A980 The history of Christianity proves that multitudes of men and women have lived full and rich lives although they have re- nounced or been debarred from all sexual experience. They have found a vision and @ purpose in life large enough to satisfy the whole of their instincts in the service of God and of their fellows. Only Christ can tell each one of us how to sublimate the unsatisfied sex urges that pulse through us normally and healthily. For the Christian, the answer is: “Ask Christ.” As I say that, I am aware that some of you may think the answer is begging the ques- tion. But I repeat that Christ has the an- swer, and He will reveul it in your case if you ask Him, and ask Him, and are willing to lis- ten until He tclls you what to do. In the meantime, when some sex urge pulses and throbs within you, turn it over to Him who understands so well and with sympathy and love will help you—as He has helped so many others. There was Archdeacon Claude Frollo, the priest in Victor Hugo’s Hunchback of Notre Dame, who confessed to Esmeralda that in spite of all his vows he loved her. “My dreams by night, as well as my thoughts by day, are full of thee,” he cried. Even when engaged in his most solemn rites, he heard singing, the music of her voice * * * in his reading, the vision of her lovely face came between him and the holy book. But this ts not solely a masculine problem. There are women who have confessed to the same affliction. Here is a queen—Quecn Guinevere in King Arthur’s Tomb—who con- fesses: “And every morn I scarce could pray at all, For Launcelot’s red gold hair would play, Instead of sunlight on the painted wall, Mingled with dreams of what the —~ did say.” But what to do when thoughts of sex in- trude, as they will, in your mind and beckon to your imagination? Why not turn them over to Christ, as they come? Here is one sure way. When these thoughts arise, could you not say to Christ in prayer: “Now, Lord, you know what has just come before me to torment me. All uninvited, these thoughts have come pressing upon my mind. Look upon them, O Lord. Guide me in relation to each of them. Bless me in relation to each of them. Use me in relation to each of them.” Think no shame that these thoughts come. Be ashamed only if you give them welcome and entertain them. Introduce them to Christ. They will either be condemned in His presence and slink way to leave you in peace, or they will be sanctified with His touch and under His guidance, drive you into some new path of servicc in which He can use you and them to His glory. Never mind about the problem of sex in terms of crowds. All that matters is your own case. If you should be inclined to go away thinking that what I have suggested is impractical or im- possible, let me ask you, “Is it impossible for you?” Anybody can have desire. The point is what shall we do with it? To satisfy desire when it comes, regardless of discipline, con- trol, morals, or conscience, will give you temporary delight in the Nttle dusty para- dise of desire, which will suddenly crumble and leave you shivering and lonely. It will bequeath you shrunken husks, and vain echoes, and empty rooms where you cry alone. Our earthly ecstasies die into dark- ness, as in darkness they are born, and all your music is broken on withered strings. bui the fruits of denial are, by a sublime paradox, infinitely sweeter than the fruits of desire, It is easy to Jaugh about this, casy to mock, eazy to rationalize. But I invite you to try it sometime and see if what I have said is not true. It must begin with you. For Christ's words were never spoken to the man next door, They were spoken to you. And it is in your heart that those words must vibrate in music or tn discord, in your soul that the seed must be sown, to bear what fruit you will. Government Broadcasting EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. C. WAYLAND BROOKS OF ILLINOIS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 12 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. BROOKS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp a letter ad- dressed to me by Mr, E. F. McDonald, Jr., president of the Zenith Radio Corp., Chicago, Il., in which he outlines his ob- jections to the State Department and the Government of the United States engaging in foreign broadcasts. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Reconp, as follows: ZENITH Rapio Conrp., Chicago. The Honorable C. WAYLAND Brooks, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. My Dear SENATOR Brooks: Some members of the State Department want to put the United States Government into the broad- casting business. They have advocated a government controlled International Broad- casting Foundation to take over short-wave broadcasting and disseminate American views throughout the world. Even though the proposal is sugar-coated by a vague suggestion that domestic broad- casting companies and some institutions be representcd on the board of trustees, the Gov- ernment would run the show just as firmly as the British Government runs propaganda through BBC, The State Department is already up to its neck in the field of international broadcast- ing, with programs going out in 25 different languages at a cost of more than 88,000,000 per year. The proposed foundation would make continuation of this war-born propa- ganda activity a permanent part of our Gov- ernment, with substantial expansion and in- crease in cost. In my opinion this is a bad and extremely dangerous proposal. Here would be another instance of unnec- essary Government competition with private enterprise, and in a field where American private enterprise has been notably success- ful. Imperfect as American broadcasting may be, it leads the world as a provider of entertainment and education, and as a force for influencing popular opinion. Govern- ment controlled broadcasting systems in other countries have never approached Amer- ican commercial broadcasting in popularity— the United States has more broadcasting sta- tions and more privately owned radio re- celvers than the rest of the world combined. Long before the war American broadcasting companies, entirely at their own expense and with little prospect for financial return, erected and operated short-wave stations that sent American network programs all over the world. In countries where short-wave re- ceivers were in general use, these American commercial programs were far more popular than the stodgy propaganda broadcasts from Germany, France, England, Italy, Spain, and so forth. They did more to sell American ideals and the American way of life than could any number of pontifical presentations of the unvarnished truth, such as the State APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Department’s much publicized broadcasts to the Sovicts. At the time of Pearl Harbor there were 14 licensed international short-wave stations operating in the United States. Al! were erected by private capital, all were operated by their owners at a total cost over the years of many millions of dollars. During the war Government funds were used in construction and operation of additional short-wave sta- tions, just as Government money was used to construct and orerate munition factories, ship yards, étc. Now that the war is over, these stations should be sold to private operators in the same manner, and for the same reason that other Government-financed properties are passing into private hands. There is no more reason for the Govern- ment to own and operate broadcasting sta- tions than there is for it to publish news- papers and magazines. Nor is there any rea- son for the Government, which has neither experience nor skill in radio production, to spend millions of dollars developing radio programs. Fairness and common sense demand that the Government pay for and use privately owned broadcasting facilities for dispatching radio programe, just as it uses railroads for dispatching freight, telegraph, and cable systems for dispatching messages, our news- Papers and magazines for publishing adver- tisements and releasing news, etc. In- stead of setting up o system to compete with those who pioneered our international short- wave stations, any Government money used for this purpose should be spent to support those who blazed the trail with their own private funds. Any other procedure would be the rankest kind of injustice, as well as belng a stupid refusal to use the world’s finest creative talent in the realm of radio. No matter what our bureaucrats choose to call Government-sponsored international broadcasts of unvarnished truth, listeners in other lands will have just one term for them: Yankee propaganda. Most Americans resent or laugh at foreign propaganda that infiltrates this country, and are highly skepti- cal of news and radio broadcasts that come through the iron curtain of censorship. To all other peoples of the world we Americans are foreigners; obvious Yankee propaganda will only serve to arouse resentment and skepticism of all things American. The one basic idea that the United States has to sell to the rest of the world is our American system of free enterprise. What could be more futile and ridiculous than using a bureaucratic broadcasting founda- tion to tell our story? What profit could there be in prattling the unvarnished truth about free America when the listener knows that the programs he hears are themselves a violation of the basic principles of American free enterprise? Why should we adopt the very practices that we criticize in other governments? The most effective method of persuasion is by actual demonstration. There could be no better way of demonstrating to other peoples the real meaning of American free enterprise and freedom of speech than by giving them an opportunity to hear the tre- mendous variety of radio programs that are alred each day over our major networks. What a revelation it would be to countless impoverished millions to hear commer- cial announcers vying with each other to sell more soap, candy, automobiles, radios, watches, cigarettes, etc. And what a demon- stration of democracy in action it would be to have people of the world hear two oppos- ing American Presidential candidates tear into each other over the radio, and then hear the election results, and learn that the loser continued to enjoy life and freedom. American radio programs, in spite of criti- cism leveled at them by blue-book writers, have the happy faculty of attracting large audiences. This is true in other countries as well as in the United States. If our daily schedules of network programs were sent out
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD by powerful short wave, we would soon cre- ate an incredible amount of good will and understanding throughout the world. American jazz is popular from the Aritic to Timbucktoo, and there is plenty of that broadcast everyday. Serious music has its lovers wherever there are human beings— they reach for everything from Bach to Gershwin. American networks broadcast many hours of the world’s finest music every week. Music is the only international lan- guage that needs no translation. Our dra- matic programs, variety shows, newscasts, commentaries, etc., have a freshness and freedom found on no other radio-broadcast- ing system on earth. True enough, some of these programs would require translation for a good part of our audience, but many could go straight, with perhaps explanatory an- nouncements in other languages. It must not be forgotten that in virtually all coun- tries there is a large nucleus of English- speaking people. If we wish to do a really effective job of international broadcasting, the way to do it 1s forget all about bureaucratic foundations and send by short wave a selected schedule of network programs, modifying them only as prudent commercial practice dictates, I used the words prudent commercial prac- tice because I believe that the best way, as well as the most American way, of sending our commercia) programs overseas is to per- mit American short-wave stations to sell time to advertisers just as our domestic sta- tions do. That will automatically bring to American international broadcasting the best audience-bullding brains of the coun- try, and give to the rest of the world the great musical and dramatic talent that has made radio s0 popular in America. Under the acid spur of commercial results, broad- casters will develop new technics of audi- ence building in foreign lands that will far transcend the best efforts possible for a known Government agency. Then, if the Government still deems it necessary to enter officially the international war of words, it will find an enormous and receptive audience waiting for its programs from privately owned stations. It will also have available, and should use, the skill de- veloped by free enterprise in radio, just as it found available and used for munition Production the industrial skill developed by generations of free enterprise in manufac- turing. Both for the sake of economy and to give the rest of the world a true understanding of America, the State Department should be compelled to cease its present international broadcasting activities, and any proposal that the Government enter the broadcasting bus- iness should be defeated. The American broadcasting industry should be given an op- portunity to expand in the fleld of commer- cial international broadcasting. Very sincerely, E. F. McDonatp, Jr. P. S8.—So that there can be no misunder- standing of my position, I assure you that Zenith has no interest, direct or indirect, in any chain or international broadcasting station. The views I have expressed are based entirely on my lifetime experience in radio. Congress Is Working EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ERRETT P. SCRIVNER OF KANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Speaker, in view of the criticism of the present Congress which has appeared in the press of the country, I wish to insert in the Recorp a column by Lowell Mellett which appeared in the Evening Star, Washington, D. C., on Tuesday, March 11, 1947. Lowell Mellett was for many years on the pay roll of the New Dea) administra- tion. Since returning to the newspaper field as a columnist, his writings have been almost 100 percent in support of the administration. This column from the pen of such an ardent supporter of the New Deal can- not be charged with being politically par- tisan and may, therefore, be accepted at full face value as not presenting the Re- publicans in Congress in any better light than irrefutable facts warrant. I commend it to my colleagues in the Congress and to the taxpayers of this Nation. On THe OTHER HAND (By Lowell Mellett) REGARDS CRITICISM OF REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS A; UNFAIR In all fairness to the Republican majority in Congress, it is proper to ask whence comes this clamor for more action? A _ public- opinion poll the other day revealed that the Grand Old Party had slipped politically since the November victory and now commands less than half of the popular vote. Immedi- ately a number of Senators and Representa- tives, shaking their heads sadly, admitted it could be true. Their mail, they said, indi- cated that their constituents were becoming impatient, that they had expected more action than they were getting. Who are these constituents and what did they expect? Did they expect to see a line of messengers carrying new bills up to the White House, each bearing the instruction, “Bign here,” and the President duly signing? Did they really expect to see a million Government workers out on the sidewalk in the January, or even the February, snow and the wheels of the Government whirring with a wholly new efficiency as a result? Did some of them truly anticipate a tumbling of prices through the removal of controls and the reenactment of the law of supply and demand? Or that houses would begin rising like magic all over the land because of an end of Government “inter- ference"? It is matters like these that interest aver- age voters, the men and women who make decisions on election day, presumably the same sort of men and women who are recorded in the public opinion polls. But there is reason for doubting that these are the voters who have been complaining to their Congressmen. The complaints could be coming from another class, from those who have expected Congress to serve their special interests with a little more speed. These would include in- dustrialists who had thought it wouldn't take Congress 10 weeks to slap labor down, the big taxpayers who had looked forward en- thusiastically to a 20 percent tax reduction, the landlords who thought they had voted all controls off rents, the railroad owners who expected to be freed from the provisions of the antitrust laws. Of course, there is still another class. It is composed of simple souls who believed what they heard or read and expected the newsreels to show them the gallant figure of Ropert A. Tarr standing at the foot of the Capitol steps with one foot on the dead body of a dragon plainly recognizable as the New Deal, his trusty spear buried in its midriff. These are those who don't know what Sena- tor Tart knows, that the dread New Deal always was nine-tenths plain, ordinary, and necessary government and only one-tenth A981 idealism—or nonsense, depending on the point of view. So it is only fair to point out that Con- gress, in the face of every consideration, is doing as well as anybody had a right to expect. The one-tenth of nonsense—hous- ing, health, education, and the like—has been set aside and the Republican majority 1s working hard at the plain, ordinary, neces- sary business of government. Laws cannot be written and passed in a day. The greater part of the job has to be done in committees. And nobody can com- plain on that score. The committees have been working night and day and their work hasn't been easy. Shaping campaign prom- ises into intelligent legislation, or any kind of legislation, requires the gathering of in- formation and the reconciling of opposing views. It takes toil and sweat and time. The Republicans are toiling and sweating. Give them time. The Cotton Exchange Strike EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. FRED L. CRAWFORD OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, when there cease to be livestock markets through which ranchers who grow cattle and sheep and farmers who grow hogs can clear their labor in the form of ani- mals on the hoof which they distribute through the mechanics of livestock mar- kets, we can rest assured there will be less beef, less pork, and less wool, for the use of our people. In other words, organized livestock markets placed a premium on the grow- ing of such animals because he who de- votes his time and his energy and his capital to such an operation knows full well that through the mechanics of a livestock market he can always liquidate his holdings and thereby sell his labor and collect his wage. In the industrial field we attained our present method of mass production, and our present ownership of buildings, ma- chinery, and machine tools through the corporate enterprise approach. By this I mean to say the program which we have attained could not have been reached through a single proprietorship or the old established partnership ar- rangement. A new device had to come into operation on a very large scale. This new device we now recognize as a corporate entity—the modern corpora- tion with its hundreds of thousands of stockholders. The modern corporation brought to us thousands of individual plants of the most modern design. In these plants we have the most intricate machinery and machine tools man has been able to de- sign. Here in the United States we have more buildings, more machinery, and more machine tools than can be found anywhere else on earth. And, too, here in the United States we have more skilled industrial workers. These workers who are educated in our grade, high schools, colleges, and univer- sities bring their intelligence and indi- vidual skill and individual aptitudes and
A982 their individual energy and coordinate all of these favorable factors with the physical existence and design of the buildings, machinery, and machine tools. There are hundreds of thousands and millions of citizens who live simple lives, who exercise thrift, who accumulate sav- ings. These citizens under our private enterprise system invest those savings in the corporate stock certificates, bonds, and debentures issued by the corpora- tions legally chartered by our State and Federal laws, and in this manner the cap- ital structures of the corporations come into being. And under the corporation Management, acting with the consent of the stockholders, funds are invested in these buildings, machinery, and machine tools, as well as in the working inventories and other current assets owned by the corporation. Millions of citizens invest their savings in corporation stocks, bonds, and deben- tures primarily by reason of the presence of two forces: First, their belief in the private enterprise system and the way it operates; and, second, because we have corporation stock exchanges where the holder of a corporate stock or bond or debenture may easily and without delay, and upon his own choosing, liquidate his holdings or switch from ownership of equities in one corporation to another corporation. Therefore, it is as necessary under our economic and industrial system to have exchanges where corporate securities can be traded in without any delay whatso- ever as it is to have livestock exchanges where animals on the hoof may be traded in. Organized labor has now conceived the idea of closing—through the strike and picketing privilege—corporation stock exchanges and the commodity exchanges of this country. Organized labor goes a step further, and is now proposing to organize the employees of the banks of the Nation, with an idea that if certain situations arise the banks may be closed through the machinery of strikes and picketing. As these further steps are taken by or- ganized labor leaders and their rank and file, more and more of our people are coming to the conclusion that America cannot afford industrial strikes, and that continuing widespread industrial dis- ruption threatens the well-being of all of the people of this country, and places in jeopardy not only the attainment of our domestic goals as represented by high production and employment, but these strikes and mass picketing move in the direction of arresting the flow of all social income, depriving the Govern- ment of its revenues required to maintain organized society, and certainly points the way to positive destruction of all of our international objectives. If we can believe what our President has told us only today, we must accept the proposition that the present eminence fn the world economic scene of the United States is such that instability here in our own country means instability through- out the world. If we can believe half of what the President has told us, we are forced to the conclusion that interna- tional peace and international prosper- ity—one and the same—depend substan- tially upon the achievement of industrial peace and economic prosperity here in the United States. It may be possible for us to maintain our existence with the automobile indus- try closing down for a few months, and then for the farm machinery industry to close down for a few weeks by reason of strikes and picketing, and then for the packing houses to close for a few days; but, let me warn you that if our stock exchanges and our banks are to be closed by strikes, picketing, or otherwise, you can rest assured there is no reason- able peace or economic stability for the people of the United States or any other part of the world. In this general connection I submit an editorial from the New York Journal of Commerce of March 5: THE COTTON EXCHANGE STRIKE Commodity and security exchanges pro- vide essential machinery for the conduct of the Nation’s business under the private en- terprise system. They vastly facilitate the marketing of basic commodities und secure ities. The services they furnish are as vital to the public welfare as are those of public utilities. The United Financial Employees Union yesterday closed the New York Cotton Ex- change by a strike. For the first time, a labor union has used its power to close down an exchange. When Congress acts on pending proposals for the orevention of strikes in essential industries, walk-outs of this kind should stand high on the list of those subject to statutory curbs. Other- wise, the hedging and Iiquidity functions performed by the exchange could be shut down at any time by union-action. Even more serious than the precedent es- tablished by the strike against the exchange is the unton’s demand that employees of the exchanzye shall not be permitted to han- die business of a member firm against which the union has called a strike. Were the New York Cotton Exchange to assent to this de- mand, it would in effect become a strong- arm agency to force member firms not only to recognize the union, even where the lat- ter has few or no adherents among firm em- ployees, but also to acccde to whatever de- Mands the union may make upon them in the future. In cffect, the union would take over the authority to disbar exchange mem- bers from the benefits of membership, a power hitherto exercised only by the ex- change itself and by the Commodity Ex- change Administration under the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. Unions need no such enforcement agency to secure recognition under the Wagner Act. They should have no such power to enforce demands upon individual employers by with- holding exchange service from them. Commodity and security exchanges are not business enterprises. They are specially chartered institutions set up to enable their members to provide a public service. In more recent years, Federal regulation has regu- lated their activities in many ways. They must be conducted for the convenience and benefit of the public that uses them, sub- ject to Government regulations, and not to promote trade-unionism. A public-utility company could not agree to withhold service from customers having disagreements with labor unions. By the same token, a commodity exchange cannot consent to withhold its service from mem- bers who may become involved in disputes with the United Pinancial Employees Union. If unions make such preposterous demands, the exchange should be protected by law from such patently unfair labor practice. The American Federation of Labor has been proud of its relatively peaceful record last year, when the Nation suffered the worst strike wave in its history. The New York Cotton Exchange walk-out yesterday is a se- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD rious blot on that record. The labor leaders ooncerned evidently do not realize the full implications involved. Congressional com- mittees weighing new labor legislation should give close study to the issues involved in the Cotton Exchange strike, to see what can be done to prevent a recurrence, That Budget Cut EXTENSION OF REMARKS o1 HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include an editorial in the Bryan Daily Eagle, Bryan, Tex., on February 24, 1947: THAT BUDGET CUT Presidential budget cutting has had the right-of-way on Capitol Hill in the past week or two, and it has become plain that all is not peaceful in the ranks of the GOP-con- trolled Congress. