as a nation, are committed to the broad principle of international co- operation for the sake of good will and peace. In furtherance of that principle we must cultivate friendly relations and a better understanding among all na- tions, Peace flows from friendship, and friendship flows from acquaintance. The knowledge of America abroad, strange as it may seem, is very meager. Misin- formation is almost universal. Foreign peoples do not know us as we really are. Only within recent years have we had the perspicacity to attempt to spread through the world a knowledge of our- Selves, so that foreign peoples, knowing us better, would understand better our way of life and our system of individual and collective liberty. The results of our efforts to become better understood have been good thus far, but the work of securing a thorough knowledge of foreign peoples and im- parting to them a true knowledge of our- selves is a task that will consume many years——indeed, it is a continuous task in which all men of good will throughout the world should eagerly enlist them- selves. : . How long will it take, for example, to rub out the false picture of American life that prevails in both Europe and Latin Anierica? That picture is a com- posite, formed of impressions gathered from our movies, from the eccentricities of American tourists abroad, from highly imaginative press reports of happenings here, and from miscellaneous exaggera- tions of American wealth, emotionalism, nervous tension, intense productivity, boundless resources, daring experiments, and soon. This false picture has given to foreign peoples the idea that we are a race apart from all the rest of the world, that our life is complicated, grandiose, artificial, and subject to one controlling factor that regulates our thinking, our being, our relationships with one an- other—that factor being money. What a travesty upon the truth. The simple truth is that Americans are moved by the same emotion as other peoples. We are not a race apart. We are not consumed by lust of money; we are not a nation of gamblers, cut- throats, and drunkards. We live simple lives in the main, and have the same esthetic and spiritual impulses that other peoples have. This Congress of Societies of Authors and Composers, having been held in the United States, gave to the delegates an opportunity to see us as we are; to be- come acquainted with our daily routine; to meet the representatives of our Gov- ernment intimately and socially; to be- come friends with our playwrights, novelists, and composers; and to see our movies, plays, and real life in their true perspective, either as satires or as true interpretations; and thus to form an accurate idea of what Americans are and how they live. Among the delegates who gave us a delightful glimpse into their changed conceptions of American life as a result of their visit among us were two dis- tinguished friends of humanity who were destined never to return to their respec- tive native lands. I refer to Dr. Ed- uardo Marquina, foremost poet and play- wright of Spain, president of the Per- forming Right Society of his country; and to Mr. Fred Markush, gifted com- poser and general manager of the Per- forming Right Society of Hungary. Both of these gentlemen were fatally stricken in New York City within a few days of the close of the congress, A339 The comments of Dr. Eduardo Mar- quina just before his untimely death were particularly interesting to all who favor intimate interchange of cultures among nations: Why, this is a new and magnificent America— He exclaimed. Like so many of the peoples of Europe, I had a totally different and erroneous opinion of America before I came here— He said— I thought the people here were over- emotional, living a grandiose life of strain and pretense, amidst an atmosphere of crime, artificiality, and greed. I obtained my views from your motion pictures and from the grotesque caricatures of Americans who sometimes strut through Europe, bragging and spending money in foolish fashion. Now 1 find that Americans live simple lives, home-loving lives. They are fond of music and the theater, and are insatiable readers. The legitimate stage gives a much better picture of the United States than do the movies. In my opinion every effort should be made to have American dramas presented in all countries in the world. Nothing would more promptly destroy the injurious prejudice that obstructs good understanding between this great country and other nations. The Glass Menagerie, The Voice of the Turtle, and State of the Union are admirable American plays that should be seen throughout Europe. Your musical offerings, also, are extremely valu- able as showing American culture and folk- ways. I mention Carousel as an example. The flesta or merrymaking in the opening of the second act, which you call the clambake, is a splendid scene, very significant of Amer- ican life, and calculated to warm the heart of every beholder. Long live the true America that I have found here! It is the most wholesome of nations, quite different from the caricatures shown on the screen. I shall forever cherish the memory of my visit. The opinions expressed by Dr. Mar- quina were voiced also in his own way by Mr. Fred Markush, who expected to do his share in representing to his coun- trymen the true America. He was espe- cially interested in American music, As a composer of remarkable versatility, no better judge of our musical culture could have come to this country. The peoples of Hungary and the United States are the losers by the death of Fred Markush; but his sympathetic message has gone forth and will do much to bring the two nations closer together. Both of these eminent men expressed astonishment over the neglect by Amer- ica of the moral and legal rights of our gifted sons who produce our literature, our music, and our scientific triumphs. I regret to say that the United States is backward in this respect and that the protection afforded to the creative artists in Europe is much more effective than that which we give under our copyright law. Because the confederation came to the United States to find here fresh blood for the life stream of their seasoned ex- perience in the fleld of authors’ rights, they studied carefully our own country’s approach to the matters concerning them. During the course of their dis- cussions, these delegates stressed the principle of the authcr’s inherent rights as distinguished from the limited rights,
A340 broad though they may be, that are se- cured to the author by American copy- right law. Therefore, in meeting after meeting of the various groups of the four allied federations, and of the parent body, there was stressed the urgent need for revision of our present copyright law. As it now reads our copyright law be- longs in some aspects to the horse-and- buggy era. It came into being before radio, before television, before the vast mechanization of music in motion pic- tures, wired music, phonograph records and coin boxes. It has required a host of legal tests to blueprint its application to modern times. In my opinion, the law needs a thorough revamping, first, to give adequate consideration to the rights of the creator in his work, and second, for an orderly legal interpreta- ticn of those rights. As a result of the work of this meeting, the world of creative artists looks to the United States to bring its copyright practices up to date. Delegates to this congress, many of them in this country for the first time, found here a develop- ment of the arts beyond their expecta- tions. At the same time they found in- consistencies. To the European way of thinking the right of the creator is para- mount. The author's intellectual prop- erty is his by right of creation. Nothing may invade the sanctity of his owner- ship. To strip the author of rights in any particular is to them unthinkable. Yet what do these delegates find in our copyright law? They find one provision that exempts from its application a vast industry that fattens on the musical works of authors who are estopped from invoking protection of the copyright law~—and I think I need not tell you I refer to the coin-operated machines— “juke boxes,” so-called. They find an- other provision they cannot under- stand—one