4.3500 Consider how much more dispersed the vitals of this ocean-scattered union would be than those of any democracy now, how hard it would be for an aggressor to knock out at one surprise blow all 1ts means of dealing a much mightier counterblow. Consider, too, how much more rapidly the union could develop power in this field through the close combination of European pure science and American technical know- how. It was cooperation between these two that produced the atomic bomb, but since the war, this has fallen away through the recrudescence of nationalism’s loyalties and suspicions. Union would develop a far closer cooperation in this field than existed during the war, and at the same time immensely improve—still at no extra cost—security from, spies. Even this much thought shows how much we err on the conservative side when we say the United States taxpayer would gain by Atlantic union 30 percent more defense for his money. It would still be conserva- tive to estimate our gain at 50 percent at least. Second. If one adds up the national in- come of each of the seven sponsors of the Atlantic Pact in 1947, the latest year for which these figures are available for them all, the total, as shown in table II, is 283 billion. If the stimulus to production that union gave resulted in a mere increase of 6 percent in this Atlantic union income, it would amount to $1'7,000,000,000, or the total amount the same countries are now spending on defense. Suppose the national income of the union rose to no more than by 10 percent, a very modest rise, or by $28,000,000,000. That would make its income $311,000,000,000. Suppose it neither increased nor reduced the $17,000,000,000 figure for defense. Even so, the ratio of the burden of defense to in- come would have gone down from $1 in $17 to $1 in $19, a reduction of 12 percent. Among the 13 States, however, the consti- tution of a Federal Union in 1789 rapidly changed the picture from bust to boom. There are no good figures available on the total income or even on the foreign trade of each of the 13 States before union, but we do know that the value of the foreign trade of the United States quadrupled in the first decade of union. ‘True, the 13 States had a vast area of un- developed land, but they were handicapped in developing it by the lack of people, the slowness of transportation, the lack of fi- nancial and industrial power. The Atlantic union would have, in its African possessions alone, 10 times more territory to develop than the 13 States had from the Atlantic seaboard to the Mississippi when their Union began, Canada and Alaska could absorb many mil- lions more people, and western Europe could supply more good people now than it could 160 years ago. The Atlantic union, moreover, would have far swifter means of transportation every- where than existed then, and the greatest industrial plant the world has ever known. And, instead of beginning with nothing but overdue debts, as did the United States, the Atlantic union would start with practically all the world’s gold reserves and financial power. This would be something quite unprece- dented in history—this new republic start- ing with vast areas rich in undeveloped re- sources combined with the people most in- dustrially advanced on earth and cemark- ably equipped with financial, transport, and factory power. It should be noted, too, that this union could be brought about only by mutual agreement of the founding democ- racies, first, by their delegates in setting up a@ constitution, and then by their citizens in ratifying it. This would mean that its peo~ ple had not only tackled great difficulties put overcome them—and would begin their union with all the coverage, vision, and buoyant confidence in themselves and their future that this achievement implies. Alongside of these factories, the transi- tion difficulties the union would face would seem to be small. It appears reasonable to pelieve the stage would be set for a period of sound, expansive development, the like of which men have never seen—a period of rapid growth for which “boom” would be too mild and misleading a term. To be conservative, however, let us estimate that national income of the union would not octuple in the first 10 years, or even quadruple, but would merely double. That would mean a total income of $566,000,000,- 000. If the cost of its defense remained at $17,000,000,000, the ratio of defense burden to income would then have fallen from $1 in $17 to $1 in $83. It would be only half as heavy as it isnow. For the United States taxpayer the ratio fall would be from $1 in $16 to $1 in $81. Coupled with our first point, this would mean that the United States taxpayer would be getting 50 percent more defensive protection at half the present burden. All this, remember, is estimated on a con- servative basis. Moreover, it assumes no re- duction whatever in the amount spent on defense. But there is good reason to believe that this figure could be reduced by union. Which brings us to our next point. Third. Every merger permits economies in removing unnecessary duplication. This would certainly be true of the proposed At- Jantic union. At present its proposed found- ers are maintaining six separate armed es- tablishments (omitting Luxemburg because it is so small). This means six separate de- fense departments and six independent gen- eral staffs, all trying to do the same job, and none able to do it so well, or economi- cally, as would one union defense depart- ment and one union general staff. The pres- ent duplication is not only expensive but dangerous, particularly when confronting the centralized arnred power of Soviet Russia. This is also true of other duplications in the armed forces of these six democracies, as in their atomic plants and competing spy services. If anyone proposed to save money and yet Keep up the defensive power of every part of the United States by dividing its 48 States into 6 sovereign republics and giving each its proportionate share of the existing de- fense force and budget to handle independ~ ently, with no stronger link between them than the Atlantic Pact offers, he would he considered crazy. And he would be crazy. The illustration shows how incalculable is the gain, both in money and defensive power, that comes from merging six inde- pendent defense establishments into one force. But let us be conservative still, and estimate the saving the Atlantic'Union would make on this score—with no loss but only gain in defensive power—at merely 10 per- cent of the present $17,000,000,000 bill. That would be a saving of $1,700,000,000. If the economy were 15 percent, it would total $2,500,000,000 a year. The saving to the United States taxpayer would be respectively $1,300,000,000 and $1,950,000,000. : Fourth. Consider the economies in defense that union would permit, apart from ending duplication. For one example, the union would have about 90 percent of the world’s naval tonnage. It would not need to main- tain in active service so huge a margin of superiority. As Will Clayton has pointed out, it could retire half of its naval tonnage, ' and still have 80 percent of the ‘world’s active total. If it put on the inactive list two-thirds of its tonnage, it would still re- tcln 75 percent of the world’s active total. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Moreover, because of its globe-dispersed bases, the Atlantic union would not need ‘the expensive, long-ranging type of war- ships and carriers the United States has found necessary, from lack of bases. It could depend more on smaller carriers and warships, cheaper both to build and main- tain, less of a risk in battle, and more dan- gerous to the submarines which form the chief Soviet naval arm. Similar substantial economies could be gained for the same reasons in the air arm py the union. It could rely much more on medium range bombers than the United States does today. These cost much less to build and operate than 10,000-mile rangers. They can be defended better by fighter planes and can fly lower over enemy territory and bomb more accurately. There are further savings to be made— again with only gain in power—in standard- izing much of the equipment of the Atlantic union defense force. Now, when the forces of western Europe are being rebuilt, it would seem particularly wise to speed this standard- izing as only union can speed it. Not to alarm the admirals and others, let us suppose the union made no drastic economies under our fourth point. Let us estimate this economy at only 10 percent, too. That would mean another $1,'700,000,000 saving for the people of the union, $1,300,- 000,000 of which would go to American tax- payers. It would still be conservative to estimate the combined saving on the third and fourth points at 25 percent. This would mean a total of $4,250,000,000 a year, of which $3,250,- 000,000 would be a direct saving for the United States taxpayer. In fact, the taxpayer would be saved the entire $4,250,000,000. For the $1,000,000,000 economy the European members of the union would enjoy would reduce by $1,000,- 000,000 the Marshall plan aid they would need for United States taxpayers to furnish. Nor would this be all the saving the American taxpayer would enjoy. With the greater security and confidence that union would bring to its European members, its great stimulus to business, and its removal of the fear of further devaluations, there would be little need left of further Marshall plan aid to defend the union’s European territory in the cold war. Private enterprise, as Will Clayton predicts, would take over most of the job in this area, and much of it in the other Marshall aid countries. The United States taxpayer should save on this score at least another billion dollars, bringing his total saving to $5,250,000,000. The union might also save about $'750,000,= 000 by funding the present public debt of all its seven members at the same rate of inter- est as that paid by the United States, which is lower than what the others, except Britain, pay. Result: A total saving up to $6,000,000,- 000 a year, By taking over the present debt of each member democracy, along the lines that Alexander Hamilton pioneered so success- fully, the union could also insure that an immense amount of private capital would be available in Europe for reconstruction. This would make still less necessary any further taxation of Americans for Marshall aid purposes, The union could effect still further savings in the cost of diplomacy and im some other governmental services. But these would be small compared to the saving on defense. In summing it up, let us remain conserva- tive and estimate the total saving to the United States taxpayer on defense not at $6,000,000,000 but at only #4,000,000,000 a year. If we return to our first and second points, and assume that the doubling of the union’s national income in 10 years applied equally to the United States part
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of it, then we find that this $4,000,000,000 saving would result in the ratio of the defense burden to national income falling from $1 in $16 to $1 in $45. The short of it is that Atlantic union would not only save the United States tax- payers $4,000,000,000 a year at least, but would give them 50 percent more effective defensive power at only one-third of the real burden they bear today. ADEQUATE DEFENSE, BALANCED BUDGET Since Soviet Russia is spending so much more of its national income for war than we are now, some argue that it would be dangerous to make any cut in the arms expenditure of the free. And others argue that the free should spend more, not less, on arms now. One may answer that Atlantic union would change this picture by the formidable rise in moral as. well as general material power that would result, in addition to the great increase in strength union would proverbially bring on the purely military side. But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it would be wiser for the free to continue spending as much as at present on defense, even to increase that expenditure. In either event union would still lighten the taxpayer’s burden. Consider: No one would argue to continue waste- ful expenditure on arms, or expenditure that got less return for the money than could otherwise be had. The $4,000,000,000 thus saved for United States taxpayers by union involves no loss in the armed power of the free. If the free plowed back into arms three-fourths of this economy, they would be increasing their present nonwasteful, effective arms expenditure by $3,000,000,000—. and yet they would be spending $1,000,000,- 000 less than at present. If they put all their arms economies back into arms, they would still be lightening the taxpayer’s burden by (a) giving him more defense for his money, and (b) enjoying the increase in national income that union would bring. And both these factors would remain true if the union decided to spend, say, twenty or twenty-five billion dollars on arms, instead of the total $1'7,000,000,000 the seven democracies now spend. If it were wise for the seven when fed- erated to increase their arms bill by half, from seventeen to twenty-five billion dollars, it would be even more necessary for each of the seven, if they did not federate, to increase its arms expenditure even more. But for the American taxpayer, to get without union the benefit of $25,000,000,000 of defense, the United States would have to increase its present expenditure of $13,000,000,000 by levying $12,000,000,000 more in taxes. To get this same $25,000,000,000 of defense through union it would need to add only $6,000,000,000 in taxes to the American’s burden, and $2,000,000,000 ta the load on the other citizens. That is, the United States taxpayer, in- stead of having to pay 100 percent more for defense, would need to pay only 50 percent more. In other words, a 50-percent increase in the arms expenditure of the union would be the equivalent of a 100-percent increase in the same expenditure by the United States as a separate sovereign country. It follows, therefore, that if it is wise for the free to spend more on arms, then the more they need to spend, the more the United States taxpayer (and the Canadian, British, French taxpayer) will lighten his burden by Atlantic union. Americans get the equiva- lent of a 100-percent United States increase in arms expenditure at a saving of $6,000,- 00,000 by Atlantic union—in addition to en~ joying all the other savings and advantages in increased power that union brings. The saving to the Canadian and European citi- zens of the union is still greater. | XCVI—App.——221 And with every strong democracy that was added to this nuclear union of seven, the United States taxpayer—and every other tax- payer in this union of the free—would be gaining still greater protection from war while carrying still less of a burden, Foreword of the May Issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science EXTENSION OF REMARKS er HON. ESTES KEFAUVER OF TENNESSEE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, on Saturday last, through the kindness of Dr. Ernest Minor Patterson, president of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, I was able to exam- ine the galley proofs of the May issue of the annals of the academy. That is- sue, which will be off the press this com- ing Wednesday, is devoted entirely to the subject of gambling and law enforce- ment in the United States. It will con- tain 17 articles written by eminent au- thorities on the subject. As most Senators know, publications of the 61-year-old Academy are noted for the reliability of their contents, and statements found in these publications are cited throughout the United States and abroad as authoritative statements of fact. ‘ I do not want to take the time of the Senate to go into any detail of the con- tents of the May issue. However, I feel I should tell my colleagues that the high type of factual material it contains should prove extremely valuable to the special committee just established by the Senate for the investigation of organized crime. Separate articles appear on such subjects as bookmaking, slot machines, and the enforcement of gambling laws. Experts from all over the country pre- pared the articles, and these experts are among those who most likely will be called to testify before the special com- mittee. I particularly want to call to the attention of the Senate the two ex- cellent articles, one on gambling odds and the other on lotteries, prepared by a local expert who has spent 20 years in- vestigating the subject of gambling. He is Ernest Blanche, Ph. D., chief statis- tician for the Logistics Division, General Staff, United States Army. I congratulate the Academy in issuing such a factual and timely publication, and suggest that the May issue of the Annals be placed on the must list of read- ing for all senatorial offices. I commend the reading of the publi- cation by Members of the Senate to give them some idea of the problem the spe- cial committee named today by the Pres- ident of the Senate will have. I ask unanimous consent that the fore- word of the May edition of the Annals be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, A3501 together with a list of the articles con- tained in it, and the authors of those articles, There being no objection, the matters referred to were ordered to be printed in the Rzecorp, as follows: FOREWORD Gambling is a well-nigh universal phe- momenon. It occurs among people of all ages and cultures. Nor is it an offspring of modern civilization, for it was encountered in primitive communities. Indeed, many of the forms of gambling, as well as scme of its rationalizations, go back to the dawn of history. Even the Hittites of Biblical times were interested in improving the breed of horses, which is the current cliché justifying the “sport of kings’ and its concomitant, betting on the races. American attitudes toward gambling have always been ambivalent in character. Wide- spread condemnation and participation in gambling go handinhband. The public press sporadically inveighs against gambling and its attendant evils, yet facilitates it by pub- lishing the data essential to gambling in many forms. Churches condemn gambling, yet profit from raffles and lotteries. Legis- latures enact antigambling statutes, yet make it possible for States to participate in moneys wagered at race tracks. Flurries of strict enforcement of gambling statutes alternate with long periods of quasi-official tolerance. The citizen who becomes out- raged at revelations of police corruption in connection with gambling nevertheless pat- ronizes the neighborhood bookmaker or the “one-armed bandit.” Moreover, each era has seen a fresh em- phasis on some new, or the revival of an old, game of chance or outlet for the gambling instincts of the individual. This genera- tion differs from its predecessors perhaps more in terms of an increased participation in the pastime, rather than in the multi- plicity of forms it has assumed. Indeed, we have found an amazing similarity between new and old forms of gambling; the stakes are now astronomical, where once they were moderate; the modern devices now employed disguise only thinly the ancient games our forebears played. It is extraordinary that, despite such uni- versal participation and interest in gambling, little basic material of an analytical and scientific character has been published con- cerning this absorbing subject. The litera~ ture of gambling is studded with colorful polemics concerning its moral and social features; the shelves of libraries are filled with reports concerning official malfeasance in the enforcement of gambling laws, con- taining some illuminating chapters on the already well-known aspects of gambling. But nowhere, to our Knowledge, has the at- tempt been made to envisage the problem in all its many-sided forms, and from all its facets. Nobody has attempted to analyze and describe the various forms of gambling, as well as to evaluate their moral, political, social, psychological, and economic implica- tions. This symposium, therefore, represents the first attempt at an over-all analysis of the problem of gambling. It is by no means complete, for this would have required far more space than was available to us, and other techniques of assembling contributions besides that of voluntary collaboration. Nevertheless, despite the gaps and limitations of our material, of which we are painfully aware, we believe that the outstanding fea- tures of the problem of gambling have been covered objectively. Our contributors have presented data in the various articles con- tained herein which make it possible to an- swer some of the basic questions concerning gambling. .
