APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD mining how its force is to be reorganized as @ result of a reduction in its available funds. But, in giving consideration to this factor, 4t must do so in the manner specified by the Congress in enacting section 14. Approved by the Commission March 24, Democracy in Industrial Relations EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY M. JACKSON OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. JACKSON of Washington. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing address by Secretary L. B. Schwel- lenbach before the California Institute of Industrial Relations, Berkeley. Calif., March 20, 1947: DEMOCRACY IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS During the last year and a half our Nation has faced the most difficult and complicated economic problems of its history. These arose because of the necessity for the recon- version of our economy from war to peace. Outstanding among these problems were those which arose because of differences be- tween industry and labor. I would be the last to attempt to minimize the importance of these conflicts. I was in no sense sur- prised that these differences arose. What has surprised me most has been the apparent belief that it would be possible completely to rearrange our economy and at the same time avoid any strife between industry and labor. Increasingly throughout the conflict our economy had been geared to war—patterns of production and employment underwent profound changes. The wage and salaried workers of America were called upon to meet the huge and unprecedented demand for war equipment while maintaining a remarkably high level of civilian goods and services. This achievement, which hastened the day of final victory, was more than a triumph of men and machines. This achievement proclaimed the enduring strength of our democratic traditions and our devotion to the principles of human freedom. Por remember that our participation in World War II was so vast and intricate that it required much greater control and di- rection of the national economy than we had ever experienced in the past. Yet the measures which we adopted and the meth- ods which were used owed much of their success to the very fact that they did re- flect both unity of purpose and faith in the free American way of life. The period of reconversion, with all its trials and difficulties, called for a basic de- cision. The Government and people of this Nation faced a choice between continuing war controls and resuming the free pattern of Hfe. In many respects, and especially in the field of labor relations, that was not an easy choice. But I am convinced, and I think the record proves beyond a doubt, that the return to free collective bargaining was & wise one—the only choice for a Nation con- ceived in liberty. I certainly need not remind this audience that the problem of industria) relations is fundamentally a problem of human relations. And by the same token, laws which seek to reculate or control this relationship should not neglect or overlook this fundamental aspect, I mean to discuss some of these proposals with you, but first I want to set in true per- spective certain important facts. One of the most outstanding is the immense productive capacity which this Nation has developed. America at war was able to maintain pro- duction for civilian needs at record levels and alsc turn out war materials with an annual value exceeding $60,000,000,000. America at peace is moving toward an era of unprece- dented output. This huge production potential, enlarged by technological advances already under way, points to higher levels of living than we have ever known. The great task that lies before us is to achieve an economic balance and stability which will promote the wise use of all our resources in men, materials, and machines. If that achievement is to be of lasting bene- fit—if it is to endure down through the years—it must have as its basis the American ideal of a free democratic economy—free for management to exercise its natural function, free for labor, so that al! who are willing and able to work can find jobs under satisfactory conditions. By definition this excludes ab- normally long hours of work or wage scales that tmpose substandard living condittons. It demands a firm basis of mass purchasing power among the Nation's wage and salaried workers, since these groups comprise such a large segment of our economy. Put it this way: The problem seems simple, but in reality any program which seeks a sound economic balance must reckon with other less tangible factors. Some of these factors are still not clearly understood, some of them are deeply rooted in the habits and customs of our people. The decisions which we reach and the programs which we adopt must fit the pattern of a free society. That is how the Department of Labor ap- proaches its tasks, and that is how I shall approach the subject of industrial relations and legislation bearing upon it. I cannot escape the conviction that the best attitude ie one which asks: First. How will this proposal affect the well-being of the American people? Second. Wil] it help us to achieve and maintain economic stability? Third. Will it encourage full production and employment and the widest possible dis- tribution of goods and services? Pourth. Will it tmprove the relationship between labor and management? Fifth. And, finally, does it jeopardize the basic freedom upon which our democracy rests? I believe that the great majority of Ameri- cans would endorse that approach. But per- haps a good many of them might be tnclined to wonder just what such questions have to do with proposed labor legtslation. Most of the proposals now before Congress have to ao with some phase of collective bargaining— and collective bargaining is now an integral part of our industria! structure. Today, some 50,000 unton contracts affect the welfare of 15,000,000 workers and their families, The agreements which are reached are not only bread-and-butter contracts to millions of wage earners, they also affect the profits of industry, the volume of con- sumer purchasing power, and other factors that can stimulate or retard the smooth func- tioning of our economy. In other words, collective bargaining today offers labor a voice in determining the shape of our economy. And this new role begins at a moment in history when our Nation has proved that we can produce an almost unbe- lievable flow of goods and services—provided we can reach an economic balance which will insure full and continued distribution. It 1s common knowledge that much of the labor legislation which is before Congress was offered as a means of curbing labor and restoring equality at the bargaining table. Are such curbs needed to give us a better economic balance? Is there a real danger that labor, through collective bargaining, will demand and get too large @® share of the national income? A share so large that industry could not function successfully? This involves a question around which most of the debate between representatives of industry and labor has been waged. Each side in this debate has employed economists. These economists have made studies, havc issued reports, the American public has been deluged with figures, all of which has resulted in coniusion, disputes and strife. I am not an economist. However, it seems to me that the problem is of such a nature that one need not be an economist in order to arrive at @ correct conclusion concerning the issues. I think the most important thing is that those who attempt to reach a correct con- clusion be not special pleaders for either side of the controversy. The labor econ- omists say that with living costs increasing. wage increases are necessary in order to maintain the standard of living of the Amer- fean workers. No thoughtful person can combat the correctness of that position. On the other hand, the economists for industry say that wages form an important part of the cost of production. Therefore any wage increase must be reflected in the price of the products produced by those who have secured &@ wage increase. No thoughtful person can combat that philosophy. Therefore, what do we bave? A constantly increasing spiral of wages and prices from which nobody benefits. The editors of our papers and of our magaszines, most of our commentators and columnists, have argued that there is a very simple answer which should be rec- ognized by labor. That is, that labor should realize that any wage increase simply refiects in a higher price for the products of labor and that therefore labor should be satisfied and desist from making demands for increase in wages. What these gentlemen neglect to say is that industry also