that makes for compulsory licensing of the recording of copyright works. In passing may I observe that in our whole organic law this is the sole example of congressional price-fixing. Our visitors came with an inquiring and open mind. They were happy when we told them that the recognition of the principle of copyright in the United States antedated the Constitution, that at least 12 and perhaps ail 13 of the orig- inal Colonies enacted copyright laws. All the Colonial Congresses were in sym- pathy with the principle that “no prop- erty is more peculiarly a man’s own than that which results from the labor of his mind.” They were told that the Consti- tution itself included a provision that Congress should have power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their re- spective writings and discoveries.” This factual history of the development of copyright law pleased them immensely. Yet I must tell you in all honesty that they found it difficult to reconcile our copyright law with our acceptance of the principle. You may understand their concern in this respect when I tell you that the single matter upon which this session saw fit to take definite action was that of the coin-operated machines. I quote from the minutes of the con- gress their resolution unanimously adop- ted: The International Confederation of Au- thors’ and Composers’ Societies, assembled in special congress at Washington in Octo- ber 1946, deplores the provision of the United States Copyright Act which exempts from payment of fees any public perform~ ances taking place by means of coin-oper- ated mechanica!Y instruments (juke boxes), and wishes to draw the attention of the United States Government to this provision, and recommends the abolition of such ex- emption which grants a privilege to users to the serious detriment of legitimate rights of authors and composers throughout the world. . Similarly the congress went on record with regard to the copyright regulations in Canada where the protection provided for creators whose works are used in me- chanical production is very inadequate. We have long been aware of the im- portance of redrafting our copyright law. Numerous efforts have been made to effect changes. Unfortunately, many of these have originated from selfish in- terests, and their enactment ‘vould weak- en rather than strengthen the position of the creative artist. The most intelligent approach to solution of this problem was the so-called Shotwell bill. You will re- call that Prof. James T. Shotwell, United States Chairman of the League of Na- tions Committee for International Intel- lectual Cooperation, led a movement be- fore the war to redraft the copyright law, and that after exhaustive study and pro- tracted hearings attended by representa- tives of all the parties in interest his committee drafted a bill which found its way into the Congress. Unfortunately, it went the way of a vast amount of proposed legislation—forgotten in the stress of war. I know that in this session of Congress we shall have a vast amount of impor- tant legislative work. Domestic prob- lems are multiplying. The international scene is clouded with much misunder- standing. We must face our duties with renewed devotion to basic principles, seeking the leadership of an all-wise Providence. In my opinion a new copyright law, based in all respects upon full recogni- tion of authors’ rights, should be among our first enactments. Such a law will be a powerful tool to implement the State Department's efforts to stimulate the in- ternational flow of national cultures. If we have the vision to proceed promptly to the enactment of this law, we will pro- tect our own creative artist and we will announce to the world that we in Amer- ica guarantee the integrity of work of creative artists of other nations. I, for one, should be happy to be num- bered among the lawmakers of the Na- tion to participate in bringing this about. I believe, in all sincerity, that no single movement can more effectively convince our brothers in art in other countries that Americans, like them- selves, are truly concerned with the things of the spirit, that we do not live by bread alone. Such a movement transcends party lines. It is American in the truest sense. To the enactment of such a law I pledge my best efforts. To its enactment I rally every one of you. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD B, WIGGLESWORTH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include my remarks before the Citizens National Committee, Inc., at the Hotel Statler in Washington, on Monday, January 27, 1847: Mr. President and members of the Citizens National Committee, I am happy to te able to be with you this morning. I am par- ticularly happy because, if I understand the objectives of this organization clearly, I be- lieve it has a great opportunity to be of help to the Congress in dealing with the most important problem confronting us, in my opinion, at this time. I refer to the problem of putting our finan- cial house tn order. I say it is the most im- portant problem confronting us at this time because unless order is restored national solvency is impossible, widespread suffering is inevitable. Too many governments have been wrecked on the rccks of loose fiscal policy. The rocks ere visible in many directions at this time. The President's Budget message was, I am confident, a tremendous disappointment to millions of Americans, to all those who be- lieved that the President would respond to the clear mandate from the people to slash expenditures, to eliminate waste and ex- travagance, and to limit Federal activities to those which are essential in the light of the conditions confronting the country at this time. It was particularly disappointing in view of his message to the Congress only 4 days before in which he indicated that expendi- tures would be cut to the bone and in which he expressed the hope that Congress would cooperate in what he termed with a smile his “economy program”’—an economy pro- gram which turned out to call for an over-all expenditure of $37,500,000,000 in a fiscal year commencing almost 2 years after VJ-day. The national welfare demands reduction in expenditure, reduction in the national debt, and reduction in taxation, with a view to assuring essential production and to avoiding Nation-wide suffering for all. During the past 14 years we have seen un- precedented waste and extravagance; we have seen deficit piled upon deficit; we have seen the national debt mount to unheard-of pro- portions; we have seen bureaucratic gov- ernment encroaching on the liberties of the people, assuming more and more power, and usurping functions belonging more properly to States, local governments, and private business. We have seen ever mounting taxa- tion to be paid for in the sweat of everyone who labors, whether by brawn or by brain. As a result of war and the epending phi- losophy of the administration, we are today confronted in the fiscal field by unparalleled conditions. We taik of a national debt of $260,000,000,- 000. That is an enormous figure. It is 10 times the maximum national debt during World Wart. It is far above the figure which competent persons have thought the Nation could carry, but it doesn't tell the whole story. It makes no mention of contingent abilities. In response to inquiries which I pro- pounded about a year ago, the Bureau of the Budget testiNed on the record that the gross public debt, plus contingent Liabilities, satounding figure of over