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee voted for a $6,000,000,000 cut in the Truman budget, and unquestionably this was done without a close study of the various items it covered. Possibly one reason for this action was that the party had been sold a bill of goods by Representative KNurson, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who sounded off loudly and often in the campaign to the effect that the GOP, once more in power, would put through a 20 percent across-the-board cut in income taxes. But it has begun to dawn on some of the more sober-minded in Congress--- though per- haps no less politically minded than their Minnesota colleague—that a six billion slash at the budget cannot be taken without prob- able danger to the nationa) security and welfare. Such a cut would mean a reduction of ap- proximately $3,000,000.000 in the national defense budget, and with world conditions as unsettled as they are at present—the inter- national situation from the angle of this country has been made worse by weakening developments in Grent Britain—some infiu- ential Members of Congress have about con- cluded this would be too heavy a cut, and a cut of $4,000,000,000 or less now appears more likely. It probably is true that economy has not been the watchword with those in charge of the national defense. They want what they want, when they want it, and several years of preparation for and of fighting the most costly and terrible war in history has caused many to believe they can have their way if they fight hard and long enough. Without much question proper organization and a greater measure of coordination would per- mit the maintenance on a strong basis of the defense forces and enable a continuation of research and the development of modern weapons at less cost. But while this is a consummation devoutly to be wished, it can- not be secured in a day, and it should be agreed that the national defense should not be permitted to lag or go to pot while plans were being worked out for greater economy in the design and procurement of equipment and all needed supplies. . Next month the Foreign Ministers of the Big Four will meet at Moscow in what Nkely will be their most important conference, since it is scheduled to decide the future of Ger- many—and perhaps of all western Europe. With the British Government struggling with what appear to be almoat ble eco- nomic and financial problems, this is no time for the United States to be divided on such
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an imperative matter as national security when its representatives will be going up against the strong position and will of the leadcrs of the Soviet Union. Also, because of the uncertainty of the future of Great Britain—whether it is to muddle through and regain its former world position or whether this country will be compelled, for security reasons, to assume and discharge some of the responsibilities the British have handled for so many years—it is no time to become indifferent to the national defense or to limit this in order to play politics with income-tax reductions. The Senate GOP policy committee has voted, 22 to 19, against the six-billion cut, and the acknowledged, leadership of this group is opposed to the cut. And perhaps Senator Tarr, admittedly the strong man of the majority in Congress, gave his colleagues a bit of political salve when he stated last week that regardless of budget reductions there would be cuts in income taxes. Eut with world conditions as they are and with the public debt to be considered, cuts in income taxes should be a minor consid- eration, though if the GOP Members of Con- gress gave enough study to the Truman budget, item by item, they might make sav- ings of constructive value and make possible, without danger to the national security, the keeping of such campaign pledges as that of the Minnesota solon. Aid for Greece EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. FRANK BUCHANAN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the ReEc- orD, I include the following article from the New York Times by James Reston: IMPLICATIONS OF GREEK AID WorrY TRUMAN'S ADVISERS--THEY EXPECT APPROVAL OF THIS LOAN, BUT WONDER ABOUT OTHERS IN UNSEEN Furure (By James Reston) WasHinaton, March 11.—What worries President Truman’s advisers at the moment js not the loan to Greece and Turkey now under discussion but the next one. They have few doubts that Congress will agree to the President’s appeal tomorrow to block Russian expansion, but, they ask, what about the next tomorrow, the next strategic area threatened by Communist expansion, the next economic retreat by Britain? President Theodore Roosevelt had a pic- turesque bit of advice for Congress on dealing with precisely this kind of problem. “Don’t shake your fist und then shake your finger,” he said. That is what ts disturbing Mr. Tru- man; he is clear about the long-term policy he is introducing and he is convinced it is right and necessary in our interests, but he does not want to get committed and then get “sawed off.” The long-range nature of the problem be- fore Congress now is clearly indicated by the history of Britain and Russia in the nine- teenth century. Though the British and the Russians originally collaborated in Greece's fight for independence from the Ottoman Empire, the British fought one war and three times took grave chances of war to prevent the Russians from dominating Turkey and the eastern Mediterranean, WORLD SECURITY AT STAKE This process stretched over 60 years, how- ever, and even at the outset of the recent war and today, protection of Turkish inde- pendence is still a fundamental of British policy and for the same reason; because it is thought to be effective in prevening a poten- tially hostile nation from controlling the eastern Mediterranean. Considerable progress has been made in the last 10 days in making Congress realize that what is at issue here is not merely loans to Greece and Turkey, but a question of establishing a world security system through the employment of American power. Despite this progress, however, few ob- servers here believe that the full gravity of the decision is understood. The danger of a Communist flood is apparent, but the idea still prevails on Capitol Hill that it can be stopped by putting somebody's thumb in the dike. In the private conversations one hears in the cloakrooms or the Hill there is a good deal of determination to halt the spread of communism in key areas like Turkey, but the assumption is often made that this can be done with moncy and that we can spend ourselves to safety withcut interfering with our plans to balance the budget and cut in- come taxes. This. of course, is not a new phenomenon. When Disraeli ordered a naval demonstra- tion in Turkish waters in 1878 to persuade the Russians to let up on Turkey and re- write the Treaty of San Stefano, popular opinion in England was stirred up for his policy with a famous music hall ditty that went like this: “We don't want to fight, but, by jingo, if we do, We've got the ships, we’ve got the men, we've got the money too.” The difference today is that some Members of Congress would merely change the song to moke it go: “We don’t want to fight, but, by jingo, if we do, We've got the Greeks, we've got the Turks, we've got some money too.” This is the attitude that disturbs the President's advisers. They fee] sure that if we take an active role in backing up the Turks and Greeks now, the Russians will merely play a waiting game, and they are frank to admit that patience is not our most prominent national characteristic. Therefore, they are asking, not whether we should go forward with the policy of blocking Communist expansion in key areas— 8 course that, they proclaim almost unani- mously, is inescapable—but whether the gap can be closed between what the President feels is necessary to do the job and what he feels Congress and the country will ap- prove and support for a long time to come. A PEACETIME LEND-LEASE It is stated freely in private, for example, that what is needed in the economic field to do the job right is not two isolated loans but a kind of peacetime lend-lease act that would enable the President to “defend Amer- ica by aiding the Allies”; and a specific polit- ical commitment to protect the integrity of Turkey. In that way, dependence for stability on weak and undemocratic governments would be minimized and Soviet power would be confronted directly by the one thing it re- spects most—American power. : These things are not being asked because few officials in the State Department believe Congress would approve them. But this does not keep them from being afraid that we may again go into a difficult situation with too little and lay ourselves open to the charge that Lord Derby made against Disraeli’s policy: That he merely “meddled and muddled” until Britain's “menaces are disregarded, its magniloquent language is ridiculed, and its remonstrances are treated with contemptuous indifference.” A983 Address of Robert Montgomery EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing address by Robert Montgomery at the American Legion legislative din- ner, Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D. C., March 11, 1947: Honored guests, ladies and gentlemen, when a man js asked to speuk to distin- guished gucsts us a veteran, it seems that the customary thing is to begin by stating in very modest tones that he would rather be in action facing the chatter of machine guns and listening to the whine of bullets than to be speaker of the evening. I would like to reverse the procedure and state quite frankly that I am glad to be here. Whether my pleasure at being given this opportunity to speak to you is in some meas- ure shared by you with the prospect of hear- ing what I have to say, I seriously doubt, Why, in the name of justice, a group of gen- tlemen who have spent the day as the tar- gets for a considerable barrage of oratory should gather in the evening to risk the opportunity of being shot at again, I cannot imagine. In my profession it is always easier to as- sume a role for getting across a message to entertain, frighten, terrily, or even repel an audience. I want you to bear with me to- night while I play a real part, a part that comes from right out of the heart, that is based on conviction, and in which the lines are written in reality and not in lantasy, - I want to speak not as a veteran of World War II. I want to speak as a veteran of all of the wars that have been fought by the brave men of this country during the 171 years of its life. I want to speak to you from the common heritage of all of our vet- erans, their sacrifices, their joint ideals, the visions that have bound them together through every decade and in evcry challenge to national integrity. I ask you to imagine that there stands here tonight the shade of a man who repre- sents, first, an odd-looking fellow whose feet are ragged, who is clothed in sacks, bleeding, cold, and worn; whose stomach is hungry; whose tricornered hat is beaten and torn; whose smooth-bored musket ts ill-provisioned with powder and lead; whose single strength lies in the indomitable resolution of an irre- sistable vision. This man standing before you suffered hunger, freezing, and death without giving up, for an instant, the vision that he defended. This man fought what should be called the first world war, for, in achieving, in fighting, in suffering, and in his strength he won a world. He won a freedom, an ideal that has nourished and flowered the hope of men in every atmos-. phere for a century and a half, an ideal that has refused to admit reverse und has arisen again within our lifetime to extinguish the, greatest threat to human dignity within a thousand years. This victory was the seed- bed of the greatest achievement man has made in his existence. As this man talks his words sound halting and perhaps even unfamiliar, but his theme is one that we will recognize, for in essence he says to us, “I fought to bring to you a
A984 measure of human dignity; I fought to bring you a measure of freedom; I fought to give you arepublic. That was the full measure of my triumph. That was my heritage to you.” Slowly, very slowly, a change is coming over the man as he stands here before you tonight and though the face remains tho same, the uniform is changing. He wears tight-fitting white trousers, a faded blue jacket, blue-striped blouse, and straw hat. His heart is filled with the tradition gained from words of John Paul Jones, “Give me a fast ship, for I intend to go tn harm's way.” The man who stands before you now fought under Commodore Perry: “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” May he never meet the enemy but that they are ours. I speak to you through the Image of this man, @ raw eailor, a man who aimed his camnon and fired his shot more with the geal of an idea than with the training of an expert. It was a second test within a quarter of a century, a test for the ideal which had first trtumphed, but which had, alas, to sustain many more trials. Picture this sailor who stands before you, clad only in light woolen uniform, shivering and raw from icy winds, wounded and un- attended at the salvo of shot and shell, as typical of all men who fought once more to save this Nation’s freedom. If this man who fought on nerve and brawn and guts could talk. he would undoubtedly say, “I fought to bring to you a fuller measure of human dignity; I fought to bring you a greater measure of freedom; I fought to pre- verve your Republic. That was my triumph. Theat was my heritage to you.” Again the ecene shifts. Standing before you now is a man whose uniform is in- Gistinguishable in color—the color of the uniform is not important for he is the symbol of the men who tested and solved providen- tially the division of a nation; he is the symbol of the men who marched, rode, sailed, and bled, and out of their sufferings gave this country a new birth of freedom. And when he speaks to you he says, “I fought to bring you a still greater measure of human dignity; an even fuller measure of freedom. I fought to preserve this Republic. That was my triumph. That was my heritage to you.” Now comes the man who wore the olive drab tn foreign fields, not once, but twice; the man who went into battle at the Argonne and Chateau Thierry, and who carried the flag across the Hindenburg line in 1918 and returned to carry it once again across the Siegfried line in 1945; who planted it at Suri- bachi, and the Solomons, and finally Tokyo; and who fought in India, China, and Leyte Guif; and made that flag and the country which it represents a living symboi of the deliverance of the human dignity and of the living soul that is man. So there is a picture of the veteran who might be standing before you tonight—a compostte veteran of all the veterans of ail the wars that this Nation has fought—1776, 1812, 1861, 1898, 1917, and 1941. Throughout every war he has been moti- vated by a very stmple principle which im- pelled him to wage battle and to gamble human existence for benefits which he could not normally hope to enjoy but which meant the difference between life or hell on earth for hia fellow men. Let him speak to you, and listen to what he has to say— - “I fought,” he says to you, “to bring free- dom to the individual and to man collec- tively. I fought for the right to choose one's own destiny and one’s own method of achiev- ing it. “T fought finally to preserve the Republic, for having assured its preservation I hed | dignity and free- and children but more assurance of | dom, not only for for all mankind. “TI fought to preserve pattern whoee struc- ture was not limited by a country or a con- tinent, but a pattern by which any man, of any nation, or any race, and of any creed could be guided in his fight for freedom.” A man can shed hfs blood on a battle field, or gasp out his last breaths In a smother of ocean foam. You men can render this eacrifice miserable, tgnorant, worthless, or you can make ft the greatest investment for the future that men could offer, You can dignify it and fustify it, or you can nullify it completely. May I suggest to you that you adopt a yard- stick in making your personal decisions, in your votes in committees, and in your speeches upon the floor of the House and Senate. That yardstick can be applied to every act ar proposal which comes before you, whether it deals with the domestic affairs of our country or whether it affects our rela- tionship as a nation with other nations. What is this yardstick? What is this standard of measure by which you can render worth while the sacrifices that bave been made by the veleran? It ts simply this: Does this proposal, this act, this piece of legislation, bring to the community, the State, the Nation, a fuller sense of the mean- ing of the word “freedom” as we know it? Does this proposal, this act, this piece of legislution, bring freedom to more and more and more people throughout the world? In this time of problems, of extreme trial and perplexity, we need, each one us, to remember the men—each one typical of the other—who took us through other trials no less onerous and no less dangerous. These men won a nation, they defended a nation, they preserved a nation against interna) divi- sion, and finally they defended it successfully against two deadly acsaults from without, Our task is to dedicate our minds and our hearts to the same task to which these men gave thelr blood and bone and sinew; to see America in {ts greatest hope; and to labor with heart and soul and mind to bring the Nation to that degree of human Liberty and freedom and opportunity for which they risked everything. You men who guide the destinies of this Nation, and the future of 140,000,000 of peo- ple endowed with a richness of opportunity atmost beyond human comprehension, have it within your power to bring this Nation to the pinnacle of opportunity. And when you have brought it there by your efforts, you will have brought the world with it. It will take every ounce of sincerity, of wis- dom, of judgment, of temperance, of prayer, of dignity with each one of you. The task you face is staggering in ite immensity. But you can meet it. You can meet it and con- quer it by dipping deep into the wellsprings of your integrity nd sincerity. If we are not to dedicate ourselves, each ane, to the advancement and preservation af these ideals which have perpetuated our na- bonor, then _ples. ‘APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Lithwanian Independence Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY J. LATHAM IN THE HOUSE OF REP! INTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recoap, i wish to include the following resolutions of the Lithuanian Council of Societies, meeting, on February 16, 1947, for the observance of the Bill of Rights Week and Lithuanian Independence Day: Citizens of the city of New York, gathered under the auspices of the Lithuanian-Ameri- can Council af Societies at Webster Hall on the 16th day of February 1947 for the ob- servance of the Bill of Rights Week and Lithuanien Independence Day, after due de~ diberation on tae international situation pre- vailing in Europe after the military victory, take note of the following: “The Adantic Charter and four freedoms held out the of freedom, happiness, and justice to the peoples af Naxi-ensiaved Europe. This promise was eagerly accepted as a binding contract by the enslaved peo- Anti-Nazi resistance movements were formed and the instructions of the radio voice of America were scrupulously followed and carried out by the underground, includ- ing the Ity well coordinated Su- preme Lithuanian Committee of Liberation, “These principles were written into the initial declaration by the United Nations of January 1942. Several declarations to liber- ated European peoples made jointly by the heads of state of the Big Three Powers seemed to carry out these promises. “Following the military victory, however, the Asiatic peoples of the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Burma, Indochina, Syria, Leb- anon, and Korea are the only beneficiaries of the Atlantic Charter which was ly intended for European peoples. The ‘liber- ated’ peopies of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poiand, Siovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bul- garia, Yugosldvia, Albania, and the Ukraine are, in fact, subjected to an enslavement which is more bruta] thun thelr former en- elavement by Nazi Germany. The peoples of the Baliic states are subjected to systematic mans extermination and deportations of the indigenous Estonian, Latvian, and Lithua- nian populations. “At the eame time, maases of political refu- goes from the Baltic states and Poland are subjected to a regime of moral and physical terror and oppression at the hands of the UNREA with the assistance of the American occupation forces which ere left unguided im consequence of the uncertainty, waver- fg. and continual confusion created by con- flicting directives. “While Russian and Russian-eatellite dele- gates to United Nations debate and deride human rights, the victorious democracies tack the courage to look squarely at the facts and to demand the restoration of freedom to the Baltic peoples. Of all the war-ravaged countries, Lithuanie, Latvia, and Estonia were and are alone dented any and all relief and rehabilitation ussistance by UNRRA which is paid for by the people of the United States. The principles of justice and the Atiantic Charter are absent from the e- called peace treaties dictated by Russia. “Lithuania, the immediate neighbor of Germany, and Latvin and Estonia, \kewise vitally interested in the settlement of peace