should recognize that with every price increase there follows as @ necessary corollary a further demand for wage increase. Therefore the value of price increases is only temporary and ephem- eral. What both industry and labor should understand is that ultimately they, together, are going to price the products which they produce out of the market, which will be @ disaster not only to each of them, but to our whole national economy. The President's Council of Economic Ad- visers and President Truman's Economic re- port to the Congress had this to say concern- ing it: “Chief among the unfavorable factors is the marked decline in real purchasing power of great numbers of consumers * * “If price and wage adjustments are. not made—and made soon enough—there is dan- ger that consumer buying will falter, orders to manufacturers will decline, production will drop, and unemployment will grow.” This is another way of saying that our free Nation cannot keep the balance sheet. of industry in the black if the balance sheet of labor is in the red. Look, for example, at what has happened since VE-day to the buy- ing power of factory workers who represent about 30 percent of all workers who are not on farms. Moreover, the financial news indicates that management itself is concerned over this same situation. There is one further point 1 wish to make before discussing specific labor legislation. The Department of Labor has consistently maintained that this whole question of la- bor-management relations and legislation bearing upon it cannot be treated as a thing apart. We must never forget that industri:1 strife is a symptom of basic economic mal- adjustments. Therefore, Icgislation designed
A1420 to promote industrial peace must also be geared to the larger national purpose which seeks increased security and well-being for all of our people. I have not taken the position, nor do I take the position, that I oppose every piece of legislation which attempts to restrict the activities of labor unions. The organized labor movemont in the United States has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 10 years, It is but natural that such rapid growth would bring with it abuses which, if the labor movement is not willing to correct, the Government must correct. Certainly the employer and the public should not be penalized by the inability of labor unions to agree as to which union has jurisdiction in a certain plant or factory or industry. In 1934 we in the Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act which gave to labor unions the machinery by which it could be determined what was the proper bargaining agent for the employees of any employer. Organized labor hailed this act as its magna carta. It should be compelled to use the act and to accept the decisions of the National Labor Relations Board, not only in reference to dis- putes between employers and workers, but also in reference to disputes between the various branches of organized labor. Par- ticularly, as the President pointed out in his State of the Union message, labor should be prevented from using the secondary boycott as a device to thwart the decisions of the National Labor Relations Board. With the growth of the labor union movement, it is certain that unions should be compelled to make public their financial transactions. As a matter of fact, most of the unions do this already. A study made by the Labor Department shows that among 25 international A. F. of L. organizations, 22 provide for regular reports on finances either directly to the local unions or to the union's convention and three pro- vide for regular publication of financial re- ports. Of the 36 CIO international unions, 81 provide for regular financial audits by a certified public accountant. Thirty pub- lish financial reports available to anyone and five provide for financial reports to local unions or to members. I agree also that labor unions should be made subject to suit in the event of violation of contract upon their part. The fact is that in 35 of our 48 States they already are sub- ject to such suits, both in the State courts and the Federal courts. The only objection I have taken to the legislation proposed on this point is that it is so designed as to set labor unions apart from everyone else or from every Kind of organization in the coun- try by allowing suits in Federal court, re- gardless of the amount In controversy and in defiance of the constitutional provisions that jurisdiction of such private suits in Federal courts shall be limited to those con- troversies in which there is a diversity of citizenship as between the parties. There are several bills before the Congress which feature the creation of a mediation board. Some would set up a board outside the Department of Labor; others would set up a mediation board within the Depart- ment but would make the board practically independent and give to it the work of con- cililation and mediation now being carried on by the Labor Department's Conciliation Service. I am opposed to these measures because I do not believe that either approach will pro- mote industrial peace. There are several compelling reasons for my conclusion. The establishment of such a board would interfere with and disrupt not only the work of the Conciliation Service, but a much larger @rea of voluntary collective bargaining be- tween labor and management. Inevitably, both sides would tend to carry important issues directly to the board with- out making any serious effort to reach a voluntary agreement among themselves. During the war we saw this happen time and time again—the parties were so anxious to have their dispute reach the National War Labor Board in Washington that in thou- sands of cases the preliminary negotiations were little more than a dress rehearsal for the big scene in Washington. That is one of the reasons why the Na- tional Association of Manufacturers, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the American Federation of Labor, and the Con- gress of Industrial Organizations all strongly oppose the creation of a mediation board. And these four groups know the value of the United States Conciliation Service be- cause they have had a great deal of experi- ence with it. Last year, for instance, Com- missioners of Conciliation aided in the peace- ful settlement of 13,000 industrial disputes, What's more, in 90 percent of the disputes where Commissioners were called in before work had halted, no stoppage occurred. Last year our conciliators also helped settle 3,400 strikes. Nearly two-thirds of these had begun before either side asked the service to step in. Moreover, as you know, all of these settile- ments were reached by voluntary methods, carried on with the friendly help of an im- partial moderator. I am convinced that we would be very un- wise to jeopardize or bypass this highly use- ful machinery in order to set up a mediation board. But there is another reason why such a board would fail of its purpose. The solu- tion of labor disputes is such 8 many-sided and complicated task that no board—regard- less of the character, ability and experience of its members—would have the necessary background to mediate the enormously varied range of disputes that arise along our indus- trial front. Now, let us examine a very different set of proposals—those designed to prevent indus- try-wide bargaining or to enact other restric- tions which will limit the scope of a given union agreement within an industry. We here on the west coast have had considerable experience with agreements of this sort. We know how flexible such contracts are and what a wide range of problems and condi- tions they are designed to meet. And I be- lieve most of you share my belief that these bargaining systems have helped bring stabil- ity into industrial relations and that they indicate maturity of development. The avowed purpose of limiting proposals is twofold. They seek to prevent complete or widespread shut-downs as the result of a labor-management dispute; and they seek to protect employers within an industry from the economic pressure which unions might otherwise be able to exert. So far as the first purpose is concerned, I see no reason to suppose that a ban on in- dustry-wide bargaining will achieve it. Wit- ness the fact that there was no industry-wide contract in steel when the industry was sharply curtailed early in 1946. Nor would such a prohibition cope with the problems raised by disagreements affecting such public utilities as gas, light, or local transportation companies. In this connection I would like to cite a study recently made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics entitled “Area of Bargaining With Associations and Groups of Employers.” This compilation