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD That is approximately two-thirds of a trillion dollars. It includes in addition to the gross public debt, which we normally consider, obligations guaranteed by the United States of $27,000,000,000, unliquidated obligations against appropriations and au- thorizations of $43,000,000,000, agency loans Guaranteed by the United States of $6,000,- 000,000, and insurance by Government agen- cies of $309,000,000,000. The gross public debt alone is equivalent to over $1,850 for every man, woman, and child in this country. The equivalent on the same basis for gross public debt plus con- tingent liabilities is over $4,700. We have an enormous number of Federal agencies, many of them engaged in func- tions not properly functions of the Federal Government, particularly under present con- ditions. According to Senator Byrrp, of Vir- ginia, those agencies number 1,150 as com- pared to 190 in 19365. There has been great duplication and over- lapping of functions in many of these agen- cies. The Comptroller General has stated not 60 long ago that there were no less than 29 agencies lending Government funds, 3 insur- ing deposits, 34 in the acquisition of land, 16 in wildlife preservation, 10 in Government construction, 9 in credit and finance, 12 in home and community planning, 10 in mate- rials and construction, 28 in welfare mat- ters, 14 in forestry matters, 4 in bank exami- nations, and 65 in gathering statistics. We have an enormous Federal pay roll with apparently little or no desire on the part of the President for its proper reduc- tion. The most recent figure that I have seen showed over 2,300,000 persons on the Federal pay roi] today as compared with about 900,000 in 1939 and about 720,000 in 1935. In other words, there has been an increase of 1,400,000 since 1939, probably representing an increase in expenditure in the neighborhood of $5,000,000. There are in many States more Federal employecs than there are State employees. Excluding the Army and Navy, there are more Federal em- ployees on the pay rolls today than there were on VJ-day. A year ago the Bureau of the Budget testified that a majority, if not all, agencies of Government, except strictly national de- fense and war agencies, would with the ap- proval of the President, request appropria- tions for the fiscal year 1947 in excess of those for 1946. It would appear that it is proposed to accord many of those agencics further increases for the fiscal year 1948 as compared with those for 1947, There has been gross waste of the people's money in many fields. May I give you one example which, while not one of the major examples in terms of dollars and cents, 1s, nevertheless, in my judgment, of the great- est importance in terms of the proper func- tioning of our form of government. In response to further inquiries which I propounded a year ago, the Bureau of the Budget reported on the record that there were no less than 46,000 (part or full time) employees engaged in publicity or propa- ganda work of every kind and description on the Federal pay rolls at the people's ex- pense. Without burdening you with detail which can be found in the hearings on the subject, I may state that the work included publications, press service, radio broadcast- ing, group contacts with attendance at meet- ings, paid advertisements, exhibits, motion pictures, lantern slides and lecture material, photography, correspondence, individual con- tacts, educational cooperation with schools and civic or special-interest organizations, posters, and other miscellaneous items. This enormous governmental publicity set-up, in my opinion, is not only a gross waste of the people’s money but over and beyond that makes for the destruction of the proper exercise of the legislative funce tions of the Government. Title 5, section 54, of the United States Code specifically provides that “No money appropriated by any act shall be used for the compensation of any publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that pur- pose.” Departure trom the philosophy un- derlygng that law, coupled with the surrender in large measure of control of the purse- strings by the Congress leads inevitably to the domination of Congress and the people by the executive branch of the Government, Lack of proper control and worse in the handling of funds made available to depart- ments and agencies has resulted in the loss of many billions of dollars to the peuple of this country. The Comptroller General of the United States has recently reported the loss of many billions, particularly in connection with cost- plus contracts, renegotiation, and contract termination. He has castigated the procure- ment agencies of the Government for laxity and lack of ethical standards. He has re- ported in one instance that the United States Maritime Commission and the War Shipping Administration have failed to account prop- erly for over $8,000,000,000. Referring to abuse of authority and de- generation of moral standards, as late as July 29, last, he said, ‘We cannot overstate the seriousness of the situation. Nothing less than the faith of our people in the integrity of their Government is at stake.” Further examples of the shortcomings cf the spending era in which we have been liv- ing are unnecessary. Waste and corruption must be eliminated. Federal expenditure must be limited to ex- penditure which is essential in the light of present-day conditions; the national debt must be reduced; taxation must be reduced; efficient government must be assured at the least possible cost. The legislative budget in the sense in which the term is used today is a new feature in the control by Congress over appropria- tions. It is provided for in section 138-A of the reorganization law approved on August 2 last. In that law it is provided that the Com- mittee on Ways and Means and the Com- mittee on Appropriations of the House, and the Committee on Finance and the Commit- tee on Appropriations of the Senate, or duly authorized subcommittees thereof, shall meet jointly at the beginning of each regular ses- sion of Congress and, after study and Con- sultations, giving due consideration to the budget recommendations of the President, shall report to their respective Houses a legislative budget for the ensuing fiscal year, including the estimated over-all Federal re- ceipts and expenditures for such year. The report must contain a recommendation for the maximum amount to be appropriated for expenditure in such year, including an amount to be reserved for unforeseen require- ments. If the estimated receipts exceed the estimated expenditure, the report must con- tain a recommendation for a reduction in the public debt. If the estimated expendi- ture exceeds the estimated receipts, the reso- lution approving the report must state that it is the sense of the Congress that the public debt shall be increased by the amount of the excess. The report must be made on or before February 15. The purpose of the provision is to compel consideration of receipts and expenditures as a whole in advance of the beginning of each fiscal year and the adoption of a ceiling which will at least serve as a rough yard- stick for the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate and for the Congress as a whole. With the purpose sought I am in accord, Whether the specific mechanics provided will achieve the underlying objective re- mains to be seen. I hope that the proposal will contribute to sound economy. Obvi- ously, however, no accurate conclusions can A341 be reached by the Congress until after the several subcommittees on appropriations have completed their work. From this standpoint, the new law puts the cart before the horse. What the Congress has vitally needed for many years, in my opinion, is a competent staff of investigators and auditors. In no other woy can proper retrenchment be assured unless the President himself is determined to cffect thut rctrenchment. The Bureau of the Budget under present conditions is just a part of the White House organization. The President's budget message is lacking in clarity and gives evidence of lack of care- ful consideration. It contemplates an over- all expenditure in respect to the fiscal year 1948 commencing July 1 next, of $37,500,- 000,000. This proposed expenditure is in re Spect to a fiscal year starting almost 2 years after VJ-day. It represents an expenditure of more than four times our largest prewar budget, a budget which was considered erfor- mous at the time. It represents the equiva- lent of 55 a month on the back of every gainfully employed person in this country. The President asks for $5,000,000,00) for interest on the public debt; for $2,100,000,000 for refunds under present tux laws; for $7,- 300,000,000 for veteran services. These are tremendous figures. They aggregate $14,- 400,000,000. They leave a balance of $23,- 000,000 for the other expenses of the vernment. Our over-all expenditure in 1939 was about #9,000,000,000, in 1914 it was about $1,000,000,000. A detailed analysis of the Budget has not yet been possible. This must be made by the Joint Committee on the Legislative Budget insofar as limited time permits and by the several subcommittees on appropria- tions in the House and in the Senate. The Budget, would appear, however, to indicate little or no effort to respond to the people's demand for real retrenchment. On the contrary, it would appear to contemplate the carrying on of unjustified activities— activities which are not primarily Federal activities—activities which the Federal Gov- ernment cannot afford to support under present conditions. Eleven billion two hundred million dollars is requested for the Army and Navy. I should be the last to take any step that would cripple our armed forces at this critical time in world affairs. I am inclined to be- lieve, however, in the light of such study as I have been able to give the matter, that substantial reductions may well be effected in this enormous item of expenditure with- out in any way affecting the fighting efficiency of the armed forces. Seven billion three hundred million dol- lars is proposed for veterans’ services. Again I would not reduce in any way the benefits provided for our veterans. I am not con- vinced, however, that this tremendous item of expenditure has been carefully computed or that substantial savings cannot be effected in reference to administrative personnel now numbering over 920,000 and other adminis- trative costs. The discontinuance of unnecessary gov- ernmental functions and the elimination of ‘unnecessary personne! offer a major route to retrenchment, It is noteworthy in this con- nection, in how many instances it is proposed by the President to give substantial increases in appropriations to departments and agen- cies. For example: It is proposed to appropriate $947,000,000 as compared with an actual ap- propriation this year of $723,000,C00 for the Department of Agriculture; it 1s proposed to appropriate $264,000,000 as compared with #194,000,000 this year for the Department of Commerce; it is proposed to appropriate $313,- 000,000 as compared with 272,000,000 this year for the Department of the Interior; it is
A342 proposed to appropriate $111,000,000 as com- pared with $99,000,000 this year for the De- partment of Justice; it is proposed to appro- priate 356,000,009 as compared with 6178,- 0G0,000 for this year for the State Depart- ment; and it is proposed to appropriate ¢352,- 000,000 as compared with €295,000,000 this year for the Post Office Department. A similar comparison for some of the inde- pendent agencies of the Government shows an increase from $12,000,000 to $12,700,000 for the Civil Service Commission. from $5,- 600,000 to 87,300,000 for the Federal Com- munications Commission, from &3,300,000 to $4,200,000 for the Federal Power Commission, from $2,500,000 to €8,900,000 for the Federal Trade Commission, from 89,600,000 to $11,- 900,000 for the Interstate Commerce Com- mission, from $1,000,000 to $1,700,000 for the National Archives, from $4,000,000 to $7,800,- 000 for the National Labor Relations Board, from €4,900,000 to 86,500,000 for the Securities and Exchange Commission. These are but examples. All items of the proposed over-all expendi- tures must be thoroughly examined by the committees referred to. Particularly such items as those classificd by the President under the heading “International affairs and finance,” §83,590,000,000; programs for improvement of transportation and com- munication systems, for public works and development of natural resources, $2,600,- 000,000; for our agricultural prozram, $1,400,- 000,000; for social welfare and general re- search, $1,700,000,000; for war liquidation, various services to business and other mis- cellaneous items, $2,100,000,000. It is not a question of spending what we might like to spend. It is a question of eliminating every cent of expenditure that jis unjustifNed under present conditions. The essential needs of efficient govern- mental operation should govern appropria- tions—in turn appropriations should guide the Ways and Means Committee in deter- mining the amount of revenue to be raised by taxation, We need to get away from the spending psychology of the past 14 years. We need to get back to an appreciation of the fact that whenever any agency of the Government wastes $3,000 it has wasted the entire year's work of some citizen. When it wastes $100,000 it has wasted a year's work of 33,000 American citizens, or all the inhabitants of a@ good-sized middle western city. Every dollar of Federal expenditures comes out of the toil of those who produce. Every worker on the Federal pay roll means one less worker to help produce for all. The expenditure proposed in the Presl- dent’s budget message can and must be slashed. All unjustified expenditure must be eliminated. Let us hope that the legislative budget will contribute to this end. It Profits Uncle Sam “To Cast Bread Upon the Waters”—Western Waters EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN R. MURDOCK OF ARIZONA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 16, 1947 Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago when our colleague, Congress- man Charles Leavy, was with us from the State of Washington, he used to badger me about the respective poten- tialities of our States in the West. Said Charlie one day, “John, the Columbia River is the greatest potential power- producing river in the West. Did you know that the Columbia River has five times the volume of your Colorgdo River?” I made quick and mathemati- cal reply, saying, “Charlie, do you know that we can build in numerous places on the Colorado River dams five times as high as any you can possibly have on the Columbia River? Now since total power output is the product of volume times fall, I don’t see that you have much to brag about in comparison be- tween your Columbia and my Colorado.” I think our respective statements com- paring the greatest river of the Pacific Northwest and the greatest river of the Pacific Southwest sums up a proper com- parison of them with regard to hydro- electric power production. Let me hasten to say that the fore- going is simply a convenient illustration, and I use hydroelectric power produc- tion merely because it is most easily and mathematically stated, and not because it is the most important in western econ- omy. In fact, utilization of water for power production is entirely secondary to certain life-giving uses for which it is needed in the West. Previously, I have stated to the Con- gress that, although 20,000,000 acres of land have been reclaimed from the desert in the West, which is about 50 percent of the total possible development in irri- gation, even so, not to exceed 20 percent of the wealth-producing possibility of our maximum reclamation program has thus far been realized in completed proj- ects. That is to say that further moves toward completion of this reclamation program will create wealth, not in direct proportion to total increases, but rather according to the squares of the capital investments made. I do not want to seem too mathematical, and I realize that it might be difficult to prove with a Q. E. D. that such is a mathematical fact, but I am convinced that the in- crease of new wealth out of increased investments in reclamation runs more nearly in a geometric ratio. The history of a few typical reclamation projects furnishes ample evidence of such eco- nomic expansion, I know the argument will be raised at once by those indifferent to such recla- mation developments and also by those poorly informed, and especially those who are hostile to it, that it is not wise policy to bring in new land now. They will say that American agriculture is apt to be troubled with surpluses as has been the case prior to the recent war. How- ever, if the true facts are made known, reclamation projects do not compete with the major crops produced by American agriculture, and, therefore, have no ap- preciable effect in bringing about trouble- some surpluses of those major crops. The great wealth produced by reclama- tion consists of specialty crops harvested at unusual seasons and thereby, instead of competing with the major farm crops, supplements them in giving our consum- ing public the variety which it wants. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Thousands of carloads of lettuce are shipped out of the warm valleys in the Pacific Southwest when most of our country is blanketed in snow, and even in the Pacific Northwest fresh food, as well as fruit, is produced under irriga- tion at a time when most of the East is suffering a climate in which nothing will grow. Quick-frozen peas and other table crops are readied for the market and flown by air to bring these top prices, which makes their total production so astronomical in volume and value. Perhaps the French gardeners in Paris growing truck under glass could be cited as carrying on the most intensive kind of agriculture known, but the irrigated West can show an equally intensive agri- culture, not of a hothouse variety. No, we have the sun out there, and it works overtime, and we do not have ‘o glass-in our irrigated acres. The all-important thing to remember is that we are not growing corn, nor wheat, nor rice. nor tobacco in the West, and that there is no competition with the other farming sec- tions of the Nation. In the far West we farm intensively but not competitively. My stock illustration to show the pro- ductivity of irrigated lands is a report on one main project around Phoenix, Ariz., which 2 years ago produced $30,000,000 worth of food and fiber on 225,000 acres of irrigated land in 12 months. However, I found that during the following 12 months that same land averaged $165 per acre in the cash value of its crops. There are several other projects in Arizona which are about equally productive and still other projects in adjoining States in the Pacific Southwest where the annual production is comparable in value. Astonishing as the above appears to be, it is surpassed by certain projects in the Pacific Northwest where the crop production in 1943 on one project aver- aged $245 per acre. Other projects up there exceeded even that figure. In fact, I am told that during the last few years the United States Treasury collected in income taxes from some of these proj- ects annually more than the original to- tal governmental investment in the proj- ects. That would certainly seem a good investment for Uncle Samuel as well as for his enterprising nieces and nephews. Although the recent war years have been unusual years, the Reclamation Service shows that the total agricultural production in food and fiber during the war years averaged approximately 50 percent annually of the total Govern- ment outlay through the United States Bureau of Reclamation for all these Fed- eral projects. Hold in mind that the reclamation law provides for the ulti- mate repayment of every dollar of capi- tal investment which Uncle Sam makes, which makes the United States Treasury safe and whole on all such Federal ex- penditures. Yet, meanwhile, the Gov- ernment is pulling into the Treasury, through taxation from this wealth-pro- ducing investment, many times over the Government money spent to help create them. This is private enterprise in high gear, yielding rich profits from wise Gov- ernment encouragement,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Right To Strike EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WAT ARNOLD OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. ARNOLD. Mr. Speaker, much is being written and said on the all-im- portant labor-management question. I am not opposed to organized labor, and as a businessman, feel I am somewhat qualified to understand both sides. An editorial appearing in the January 14 issue of the Christian Science Monitor, entitled “The Right To Strike,” sums up the situation in a clear and concise man- ner. Under leave to extend my remarks, I include the editorial mentioned: THE RIGHT TO STRIKE The American people are going to limit the right to strike in essential industries. The Supreme Court may start the process in its decision on the injunction against John L. Lewis. Congress may do it with new laws. Whether it is well or badly done will depend on how clearly the public understands the situation and on how closely the law follows justice and common sense. The public has been confused by talk about the right of a man to quit work and about the thirteenth amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude. In human society there are no absolute rights. The right to free speech confers no freedom to commit libel, The right to bear arms gives no man a license to duel. Taxation, eminent domain, conscription—all limit private rights in the name of public welfare. The right of an individual to quit work is not a right to conspire with others to para- lyze an essential public service. It is not, for instance, a right conferred on a union to cut off a city's light and power supply, a8 was done at Pittsburgh a few months ago. It is not a right to deprive a city of police pro- tection, as was proved in Boston 28 years ago. It is not a right to halt the railroads, as was demonstrated in the United States last spring. It is not a right to shut off food sup- plies, as is being shown in England today. Freedom from involuntary servitude is precious. It was won through centuries of struggle. It must be guarded with our lives. But it will not be cherished or protected by using the words to cloak an abuse, an actual destruction of freedom. The individual’s freodom from involuntary servitude furnishes no license for a union—or a company—to hold a city or nation for ransom. And if there is justice in recognizing that a worker has some interest in his job so that we tolerate his efforts to keep a strikebreaker from tak- ing it there is justice also in requiring men not to strike when their doing so robs thou- sands of others of the right to work. Modern industrial society has developed new conditions which give small groups— unions or companies—tremendous power, Open warfare in essential public services means anarchy. It exercises a coercion on the community which must be answered by coercion, Actually, common sense is already limiting the right to strike or to lock out. But we have not yet legally provided for the situation. Compulsory arbitration is widely de- nounced, both by unions and industrialists. But in some way the public is going to pros tect itself. It can rightly demand that those engaged in essential services agree to arbi- trate their differences—and accept the re- sult—or get out of those industries. In ree turn, it should provide special safeguards— such as the guaranty of wages and working conditions at least equal to the average in the same community. The alternative is a law permitting the declaration of an emer- gency and the taking over of plants by the Government—with powers to deny bargain- ing and picketing privileges. Polish Elections EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN DAVIS LODGE OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. LODGE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orD, I include the following article by Sumner Welles from today’s Washing- ton Post: : PoLisH ELECTIONS (By Sumner Welles) FUTURE UNITED STATES POLICY The results of the Polish parliamentary elections were even more fantastic than had been expected. The Polish Peasant Party was allowed to poll only one-tenth of the total vote cast and the Socialist-Communist bloc, supported by the Bierut-Osubka-Mo- rawski provisional regime, was made to tri- umph all along the line. The Moscov-dominated parties will, con- sequently, hold nearly 400 out of 444 seats in the Polish Parliament. The Peasant Party leader, Mikolajczyk, will have to abandon his persistent and courageous efforts to maintain some semblance of real democracy in Poland, and the last vestiges of the liberal policies which General Sikorski had hoped to estab- lish will, at least temporarily, disappear. The reports of the American Correspond- ents who covered the Polish elections have made it unmistakably clear, if proof were needed, that the coercion and fraud, the proscription of opposition candidates, and the open violence practiced by the provisional government resulted in elections which were the reverse of free and unfettered. It is not without significance that the heaviest majorities for the Soviet-favored candidates were