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for Germany, were thus far excluded from the preliminary negotiations regarding the peace treaty for Germany. The forthcoming Moscow Conference on Germany similarly excludes any and all representation for the Baltic peoples, although both the Democratic administration and the Republican Party are committed to the defense of the restoration of the political sovereignty and freedom for the Baltic states. “Wherefore, we demand: “That the President and the Secretary of State guide the foreign policy of this country back to the principles of justice and the Atlantic Charter; “That the Moscow conference be limited to preliminary discussions with no commit- ments binding the United States; “That the American delegation to Moscow and to all other international conferences affecting German settlement include Lithu- anian-American experts; “That the United States demand forthwith the withdrawal of the Russian occupation armies, NKVD-MVD terrorist police, and Communist Party forces from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia and lend assistance to the peoples of the Baltic states, if requested by the accredited legitimate diplomatic agents of those countries, in restoring the political sovereignty and interim regimes of those countries. “Finally, taking note of the 1-day hunger strike by Baltic political refugees on the opening day of the Moscow Conference on March 10, 1947, in order to remind the hard- ened consciences of today’s masters of the world of their grave moral responsibility, we ask the United States Senate “(a) to deny ratification of the Russian- dictated oppressive peace treaties signed in Paris on February 10, 1947, and “(b) to refuse to join the proposed Inter- national Refugee Organization, which em- bodies oppressive constitutional provisions. Baltic and Polish refugee communities are fully qualified to administer their affairs without the aid of any intermediary agency infested with the agents of the Russian NKVD-MVD, and the aid by the American army of occupation may be rendered directly to the refugee communities. “LITHUANIAN-AMERICAN COUNCIL OF SOCIETIES, “STEPHEN Brepss, Jr., Chairman, “Mary M. Krzis, Secretary.” District of Columbia Gasoline Tax EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RAYMOND S. SPRINGER OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, early in this session of the Eightieth Congress, in fact on the first day of the session, I introduced H. R. 148 to raise the pres- ent gasoline tax in the District of Co- lumbia to 4 cents per gallon. This would adjust it nearer to the average of the several States, which average is 4.6 cents per gallon. The Federal Government also hds a tax of 144 cents per gallon, which would make the total gasoline tax in the District of Columbia 5% cents per gallon. The gasoline tax in the various States ranges from 4 cents per gallon to 7 cents per gallon, plus the Federal tax of 14 cents per gallon, which makes the rate in the various States range from 544 to 814 cents per gallon. I mention these rates in this connection because some irresponsible businessmen inferred that 512-cent gasoline tax in the District was far above anything in existence. A few days ago H. R. 2283 was intro- duced by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DirKsEN]. It proposes to accom- plish the same result which I had in mind, except that this bill would make this 4-cent-per-gallon District tax per- manent. I feel that this is the proper and necessary thing to do, and I am in full accord with making this tax per- manent. A 4-cent gasoline tax for District purposes has been approved by various citizen groups, the civilian ad- visory group appointed by the District Commissioners, and others, and is strongly and vigorously supported by the District Commissioners and Captain Whitehurst, of the Highway Department of the District. This money which an additional 1 cent of gasoline tax will produce for the District of Columbia is urgently needed, and has been earnestly requested by the Highway Department for a number of years. In fact as early as 194) Captain Whitehurst strongly recommended this additional tax. Highway improvement work is badly needed and much capital highway improvement is necessary. The city is growing and expanding, new streets are being opened and improved, and the need is becoming increasingly critical. Nevertheless, whenever Congress sug- gests fair and appropriate action on any subject vital to the District of Columbia, various reactionary and selfish agencies in this city begin a program of misrepre- sentation and vilification. Of course, by doing so they emphasize their unrelia- bility and unfairness, but as a Member of Congress I am becoming disgusted with this kind of disservice to the Dis- trict of Columbia, and the confusion such misconduct creates. If these in- competent organizations will investigate the facts they will easily ascertain their own absurdity. The most comprehensive study ever made of this District of Columbia gaso- line-tax subject was that made by a sub- committee of this House under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PoacE]. This report was the result of extensive hearings. consulta- tions with highway officials of the States of Maryland and Virginia, and the com- pilation of information secured from the District Commissioners and the highway department of the District of Columbia. It was filed early in 1941. It has never been refuted or disproven by any of the agencies now attacking this proposed gasoline tax of 4 cents per gallon. Nor has it been disproven by anyone else who has made a careful study of this subject. The city newspapers carried a news story purporting to quote representatives of the Federation of Business Men’s As- sociations and the District Petroleum In- dustries Committee, both organizations of persons in the District of Columbia, in which they denied the need for any more highway funds in the District of Colum- A985 bia. Men of this class would be presumed to have more common sense than was exhibited in this instance. If the news- paper quoted them correctly, they dem- onstrated superlative ignorance of this subject and shocking unfairness in their approach to this subject. These state- ments were prompted either by igno- rance or fraud. They were not based upon a true analysis of this subject, and these men should have known it or have kept still. Their statements do no credit to their intelligence. The trouble with these groups is that they have no desire to be fair or state the truth, and they represent or misrepresent a very small segment of Washington citizenry. I would be keenly disappointed if a very considerable segment of Washington citizens were guilty of this kind of mis- statement. I would be convinced of their unfairness where they make such ridic- ulous statements, on one hand, and, on the other, ask Congress to make a larger contribution to the District of Columbia budget. Such attitudes as this, backed by such irresponsible statements, has caused the defeat of proper legislation on this sub- ject of congressional responsibility to the District of Columbia in the past, and it will continue to bar such legislation in the future. Congress has a desire to be fair with the District of Columbia when citizens of the District assume an atti- tude of fairness and honesty with Con- gress. For myself—and I believe that I have the same attitude on this subject as many Members of this House—I do not intend to so “supposedly equalize” this Wash- ington tax problem as to make Wash- ington a haven for tax dodgers. There is a constant and ever-present disposi- tion on the part of groups of the kind I am discussing here to “mooch” on the Federal Government in the question of tax adjustment, which probably accounts in a large measure for the lack of action by Congress on the supposed question of tax-burden equalization. There is broad room for argument as to whether Washington citizens are car- rying a share of the tax burden compara- ble to that of citizens of the various States. The tax burden should be so adjusted as between our constituents and the District citizen that each will carry his fair share of the tax burden of the Nation’s Capital. However, the Wash- ington taxpayer is not entitled to pay less than our constituents for the same service. When it comes to road im- provement taxes the problem is much simpler, as it is simply a numerical com- parison of tax rate per gallon. If we are partners in Washington, then Wash- ington citizens should do as much for their local tax problem as our constitu- ents do for their tax problem. Washing- ton has no right to levy only a 3-cent gasoline tax when it needs 4 cents, or even more than that, and then “weep great tears of begging” for Congress to con- tribute more to District expense budg- ets, when their partners in my State pay for all their road and highway improve- ments with a much higher gasoline tax than the District. Consistency is as
A986 much a tax jewel as it is in any other life relationship. If this group of disgruntled so-called businessmen do not want to bear their just share of the general tax burden and fee] that they can relieve it by so doing, they should move out of Washington. When this bunch of self-righteous figure jugglers do so move out, they will find there is no place they can go where they will pay as low a gasoline tax as they do here. Their next stop will be in a 4- cent gasoline tax State, or from, that on up to 7 cents. As for me, I am not going to be a party to a program of con- tribution to the District of Columbia budget that will result in District resi- dents paying less taxes than my constit- uents pay. I do not believe that Con- gress will do that either. Taxes are a Painful experience in any event, and should be evenly distributed where that is possible. After reading these newspaper ac- counts of these supposed businessmen’s groups, I am convinced that they desire and intend to “mooch” all they can from the Federal Government without regard to what is their fair share of the tax bur- den. That is a desire which manifests itself too frequently in this city, and as a Member of Congress I am becoming dis- gusted with it. Congress desires to be fair to the resi- dents of the District of Columbia, but it gets no help from such selfish groups as I am discussing now. So far as I am concerned, what they say will be entirely disregarded by me until they can analyze facts and get nearer to the truth. Now let us see what are the facts: The Poage report discloses that the highway fund never has been sufficient to meet the street and highway needs of the city of Washington. In fact, this record shows that the highway fund “mooched” on the general fun and the Federal Government to the extent of $42,035,447 from the time this fund was established in 1924 to and including the fiscal year of 1941. The policy of spend- ing more for street improvements than the highway fund produced was discon- tinued in 1938, and since that time need- ed work has been delayed until funds are available. This has .esulted in much needed street repairs being delayed be- yond the time when they are badly need- ed in many instances. A reference to this report will also disclose that al- though the population of Washington has practically doubled since 1924, that the highway department has little more funds available per annum now than 20 years ago. In 1941 the District director of high- ways requested that the District gaso- line tax be increased to 4 cents per gal- lon and a bill to that effect passed this House. In the meantime, war was de- clared, and the Senate cut the tax back to 3 cents, where it is now, on the excuse that wartime restrictions would curtail street repairs and capital improvements and the money would not be needed. This is now recognized to be a false economy, as the streets continued to deteriorate and capital improvements piled up on us with no accumulated back- log of highway funds in the District treasury to meet this accumulated need. This condition has been called to the attention of the Congress and the public by District officials so often that it would seem that its truth should be self- evident. There is another phase of this subject which further reflects the ignorance of these groups. The District of Columbia along with the several States is entitled to share in Federal highway funds to the extent it is able to match dollar for dollar the amount allocated under the terms of the Federal statute. No funds are avail- able except upon a basis of investment of an equal amount by the State or District. The Highway Department of the District of Columbia has repeatedly called atten- tion to the fact that its participation in this fund is being jeopardized by lack of sufficient funds. However, I assume that this danger does not concern these busi- ness groups if they can mooch a little more from the Federal Government. I am astounded that irresponsible busi- ness groups would be willing to jeopardize the larger program in order to save mo- mentarily. There is no excuse for the statement that these groups have figures showing that the present gasoline tax income is sufficient to meet the needs of this city. I assume that the city could exist without any gasoline tax and allow the streets to remain as they are, and we could prob- ably travel them in some fashion for con- siderable time. The proper method is to Keep these streets in current repair, and make capita] improvements when they are needed rather than to allow these things to accumulate until they become a collosal burden. The old adage might be pertinent to this situation, “figures do not lie, but Hiars figure.” Leaving all of this argument about gasoline tax income and needed street repairs out of our consideration for the moment, the man in the street knows that when you compare the street re- quirements of 1924 to 1933 with that of the present time, that the requirements of Washington are or should be much more, if proper consideration is being given to needed improvements and re- pairs now. This man in the street also knows that when we have a highway tax situation now which provides very little more revenue than was produced in 1924 to 1933, that something is wrong with the conclusions of these pseudo business groups. Either they are grossly igno- rant, or they want to bleed the Federal Treasury for every dollar they can get without regard to fairness. If I were convinced that this is the at- titude of any considerable number of the citizens of this District, I would be op- posed to any tax relief for them until they changed their minds. There may be some room for difference of opinion as to what is a fair share of the real or personal tax burden but there can be no room for argument on a gaso- line tax. The taxpayers of Indiana pay a 4-cent State gasoline tax, plus a 14%4- cent Federal gasoline tax, and that adds up to 5% cents tdtal gasoline tax as it now is proposed for the District of Co- lumbia. A representative of the Feder- ation of Business Men’s Association “bellyaches” about a like tax for the District because it amounts to a 40 per- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cent gross sales tax. Whatever it amounts to it is the same in Indiana and many other States of the Union, and in many of them more up to 7% cents State and Federal. If the money is needed for good streets and highways, we either levy it or do without the improve- ments. The people who use and wear out these roads and streets pay this tax and they are willing to pay it out in the States to have good roads. In fact they are willing to pay it everywhere else but here in the desired haven for tax dodgers. Is a 6%-cent gasoline tax any more burdensome on District residents than on Indiana residents, and that of many other States? Or 6% cents in Virginia and West Virginia? Or 5% cents for Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland? Or in some other States 74 cents? It is no less anywhere than 5% cents total, Federal and State, so what is the matter with Washington? The principal thing which these groups have done is to show their ignorance of this subject and demonstrate their prej- udice and “mooching” tendencies. In brief, here is their idea of fairness. They are willing for my Indiana tax- payers to pay a gasoline tax of 544 cents per gallon—that is, 4 cents State and 112 cents Federal—to keep up Indiana State roads, and they want to pay a less gaso- line tax than that and have Congress donate $8,000,000 or more to the District of Columbia budget, and transfer what- ever is needed from the general] fund of the District to the highway fund of the District, and thus accomplish by indi- rection the tax fraud of having Indiana taxpayers keep up Washington streets because Washington fails to pay its share as demonstrated by the average of the Nation. If 4.6 cents State tax plus 1% cents Federal, or 6.1 cents per gallon, is the average, what are these so-called businessmen kicking about? If Con- gress were asking the District of Colum- bia motorist to pay more than the lowest figure among the States, these whimper- ing tax dodgers might have something of which they could complain. The high- way fund is now inadequate, and they know it; if they want to be fair, they should not object to a gasoline tax the total of which will be six-tenths cent be- low the average. If these said businessmen’s groups were considered to be right, then every- one else who has ever studied this prob- lem is wrong. All of the States of this Union, Congress, District Commission- ers, citizens’ groups are out of step but these small-visioned, selfish business groups. That is why there is so much criticism leveled at groups of this char- acter. They are so blind they can only see their side of the problem. This prob- lem has two sides, that of the taxpayer in my State and other States of this country, and the District taxpayer. When the District taxpayer pays less than his share, the Indiana taxpayer pays more than his share. The thing Congress tries to do is bal- ance the tax load, but it seems we get very little help from these businessmen’s groups. The District taxpayer should not be overloaded, nor should the Dis- trict taxpayer mooch on the Federal
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Government. We may have some diffi- culty with this balancing problem, but its complexity should not cause us to shrink from our duty. However, the duty to honestly tackle this problem rests alike on the citizens of Washington and Congress. The problem is not solved by such foolish enunciations as came from the groups I have mentioned. A gasoline tax for road improvement and maintenance of 4 cents District and 114 cents Federal is no more burdensome in Washington than that same tax in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, or the higher gasoline tax in Virginia and 10 other States. The gaso- line-tax money is used for no purpose except highway improvement, and right now is badly needed here in Washington. Do you “bellyaching” businessmen want to pay less for roads than the rest of these United States? If you do, you are going to get badly fooled and not only that, you jeopardize your whole problem of equitable tax distribution. If your reasoning is so much in error when plain comparison of numbers is involved, how do you expect Congress to give any weight to your reasoning on complicated real estate and person:! property taxes? Possibly what Corr. %s should do is hike your general tax rate, and make you carry the load and like it. No, Congress should not be unfair just because you are unfair. Congress should quickly adjust the District gasoline tax of 4 cents for District use, as the District needs the money for its highway program and nec- essary maintenance. I respectfully sug- gest to my colleagues of this Eightieth Congress that we do not permit an un- fair burden to remain on our constitu- ents in order to favor selfish groups who desire to evade their share of their just responsibility. I appeal to you to enact H. R. 2283 into law at the earliest pos- sible moment. More World Relief EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. NOAH M. MASON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 134, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. EaTon] proposes to place in President Truman’s hands $350,- 000,000 to be used by him at his discre- tion for world relief. This amount is to be dispensed in countries devastated by war, The columnist, George E. Sokolsky, has analyzed the provisions, purposes, and probable results of House Joint Res- olution 134, so well that I include his article as a part of my remarks. I am in full accord with Mr. Sokolsky’s views as expressed in his article and recom- mend the same for the attention of my colleagues in the House, [From the Washington Times-Herald of March 11, 1947] . THESE DAYS (By George E. Sokole!:; The UN proposed a bill which the State De- partment sent to Congress and which Mr. Eaton, of New Jersey, introduced into the House of Representatives as Joint Resolu- tion 134. This bill provides that during the calendar year 1947, 610,000,000, exclusive of remain- ing UNRRA shipments and other relief meas- ures, be contributed to Austria, Greece, Hun- gary, Italy, Poland, and probably China, of which amount the United States is to con- tribute 57 percent, or $350,000,000. Pust ex- perience indicates that little or nothing will be contributed by other countries. The congressional committee in charge of this bill might wisely investigate all the so-called contributions, including those to UN itself, heretofore agreed upon, to see exactly what contributions have been made by other countries. My own inexact calculations, based upon estimates not including hidden data, would lead to the conclusion that we paid in the neighborhood of 90 percent of such contribu- tions, directly or indirectly. UNRRA collected 72 percent from the United States and probably, through loans and advances, practically all the costs of its operations. This bill for €:50,000,000 is one of a series, broken up so as not to look so big, which ag- gregate $1,500,000,000 to which the United States is to commit itself. Under Secretary of State W. L. Clayton, in advocating this measure of relief, made cer- tain statements which he cannot know to be true, as for instance, that with the possible exception of Austria, “these countries will not need further relief after 1947." How does he know? Subsequent to that statement by Clayton, Great Britain offered to dump Greece into our Jap, which may yet be done, and which places upon us a new burden that may last a generation. Herbert Hoover has made separate reports on Germany and Austria which indicate al- together a different picture. Italy is on the verge of revolution, the nature of which no man can foretell. Poland requires no relicf; to her has gone 25 percent of Germany's normal food supply and »*tually Poland r“ould by the next hary { . (ood-export- ing country. Of course, is :.. ner exports go to Soviet Russia, that will not solve any European problems. Actually, the Eaton resolution does not pro- pose that out of the generosity of our hearts, we feed the needy. It proposes that the Pres- ident—which means, in this case, Dean Ache- son and Will Clayton—may transfer supplies and funds to governments, In a word, we give them money which they may use as they choose, even for political ac- tivities against us, or we supply them ma- chinery which t’-' can sell or give to other countries or which the Russians and French can take from them as reparations, which is &@ diplomatic word for robbery. There is a provision in this resolution that no relief assistance shall be given to a gov- ernment unless it assures the President that it will use the funds as stipulated, that rep- resentatives of the American press and radio wil be permitted to observe freely and to 12port fully on what goes on. The President of the United States is to be furnished full reports on request. Is this being asked today from countries which have broken every promise? What about the free and unfettered election in Poland? What about the American press and radio delegation to Moscow? What about the jailing of 100 American citizens in Poland on the basis of dual nationality? What about A987 the use of UNRRA funds for political purposes in Hungary and Yugoslavia? And finally there is no provision in this bill for repayment or for a standstill of repara- tions by countries recciving such relief. Is America to send $350,000,000 to Europe which will only be used to pay reparations? We have already contributed about 86,- 600,000,000 for civilian relief in Europe and Asia—and look what has happened! Herbert Hoover says of this: “No relief should be given where either commodities or cash are going out of that country for reparations or the purchase of arms. Such commodities or cash should be used to pay for food.” And s0 it ought to be. If this bill is recal- culated on the basis of Hoover's German re- port, not more than $200,000,000 is needed for the current fiscal year. Adequate Military Preparedness EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. C. JASPER BELL OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to revise and extend my remarks in the ReEcorpD, I include a letter which I have received from Mrs. Ruth Hundley, a Gold Star Mother, and a resident in my con- gressional district. Mrs. Hundley, repre- senting the American home, emphasizes so clearly the need for maintaining ade- quate defense to prevent future global conflicts that I wish others to know of her deep feelings on this important sub- ject. Her letter follows: Kanaas City, Mo., February 24, 1947. The Honorable C. JASPER BELL, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear JUDGE BELL: I have recently returned from an epochal flight to Ipswich, Australia, where I visited the grave of our only son, Lt. Wyatt Hundley, a bombardier who was killed in action in January 1943. I will always be grateful to my good husband for having en- couraged me to make this pilgrimage to this far-distant land for now many of the queries that have continually risen in my mind have been satisfactorily answered and the queries have been replaced with some high resolves, I shall never forget my first visit to my son’s grave—there, kissed by the warm sun of Ipswich, lay a valley studded with more than 1,400 white crosses, and I invite you to walk down an avenue of crosses with me ‘til I reach the one that bears my son's name— there it is, Lt. Wyatt Hundley, 0726171. He was the youngest officer in the United States Army when he was commissioned in June 1942; he was only 4 days pust 19 that day he died, a clean, brilliant. lovable, Christian lad who made this home a heaven on earth. His father and I had taught him that freedom and those high principles upon which Amer- ica was founded, were worth any price. He has paid a dear price to win this war, along with nearly 400,000 of our worthy youth. Are you still standing beside me, Mr. Congress- man, at grave No. 1208 in Ipswich? I covered every inch of his grave that day, Judge BELL, with my two hands and I promised him there on my knees that whatever I could do to save still another generation from war, I would do, It is because of that promise that