shows the important industries which now bargain on a national or indus- try-wide scale, those which bargain by geo- graphic or regional areas and those bargain- ing within a city, county, or metropolitan area, The study clearly indicates that proposals which would narrow the scope of bargaining, either within an industry or a geographic area, would also disrupt established proce- dures in such industries as glass and glass- ware, dyeing and finishing textile, hosiery, lumber, maritime, metal mining, rubber, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD men's clothing and women's clothing, paper and pulp, to name only some of the more important sectors. In most of these indus- tries area-wide bargaining has worked very well and employers themselves are not de- sirous of a change. As I look back over the troubled period of reconversion I find little reason to think that these proposed limitations would have con- tributed anything substantial toward indus- trial peace. This desire to localize negotiation seems to rest somewhat on the belief that both sides are more apt to reach a peaceful settlement under such conditions. My experience since VJ-day does not bear this out. Time after time when local union committees and their employers were deadlocked, I have called upon the heads of international unions, and they were able to reach a settlement. Regarding the second purpose—to restrict the economic power of unions at the bar- gaining table—I can see no justification for this approach unless it can be demonstrated that labor is receiving a disproportionate share of the national income. To date, I have seen no evidence to support this view. In this connection, it is only fair to say that some employers feel that organized labor now threatens management’s “right to manage.” While I do not question the sincerity of this viewpoint, I do believe that such fears are based upon a lack of real familiarity with the collective bargaining process. Because of the increase in union membership during the war and because of changes in union and business management, many representatives of both groups got their first taste of free collective bargaining in the last year. Undoubtedly there were instances where one side or both took extreme positions, but I do not think this fact warrants any cur- tailment of the sort proposed. Moreover, 1 am convinced that these limitations would encourage further strife. It is significant, too, that the trend of successful bargaining has been to increase the range of subjects which are open for discussion, For example, many employers who once objected to dis- cussing anything but wages and hours, have found by experience that grievance machin- ery, safety and health and other matters are proper subjects for collective bargaining. Witness, also, the recent letter which Pres- ident Truman received from the Advisory Board of the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion—discussing a report on the guaranteed wage, the Board unanimously concluded: “Adoption of guaranteed wage plans should not be the subject of legislative ac- tion, but should be referred to free collective bargaining * * * “Stabilization of employment and its ef- fectuation through wage or employment guaranties, wherever possible, are matters of mutual concern to employers and employees. Each party has the definite responsibility of seeking to stabilize operations within a plant or industry in order to advance the level of general economic security of the Nation.” Another group of proposals is aimed at the closed shop and kindred forms of union security. By forbidding any contract which makes membership or nonmembership in a labor organization a condition of employ- ment, these bills presumably would outlaw the closed shop, the union shop, maintenance of membership, and possibly preferential hiring. As of last April, 77 percent of the workers in this country who belonged to organized labor and worked under union contract would have their status changed by these bills. Here are the figures, by type Of agree- ment: Closed shop...-..-......-.-.---------: Union shop..-...--.--------- Maintenance of membership... Preferential hiring-..--.--..---..---.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Neglecting other considerations, it is plain that such proposals would open the doors to prolonged industrial chaos in America, Union security is the very heart of these con- tracts. In many cases these security provi- sions were won after long struggles and against the bitterest opposition from open- shop employers. Given this historical back- ground, and the undeniable fact that some employers atill are anxious to get rid of unions, I do not see how a ban on union security could fail to provoke industrial strife. But I also know that many employers, af- ter direct and long experience with union security clauses, found that they were de- sirable and would object seriously to any legal ban on such provisions. Let me be more specific and cite some definite examples. The National Foremen’s Institute, Inc., an advisory service on labor matters for employers, recently surveyed the attitude of 1,000 companies that have some form of closed shop. The Foremen’s In- stitute reported—in some astonishment— that nearly one-fifth, 19.2 percent, of these employers believe that closed-shop contracts made for better relations between employers and employees. Less than 15 percent re- ported that unton security clauses had worsened labor relations in thetr plants. The remainder, almost two-thirds of the em- ployers, cov:ld see little difference one way or the other. In case you think the Foremen’s Institute poll was not typical, let me refer you to a very recent icsue of Business Week. This magasine sent its reporters to interview busi- nessmen on this subject. Altogether, their reporters talked to employers who manufac- tured just about everything from aircraft to razor blades. Each one had some form of union security—and what was the result? Fifty-eight percent said that the effect of such elimination would be bad for manage- ment. There is one particular reason why many businessmen should prefer some form of union security. So far as I know, every au- thority in the field of industrial relations favors the inclusion in labor contracts of provisions for handling grievances. As some of you will recall, there was no dispute at the President’s labor-manage- ment conference on industrial relations in November 1945, on this question. Enlight- ened employers and labor unions have come to recognize through experience the necessity of including in their contracts sound pro- visions for the settlemen‘ of minor dis- putes—even up to the point of providing a terminal point in the form of arbitration or an umpire system where disputes within the yperation of the contract can be decided. These are the day-to-day disputes, the in- evitable frictions that are bound to arise where men work together. In the over-all scheme of things, any single one may be un- important. But unless they are handled properly they breed discontent and frictions which in a short time would break down good industrial relations. I doubt if you could find a management representative who is active in the field of labor relations who would question that con- clusion. Now, if through a ban on union security, a substantial proportion of em- Ployees in any establishment would fall out- side the union which has done the bargain- ing and would be compelled to deal indi- vidually on every grievance, the most sub- stantial advance that has been made in in- dustrial relations in many years would be ost. The question of democracy in unions is an- other case in point. Of course, the affairs of unions should be conducted democrat- ically. And this does not always hold true. Yet here, as in every other phase of human relations, the preponderance of evidence must be given great weight. My own experi- ence and observation leads me to conclude that union rules and practices are not be- hind other segments of American life in the Practice of democracy. In thir connection. let me cite a recent article by Joseph Shister, of Yale University. Entitled “The Locus of Union Control in Collective Bargaining,” the article appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics for August 1946. One of the points which the author makes in his summary and conclusions is of par- ticular interest I quote: “The ultimate contro] over collective bar- gaining in most untfons does rest with the rank and file. * * * True, the full power of settlement is sometimes vested in the ne- gotiators, but the significant point 1s that this power is voluntarily entrusted to the leaders by the rank and file in most instances. It is true