A3502 Recent developments have enhanced the timeliness of this volume. During the past few months, gambling has been headiine news. At their annual meeting in the fall of 1949, the mayors and city managers of the American Municipal Association dis- cussed the alleged relationship between gambling and organized crime. One result was the launching of a campaign by metro+ politan newspapers throughout the country to expose “the nation-wide interlocking op- erations of well organized crime syndicates heavily financed by the Nation’s $15,000,= 000,000 gambling bill.” On January 5, 1950, United States Senator Estes Kerauver of Tennessee called for a Sen= ate investigation of interstate gambling and racketeering. A few days later, Mayor Wil- liam O*Dwyer of New York City made his forthright proposal to the legislature (in a message reprinted in this volume) to legalize and regulate certain forms of gambling on sports events. Governor Thomas E. Dewey addressed a public plea (also reprinted here- in) opposing -this precedent-shattering re- quest. The clergy of the Nation did not remain silent in this controversy, and the Federal Council of Churches stated that it “reaffirms its vigorous opposition to gambling which it considers an invidious menace to personal character and to morality.” These recent developments throw into sharp focus certain basic questions concern- ing gambling: (1) Does gambling, in any and all of its forms, ,undermine public morals to such an extent that it must be re- pressed at all costs? (2) Is zemhline vvi- marily an activity conducted ©, © ¢cr.icis and underworld characters who are able, through political and other methods, to paralyze local enforcement agencies? (3) Are racketeers in control of rm‘ "i-y using the proceeds from gamblin, «’° 1114 to finance other criminal enterprises? (4) Is it possible to control the evils of gambling by legalizing certain of its forms and outlawing others? (5) If gambling is not legalized, how can law-enforcement agencies he strengthened so that gambling statutes can be rigorously enforced, despite widespread public participation in gambling? ‘We have marshaled the materials contained in this volume for the purpose of furnishing data by means of which questions such as these might be answered. If our readers find our data inconclusive—if they find that our contributors disagree among themselves as to how such questions must be answered— they should not be surprised. The problem of the control of gambling is a complex one, and there are no certainties, no finalities, in this field. All that we hope to accomplish by this volume is to bring about an under- standing of the complexities and to stimulate efforts directed toward their solution. Morris PLOSCOWE. Epwin J. LuUKAs. LEGAL STATUS OF GAMBLING The Law of Gambling, Morris Ploscowe; Obstacles To Enforcement of Gambling Laws, Virgil W. Peterson; The Facilitation of Gambling, Paul S Deland; Gambling in Ne- vada, Joseph F. McDonald; Legalized Gam- bling in New York? messages to New York Legislature by Mayor O'Dwyer and Governor Dewey. VARIOUS FORMS OF GAMBLING The Forms of Gambling, Oswald Jacoby; Bookmaking, Louis A. Lawrence; Horse Rac- ing and the Pari-mutuel, John I. Day; Slot Machines and Pinball Games, Anonymous; Lotteries Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, Ernest E. Blanche; Gambling Odds Are Gim- micked, Ernest E. Blanche; THE GAMBLER The Professional Gambler, Albert H. More- head; The Psychedynamics of Gambling, Robert M. Lindner; The Pomo: A Profile of Gambling Among Indians, Burt W. Aginsky and Ethel G. Aginsky; The Argot of the Dice Gambler, David W. Maurer, GAMBLING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES Gambling in the Latin American Coun- tries, Manuel Lopez-Rey; Betting on Football Matches in Sweden, Bertil Ahrnborg. Importation of Hats and Hat Bodies EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN DAVIS LODGE OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. LODGE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following statement which I filed with the Tariff Commission for in- clusion in the hearings before that body relative to an investigation of the im- portation of hats and hat bodies. This hearing was conducted yesterday, May 9, 1950. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN DavISs Lopcr, oF CONNECTICUT, AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE UNITED STaTES TaRIFF Com- MISSION RELATIVE TO AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPORTATION OF HaTS AND Hat Bopizs As the members of the Tariff Commission must know, the great hat industry of our country is located in Fairfield County, Conn., the district which I have the honor to repre- sent in the Congress of the United States. This industry is centered in Danbury and Norwalk where there is a fine and long tradi- tion for the making of first-class hats. There is now considerable distress in this industry due principally to the importation of fur felt hats and hat bodies from Czechoslovakia. It is my understanding that these items are coming into this country pursuant to the agreements reached at the Geneva Con- vention in, 1947 which was prior to the date when Czechoslovakia was dragged behind the iron curtain. In other words, these agreements represented arrangements be- tween two free and independent nations. Since that time Czechoslovakia has become enslaved. In these circumstances the agree~ ments reached at the Geneva Convention are not only obsolete but they are definitely proving harmful to the people of our own country in the communities which I have mentioned. Furthermore, it is manifestly against our best national interests to assist those forces which are bent upon our de- struction. The Kremlin and its satellites are our self-styled enemies. It is high time that our policies and the details of our plans should be brought in line with the realities of the world crisis. Moreover, these fur felt hats and hat bodies are the product of slave labor and therefore constitute unfair competition. Surely it cannot be part of our national policy to reduce the working men and women of America to a serf status in order to com- pete successfully with these imports from slave-labor countries. ‘ The labor movement in our country has shown itself understanding and sympathetic with our international obligations and re- sponsibilities. They have been in favor of the Marshall plan from the very beginning. They have been commendably willing to shoulder their share of the burden of for- eign aid, conscious of the fact that our national security depends in great part upon APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the preservation of freedom in other parts of the world. Surely, however, there is no reason why any one segment of our popula- tion, any one group of workers should bear the brunt of this effort, even when the im- ports involved are from free ccuntries. Surely this burden should be spread equally amoug onr people and not handled in a dis- criminatory fashion. Surely also it 1s in our best national interest to retain and to stimulate the enthusiasm of our people for the private property, free competitive system. In these circumstances I think it of the greatest importance that the agreements made under the Geneva Convention with respect to Czechoslovakia should be con- sidered null and void in the light of the present relations existing between the United States and Czechoslovakia, Indeed, in my opinion, the Tariff Com- mission and the Committee on Reciprocity Information of the Department of State should seriously consider placing a complete embargo on all items, the manufactured costs of which cannot be ascertained. It is un- fair and unwise to expose American indus- tries to competition from items which are subsidized or produced by State monopolies. Copyright Laws and the State of IsraeL— Proclamation by the President EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, last week the President of the United States issued a formal proclamation extending the protection of the copyright laws to citizens of the new State of Israel in con- sideration of the extension of the pro- tection of comparable copyright laws to American citizens in Israel. This is an- other sign of the increasing reciprocity between our two nations. I ask unan- imous consent of the Senate to have the President’s proclamation and these remarks incident thereto inserted in the Appendix of the ConGcRESSIONAL RECORD. There being no objection, the procla- mation was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: May 4, 1950. CorrricHTr—IsRarL (By the President of the United States of America) A PROCLAMATION Whereas under section 9 of title 17 of the United States Code, entitled, “Copyrights,” as codified and enacted into positive law by the act of Congress approved July 30, 1947, 61 Stat. 652, provides in part that the copy- right secured by such title shall extend to the work of an author or proprietor who is @ citizen or subject of a foreign state or nation only: “(a) When an alien author or proprietor shall be domiciled within the United States at the time of the first publication of his work; or “(b) When the foreign state or nation of which such author or proprietor is a citizen or subject grants, either by treaty, conven- tion, agreement, or law, to citizens of the United States the benefit of copyright on substantially the same basis as to its own
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD eltizens, or copyright protection, substan. tially equal to the protection secured to such foreign author under this title or by treaty; or wien such foreign state or nation is a party to an international agreement which provides for reciprocity in the granting of copyright, by the terms of which agreement the United States may, at its pleasure, bea» come a party thereto.”; and Whereas section 1 of the said title 17 pro vides in part as follows: “Any person entitled thereto, upon com- plying with the provisions of this title, shall have the exclusive right: * * * * * “(e) To perform the esscr*tktc’t work publicly for profit if it be at: . +... uw. mposi- tion; * “ ™“ Provided, That the pro- visions of this title, so far as they secure copy= right controlling the parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the mu- sical work, shall include only compositions published and copyrighted after July 1, 1909, and shall not include the works of a foreign author or composer unless the foreign state or nation of which such author or composer is a citizen or subject grants, either by treaty, convention, agreement, or law, to citizens of the United States similar rights.”; and Whereas section 9 of the said title 17 fur- ther provides that “the existence of the re- ciprocal cordiuons aforesaid shall be deter~ mined by the President of the United States, by proclamation made from time to time, as the purposes of this title may require.”; and Whereas satisfactory official assurances have been received that since May 15, 1948, citizens of the United States have been en- titled to obtain copyright protection for their works in Israel which has been accorded substantially on the same basis as to citizens of Israel, including rights similar to those provided by section 1 (e) of the said title 17: Now, therefore, I, Harry S. Truman, Presi- dent of the United States of America, do declare and proclaim: That since May 15, 1948, the conditions specified in sections 9 (b) and 1 (e) of the said title 17 of the United States Code have existed and have been fulfilled with respect ty citizens of Israel, and that citizens of Israel are and since May 15, 1948, have been entitled to all the benefits of the said title 17 except those conferred by the provisions embodied in the second paragraph of sec- tion 9 (b) thereof regarding the extension of time for fulfilling copyright conditions and formalities. Provided, That the enjoyment by any work of the rights and benefits conferred by the said title 17 shall be conditioned upon com- pliance with the requirements and formal- ities prescribed with respect to such works by the copyright laws of the United States: And provided further, That the provisions of section 1 (e) of the said title 17, so far as they secure copyright controlling parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechani- cally the musical work, shall apply only to compositions published after July 1, 1909, and registered for copyright in the United States which have not been reproduced with- in the United States prior to May 15, 1948, on any contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically performed. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington this 4th day of May in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and fifty and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and seventy-fourth. {[sEAL] Harry S. TRUMAN, By the President: DEAN ACHESON, Secretary of State. Veterans’ Administration Administrator Gives Congressman Pertinent Facts and Figures Showing Namerical Participa- tion in Wars, Number of Dependents of Wars, Number of Veterans Under GI Bill, Guaranteed Loans, Insurance Pro- gram, Etc. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLYDE DOYLE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker and my col- leagues, my recent trip with the subcom- mittee of Armed Services Committee to several military hospitals in as many States, has given me a continuing in- terest in the hospitalization problem as to both military and veterans. So, in a very enlightening interview I was favored recently in having with Gen. Carl R. Gray, Jr., as early as 7:30 a. m. in the morning, he found time, very cor- dially, to answer my numerous questions. He also found time that early in the morning at his office, to volunteer for my education and on many facts which I felt would be very useful to my congressional colleagues also. Following, therefore, is copy of his let- ter of May 3, 1950, to me transmitting some of the facts and figures which I hope may be as helpful to you, as I have already found them to be to me: VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION, Washington, May 3, 1950. Hon. Cuype Doris, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My Dean ConcressmMaAn: It is a great pleasure for me to place in this letter the facts and figures which I quoted you this morning when you called at my office. I be- lieve they will show in a very brief way the tremendous ramifications of the Vet- erans’ Administration and give a clear-cut conception of the results evidenced from the laws passed by the Congress which we administer: Totals, all wars (as of Dec. 31, 1949): Participants_.-_._--_---..------ 24, 924, 000 Deaths (in service) .. 934, 000 Living veterans -.-.....-.-... 19, 022, 000 Revolution, 1775-83: Participants.___---.----. $95, 000 Deaths (in service) 4, 000 Living veterans........-.-.. ~s None. Last veteran, 1869, age 109. Last dependent, 1906, age 92. War of 1812 (1812-15): Participants.....-.... 536, 000 Deaths (in service) .. 2, 000 Living veterans..___--_..-.--. - None. Last veteran, 1905, age 105. Last dependent, 1946 (age not given). Mexican War (1846-48) s Participants_.__------------< 180, 000 Deaths (in service) ----------. 13, 000 Living veterans.__...__--.- — None. Last veteran, 1929, age 98. On rolls Dec. 31, 1949, 25 widows, 1 child, ww A3503 Civil War: Participants_.-----.-..--..... 2, 192,099 Deaths (in service) ..-.--.---= 364, 020 Living veterans --.--.-.-_--.. 18 Indian wars: Participants own nnn ene 105, 000 Teaths ~-.-.-_~..- 1, 333 Living veterans 580 Spanish-American War: Participants.-_-.------...---. 292, 000 Deaths (1n service) —.. 11, 000 Living veterans --.--.------ 122, 000 World War I: Participants_-_--..-.------- 4, 744, 000 Deaths (in service) --.- 131, GOO Living veterans 3, 553, 009 World War II: Participants____..------------ 16, 535, C00 Deaths (in service) --..-.----- 469, C00 Living veterans ._--_--.-.-.- 15, 294, 000 Since war ended 6,500,000, or over 40 per- cent, of all World War II veterans have re- ceived some training under GI bill, In addi- tion, 500,000 have been trained under Public Law 16. Two million two hundred thousand at- tended colleges, 2,800,000 entered schools be- low college level, 1,600,000 took on-the-job training, 570,000 took institutional on-farm training, 600,000 took business courses, 400,- 000 studied engineering, 87,000 took law, 180,000 studied medicine, 170,000 studied teaching. In job training, 34,000 trained for chemists, pharmacists, and social workers, 117,000 entered metaltvorking, 62,000 took up some phase of ‘Niezirg iada. Guaranteed loans (as of December 31, 1949): Number approved: Number repaid: Home__-_. 1, 700, 000 Home... 87, 000 Farm... 55, 000 Farm... 12,500 Business... 115, 000 Business. 42, 060 More than 90 percent of veterans are keep- ing un nevments on loans. Over 141,000 have repa:c in 1ull. In past 444 years VA has had to make good on only seven-tenths of 1 percent loans, Since VJ-day VA has provided medical treatment to nearly 2,400,000 veteran pa- tients and VA clinics have treated an even greater number. Medical team that cares for veterans has in it 4,200 doctors, 13,000 nurses, 900 dentists, supported by thousands of oth- er trained and specialized workers and volun- teers. In addition, 75,000 doctors and 55,000 den- tists cooperated with VA in the home-town treatment plan. Insurance “rocrem: Vererars hold 7,000,- 000 NSLI pel.cac?, %4A0 00929" (CO worth of protection for families. Some 12,000,000 let $100,000,000,000 worth lapse. Sincerely yours, CaRL R. Gray, JR., Administrator. Address of the President at Laramie, Wyo. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ISIDORE DOLLINGER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. DOLLINGER. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the address of the President made at Laramie, Wyo., on May 9, 1950: It is always a pleasure to visit Laramie, a landmark of the old West. It is a particular
A3504 pleasure to speak here at the University of Wyoming, a symbol of the new West. The West exerts a strong influence on the imagination of Americans. The stirring drama o* **e ~nenire cf the West is a part of our:. a ne oo It 1s a tradition that the West is a coun- try of great distances and of isolated com- munities, of many days of travel between cities. The tradition has left a deep impres- sion on all Americans. It had much to do, I think, with the notion that many of us once held that the United States was a vast distance away from foreign neighbors—that our Nation was an isolated community separated by days of travel from other communities on the globe. You know how the West has shrunk. Dis- tances seem to have been wiped out by a net= work of rails and highways, and now by the huge airliners that cross the entire Na- tion in less time than it used to take to cross a single county. The world’s distances have likewise shrunk, To put Laramie in its right perspective, you should erect signposts in the center of town that read like this: one pointing east that says, “London, 30 hours”’—one pointing west that says “Shanghai, 44 hours”—one point- ing south, “Santiago, 35 hours’—and one pointing north, “Moscow, 45 hours.” “NEIGHBORS OF TERRIBLE TYRANNY” These are the normal flight times of com- mercial airliners. There are military planes that fly even faster. It took two World Wars to bring home to us the fact that world distances have dis- appeared. We are next door neighbors now to people in other countries who once were scarcely more than names to us. We have become citizens of a larger community—the whole world. It is the great prchlem—oard the great chal- lenge of our ¢_u--. 5° tuuagers have be- come fellow citizens at a time when the world is so deeply divided. We have been forced into a common citizenship with peo- ple who do not understand our conceptions of democratic life. We must recognize— whether We like it or not—that we are neigh- pors with a Government which denies all the values of the American tradition, indeed of all ethical and moral traditions, and which seems to spread its doctrine over the entire earth. We have become neighbors of a new and terrible tyranny. Tyranny is not new in the world. As long as democracy has existed, tyranny has ex- isted. But never before has it been so diffil- cult for tyranny and democracy to find a basis for peaceful coexistence. There are two reasons for this. The first reason I have already mentioned—the elimi- nation of distances. Where once we could ignore a far-off tyranny, there no longer are any far-off places. Today, everybody on the globe is our neighbor. NEED FOR ALERTNESS EMPHASIZED The second reason is that the new tyranny of Soviet communism is giving no evidence that it is willing to let the free world exist peacefully. Communism has clearly shown its purpose to penetrate free countries, to di- vide free peoples and confuse them, to sub- vert their institutions, and to weaken their resistance. This is a method of attack far more subtle than the ancient and direct method of military attack: It requires more understanding, more alertness, and more de- termination on the part of those who want to preserve their freedom. How do we meet this overriding prob- lem—the most important one of our time? I will tell you two things we cannot do. First, we cannot compromise our own moral and ethical beliefs. We know that this newest form of tyranny is a compound of evils. Communism denies all that we have come to know as democracy. It denies freedom and liberty and human dignity. It denies God. We cannot meet the challenge by any form of compromise with such beliefs. Second, we cannot isolate ourselves. The leadership of the free world, the hopes of millions of people who have not our strength and our resources, depend on us, but, even if we could forget our friends, we know that there 1s no saivation even for ourselves in any passive policy of withdrawal. If we per- mitted communism to engulf the rest of the world and to roll up to our four borders, there would be no peace and no security for ‘us. We cannot compromise our principles. We cannot withdraw from the world. What can we do? CALLS FOR UNITY OF THE FREE We can do this: We can, together with other nations of the free world, clearly demonstrate the superiority of the ideals of freedom over the iron hand of tyranny. We can make clear that democracy and freedom bring to each individual, each day, more of what he wants than any other sys- tem of government. The free world must demonstrate moral superiority. It must demonstrate material superiority. The free world has the resources to make that demonstration. It has the tremendous advantage that always adheres to the cause of justice, liberty, and respect for human dignity. With leadership, with unity, with steadfastness, that demonstration of moral and material superiority can be made. As the strength and effectiveness of the system of freedom are made clear over the globe—as the peoples who now stand in doubt turn to democracy—the danger of Communist domination will dwindle and finally disappear. The struggle for peace, security, and stability in world affairs can be won, This is a long-time project. I know that the American people are impatient. But in this instance, we must be more than patient. The conflict that exists in world affairs will be with us for a long, long time. There is no quick way, no easy way, to end it. In all our relations with other nations, we are