rolled up in the former German districts transferred to Poland after their occupation by the Russian armies. The official protests earlier made by the British and American Governments in view of the accumulating evidence that a shame- less rigging of the elections was about to take place were, naturally, fruitless. It is frequently said in extenuation of what has been taking place in Poland since the establishment of the Lublin government, that, if the Soviet Union is to become a co- operative and peaceful power, it must obtain the assurance of security, and that the only guaranty of Russian security lies in the establishment of “friendly governments” in all of the states adjacent to the Soviet Union, But there is no justification for the implication that “friendly governments” would not be established as a result of free and fair elections or for the argument that Russia has a right to impose minority gov- ernments wpon independent peoples until A343 their majorities have either been cowed into submission or obliterated. If that were to become the official view of the United States, the normal influence of this Government would sink to an all-time low. The need for the American Government to make a basic decision can no longer be evaded. The good faith of the United States is directly involved. For it is a matter of official record that, in addition to the pledges set forth in the Yalta Agreement, the United States during the war years repeatedly and offcially assured the Polish people through their representatives that it would never rec- ognize a government “unrepresentative of Poland.” Can the United States hope to re- tain the confidence of the smaller countries and to exercise a constructive influence in world affairs if it disregards pledges of so solemn a character? The decision which must be made will in @ very real sense determine the nature of the European peace to come and the extent to which the American people are going to be able to insure their own future security. The question now is whether the Govern- ment of the United States and the govern- ments of the other western democracies will adopt a positive policy in the light of what has taken place in Poland or whether they will continue to limit themselves to pro forma expressions of deprecation. The Yalta agreement, to which the Sovict Union as well as the United States and Great Britain officially subscribed, guaranteed the Polish people an opportunity to obtain repre- sentative government through fair elections. That pledge has now been flagrantly ignored. The Polish elections afford a further example of how the system which the Communist Party calls “democracy” works in practice. At this moment when the long-postponed discussion of the German treaty is finally at hand and the attention of the American people is at length concentrated upon the pressing need for the prompt negotiation of an over-all European settlement, it is vitally important that the Government of the United States decide whether any peaceful and lasting European order can be created if some of the component peoples are de- prived of their rights to self-determination and to sovereign liberty and when such in- ternational commitments as those incorpo- rated in the Atlantic Charter and in the Yalta agreement are cynically violated. There is nothing to be gained by any present severance of relations with the ex- isting Government in Warsaw. A rupture at this moment would merely serve the interests of the Bierut-Osubka-Morawski regime. Nor can any final settlement of the Polish question be anticipated until the key to the whole problem of European reconstruction— the German treaty—has been found. The very frontiers of Poland must be fixed in accordance with the provisions of the future German treaty. But the United States can now make it clear that in its considered judgment what has occurred in Poland constitutes a viola- tion of the third article of the Atlantic Charter, to which every member of the United Nations is committed under the United Nations Declaration, as well as a violation of article I of the United Nations Charter, and that this Government will con- sequently submit the issues thereby raised to the United Nations at the next meeting of its General Assembly. The questions presented involve the good faith of the United States, the nature of the foundations required upon which to con- struct a peaceful world order, and the estab- lishment of a precedent which may well de- termine whether the smaller nations of the earth are to be able to maintain their free- dom and independence in the years to come.
A344 Powers and Duties of the Committee on Foreign Affairs EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. CHARLES A. EATON OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. EATON. Mr. Speaker, at the organization meeting of the House Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs, of which I have the honor to be chairman, the com- mittee unanimously adopted a resolution relative to its powers and duties and scope of its work under the rules of the House and the Legislative Reorganiza- tion Act of 1946. In the consideration of this resolution the committee heard the report of a preorganization sub- committee consisting of Mr. Vorys, of Ohio; Mr. Jonxman, of Michigan; and Mr. Javits, of New York. In view of the interest expressed in the action of our committee, I am extending in the Recorp the full text of this committee resolu- tion and the report of the subcommittee, which was received and filed: COMMITTEE RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THE SCOPE OF ITS WORK Whereas the Committee on Foreign Affairs was established in 1822, and by the Legisla- tive Reorganization Act of 1946 (1) has been given jurisdiction as a standing committee over relations of the United States with for- eign nations generally, and (2) shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the Department of State and the agencies of the United States Government of the laws relating to the relations of the United States with foreign nations generally; and Whereas the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 gives apparently conflicting jurisdic- tion to other House committees, and the possible overlapping jurisdiction of commit- tees may result in duplication of committee activities and unnecessary demands upon the time of departmental officers in appearing before committees; and Whereas by tradition and precedent pecul- jarly close relations have grown up between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the execu- tive departments with reference to foreign affairs; and Whereas it is the desire and purpose of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to aid in the formulation and execution of a bipartisan foreign policy and to cooperate to the fullest extent with the President and the new Sec- retary of State in the discharge of their grave responsibilities, while at the same time dis- charging ite obligations to the people and to the House of Representatives, of recommend- ing legislative action only after full knowl- edge of the facts and policies involved: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, (1) That the Committee on For- eign Affairs make a detailed study of the laws affecting the relations of the United States with foreign nations generally, and that a study be made of the international organi- gations of which the United States is a member; (2) that the Committee on Foreign Affairs invite the Secretary of State to cooperate with the committee in such study and to furnish all necessary information as to the organization, the personnel, and the policies of the Department of State and international agreements to which the United States is a party, and that the committee agree to safe- guard such information against any dis- closure which is incompatible with the public interest; and (8) that, upon the a by the Sec- retary of State of this invitation and agree- ment, the Committee on Foreign Affairs rece ommend to the Speaker and to the other committees of the House of Representatives that no other committee make any unneces- sary duplicating studies of the organisation, personnel, and policies of the Department of State; that the Committee on Foreign