further, that especially in national ne- gotiations, the actual control over the bar- gain-—in practice—rests with a small subcom- mittee of the negotiating group. But here again the condition has been brought about by necessary structural conditions, and was not imposed on the rank and file by leader- ship.” A third group of legislative proposals re- volve around amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. In general, these bills would “equalize bargaining power” and seek to discourage stiikes by depriving workers of certain rights they now have under the act. Passed in 1935, the Wagner Act nas been attacked and defended in court and out. As you recall, its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court early in 1937. During the next 10 years a great body of law has been developed in interpreting the act and its meaning. In many respects the provi- sions of this law are enmeshed with the collective-burgaining process itself and it is very difficult to know just how far-reaching any given change might be. So much is involved—including the attitudes of many employers when and if a new power equa- tion is created. Therefore I have strongly urged the Congress that this whole question be made the subject of a special study by & commission, as the President recommended in his state of the Union message. It goes without saying that such a study should look closely into the basic causes of labor disputes. And I would further recom- mend the kind of approach that I have in- dicated, paying close attention to the real goal this Nation seeks in the years ahead— secure abundance in a world at peace. Right here I would like to add a word or two about compulsory arbitration. To sume People this looks like a fair and simple solu- tion to the strike problem. But let me re- mind you again—if compulsory arbitration is to succeed in eliminating walk-outs and lock-outs, it can only do so by abolishing or restricting the right to contract. Compulsory arbitration simply means that the Government writes a contract for the parties. Proponents of such legislation seem to believe that Government intervention would apply primarily to wages, perhaps even to hours, but not much else because they hold that these are the most frequent mat- ters in dispute. But many labor agreements contain numerous detailed provisions con- cerning working conditions, safety measures, benefits and grievance procedures. Disputes can and do arise over these matters. The arbitrator, if the dispute is to be settled, must arrive at a just and equitable settlement. Those who are moet strongly opposed to Government control and planning have not been slow to point out the impossibility of government effectively regulating the in- finite details of economic activity. The principle of com arbitration does violence to our whole Anglo-Saxon con- A1421 cept of law. Many people say that it ts customary under our system when two peo- ple have « dispute to take that dispute into court and let the court decide which side is right and which is wrong. So far as contrac- tual relations between parties is concerned, it has never been within the purview of the court’s power to write contracts for people. Once contracts have been written and agreed upon the courts will interpret and enforce them, but no court has attempted to write contracts. That is what those who advocate compulsory arbitration would have the board of arbitration of a court do for the parties. It must also be realized that if an arbitrator writes a contract which, by increase in wages or by any other device, increases the cost to the employer, it will then be necessary for the arbitrator or for some governmental agency to determine what price the employer may charge for the products which he manu- factures and sells. Just as sure as night fol- lows the day the second step must follow the first. The Government cannot control the industrial relations side of the problem with- out controlling all of the other steps and the manufacture, distribution and sale of the goods produced. Therefore, those who un- wittingly believe that there is a simple an- swer through the medium of compulsory ar- bitration have not looked further down the road which must be followed if such com- pulsory arbitration ts to be effective. I don’t think the American people want such a planned economy as the compulsory arbitra- tion proposal would require. Both management and labor oppose such an extension of control for they know that if a free-enterprise economy is to be pre- served, the terms of labor-management agreements should not be dictated by gov- ernment. This relationship touches the most vital activity of an overwhelming ma- jority of our adult population. Freedom to contract in the sense that parties are free to refrain from entering into contracts, even where public policy requires the setting of some of the terms, is basic to the preserva- tion of a free society. My position on certain boycotts and other unlawful combinations should be well known. As President Truman said in his State of the Union message, the use of the secondary boycott to further jurisdictional disputes or compel employers to violate the National Labor Relations Act is indefensible. But as the President's recommendation pointed out, not all secondary boycotts are unjustified. He carefully distinguished be- tween boycotts intended to protect wages and working conditions from those in fur- therance of jurisdictional disputes. The bills dealing with this subject go far beyond the President’s recommendation. They are aimed at all boycotts. I strongly urge that legislation dealing with this mat- ter be so drawn as to come within the pur- view of the President's recommendations. The months that followed VJ-day were anxious ones for industry and labor. Dur- ing the war, to a very large extent, the normal processes of collective bargaining had given place to patriotic sanctions, in- cluding the no-strike pledge and a wide range of wartime controls. Necessarily this meant that many problems were left unset- tled and many questions remained un- answered. When Japan surrendered, these old ques- tions rose to plague us. But unless I am very much mistaken, we have come a long way since August 1945. Both labor and management have a much more construc- tive attitude. The Nation has boldly re- affirmed its faith in freedom, its regard for human dignity and human rights. Let us keep these principles constantly before ur as we move into the world of tomorrow,
Al1422 Aid for Greece and Turkey EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN F. KENNEDY OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orb, I include the following address made by me at the University of North Caro- lina, under the sponsorship of the Caro- lina Political Union: Tonight I wish to discuss briefly the Pres- ident’s proposal for aid to Greece and Tur- key, which illustrates clearly the direction and meanfng of American foreign policy in the year 1947. You are already familiar with the recep- tion in the House of the President's speech. Only twice did applause break out and then it rippled fitfully across the crowded hall of Congress and died. Reporters noted that never in recent history had a Presidential message been received with such a deep sense of awareness of what that message might eventually mean to the security of this coun- try and to the peace of the world. The Pres- ident, as you well remember, stated that “Greece must have assistance if it is to be- come a self-supporting and self-respecting democracy” and that Turkey must also have assistance if it is to maintain its security. This preoccupation of the United States with those countries that form the bridge- head between the peoples and civilizations of the East and the once powerful, now destl- tute and suffering people of Europe, is no new one for the United States. It was not President Truman who said, “a strong hope has long been entertained, founded on the heroic struggle of the Greeks, that they would succeed in their contest and resume their equal station among the nations of the earth. It is believed that the whole civilized world would take a deep interest in thelr welfare.” It was not President Tru- man but that able, cautious man, who first enunciated the doctrine that placed Amer- ican strength behind the guarantee of free- dom for the Western Hemisphere, James Mon- roe. I support the President's proposal for as- sistance to the Governments of Greece and Turkey. I feel it to be essential to the se- curity of our country. I propose here to give the reasons for my belief. Long a cornerstone of our foreign policy has been the belief that American security would be dangerously threatened if the con- tinent of Europe or that of