A988 day that I write you, Mr. Betz, my Con- gressman, to continue your good record fav- oring adequate military preparedness; I have no voice in the shaping of my country’s des- tiny, save through our duly-elected Con- gressmen. Even as 1 write this, men are meeting to determine what America shall do about the islands that may mean so much in the preser- vation of the peace that has been bought with the lives of 80 many of our youth and I urge that you do your full share and more to see that America does not relinquish these strategic island air bases. I urge you, t0o, to insist that the budget be enlarged if need be so that military preparedness will not be cur- tailed in any branch and I should further like to lay u burden upon your heart to assist wherever it is possible to remove from high places of authority in Washington, those men whose Americanism is questionable. There is a movement on foot among the clergy, par- ticularly among Methodism, my own church, to lessen our preparedness program, par- ticulurly as regards the atomic energy re- search and I beg you tn the name of one who has loved an only child only a little less than she has loved her country, to oppose any action in Washington that will make Amer- ica less strong than she ought to be. May God forgive any lawmaker in Washing- ton who does less than his very best to keep America great and fine and noble. Surely that is not too much to ask when we who have lost sons tremble lest they have died in vain. America is a great Nation; please help to keep her great and noble and pur- poseful for my son’s sake. Sincerely yours, Mrs. RutH (R. A.) HUNDLEY. Controls of Sugar EXTENSION: OF REMARKS Or HON. CHESTER E. MERROW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. MERROW. Mr. Speaker, under Jeave to extend my remarks, I am in- cluding a letter from Mr. H. W. Fiene- mann, assistant manager of the New England Milk Producers’ Association, Boston, Mass., also a bill which I intro- duced on January 14, 1947, to terminate the controls on sugar. Mr. Fienemann's letter gives information on a very critical milk situation in New England. The New England Milk Producers’ As- sociation appealed to the sugar rationing department of OPA for 978,250 pounds of sugar to conserve 7,525,000 pounds of skim milk for the period extending to July 31 of this year. The association has been allotted 86,643 pounds. Unless OPA changes its decision, a large quan- tity of milk will go to waste. In my opinion, there should be enough sugar granted to the New England Milk Pro- ducers’ Association to preserve the ex- cess of skim milk. I believe the Congress should end all sugar controls immedi- ately. As far as I am concerned, we could terminate what is left of the OPA without further ceremony. Were this done, organizations such as the New England Milk Producers’ Association would be able to obtain an adequate supply of sugar. Nzw ENGLAND MILK Propucers’ ASSOCIATION, February 26, 1947. Hon. Cuesrer E. Merrow, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN MERROW: We wish to submit the following problem to you for your consideration and assistance: The New England Milk Producers’ Associa- tion is a dairy cooperative which markets the milk of some 9,000 dairy farmers in New England. We installed a 825,000 milk con- densing pan at our milk plant in Andover, Mass., which began its initial operation on April 27, 1946. This condensing pan was in- stalled by us to prevent waste of the milk solids in the milk produced by our members in excess of that which the Southern New Engand markets can use for fluid consump- tion. The operation of this condensing pan requires that there be sugar available to make the sweetened condensed which is stored in barrels during April, May, June, und July, and then used the following sum- mer and fall when milk production drops substantially. It was not required of us to put too much milk through this condensing pan in 1946. This year there is a substantial increase in the amount of excess milk. We have appealed to the Sugar Rationing De- partment of OPA for sufficient sugar, 1. e. 978.250 pounds to conserve 7,625,000 pounds of skim milk for the period between now and July 31 of this year. We have been given a total allocation for the calendar year 1947 of but 86,643 pounds of sugar, less than 10 percent of what we will require during the next 5 months. OPA granted us sugar last spring and summer on the basis of a pro- visional allowance. This year they state that we must be on the historical allowance basis. This seems to be based on an administrative decision within that department. We are informed that candy as such has been on the free list for several months to export out of the country. It seems most unreasoneble to us that enough sugar can- not be allocated to a group of dairy farmers in southern New Hampshire, southern Maine, and Massachusetts to keep from wasting such a valuable product as milk solids when all it requires is the granting of sufficient sugar. There are no other facilities available in southern New Engtand, except as provided by us, to take care of surplus milk solids this spring. Our organization is the only one which has assumed responsibility for market- ing this excess milk and manufacturing it, thereby preventing a loss during the next 6 months of approximately $65,000 to dairy farmers in the above-named States. For your information we are enclosing copies of letters previously sent to OPA which go into much greater detail on this problem. We trust that you can assist us in prevailing on OPA to grant us sufficient sugar to meet this problem which is immediately in front of us. Yours very truly, New ENGLAND MILK PRODUCERS’ H. R. 979 A bill to terminate price controls and ration- ing in the case of sugar, to terminate Gov- ernment sugar operations, to authorize the placing of limitations on the exportation of sugar, and for other purposes Be tt enacted, ete— DEFINITIONS Sxcrion 1. As used in this act— (1) the term “Commission” means the Federal Sugar Commission established by this act; APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (2) the term “Government agency” means any department, independent establishment, corporation wholly or partly owned by the United States which is an instrumentality of the United States, in the executive branch of the Government; (3) the term “sugar” means (a) any sugars which are principally of crystalline struoture and which are to be further refined or im- proved in quality, and any sugars which are principally not of crystalline structure but which are to be further refined or otherwise improved in quality to produce any sugars principally of crystalline structure, and (b) any sugars which are principally of crystalline structure and which are not to be further re- fined or otherwise improved in quality; (4) the term “United States,” when used in a geographical sense, means the States. the District of Columbia, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, and Puerto Rico; and (5) the term “person” means an individ- ual, partnership, assoctation, corporation, business trust, legal represcntative, or any organized group of persons. TERMINATION OF PRICE CONTROLS AND RATIONING IN CASE OF SUGAR Stc. 2. (a) After the date of the enactment of this act the authority granted by section 2 (a) of the act of June 28, 1940, entitled “An act to expedite national defense, and for other purposes,” as amended, may not be exercised for the purpose of allocating or rationing sugar. At 12 o’clock postmeridian on the date of the enactment of this act all regulations or orders under such section 2 (a), insofar as they provide for or relate to the allocation or rationing of sugar, shall cease to be in effect. (b) After the date of the enactment of this act the authority granted by the Emer- gency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, or by the Stabilization Act of 1942, as amend- ed, may not be exercised for the purpose of establishing or maintaining any maximum price in the case of sugar. At 12 o'clock postmeridian on the date of the enactment of this act all regulations, orders, price sched- ules, or requirements under either of such acts, insofar as they provide for or relate to the establishment or maintenance of any maximum price in the case of sugar, shall cease to be in effect. LIMITATION ON GOVERNMENT PURCHASES OF BUGAR Sec. 8. Hereafter no Government agency shall purchase any sugar for resale; except that this section shall not prohibit the carry- ing out of any purchase agreement lawfully entered into prior to the date of the enact- ment of this act. ALLOCATION AND DISPOSITION OF GOVERNMENT- OWNED SUGAR Src. 4. (a) The Commission shall allocate on a fair and equitable basis, for sale within the United States, all sugar purchased by Government agencies for resale, whether heretofore or hereafter coming tnto the pos- session or under the control of such agencies, which is not needed for purposes of fulfilling contracts of sale entered into prior to the date of enactment of this act. (b) No sugar which the Commission is di- rected by subsection (a) to allocate shall be sold or disposed of otherwise than in accord- ance with allocations made by the Com- mission pursuant to such subsection (b). LIMITATIONS ON EXPORTS Sec. 5. (a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress that exportations of sugar from the United States should be curtailed to such extent as may be necessary in order that domestic needs for sugar may be satis- fied at the earliest practicable time. (b) The Commission shal] issue such or- der or orders, prohibiting or curtailing the exportation of sugar from the United States, as in its Judgment may be necessary to carry out the policy declared in subsection (a).
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (c) Any person who violates any order of the Commission issued under subsection (b) shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a@ fine of not more than 610,000, or by im- prisonment for not more than 1 year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. FEDERAL SUGAR COMMISSION Src. 6. (a) There is hereby established an agency to be known as the Federal Sugar Commission, to be composed of seven mem- bers who shall be appointed by the President. One of the members so appointed shall be representative of wholesalers of sugar, one shall be representative of retailers of sugar, one shall be representative of refiners of sugar, and one shall be representative of producers of sugar. The President shall designate a member to act as chairman of the Commis- sion, and the Commission may elect another of its members as vice chairman who shall act as chairman in the case of absence or incapacity of the chairman. A majority of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. A vacancy in the Commission shall not affect the powers of the remaining members to execute the functions of the Commission, and shall be filled in the same manner as the original selection. Members of the Commis- sion shall not receive compensation for their services as such members, but shall be re- imbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the exercise of the functions vested in the Com- mission. (b) The Commission is authorized to em- ploy such personnel as may be necessary for the carrying out of its functions. (c) The Commission, in the performance of its functions, is authorized to utilize the services, information, facilities, and person- nel of any other Government agency to the extent that such services, information, facill- ties, and personnel, in the opinion of the head of such Government agency, can be furnished without undue interference with the performance of the work and duties of such Government agency. School-Lunch Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. AIME J. FORAND OF RHODE ISLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. FORAND. Mr. Speaker, the threatened abandonment of the school- lunch program has not only disturbed the peace of mind of the parents of school children all over the country, but it has also awakened those citizens who give serious thought to the welfare of our future citizens and is bringing from them urgent pleas that the Congress not scrap what, at the time of its enactment in the last Congress, was supposed to be a long- range school-lunch program. Under leave already granted me, I include a letter received from the pub- lisher of the Woonsocket Call, of Woon- socket, R. I., together with an editorial which appeared in the Call on March 8, 1947: THE WOONSOCKET CALL, Woonsocket, R. 1., March 10, 1947. Hon. Arms J. Foranp, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear REPRESENTATIVE Foranp: We who have seen the workings out of the school-lunch program know that it has been well worth while. While we are convinced of the neces- sity of lessening Government expenditures, it seems to me that appropriations may be tightened up here and there to achieve the same financial results as would be obtained if the school-lunch program were entirely cut out. It was only last year that the Congress approved what was to be a long-term pro- gram along these lines. Now we learn the school-lunch program is likely to be a cas- ualty, and it seems a shame. I think I speak for most of Woonsocket when I urge that the school-lunch appropri- ation be given your careful attention. I know that it will be impossible to con- tinue it here with city funds. You may be interested in an editorial ap- pearing in Saturday’s Woonsocket Call on this subject. Yours very truly, Bue.t W. Hupson, Publisher, the Woonsocket Call. [From the Woonsocket (R. I.) Call of March 8, 1947] SAVE THE SCHOOL LUNCH The announcement that an economy- minded Congress, in its drive to cut Govern- ment expenses to the bone, contemplates abandoning the school-lunch program ap- propriation is a serious blow to progress made in the last few years in improving the health of the Nation's children. This city, one of the pioneers in the hot lunch and milk program has come to realize the value of the plan, and since it has been 80 well established here, Woonsocket will feel the loss more than many other cities. With the appropriation of Federal funds, the old-style school lunch, consisting of dry sandwiches from a lunch box, passed into the realm of the past, and the youngsters were probably the first to appreciate the change. The general health of school pupils showed improvement, health authorities were pleased, and parents were not long in noting the advantages of paying a few cents a week for prepared, hot meals in pr’ ference to pre- paring lunches each school day. Now the whole program is endangered less than a year after it became a law. Congress, committed to economy in the interest of paying off our war debts, is aiming the ax indiscriminately, and the lunch appropria- tion is among those slated for annihilation if Congress has its way. There should be other places for savings with less harm. It is common knowledge that there are top-heavy bureaus in many branches of the Federal Government, and agencies still existing that outlived their usefulness with the end of the war. There are also appropriations under consideration that will be beneficial to groups in limited areas, but nowhere could the cut of funds adversely affect so many of the younger generation as in the school-lunch fund. This city has come to regard the school lunch program as its own. The mayor of Woonsocket and Chicago school officials were leaders in the battle that culminated in the approval of the program by the Federal Gov- ernment, and those same officials may again have to carry the torch to hold what has been gained. As citizens, we can make our wishes known to our representatives in Congress. Organ- izations might well endorse continuance of the program. The proposal that the States supply funds cannot be considered in Rhode Island, where financial affairs have already created a seri- ous problem. A suggestion that the school districts raise enough money to carry on is also bound to be opposed by taxpayers, already overbur- dened. A proposal to raise the prices of the lunches would defeat the purpose of the en- tire program which was designed to supply nutritional meals at a reasonable cost so all might participate. The only solution is to let the legislators know, in no uncertain terms, that we favor the continuation of the lunch program, even A989 if it means cutting down on apprepriations for special pleaders. The lunch program on @ Nation-wide basis has popular approval. Mustering-Out Pay EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KENNETH B. KEATING OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, an in- justice to enlisted men who were honor- ably discharged from the service of their country prior to February 3, 1944, has come to my attention, which I feel re- quires legislative correction. On that date the so-called Mustering- Out Payment Act of 1944 became a law, in which it was provided that anyone who had already been discharged and was entitled to mustering-out pay must mak2 his application therefor within 2 years, or be forever barred. Many enlisted men who were dis- charged after that date, were fully in- formed of their rights and advised of the pay which they had coming. I find, however, that many who had already been discharged before that date and were equally entitled to this pay, never learned of their rights until it was too late to take advantage of them. One such was a constituent of mine who reported for active duty on October 15, 1942, was shipped overseas on De- cember 27, 1942, arrived back in this country on September 10, 1943, and was honorably discharged on Octover 11, 1943. He did not learn, however, that he had mustering-out pay coming to him until June 1946, when he promptly filed his application for it. This was returned to him with the statement that he was yoo late to obtain the advantages of this aw. I am informed that there are many others situated similarily among the en- listed men who have honorably served their country. The bill which I have today introduced would extend the time within which they might make this application for 5 years instead of 2, or until February 3, 1949. It seems only fair to give these men a chance to be paid what Congress has already said they are entitled to receive, Togas for Ex-Presidents EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GORDON CANFIELD OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, in re- cent weeks I have presented editorials from the New York Times, from the Chi- cago Tribune, and the New York Daily News in support of my bill (H. R. 504) to make ex-Presidents Senators at Large. I am pleased at this time to offer