Affairs invite duly appointed subcommittees from other committees to participate in hear- ings held by the Oommittee on Foreign Af- fairs on subject matter which is within the jurisdiction of such other committees, and that the Committee on Foreign Affairs re- quest the Appropriations Committee and the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments and the other committees whose powers and duties may involve foreign affairs to permit subcommittees of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to participate in hearings by such committees which involve the or- ganization, personnel, or policies of the De- partment of State and matters relating to the relations of the United States with foreign affairs generally; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of State, and the chairmen of the standing committees of the House of Representatives, REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON POWERS, DUTIES, AND SCOPE OF WORK OF COMMITTEES The reorganization of the House commit- tees caused by the change in personnel and in party control, together with the changes re- quired by the Reorganization Act of 1946, involve a careful analysis of the powers and duties of the various committees and a plan- ning of their work, so as to avoid dupli- cation and confusion. While the House has over-all control of the functioning of its committees, their jurisdiction and their ac- tivities, each committee can contribute to the over-all plan by making an analysis of its own functions and a plan for its own activities as part of the over-all work of the House. Oonflicts between committee activ- ities are subject to the decision of the House, but, by study and planning and cooperation, conflicts can be avoided. It is in this spirit that the subcommittee presents the accom- panying resolution. The Committee on Foreign Affairs was es- tablished in 1822 and has had “a broad juris- diction over foreign relations” (sec. 689, Jef- ferson’s Manual), and has by the Legisla- tive Reorganization Act of 1946 been given its prior jurisdiction as a standing committee and also jurisdiction over (sec. 121, rule XI) “all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to * * * relations of the United States with foreign nations generally” including “inter- national conferences and congresses." * * ¢ “Measures to foster commercial intercourse with nations * * * the United Nations organization and international financial and monetary organizations” and “foreign loans” and (sec. 136) “shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the ad- ministrative agencies concerned,” thus giv- ing the Foreign Affairs Committee special powers and duties with respect to the De- partment of State and the international or- ganizations of which the United States is a member. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 gives apparently conflicting jurisdiction to other House committees, to wit (sec. 121, rule XI): “Committee on Expenditures in the Execu- tive Department: “(B) Studying the operation of Govern- ment activities at all levels * ® “(D) Studying intergovernmental relation ships between the United States * © © APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and international organizations of which the United States ts a member. “Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: “1, Interstate and foreign commeree gen- erally. “2. Regulation of interstate and foreign transportation. “3. Regulation of interstate and foreign communication. “Committee on Un-American Activities: The diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries * * * and al] other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.” Committee on Appropriations: The work of the Appropriations Committee requires de- tailed study of the organizations and activi- ties of the Department of State. Committee on Armed Services: This com- mittee has announced a study of the entire international situation under its jurisdiction, “common defense generally.” The possible overlapping jurisdiction of these six committees may cause, on the one hand, duplication of committee activities, and unnecessary demands upon the time of departmental officers in appearing before committees and, on the other hand, the pos- sibility that studies necessary for legislation may be omitted entirely because of misun- derstanding or confusion. There have been many instances where executive agencies asked for blanket authorizations from legisla- tive committees, saying that justification of the details would be presented when appro- priations are sought under the authorization, and then when the same agency appears be- fore the Appropriations Committee it states that this subject has been explained in great detail to the legislative committee. The re- sult is that neither the legislative nor the Appropriations Committee makes the proper examination of the project because each thinks the other is doing it. On questions involving foreign policy the relations between the Executive and the Con- gress are fundamentally different from the relations in domestic affairs. In the first place, in the disturbed and tense interna- tional situation, both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill are determined that Congrees and the Executive shall pre- sent a united front to the rest of the world as we formulate and carry out a bi-partisan American foreign policy. Wide-open con- gressional investigations, public arguments and debates between Congress and the De- partments have an important place in the settlement of domeStic issues, but would be out of place in many aspects of our foreign affairs at this time. In the second place, under our Constitu- tion and traditions the Executive has powers and responsibilities in international affairs in his relations with Congress which do not apply at all in domestic affairs. In 1796 President George Washington refused a re- quest of the House of Representatives for information in connection with the Jay Treaty saying: “The nature of foreign nego- tiations requires caution and its success must often depend upon secrecy; and even when brought to a conclusion a full disclosure * © would be extremely impolitic. To admit, then, the right of the House of Rep- Tesentatives to demand and have as a mat- ter of course all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power would be to establish a dangerous precedent.” In the case of United States v. Curtiss- Wright (209 U. 8, 804), it was held that the powers of the Presidency in foreign affairs came before and beside the Constitution. The Court said: “In this vast external realm with its important complicated, delicate, and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representa- tive of the Nation. * * * Into the field of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD negotiations the Senate cannot intrude and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.” House resolutions of inquiry, although highly privileged, whén addressed to the President or the State Department on subjects of dip- lomatic interests contain the clause “if not incompatible with the public interest.” (See Cannon's Precedents, vol. III, sec. 1896; id., vol. VI, sec. 436.) Many times information requested of the State Department is denied as “incompatible with the public interest.” The power of subpena certainly stands no higher than a privileged resolution of in- quiry. The House rules and precedents show that there is no constitutional way for Con- gress to force information from the Executive except in impeachment proceedings. . This Congress desires to cooperate to the fullest extent with the President and the new Secretary of State in the discharge of their grave responsibilities; on the other hand, we believe this Congress is determined to have at least part of its membership fully informed as to the facts and the policies in- volved. We do not believe this Congress would be willing to legislate if pertinent and relevant information were denied the proper committees of Congress. The Foreign Affairs Committee has by tra- dition and precedent peculiarly close rela- tions with the State Department and the Executive with reference to foreign affairs. We believe that it is the committee to make inquiries concerning