Asia were dom- inated by any one power. We fought in 1917 when it appeared that Germany would break the thinning lines of the French and the British and win through to domination of the European Continent. We fought again in 1941 to oppose the domination of Asia by the Empire of Japan. We fought in Europe to prevent the fall of Britain and of Russia and the consequent subjugation of Europe and Africa and the Middle East. The atomic bomb and guided missile has not yet wenkened that cornerstone. We would still fight, I believe, to prevent Europe and Asia from becoming dominated by one great military power and we will oppose bit- terly, I believe, the suffering people of Europe and Asia succumbing to the false, soporific ideology of Red totalitarianism. Our proposed assistance to Greece and Tur- key, therefore, is not turning the page to a new chapter in American foreign policy. Our foreign policy is the same as it has always been from the day that the discern- ing Monroe first enunciated the principles of the Monroe Doctrine. It merely means that time and space have brought a new interpretation to that historical document. We have only to look at the map to see what might happen if Greece and Turkey fell into the Communist orbit. The road to the Middle East would be flung open. The traditional] goal of the Russian foreign policy, an opening to the Mediterranean, with all of its strategic implications, would be gained. If we give way and Greece and Turkey suc- cumb it would have tremendous strategic and ideological repercussions throughout the world. It would be a sign to all of those hard-pressed governments now resisting those disciples of the party line, who feed on the misery and despair of the postwar world. Our neutrality would strengthen greatly the prestige of Soviet Russia. The barriers would be down and the Red tide would flow across the face of Europe and through Asia with new power and vigor. I should like to deal with some of the objections which have been made with re- gard to the proposals for assistance. One of the most frequent objections, and one which is to be carefully considered, is that the proposed loans are unfriendly acts and enhance the prospects of war. It seems to me that war with Russia might arise in two ways. The greatest danger is a war which would be waged by the conscious decision of the leaders of Russia some 25 or 35 years from now. At that time, Russia will have a greater population than all the rest of Europe, and could challenge even this country in steel production and over-all power. She will have the atomic bomb, the planes, the ports, and the ships to wage aggressive war outside her borders. Such a conflict would truly mean the end of the world and all our diplomacy and prayers must be exerted to avoid it. I do not believe that Russia wants war now. Nevertheless, as General Eisenhower said the other day, “All wars are stupid and they can occur stupidly.” There is real danger that Russia may stumble into a war which she may not want because of a series of bad guesses and bad information. The Russian information and intelligence services are, I believe, among the poorest in the world despite all the glamorous nonsense which seems to be written about them. The reports which these services supply to the Kremlin cannot be checked against any in- dependent sources of information. You will not find in the world today freely traveling Russian newspapermen, foreign traders, tourists, or residents abroad. The Kremlin's view of world affairs, therefore, is bound to be limited. This, to my mind, enhances the short-term danger of a conflict with the Soviet Union. Let us suppose that puppet governments are installed in Greece and Turkey which then establish still closer relations with Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Albania, and the Soviet Union. The centuries-old Russian dream of domination of the straits and access to the vast areas to the south and east would be realized, and realized with practically no sacrifice. We may then well imagine that she might decide to round out her Mediter- ranean bastion by annexing a few crumbs of territory here and there, say in northern Iran or the eastern provinces of Turkey. She would expect to get such trifies at little cost only to be bitterly shocked and surprised to discover that she had touched off a world war. If you consider this fantastic, look for & moment at Hitler's Reich. After the dip- lomatic failures at Munich and the subse- quent swallowing up of Czechoslovakia, Hit- ler's information services told him that the British and French and Americans would do APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD nothing about Poland. They were wrong about Britain and France, and the result we know. To me all this adds up to the fact that the use of American dollars and credits in Greece and Turkey now will make it pos- sible for us to avoid sending men later, and will avert a repetition of the process I have just described. The second objection to the President’s proposals, and one which is most often heard, I believe, is that we are willfully bypassing the United Nations. It is extraordinary what strange bedfellows this crisis has made and what sudden friendships have come to the aid of the United Nations! Imagine Henry Wallace and Senator Wherry on the same side! Many people do, however, sincerely feel that the United Nations has been slighted. I think the feeling arises from some confusion as to what the United Nations can do. It is not equipped to deal with every problem in international affairs nor is there anything in the concept of the United Nations which precludes one nation from asking another for assistance as Greece has asked the United States, The United Nations is now ready and able to deal effectively with that part of the prob- lem which arises from outside Greece's bor- ders, and is doing so. Greece has charged be- fore the Security Council that armed bands operating within her territory are partly sup- plied, trained, and given refuge in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania, and that these bands are moving back and forth across the bor- der. Greece has asked the United Nations for help in dealing with this situation and the Security Council has appointed a com- mission which is now investigating Greek charges on the spot. The United States took an energetic part in setting up this commis- sion and, I am sure, we hope that its find- ings will afford the basis for a settlement of at least that part of the question. However, Greece has asked this country for economic and financial assistance, for sup- plies and funds to cope with its internal dif- ficulties. UNRRA and the British have been helping Greece with these problems, but the present crisis has arisen because these sup- ports must be withdrawn. There is no organization in the United Nations which is ready to give such support. The World Bank is primarily designed to make loans of self-liquidating character and it is doubtful if it could or would take up a Greek loan. Furthermore, the Bank simply is not organized to function at the present time. It is only just beginning to consider applications and as yet has made no loans whatsoever. The United Nations has had neither the funds nor the organization to do a job of this character. We cannot afford to wait until it has, or even to go through a long pro forma effort which we know will be futile in the end, Moreover, we must remember that the whole concept of the United Nations is that of the evolution of law backed up by force utilized under the guidance and restraint of the Security Council. So far, no progress has been made in establishing the military contingents which are to back up Security Council decisions. Why? Because the Soviet Union has dragged its feet constantly in the discussions of the military staff com- mittee which was to draw plans for the en- forcement measures. Besides all this, there is yet no settlement of the territorial prob- lems arising from the last war, no peace settlement in fact, and no generally accepted plan for the control of atomic weapons, nor for the regulation of armaments. Nevertheless, the United Nations is the great hope for the future. I do hope per-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sonally that the administration will inform and keep the United Nations abreast of all moves that it will take in this Greek and Turkish matter. We already have the ad- ministration’s assurance that it is studying measures whereby the United Nations can help. Senator Austin is making a state- ment to the Security Council tomorrow which may throw some light on the problem. It would, hpwever, mean an early collapse of the United Nations organization if we were to