following a consistent and forthright policy to strengthen the cause of freedom and bring about stability and peace in world affairs. VALUE OF UNITED NATIONS VIEWED We are working, first of all, for unity among the nations. The foremost expres- sion of our will for unity is our work within the United Nations. The United Nations was created on our soil. Its headquarters are in this country. We have worked un- ceasingly to make the United Nations, and its affliated organizations, strong and effective agencies of peace and international coopera- tion. We have done our best to settle—through the United Nations—some of the difficulties in the world today. You know the record. You know the vetoes. You know that fail- ures in the United Nations cannot be laid to any lack of good faith on our part or any lack of trying. In spite of all difficulties, the United Na- tions has done—and is continuing to do— work of tremendous value in helping the na- tions of the world to get along with one an- other and solve their common problems. This work must continue—and it will con- tinue. As long as I am President, we shall support the United Nations with every means at our command. Within the larger framework of the United Nations, we have joined the countries of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD western Europe in a great combined effort to assure their economic recovery and po- litical stability. VOTE FOR FOREIGN AID CITED The decisive vote of 60 to 8 by which the Senate a few days ago approved the Foreign Assistance Act of 1950 is a powerful expres- sion of the determination of the American people to carry forward our constructive fore eign policy. This action by the Senate, fol- lowing a large favorable vote by the House of Representatives, assures our partners in western Europe that we will successfully complete the great recovery program that was launched 2 years ago. To promote international peace and se- curity in vital areas, we joined first with the other republics of North and South America in the treaty of Rio de Janeiro, and then with Canada and 10 European nations in the North Atlantic Treaty. Through the mutual defense assistance program, we have joined with a number of other free nations to strengthen our common military defense against aggression. In the former enemy countries of Germany and Japan, we have been working to restore them to the society of free nations as rap- idly as they can build firm and reliable demo- cratic institutions. Our efforts in Germany have been delayed by the attempts of the Soviet Union to turn Germany into another Communist satellite. Nevertheless, Western Germany has made great progress along the road toward democ- racy. We believe that the Germans will continue to build upon these elements in their tradition which are good. We want Germany to become more closely integrated with the free nations of Europe. TELLS OF PROGRESS IN JAPAN In Japan, we have also seen encouraging progress. The Japanese pecple, who have not had the same long lum:liai.ty with demo- cratic ideals, are none the less learning the ways of democracy. They are rebuilding their economy along more democratic lines. In one field after another, the Japanese are reestablishing their contracts with the rest of the world in preparation for a resumption of full membership in the international com- munity. Elsewhere in Asia, we are encouraging the aspirations of the millions of people who are striving to establish new democratic gov- ernments. In this part of the world, we have witnessed since the end of the war a tre- mendous event in history—the birth of a great group of new nations—Indla, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon, Indonesia, South Korea, and the Philippines. These new nations are now consolidating their independence and work- ing out their problems of internal security and stability. We welcome these new countries into the family of nations. We can—and shall—con- tinue to give them support, material as well as moral, in their struggle to maintain their freedom. The credit of $100,000,000 to the United States of Indonesia is one type of material aid. Another type is the technical assistance we shall make available to underdeveloped countries under the program thus become known as point 4. This was approved by the Senate last week after earlier authorization by the House. Point 4 provides an example of broad-scale collective action on the part of many coun- tries to bring the benefit of better living conditions to millions of individuals now suffering from ill health, illiteracy, and poverty. The point 4 program is one of the greatest contributions we can make to the cause of freedom. While our support of the new nations of Asia has been of real benefit to them, we have recently been unable to be of any as- sistance at all to the people of one vast
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD area—China. Since the Chinese National Government disintegrated and the Chinese Communists seized control of the mainland, the plight of hundreds of millions of Chi- nese has been tragic. Their new taskmasters have been heartlessly indifferent to the worst famine which has occurred in China in 100 years. We have been working for some time on steps which our country might take to feed at least some of these stricken people. The attitude of the present authorities in China has forced the withdrawal of American offi- cial representatives from that country. However, there are still a number of Ameri- can religious, educational, and charitable organizations which have representatives in China who might be able to help out. We are now trying to find a way for the govern- ment to get food into the hands of these private agencies for distribution in China, REPORTS OBSTRUCTION IN CHINA We do not know whether American private organizations will be permitted by the Chi- nese Communist authorities to provide this assistance, The Communists so far have tried to deny the existence of a famine. They have rebuffed the efforts of others to discover the facts. They have even sent to the Soviet Union food which is desperately needed by the Chinese people. Nevertheless, we shall keep on trying to find ways to get some food to the Chinese people. In Asia, and in the rest of the world, we are trying to do far more than to bring relief to people who are in want. We are working, by every means at our command, to build the kind of world economy in which nations can be self-sustaining over the long run by their own efforts. This is of great impor- tance, because there can never be political stability and peace unless there is a reason- able degree of economic stability and pros- perity. Our world economic policies are aimed at breaking down the barriers to world trade. We believe that a high level of trade can raise standards of living in our own country and every other country. This is the pur- pose of our reciprocal trade-agreements pro- gram, and it is the purpose of the proposed International Trade Organization. LOOKS TO A LONG TASK Our economic policies are also aimed at increasing the international flow of invest- ment capital. The industrial growth of un- derdeveloped areas will mean more produc- tion, better markets, and a stronger world economy. All our international policies, taken to- gether, form a program designed to strengthen and unite the free world in its resistance to the spread of communism. They are aimed at banding the free coun- tries together in a great demonstration that the free way of life is more rewarding to the individual than any form of tyranny, old or new. I say again that we have a long task ahead. It may be many years before we can be sure that communism is no longer a threat, that our goals of stability and peace have been attained. But those goals are clearly within our reach. The non-Communist nations to- gether have two-thirds of the world’s people and three-fourths of the world’s productive power, And we have much more than mere quan- tity or mere strength. We have the greatest attraction of all—human freedom. Our sys- tem of life satisfies the most fundamental desire of man—the opportunity to be his own ‘master. We can have faith that with these qual!- ties, and the help of the Almighty, we will attain a just and lasting peace throughout the world, The Hand-Out Highway to Dictatorship EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD MARTIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp excerpts from an address entitled ‘“The Hand-out Highway to Dictatorship,” by H. W. Prentis, Jr. The address as originally delivered was too long to be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp under the rule. Therefore, I have deleted certain portions of it. The address is primarily directed to church men and business leaders and their responsibility in preaching the gos- pel of free enterprise. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tue Hanp-Ovur Hicuway to DIcTaToRsHrP My subject tonight embodies a figure of speech of great antiquity. Twenty-five cen- turies ago, Isaiah commemorated the return of his countrymen from their long captivity in Babylon with “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord.” Highways are always fascinating. They hold the lure of the unknown, the urge to discover what lies beyond the horizon. So tonight we may well ask ourselves where the highway of current national policy is leading us, as it wends its way beside be- guiling streams of Government propaganda, between smiling fields of Federal hand-outs, around hairpin turns of preelection prom- ises of Government economy and open- handed postelection spending, uprising mountains of taxes and across the forbidding plateaus of Government deficits. Where is it going? Will it gradually glide down the pleasant slopes of inflation to the green fields of the life abundant? Or will it—God for- bid—take us through the dark valley of the shadow of class hatred and economic chaos to the precipice of dictatorship? /« * * * * Our highway to freedom in America was pioneered by the Greeks and Romans; engi- meered by Christianity—especially by our Calvinistic forebears; blueprinted by the eminent political philosophers of the seven- teenth and eighteenth centuries in France and England; and finally constructed as an integrated system by the founding fathers of the Republic in 1789. It has brought us as a nation to the richest land of promise that the world has ever seen, Cy * * * * Sad to relate, however, we Americans seem to have grown tired of paying the price of traveling on freedom’s road and instead now seek alluring shortcuts to illusory economic security on the hand-out highway to dic- tatorship. GATHERING CLOUDS ON THE ROAD TO FREEDOM A few years back, whatever clouds there were on our road to freedom seemed quite distant and far removed from the affairs of our everyday existence. Today, that situa- tion has changed. The clouds of coilec- tivism and class consciousness have moved close enough now s0 that all of us know that they are coming in our direction. * * * The danger of collectivistic infiltration of this Nation is no longer a mere Poss ou: it is an acknowledged reality, * * A3505 problem is no longer that of attempting to keep socialism and communism away from our shores, but rather that of strengthening our defenses against an enemy who has al- ready landed and is now well entrenched in our midst. * * * * * THE TASK OF PRESBYTERIAN MEN The people of America are slowly awaken- ing to that particular danger—when it bears an unmistakable communistic label. But the greatest danger—the most immediate threat—comes not from open communistic infiltration, but from the relatively unrecog- cgnized threat of huge, paternalistic, bue reaucratic, highly centralized government. The American people do not realize that the so-called welfare state is really the hand-out highway to socialism and dictatorship. The task of us Presbyterian men—and all other Americans who truly love their country—is to make that point clear, Ed * * * "oe HAND-OUT STATE UNDERMINES PERSONAL CHARACTER James Madison, one of the chief authors of the Federal Constitution, said that the whole American system rests “on the capac= ity of mankind for self-government.” The capacity for self-government, in turn, de~ pends now, as it always has, on six elements of personal character: Self-reliance, personal responsibility, individual initiative, thrift, courage, and religious faith. These are the coin in which the toll charges on the high- way to freedom must be paid. Self-government means exactly what it says, namely, ruling ourselves instead of being ordered about by a dictator or a ruling class. Obviously, that type of government cannot exist if the citizen is not willing to do his individual part as a free man. Gov- ernment, after all, is not something mystical and superhuman. It is simply a group of men and women, just like the rest of us. The more rope we give them, the more they will take; the more of our troubles we make them assume, the more powerful they be- come, for power is a heady drink. So, even-' tually, under the socialistic hand-out state, the tables are reversed: Government, which started out as the servant of the people, ulti- mately becomes their master, and popular self-government disappears. So the first reason why a nation that wants to remain free should beware of the hand-out state is that it insidiously undermines those ele- ments of personal character on which free- dom depends. GOVERNMENT CREATES NO WEALTH The second reason that we should think hard and long before yielding to the entice- ments of the -hand-out state is, to put it bluntly, the question of the cost of financing its operations. Government itself creates no wealth. Everything that government spends comes from only one source, and that is, from the earnings of its citizens. * * * today millions of our people think that govern- ment can create wealth and that they, the citizens, can be the beneficiaries of that magical process with little or no effort on their own part. * = * * 2 HAND-OUT STATE LEADS TO COMPULSORY ECO- NOMIC PLANNING Another factor that must be taken into se- rious account is the inevitable tendency of the hand-out state gradually to strangle pri- vate, competitive business—one of the es- sential components of popular self-govern- ment—and substitute for it compulsory na- tional economic planning and control. Of course, we want all the voluntary planning we can get on the part of industry, labor, agriculture, and government, and the Gove ernment itself must and should plan intel- ligently in respect to such matters as na- tional defense, public health, fiscal policy,
A3506 and foreign relations. But compulsory eco- nomic planning of the Nation’s economic life is quite a different thing And wher- ever it has been attempted, the political freedom and personal freedoms that we now enjoy have ultimately disappeared. SUCH PLANNING HAS DESTROYED FREEDOM IN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND Russia has compulsory economic planning and you know how much personal freedom exists there. Germany and Italy put it into effect long before the recent war and you are familiar with the results in those coun- tries. The Labor Government in England is the latest proponent of such planning and already 17 ministries have the power to en- ter English homes without search warrants where violations of economic regulations are suspected as having taken place. A farmer cannot butcher an animal on his own farm without Government permission. A manu- facturer cannot offer a new product without Government sanction. As an eminent Brit- ish economist recently stated: “The eco- nomic life of the citizen 1s less under his own control than in the days of the Tudors. Even Tudor officialdom is not recorded to have ordered the plowing in of a crop ready for harvest because its sowliig had not been sanctioned, nor made it an offense for a man to give a neighbor a pitcher of milk, nor forbidden him to repair his own house with his own hands.” Great Britain’s trou- bles today stem in no little part from the stifling of individual initiative and the re- moving of incentives to work and to ven- ture, which have followed in the train of the compulsory economic planning of the socialistic hand-out state. * * * * * COMPULSORY ECONOMIC PLANNING PROPOSALS NOW PENDING IN AMERICA The advocates of compulsory national eco- nomic planning here in the United States are hard at work. Pending in Congress is the so-called economic expansion bill which would exercise authority over manufacturing and mining in much the same way that the Brannan agricultural plan would control the farmer. The heart of the economic expan~ sion bill is the provision to set up produc- tion councils. There would be an over-all National Production Council, regional pro- duction councils, local production councils, and, finally, individual plant production councils. These production councils would be composed of representatives of govern~ ment, labor unions, and consumers, along with the manufacturer—the man who owned and operated the plant. Under such circum- stances, you can imagine how much influ- ence he would actually have in determining how his plant wasrun. You may find it hard to take such proposals seriously. But the mere fact that they are now actually pend- ing before committees of Congress is a strik- ing indication of how far the concept of the socialistic hand-out state has already per- meated our national thinking. Many things have happened to the American system that no one ever dreamed were possible 15 years ago. And many of them are irrevocable. « * * * * BUSINESSMEN HAVE SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES Now if we business and professional men do not arouse the American people to the danger that our freedom faces from the socialistic hand-out state, no one else will. Tne politician isn’t going to do 1t. The hand- out state is the politician’s bonanza. All ap~ parently that you have to do to be elected these days is to find something the people still need, or think they neod, and suggest that if you win, you will see that the Gov- ernment supplies it free. * * * Away back in the first century, the Greek historian Plutarch observed that “the real destroyer of the liberty of any people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and lar- gesses.” * * J * 2 THE CHALLENGE TO THE CHURCH The church should be in this fight mght up to the hilt. For no institution has more at stake. But there seems to be a goad deal of muddy thinking on the part of some of our ecclesiastical leaders. The whole American system of political, economic and civil and religious freedom, is based on a r°“‘~‘oit “~rine:ple—the sa- eredness of the :,* ' ' ° scul in the eyes of a sovereign God. With all its imperfec~- tions, it has accomplished more for the or- dinary man than any other norticcl sod economic system that has ever bean dev ed. The overwhelming majority of our ministers are fully aware of the dangers of collectiv- ism, but the statements of some of our church leaders are really astounding. Dr. E. Stanley Jones, for example, says that “Rus- sia has got hold of a higher principle, coop- eration, and 1t is working out in higher re- sults than we can work out of a lower prin- ciple, competition.” Dr. John C. Bennett, a icader in the Congregational Church, asserts that “Christianity has no stake in the sur- vival of capitalism.” The Federal Council of Churches’ pronouncement in 1932, entitled “Social Ideals of the Churches,” contains this paragraph: “The church’s ideal calls for hearty support of the planned economic sys- tem in which maximum social values shall be sought. It demands that cooperation shall supplant competition as a fundamental method.” ° CHRISTIAN EDUCATION SHOULD ENCOURAGE VOLUNTARY SOCIAL STEWARDSHIP Nothing 1s more tragic to my way of think- ing than to see the American way unwittingly attacked and undermined by good Christian men and women who, in their keen anxiety and praiseworthy zeal to help the unfortu- nate improve their economic status, fail to realize that the remedies they seek through expanding governmental control, will even~ tually destroy representative democracy, in= tellectual freedom and religious liberty it~ self. * * * * * You cannot expect a young married couple who cannot find a medium-priced home to be against Government housing. The young man who is starting out on his own farm is a prior1 in favor of Government loans, Gov~ ernment subsidies, and a high price support level for the crops he raises. You can hardly expect the laboring man with a family to turn away from what he is told is free hos- pitalization and free medical care—actually tax-paid, not free. AMERICANS MUST REALIZE PRICE OF HAND-OUT STATE * " ™* The people will turn against the hand-out state only when they can be made to understand the price they will eventually have to pay for whatever immediate benefits they may reccive from that type of govern- ment. The price is their freedom—and the American people will not sell their freedom at any price if they can be made to realize what they are doing. * * * * * WE MUST EXPLAIN HOW BUSINESS BENEFIIS US ALL When we say, “Beware of the socialistic hand-out state,” the man on the street is very likely to think that we are only attempt- ing to protect our own selfish interests, be~ cause he has been told that taxes on business profits will pay for all the Government sub- sidies involved. As a matter of fact, the profits of American manufacturers average less than 6 cents on the sales dollar. Hence it’s high time to explain American business to the American public. It is a most compelling and magnetic story. Men working in our American factories are able to buy, with their wages, twice as much APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as men who work in similar jobs in Engiand, Sweden, Switzerland, and five times as much as in Russia. While we have only one-four- teenth of the total population, we send more young people to high school and college than does all the rest of the world combined. Our national income is equal to that of all the next highest six countries in the world. Our way of life has enabled the American people to create more wealth, to provide more goods and services, than any system the world has ever known. With only 7 percent of the world’s people, our Nation produces 40 per- cent of the world’s wealth. We have 85 per-~ cent of all the automobiles, 92 percent of the bathtubs, 50 percent of the hospital beds, and 48 percent of all the radios 1n the world. From the standpoint of distributing this wealth, the American system has brought all of these goods and services within the reach of more people than any system in history. * * * * * UNDERSTANDING OF PROFIT-~AND-LOSS SYSTEM ESSENTIAL But we must do more than tell the story. We must give our people an understanding of the principles on which our prosperity and productivity are based, including the profit- and-loss system. Profit and loss are an essential vart of the private, competitive business -ys.cn) ti. has given us our dynamic economy. The pros- pect of profit and the fear of loss provide the motivation for private enterprise. In the so- cialistic hand-out state profits are so reduced by confiscatory taxation that they no longer furnish the incentive that sparks prog- ress. * * ™ America was built with the profits of private, competitive business, and all profit sconer or later is spent for wages cr used up in losing investments and thus returned to consumers in consumption goods. Only through constant investment of new capital can industry furnish the tools neces- sary to provide jobs. How can such needed capital be secured? There are only two pos- sible ways: Hither from the profits earned by private enterprise plowed back direcily into the business, or paid out in dividends and reinvested—or from taxation of that same income by Government. If it comes by the Government route, socialism becomes a fact. Government then becomes responsible for the over-all planning of the nation’s eco- nomic life and, as I have previously stated, this inevitably leads to the loss of political and personal freedom. The profit-and-loss system encourages ex- perimentation—the taking of risks on which our mutual progress depends. * * ™ The profit system, moreover, is a constructive factor in building a man’s spirit. It is good to stand on one’s own feet and to feel that one has a chance at least to build a business of his own. The profit system promotes such individual responsibility and reinforces one of man’s finest instincts—the desire to pro- vide for the financial future of himself and his family. The profit-and-loss system, furthermore, tends to prevent the freezing of our popula- tion into stratified classes. “Shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations” is true in America as nowhere else in the world. * * * It furnishes the lifeblood for our great pri- vate hospitals, colleges, museums, and li- braries. It helps support the church and, finally, it is the only system that can build up an economically competent mass of inde- pendent citizens without which political freedom and personal freedom cannot long survive. So why should we business and pro- fessional men not crusade vigorously for an economic system that has done so much for America? * * * * s BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY PROVIDE WIDESPREAD PUBLIC SERVICE As a part of our whole effort to make the public appreciate the value of the American