A990 anothés editorial commending this meas- ure, from the Buffalo (N. Y.) Evening News of February 28: TOGAS FOR EX-PRESIDENTS The Pres.dent of the United States is one person who, it is generally conceded, should be able to concentrate his whole energy on the task at hand without concern for his per- sonal or political future. This is one of sev- eral good erguments for limiting Presidential tenure, and it might also be an argument for the liberal pensioning of ex-Presidents. But there is a much better way, fortunately, in which the country can free its Presidents from personal financial concern while at the same time availing itself of their counse] and experience when they retire into the role of elder statesmen. This is the proposal contained in a bill by Representative CaNriELD, Republican, of New Jersey, to make every retiring President eligible to be a Senator at Large for life. He would have all the senatorial privileges, pay, and perquisites, but would have no vote, for this presumably would necessitate a consti- tutional amendment. The bill would give ex-Presidenis a forum to air their views and @ status betitting their dignity. It is a worthy companion meusure for the constitutional amendment restricting White House tenure to two 4-ycar terms, Quota System on Wool Imports EXTENSION OF REMARKS or KON. CHRISTIAN A. HERTER OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thurscay, March 13, 1947 Mr. HERTER Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following statement of Clinton M. Hester before the Com- mittce on Agriculture: Mr Chairman and members of the House Coinmittee on Agriculture and Forestry, my name is Clinton M. Hester. I am an attor- ney, located in the Shoreham Building at Fiftecnth and H Streets NW., this city. I am also a farmer and a wool grower in Vir- ginia. In my capacity as an attorney I am Washington counsel for the National Wool Trade Association and the Boston Wool Trade Association, and have been counsel for these associations for the past 244 years. On my right today sits Mr. Herbert K. Webb, of the Philadelphia Wool Textile As- sociation. Mr. Webb and his predecessors have been for many ycars engaged in the business of buying and selling and manu- facturing wool. On my left is Mr. Kenneth W. Marriner, who is a top maker and also a manufacturer. You may recall that during the war Mr. Marriner was Director of the Textile Bureau of the War Production Board. The National Wool Trade Associution is a trade association, national in scope, and com- prises among its membership wool mer- chants located throughout the United States. The Boston Wool Trade Association is a local trade association and comprises among its membership wool merchants who. with some pxceptions, are located either in Boston or nearby. The wool merchants not only serve the wool growers but also serve the woolen manufacturing industry, which is the seventh largest industry in the United States. In 1943 the Federal Government national- ized the wool business. In that year the Department of Agriculture, under the broad charter powers of the Commodity Credit Cor- poration, transferred the wool business to Washington and inaugurated a program of buying and selling the domestic wool clip. Last week the Senate Committee on Agri- culture held hearings on Senate bill 3650, which would continue the Commodity Credit Corporation until June 30 1949. As you know, the Commodity Credit Corporation expires on June 80, 1947, under the statute which authorized its creation and extension and by virtue of its Delaware charter. Un- der the recent Byrd-Butler Act, it cannot be continued beyond June 30, 1948, without a Federal charter. You will recall the Secre- tary of Agriculture has announced that he will not continue after April 15, 1947, the program initiated by the Department of Agriculture in 1943 of buying and sclling the domestic wool clip unless the Congress of the United States gives the Secretary of Agriculture express authority to continue the program, During the hearings held last week by the Senate Agriculture Committee on S. 350, rep- resentatives of the wool growers and the wool trude appeared before the committee and presented their recommendations with re- Bpect to prospective legislation. The wool growers testified they want comparable price instead of parity for wool and they want wool included in the Steugall amendment. In addition, they want the Government to continue in the business of buying and selling the domestic wool clip even after the expiration of the Steugall amendment until such time as the Congress Muy provide a quota system limit- ing imports of foreign woul or other ade- quate protection to the wool grower. The wool growers also want the Congress to au- thorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell domestic wool at competitive priccs. The wool trade belicves that the wool grower should be protected by the Govern- ment against conditions such as arose in 1931, when the price per pound of wool dropped to 13.6 cents, and in 1932, when it went to 8.6 cents, and that the wool grower should be protected aguinst future fluctua- tion of wool prices. The wool trade also is of the opinion that the Secretary of Agri- culture should be authorized to sell surplus domestic wool at less than parity. How- evcr, the wool trade is opposed to com- puable price instead of parity for wool. The wool trade is ulso opposed to the inclu- sion of wool in the Steagall amendment, and is strenuously opposed to continuing the Government in the business of buying and selling the domestic wool clip. The wool trade also believes there is no necessity for the establishment of a quota system on im- ports of fo'eign wool. The wool trade is of the opinion that if the Secretary of Agriculture should be author- ized to make loans or purchases at not in excess of 90 percent of parity until Decem- ber 31, 1948, this would be adequate pro- tection to the wool grower and the wool trade recommends such legislation to this committee; also that the committee recom- mend to Congress that the Secretary of Agri. culture be authorized to sell Comestic wool at competitive prices. The wool trade believes that the business of marketing wool is such a complex subject that the Government cannot properly mar- ket the domestic wool clip and the record of the Department of Agriculture since the inauguration of this program in 1943 con- firms this conclusion. Under Secretary of Agriculture Dodd in his appearance before the Senate Agriculture Committee last week on 8. 350 produced charts which refiected that whereas approx- imately 2 percent of the activities of the Commodity Credit Corporation involve wool, approximately 50 percent of its inventory of all farm commodities consists of wool, With requirements for wool by our domestic man- ufacturers of 1,000,000,000 pounds annually, the Department of Agriculture could have sold its surplus domestic wool in 1945 and 1946 if it had priced the wool properly. Not APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD until October of 1946 did parity reach a point at which domestic wool could not be sold at competitive prices. The wool trade is opposed to “comparable price” instead of “parity” for wool. If com- parable price had prevailed during the peace- time years from 1921 to .1940, betwecn the two great world wars, the Government would have purchased and sold the domestic wool clip ir 13 of the 20 years. (Sze exhibit A.) If, on the other hand, parity had been in effect the Government would have purchased the domestic wool clip in only 6 of the 20 years. (See exhibit B.) Three of these 6 years were the worst years of the depression and the other 3 years were periods when prices of wool took substantial declines. The wool trade naturally desires to stay in the business in which it has been engaged for over 100 years, but if past figures are any guge and “comparable price" should be adopted it would mean the end of the wool trade. Further, comparable price has been accorded by the Department of Agriculture only to three Steagall commodities, dry fleld peas, peanuts for oi] and soy beans for oil. The basic commodities such as whcat, corn, cotton, rice, and peanuts for nuis under the Agricultural Adjustment Act are not ace corded comparable price. It is true that under the Steagall amend- ment the commodities included in that amendment such as hogs, turkeys, chickens, butterfats, dairy products, peanuts for oil, soybeans for oil, etc., are in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture accorded not less than 90 percent of parity or comparable price. However, as just pointed out, the Secretary of Agriculture has accorded comparable price only to dry field peas, peanuts for oll, and soybeans for oil. Furthermore the Steagall amendment is a war measure enacted for the purpose of encouraging production of scarce farm commodities for war purposes and ex- ptres on December 81, 1948. Under the amendment the President could have de- clared hostilities at an end on December 31, 1945, and had he done s0, the Stevgall amcndment would have expired on Decem- ber 31, 1917. As an incentive to pruduc- tion for war purposes the Congress provided in the Stegall amendment that the Eec- retary of Agriculture showd be permitted to make loans at not less than 90 percent of parity or comparable price. Obviously the principles embodied in this wartime stutute should not now be extended to peacetime farming operations. The wool trade belicves there is no neces- sity for the establishment of a system of quotas on imports. In fact, the wool trade is very dcfinitely of the opinion that such 4 system as applied to wool would be impos- sible of administration. Further, if such a system should be established and the price of domestic wool be maintained at too high a level, it would obviously result in an increased use of synthetic fibers. Likewise, if foreign wool should be prohibited entry to the United States under a quota system, it might well be diverted to other countries, as pointed out by Representative Grancer on Tuesday, and then might come into this country in the form of woolen fabrics in competition with those manufactured by our domestic manu- facturers. Furthermore the establishment of such a system could very easily result in dis- crimination by the United States as between foreign countries. In addition the creation of quotas on imported wool is nothing short of a Government monopoly in the purchasing and distribution of this important raw mate- rial which is the lifeblood of one of the largest industries in this country. Wool grows on sheep and there is no scien- tifle way of separating its cost from that of the whole sheep operation. The sheep pro- ducers curiously are not basing their demand for Government financial assistance on their main product, meat (which is 80 percent by weight and 66 percent by value), but are basing their entire case upon their byproduct
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There have been studies made by the United States Tariff Commission of so-called sample producers to learn the cost of pro- duction of wool and these have been widely advertised by representatives of the wool growers as proving that wool is facing dis- aster, but none of these studies is more than gGuesswork. They charge to wool the per- centage of cost that wool brings as income, thus confusing costs with prices received; they assume a 6 percent return on invest- ment as an item of cost; they use an income figure of 45 percent instead of 35 percent. They are definitely not representative of true costs throughout the United States of Ameri- ca. The Tariff Commission has only within the past few days completed and published @ further study indicating that the wool grower is losing money and this study will likewise be widely publicized by the wool Brower. However, these studies again are little more than guesswork, since they are based on data secured from records of loans made to wool growers, On page 6 of the report just issued by the Tariff Commission, dated February 1947, you will note that for the year 1946 the data was secured from only 933 farmers. This ts in striking contrast to the fact that there are upwards of 584,000 farmers who grow wool in the United States. Further, all of the 933 farmers had mortgages on their sheep flocks, On the same page you will note that the total income from wool, sheep and lamb for 1946 was $7.68. You will also observe that the woo) sold for 0.423 cents per pound, with an average weight of each fleece at 8.3 pounds, making the yield for the wool $3.51. Here it is interesting to note that until) last year the wool grower received 130 percent of parity for his wool and today is receiving in excess of parity for his wool. Subtracting the 3.51 from the $7.68 leaves $4.17 which the wool grower received for each sheep or lamb sold. This is amazing when one con- siders that 1946 was one of the highest years on record for lambs, parity being $12.50 and the average price being well in excess of $20 per 100-pound lamb. Even yesterday lambs were selling as high as 625.50 per 100 pounds. On page 7 you will also observe that the 933 wool growers covered in this report matured only 79 lambs out of every 100 ewes. This is not a good record. So it is obvious that these studies are based on the records of only & few wool growers and particularly the more inefficient ones, and the studies do not con- tain data on the cost of raising wool obtained from growers who have no mortgages. In the above connection it is noteworthy that whereas a few years ago most wool grow- ers had mortgages on their sheep flocks, to- day few wool growers have mortgages on their sheep. Personally, I have never been able to recon- cile my own experience as a wool grower with the contention of the wool grower that he must have the assistance from the Treasury and the taxpayers of this country that is pro- posed in the bills now before you. I own several farms in Virginia on which I raise wheat, corn, oats, hay, white-faced Here- ford beef cattle, sheep, and hogs. About 80 percent of the farmers in the United States who raise sheep have flocks of less than 100 and raise sheep as an incident to all of their other farming operations. I belong in this class, which raises about 50 percent of the wool produced in the United States. I have paid from §8 to $12 for ewes. For the wool from the ewe I receive on an average of about $2.50 per ewe. On the average a ewe produces one lamb. This past year my lambs brought me 621.50 and I did not sell them when the market was anywhere near its highest point. Tam sure that you will agree that this is an unusually good return on the investment. The woo] growers repeatedly point out that sheep numbers in recent years have decreased by approximately 25 percent. This is due, they say, to the fact that the sheep business is no longer a profitable business because of increased costs, particularly labor, and be- cause of the competition of foreign wool. However, woo] is only a byproduct of the animal. It represents only a percentage of the total income from the animal as reflected in my own personal experience just related, In recent years lamb prices have been high and in addition the Government has paid a subsidy to the processor of lambs which was passed along to the wool grower. This has caused the wool grower to sell his ewe lambs rather than to retain them to replenish or add to his flocks, as well as his ewes no longer suitable for lambing purposes, and thus this accounts largely for the recent decline in sheep numbers. In support of their request that the Con- gress enact legislation authorizing the Sec- retary of Agriculture to continue to purchase and sell the domestic wool clip, the repre- sentative of the National Wool Marketing Co- operative Association contended at the hear- ings held by the Senate Agricultural Com- mittee last week on 8. 350 that his associla- tion, which represents 22 State associations and 73,000 individual wool] growers, was mak- ing satisfactory profits as an agent of the Commodity Credit Corporation in the sale of its domestic wool; also that individual wool merchants who had accepted agency agree- ments with the Commodity Credit Corpora- tion were likewise making profits. In this connection, I would like to point out that none of these cooperative corpora- tions pays any Federal income taxes, as do the wool merchants. It is true that when these corporations return their profits to their members the latter in turn pay indl- vidual income taxes, but these taxes are nothing as compared to the income taxes which these corporations would have to pay to the Federal Government if they were not exempt from taxation. If they were not ex- empt from Federal taxation, they would be in here today with us urging you to require the Government to get out of the business of buying and selling the domestic-wool clip. As for the individual wool merchant who today is acting as an agent of the Commodity Credit Corporation in the sale of its sur- plus domestic wool, it suffices to say that few of them are making money. Of those who took on this assignment, most of them did it as a patriotic gesture, and also in order to retain intact their organizations until such time as the Government returned the wool business to private industry and free enterprise. Many of those who did this have just about broken even on their CCC opera- tions. If the Government is to continue in the postwar period the business of buying and selling the domestic-wool clip, it stands to reason that the wool-trade industry will be able to contribute little to the reduction of our enormous national debt. The wool growefs also contend that there is a British wool monopoly which protects all British wool and therefore our Govern- ment should continue in the wool business in order to protect our domestic industry. There 1s no such British monopoly. What the wool growers insist upon labeling as a foreign monopoly is the J. O. or Joint Or- ganization, composed of the wool-growing colonies within the British Empire, and es- tablished on July 1, 1946. The J. O. suc- ceeded the British Wool Control Commission which during the war purchased and sold all Empire wools. The J. O. is a price sup- port program and not a monopoly and has the primary function of liquidating the war surpluses of wool without damaging the prices of the current clips and is actually @ very constructive influence on United States raw wool prices. It has no authority over current world prices, which are estab- lished by free competitive bidding at auc- tions in the colonies and in London. The J. O. does not purchase the current clips, Free enterprise and competitive bidding pre- A991 vails in the sale of the current clips at these auctions. By including some of its wartime surplus wool in the auctions, the J. O. is gradually reducing the threatening world surplus and it plans upon taking from 5 to 10 years to accomplish this task in orderly fashion. The J. O. also provides a floor around ap- proximately 55 cents clean abroad or 33 cents greasy U. S. A. domestic equivalent by having announced its intention of bidding in any new wools at the auctions should prices fall to around that level, the present level at these foreign auctions being sround approximately 80 cents or 48 cents greasy U.8. A. equivalent. In other words, the J. O. provides a support floor for wool growers which when translated into our parity repre- sents about 68 percent of our parity. The J. O. reserves the right to adjust its bidding limits to world conditions of supply and demand, but is in existence for the pur- pose of supporting world price levels of wool rather than permitting them to be de- stroyed by disorderly and hasty Hquidation of Empire wool surpluses. Incidentally, big wool producing nations such as Argentina and Uraguay are not included in this plan. At the hearings held by the Senate Agri- cultural Committee last week on 8. 350, Under Secretary of Agriculture Dodd stated very frankly that everyone in the Department of Agriculture, including those immediately in charge of the wool program are very anxi- ous for the Government to get out of the business of buying and selling the domestic wool clip, The wool trade believes that if the Con- gress will authorize loans or purchases for wool at not in excess of 90 percent of parity as presently computed this will afford ade- quate protection to the wool grower. Fur- ther, if the demand for wool continues as is expected the wool trade feels quite confident that it can purchase the wool growers wool at or above 90 percent of parity and yet mar- ket it at a profit, and in this way eliminate the Government entirely from the domestic wool business. The wool merchants have for over a hundred years been rendering in- valuable service to the wool grower. For ex- ample, during the peacetime years between 1921 and 1940, the period between the two great world wars, the wool merchants ob- tained for the wool grower a price for his wool of 96 percent of parity, wheneas during that same period all other farm commadities averaged 80 percent of parity. (See exhibit C attached.) At this point I should like to ask leave to insert in the record a chart entitled “Domestic Wool versus Foreign Wool” showing the consumption of domestic wool as against foreign wool during the period of 1921-1940. (See exhibit D.) From this chart you will note that normally not only was the entire domestic production sold and consumed, but that foreign wool was not imported, except in insufficient quanti- ties to make up the deficit. Under free en- terprise the private wool merchants did not turn to foreign wools until after the domestic wool clips had been disposed of. Another interesting factor for your con- sideration is that in periods of high prices domestic wool production decreases, whereas in periods of low prices wool production in- creases. Production actually declined de- spite high Government prices during the war. Of course, wool production is integral with sheep production and as such is sub- jected primarily to the economic influences of the livestock and other markets. Higher production of wool cannot be assured by in- creasing wool prices. We understand that the Comptroller Gen- eral of the United States has about com- pleted a report to Congress required by the Byrd-Butler Act on the activities of Govern- ment corporations and that this report covers the activities of the Commodity Credit Cor- portation and particularly its wool-purchase program. We recommend respectfully to this
A992 committee that it defer any final action in this matter until it has had an opportunity to receive and review the report of the Comp- troller General. Representative Heater is today introducing 8 bill embodying the proposals of the wool trade, copies of which have been distributed to you. We respectfully request that the proposals contained in this bill may have your serious consideration. I thank you. Exxuisrr A Government support at 90 percent of comparable Percent: Wool Com- price (ner} parable °F" actual pound) prico parable Cents Cents 17.3 37.6 40.0 27.1 37.4 72.6 0.4 38.1 108, 5 36.6 88, 1 2 39.8 38h 102.5 34.0 ak3 8.8 20.3 37.8 8.2 46,2 38.3 4.6 80.2 38.1 79.33 19.6 36.5 63.8 13,6 32.4 42.0 8.6 23.3 30.2 20.6 2.4 7h. 2 21.9 2.4 74.6 19,3 29.6 65,2 26.0 29,2 92,2 32.0 30.6 104. 1.1 2.0 65,8 22.38 28.5 73 28.3 %.7 98, 63 # Average fer year. 33.6 Government takes title. Notk.—li domestic wool prices had teen supported during the 20-year period 1921 to 1940 at 90 percent of comparable, the Government would have taken title 13 years out of the 20. Figures from Bureat of Agricultura) Economics, Exuisit B Government support at 90 percent of parity . Wool! | Percent- a parity jage actual ( her price to vari Pound) sa oe Cents 17.3 30.2 57.3 27.1 30.0 90.4 39,4 30. 6 124.9 46. 6 . 0 119.8 39.5 00,9 127.9 34.0 30.7 110.9 90.3 380.4 09.7 36, 2 30.7 117.9 30. 2 30. 6 98.7 19.5 2.3 66.6 13.6 26.0 62.3 &6 22.7 37.9 20.6 22.0 3,7 21.9 23.6 92.8 19.3 23.8 81.1 26.9 23.4 115.1 32.0 a5 130. 8 11 23.2 82.4 2.8 22.9 97.3 28.3 B.1 122.5 Average per ycar. 26.1 27.0 96.2 1 Government takes title. Nort.—If domestic wool prices had been supported during the 20-year period 1921 to 1940 at 90 percent of parity, jhe Government would have taken title G years out of the 20. Figures from Bureau of Agricultural Economics, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ExHrs!T O PRICE HISTORY IN TERMS OF PARITY Question. Did producers of domestic wool receive fair prices, in terms of parity, during Parity, com- versus the period when the competitive free-enter- index modities hasia prise merchants operated the business? Answer. Yes; in terms of parity for wool, and also in terms of parity for basic com- modities. As shown below, producers re- ceived 96 percent of parity for wool, in con- trast to 77 percent received by producers of the basic commodities. (Basic: Cotton, corn, wheat, tobacco, rice, peanuts.) Prices reecived) Prices Frost Parit for basic’ received ofwouk srenere arity; com- lor woo! ——____.. index |modities’ (in terms ‘vaso. Nore.—During this period, the average prices obtained In terms; — of com- by producers of all agricultural commodities were about of | parity) |modities 80. percent of parity, in contrast to 77 percent for the parity) "6 basle commodities and 96 percent for woo! as shown above. Exnimrr D 08. 57.3 4.1 DOMESTIC WOOL VERSUS FOREIGN WOOL me ra ee Question, Did domestic wool receive prior- 046] 119.8 126.5 ity in consumption when the competitive free 05.4) 127.9 1%4.2 enterprise merchants (prewar) operated the 81.4) 1109) 136.3 wool business? m8 ns 10 Answer. Yes; observe figures below which "8.6 08.7 125.6 show that the amount of forelgn wool im- 67.6 (6.6 o.@ ported was only the minimum quantity 52.4 52.3 99.8 needed each year by our mills, Over the pe- 23) 37-0| 87 riod, practically all the domestic wool pro- 1.3 92.8 118.6 duced was currently consumed. Consumption from stocks on hand or unaccounted for, groasy basis United States con- sumption greasy basis Foreign iniports. kreasy basis Domestic produc tio greasy baris Pereent | M pounds Percent | M pounds} Percent | M pounds | Percent M pounds 507, 400 100 | 818, 53% ml] 217,233 31 61, 031 16 640 400 100 | 200, 617 46 | 189, 486 30} 154, 207 ” 603, 10 100} 290; 230 60} 243 270 40 60, 600 10 518, OW 100! 309, 380 co} 105,191 w{ 103,420 2» 525, 200 1329, 253 63} — 180, 405 34 15, 642 3 524, 100 100 | 349, 8 a7| 172,20 xB 2,019 4 551, 100 100 | 370, 817 67| 112,042 68, 241 B B11, 800 you | 399, 157 78 89, 463 7 23, 280 5 75 , 228 18 36, 114 7 71,175 1 ne 43, 560 g 17, 070 3 16, 485 4}. rn eee 61, 654 9 42,048 7 18, 480 i eeeenenen ne wee ee R00 5 | 211,963 » 118, BRO 19 35, 805 6 3. 171, 263 Fs ec Soir 508, EG 10) | 470,040 92 25, 407 5 13, 130 3 676, 535 100 | 475, 436 70} 113, 574 17 87, 525 13 688, 869 100 | 482, 663 70| 933,256 Ey i one 11, 153, 340 100 | 8,274,372 74| 2,310,747 21] 6H, 230 b Average por year.