place on its infant shoulders a burden which it cannot yet bear and with which it was, in fact, never intended it should deal. Another objection to the President's plan is based on the allegedly undemocratic and renctionary Greek Government, which our loan would support in power. The facts are these: In accordance with the Yalta agree- ment, a civil mission composed of the repre- sentatives of the United States, England, and France (Russia refused to Join) was sent to Greece to determine the fuirness of the recent election. In the conclusion of the report this mission unanimously stated “that notwithstanding the present intensity of political emotions in Greece, conditions were such as to warrant the holding of elections, that the election proceedings were on the whole free and fair, and that the general outcome represented the true verdict of the Greek people.” Not only were the elections closely observed by the mission, but polls were taken which substantiated the results; 1,117,000 votes were recorded out of a pos- sible 1,850,000. The Communist-dominated EAM as a mattcr of policy abstained from voting, and it is estimated by the mission that they reduced the number of those voting by about 15 percent. Thus the election was free and fair. The Greek Government now contains elements of all parties with the exception of Communists. The United States Government is not, as the President stated, endorsing or in any way condoning any of the past actions of the present Greek Government, But it recog- nizes full well that the alternative to the present government is not liberal democracy, but communism. An orderly liberal gov- ernment will come into being when an order- ly middle class exists in Greece. The President has called for a loan to Greece and Turkey of 400,000,000. One hundred and fifty million dollars will go for relief of the civilian population of Greece, whose suffering during the war was well known, This amount will include imported materinls and equipment for the reconstruc- tion of the railroads, rouds, transportution system, electrical utilities, farm machinery, food-processing equipment, and raw materi- als for many peacetime programs. An additional $150,000,000 will be devoted to making available to the Greek armed forces the clothing, arms, food, and eduip- ment to deal effectively with the guerrillas and to place some stability in the military position of Greece as a whole. In addition to equipment, special missions will be sent to Greece which will include experts in many fields, but will not include any troops. The remaining $100,000,000 goes to the Turkish Government. The general economic conditions in Turkoy are more favorable than those in Greece, and thus nearly the entire 100,000,000 will be devoted to equipment for the Turkish armed forces and for projects such as the rehabilitation of the Turkish railroad system which will contribute most directly to the maintenance of security in Turkey. Turkey occupies a strategic posi- tion of great importance, and lives under a heavy shadow thrown by its great neighbor to the north and to the east. The proposed assistance to Greece and Turkey is an integral part of American for- eign policy of 1947. It is part of the policy developed by Secretary Byrnes to prevent the spread of communism by supporting those governments that ure standing up against Russian expansion. To some of those coun- tries we have given outright loans, such as our recent loan to Great Britain; to others, relief shipments which have helped prevent sheer misery and starvation from driving the sufferers into the hands of the Communists. In Italy, Japan, and Germany, we have kept occupation troops. In Korea and China we retained elements of the Amcrican Army and marines, and we have taken a firm stand on Trieste, the Dardanelles, and the freedom of the Danube. All of these independent events add up to the central theme of our American foreign policy—the prevention of Russian domination of Europe and Asia. This js the foreign policy that I support most vigor- ously. Upon it depends our security, and I believe the best hope of peace. The manifest destiny of Russia can best be contained by, in the words of Louis Fischer: “Blocking the Russian territorial expansion by an effective international organization and _ blocking Russian ideological expansion by increasing the contentment and cohesion of the coun- tries in her path.” Our aim is not to dominate by dollar imperialism the Governments of Greece and Turkey, but rather it is to assist them to live in freedom. From Greece has come much of the culture and civilization upon which the institutional and political life of this Nation has been based. We seek to give to the Greeks an opportunity to rebuild their country; and to the Tuiks an opportunity to maintain their security. One hundred and twenty-three years ago Greece was struggling for her liberty. The voice of America spoke then as it does now, when Daniel Webster stood up in the Hall of Congress and said, “Mr. Chairman, there ure some things which to be well done must be promptly done. If we even deter- mine to do the thing that is now pro- posed, we may do it too late. Sir, I am not one of those who are for withholding aid when it is most urgently needed, and when the stress 1s past, und the aid no longer necessary, overwhelming the sufferer with caresses. I will not stand by and see my fellow man drowning without stretching out a hand to help him, till he has by his own efforts and presence of mind, renched the shore and safety, and then encumber him with aid. With suffering Greece now is the crisis of her fate—her great, it muy be her last, struggle, sir. While we sit here delib- erating, her destiny may be decided.” The decision is up to us. The path is clearly marked. It must be clearly tollowed. It is the only path by which we will reach security and peace. Management Protests Supreme Court Ruling EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD H. JENISON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. JENISON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orp, I include the following editorial from the Danville, Ill., Commercial-News, the largest newspaper in my district, for the reason that it reflects the feeling of a large and important section of my con- stituency, and for the further reason that it bears directly on one of the most press- A1423 ing problems now facing the Congress. It reads: MANAGEMENT PROTESTS SUPREME COURT RULING The Supreme Court of the United States, on March 10, 1947, rendered a decision of un- usual importance in labor-management relationships. According to this decision, which was handed down in the case of the Packard Motor Car Co, v. National Labor Relaticns Board, the legality was affirmed of foremen being entitled as a class to the right of self- organization, collective bargaining, and other concerted activities assured to employees gen- erally by the National Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court wes divided in this im- portant matter 65 to 4, indicating that the decision was as close as well could be. As a result, foremen may now be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining. In opposition to the organization of man- agers, most employers have held to the prin- ciple that foremen are an integral part of the management organization and should not belong to a union, on the basis that the in- terests and activities of foremen are much more closely related to management than to employees generally. There is now pending in Congress im- portant labor legislation affecting all future relations between employers and employees, and the importance of this proposed legisla- tion should not be underestimated by em- ployers, since it deals with the question of excluding foremen from the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act, Management throughout the Nation is pro- testing the Supreme Court. decision because it is felt that its results may be a source of difficulty. The opportunity is now offered for Congress to determine the status of fore- men by legislation. Members of Congress as a whole are anxious to assist in the solution of problems of thetr constituents, if such matters are brought to their attention. We suggest, accordingly, to the Illinois Congressmen that they sub- scribe to the legislation now pending with relation to the status of foremen. Why Not Prosecute? EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. J. PARNELL THOMAS OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. THOMAS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing letter: Marc 31, 1947. Hon, Tom C. CLarK, Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, Washington 25, D. C. Dear Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL: You will re- call that on October 7, 1946, I wrote to you and requested that you prosecute the Com- munist Party of the United States and its officers tor violation of the MacCormack Registration Act, (52 Stat. 631), which re- quires that “Every person who is an agent of a foreign principal shall * * * reg- ister with the Secretary of State,” and the Voorhis Act (54 Stat. 1201), which requires that “Every organization subject to foreign control which engages in political activity; * © © shall be required to register with the Attorney General.” (The Voorhis Act further provides that “Every organization,