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD economic system we must constantly point out the service that business renders. Stop any man on the street and ask him to pick out a few things that represent his idea of material progress. Let him select anything he wants—the automobile, our air transpor- tation system, radio, television, anything he cares to name. Where did those things come from? Were they spawned by some Govern- ment agency? No, indeed. They came from the research laboratories of American busi- ness—invented and developed by research workers and engineers whose salaries were paid by private business corporations, em- ploying facilities and materials that again were provided by American business firms. * * - * * If there is need to prove that industry can mix altruism with the profit motive, you have only to go into the laboratories of private business and see the record of the great con- tributions that have been made to our gen- eral knowledge as a result of research pri- vately sponsored and financed. Pick up a textbook on any scientific subject—say, some phase of electrical engineering. Where did all of that knowledge come from—all of those scientific facts that are now available for the general good of everyone? Did they come from some Government laboratory? Mark the book, page by page, and paragraph by paragraph, and you'll see the outstanding contributions made by the research lahora- tories of Westinghouse and General Electric, and so on down a long list of American busi- ness firms. In the field of medicine, where there has been perhaps more Government activity than anywhere else, you’ll find an amazing contribution by the privately financed lab- oratories of Squibb, Merck, Lilly, and Wyeth, and many, many more. Of course, many medical advances have come from research foundations. But where did the research foundations come from? ‘You know as well as I do—from the contributed profits of American business—the same source that has built most of our hospitals, and libraries, and institutions of higher learning. * * * * * WE MUST CONVINCE OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES Now let us turn to the other aspect of our task. As in any kind of sales work, whom we sell is as important as what we sell. Whom must we first convince? My answer is, ourselves and our families, * Oo * fy * A real danger lies in the subtle but vicious propaganda that the socialistic hand-out state is inevitable; that we are caught up in some great tide of human affairs that makes any other course impossible; that we are living now in a new and different world. Let me say this: Has anything happened that makes freedom less desirable now than it was a generation ago? We fought the First World War to make the world safe for de- mocracy. And all the recent history of this strife-torn world writes a lesson that cries out for more freedom, not less; for greater recognition of the sanctity of individual rights, not less; for more self-determination; for more local control of local affairs; and for less domination by highly centralized national government. WE MUST REACH OUT INTO OUR COMMUNITIES When you have won over your associates, then reach out into your community. All of us profess to be shocked by the way collec- tivistic doctrines have infiltrated so many aspects of our local life. Yet how many of us have been willing to devote enough of our personal time and energy to community matters even to find out what’s going on— let alone to raise effective opposition against subversive activities? It’s time to correct that situation by taking an active part in community affairs—an outspoken part. You can’t sell goods or services without talking— and you can’t sell the American way to your assembled neighbors by sitting silently in the back row. Speak out—vigorously and honestly—and without fear that you may of- fend somebody. If we business and profes~ sional men don’t win this battle, eventually we won’t have any clients or customers. We shall all be servants of the state. So don’t be afraid to stand up and ke counted. The secret of liberty is courage. Freedom is for the brave. WE MUST PERSUADE OUR LEADERS Next, we must convince our leaders—par- ticularly our political leaders—that there are people in America now, millions of people, who don’t want to trade their freedom for tax-paid hand-outs, and that there will be still more millions who, with the kind of educational job that I have been talking about, will rally to the cause of the Amer- ican way. This is the hardest task of all. But we cannot succeed unless we can get the sup- port of our political leaders. As I pointed out earlier, there is every temptation for the politician to follow the hand-out highway that leads to socialism—and eventual dic- tatorship—because it seems to be the easy road at the moment to reelection and po- litical power. We must change that situa- tion. We must get into politics and actively support the candidate who really believes in the American way and who has the cour- age to stand stanchly against the insidious doctrines of the hand-out state now being preached under the guise of humanitarian- ism. When his courage brings its inevita~- ble reaction from those who want bigger and bigger tax-paid hand-outs, we must see to it that he is not massacred at the polls. We must keep men like that in office. Only in that way can we maintain the right kind of representation in Congress.and in our State legislatures. And it is there in the end that the battle will be won or lost. WE MUST SHOW THE WORLD THAT LIBERTY LIVES ON IN AMERICA Finally, by precept and example we must convince the world that the concept of a free man, living in a free nation, the master of his own destiny, has not perished from the face of the earth. What, in all our lives, could any of us do more worthy of the best that’s in us, than to add our little spark, small though it may be, to keep alive the flame of freedom. If, through our neglect, that flame flickers out upon these shores of ours, where and when will its light be seen again? “God of the past, our times are in Thy hand; With us abide. Lead us by faith to hope’s true promised land; Be Thou our guide. With Thee to bless, the darkness shines as light, And faith’s clear vision changes into sight.” Financing Small-Business Banking’s Midcentury Challenge EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARRY R. SHEPPARD OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following article by E. A. Mathson, of San Francisco, Calif.: A3507 FINANCING SMALL-BUSINESS BANKING’S MrmceNTURY CHALLENGE The challenge to which f refer is that pre- sented by the necessity of finding a way for private banks to supply all the legitimate credit needs of small business, particularly very small business. It is evident that the increasing pressure for solution is going to result in something being done—either the current proposal for an insured loan plan, or perhaps the capital bank program. The real $64 question is, “What can private banking do about it?” There is no surer way of securing a sym~ pathetic audience than to propose aid to small business. But despite all outside efforts, it is usually the little fellow who helps himself most by supplying the first requisites for success as an entrepeneur: the will-to-win, stick-to-it-iveness, intelligence, and ingenuity. From my experience, I would suy that the best way to help him is to give him what he is entitled to. If he is destined for success on his own, he doesn’t want anything more than that. But sometimes he has a hard time getting what he is entitled to when it comes to bank credit, and that is unfortunate in many ways; first for him, of course, but also for the banking fraternity and the public in general. But what is a small business? There is where the confusion starts, be- cause the President, the Congress, the Fed- eral Reserve bank, the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the SEC, and a number of other authorities have each tried to develop @ practical and workable definition. So far, however, no one has corie up with a com- pletely satisfactory answer to the question. The reason is easily understood, as a busi- ness that is relatively small within its own field—say a manufacturing plant with 500 employees—is a giant compared to a little machine shop with half a dozen employees, a family-owned grocery store, or a one-man service station. For this reason, the viewpoint that seems most logical and which has the widest popu-~ lar acceptance is that taken by the Depart- ment of Commerce, which sets up separate definitions for each major business classifica- tion. By their standards, a business is small if it is: A manufacturing plant with less than 100 employees. A wholesaling operation with annual sales of less than $500,000. A retail store with annual sales of less than $100,000. But no matter what definition we use, sooner or later we realize that we must get down to bedrock, to the millions of small enterprises that are collectively the founda- tion of our whole American way of life. Whether these are one-man shops, partner- ships, family enterprises, or small corpora- tions is beside the point—the fact remains that we have several million small-business operations that present us with our mid- century challenge. I said it was unfortunate for all concerned, directly or indirectly, when a small-business man could not obtain the bank credit to which he was entitled on the merits of his statement, character, experience, and all the other elements essential to a sound credit. Many of you will say with perfectly righteous indignation, “Anyone with those qualifica- tions would get all the credit he was entitled to in our bank.” It is at this point that the conflict of opin- ion starts, because a great many small-busi- peas men obviously do not get the credit ta hich they think they are entitled from their banks. This is the reason for the continued demand for new and special financing facili- ties for these small enterprises. It is appar- ent that their credit needs are a stumbling block to many banks who want to help but
A3508 find that the customary limitations of unse- cured commercial accommodations will not provide this class of borrower with the kind of credit he needs, The several types of credit necessary to accommodate manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers vary considerably. The small retailer and service business present an especially difficult problem. I am referring here to what Dr. Kaplan, the Brookings In- stitution economist, agrees are really “tiny business,” where sales are considerably less than $100,000 a year. These concerns, how- ever, represent numerically the largest sec- tion of small business, and, in my opinion, the one most in need of attention. Manu- facturers and wholesalers can generally be taken care of by accounts-receivable financ- ing or commodity loans—all too frequently by finance companies rather than by banks. The tiny retail and service businesses usually have to be treated on a character-loan basis. Such loans are generally considered to be too risky and too expensive to handle. However, that is the real challenge: to find a way to accommodate this large segment of the busi- ness economy safely and profitably. It can be done because it has been done, but, strange- ly enough, primarily by large banks. Here we have a perfect example of the interde- pendence of big business and little business. Manufacturers rely on small business, and even on very small or tiny business, for many of the parts required for their finished prod~ ucts. In the case of automobile manufac- turers, these suppliers number into the thousands. In the wholesale field-—food, for example—the wholesaler depends upon many thousands of small outlets, and to insure their existence he provides them with the latest ideas in efficient merchandising. A notable example of big business sharing its know-how with small business is the com-~ pletely integrated program of the Reid, Mur- doch Division of Consolidated Grocers Corp. Perhaps as these sound, constructive pro- grams on the part of big business to aid small business become better known, some of the current feeling in certain quarters about the badness of bigness will disappear. At least it is a record of which big business can he justifiably proud, because of its farsighted- ness in contributing time and effort to main- taining a truly free-enterprise system. “here are many Government officials who are aware of this situation. None, to my knowledge, is better informed or more sin- cerely interested in helping to improve the economic climate for all business than the gentleman who spoke earlier today—our dis- tinguished Secretary of Commerce. While he was in San Francisco on his recent survey trip, I had the privilege of spending a suffi- cient amount of time with the Secretary to understand his point of view, his aims, and his objectives. I can assure you gentlemen that the bankers and businessmen of this Nation are most fortunate in that this vital office is held by a man of such preeminent qualifications, possessed of such a forthright spirit; a dyed-in-the-wool American who is absolutely convinced that our system is not the best, but that it will continue to be the best. I know he is anxious that the solution of the problem be found by private banking, and therefore it may be well to give the in- sured business-loan proposal a trial. At least it leaves Government agencies out of additional direct lending activities; but we may as well face the fact that the insured- loan plan, while unquestionably good in theory, won’t work in practice unless all banks get behind it enthusiastically, which for some will mean a major change in policy. Dr. Kaplan highlights this situation in his analysis of the various capital bank and in- sured-loan plans which have been proposed. He says in part: “The financing of capital operations involves different psychology and different methods from those involved in the operation of a commercial bank for deposi- tors. It requires personnel not inhibited by orthodox banking traditions.” The reason I say that bankers must pay heed to Dr. Kaplan’s very revealing comment is not hard to see when we examine the rec- ord of bank participation in other Govern- ment-insured loan plans. A check of FHA operations made during the last half of 1947, showed that less than 20 percent of our 15,000 commercial banks were originating loans under the title I pro- gram. Actually, 67 finance companies ac- counted for almost one-third of the total dollar volume of loans made during that period, while some 3,000 banks were respon- sible for the remaining two-thirds—and this after the program had been in operation for over 15 years. We find an even darker picture in the in- sured GI business loan field. Here, too, there has been a failure to take advantage of an opportunity, because a recent inquiry as to the number of commercial banks which have made GI business loans revealed that less than 600 banks have made VA-insured business loans. These are good programs. They will both apparently be on hand for some years to come, and they certainly deserve more bank- ing support than they have received. It is also apparent that no new program calling for insured loans to small business will succeed unless more adequate bank sup- port is forthcoming. When my good friend, Walter French, asked me to speak to you, he said he felt that other banks might be helped by the experi- ence our bank has had in dealing with the problems of financing all segments of small business. We are always happy to share any know-how we have acquired in this or any other field, and to this end have provided a large number of banks with forms, adver- tising material, our experience ratios, and counsel and guidance to the extent that they were desired. Judging by the inquiries we have received, the most interesting part of our whole small-business program seems to be our term loans to small business. These are capital loans for commercial, in- dustrial, or professional purposes, to indi- viduals, partnerships, or corporations, for a maximum amount of $10,000, with maturi- ties presently running from 1 to 3 years. They are secured or unsecured, depending on the type of business, and each is supported by a@ modified form of business-loan agree- ment very similar to the agreements we use for larger term loans in the corporate field. Hach term loan calls for a definite program of payments—monthly, quarterly, or semi- annually—tfrom expected profits of operation. An analysis of some 6,800 of these loans showed that 15 percent of them involved starting a new business, 35 percent related to buying an established business in whole or in part, and 50 percent were concerned with the purchase of equipment, additional in- ventory, an increase of working capital, or some other phase of the operations of a going concern. The analysis further showed that a guar- antor was involved in 11 percent of the loans; 15 percent were in the GI category; 31 per- cent were secured, morally at least, by a chattel mortgage on fixtures or equipment; while the remaining 48 percent were com- plevely unsecured, character loans in the strictest sense. So far as the type of business was con~ cerned, 46 percent were retail, 39 percent were service or professional, 4 percent were wholesale, and 11 percent were manufac- turing. Our statistics go back to April 1945, the date on which we packaged the program and commenced an extensive advertising and promotional campaign on term loans to small business. Such loans have always been avail- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD able in our institutions, but from the time they were packaged they have been mer- chandised. The figures show that, from April 1945 to the end of November 1949, we made 26,478 term loans for a total amount of $89,532,603, or an average loan of $3,888. To date, $75,343,019 of this amount, repre- senting 19,451 loans, has been liquidated in full and the gress charge-off, before recovery, is less than ninety-five one hundredths of 1 percent. Recoveries currently approximate 85 percent. Our own plan, of course, was self-insured. This was a very simple operation. We set up a memorandum reserve of earnings in excess of 7.2 percent per annum calculated against monthly outstandings. Our reserve, as of the end of November 1949, was $1,152,- 948. Gross charge-offs against it (before recovery, it should be emphasized) totaled $718,811, leaving a memo balance of $434,131, It has been, I think you will agree, abun- dantly demonstrated in the past that the fully qualified borrower performs just about as well in bad times as in good times, insofar as his ultimate repayment is concerned. This factor of reliability applies to large and small borrowers alike. So then it seems log- ical to conclude that in bad times the fully qualified small borrower will show up as well as the large borrower. In order, therefore, to secure the same results, all you have to do is to pick more qualified borrowers from among the small applicants. In this way, you go to more trouble and have a higher cost of acquisition, but this is counter- balanced by a wider spread of risk. There is no denying that when you are dealing with small and newly established businesses you are operating in an area where losses will result. But here again there is a solution, for if you follow the established banking principie that loan rates must be adequate for the risk and cost in- volved you will necessarily establish a higher rate on these loans. The little fellow, or, for that matter, any borrower, has no objection to paying his way, because any properly ade- quate rate on a term loan will cost far less than a partner’s share. We have followed a policy of setting rates on a basis that would provide us with an adequate return for the risk and cost in- volved. Our Installment Credit Loan De- partment, 70 percent of whose $100,000,000 volume represents loans and advances to small business, produces a far greater propor- tion of our gross interest earnings from loans than its share of our total loan portfolio would indicate. Installment credit loans represented 21 percent of our total loans and produced 34 percent of our total gross inter- est earnings. The over-all loss ratio is ex- tremely low. Since the inception of our time-plan program in 1985 we huave made loans of all types, including retail, wholesale, and rediscount financing, for a total of $6,080,101,000. The retail segment of this amount, which Includes our small-business loans, is made up of 7,809,681 loans, totaling $3,013,154,327, or an average loan of $388, on which gross charge-offs in relation to Uquidated balances totaled only twenty-eight one-hundredths of 1 percent. After recoveries, the net loss was less than twenty one-hundredths of 1 per- cent, Perhaps this record, and the record of other west-coast banks offering a complete banking service, accounts for Secretary Saw- yer’s observation as reported in the American Banker for December 29: “Small-business men cite difficulty getting loans, Secretary Sawyer reports.” The article went on to say: “With the exception of the west coast, small-business men complained of ‘difficulty of securing loans,’ Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce, reported to the White House today, after a 15,000-mile across-the-Nation survey.”