| 657, 607 100 | 413, 718 74 | "115, 637 au 28, 412 Note that normally not only was the entire domestic production sold and consumed, but thet forcign woo! was not imported except in insufficient quantities to make up the deficit. Under free enterprise, private merchants did not turn to forcign wools until after the domestic clips were disposed of, PREWAR FIGURES VERSUS 1946 a a a ee nN I ce Domestic stocks on hand Jan. 1, 1935-40! 281, 284 586, 260 418, 718 404, 611 857,067 | 1, 130,000 15, 587 956, 300 wee eecencncensccenenen= 40, 710 349, 740 1 Figures not segregated prior to 1935. Note that in 1946 more than a year’s production of domestic was on hand despite a ycar of record-breaking consump on. Figures from statistical service of New York Cotton Exchange.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Slave System Insatiable EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOR C. TOLLEFSON OF wasHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, March 12, 1947 Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include an editorial from a recent issue of the Tacoma Labor Advo- cate. I feel this editorial is of extreme interest at this time because of the new international role America has been forced to assume. I especially recom- mend this editorial to those certain labor leaders who protest so violently against American imperialism, but say nothing of Soviet enslavement. SLAVE SYSTEM INSATIABLE Free labor always has opposed slave labor in any form or under any pretext. Slave labor anywhere in the world adversely affects the standards of free labor everywhere. Moreover, each highly centralized political system based on slavery engenders aggrcs- sive policies, since it tends to enslave new populations tn order to satisfy its need for an additional supply of forced labor. Fur- thermore, such a system tends to resort to conquest as a means of acquiring sources of wealth which ft cannot create fast enough because of the notoriously low productivity of slave labor. There really ts an trresponsible conflict between free labor and every system of forced labor. To those who excuse the Soviet methods of forced labor on the ground that such practices serve the aims of socialism, the reply can only be that the founders of the Socialist doctrine proclaimed it as a path for workers’ liberation and not their enslave- ment. In discussing the totalitarian system of slavery now represented by the Soviet Union, the problem of socialism, as such, does not enter. In this case the question simply is one of free labor versus slave labor. The American Federation of Labor has con- Gemned all forms of forced labor and servi- tude. The AFL, through its bill of rights, appeals to all forces of free labor throughout the world to support it in this crucial struggle. A Tribute to Gen. William Luther Sibert REMARKS HON. GEORGE W. ANDREWS OF ALABAMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, it was my distinct pleasure on Monday evening last to have attended a memorial exercise held by the Panama Canal Society here in Washington. That memoria] was to honor one of Alabama's greatest citizens, the honored and be- loved Gen. William Luther Sibert. The Panama Canal Society is com- posed of the veteran personne! who still remain of that courageous crew of Amer- icans that conquered the dismal swamps on the Isthmus of Panama—they who despite the fear of the dreaded yellow fever and the seemingly insurmountable XCITI—App.——-63 engineering and construction problems presented in that work, brought to a suc- cessful conclusion the most gigantic en- gineering project ever undertaken by man. That memorial was a great tribute to ® great man. The principal speaker of the evening Was our own beloved colleague, the Hon- orable FranK W. Boykin, of Mobile, Ala. Mr. Speaker, I wish that you and the other Members of this House could have heard that speech. Truly inspirational, it will long remain in my memory &s one of the finest tributes I ever heard any man pay to the memory of a departed friend. We who know Frank Boykin know how precious and with what esteem he re- gards and values his every friend; in fact, in all of life there is no thing which he holds more precious or with greater merit than he does friendship. His speech was a splendid tribute from one great man to another. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a copy of that speech. I did manage, however, to get the notes to which Frank BoyKIn referred and under the leave granted, I am herewith inserting these notes of that great tribute to a friend: Mr. President, members of the Panama Canal Society, and you, Genera) Sibert, the honored guest, I have not come before you tonight to make a great formal speech. Rather, I have come to join with you veterans who bwilt The Big Ditch at Panama--and in the light of those labors long remem- bered—relive the happy hours spent with our departed, beloved and nationally revered Gen. William Luther Sibert. Standing here tonight it seems as if only yesterday, Bill Sibert and I sat together on an old magnolia log lying in the midst of a beautiful azelea garden in our native State of Alabama. I remember his remarking that it seemed to him just beyond that garden was @ strand whereupon sat God. Your friend and mine has now crossed that strand. He must no longer search for ex- planations, for beauty of nature or for truth. He is today beyond the veil that clothes the answers to things which are mysteries to us, his friends. who still must live. Good deeds survive the human trail. Good works, Kind words—these are things that never die. For years I knew your commanding officer at Panama. He was my good friend—Gen. William Luther Sibert. The Siberts are all of them good, yea, even the best of American stock—and this native son of Alabama had inherently within him the finest quality both of his race and his nation. For generations before him his forebears had been pioneers, frontiersmen, foresters, farmers and planters. A native of Gadsden, after attending the University of Alabama he was appointed to West Point. His was a long, enviable record of military service and personal achieve- ments. He served his country with distinc- tion not alone in the United States but in the far-off Philippines, in Panama and in China. In World War I, placed in command of the First Division of the AEF, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal for the skill ex- hibited in organizing the first Chemical War- fare Service of the United States Army. Not alone at some time or other did he serve in every engineering command in the continental United States, but in addition thereto there was no major public construc- tion project undertaken in the last quarter A993 century of his life upon which he did not leave the impress of endless powers and his remarkable constructive ability. Chairman of the Boulder Dam Commis- sion; President of the American Port Au- thority; the Alabama State Docks Commis- sion; the American Society of Engineers; Commander of the Legion of Honor, are ac- complishments second only to the work he did in the design as well as construction of Getun Dam, the Gatun Locks, and the Weat Breakwater at Colon on the Isthmus of Pan- ama. But I do not want to talk to you tonight about General Sibert either as a great en- ginecr or as a great soldier. Rather I want to talk about him as a great humanitarian, & great father, a great man, and a great friend. I like to remember him best for the work he did for the American Red Cross in China when the torrential rivers of that nation in roaring floods had inundated millions of men, women, and children in that far-flung land. I like to think of him as a huntsman, a sportsman, his love of children, trees, flow- ers, of horses and dops. I like to recapture the happy hours I spent with him in hunting and fishing and in walking through the lush soils of our native woodlands—him with his dogs—and better than his, no man in the great Southland ever possessed. I like to recall the pride he had in the wife he loved, in his home, his children, his love of nature and nature’s God. I remember on the occasion of one deer hunt that after we had bagged our game we sat together on a log at the forks of the creek. It was in the cool of a beautiful evening and as we sat there I questioned how strange it was that Fate so often plays tricks upon the lives of men. I remember so clearly that he urged it upon me to believe that there are many compensating and various gifts which the Almighty God bestows upon men through their children, which we as fathers should teach—they in turn bestow upon their fellows. Only those who truly knew such a man could value him. Only they can see where, when, and how he cast his bread upon the waters of life and in so doing made all lives seem different and a bit more beautiful than would have been the case had he not passed this way. My own life has been enriched because I Knew him and as I utter these words I am the more than ever conscious of his persun- ality. Those of you who believe in a love that is strong—in a hope that endures and is pa- tient; those of you who believe in the beauty and strength of human devotion, can see his image reflected not alone in the great struc- tures reared by our departed friend, General Sibert, but can realize the fruition of his life on leaving to his country a progeny equally strong to carry out and onward the work he himself stopped when he went on that jour- ney from whence no man ever returned. Since General Sibert’s passing a great world war has again engulfed our Nation, and again the Siberts of Alabama have rallied to the call of their country. Tonight we have with us but one of two glorious sons of your commander, General Sibert. It is our pleasure to have with us the distinguished Brig. Gen. E. L. Sibert, The other, his distinguished brother, Maj. Gen. Franklin C. Sibert, was unable to come. How happy, my friends, would General Sibert be could he but sit across from these two sons—now brother officers in the Army— and of a rank equally high and distinguished with his own. My friends, there are existent on this earth not one but a sacure of monuments to the name of your distinguished commander at the Panama Canal. Not only did a grateful Congress bestow distinction upon him as
A994 an officer and soldier, but the Government of the Canal Zone caused a stamp to be issued bearing his likeness to commemorate the memory of the opening of the locks; and this stamp is still in use. The Army of the United States has also honored him by giving to the Army camp at Gadsden, his birthplace, the name of Camp Sibert. There is also a railroad station on the G. M. & O. Railroad which bears his name. I want to recall to your memory that the Bankhead Tunnel, one of the greatest pieces of engineering ever to be wrought by man in the great Southland, had its original incep- tion in the mind of General Sibert. That dream, now a reality, is serving the people of our State and in this year alone, has earned and is continuing to earn upwards of $1,000 a day to liquidate the cost of its con- struction. Of the material things in life, we in Mobile will always remember General Sibert for his heroic construction, against severest diffi- culties, the peerless port facilities which now make the city of Mobile one of the greatest shipping ports on all the seven seas. Above all else General Sibert was a living exemplification of his own philosophy of life. He was stern—but gentle; mellowing his sternness with a kindness that left no sting, but only respect and esteem. Readily distinguishing between good and bad, he adhered only to that which was good, ever und always placing his country first. His death marked the passing of a great American. His name will ever rank among the great generals of our Nation, Washington, Lee, Pershing, Eisenhower, and Marshall. With the great engineers, Goethals, Gorgas, Gail- lard, and Hoover, and among the great empire builders of our Nation, his is second to none. His monuments—rooted in the bedrock of the earth—rear their mighty structures into the heavens. They stand as pillars of cloud by day and of fire by night—and as living memorials to his constructive abilities. I can see him now in the cool of the eve- ning following the hounds, cap pulled down close over his head, and with body erect as he stalked a deer—from my heart of hearts, I repeat the thought then often in my mind: “By God, there walks a man!" General Sibert, your father’s good friend and mine, Mr. Walter Bellingrath, has sent to me an azalea—flower of our Southland— which your father loved so much. He assured me that it is a specimen of a shoot taken from a certain trail over which your father and I hunted many times. May I present this to you, sir, with my compli- ments, in the hope that these, his comrades, and yourself, will plant this azalea and its attending ball of his own Alabama clay close to his resting place in the National Cemetery at Arlington? Mr. President, may I recapture for you and the thinning ranks of your comrades who built the Panama Canal a few lines of tributes paid to General Sibert as well as two other gallant commanders who directed your work in the tropical jungles—General Gaillard and General Gorgas—by M. H. Thatcher. These are taken from the World’s Anthology of Verse: “SIBERT “Two problems, vast, loomed in that enter- prise, Which, finished, binds the world through junctured seas: The one lay where Andean outposts rise; The other, Chagres, Man long had sought the keys To solve this twofold, grim impediment. The first, to Gaillard's skillful stroke did yield; Through Sibert’s curb the river's force is spent In Gatun’'s inland sea, where floods are seeled To do man’s will, the earth to serve and bless. Stupendous task our Sibert sought to do. How well ‘twas done, the works themselves express: The mighty dam, lake, locks, and chan- nels true, Attest his genius, and shall e’er proclaim His greatness and his proud, enduring fame.” “GORGAS “God's own samaritan, intrepid, true; With Christly sympathy and love for all, And wisely skilled, he wrote health’s page anew, And lifted from the earth its foulest pall, Where pestilence and plague took direst toll, His magic touch brought life and strength and joy; In isthmian realms, where rival oceans roll, His blessed arts for good he did employ, And lo! the link that joins the waters twain (The way to Ind, through all the ages hid) Grew into form, and stretched from main to main, By reason of the deathless work he did: And more than this—the wondrous deeds he wrought, The texts became whereby the world is taught.” “GAILLARD “With soul illumed at duty’s altar glow; Efficient, tireless, in his giant's task; By trials taxed more than the world could know— He met his toils Just as his heart would ask. Unto a work—the greatest known to fame— His all he gave: of life he was bereft (O martyr of the Ditch): and now his name Becrowns and honors Isthmia’s mighty cleft. Each ship that sails from sea to mated sea, Is witness of his worth and usefulness. His monument is there, and e’er shall be, To mark the price at which was bought success. The earth's his debtor: pay, But never shall his glory pass away.” its due it cannot War Veterans in the Eightieth Congress EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, ac- cording to figures compiled with the assistance of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress, there is a total of 236 veterans in the United States Senate and House of Representa- tives. The Senate has 36 veterans and the period of active service includes the Boer War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. The House of Representatives has a total of 200 veterans, 4 of whom saw service in the Spanish-American War, 138 in World War I, and 58 in World War I. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The roster of war veterans in the Eightieth Congress follows: War VETERANS IN THE EIGHTIETH CONGRESS, First SESSION I, ROSTER OF WAR VETERANS IN THE EIGHTIETH CONGRESS (Key to symbols: W1—World War I; W2— World War II; 8—Spanish American War.) The letters “A,” “M," "N,” and “C. G.,” designate branches of the service to which a Member belonged: Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Coast Guard. Senators BaLpwIn, Rarmonn~ E£., Connecticut (W1-N). BrewsTER, OWEN, Maine (W1-A). Bricker, JOHN W., Ohio (W1-A). Brooks, C. WAYLAND, Illinois (W1-M). Buck, C. Douatass, Delaware (W1-A). Cain, Harry P., Washington (W2-4A). CaprzrarT, Homer E., Indiana (W1-A). CoNNALLY, Tom, Texas (S~A;W1-A). Coorrr, JoHN SHERMAN, Kentucky (W2-A). Cornon, Guy, Oregon (W1-A) DworsHAk, Henry C., Idaho (W1-A). Ecton, ZALES N., Montana (W1-A). ELLENDER, ALLEN J., Louisiana (W1-A). Grrrn, THEODORE FRANCIS, Rhode Island (S-A). Gurney, Cuan, South Dakota (W1-A). HAYDEN, Cart, Arizona (W1-A). HICKENLOOPER, BounkE B., Iowa (W1-A). Huu, Lister, Alabama (W1-A). HO.ianp, Spessanp L, Florida (W1-A). Ives, Invinc M., New York (W1-A). JENNER, WILLIAM E,, Indiana (W2-A). JouHNSsTON, OLIN D., South Carolina (W1-A). Kem, JAMES P., Missour! (W1-A). Kitoore, HARLey M., West Virginia (W1-A) KNOWLAND, WILLIAM F,, California (W2-A). Lopce, HENRY CaBOT, JR., Massachusetts (W2-A). Lucas, Scott W., Illinois (W1-A). MarTIN, EpwarD, Pennsylvania (8, W1, W2-A). McCartHy, JoserH R., Wisconsin (W2-M). McCLELLAN, JOHN L., Arkansas (W1-A). McFartanp, Ernest W., Arizona (W1-N). MILLIKIN, EUGENE D., Colorado (W1-A). O'Conor, HERBERT R., Maryland (U. 8. Naval Reserve). Perper, CLAUDE, Florida (W1-A). REVERCOMB, CHAPMAN, West (W1-A). ROBERTSON, A. WILLIS, Virginia (W1-~A). Robertson, Epwarp V., Wyoming (Boer War). RUSSELL, RICHARD B., Georgia (W1-N). SALTONSTALL, LEVERXETT, Massachusetts (W1-A). SpartcMAN, JOHN J., Alabama (W1-A). Tuomas, ELBERT D., Utah (W1-N. G. Utah and U.S. Reserves). TuHyYrF, Epwarp J., Minnesota (W1-A). TypINGs, MILLARD E., Maryland (W1-A). Umstrap, Wir1am B., North Carolina (W1-A). WHERRY, KENNETH 8., Nebraska (W1-N). Representatives ALBERT, CARL, Third District, Oklahoma (W2-A). ALLEN, JoHN J., Jz., Seventh District, Cali- fornia (W1, W2-N). ALLEN, Leo E., Thirteenth District, Illinois (W1-A). ANDERSEN, H. CarL, Seventh District, Min- nesota (W1-N). ANpDREws, GeEorGE W., Third District, Ala- bama (W2-N). AnprEws, WALTER G., Forty-second District, New York (W1-A). ARENDs, Lesitiz C., Seventeenth District, Mllinois (W1-N). AUCHINCLOSS, JAMEs C., Third District, New Jersey (W1-A). Baxewr1i, Craupr I., Eleventh District, Missouri (W2-N). Virginia
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Barpew, Grawam A., Third District, North Carolina (W1-N). Barrett, Prank A., at Large, Wyoming (W1-A). Barrie, Lavurre O., Ninth District, Alabama (W2-A). Bratt, J. GLENN, Bixth District, Maryland (W1-A). Buatnix, Joun A., Eighth District, Minne- sota (W2-A). Boas,’ Hate, Second District, Louisiana (W2-N). Bocas, J. CaLEs, at Large, Delaware W2-A). Bonner, Hersert C., First District, North Carolina (W1-A). Brant ky, Frep, Eleventh District, Michigan (W1-A). Braprey, Wiittis W., Eighteenth District, California (W1, W2-N). Brenm, WALTER E., Eleventh District, Ohio (W1-A). Brooxs, Overton, Fourth District, Louis- lana (W1-A). Bropny, JoHN C., Fourth District, Wiscon- sin (W1-N). Bryson, JosePH R., Fourth District, South Carolina (W1-A). Buck, ELtswortH B., Sixteenth District, New York (W1-N). BULWINKLE, ALFRED L., Eleventh District, North Carolina (W1-A). Bur.ieson, Omar, Seventeenth District, Texas (W2-N). Camp, A. SIDNEY, Fourth District, Georgia (W1-A). Canrireip, Gorpon, Eighth District, New Jersey (W1-A). Carnoit, Joun A., First District, Colorado (W2-A). Case, Francis, Second District, South Da- kota (W1-M). Cuetr, FRANK L., Fourth District, Ken- tucky (W2-A). CHIPERFIELD, RoperT B., Fiftcenth District, Mllinois (W1-A). CxHurCcH, RALPH E., Tenth District, Illinois (W1-A). CLASON, CHARLES R., Second District, Masza- chusetts (W1-A). CLEMENTS, #ARLE C., Second District, Ken- tucky (W1-A). Coxe, WitLrAM C., Third District, Missouri (W1-N). CoumeR, WILLIAM M., Sixth District, Mis- sissippi (W1-A). Cooney, Harotp D., Fourth District, North Carolina (W1-N). Cooper, JERF, (W1-A). Covuvent, Frepenic R., Jr., Seventeenth Dis- trict, New York (W1-A). Courtrnry, Wirt, Seventh District, Ten- nessee (W1-A). Cravens, Fapyo, Fourth District, Arkansas (W1-N). Crow, Wr1iram J., Twenty-third District, Pennsylvania (W2-A). . CUNNINGHAM, Paul, Fifth District, Iowa (W1-A). Dacur, Pav. B., Ninth District, Pennsyl- vania (W1-M). Davis, JAMES C., Fifth District, Georgia (W1-M). Dawson, Writ1aM L., First District, Mli- nois (W1-A). Devrrr, Enwarp J., Fourth District, Minne- sota (W2-N). DrmerKsEN, Everetr M., Sixteenth District, MNliinois (W1-A). Do.iiver, James I., Sixth District, Iowa (W1-A). DOMENGEAUEZ, JAMES, Third District, Louils- jana (W2-A). Dononve, Haron D., Fourth District, Mas- sachusetts (W2-N). Dorn, W. J. Bryan, Third District, South Carolina (W2-A). DurxaM, Cart T,, Sixth District, North Car- olina (W1-N). EBSENHARTER, HERMAN P., Thirty-second Dis- trict, Pennsylvania (W1-A). Ninth District, Tennessee Exus, Husest 8., Fourth District, West Vir- ginia (W1-A). ELLsworTH, Harris, Fourth District, Oregon (W1-A). ExsTon, CHarLes H., First District, Ohio (W1-A). Encet, ALpert J., Ninth District, Michigan (W1-A). Evins, Jog L., Fifth District, Tennessee (W2-A). FARRINGTON, JOSEPH R. (Delegate), Hawaii (W1-A). Fenton, Ivor D., Twelfth District, Penn- sylvania (W1-A). FLercnen, Cuartes K., Twenty-third Dis- trict, California (W2-N). FuuLer, Hapwen C., Thirty-fifth District, New York (W1-A). Fuiron, James G., Thirty-first District, Pennsylvania (W2-N). Gary, J. VAuGHAN, Third District, Virginia (W1-A). Gavin, Lron H., Nineteenth District, Penn- sylvania (W1-A). GrarHaArRT, Bertrand W., Ninth District, California (W1-A) Gorr, Ape McGreoor, First District, Idaho (W1, W2-A). Gore, ALBERT, Fourth District, Tennessee (W2-A). GraNncer, WALTER K., First District, Utah (W1-M). Grant, GrorceE M., Second District, Alabama (W1-A). Grirrirus, P. W., Fifteenth District, Ohio (W1-N). GwynneE, JoHN W., Third District, Iowa (W1-A). Hate, Rosent, First District, Maine (W1-A). Hauteck, CHARLEs A., Second District, In- diana (W1-~A). Harness, Forest A., Fifth District, Indiana (W1-A). Hays, (W1-A). Henprick, E. H., Sixth District, West Virginia (W1-A). HESELTON, JoHN W., First District, Massa- chusetts (W1-A). Hezs, WILLIAM E., Second District, Ohio (W1-A). Hinsuaw, Carn, Twentieth District, Call- forma (W1-A). HoEvEN, CHag.Es B., Eighth District, Iowa (W1-A). HOLIFIELD, CHET, Nineteenth District, Cali- fornia (W1-—A). Honan, WALT, Fifth District, Washington (W1-N). Jackson, DonatD L., Sixteenth District, California (W2-M). JACKSON, Henry M., Second District, Wash- ington (W2-N). JARMAN, PETE, (W1-A). Javrrs, JAcop K. (Jack), Twenty-first Dis- trict, New York (W2-A). JENISON, Epwarp H., Eighteenth District, ll- linois (W2-N). JENKINS, MITCHELL, Eleventh District, Pennsylvanian (W1, W2-A). JENSEN, BEN F., Seventh District, Iowa (W1-A). JOHNSON, ANTON J., Fourteenth District, Nilinois (S-A). Jounson, GLEN D., Fourth District, Okla- homa (W2-A). JOHNSON, LeRoy, Third District, California (W1-A). JOHNSON, LYNDON B., Tenth District, Texas (W2-N). Jonss, Homer R., First District, Washing- ton (W1, W2-N). Jupp, WALTER H., Fifth District, Minnesota (W1-A). Kearney, Bernasp W. (Pat), Thirty-first District, New York (W1-A). Katina, KENNETH B., Fortieth District, New York (W1, W2-A). Kennepy, Jomn F., Eleventh District, Mas- sachusetts (W2-N). Brooks, Fifth District, Arkansas Sixth District, Alabama A995 Keesten, Cuaries J., Pifth District, Wiscon- sin (W2-C.G. (T)). Kiisurn, CiakENce E., Thirty-fourth Dis- trict, New York (W1-A). Kine, Cxecu. R., Seventeenth District, Cali- fornia (W1-A). Kirwan, MicHax. J., Nineteenth District, Ohio (W1-A). Kunxer.t, JOHN C., Eighteenth District, Pennsylvania (W1-A). LaNpIs, GERALD W., Seventh District, In- diana (W1-A). Lang, THOMasS J., Seventh District, Massa- chusetts (W1-A). LarcapDE, HENRY D., Jr., Seventh District, California (W1-A). LATHAM, Henry J., Third District, New York (W2-N) LeCompte, Kart M., Fourth District, Iowa (W1-A). LEFEvre, Jay, Thirtieth District, New York (W1-A). LovaE, JoHN Davis, Fourth District, Con- necticut (W2-N). Lucas, WINGATE H., Twelfth District, Texas (W2-A). LyYLe, JOHN E., Fourteenth District, Texas (W2-A). McCormack, JOHN W., Twelfth District, Massachusetts (WI-A). McGrevor, J. Harry, Seventeenth District, Ohio (W1 A). McM4Hon, GREGorY, Fourth District, New York (W2-N). McMILLAN, JOHN L., Sixth District, South Carolina (W1-N). MacKINNON, GEorGE, Third District, Minn- nesota (W2-N). Mapven, Ray J., First District, Indiana (W1-N). MANSFIELD, MIKE, First District, Montana (W1-A-M). Martin, THomas E., First District, Iowa (W1-A). MaTHEWs, Franx A., Jr., Fourth District, New Jersey (W1, W2-A). MeapeE, HucH A., Second District, Maryland (W2-N). MeEabDE, W. Howes, Seventh District, Ken- tucky (Wa-N). Meyer, HERBERT A., Third District, Kansas (W1-A). MicuinerR, Ear. C., Second District, Michi- gan (B-A). Mrier, A. L., Fourth District, Nebraska (W1-A). Mutter, Epwarp T., First District, Mary- land (W1, W2-A). MILLER, GeEorce P., Sixth District, Cali- fornia, (W1-A). Mittrr, WILLIAM J., First District, Con- neclicut (W1-A). MiTcHELL, E. (Epwarp) A., Eighth District, Indiana (W2-N). Morris, Tosy, Sixth District, Oklahoma (Wi-A). MozTon, THURSTON BatLarp, Third District, Kentucky (W2-N). MUHLENBERG, FREDERICK A., Thirteenth District, Pennsylvania (W1, W2-A). Murray, Tom, Eighth District, Tennessee (W1-A). Nixon, Ricuarp N., Twelfth District, Cali- fornia (W2-N). Nover, Rosert, Jr., Sixth District, New York (W32-A). Norstap, WALTER, First District, Oregon (W2-A), Norrzip,, W. F., Sixth District, Arkansas (W1-A). O'Hara, JoserH P., Second District, Minne- sota (W1-A). Owens, THomas L., Seventh District, Illi- nois (W1-A). PatTmMaNn, WRIGHT, (W1-A). Patrerson, James T., Fifth District, Con- necticut (W2-M). Prpen, Preston E., Seventh District, Okla- homa (W2-A). First District, Texas