A1424 the purpose or aim of which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the establish- ment, control, conduct, seizure, or overthrow of a government or subdivision thereof by the use of force, violence, military measures, or threats of any one or more of the fore- going; * * * shall be required to reg- ister with the Attorney General.”) The Committee on Un-American Activities today filed with the House of Representatives a report entitled “The Communist Party of the United States as an Agent of a Foreign Power.” I am enclosing herewith copies of this 56-page report which to my mind es- tablishes beyond any doubt that the Com- munist Party of the United States is now, and has been since its inception, an agent of a foreign government, and I respectfully request that you take immediate steps to prosecute the Communist Party and its offi- cials for failure to comply with the McCor- mack Act and the Voorhis Act. The Committee on Un-American Activities has just completed a full week of public hearings on certain legislative proposals which seek to curb or outlaw the Communist. Party. The committee has had before it a number of very competent and qualified au- thorities on this subject including your Di- rector of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover, and it was the unanimous opinion of all these authorities who appeared before the committee that the Communist Party, and its agents, are acting tn the in- terest of a foreign government. I call your attention to the following quo- tation from Mr. Hoover's statement before the committee: “The Communist Party of the United States is a fifth column if there ever was one. It is far better organized than were the Nazis in occupied countries prior to their capitula- tion. “They are seeking to weaken America just as they did in their era of obstruction when they were alined with the Nazis. Their goal is the overthrow of our Government. “There is no doubt as to where a real Com- munist’s loyalty rests. Their allegiance is to Russia, not the United States.” I am sure you will agree with me, Mr. Attorney General, that from these very state- ments of Mr. Hoover, there is very little question but that the Voorhis Act and the McCormack Act should apply in the case of the Communist Party and its officers, and I again urge you to take prompt action against this fifth column within our midst, and that they be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Sincerely yours, J. PARNELL THOMAS, Chairman. California Assumes National Impertance as Manufacturing Area; Los Angeles Ties Pittsburgh, Pa. EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GORDON L. McDONOUGH OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Speaker, the State of California has entered into a new era of development, and expanding industry, especially in the southern part of the State, has now brought Califor- nia into prominence as one of the lead- ing industrial centers of the Nation. The war boom which created so many serious problems of overcrowding in Cali- fornia with resultant shortages in hous- ing and many other materials in short supply has carried over into the postwar era, and the present trends justify an optimistic outlook for the economy of the State in spite of existing shortages. Population in California has increased from 6,900,000 in 1940 to 9,350,000 in 1946, a gain of 35 percent. During the same period employment rose from 2,514,000 to 3,632,000, a gain of 44 per- cent. Income in the State soared from $5,605,000,000 to $13,500,000,000, an in- crease of 141 percent. Farm income Jumped 212 percent, factory pay rolls showed a gain of 277 percent, and retail sales gained 153 percent. Recent surveys by the California State Reconstruction and Reemployment Commission indicate that the wartime economic boom will now continue as a postwar economic boom and industry and agriculture in the State will continue to expand. The greatest change in the economic pattern of California has come through the development of manufacturing, par- ticularly in southern California, in food processing, appare! industry, and steel and steel-using industries. The city of Los Angeles has now climbed from elev- enth place among the Nation’s manufac- turing centers into a tie with Pittsburgh for sixth place. California no longer can be regarded as an agricultural State. Her industries have now become an integral part of the national economy, and California is now entitled to full recognition as one of the most productive States in the Union. Catirornia Kexeps GrowTH—War Boom Carrrep Into PEACE (By United Press) SacraMENTo, March 24.—California not only has retained its wartime economic growth, but has exceeded the highest expec- tations in reconversion from a wartime to & peacetime economy, the State Reconstruc- tion and Reemployment Commission said today. In its third report to the governor and the legislature, the commission pointed out that while population Jumped from 6,900,000 in 1940 to 9,950,000 in 1946—a gain of 85 per- cent—employment rose f-om 32,514,000 to 3,632,000—a gain of 44 percent. INCOME UP 141 PERCENT During the same period, the commission reported that total income in the State rose from $5,605,000,000 to $18,500,000,000 or 141 percent. Farm income, alone, the report said, jumped 212 percent from 637,000,000 in 1940 to $2,100,000,000 in 1946. The report also listed a gain of 153 percent in retail sales in the State from $3,658,000,- 000 in 1940 to $9,250,000,000 last year. Fac- tory pay rolls showed a gain of 277 percent from $705,720,000 to $2,661,000,000 during the same period. The report made the following general pre- dictions: Population: Certain to grow at a rate higher than that of the Nation as a whole. Labor force: Expansion of the labor force probably will be slower than population growth, but the proportion of population in the work market should resume its long- range downward trend, temporarily reversed by the war. Income: California will continue to receive an increasing share of the national income APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD due to heavier population growth * * *¢ per capita income should continue subetan- tially above the national average. Agriculture: Completion of each additional Phase of the Central Valley project will re- sult in more extensive use of land for farm- ing * * * continued upward trend in cash farm income per acre * * * con- tinued increase in the number employed in agriculture. Industrial development: Outlook favorable * * * manufacturing and sales areas shifting west and will reach significant pro- Portions by 1960. Manufacuring: Puture prospects excellent 7 8 rly in the apparel and steel and steel-using industries, and in food processing. Construction: Enormous backlog of con- struction probably cannot be disposed of prior to 1960; State will need 1,000,000 new homes by 1960. Los ANGELES Tixzs ror SIxtH Spor as MANU- PACTURING CENTER Los Angeles has climbed from eleventh to a virtual tie for sixth place among the Na- tion’s manufacturing centers, it was shown today. A preliminary census indicates 248,900 fac- tory workers are employed in the Los An- geles industrial area, nearly twice the pre- wer figure and 53.4 percent of the total man- ufacturing employment in California. The industrial surge has boosted Los An- geles to an approximate tie with Pittsburgh as a manufacturing area, led only by New York, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Boston. Statehood for Hawaii EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD J. WELCH OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the bill to grant statehood to the Territory of Hawaii has been unanimously reported favorably by the Committee on Public Lands, of which I am chairman. Under leave to extend my remarks, I include the following resolutions with reference to that bill: Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 of the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, adopted March 28, 1947, and House Reso- lution 45, adopted March 26, 1947, by the House of Representatives of the Twenty- fourth Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii. Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 “Be it resolved by the Senate of the Twen- ty-fourth Legislature of the Territory of Hawati (the House of Representatives con- curring), That the thanks and gratitude of the people of Hawaii be, and they are hereby, extended to the Public Lands Committee of the House of Representatives of the Con- gress of the United States, for the courtesy, sympathy, and efforte of said committee on the bill now pending before Congress to ad- mit the Territory of Hawaii to statehood, and: Be it further “Resolved, That certified copies of this con- current resolution be forwarded to the chalr- man of the Public Lands Committee of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States and to the Delegate to the Congress from Hawaii.”