personnel, policies, and organizations of the State Department and our international activities. We believe that the Department will make full disclosures to this committee of all necessary informa- tion with proper safeguards for secrecy if publication is “incompatible with the public interest.” We received much of such infor- mation during the war. Subcommittees of the Military Affairs Committee and the Ap- propriations Committee received informa- tion of the most secret kind, including A bomb development during the war, and preserved this secrecy inviolate. The House, in acting upon conclusions and recommenda- tions furnished by committees which are en- joined to secrecy, has at least the ussurance that trusted Members of the House are fully informed, and believe that secrecy is in the public interest. Such committees have a grave responsibility. Secrecy should not ex- tend beyond vital military and diplomatic matters, but in such matters it is imperative that (1) the proper committee be fully in- formed, and that (2) this information be not made public. We believe that the resolution, with refer- ence to our work, placing upon the Foreign Affairs Committee the responsibility of checking the organization, personnel, and policies of the State Department, providing liaison with other committees which are necessarily involved, and preventing dupli- cating activities of other committees, will be the best way to carry out necessary functions of the House of Representatives at this session. The Senate Committee on Foreign Rela- tions has precisely the same jurisdiction under the Reorganization Act as the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, except for treaties. The House, however, with its con- stitutional power of the purse, initiates all appropriations, and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs has the primary duty of au- thorizing all appropriations affecting rela- tions of the United States with foreign nations generally. Cooperation in the formulation and execu- tion of a bipartisan policy involves more than cooperation between the Senate and the Executive; it involves more than coopera- tion between the House and the Executive; it involves more than cooperation between the parties in each body of Congress; it in- volves cooperation between the Senate and the House, as well as between Congress and the Executive, The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House is obviously the appro- priate committee to cooperate with the Come mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. Tariff Pirates Are Back EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the ReEcorp, I include herewith an interesting and well-timed editorial from the Belle- ville, Ill., News-Democrat, Friday, Janu- ary 24, 1947. I have been disturbed recently by the tendency of some persons to start a movement toward high tariff barriers to commerce, but I am confident that the majority in this Congress have confi- dence in the policy of tariff reciprocity as the best path toward an expanding world economy. The United States has much to gain by the continuation of the reci- procity policy—much to lose by a re- lapse into economic isolation. The editorial which follows briefly ex- plains the meaning of a high tariff wall which would be thrown up after the scrapping of the policy of reciprocity to the average American, the consumer and the business man. The editorial: TARIFF PIRATES ARE BACK A few months back, when OPA still was in force, many manufacturers and producers screamed loudly that Uncle Sam was lousing up their business by meddling in something which was none of his concern. They griped continuously about various injustices and discriminations; said they just couldn't bear up under the burden. OPA got the blame for everything—from stifling industrial reconversion to trampling on grandma's bunion. From the housetops they shouted “Down with price controls,” and they raved and ranted about a return to the “solid principles of free trade.” Some of them even stooped to connivance against the Government—which is to say the people of the United States—by maliciously withholding desperately needed items. And finally they put the screws on and brought the country to its knees by a fiendishly en- gineered artificial meat famine. Their zealous fight for “free trade’ was won, and the OPA was killed. But now the shoe ts on the other foot. It develops that all their loud mouthings about the restoration of “free trade’ was insincere hokum, dished up purely to make & point. These opportunists never wanted “free trade,” and even now are unwilling to submit to the law of supply and demand. Instead, the hoodwinkers want to turn the tables on the people again. They are cur- rently bellyaching for greatly strengthened protective tariffs, which naturally are im- posed and enforced by the Government and are paid for by all domestic consumers. They don't want price ceilings, but they do want price floors. More than a thousand briefs have been filed in Washington by United States in- dustries and trade associations, and within the next 3 weeks spokesmen will vocally go to bat to win congressional approval to gouge the man on the street. A345 American sheepmen, for example, whose lamb and mutton were conspicuously absent during the artificial meat famine, are in the swim. They want a substantial increase in the wool tariff, which, of course, will be re- fiected in the price of your next suit of clothing. The Cotton Textile Institute not only wants to keep the high tariff on imported cotton fabrics, but it also wants quotas which would flatly restrict imports. That, too, shows up in the price you pay for clothing and whatever eise is made of cotton. Fabulous byproduct of the cattle indus- try—which led the OPA-killing meat strike— is hides. And the leather people are going to town to hoost the tariff on Argentina. produced hides. If they win out, you may be sure that the price of leather shoes will never be Jower. The shortage of paper, even at the enor- mous current prices, won't be alleviated either if domestic paper manufacturers, who can't even approach fulfillment of a colossal backlog of orders, have their way. They also want the sky-high tariff on paper retained. And that, ladies and gentlemen, affects your pocketbook all the way from building paper to tollet paper. We could go on reciting these outrageous proposals until both you and we got blue in the face, but not once would there be one of them free of the taint of selfishness, and proposed in the public interest and for the common good of all American mankind, Free trade is impossible wherever the sup- ply is controlled. Yet that is exactly what these free trade champions of a few months ago now are seeking. The thing about it that we don't like is that the public will be made to hold the bag—uand pay the bill. The Job Training Ceilings EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HERBERT A. MEYER OF KANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 29, 1947 Mr. MEYER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the RecorD, I include an editorial from the Arkansas City Traveler: THE JOB TRAINING CEILINGS The stand of H. A. MEYER, new Third Dis- trict Representative, in favor of lifting the $200-a-month ceiling on combined wages and subsistence allowance for war veterans taking on-the-job training should meet with general public approval. The on-the-job training program was set up to compensate veterans for the occupa- tional advantages lost by their being called into service during the period in their lives when most young men are learning a business or trade and qualifying themselves for full- fledged participation in their chosen careers. The subsistence allowance offered by the Gov- ernment enables them to cross the financial hurdle imposed by the low wage scales in- herent in apprenticeships and “learner” type Jobs. In anything as large, as involved, and as hurriedly set up as the veterans’ training pro- gram, there were certain to be loopholes by which individuals and companies could take unfair advantage. The Veterans’ Administra- tion sought to close these gaps by imposing the 8200 top monthly ceiling on veterans’ in- come from both employers and the Govern- ment.