A996 PETERSON, J. Hagpin, First District, Florida (WI1-N). PHILBIN, PHiup J., Third District, Massa- chusetts (W1-N). PuHituips, JOHN, Twenty-second District, California (W1!-A). Poacz, W. R., Eleventh District, Texas (W1-N). Preston, Prince H., Jr., First District, Georgia (W2-A). PricgE, MELVIN, Twenty-second District, Nli- nois (W2-A). RaBiIn, BENJAMIN J., Twenty-fourth Dis- trict, New York (WI1-N). RANKIN, JOHN E., First District, Mississippi (W1-A). Reep, CHAUNCEY W., Eleventh District Illi- nois (W1-A). Rees, Epwarp H., Fourth District, Kansas (W1-A). ReEeEvEs, ALBERT L., JR., Fifth District, Mis- souri (W2-A). RicHarps, JAMES P., Fifth District, South Carolina (W1-A). Ritzy, Jonn J., Second District, South Car- Olina (W1-N). Sapiak, ANTONI N.; at large, Connecticut (W2-N). SarBacHER, GEORGE W., JR., Fifth District, Pennsylvania (W2-M). Sasscer, LANSDALE G., Fifth District, Mary- land (W1-A). Scott, Harprs, Third District, Pennsylvania (W2-A). Scort, Hucu D., Jr., Sixth District, Penn- sylvania (W2-A-N-Merchant Marine). SEELEY-Brown, Horace, Jr., Second Dis- trict, Connecticut (W2--N). SuHort, Dewey, Seventh District, Missour! (W1-A). Ses, Ropert L. F., Third District, Florida (W2-A). Simpson, RicHarD M., Seventeenth District, Pennsylvania (W1-A). Stimpson, Sip, Twentieth District, Illinois (W1-A). SmatTHers, Georcr A., Fourth District, Florida (W2-M). SmirH, LAWRENCE H., First District, Wis- consin (W1-A). SmirH, Wint, Sixth District, Kansas (W2-A). Somers, Anprew L., Tenth District, New York (W1-N). Sprincrr, Raymonp 8., Tenth District, In- diana (W1-A). Snyper, Mervin C., Second District, West Virginia (W1 W2-A). Stiaurr, Wiut1aAM G., Second District, Okla- homa (W1-A). Tatrte, Henry O., Second District, Iowa (W1-N). TeacveE, Orin E., Sixth District, Texas (W2- A). Tuomas, Atrert, Eighth District, Texas (W1-A). Tiromas, J. PARNELL, Seventh District, New Jersey (W1-A). Towr, Harry L., Ninth District, New Jer- sey (W1-N). TRIMrLF, JAMES W., Third District, Arkan- sas (W1-A). TwymMan, Rosert J., Ninth District, Dlinois (W1, W2-N). Vari, Ricwarp B., Second District, Illinois (W1-A). VAN ZANDT, JAMES E., Twenty-second Dis- trict, Pennsylvania (W1, W2-N). Vorys, Jomn M., Twelfth District, Ohio (W1-N). WapswonrtH, JAMES W., Forty-first District, New York (S-A). Wattsr, Francis E., Twentieth District, Pennsylvania (W1, W2-N). We!IcHEL, ALVIN F., Thirteenth District, Ohio (W1-A). WHeEter, W. M. (Don), Eighth District, Georgia (W2-A). WIGGLEsWoRTH, RicHarD B., Thirteenth, District, Massachusetts (W1-A). Wrutams, JOHN Bett, Seventh District, Mississippi (W2-A). Wotcort, Jzssz P., Seventh District, Michi- gan (W1-A). Woop, Joun 8., Ninth District, Georgia (W1-A). Wooprvrr, Roy O., Tenth District, Michi- gan (8, WI1-A). WORLEY, EUGENE, Texas (W2-N). ZIMMERMAN, ORVILLE, Tenth District, Mis- sourl (W1-A). Eighteenth District, MI. RECAPITULATION Quota System on Wool Imports EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHRISTIAN A. HERTER OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. HERTER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orp, I include the following statement of Clinton M. Hester before the Committee on Agriculture: Mr. Chairman, at the time you recessed the committee yesterday you requested us to be prepared today to state in detail our objec- tions to any proposed quota system. We are glad now to proceed to present our views to the committce in detail. As we stated in our testimony yesterday we are opposed to a quota system on imports of foreign wool. In our opinion such a system would be absolutely impossible of adminis- tration by the Government. For example, here are a few of the reasons why an import quota will not work with respect to wool: 1. In a quota system it is necessary to ar- rive at the amount of wool which will be con- sumed for some period of time in the future. If you buy wool in Australia or most any country today, it is at least 8 months before the wool is available for use here, so in a quota system we must anticipate our con- sumption by 6 months at a minimum. How- ever, this is impossible. During 6 months our consumptive needs frequently change to such an extent that the import quota arrived at at the beginning of the period could be completely obsolete, Unlike sugar and other APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD commodities where consumption and grade are fairly stable, it is impossible in the case of wool to accurately anticipate what future consumption will be because today the con-~ sumption may be way up and tomorrow it may be way down. Wool imports were con- trolled during the war by the War Production Board in order to conserve shipping space, and even under wartime conditions where the Government could make a reasonable esti- mate as to how much wool in the various grades was needed to fill the military pro- grams, the administrators of this quota system found it almost impossible to accu- ratcly estimate quantities that the industry required in any given period, so how could we expect an administrator in peacetime who will not have the advantages of knowing what the demand for wool is likely to be to make any kind of an accurate guess as to the amount of foreign woo] and in what grades our great woolen manufacturing industry will require. 2. The administrator will also have the problem of allocating the import quota for wool between some 20 countries who wish to export wool to the United States. This, gen- tlemen, is going to be most difficult, as each exporting country will want as large a share of this quota nas they can get and the very first obstacle confronting the administrator will be the State Department. Add to this style factors which change frequently and require wools of various kinds from particu- lar countries as well as the availability of these wools in the 20 countries. 3. The third allocation problem the admin- istrator will have, assuming he successfully gets over numbers 1 and 2 hurdles, is the problem of fairly allocating import quotas umong the importers and manufacturers, It has been suggested that this problem can be overcome by using the historical basis where the importer receives an import quota in pro- portion to the quantity of wool he im- ported in a base period. This method was used by the War Production Board and though it proved to be fairly satisfactory un- der wartime conditions where imports were limited strictly to those people who had pre- viously been in the business and who were filling Government contracts, we wish to point out that under peacetime conditions in our free economy it is unthinkable that any system would be adopted that would give the comparatively few importers of wool the monopoly on wool imports. Therefore, if an import system for wool be adopted it would be necessary that any citizen of the United States receive a quota regardless of whether he was importing wool prior to the establish- ment of the quota system. Under these cir- cumstances it would be impossible for any- one to administer a quota system on wool. During the war the cotton manufacturers in the South used cotton and rayon in the manufacture of war materials. Since the end of the war these manufacturers have been making considerable use of wool. Therefore, if the administrator of any quota system should allocate his quota on a his- torical basis what would he do in the event that these mills should suddenly apply to him for an allocation of wool. The answer is that the administrator would have to re- ject these applications. Further, if the quota should be allocated by the administrator and then a number of mills who had not previ- ously been using wool applied for an alloca- tion of wool what would the administrator do? The answer is he would have to deny these applications or increase the quota over the amount previously determined. 4. Our fourth point is that if a quota sys- tem should be adopted our wool manufac- turing industry would be denied the oppor- tunity of purchasing its raw material from the sources of supply that are best suited for each particular manufacturing business. As was pointed out in yesterday’s testimony, wool is one of those commodities where at
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the present time it is necessary to import twice as much wool as is grown in this country, even assuming that every pound of wool grown in this country ts used. 5, Quite apart from the foregoing a quota system is objectionable, for the reason that it would encourage the use of synthetic fibers as a substitute for wool and would create a Government monopoly which is denied to private industry. 6. The,quota system is only another form of OPA rationing. If a quota system should be adopted it would result in a rationing of the pay envelope of the textile workers. 7. Finally, gentlemen, if a quota system should be adopted it would be impossible to have free enterprise in a country such ss ours, which has become the greatest on earth through free enterprise. The President’s Message EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES A. PLUMLEY OF VERMONT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, I lis- tened yesterday to a very important message from the President of the United States. In my years of experi- ence, I have listened to many messages from Presidents but none, and I say it advisedly, more important than that to which I listened yesterday. This mes- sage to which I refer involves the future of every American and of America itself. If you want to know what I said to my people in Vermont in response to their request for my comment on the President's message, this is what I told them: It was a cool, impressive statement, very carefully thought out, and made in an effort to avert a crisis, and yet to recognize an issue which, reduced to its lowest denomi- nator, is, Shall we go to war with Russia or try to avoid it in every way possible? We need not delude ourselves. Obviously, one way to keep out of a shoot- ing war at present is to assist Greece and Turkey in their attempts to resist being made the pawns of those who threaten their existence. I am not for appeasement. I am for showing our teeth. Our own stake in this crisis is very great. It is not measured by dollars. Civilization as we know it is at stake. This is the beginning of a show-down and a contest of ideologies, make no mistake. If we can avoid bullets by spending dollars and establish our own democratic theories of gov- ernment, there is no second choice. How- ever, the American people should realize that we are at the crossroads. Between now and March 81 almost anything may happen. This is no time to mince words nor try to dodge an issue which is the most important the world has ever known. No more important message was ever de- livered to Congress. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that it is my well-considered judgment that if we are forced to fight again to maintain those principles upon which our Government is founded the sooner we do it the quicker it will be over, I, as one American, do not pro- pose to be bluffed by the ideologies which are so contrary to ours that the two concepts cannot exist together in the world if civilization is to survive. We should learn something by experi- ence; and if we are as big as we think we are, and if we are ready to assume the burden which is ours, now is the time to accept the responsibility therefor and to pay the price, if we have to do it, al- though it is not of our choosing. Exemption of Civil-Service Retirement Annuities From Federal Taxation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN J. ROONEY OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a bill, H. R. 291, pending before the Com- mittee on Ways and Means to amend section 18 of the Civil-Service Retire- ment Act of May 29, 1930, as amended, so as to exempt payments of pension moneys under such act from Federal taxation. There is no sensible reason why a re- tired civil-service employee should have to pay a tax on the small annuity which he has himself earned and paid for after a lifetime of faithful work. Under the permission granted me I in- clude the following statement of one H. C. Richey, of New Orleans, La., ad- dressed to our distinguished colleague, the Honorable Harotp Knutson, chair- man of the House Committee on Ways and Means, advocating prompt passage of my bill: New Or.Eans, La., February 28, 1947. Hon. Harotp KNUTSON, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D.C. HONORABLE S1rR: The following statement and plea is submitted in behalf of those retired Federal employees who, when retired, had to sever their connection and withdraw membership from any employee organization in which they were associated, in order to reduce their living expenses to the level of the annuity they were granted by the Gov- ment; therefore they have no connection with any employee organization represented before your committee, and have no such representation, except through this state- ment, submitted by their representative whose signature is hereinafter affixed. This statement is presented in favor of bill H. R. 291, now before the Committee on Ways and Means, and request is made that it be laid before the committee and be made a part of any printed record of any hearings held on the bill mentioned. This group of retired employees request the committee to give favorable consideration to this proposed legislation, and recommend it favorably to the House for consideration, and present the following reasons why it should be enacted into law by the Congress: (a) The civil-service retirement law, as it now stands, provides that (section 18) the annuity shall not “be assignable either in law or equity, or be subject to execution, levy or attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.” . The wording of this section clearly indi- cates that the Congress which enacted this jaw intended that the retired employee should receive the full value and benefit of A997 the annuity, without any reduction by any levy or legal process. The word “levy” as defined by Webster’s New International Dic- tionary is “to raise or collect, as by assess- ment, execution, or other legal process; to execute or impose by suthority, as to levy taxes, toll, tribute, or contribution.” The wording of the existing law provides that the annuity shall not be subject to levy, and the dictionary says the word “levy” means to “impose by authority, as to levy taxes.” The word “levy” to the layman means taxes, and to date there has been no legal interpretation or decision that the annuities of retired Federal employees should not be free of taxes under the meaning of section 18 of the civil-service retirement law. Taxing the annuities is now done under a decision of the Treasury Department, the agency which collects the tax. That it is unjust to collect a tax on the annuity is shown by the fact that no legal action can be taken, under the law, against the annuity to collect any unpaid taxes, Therefore it would seem that the collection of a tax which cannot be col- lected by a legal process is an illegal tax and an illegal collection. Bill H R. 291 should be enacted into law to clarify and make explicit the intent of section 18 of the retirement law and the intent of the Con- gress which enacted the retirement law. (b) The Railroad Retirement Act provides that— “No annuity payment shall be assignable or be subject to any tax or garnishment, attachment, or other legal process under any circumstances,” The Civil-Service Retirement Act provides that— “None of the moneys mentioned in this act shall be assignable either in Jaw or equity, or be subject to execution, levy, or attach- ment, or other legal prccess ” The only material difference in the word- ing of the same provision of the two different acts is any difference there may be between the meaning of the word “Ievy" and the word “tax.” Webster's New International Dic- tionary defines the word “tax” as: “A sum imposed or levied upon the members of a society to defray its expenses. A charge or burden, usually pecuniary, laid upon persons or property.” Note that the word “levied” has the same meaning ns taxed. Comparison of the two sentences quoted from the two different acts clearly indicate that the two words “tax” and “levy” were intended to mean the same thing. However, under the Railroad Act the annuity of the retired ratl- road employee is not taxed, while the retired Federal civil-service employee, under a rul- ing of the Treasury Department, has to re- fund, or kick-back, to the Government, which grants the annuity, a part of that annuity in taxes. That there has never been a meeting of official minds as to the justification of taxing the annuities is shown by the action of the Civil Service Commission in requesting an opinion from the Treasury Department as to whether the annuity was taxable or not, the Commission being in doubt. Any decision on this point should have been rendered by an uninterested agency and not by the agency which collects the taxes, (c) The method of computing the annuity to be granted retired civil-service employees was formulated in the act of May 29, 1930, and being based on the cost of living at that time was supposed, and intended, to give the employee a means of livelihood after retirement from active Government service. The dollars making up the annuity are just a medium of exchange for the necessities of life, such as rent, a certain number of bushels of potatoes, a set number of sacks of flour, etc, Since that annuity was set, or agreed upon, it has been automatically reduced by the continual increase in the cost of the ne- Cessities of life, so that the dollar of today
A998 will only provide about two-thirds the rent, potatoes, flour, etc., it could be exchanged for in 1930. Then, in addition to this reduction in pur- chasing value of the annuity and corre- sponding lowering of the standard of living of the retired employee, his annuity is tur- ther reduced by the imposition of an un- warranted tax. To relieve these retired eme ployees of this unjust taxation and reduc- tion of annuity, bill H. R. 291 should be enacted into law. (d) Congress has already cnacted laws which increased wages in the private com- mercial and industrial field, and also granted increases in salaries of present Government employees, to meet the rising cost of living, but no consideration has yet been given the retired employee. That loyal employee who gave the working span of life to the Govern- ment, at a low salary, found on retirement that he had to lower his standard of living to the level of the annulty he was granted, and now he finds he must further retrench as his annuity is reduced through taxation and cost of living continues to rise. These aged retired employees, physically incapaci- tated by age or ailment from obtaining fur- ther employment to augment their annuity, seek relief by your committee and the Con- gress through the enactment into law of bill H, R. 291, As representing the herein-described group of retired Federal employees, I thank the committee for its kind consideration. Yours very truly, H. G. RIcHEY. American Library for French People in Paris—A Vermonter, Howard C. Rice, Jr., American Director EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CHARLES A. PLUMLEY OF VERMONT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr, PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, under permission granted to extend my re- marks, I am inserting an article on the American library for French people. This is a real United States information library being conducted in Paris, where earnest French citizens gather to seek the truth about the United States. The following appeared in the Brattle- boro (Vt.) Daily Reformer, of date Feb- ruary 4, 1947: Local MAN Heaps AMERICAN LIBRARY FOR FRENCH PEOPLE Something new in Paris since the war is the United States information library, where on the Rue Duphot, just around the corner from the Madeleine, earnest French citizens— men, women, and children—gather to read American books and American periodicals, and in general seek the truth about life in the United States. We Americans who lived in Paris before the war welcome this little American Mbrary on French soil, writes Valma Clark in the Kan- sas City Star. No longer need we bear the brunt of disseminating the true facts about America, answering, often not wisely or well, their strange and laughable questions. As late as 1940 we were still assuring some Frenchmen that all Americans were not rich, that Buffalo Bill was not a common existing type in the United States, that we ourselves had never been held up at the point of a gun by American gangsters, that Indian chiefs in feathers occurred rarely off Indian reservations, and that Americans did not live exclusively on canned goods. Often the French were not very credulous of our disillusioning assertions. Today it is a more informed French public. Seeing is believing, and the French men and women who leaf regularly through American books and American picture magazines are not in- clined to take issue with the evidence of their own eyes. But there is still spadework to be done. OFFSHOOT OF THE WAR The United States information library in Paris is really an outgrowth of the war, when it became so necessary to spread abroad, in the interests of greater international under- standing, the American concepts of democ- racy. It is one of many such libraries in foreign countries throughout the world— part of a modest program, maintained by the State Department with the support of Congress, for international information and cultural exchanges. Speaking recently in Paris, at the UNESCO conference, William Benton, American Under Secretary of State for Public Affairs, who is directing this program, said with great truth: “You who have lived abroad do not need to be told about the misconceptions and exag- gerations that exist concerning America— abouts its lawlessness, luxury, and irrespon- sibility; its lack of taste and culture and scholarship; its alleged financial imperial- ism; and its so-called economic disorder. Some of these misconceptions may be harm- less or even amusing. Others are dangerous, both to us and to the world.” Howard C. Rice, Jr., AMerican director of the library, said that he and his staff of 7 provide information for some 200 French visitors a day on almost every phase of Amer- ican life, “from jazz to philosophy and from medicine to poetry.” At present the library has some 2,000 books, it takes 375 American periodicals regularly and has a large col- lection of pamphlets and United States Gov- ernment documents. It is open every day except Sunday. It can seat 65 comfortably, but on Saturdays—the peak day for at- tendance—it has not enough space to accom- modute the French people. In reply to a question as to what phases of American life interest French people most, Mr. Rice said that fully one-third of the library's effort is in the scientific, medical, and technical flelds. The French people are intensely interested in our industrial engi- neering, our radios, our plastics, our applied sciences of all kinds. FOLLOW NEWS OF UNITED STATES Next in order of interest comes the fleld of current affairs in the United States. French readers consult American biographies, Who's Who in America, and articles in current pe- riodicals. The third largest group is interested in architecture and building in the United States. The fourth group is concerned about American fashions. Mr. Rice says that the fashion books are worn to shreds. This is understandable in view of the fact that fash- ions are a primary industry in France. After this, and in this order, avid French readers peruse current American literature, books and articles on American music and American art. Prospective GI brides come to the library asking for descriptive details of some little village in Florida or South Dakota which is the home town of the American soldier in- trenched in their affections. They are try- ing to visualize the setting of their married life. Really they are asking the librarian to find out for them whether they will be happy in America! Mr. Rice’s staff does its best to supply these French girls with de- acriptive data, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD One French father and mother of a girl engaged to a GI sought information about the position and character of this particular boy! This, of course, the library could not supply. But it did furnish the anxious par- ents with the name and address of his parish priest, from a Catholic register. A Frenchwoman corresponding with a relief agency in New York—she was writing in French, the agency in English—brought her letter in for translation. They requested her sizes—bust measure, hip measure, etc.