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The fact that the west coast has a highly diversified economy, with State-wide branch banking available throughout the territory, would seem to indicate that, were branch banking available in other similarly diversi- fied areas, the same results might be expected. The record and the figures I have just given show what can be done. How to do it is the problem. In my opinion, it is only necessary that your management, from the very top to the bottom, be ccnvinced of the necessity safety, profitability and desirability of a small loan program. With the policy firmly established, the rest is a matter of suitable personnel trained to handle the o»cretion. Term loans for small business, ! xo 1.J in- staliment loans, should be handled by peo- ple with a definite liking for the activity and the occasional trouble involved. And above all, they should have a sales-minded approach because that is absolutely essential to this type of operation. The remaining necessity for a successful program 1s an advisory service, because while adequate capital is essential for the sound development of any business, management is still the priceless ingredient. Our inves- tigations and the investigations of many others who have studied the field show that most business difficulties, and particularly these of small firms, are due to tc mistakes of inexperienced management. We therefore established an advisory service in 1946 to gather and distribute information on various phases of small business operation. In addition to preparing our information digests—brief and factual pamphlets on var- ious types of business, for which we have so far received over 200,000 requests—the serv- ice cooperates with chambers of commerce and trade associations in nremotirg the in- terests of small groups. CC: 77 "" wie con- tact is also maintained with the United States Department of Commerce, the Cali- fornia State Department of Education, schools, colleges, and universities 1n order to aid in developing programs to help small business. These are only a few of the things our Ad- visory Service is doing, but I think they illus- trate the point that it is just as important to help the little fellow with management information as it is to provide him with the financing that he requires. We recommend that you include such a service in your plans and that you advertise it, merchandise it, and get credit for it. In conclusion, may I say this on behalf of small business: it is here to stay; it has sur- vived and thrived from the earliest days of our country. Wars, booms, depressions— nothing has stifled the desire of millions of Americans to own their own business. Dun & Bradstreet’s records confirm the durability of small business. Back in 1870, their reference book listed the names of 427,- 000 business firms, 1 for every 91 people in the United States, or 11 firms per 1,000 popula- tion. Eighty years have gone by since then, Now, Dun & Bradstreet lists 2,700,000 firms, 1 for every 56 people, or 18 firms for every 1,000 of population. And at least two-thirds of even these listed firms are the small busi- nesses we have been talking about. This is a demonstration of faith, and of the strength of the desire which so many people have for &@ business of their own. This is part of our national life—it is the very foundation of the system in which we take such pride. But as bankers we must do more than just admire free enterprise; we must do our part to make it work. There must be a conscien~ tious endeavor to broaden bank services to provide for the needs of all, no matter how small the need may be; from the school saver or 4-H Club member to the largest corpora- tion. We must take care of them all, for they are all part of the great American heri- tage—freedom. One of the best ways to broaden bank serv- ices is through the medium of the term loan I described which would make it possible for you to serve one of the most vital elements of the American economy—the little fellow who wants to help himself. To operate in this field successfully you need only four things: 1. Diversification. 2. Volume. 8. Adequate rates. 4, An enthusiastic desire to do the job. Whatever tools in the form of new plans or devices are necessary must be provided and then used by more banks. Banks must pro- vide for all the legitimate credit needs of small business, no matter how small or how specialized. Failure to do this can result only in more direct Government lending. This is banking’s midcentury challenge— Wwe must not fail. Address of the President at Casper, Wyo. EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. ISIDORE DOLLINGER OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. DOLLINGER. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the address of the fresident made at Casper, Wyo., on May , 1959: It’s good to be back in Wyoming again. F2-1z vite western country and talking to la “+ out here always reaffirms my fa. cr 2. vigor of this Nation and the glowing promise of its future. This is my first visit to the West since 1948. As you know, we have settled a number of issues since then. And we’ve settled them in the old-fashioned American democratic way. One of those issues is of particular importance here in the West. It concerns the policy this Nation is going to follow in developing its great wealth of natural re- sources. In this country there have always been two philosophies about the use of natural resources. One philosophy is that our re- sources should be exploited by a privileged few for their own benefit. This first philos- ophy holds that if we preserve or develop natural resources for the benefit of all the people, that is “socialism” or some other form of “ism.” The second philosophy holds that our national resources are the cornerstone of a strong, free democracy. As such, they must be used to advance the well-being and the prosperity of all the people. This philosophy holds that it is necessary for democratic gov- ernment to make sure that our land and water, our forests and our minerals, are used wisely and not exploited for the benefit of a few. STRESSES NATURAL RESOURCES You know which of these philosophies I believe in. It is the same one that the great majority of the American people believe in. I am happy to be able to say that since I was out here in 1948, we Have been making progress in strengthening the policy of using our resources for the’ benefit of all the peo- ple. This Congress has been moving for- ward—not backward. I am particularly happy to say this to you here in Casper. Wyoming is a State with tremendous natural resources. Here in Wyoming, the Great Plains of the West, with their abun- dant agricultural possibilities, rise to meet the high plateaus and mountains, rich in minerals and water power. A3509 Not so long ago this part of the country was considered way out West. That phrase meant something more than physical dis- tance. It expressed the attitude of tco many people in important places in the East, to- ward that real needs of this great region. This country way out West was a source of low-priced raw materials for the East. It was an area where eastern money could be invested for quick, spectacular profits. The real needs of this western country were not understood or appreciated. Because it was way out West. Too many “-7-~"o “-th in and out of Government, .. wot care about the future of this part of the country. NOTES TRAGIC RESULTS OF WASTE You know where that spendthrift, careless philosophy led us. Much of the best range land was badly damaged—some almost be- yond recovery. Precious topsoils were washed down the rivers. The cream was skimmed off the mineral deposits. The primary em- phasis was on quick exploitation of resources, The whole idea was to make money quickly and then move on. I am sure that you businessmen, farmers, and ranchers remember the tragic results of this philosophy. You are still fighting to recover from the loss and waste of that era. But now the American people are with you. They have renounced the narrow, selfish view of natural resources. For 17 years, with one brief set-back, you have had a Government that recognizes its responsibility for helping to preserve and develop natural resources. This is a Govern= ment that works with you, not against you. The contrast between the enlightened, democratic approach to the use of our nat~ ural resources, and the selfish, antidemo- cratic approach, is plain here in Wyoming. About 50 miles north of Casper lies Teapot Dome. After 50 miles southwest is the new Kortes Dam. The name Teapot Dome stands as an ever- lasting symbol of the greed and privilege that underlay one philosophy about the West. It is not only a reminder that thera were selfish or misguided individuals seeking special privileges. There are always such individuals. It is almost a reminder of what can happen in your own front yard when you have the wrong kind of government in Washington. Kortes Dam is a product of a different phi- losophy about resources and a different kind of government. High up in a mountain canyon on the North Platte River, this dam is a new source of wealth and strength for the people of the West. This is an example of the right way to use natural resources— for the benefit of all the people. PICTURES BENEFITS FROM PROJECT When the Kortes power plant goes into operation this year, its three turbines will add 36,000,000 kilowatts of electricity to our national store cf energy. It will be tiled into a network of trersmission lines, and teamed up with the plant at Seminole Dam 2 miles upstream and with other plants downstream. This development will bring light and power to thousands of homes, farms, and indus- tries in Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, Furthermore, Kortes Dam is a part of the reclamation work of the Federal Govern- ment. The dam is built as part of a project which will bring more water to irrigated lands. The income from the power produced at Kortes will help repay the investment in irrigation work. The completion of Kortes Dam is thus a step toward developing natural resources for the welfare of the people. But this dam has another significance. It is based upon a recognition of the fact that water and land and forests must be treated together. We can make proper use of our resources only if we base our plans on that fact. Like many of you here today, I was born and raised in the Missouri Valley. Like you,
A3510 I have seen first-hand the terrible effects of looking at resources separately. When too much sod on the plains was broken to plant crops, when the range land was over- grazed, the result was not only a loss of grassland aud soil cover. The result was floods, and dust storms, and a heritage of waste that has had to be slowly and pain- fully overcome. Today, we know that soil and forest con- servation, flood control and the development of power, navigation, and irrigation, must all be tackled and solved together. We have learned that a great river valley cannot be developed in piecemeal fashion. It is not possible to separate the land from the water. It is foolish to prepare for floods downstream but to pay no attention to soil cover and small creeks upstream. It has taken years for us to organize our efforts in line with this concept of the inter- relationship of all resources. We have met great opposition from selfish or short-sighted people, although I am glad to say that many have gradually been converted to the right viewpoint as the soundness of what we are trying to do has been demonstrated. We still have far to go. But the progress we have made in the last 17 years is tremendous. Here in the Missouri Valley, which covers one-sixth of the country, work is going for- ward to develop the land, water and forests. ‘We have embarked on these enterprises in the best democratic tradition. Our success has been possible because of private initia- tive, coupled with cooperative work by Fed- eral, State and local governments. You can see the results allabout you. The eclty of Casper lies in the midst of an area containing about half a million acres of irri- gated land. Private enterprise and local, State and Federal governments are all play= ing a part in making irrigation farming more secure and more productive. Not the least part of the success of irrigation farming is due to the national investment in irriga~ tion and power facilities by the Federal Gov-~ ernment. SEES ROLE IN GROWING ECONOMY That investment is good for the farmer, and it means a more stable economy for the people in town. For the Nation as a whole, the investment in sound reclamation work is part of our broad effort to create a growing economy. Here in the western part of the Missouri Valley, we have also been working to conserve and improve range lands. For the long run success of livestock ranchers, a well-grassed area and well-watered range is essential. Before 1934, almost nothing had been done to create that kind of range. Since then much has been done on both private and public lands. We have found better grasses to provide improved cover and more profit- able grazing. We have learned to build small ponds and reservoirs, as a defense against drought. Right here in Natrona County, within the past 10 years, 2,000 stock water ponds have been built. With more watering places cattle and sheep can spread out over the range instead of overgrazing some parts and letting good grass go to waste on other parts. This range improvement work means a more productive and secure livestock in- dustry. It is important also in another way. Poor management of range lands contributes to floods and allows silt to go down the rivers to fill up the power and irrigation reservoirs. Good management of range lands prevents erosion, helps to hold back floods, and pro- tects our investments in reservoirs. We should be proud of the work we have been doing on the rangelands, in irrigation, in power development, and all the other parts of our resource work. Green fields, blue reservoirs, clear streams, and shining, new transmission lines tell of the advances we have made in the development and use of our resources. However, some of the most changing tasks still lie ahead. We need to put more of our land under good conservation practices. We need to build more ponds and reservoirs on the ranges, and dikes to spread water more evenly over the land. Millions of acres need re- seeding. We are far from a balanced range program. Through the agricultural con- servation program we are making a national investment on private range lands, which is considerably larger per acre than the amount the Government is spending on public range lands. Incidentally, the amount we are spending on the public range lands is less than 1 cent per acre per year. Another field in which greater effort is needed is the control of insect pests. Here in Wyoming there is a serious plague of grass- hoppers. The Federal Government should bear its full share of the cost of overcoming this plague through the excellent Federal- State cooperative program that has been worked out. In the forest we need to build more roads, so that we can reach the timber and use it. Along the rivers we need more sound irri- gation projects. In addition, we need other works to control and use the waters of the rivers from the small creeks and tributaries in the mountains, all the way down to the mouths of the main streams. Minerals must be conserved, too, in the sense that we must take out of the ground all that can economically be extracted, and must increase our exploration for new sources, Furthermore, we need to go ahead rapidly to conserve our limited water supplies. Out here in the West, water has always been relatively scarce, and, aS more and more water is put to beneficial use, it is becom- ing obvious that more needs to be done to assure an adequate supply of good water. This water problem is not only serious for farmers and for cities and towns. In many parts of the country it is also a seri- ous problem for industries. For example, down south of here in Colorado there are huge reserves of oil shale. In the years to come, we may well need to obtain oil from that shale. It will take a lot of water to do so, however, and there is a real question whether there is enough water for that purpose. This whole problem of limited water sup- ply and grawing water uses, is the reason I appointed a Water Resources Policy Com- mission earlier this year. I asked some of the best experts I could find to serve on that Commission, including several from West- ern States. They are making a thorough study of the facts, and should give us some sound recommendations for our future progress. As we move forward in our use of re- sources, we must improve the organization of the Federal Government so that its part of the development can be done better and with more effective participation by State and local governments. PREDICTS CONTINUED PROGRESS There are still reactionary forces that op- pose every forward-looking proposal to de- velop the resources and increase the pros- perity of the West. The philosophy that produced Teapot Dome is not dead. But these reactionary forces are fighting a losing battle; we have been overcoming their opposition for 17 years. And we are going to go right on beating them. Those who are opposing us now are the same ones who said the soil-conservation program would regiment the American farm- er. A few years back, they asserted that it was socialism for the Government to lend APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD money to farmers to build rural electric lines. They claimed it was a boondoggle to plant shelter belts of trees on the plains. Now they’re for these things. They admit that these programs have been good for the country. All they want to do now is to pre- vent any further progress. But their past record is clear and plain, And their new arguments are no better than their old ones. The American people will continue to go right ahead taking the practical, sensible steps that are needed to build a better future, We are a strong, free people. We know that to continue free and strong we must wisely develop and use the resources with which nature has endowed us. The money we spend for effective con- servation work is a sound investment in better living for ourselves and our children, We will not be dismayed by those who say the cost of such investments is too great. The cost of not making them would be far greater. We cannot afford to slacken our efforts, for this is work which is vital to our future, Today, more than ever before, we can see how important it is that we take these steps to develop our resources. We are engaged in a world-wide struggle to bring lasting peace to the world. ASSAILS “CYNICAL IMPERIALISM” In that struggle we are being opposed by @ cynical imperialism which asserts that freedom and democracy are soft and incapa- ble of strong action. We can prove how false, how hollow, are the claims of communism. But we can prove that only by deeds. We must demon- strate that our free country, along with other free countries, can achieve strength, pros- perity, and growing welfare for our people. To do so we must continue to move for- ward in our use of natural resources. We must not permit any backsliding toward the old philosophy of private greed and the pub- lic be damned. We must continue to look upon our resources as a public trust, to be preserved and increased as the physical basis for a growing future. In the tremendous conflict that exists in the world today our fundamental strength is our belief in the worth of the individual under God. Our whole democratic tradi- tion rests on our faith that freemen, work- ing together in cooperation, can achieve jus- tice and well-being for themselves and for one another. In that faith we shall move forward on the path of freedom and peace. Socialized Medicine EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, with permission to extend my remarks in the ReEcorD, I attach an article from the CIO News of May 8, Socialized Medicine May Be Bad, But—, by Allan L. Swim. It is a direct, concise statement of a fact too many candidates for political office have been neglecting: Socialized medicine and national health insurance are vastly dif- ferent things. The administration’s na- tional health insurance proposal con- cerns a system of prepaid financing of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD good health services for everybody. So- cialized medicine would have the Federal Government take over and operate the Nation’s medical facilities and person- nel; national health insurance has noth- ing to do with either. The article follows: SociALizep Mepictns Mar Be Bap, sur— (By Allan L. Swim) Political candidates in some parts of the country have already begun making a cam- paign issue of “socialized medicine.” Those seeking to capitalize on the issue are going through some strange, contorted rea- soning. Them argument goes something like this: A person who is dissatisfied with present health services and believes national health insurance should be provided is an advocate of socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is state medicine~—and anybody who believes state medicine is desirable must certainly be a Communist or at least friendly to com- munism., Communists are enemies of democracy and consequently, an advocate of health insur- ance is an enemy of the American system. The only thing wrong with such reasoning is that it’s completely false! ‘ Opposition to socialized or state-controlled medicine for the United States has been ex- pressed in this column on a number of occa~ sions. This opposition represents general CIO polscy on the subject. But this column has frequently lauded the idea of national health insurance. This represents no contradiction—al- though the American Medical Association would have you believe otherwise. The AMA has hung a phony tag on health insurance and is conducting a costly propa- ganda campaign in an effort to convince the people that two entirely different things are the same thing. Doctors who support the AMA in this cam- paign and condone its underhanded tactics should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. They’re reflecting no credit upon them- selves as individuals or upon their profession. Let’s take a good look at the health situ- ation and see if we can determine what prompted the AMA to shoot off such large quantities of propaganda fireworks. Back before the war a number of persons became concerned about the state of the Na- tion’s health and the inability of many of our people to obtain adequate medical and hospital services. Their advocacy of some form of Govern- ment health insurance didn’t attract a lot of attention. Then, with the drafting of millions of men for the armed forces, the Nation got a great shock. The male citizens of the healthiest Nation on earth turned out to be far from the prized physical specimens many had thought them to be. The number rejected because of disabili- ties was appalling. This, plus sharp increases in the cost of health services, revived and increased the demand that something be done about the situation. ‘The AMA, sensing the revived interest, em- barked on a campaign designed to scare the public into opposition to national health insurance The AMA drive has made real headway among those who have never taken the trou- ble to find out what health insurance ac- tually is. And there’s considerable evidence that many doctors fall into this category. They read in their own journal that health insur- ance is socialized medicine and that is that. So, at the twist of a bandage or stab of a hypodermic needle they'll tell their patients that a national insurance plan would lead us down the road to state medicine and to disintegration of the medical profession. Socialized medicine is government con- trolled and government admunistered. It does not allow patients free choice of doctors and denies doctors the right to reject unde- sirable patients. National health insurance would merely provido ts Deople with a pay-as-you-go plan tv arc oo they could finance medical care. The present right to choose doctors and patients wouldn’t be disturbed. mo there’s a great difference between the O. If the people of the Nation want better health services they should make a, real effort to get an honest presentation of the facts relating to national health insurance. They shouldn’t be content with slogans and phony tags. They shouldn’t be content with the word of the zealots on either side of the fence who make outlandish claims, They should get the facts—the hard, cold facts—and then act according to their own best judgment. ee The Great Politician’s 1950 Persenal Parade EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KARL E. MUNDT OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legistative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a revealing editorial from the Rapid City Daily Journal, published in Rapid City, S. Dak. The editorial clearly indicates that calling the Presi- dent’s tax-supported political junket through the country a nonpolitical tour is fooling nobody very seriously, includ- ing certainly those riding with the Presi- dent in his special private train. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: - _ Tue GREAT POLrTIcIAN’s 1950 PERSONAL PARADE Heralded by Harold Stassen as “the smart. est politician and the worst President” that even sat in the White House, Harry Truman will leave his feather-nesting buddies and clowning cronies and start on a stumping tour of the Nation next week. The good fellow and the clever politician, presumably, will be at his best. His 9-day, 16-State tour will begin May 7. He wilt deliver eight major political ad- dresses, thinly veiled with suggestions of public business; also 50, maybe more, im~< promptu talks. The haberdasher who could not make a go of a small business will demonstrate to the people how he can manage the greatest pusiness on earth with the greatest of ease. Smart politics and off-hand good fellowship does if—nothing more is needed. In 1948 the Republicans folerantly watched Harry doing it. This year, having learned a costly lesson, they are going to be more alert—they say. They will follow Harry around, mayhap, or untimber some big guns, Anyhow, they promise to be on the job and to give tit for tat. A3511 In 1948 the master politician jumped the gun and started his cross-country, grass- roots electioneering even before he had been nominated by the Democratic National Con- vention. He left Washington June 3 for a “norvroliticn’™? speaking tour of 18 States. TT... ys" F.s excuse will be setting his Official seal on a few national dams and let- ting loose a few of his own. On his trip 2 years ago he touched off a Republican exlosion by labeling the Eightieth Congress (Republican) as the worst in his- tory. Later he hedged and said “second worst.” This time he will put in his best licks to defend his own ‘‘Highty-worst’’ Con- gress. He denounced the Tait-Hartiey Act last time, and promised to repeal it pronto; thus far, even with his own party-controlied Congress, he hasn’t yet been able to Eesep that promise—or few, very few others that he made. The master politician made other wide swings-around in 1948 while the Republicans looked bored and talked more so. He made a 15-day tour in September of 18 non-Bastern States, with 150 off-the-cuff back platform talks. He wowed ’em, even as the Nation’s neglected and botched critical problems worsened. He “gave ’em hell’’—the Repub- licans—and they just stood aloof and let him go to it. On this tour Harry promised the people Just about the whole book, with unnumbered billions carelessly thrown in on the side, It must be admitted that he did his best about the billions as mounting red ink attests, But he couldn’t ride herd on his Democrats— some of them, evidently, were thinking about their country. He was at it again in October in the Northeastern States. Later in the month in the big cities. But the Republicans were still dead on their feet. “Let the patent medicine man sell his bottled water,” they said and contended themselves with sonorous noble sentiments. Remember? Now we're about to have the smart vendor selling his bottled water from the back of the wagon again. Will the curious crowds be as eager to buy this year? The States Must Resume Their Responsibilities EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. THOMAS E. MARTIN OF IOWA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. MARTIN of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, for many years I have observed the con- stant growth of our Federal bureaucracy, eulminating in the vast organization for World War II, Accompanying that growth of these agencies has been 2, vast increase in powers and activities on the part of the Federal Government and a decrease of powers and activities on the part of the States. While many aspects of this subject are debatable, one fact of tremendous sig- nificance now looms. The Federal ac- tivities, especially the armed forces, have created a great pool of experienced ad- ministrators available to our States. An outstanding example of one such selection was the appointment of Rear Adm. Milo F. Draemel, United States Navy, retired, by Gov. James H. Duff, of Pennsylvania, as secretary of forests
A3512 and waters, most favorably commented upon in an editorial of the Saturday Evening Post of April 1, 1950. The calling of such experienced and able men into the service of the States is certainly commendable and most salu- tary; also is the Pennsylvania example, thus shown, of accomplishing worth- while intrastate projects with State funds rather than through the long-es- tablished and dangerous policy of pro- curing Federal appropriations with Fed- eral supervision for such undertakings. It is to be hoped that this instance of wise local effort may mark a beginning of the one practice and the ending of the other, with resulting tendency toward the reestablishment of the authority and independence of the States and Com- monwealths as contemplated by the Fed- eral Constitution. In pursuance of leave granted, the editorial is included as a part of my re- marks: Way Not Recruir RETIRED EXPERTS FoR STATE JOBS? Nowadays, as everyone knows, government is very much big business, not only the Fed- eral Government but State and local govern- ment too. Like any other big business, gov= ernment desperately needs a supply of able administrators. Unfortunately, such men are scarce. Even the government executives who would honestly prefer to appoint an able man than a political crony don’t know where to look. At least part of the solution, it seems to us, is fairly simple. A continually replen- ished reserve of experienced administrators exists in the growing body of men who have ween retired from business, industry, and the Military Establishment, not because they were played out, but because increasingly prevalent early-retirement plans call for it. These are men who have risen to positions of importance and responsibility largely by virtue of their success as administrators. Inasmuch as executive ability is something that is not confined to any one particular job, but can be applied equally well in almost any field which requires administration, there is no reason why their abilities cannot be made available to public service. A notable example of this fact is Milo F, Draemel. Retired from naval service at the customary age of 62, Rear Admiral Draemel ‘was shapped up in 1946 by Temple University, in Philadelphia, and appointed vice presi- dent in charge of physical planning. About 6 months later, Pennsylvania’s new Governor, James H. Duff, asked Draemel to enter pub- lic service. As commandant of the Fourth Naval District, which includes the huge Phil- adelphia Navy Yard, the admiral had lashed out at the disgraceful condition of the Schuylkill River, an industrial sewer which was befouling his ships-as well as menacing public health, inviting floods, and offending the eye and nose of everyone who came near it. Duff felt the same way, and he invited Draemel to come to Harrisburg as secretary of forests and waters and do something about it. Temple gave him an indefinite leave of absence. During the 8 years that he has been secre- tary, Draemel has nearly completed what he set out to do. The problem has been to clean about 90 miles of river of the accumu- lated culm deposits left in it by coal-mining operations, deposits that had turned the water black and had, in many places, all but filled in the river’s bed. Draemel and his men studied the problem, planned the at- tack, and put it into operation. During the - past 2 years the Schuylkill clean-up has been one of the biggest engineering projects in the country, Asa result of careful planning and able administration, the project will be com- pleted at least 3 months before the sched- uled date of June 1951. Meanwhile, Secretary Draemel has been kept busy with other things too. He has built 2 major flood-control dams and 3 major dike systems and completed 97 lesser related projects on Pennsylvania’s rivers. He has developed eight new areas to add to the State’s park system, which in 1 month last summer attracted nearly a million tired businessmen and tourists, thus bringing a tidy sum into the treasury. In the realm of reforestation, a triple-barrelec rvocre™ has been set up, designed to ‘rc. °s 4“ ‘ding, prevent soil erosion, and husband subsurface water resources. Draemel’s department, in addition to advising private owners of tim- berland, has provided some 20,000,000 seed- lings for replanting in the last year, more than four times the number of seedlings which the department could muster 2 years ago. In short, Draemel has done, and is doing, a bang-up job, despite the fact that Ne had never been a secretary of forests and waters before and that Uncle Sam officially con- sidered him too old almost 4 years ago. Nor is Draemel’s an isolated case; there are an encouraging number of other men on the retired list now occupying administrative positions in the Pennsylvania State govern- ment alone, and many more would doubtless serve both willingly and well if they were asked. Men who have worked all their lives usually find enforced leisure irksome and, since many of them have already made their stake in the world, and often have pensions, the low salaries paid to top Government executives as compared with private busi- ness executives aren’t going to discourage them. State-government work probably holds a greater appeal for these men than Washing- ton can make, for local pride and local ties are apt to be firmly fixed by the time a man passes 60. In fact, we can’t understand why more State governors and executive-depart- ment heads haven’t taken advantage of this ready-made pool of qualified administrators. Thoughts for a New Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS EF HON. CARL T. CURTIS OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I would like to insert a very dynamic address de- livered by the Reverend Crawford W. Brown D. D., canon of the Washington Episcopal Cathedral in Washington, D, C., on May 9, 1950, at the State conven- tion of the P. E. O. Sisterhood: THOUGHTS ror A New Day Madam President and members of the P. E. O. Sisterhood, I am happy to be with you this afternoon to share with you some thoughts for a new day. I do not lean to pessimism, neither amIa prophet, nor the son of a prophet. However, I would like to remind you that we are not living in “One World” as suggested by the late Mr. Willkie. We are living in a split world and in a world wherein men have learned to split the atom. Put these two inescapable facts together and the potential danger is apparent. A divided world, with s0 many split personalities, is today threat- ened with the destructive force of atomic APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD warfare. Remember too, the United States established a precedent in the unleashing of such furious destruction upon an unsuspect- ing civilian population. Actually, the bomb fell on America. We have now a most un-~ pleasant skeleton in our national closet and it is a skeleton that will haunt and stalk us for many years. Specifically, I wish to speak concerning sev- eral aspects of our national life. I am a firm believer in the tremendous power of the spiritual forces of the Nation. It has al- ways been true that a nation must be de- feated spiritually before it can be defeated either by military attack from other nations or by any form of internal disruption, trick« ery, or conspiracy. The history of nations, from the days of ancient Israel down to this present hour, proves without question that this is true. A study of the facts available to every person in the land, shows there is now taking place within America, as well as within other lands, a spiritual defeat that may well prepare the way for national destruction. “It is time we wake up and realize that the hand stretched out to crush our spirit is the hand stretched out to kill America. When we see religious groups pitted one against the other, when religious leaders are sucked into the camp of the enemy, when God is banned from our schools, and the existence of the soul branded a fable by men in the public employ as professors; when morality is sneered at and patriotism looked upon as fit only for fools, then we can see how far we have allowed the destroyer to in~ vade the sanctuary of our spirit. It is time to wake up, Americans; time to realize that we are being softened up for the knock-out blow. If America is not worthy of a terrific effort on our part for her preservation, then none of us deserves America.” The delegates to this convention know to what extent God has been ignored or thrust out to the edges of life. This is God’s world, at least so we sing: “This is My Father’s World.” Such a concept frees us on the one hand from the false assumption that there is no hope, and on the other hand that the world has been wound up and will automatically produce a better and better civilization. We are not worshipers of mere progress. Under God we should guide and control it. But because God has been ignored or thrust out to the outer edges of life, we as a people are confused, uncertain and face the morrow with a definite sense of inse~ curity. We are a Nation which possesses these characteristics: Knowledge without character, politics without principles, and a Nation participating in the worship of God without sacrifice. Mr. Malcom Bingay, well-known editorial writer, plainly declared that which every soul within this Nation should hear and heed. “The blame” said Mr. Bingay, “for most of the world’s discord can be placed on our fail~ ure to recognize three impulses by which man lives: First, instinct—that something which man shares with the animals, the simple impulse to exist. Second, reason— that something by which he is able to dif- ferentiate from the animals, and through which he has piled up through the ages his material wealth. Third, spirit—that inde- finable something, transcending both in- stinct and reason and which permits man, in his loftier moods, to glimpse a possible answer to those eternal questions which have haunted him in his materialistic reasoning. By reason alone he has built up the great cities and civilizations of the earth, only to destroy them. The spirit alone can save man from his ruthless reason. Through reason he can. find knowledge, but only through his + spirit can he learn wisdom.” There is much in the national life and in the temper of our people which must be
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD commended. The great heart of America beats with compassion for the forgotten and underprivileged peoples of the world. The tired and worn humanity of the world have found sanctuary here and a new opportunity. Such compassionate concern, coming as it has to full flower in the Marshall plan, the Friendship Train, the Milk Ship, and many other humanitarian enterprises all found their genesis in the rich and fertile soil of the spiritual forces of the Nation. We are @ Nation blessed above all other nations in natural resources, favorable geo- graphical situation, productive capacity, free from the scars of war. The democratic principle of government recognizes the dig- nity of the individual, the initiative, re- sourcefulness and free enterprise have reached their highest under this Govern- ment which is of the people, by the people, and for the people. But a change is coming over our land and our people. Something is sadly lacking. That which is lacking is not knowledge but skill, not invention or lack of raw or proc- essed materials. The lack is character. In- telligent men produce the A-bomb, but it takes men of character to use it. Knowledge without character is responsible for our im- moralities in the economic, social, and polit- ical world. One hundred years ago Horace Mann prophesied that when schools were estab- lished so that all may have free tuition our moral problems would be resolved. He also said we would, under such conditions, have no need for police or jails, for armies or mavies. Today we have compulsory educa~ tion and knowledge has increased in the past century far beyond the dream of the greatest dreamer. Our high learning with our low morals is destroying the world. We have gained control over nature only to lose con- ‘trol aver human nature. - Science has not been our savior. Our neon lights still leave us in darkness. Our swift elevators bring us no closer to heaven, Our swift advance in the field of chemistry bas only produced a greater international understanding. Actually by our process of civilizing men we have succeeded in making man more savage. Knowledge without char- acter is one of our great national sins. As Nehru said: “Good ends can never be achieved by evil means,” and America did not speed the day of international brother- hood by her action at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The quality of character so sorely needed today is that which grows out of faith in God. Such a faith must master this hour in which we live or the world is lost. This is our day and our opportunity to add new names to the chapter of faith—a glorious chapter written in the blood of heroic men and women. Only as we dare to write such & new chapter can we hope to perpetuate the triumph of God—and bring about a new day of understanding. Politics without principle. Here I speak with all charity. I would not for one mo- ment minimize or disregard the constant actions of many courageous leaders of our several States and here in the Nation’s Cap- ital. One pays willing and just tribute to these men and women for their faithful leadership and sacrificial service to the Na- tion. But one must also speak of the lead- ers who have been placed by the people who, having nobly begun their trust with high ideals, were seen stripped of such ideals by corrupting influences. “God give us men. A time like this de- mands strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and ready hands; men whom the lust of office does not kill; men whom the spoils of office cannot buy.” How appropriate is the tall, straight, clean shaft erected to the memory of our first President. Thomas Paine wrote: “The character of George Washington puts all men called kings to shame.” He accepted no pay as Commander in Chief, he accepted mo remuneration as President. He rendered every possible service in his power. Or we stand before the majestic and inspiring Lincoln Memorial; we read again the words of Gettysburg, or the second inaugural and We are moved. Here indeed was a man who lived above the world—in public duty. One does not forget his words to an officer who, in the throes of Civil War said to Mr. Lin- coln, “It is good to know that God is on our side,” to which Mr. Lincoln replied: “What I want to know is, are we on God's side.’ Was there ever a great opportunity for another great statesman to immortalize himself? Another unhappy aspect of our national life is worship without sacrifice. Here I speak to all of us—and directly. We are all guilty. God gave up His all for us, His dear- est possession, His Son. What comparable sacrifice has modern Christianity made? If the cross is the insignia of Christianity, it is certainly not manifested in the lives of our people save as it is worn as a tinkling orna- ment or to decorate a steeple. All of us are guilty of the sin of worship without sacrifice (Christianity’s Open Door, P. E. O. Record, May 1950). We give so little time for the worship of God that the church is rapidly becoming a 1-hour-a-week institution. The members of our churches are not willing to place their energy, time, and talents at the disposal of the church with the result that it is almost impossible to secure teachers in our Sunday schools, leaders for our young people, and workers in the many and varied organiza- tions necessary to operate the programs of the church. When our income is adequate we make our gifts to God our last considera~ tion, and when we must reduce our outgo because of less income religious support is usually the first to feel such a reduction. Sin is the product of people, not things. - Someone has said, “Not many of us know much about biology, but in alibiology we are experts.” And we are. We quickly blame others for the plight of our world—the poli- tician, the minister, the capitalist, the lead- ers of labor. Men of evil design are elected to high office where they gain prestige and power. We cry out against them for their failures, but we conveniently forget that so many of the good people put them in office by their failure to vote. It is the inertia of good people which troubles a modern world. Good people must assume their rightful responsibility. The forces of evil are ever on the alert, aggressive, well organized, and ready for action at a moment’s notice. The devil never takes a vacation. The responsi- bility for the home, the church, the city, and the Nation is ours. When a better world is built better people will build it. Now, what can we do to help correct some of these situations to which I have made all too brief reference? What must the in- dividual possess? Above all, he must have a stanch faith in America, in its institu- tions, and a deep undergirding faith in God and in the inherent decency of man. Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt reminded all of us: “This generation of Americans has a ren- dezvous with destiny.” Terrible as were the last two World Wars there is one thing more terrible: a condition of society which made such things possible. The battles of these two World Wars were put outward manifestations of the inner con- flicts which still tear at the heart of man- kind. Peace is a state of mind, and the war was raging in many forms in the minds of men long before the first gun sang its song of death in 1914. We need not blame any other nation or foreign situation for having brought us into two World Wars. We can look into our own hearts and blame ourselves. Yet we call ourselves a Christian people. Ad513 We hear much about military preparedness. What of the spiritual preparedness which 1s infinitely more necessary. We talk of muili- tary disarmament, but are we ready to arm spiritually? We will never arm spiritually— or engage in any program of spiritual pre- paredness until we have faith. Faith must make us do our best today because of our interest and concern for those to come. Many of the blessings we enjoy today are ours because someone else had faith and lived as though it counted. Will the next genera- tion say of us that by faith we have left them a heritage of peace, good will, and one world. Man is capable of changing his environ- ment by new scientific inventions, but what is more important, he is capable of being changed himself. Change the thought and you change the man. We must put righteousness before self- interest. We must seek to discover God’s purpose for the world rather than pursue our own. We can have the abundant life which Christ came to make possible for us. These thoughts translated into action will pring in a new day. Twentieth Anniversary of Brooklyn College EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 1, 1950 Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, Brook- lyn College is celebrating today the twentieth anniversary of its establish- ment as a separate and independent in- stitution of higher learning. Although the origin of the school dates back sev- eral years earlier, it was not until May 10, 1930, that Brooklyn College became a separate entity with its own campus and administration. Today, on its twentieth anniversary, Brooklyn College numbers more than 17,200 students in its day and evening sessions and its graduate school. It is the largest undergraduate liberal arts college in the country and one of the largest collegiate institutions in New York State and in the country. It has been ably led for more than a decade by an outstanding and dynamic educator, Dr. Harry David Gideonse. On the occasion of its anniversary, I desire to extend my felicitations and good wishes to Dr. Gideonse, to the en- tire faculty, and to the student body. The Borough of Brooklyn is proud of Brooklyn College and its great accom-~ plishments in the two decades of its ex- istence. In connection with this anni- versary, I am placing in the Recorp an article from the New York Herald Tribune of May 7, 1950, by Robert A, Poteete: BrooxtyNn Contece Gets Reapy To ComE oF Ace—Ir’s ArrEaDy Rico In TRaDITION ON TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY (By Robert A. Poteete) “Tt’s really ridiculous,” a Brooklyn College coed complained. “The attitude of the col- lege toward meetings of the two sexes is childish, but no one dares protest.”
A3514 “If the girls want to meet the boys for a good business reason, we can arrange a time in my Office,” replied Prof. Adele Bilder- see, in charge of women students. That was Brooklyn College—rather its predecessor—of 1926. A World headline pro- claimed: “Sexes Segregated in New Institu- tion.” Brooklyn College Center—forerunner of Brooklyn College—~—opened September 24, 1926, in a loft building at Willoughby and Bridge Streets. It comprised a City College branch for men and a Hunter College branch for women with a total beginning enrollment of 1,200. This week, Brooklyn College—a separate entity with campus, administration and no segregation of the sexes—will celebrate the twentieth anniversary of its detachment from the collegiate center and the appoint- ment of its first president, Dr. William A, Boylan, on May 10, 1930. And Professor Bildersee, now director of admissions and dean of students, can look down from her office window on a grassy, 42-acre campus and see boys and girls meet- ing all the time on spacious lawns, building steps, campus benches, and in a perennial garden. Brooklyn College’s move from the Borough Hall section—where it had overflowed the loft building and spread into various office buildings—proved no exception to the con- troversy that raged for 14 years before the Collegiate Center was opened. Out of the proposals that boomed from _ speakers’ stands and filled newspaper columns, a site was selected in the Flatbush section of Brook- lyn on what had heen a golf course. In October 1937 Brooklyn College moved to its new campus, which, by city real estate standards, is uhusually commodious. Dr. Boylan retired because of ill health in 1938, and was succeeded by a temporary head, Mario E. Cosenza. On October 18, 1939, Brooklyn College ad- Ministration was put in the hands of a dynamic Dutchman, Harry David Gideonse, who had developed the National Broadcast- ing Co.’s national program of educational discussion and the University of Chicago’s Round Table broadcasts. After graduation from Columbia University, Dr. Gideonse di- rected international student work at Geneva University, Switzerland. In the thirties he taught at Rutgers University and at the Uni-~ versity of Chicago. An outspoken student of international af- fairs, Dr. Gideonse brought a concept of social cohesion to the Brooklyn institution. Brooklyn College was ingrown, Dr. Gideonse thought—almost all its students were drawn from one city, which made for lack of per= spective. So the new president set about hiring faculty members with broad experience in institutions across the country. A second step the new president took was to encourage extracurricular activity. The 225 active student organizations on the campus attest to his success in this program. Day and night students publish separate weekly newspapers and quarterly literary magazines, the senior class publishes a year- book and the college has extensive athletic, dramatic, debating, and other specialized activities. Dr. Gideonse’s third step is an experiment tn the integration of courses in liberal arts. Tt is in its first year. The five large buildings on the Flatbush site are a far cry from the segregated be- ginning of Brooklyn College in a loft build- ing next to an elevated track. Its faculty— 482 teaching personnel, 16 administrative Officers, and 81 administration staff mem- bers—approaches the size of the original en- rollment. The college has granted more than 23,000 degrees—including 260 master’s degrees granted since the graduate division opened in 1935. A class of more than 1,500 will receive degrees in June. More than 17,200 students are enrolled at present in the graduate, day, and evening sessions, It’s a proud school, from the administra- tive official who boasts that Brooklyn College is “probably the only college its size that fields completely amateur sports teams” (a fact sometimes deplored by students), to the student journalists who assert in their publications—at every available oppor- tunity—that Brooklyn College is the largest undergraduate liberal arts college in the country. Home Rule for the District of Columbia EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JOHN F. KENNEDY OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orpD, I wish to include in the Rrecorp an article by John Day, of the Courier- Journal of Louisville, Ky., in the struggle for home rule in the. District of Co- lumbia: Homes RULE ror THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (By John F. Day) WasHINGTON, April 22.—One day this week, a@ man dressed like Paul Revere rode a horse down Pennsylvania Avenue and along other principal Washington streets. He carried a sign which read, “Taxation without repre- sentation is still tyranny.” The one hundred and seventy-fifth anni- versary of Revere’s ride was being used to dramatize the fight for home rule in the Dis- trict of Columbia. That fight doesn’t date back quite as far as the midnight ride, but it’s hoary enough. The District has been voteless since 1874, when Congress revoked the self-government privileges residents had exercised from 1802. The struggle to regain them has been going on ever since, and Democratic Party platforms have contained home-rule planks since 1892. PERTINENT QUESTIONS Most people are aware that Washington is a Federal city run by Congress under power given it by the Constitution. The clause pertaining to that says: “(The Congress) shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceed- ing 10 miles square) as may, by cession by particular States, and the acceptance of Con- gress, become the seat of Government of the United States.” But most people are surprised when they are asked, as the Central Suffrage Conference frequently does ask, do you know: That the capital of the world’s greatest democracy is not governed democratically? That the citizens of the District of Co- lumbia (close to a million) have no repre- sentation in their National Government? That they have no control over their munic- ipal government? That Congressmen, busy with national problems, spend more than 3,000 man-hours yearly on District housekeeping problems that an elected city council could handle? That citizens of the District pay more taxes than those of 25 States? APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD That they pay almost 90 percent of the expenses of the National Capital? That they have nothing to say about the assessing or spending of the taxes they pay? The city of Washington was specifically described, established, and chartered as a corporate entity by an act of Congress ap- proved May 8, 1802. From then until 1871, jt had an elective council and mayor. In that year, Congress repealed the charter and established a new local government consist- ing of a governor and council appointed by the President with the concurrence of the Senate. From 1871 to 1874, the District also had an elective delegate (nonvoting) to the House of Representatives. JOHNSON WAS LEADER In 1874, Congress substituted government by three Commissioners appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, and at the same time eliminated the delegate to the House. Four years later, the Commis- sioner system was made permanent. During the days of World War I and later, there was a vigorous debate as to whether the city of Washington legally existed. Principal supporter of a contention that it didn’t was Representative Ben Johnson of Kentucky, chairman for many years of the House District Committee. (He is now living in retirement at Bardstown.) Johnson held that the act of 1878 failed to provide for the continuation within the District of a city of Washington. He carried his point. with President Wilson, who de- parted from the “done at the city of Wash- ington” form used by his predecessors and concluded his proclamations, “done in the District of Columbia.” But during the Harding «dministration, lawyers and historians opposing Johnson gathered forces and cited various acts of Congress from 1871 on mentioning the city of Washington and thus legally recognizing its existence. Harding returned to the older form, and all the Presidents since then have used it. NECROES ARE FACTOR But whether living in a legally existing city or not, Washingtonians still have no vote for either municipal or national officials. Why? No matter how many reasons may be given, the basic one is this: The large number of Negroes living in Washington. Last year, the Senate passed by voice vote the Auchincloss-Kefauver bill, which was introduced with bipartisan support. (Plat- forms of both parties in 1948 called for Dis- trict home rule.) It provides for an 11-per- son city council, nine to be elected by the citizens and two to be appointed by the Presi- dent. It also provides for selection of a city manager. Congress would retain the right to review all legislation passed by the council. The House District Committee, whose chairman is JoHN McMuitzian, of South Caro- lina, has bottled up the bill. Representa- tive KENNEDY, Democrat, of Massachusetts, started a discharge petition which now has 178 signatures. It requires 218 to bring the bill to the House floor. If it should ever get there, the bill probably would pass. But the chance of getting the remaining signatures looks slim. Only one Kentuckian has signed the peti- tion, Carn PrrKIns, Democrat, from Hind- man. Seven Indianans have signed. They are all Democrats: Denton, of Evansville; Notanp, of Bloomington; Jacoss, of Indian- apolis; Mappen, of Gary; Krusz, of Fort Wayne; Croox, of South Bend; and WatsH, of Anderson. Supporters of the legislation point out that at present Washington has nine bosses: the District Commissioners, the Bureau of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the Budget, House Appropriations Commit- tee, Senate Appropriations Committee, House District Committee, Senate District Com- mittee, conference committee on District appropriation bills, the whole Congress, and the President. They also make these points: 1. The home-rule charter would become effective only after approval of a majority of District voters in a referendum. 2. The people of Washington are fully eapable of local self-government, since they have an occupational acquaintance with public affairs and are better educated, on an average, than citizens of other American cities. 3. Taxation without representation is ine compatible with American traditions. 4. Congress would maintain its control over Washington as the Nation’s Capital through it veto powers over the city coun- cil’s actions. 5. Polls show that both the people of Washington and the people of the Nation think the District should have home rule. BILL SUPPORTED Organizations representing a cross-section of the District residents are working for the Kefauver bill. They include the Junior League, the American Association of Uni- versity Women, the American Veterans Com- mittee, the CIO, the Americans for Demo- cratic Action, Washington Federation of Churches, the League of Women Voters, Dem- ocratic Central Committee, Young Republi- cans of District of Columbia, and Young Democrats of District of Columbia. Most of the opposition is centered in the Washington Board of Trade. It takes many specific exceptions to the Kefauver bill, but the contentions it uses most effectively are: 1. The Negroes would control the city. (Negroes compose about 28 percent of the population of Washington.) 2. The proposed legislation would mean carpetbagger and riffraff rule. 8. Dual voting would be possible. “Regis- tered voters in other places could vote in the District if they lived here 1 year. This means that thousands upon thousands of people voting and giving primary allegiance else- where would vote in the District. This group might well be the deciding factor in any election or referendum. The‘board of trade does not believe this provision is conducive to good government or fair to permanent citizens.” NOT REAL HOME RULE 4, The solid citizen of Washington doesn’t want this legislation because outsiders who come here for a few years can put the District into debt, enjoy the fruits, and then go back to their home States and leave the perma- nent citizens to pay the piper. 5. The majority of people in the Nation want Washington to remain a Federal city rather than become a home-rule city. The board of trade and some citizens as- sociations which join with it also say the Kefauver bill would not provide real home rule anyhow, because residents still would not be able to vote for President and Vice President or have representation in Congress. That is quite true. It takes a constitutional amendment to provide that form of suffrage. Such an amendment is proposed in a reso- lution sponsored by Senator Neziy (Demo- crat, West Virginia) and pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The board of trade says it favors this res~ olution, and so do supporters of the Ke- fauver pill. . But the board of trade forces say the case for national representation would be jeop- ardized by granting local suffrage to District citizens. Supporters of the Kefauver bill say quite the opposite is true—that evidence of @ responsible electorate would help in se- curing the constitutional amendment neces- sary to grant national representation and voting for the District. Administration Farm Plan EXTENSION OF REMARKS ° HON. M. G. BURNSIDE OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. BURNSIDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orD, I include questions and answers on the administration farm plan, published in the April 1950 issue of the Spotlight: Why is a farm program by the Government necessary? The interests of our farmers and those of other economic groups are insepa- rable. When the farmer’s income falls, he is unable to buy the products of industry; profits fall off; wages are cut; city residents are less able to buy farm products; the spiral continues downward; this is the history of all major depressions. A change of 10 per- cent in total farm income, upward or down~ ward, equals a change of 1,000,000 jobs in industrial employment. The farm is much more susceptible to cyclical fluctuations than any other unit of the economy. Is the farm-support principle accepted only by the Democratic Party? No, although the Democratic administration first used farm-price supports in the 1930’s to restore the Nation’s farm economy, Republicans have supported the parity payment system in re- cent years. Why is a change in the farm program made necessary at this time? Farm income has fallen 22 percent in the past 2 years; prices paid by farmers are down only 5 percent. This gap is causing a serious decline in farm purchasing power. A depression spiral may set in if this situation is not altered soon. Furthermore, there are numerous flaws in the present system which should be cor- rected. What are the major flaws in the present farm plan? (1) Basic commodities produc- ing only one-fourth of farm income are cov- ered by price supports. (2) The Government is forced to purchase enormous amounts of potatoes and eggs and take them off the mar- ket Freping retail prices at artificially high levels. (3) The housewife pays twice for the support of farm prices—once in taxes, again in high prices at the grocery store for prod- ucts which are not permitted to sell at nor- mal market levels. This causes dissatis- faction and may result in attempts to kill the entire farm price-support program. (4) The farmer’s freedom to utilize his land as he may think best is restricted: while some commodities are supported, and others are not, the farmer has an economic incentive to follow farm practices‘which may not be wisest (since he will concentrate on those commodities which are supported, even though he knows his land is better suited for other products). What is the basic principle of the admin- istration farm program? Farm income must be maintained at not less than $28,000,000,- 000 or the entire economy will suffer. Farm products (including perishables) accounting for three-fourths of farm income would be eovered by the new program, . How would it work for the farmer? Farm- ers would sell at the open market. Prices would be determined by the law of supply A3515 and demand. If prices fell below the support level, farmers would receive a production pay= ment equal to the difference between the average market price and the support level. If market price exceeds support price, of course, there would be no Government pay- ment. How are standards for support-price levels determined? We seek such prices as will re- turn to farmers as much buying power as they had in a 10-year modern moving base period. What are the advantages of the adminis- tration plan? Farmers would receive broader, more secure, and more direct income sup- ports. Consumers would have the benefit of entire supplies of meat, milk, poultry prod- ucts, and other perishables at normal market prices. This would encourage consumption, and lower the food budget. The program would take the Government out of buying, processing, shipping, storing, and disposing of perishables and return these operations to normal channels of trade. What about controls for the farmers? No new kinds of control are recommended. Ths same kind of marketing agreements and acre- age allotments that were used to pull farm- ers out of the Hoover depression will continue to be used wherever desirable. Observance of soil-conservation practices will be re- quired. Would the costs of the program be stag- gering as Republicans like to charge? No. The administration farm program for per- ishables would cost taxpayers no more than the current purchase-type programs and would save consumers many dollars at the grocery store. For example, consumer sav- ings on pork alone next year could be as much as $25 per family. The 1949 potato support program will cost the Government at least $60,000,000 while under the Brannan plan, potatoes would cost the Government only about $33,000,000 and at the same time retail prices for potatoes would drop. United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ANTHONY F. TAURIELLO OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. TAURIELLO. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following letter: SEGRETERIA Di StaTo pI Sua Santira, Dal Vaticano, November 4, 1949. Mrs. Berry Jacos, UNICEF, Paris. . Drag Mrs. Jacos: I was pleased to have an opportunity, in the course of your recent visit to Rome, to discuss with you the work of the United Nations International Chil- dren’s Emergency Fund and to learn of the success which has attended your efforts and those of your colleagues. As I told you at that time, you may be assured of the abiding sympathy of the Holy See with this humanitarian undertaking and of our interest in your project for the con- tinuation of a supply program which you say would insure for the needy children of the world a further measure of succor and assiste ance. With the expression of my sentiments of esteem and consideration, I remain, Very sincerely yours, G. B. Montini, Subst,
A3516 Poland’s Present Plight EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. W. KINGSLAND MACY OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. MACY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include an address made by me at Polish Hall, Southampton, Long Is- land, N. Y., last Sunday afternoon, May 7, 1950: Your invitation to address you on this cecasion commemorating the adoption of the Polish Constitution does me much honor. Even an indifferent speaker can deliver a rousing speech on the Fourth of July when he is thrilled as a lover of liberty by the meaning of that great day, and thus it is that while I am no grcat speaker, I humbly hope that something of the inspiration I felt when I reviewed the great event on May 3, 1798, when freedom-loving men adopted the Constitution of Poland and abolished the veto power, will carry through into my words today and serve to stir the unquenchable fire for true freedom that burns forever in Polish breasts. We of America have only to turn our eyes east to where the iron curtain is draped like a corpse’s shroud over a still-living Poland to realize how terrifying a life-in-death ex- istence can be without freedom. We have only to look at proud Poland, subject to a master who is not a free man but a slave devoid of the most rudimentary concept of liberty, to draw back horrified. We have only to remember what Poland was and what her people hoped her destined to be, to real- ize that without freedom, all is nothing. Should Russia, and this is fanciful, pave every street in Poland and fill every Polish stomach with the finest of foods, so long as men must walk those streets in regimented boots and the granaries of freedom remain empty, Poland must ke an object to excite sympathy. No gain could compare with her Joss and her loss must not be ours and to that end we must guard our freedom. Americans whose ancestral background is identified in time through blood and history with Poland can be counted on to be vigilant, and valiant, too, for who can take lightly the boast of the Poles that 17 percent of the men in our armed forces in World War II were of Polish birth or extraction? Certainly not we where so many of these boys were our own Suffolk boys whose parents and brothers won honors in our schools, enriched our farmlands and aided economy, and made good citizens. We cannot but be proud of the part Polish youth played in the war and which of us can forget the legions of Polish fliers who defended London from the German blitz, shot out of the air over England 25 percent of the Nazi fliers brought down. These Polish, following flight from their own country, vol- unteered, as you well know, in England, France, and Belgium for service with the Allies, They paid dearly for their courage, as did the great General Sikorski who re- cruited them and later died tragically in a plane crash. And what man or woman. with Polish blood in their veins can forget that great exploit of the Polish troops in Italy when they took Mount Cassino from which our own gallant American boys had been repeatedly driven back? What of the tremendous toll of Polish men and women in the Warsaw uprising against the Nazis in 1944, an uprising urged by Russia, under promise of support—support that never materialized? Many thousand Poles died but Russia did nothing. Nor can we forget the frightful drama of consistent injustice to Poland found in the nefarious betrayal of her and her people at the Yalta sell-out to Stalin. Poland was soid out at Yalta and Tehran—and at Potsdam— the latter virtually as the first official act of President Truman. You all know that. I’m not telling you things you don’t know. But, it’s worth repeating, “again, and again, and again” to the end that the American people may know the treason and diabolical cruelty and treachery imposed upon Poland and her people by the late Mr. Roosevelt. I say it is time for the Polish debacle to be exposed in all its savagery—and I say the full story of Poland’s martyrdom has not been completely told. It should be told. It must be told. Senators TaFT, WHEREY, and BrincEes have done much to expose parts of the rape of Poland and I deplored it publicly years ago. But much more remains to be said of what has happened on both sides of the iron curtain. What of the 3,000,000 Poles made prisoner by the Russian Communists and hurried off to Siberia—whisked away and never heard from again? What of the cruel blow struck free Poland by President Truman when, at Potsdam, he extended—by agreement, under war-conferred powers given by a reluctant Congress during hostilities—recognition to the Communist government of Poland? Mr. Truman knew, as thousands of less-in- formed men and women knew—that in granting this recognition, he, Truman, sounded Poland’s death knell. You may be charitable and say, “The President was tricked by the Russians.” If that’s his alibi, his statesmanship is a menace to the world, and certainly to the American people. And it can be added, his quality of statesmanship and knowledge of it is reflected in that of Secretary of State Acheson, and other Demo- cratic Secretaries of State who preceded Acheson. You here know much of what goes on in Poland today. But the great rank and file of American people do not know and on April 80th, Mayor Joseph Mruk, of Buffalo, whose name as an outstanding Polish leader is undoubtedly well known to you, deplored this lack of knowledge. He issued a number of stirring statements at that time. “TI challenge the Secretary of State or any other Government official to deny them” he said, and his indictments were as follows: “I charge that in Poland today any single utterance or action construed as anti-Com- munist will result, if overheard, or observed, in the sudden disappearance of the alleged ‘traitor’—and inevitably subsequent vanish- ing of members of his family—and other relatives as well. I charge these people are summarily executed—or die a lingering death. “I charge that in Poland today English is no longer taught in the schools, as it was under Paderewski and Gen. Jan Pilsud- ski, former Premier of Poland. Russian is now being taught in place of English. And I charge that the United States is made the incessant target of derogatory propa- ganda throughout Poland, although this propaganda has not yet been extended to teaching in the schools. The reason—Polish teachers have not yet been fully ‘converted’ to the new era—nor do they ‘see’—except under the figurative lash of Russian-trained administrators, the doubtful benefits of Soviet ‘freedom’.” Mayor Mruk’s indictments went on: “I charge that the Catholics of Poland are being denied opportunity to attend mass on Sundays by and through the subterfuge of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the government holding Communist demon- strations throughout Poland each Sunday— almost from dawn to early afternoon, and Poles are expected—yes, ‘strongly urged’—to attend these ‘demonstrations.’ Further, I charge that while not actively persecuted— thus far, at least—the Catholic priests of Poland must combat a war of nerves—must withstand implied threats, and battle unend- ingly in an effort to inculcate some measure of religion into the minds of the children, already subject to growing Communist in- doctrination in the schools. “J charge that complete censorship of mail prevails in Poland—Communist censorship— applying both to mail going in and out of that country. “TI charge that alleged duties imposed on relief packages sent to Poland mak2 it al- most impossible for the people in Poland to pay these penalties—and that’s what the charges are—penalties. Only duties on used clothing—if ragged enough—are within the reach of Poland’s people—and new cloth- ing is, of course, just a dream. A skimpy 3 yards of material, for example, carries a stiff fee, but duties covering 4 yards are pro- hibitive.” Mayor Mruk’s words are freighted with bit- ter anger, and well they may be. In speak- ing as president of the National Republican Club-in 1946, I was puzzled about the indif- ference to the Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam debacles and what I then called ‘“‘the curious tenderness of many of our elected and ap- pointed officials.” I said: ‘My recollection tells me that Rus- sia was perfectly content to sit down with the Nazis and divide Poland. Russia was not suspicious of the matériel supplied so boun- teously by the United States. Now it is patent that the present Polish Government jike the states surrounding Russia, is com- pletely under Soviet domination. Vast num- bers of the brave Polish people who stood in the way of the full fury of the Nazi machine blitz, and who contributed mightily to af- fording the Allies opposing Germany the op- portunity to gird themselves for battle, seem to want nothing of the present Polish Gov- ernment. To the average American this does not look fair and just. “The sheer impudence of the Communistic movement in this country has been so brazen that, had our people not been so bedeviled and bewildered by super-emergency regula- tion, they would have thrown its supporters out long since as I believe they will shortly when the full facts are known. The left- wing groups represent a species with which up to now we have had little experience in this country. They have taken advantage of our sportsmanship and predilection for free and untrammeled exercise of the fran- chise to gang up and endeavor to destroy our form of government. Theirs is not a constructive operation within its frame- work but one that is diabolically destructive. They use all the techniques familiar to the dictator movements abroad over the past two decades. They seek to create dissension by promising the people what they know to be economically impossible, and while pretend- ing to be nondiscriminatory racially, they are actually inciting every possible race prej- dice and hatred, or in other words they are the expert conditioners who would prepare the way for overthrow of the Government. The pattern is nothing new. It is simply ‘create dissension and take over’.”’ As Mayor Mruk pointed out, Poland suc- cessfully fought the Tartars, Turks, and Swedes. The armies led by Jan Sobieski triumphed over Turks and Tartars in the seventeenth century—hut it remained for the New Deal, aided by Hopkins and Hiss, and the Truman administration, to walk Poland into the death trap of patriotic, economic, and administrative extinction, and as he
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD said, “The tragedy of Poland should haunt forever—decent, brave men and women who gave so much—clung to their tradition—who fought two wars in the belief they were fisht- ing for world freedom. These, too, were be- trayed, as Was Poland.” Maragen Affair Leaves Bad Odor EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. KARL E. MUNDT OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 10 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I take this opportunity of calling the atten- tion of my colleagues and the country to the editorial I am asking to have printed in the Appendix of the Rzecorp. The editorial is entitled “‘Maragon Af- fair Leaves Bad Odor.” It ably ampli- fies the theme suggested in its title. It is especially significant that this editorial is from the Mitchell Republic, published out in Mitchell, S. Dak., under the able direction of W. R. Ronald, who said recently in a signed editorial that he was trying to be the consistent editor of a Fair Deal newspaper. The Mitchell Republic is the largest and most im- portant newspaper supporting the Tru- man administration in South Dakota. So far as I can recall, this paper has not had a kind thing to say about me in its editorial columns for many years. Nonetheless I recognize it as one of our ' important and influential newspapers, and when even the Mitchell Republic bemoans the Maragon-Vaughan activi- ties in the White House, it would, indeed, appear a more satisfactory corrective is required than has thus far been de- veloped. There being no objection, the edito- rial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Maracon AFFalR LEAVES BAD Onor Small-time operator John Maragon, who apparently had delusions of granduer, has been sentenced to serve 8 months to 2 years in jail for lying to a Senate committee in- vestigating the 5-percenter racket. The conviction and sentencing of Mara- gon may be a satisfying climax, to some per- sons, of the 5-percenter inquiry. As a mat- ter of fact, however, Maragon has been cast in the role of a sacrificial goat. Suggesting that Maragon is taking the rap for someone else, the Milwaukee Journal says: “The rap for whom? For Harry Vaughan, the military aide to the President? “It was Harry Vaughan who permitted John Maragon to hang around the White House, using his office and his telephone, and even his name, according to testimony before the Senate committee. Without Harry Vaughan, John Maragon would have been as nothing in Washington, without stature or influence. He would have had no way to pressure governmental favors for friends, or for outfits like the Verley Co., the Allied Molasses Co., and others that paid him money. “An interesting situation, indeed, Mara-< gon doesn’t talk, protecting Vaughan, his crony. Vaughan doesn’t talk, protecting XCVI—App.——222 Maragon, his crony. Neither side in the trial subpenas Vaughan, thus protecting everybody. And President Truman, as he has said repeatedly, stands back of Vaughan.” The entire picture is an unpleasant one, with an extremely fishy odor. The small fry caught, on 2 perjury count, was strictly pea- nuts in Washington’s influence industry. But apparently everyone in official capacity is satisfied that what has been done repre- sents a major accomplishment in the in- terests of cleaning up the 5 perceniers. Actually the entire affair is, as the Mil- waukee paper says ‘‘one that shouldn’t make Americans very proud of their government at the top level.” Tremendous Cost of St. Lawrence Seaway Cannot Be Justified EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT OF FENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, dur- ing the last several weeks we have heard much about the necessity of the St. Lawrence seaway because of the alleged diminishing supply of iron ore on the Mesabi Range in Minnesota, and a new deposit of ore in Labrador. A letter written by Mr. W. Sykes, chairman of the executive committee, Inland Steel Co., Chicago, Ill., dated April 25, was read into the record at the hear- ings being held by the House Public Works Committee on May 3. This letter clearly refutes the statement that the St. Lawrence seaway must be constructed without delay so that ore deposits in Labrador can be made available to the steel industry. Mr. Sykes in his letter points out that the steel industry of this country can bring ore from Venezuela and deliver it to the Pittsburgh and Youngstown dis- tricts at a cost comparable to the ores they are now mining on the Mesabi Range. The following excerpts from Mr. Sykes’ letter is of particular interest: With reference to your letter of April 21, regarding the development of taconite, the work is being carried on actively at this time. A number of interests, including the steel corporation and the Pickands Mather Co., are building or have built pilot plants and from these full-scale experiments it is expected that plants of commercial size will be de- veloped within the next few years. However, the development of taconite is not of great urgency because, with the de- velopment of the ore properties of the Steel Corp. in Venezuela, the demand for these higher-cost ores will be greatly diminished. I am informed that the steel corporation studies indicate that they can bring ore from Venezuela and deliver it into the Pittsburgh and Youngstown districts at a cost compara- ble to the ores which they are now mining on the Mesabi Range. This means, of course, that the demand for Mesabi Range ore will be diminished and a greater time will elapse before there is any great urgency in the development of the low-grade ijron-bearing materials. As I visualize the situation, there will be a gradual exhaustion of the easily mined A3517 open-pit ores, a gradual increase in the higher-cost ores from underground mines, and then a*gradual building of plants to beneficiate the taconites, so that an eco- nomic balance will be established with gradually increasing cost of the ore. I see no urgency or great need to bring Labrador ore to the Middle West for a very long time to come, and the tremendous cost of developing the St. Lawrence waterway cannot be justified on the necessity of mak- ing Labrador ores available to maintain our steel-making capacity in the Middle West. Defense Expenditures EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OVERTON BROOKS OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrec- orD, I include the following remarks of Assistant Secretary of Defense Marx Leva before the annual meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington, D.°C., May 2, 1950: DEFENSE EXPLNDITURES I feel sure that all of you will recall the case of Mr. Jones, who was introduced by a toastmaster who said: “Mr. Jones will now give us his address.” Mr. Jones thereupon stood up, said “My address is 2700 Connecti- cut Avenue NW.,” and then sat down. Since our toastmaster has just stated that I will speak on “‘defense expenditures,” per- haps I should follow the good example of Mr. Jones, say “Defense expenditures this year will be $12,300,000,000,” and then sit down. If I were to quit talking after such a simple and factually correct statement, it might be a very good thing from the stand- point of the audience—and I am certain that it would be an excellent thing from the standpoint of the speaker. But since neither the audience nor the speaker is to have such an easy way out, I would like to turn now to a discussion of the complex and confusing subject that is bound up within those two simple words, “defense expendi- tures.” Just in case we should have a question- and-answer period later on, I have taken the precaution of asking Assistant Secretary of Defense McNeil, our comptroller, to accom- pany me to this luncheon. Over a long period of association, I have found that the field to which you are addressing yourselves today is a field on which Assistant Secretary McNeil is better informed than almost any other person in the Federal Government. At the very outset of my remarks today, I should like to discuss for a moment the economy program of the Department of De- fense—and I should like, in particular, to discuss the interrelation between the econ-~ omy program and the level of defense ex- penditures. Briefly stated, we would be spending ap- proximately a billion and a half more than we are spending this year, if it were not for the economy program. The details be- hind this figure of $1,500,000,000—or $1,- 592,000,000, to be exact—are contained in Secretary of Defense Johnson’s semiannual report, as submitted to the Congress a few days ago. In chapter IV of his semiannual ‘report, Secretary Johnson discussed the econ- omy program in considerable detail, in order
A3518 to make it clear that this program was an essential and continuing part of the pol- iaies he intends to carry out, as Secretary of Defense. Both in the semiannual report and in his testimony before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees last week, Secretary Johnson stressed the fact that the economy program, which has been misin- terpreted and misconstrued in some quar- ters, is one of the ,rincipal tools used by the Department of Defense in channeling funds into the combatant forces where such funds can be used to give us added strength, and away from such wasteful emoc ei ives as unnecessary overhead, costly aw iiss. and unwarranted overlaps. In connection with our economy program, there 1s a point which I should like to stress, The point to which I refer can be summar- ized as follows: An economy program in the Department of Defense is important for two reasons: First, it is important because of the ur- gent necessity of maintaining a healthy na- tional economy, and in order to maintain such an economy it 1s essential that military exorraitures must be held to the lowest level con pa.ivie with our national security. Second, it is important because of the equally urgent necessity of making savings wherever possible in order to assure that money which otherwise would go into ex- cessive overhead and waste can be used, as I have just mentioned, to increase our com- pat effectiveness. In other words, savings are ime ss*ret in and of themselves, because eact Goi. * we refrain from spending means a healthier national economy; but savings are equally important as a source of money with which we can buy more planes, more antiaircraft and antitank equipment, and more ships. By way of illustration of the use of savings for increased combat effectiveness, I should like to call your attention to an announce~- ment which was made a few days ago with regard to Marine aviation. This announce- ment stated that arrangements have just been completed under which Marine avia- tion, during the fiscal year beginning next July 1, will include 16 Marine air-combat squadrons, instead of the 12 squadrons con~ templated when the budget was submitted to Congress last January—the key point in the announcement being the fact that the additional four squadrons that are to be maintained will not require any additional appropriations, but will be financed by means of economies elsewhere in the budget. This particular illustration, I think, points up the situation to which Secretary John- son has referred on a number of occasions when he has said that our task in the Depart- ment of Defense is the task of transforming fat into muscle. The four additional Marine air-combat squadrons will give us muscle that has real meaning. Similarly, Admiral Sherman recently announced that the Navy will maintain seven large aircraft carriers during the next fiscal year, instead of the six large carriers contemplated at the time that the budget was submitted to Congress last January. In his announcement of this development, Admiral Sherman pointed out that the additional carrier was to be main- tained out of economies effected elsewhere in the naval budget. Additional illustrations applicable to the Army and the Air Force are set out in Sec- retary Johnson’s semiannual report, and in the interest of saving your time, I will not repeat them here. I will be glad to send over copies of chapter IV of the report later in the day, however, for as many of you as may be interested. All that I have been saying up to this point has been largely by way of preamble. In everything that we have done in the Depart~ ment of Defense, we have consistently em- phasized that security comes first, and econ- omy second, but I wanted to open this dis~ cussion with a brief reference to the econ- omy program, because of the widespread mis- interpretation to which that program has bern riva,ected. Turning now to the more specific subject of national security and the military budget, I should like to review with you the develop- ments which prem»ted the Dovrertment of Defense, less Then ¢ \ cel. ago, 10 2¢GUCs, Than the military 7 -+4-~+h-> coming fiscal year be increased “sre re Ola, In beginning my discussion of this sub- ject, I would like to go back to last Sep- tember. Immediately after the President’s announcement ~~ Sontember 23, that there had been an: s-ue¢ 3) '-. 4 in the U.S. S.R., we began a revaluation of our own milie tary requirements. Almost simultaneously with this development, the President di- rected the Secretary of State and the Sec- retary of Defense, as a working committee of the National Security Council, to conduct a broad reevaluation of our national pro- gram, in the light of our international com- mitments and the constantly changing world situation. Some of the results of the reevaluations mentioned above are already known to you. Specifically, the President’s decision to pro= ceed with the construction of the H-bomb ‘was based in part on the studies described above. In addition, many of the steps we have taken in furtherance of the North At- Jantic Pact and the mulitary aid program implementing that pact have been based on the continuing studies I have already men- tioned. I would not like to leave the impression that these studies are completed. Indeed, in the broad sense, studies of this nature are never completed, for both the State and the Defense Departments must continuously re- view foreign policy and the military strength that goes hand in hand with it. In making continuing reviews of this type, we have the advantage of the very excellent organiza- tional arrancemerts Congress has provided, through tte veluc’e known as the National Security Council—and I refer particularly to the language used by Congress in assigning to the National Security Council the duty to assess and appraise the objectives, com- mitments, and risks of the United States in relation to our actual and potential military power, in the interest of national security. Secretary Johnson, speaking to this sub~ ject last week in his testimony before the House and Senate Appropriations Commit~ tees, said: “The point at which we have arrived at the present time can be described as fol~ lows: Based on the work already done by the Council of Foreign Ministers, by the . Council of Defense Ministers, and by the Chiefs of Staff, of the North Atlantic Pact na- tions, we have, for the first time, a fairly clear picture of the collective military re~ quirements of the North Atlantic commun- ity of nations. We have also appraised re~ cent events which make it entirely possible that appropriations in excess of those which have been requested for the current year will be required in succeeding years, not only for our own military forces but also for the military-aid program. Just as it is possible that in future years this Nation will have to devote an increased percentage of its total budget to these items, it is also possible that our partners in the North Atlantic Pact will be required by the force of events, and by the force of our collective planning as well, to take similar action. 'The events to which I allude inciude the Soviet atomic explosion, the fall of China, the serious situations in southeast Asia, the break in diplomatic rela- tions with Bulgaria, and deteriorating rela- tions with other satellite countries, the Soviet assumption of control over the armed forces of Poland, Soviet naval expansion, the increased Soviet pressures in Germany, the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD recent attack on # naval aircraft in the Baltic, and the recent Soviet demands rela- tive to Trieste. “None of these presents a happy prospect; put the cold war is not a happy circum- stance. The only satisfaction that I can per- sonally derive from the situation lies in the fact that our own Military Establishment is well on the road to becoming a stronger and more powerful organization, and one which, as circumstances require, can utilize in- creased appropriations in a manner which will provide substantially increased Combat effectiveness, whereas, even as recently as 1 year ago, large sums of money out of any increased appropriations would have been drained off in the form of unnecessary over-~ head.” The struggle to eliminate unnecessary overhead is a continuing one. I feel sure that all of you face it in your own businesses. To help meet this problem in the Depart- ment of Defense, we created, last August, a management committee. This committee consists of Gen. Joseph McNarney as chair- man, and one representative of each of the Departments—Army, Navy, and Air Force— as members. This committee, assisted by the management engineering firm of Robert Heller and Associates, has been of tremen~ dous value to us in our efforts to eliminate overhead, and channel the funds thus saved into combat effectiveness. The work of the management committee is really based upon, and flows out of, the recommendations of the Hoover Commission. Many of you will undoubtedly recall what the Hoover Commission had to say with respect to the Military Establishment, but just to re- fresh your recollections on this point, I would like to summarize just what it was that the Hoover Commission said about us. These were their comments and recommendations: 1, They said that there was extravagance and waste in military spending. 2. They recommended that, in order to remedy this situation, the Secretary of De- fense should be given complete authority— instead of the divided svthortty which he ‘ possessed under the orig:z.c? Un.fcat:on Act which Congress passed in 1947. 3. They said that the Secretary of Defense should be given full power over the military budget. 4. They said that the Secretary of Defense should proceed to overhaul the military budget and put it on a performance basis. 5. They recommended that Congress pro- vide for an Under Secretary of Defense and three Assistant Secretaries of Defense. 6. They recommended that provision be made for a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—the position which Gen Omar Bradley is filling in such an outstanding manner today. A little more than a year ago, President Truman submitted to Congress his legislative program for carrying out the Hoover Com- mission recommendations concerning the De- partment of Defense. After a considerable amount of legislative turmoil, this program was enacted into law by the Congress, and took effect on August 10, 1949. I mention all of this by way of reminder of the fact that we have been functioning under this strengthened type of unification for less than 9 months—and have been able in this relatively brief period of time, to bring about the major economies to which I have referred earlier, Rather obviously, the level of defense ex- penditures in future years is not a matter that will be determined by an abstract intel- jectual exercise on the part of the people of the United States. Indeed, while the military budget is prepared by the President and en- acted by the Congress, in the last analysis the level of defense expenditures is deter- mined by the type and severity of the threat