— in the American terms of inches and yards, not the French centimeters and meters. Mr. Rice solved this acute problem, to the whole- hearted amusement of his entire staff and the woman herself, by taking the required measurements with string and then placing the string against an American ruler. A French housewife, whose apartment was infested by mice, had heard of the marvelous American DDT powder, Could the library get her some? Another client came asking for the Maca- roni Journal, The staff found this journal existed, but unfortunately it was not on their list of periodicals, A group of young French people sought information as to how they could get them- selves adopted by an American Indian tribe. FACTS ON KALAMAZOO A Frenchman came seeking information on Kalamazoo. He had scen the word on the Kalamazoo College Bulletin, which appeared, along with other college bulletins, on the library’s window poster featuring American colleges. This Frenchman worked for a firm that had office ledgers bearing this word and he had the strange hobby of collecting Kala- mazoo miscellany. Other odd requests include questions as to the history of the zipper fastener, the Amer- ican methods of plucking chickens by ma- chine, and dctails about kudzu, the grass. Obviously, Mr. Rice's staff cannot satisfy all these curious French seekers for strange in- formation. They tell them so in a circular which reads: “We are not a travel bureau or a@ shopping service. We cannot supply ad- dresses of great-uncles who died in America 15 or 20 years ago. We cannot tell fair French maidens why their GI boy friends have not written them. We cannot supply addresses of ‘Lieutenant Smith, who was here with the American Army in some unit, I for- get which, sometime in 1945.' We cannot give information about prospective American sons-in-law to uneasy French parents. We cannot obtain priorities for French travelers wishing to go to America.” In its own true field the Mbrary does a small but very effective and continuous job of supplying the French intelligentsia, as well as the ordinary French reader, with missing facts about the United States. A French historian writing about the landings in North Africa was recently able to com- plete his documentation from American re- ports supplied by Mr. Rice. The Eisenhower report was distributed in small quantities to French libraries. Forty copies of the large reference volume listing “Scientific, Medical, and Technical Books Published in the United States of America in 1930-44” went to French provincial libraries and others. This latter is a basic tool for French scientists, doctors, and technicians to complete the gaps in their knowledge of what has been done in the United States in these important flelds dur- ing the years when they were cut off from the world under the German occupation. France, Great Britain, and Russia have long understood the value of such information programs abroad. The United States is the last of the great powers to enter this field. Tf, as has been said, peace—like war—begins in the minds of men, then this effort to make America understood abroad is a step toward the great goal of international harmony.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Poland’s Plight Recalled § Kosciusko’s Birthday EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, under leave to revise and extend my re- marks, I desire to include in the Recorp an editorial from the Star-Herald, of Kosciusko, Miss., of March 6, 1947, with reference to remarks that I made on the floor of the House of Representatives on the anniversary of the birth of Thaddeus Kosciusko, in whose honor the town of Kosciusko, Miss., was named. The edi- torial: POLAND'S PLIGHT RECALLED ON KOSCIUSKO'S BIRTHDAY Congressman Price of Illinois took occa- sion on the anniversary of the birth of Thad- deus Kosciusko to call the attention of Con- gress, and of America, to the present plight of that great hero's native land, Poland. Not only did Kosciusko aid our founding fathers in their struggle for independence, but so did hundreds of other Poles, and we owe them an overwhelming debt of grati- tude. Poland was the first country to accept the challenge of Hitler. Her fight was futile but brave. What is to be her reward for refusing to accept oppression? Shall Poland be partitioned? Shall her government be made the puppet of a stronger nation whose ideologies are so foreign to the Christian beliefs of the Polish people? It is the belief of Mr. Price and countless other Americans that we should have the same concern for Poland's welfare that Kosci- usko and other Polish patriots had for America's. He calls attention to the fact that Russia is doing some very questionable things in Poland, in violation of her agreements with her wartime allies, and is spreading the ten- tacles of sovietism over unprotected and un- willing people. Such methods can never bring peace to Europe. Our Government has not, and cannot, ig- nore the attempts of Russia to set up a puppet government but stern and effective measures must be adopted by the United Nations. The Illinois Congressman closed his address with this inspiring challenge: “As a nation dedicated to freedom—recog- nizing the blessings of liberty as we do— America should continue to exhibit the live- liest concern in the welfare of Poland and all small nations who were given such hope by the Atlantic Charter. America’s great weight must be thrown behind the fight of all true Poles for a truly free Poland.” Parity Versus Comparable Price for Wool EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHRISTIAN A. HERTER OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. HERTER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- ord, I include the following statement of Kenneth W. Marriner, of Boston, Mass., before the Committee on Agriculture: Mr. Chairman, if parity for wool is ine creased to comparable and the grower is given 8 price support program at 90 percent of com- parable, this will mean continued Govern- ment ownership of the domestic wool clip. I will explain why. First, it is important to make clear the fact that the price of wool in our free economy is the world price of this raw material plus the duty of 84 cents. For example, today’s price of an average grade of imported fine wool is 81 cents per pound plus 34 cents duty or a total of $1.15 per pound, clean, delivered in this country. Now it is obvious that if the Department of Agriculture buys our domestic clip as it has done during the past 4 years, 1t must be prepared to sell this domestic wool in com- petition with imports which today means at $1.16 or less; otherwise, the industry will buy the cheaper foreign wool and the Government will be left holding the bag. Thi is just what is happening and the reason we have such a large stock pile of domestic wool is due entirely to the selling policy of the De- partment of Agriculture, which has been to hold its domestic wool purchases at prices higher than the world market for wool. Now getting back to the reason why a new parity for wool on the comparable level would result in Government ownership, I give you the following example: FACTS (a) Cost of imported wool is 81 cents plus 84 cents equals $1.15 clean. (b) The parity price of fine wool is $1.20 clean. (c) The comparable price of fine wool is $1.30, clean. EXAMPLES (a) Under Congressman Herrer’s bill which ‘is supported by the wool trade the grower is given a floor under the price of wool by establishing a loan or purchase program at 90 percent of the present parity. This means Government support at 90 percent of $1.20—8109.20, Under this plan domestic woo! will flow into industry as its price will compete with imports at $1.15. (b) Under Congressman Barrert’s bill the grower is given a floor under wool by estab- lishing a loan or purchase program at 90 percent of the comparable price. This means Government support at 90 percent of $1.30— $118.30. Under this plan the Government would become the only buyer of domestic wool and you would be perpetuating the present un- satisfactory situation where manufacturers will buy the lower cost imported wool and more Government-owned wool will be added to the already large stock pile which will eventually have to be sold at a substantial loss to the Government. You will note that a loan or purchase on the basis of 90 percent of the comparable price would have resulted in the Govern- ment owning the domestic clip 13 years out of the 20, whereas if the loan or purchase program had been on 90 percent of parity the Government would have owned the clip only 6 years out of the 20 and these are the 6 years Government support was really needed. Two Major Mandates to Congress EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES A. PLUMLEY OF VERMONT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the following article is a very construc- A999 tive statement and deserves the atten- tion of every Member of Congress. It appeared in the New York Herald Trib- une of Sunday, January 5, 1947: TWO MAJOR MANDATES TO CONGRESS—LAEOR LAW CHANGES AND REDUCTION OF GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS NEEDED (By Heptisax) Por some weeks past there has been a good deal of discussion in the press and on the radio of the possibility of a business slump, with each observer quoting his favorite econ- omist or spokesman for this or that Govern- ment bureau. These same observers are also taking a lively interest in the public's reluc- tance to spend money as recklessly as every- one seemed to be spending it in the early autumn months; and rather painful efforts are being made to tie this phenomenon in with prophecies of an impending recession. Many of those who are trying to understand the situation are coming to the conclusion that the new caution with which the Ameri- can people are now buying everything, from butter to parimutuel tickets, is traceable to a widespread fear of a coming depression. This is not a problem in economics, which the specialists can solve by quoting market quotations and statistical tables. It is a Problem in mass psychology, and to get the answer to it one does better to frequent places where wage earners congregate to re- Jax and discuss the state of the Nation. Any- one who has been doing this for 6 months past will come to a very different conclusion. He will conclude, I think, that the reckless spending of the summer and early autumn was a symptom of fear and that the saner buying and spending of December is inspired by a new confidence in the future. The professorial speculation on the pus- sibility that a mild or serious depression is somewhere around the corner its scarcely more than a month old. The discussion of it in the streets is at least 6 months old and was probably at its peak in September. It was inspired by price inflation. We all know the causes of price inflation which were fa- miliar to the common man. He knew that it was traceable to the scarcity of nearly everything that everybody wanted to buy. He knew that returning servicemen, bent upon compensating themseves for a thin time at whatever cost, were contributing to price inflation; but he also knew that that would soon cease to have any marked effect on competitive buying. He knew that Gov- ernment efforts to control distribution and prices were fostering bigger and bigger black markets and that the lavish spending of the racketeers, and of their army of handsomely paid employees, was a contributing factor. He knew that the only cure for the situa~ tion was all-out production; and when he saw strike after strike halting production and the administration unwilling to resort to any legislative remedy and unable to per- suade unorganized labor that strikes which aggravated scarcities could not possibly yield the industrial workers increascs in real buy- ing power, he became very pessimistic indeed about the future. He foresaw a time when the great masses of the people could afford to buy nothing with their inflated dollars but the barest necessities, and when those industries that had bought temporary peace from organized labor with wage increases would find that their market had shrunk, would curtail production, and would start laying off their high-priced help. This prospect, which was being freely dis- cussed in the late summer, inspired the common man to get rid of his money as fast as it came in. One might think that the prospect of a depression would prompt ‘wage earners to save. So it would have if they had any faith in the sustained buying power of the dollar. But with run-away price inflation as the likely prelude to de- pression, it became the ambition of everyone
A1000 on a small income to spend every cent he could get his hands on while money would ptill buy something—if it was only whoopee. The workingman decided that it would be better to enter upon hard times with a house full of things that he wanted than with a bale of worthless paper. Then, as the elec- tions approached, the idea got about thet a change in the administration might bring changes of policy which would makc all-out production possible; that inflation might be checked; and that the much discussed slump might be forestalled. The common man and his neighbor agreed that it was worth trying. What happened at the polls is largely a result of that agreement. And by what happened at the polls the common man ‘was persuaded to calm down, to hold on to a higher percentage of his earnings and to do some watchful waiting. The man and woman on a small income gave the Repub- lican Party a mandate to get steady produc- tion going by bringing labor under con- trol; and they are waiting with some con- fidence—with far greater confidence since John L. Lewis surrendered—to see what the Congress does with this mandate. This changed attitude of the masses in the low- and middle-income brackets toward their money does not account, of course, for the December buyers’ strike against high- priced luxuries. The industrial worker, the office clerk, the small merchant, and the pro- fessional man do not buy fantastically priced furs, jewelry, cosmetics, and night-club en- tertainment. But the customers for such wares are not at all giddy wasters. Plenty of them are men or the wives of men who have come to affluence the hard way and are as intent upon getting their dollar's worth of finery o~ fun as the thriftiest small mer- chant. They are moved by the same hopes and fears as everyone else; but the good providers in this class are likelier than the common man to understand Government finance and to take an interest in it. Ba- fore the election they, too, had a very lively fear of inflation and its consequences; but they feare” currency inflation as well as price inflation. They feared that, if the Democratic Party won the election, the ad- ministration would persist in financing an extravagantly expensive Government out of borrowings through the commercial banks and the issue of Federal Reserve paper against bonds, until the wisest of thelr own kind started bidding against each other for inflation-proof investments. _ Then the paper dollar might all of a sudden be too cheap to print. They were gloomily sure that such a financial debacle would shortly follow a Democratic victory in Novem- ber, and not confident enough of a Republi- can victory to have much respect for the abundant cash in their pockets. So they too squandered money recklessly until the elec- tion returns gave them some reason to hope that the new Congress would put an end to borrowing and deficit financing and insure the stability of the currency by attacking the debt. For whatever their small vote is worth, they gave the Republican Party this mandate, and then they too settled down to do some calm watchful waiting. By the time they started their Christmas spending they were sufficiently hopeful that the dollar was safe, and that labor peace and full production would bring down prices, to have recovered their normal respect for the cash in their pockets and to do their spending with some discretion. That seems to me to explain the attitude of all classes of our people toward money before and since the elections. Six months ago we had not only labor strikes to curtail produc- tion but producers’ and dealers’ strikes. Scarce goods were hoarded in the belief that Federal bungling of both the labor situation and price control would push prices higher and higher, while all classes of people were paying any prices asked to get rid of their money. Now we have something resembling a buyers’ strike, Inspired by the hope that the new Congress will force policies upon the ad-= ministration which will bring full production, competitive selling and those lower prices which, in prospect, make it worth while for a fellow to hoard his loose change. According to this theory of mine, then, the new Congress has two mandates to execute. One of them comes from all classes of people, from everyone, indeed, but the professional labor leaders of the more cantankerous sort and the various collectivists, who refuse to believe that the people voted for any specific change in November. This first mandate is to put an end to industrial warfare, get produc- tion going and keep it going. Since it is cer- tain that no Republican would have been elected from the highly industrialized States without the votes of a majority of working men and women, whether union members or not, it would be nonsense to suggest that the Congress has a mandate to soak labor vindic- tively. It is very difficult to learn from any loyal union man what he thinks should be done, He wants certain definite results; but to get them he wants the fewest possible restric- tions put upon organized labor. I get the impression that most of them would like to see the legislative program in Congress start modestly and proceed cautiously as Conditions dictate. Most of them have their eyes on the CIO unions, and particularly on those dominated by Communists, who are as likely to make trouble for political or destructive purposes as for the welfare of the rank and file. Whatever is needed to make it impossible for politically minded union chiefs to sabo- tage American production and transporta- tion the average union man would approve, I have been thinking, talking, and writing about this labor problem for 10 years, and in that time I have said over and over again that the Nation’s minimum need is to make labor “respectable and responsible.” This, when explained, meets with the working- man’s full approval. To make labor respect- able its leadership must be respectable; and, to insure this, it must be representative of and accountable to the rank and file at every turn. To achieve this it is probably neces- sary to incorporate all unions, prescribe “democratic” union government, and to have all their accounts audited and published. This would make union leadership respon- sible to the workers; and to make the unions responsible to the people and their Govern- ment, the first step would be the revision of the discriminatory Wagner Act. I am inclined to agree with the men that, if we started with these measures and then paused to note the effect on union leader- ship, we should find that the situation did not call for much further legislative action, and could see how much more had to be done. The second mandate is, as I have said, from the limited number of persons who under- stand money and its ways. It is a mandate to reduce Government costs by reducing Government functions (for it cannot be done by firing a bureaucrat supernumerary clerk here and there), until there is such a sub- stantial surplus that a businesslike assault can be made on the debt and particularly upon the enormous mass of inflationary Fed- eral Reserve paper which is a constant mene ace to the American citizen’s dollar, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD We Face a Decision EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES R. ROBERTSON OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Nation today face a de- cision—a decision as far reaching as any we have had occasion to make in the past. Ever since the battle of Waterloo, Eng- land has occupied a leading position among the nations of the world. She has been criticized by many for her im- perialism. She has been charged by many with provoking war. I am not here attempting to defend the sins of England, but I do maintain that over this long period of time England has been a great contributor to the welfare of many of the peoples of this globe. Even the United States has been in many instances the beneficiary of England’s leadership. We now find that in all probability the United Kingdom can never again regain its prewar would prestige. The actions of England in the last few weeks are con- clusive that economically she is in bad shape. The British Isles are not self- sufficient; they lack resources. They can no longer control the economy of the Empire. Militarily the British Isles are not defensible against atomic and rocket warfare because of their proximity to continental Europe, and their small pop- ulation of 45,000,000 people. Great Brit- ain must bow out as the leader among na- tions. This is a challenge to the United States of America. Will we answer this challenge? If we are to answer, then we must answer it now. If we fail to answer it the result will be that the leadership of the world will fall into the lap of Russia, and she will thrust upon all the peoples of the world her ideology, which is contrary to our American philosophy. The decline of Great Britain has pro- duced a vacuum, and the vacuum must be filled. It is necessary that we fill it. Otherwise it will be filled by Russia. It is regrettable that we are brought face to face with this challenge at a time when our Treasury is in such a deplor- able condition, and the industrial part of our country is torn by strife, with trouble between management and labor, with constantly recurring strikes. Much of this trouble is chargeable to the bad influences of Russia who stands ready to take over if we fail. To us, whether we want it or not, now comes the leadership of the world. The great question is this—Is Mr. and Mrs, American Citizen ready to make the sac- rifice that will be called for in fill- ing this vacuum? Are the people of this Nation fully informed as to the far- reaching effect of this new responsi- bility? The President has challenged communism throughout the world. The Place to start the fight is within our own country. I ask unanimous consent to include herewith a very outstanding editorial