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD THE SENATE OF THE TERRITORY OF Hawatt, Honolulu, T. H., March 28, 1947. We hereby certify that the foregoing con- current resolution was adopted by the Senate of the Territory of Hawaii on March 27, 1947. CLEMENT LOMES, President of the Senate, ELLEN D. SMYTHE, ‘ Clerk of the Senate. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, Honolulu, T. H., March 28, 1947. We hereby certify that the foregoing con- current resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives of the Territory of Hawaii on March 28, 1947. M. G. PASCHOAL, Speaker, House of Representatives. O. P. Soares, Clerk, House of Representatives. H.R. 45 “Be it resolved by the House of Repre- sentatives of the twenty-fourth session of the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, That the Committee on Public Lands of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States be extended the sincere appreciation of this house for the many courtesies extended to the four members of this house who attended the hearings before said committee on H. R. 49 and for the prompt and unanimous action taken by the committee in endorsing statehood for Hawaii; and be it further “Resolved, That a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Honorable Ricuarp J. WELCH, chairman of the Com- mittee on Public Lands of the House of Rep- resentatives of the Congress of the United States, and to the Honorable JosEPH R. Far- RINCTON, Delegate to the Congress from Hawaii.” THE House OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TERRITORY OF Hawatl, Honolulu, T. H., March 26, 1947. We hereby certify that the foregoing reso- lution was this day adopted by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-fourth Legis- lature of the Territory of Hawaii. M. G. PascHoat, Speaker, House of Representatives. O. P. SOARES, Clerk, House of Representatives. A Slight Misrepresentation of Tax Facts— Railroad Workers Support Own Retire- ment Fund EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, a glaring example of how th public is misinformed on tax matters can be found in an article written by Margot Grubb for the March 22 issue of Collier’s maga- zine, titled “Here’s Where Your Money Goes.” Mrs. Grubb lists the Railroad Retire- ment Act, social security payments and income tax rebates as “benefits” which the average citizen “helps to finance” by payment of income taxes. Railroad workers were quick to see the fallacy in Mrs. Grubb’s reporting. Em- ployees of railroads contribute to their retirement fund—and aside from their XCITII—App.- -90 employers, are the sole contributors to the fund. No part of income tax, which railroad employees quite naturally also pay, goes into the railroad retirement fund. And so it is for social security—work- ers and employers build up this fund with a special tax, exclusive of income tax. An article in the March 29 issue of Trainman News, official weekly publica- tion of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, goes more thoroughly into Mrs. Grubb’s article. It is included herewith: TAX STORY IN COLLIER’S FAILS TO TELL FACTS CLEVELAND.—Margot Grubb is guilty of an immature, inaccurate, and just plain lousy ~ bit of reporting in the March 22 issue of Col- lier’s magazine. In an article titled “Here’s Where Your Money Goes,” Mrs. Grubb lists the Railroad Retirement Act, social-security payments and income~tax rebates as “benefits” which the average citizen “helps to finance” through income-tax payments. Collier’s claim that their staff writer was “dodging billions thrown at her in her dreams." They should have continued and said she dodged the facts and dreamed up the figures thrown at the magazine's renders. Railroad retirement pay costs income-tax payers $617,019,000 according to a two-page color spread in Collier’s. Probably the best answer to that is sup- plied by H. 8. Clarke, secretary of the BRT Wisconsin Legislative Board, who wrote Wal- ter Davenport, editor of Collier's. After questioning whether Collier's would actually pay for so much misinformation, Clarke says: “The Government does not finance the Rallroad Retirement Act. It is a direct pay- roll tax on those covered by the act, assessed at the rate of 534 percent of monthly wages up to $300. “I might suggest that no crocodile tears be shed in sympathy for railroad employees be- cause of the tax,” Clarke wrote. “We as men of organized labor and God-fearing people believe in doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.” Social security is not paid for out of income taxes. It, too, is a tax on the worker and the employer, yet Collier's lists it as an $1,870,- 680,000 “expense.” Income-tax rebates “to persons who paid more money than they should” can hardly be classed as an expense. If they had not over- paid, or, more likely, if the Government had not withheld too much, there would be no excuse for Mrs, Grubb to list this item as an expense of $3,034,380,000. We figure roughly—we didn’t do the grub- bing the gal did—that she has made a mis- take of 85,622,079,000. Mrs. Grubb says in an editorial note, that she now “feels capable of splitting a luncheon check into properly proportioned parts.” We doubt it. Webster Gave Congress a Precedent for Greece EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. DWIGHT L. ROGERS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, just 123 years ago in the Eighteenth Con- Al425 gress, first session, that Congress faced the question that is now faced by this Congress with reference to extending help and assistance to Greece. Daniel Webster, the outstanding Mem- ber of Congress from Massachusetts, on the question of extending help to the suffering Greeks declared, “A part we must take in all the civilized world.” To- day this Nation faces the same problem of extending help and assistance to Greece and the Greek nation. It is more or less of a coincidence that this Con- gress is considering legislation similar to that which was considered by the Eighteenth Congress in which Daniel Webster played so important a part. The Members of this House might be interested in reading Daniel Webster's speech appealing to the House of Rep- resentatives to send aid to the Greeks, who were then seeking their liberty from the Turks. His speech is found on page 1083 of the Eighteenth Congress, volume 18, part 1, and was delivered on January 19, 1824, on the subject of the Greek cause. This is a most interesting speech and @ very strong appeal to extend aid to the Greeks when the foreign policy of our Nation was far from believing in interna- tionalism and at a time when this Nation did not have the power and the great leadership that it has today. Among other things said by Daniel Webster on the occasion of this speech to extend aid to Greece, the gentleman from Massachusetts said: I am aware that it is a very easy thing to urge the good old maxim of its being the soundest policy for each one to take care of his own concerns. That maxim, sir, is very true, but very inapplicable to the present occasion. Ours is now the great Republic of the earth; its free institutions are matured by the ex- periment of half a century. As a free Gov- ernment, as the freest Government, its growth and strength compel it, willing or un- willing, to stand forth to the contemplation of the world. We cannot obscure ourselves, if we would; a part we must take, honorable or dishonorable, in all that is done in the civilized world. With suffering Greece, now is the crisis of her fate. They look to us as the great Re- public of the earth, and they ask us, by our common faith, whether we can forget that they are struggling, as we once struggled, for what we now so happily enjoy. False Economy EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orD, I include the following editorial from the Washington Post of March 28, 1947: PENNY-PINCHING The saving of money is not necessarily economy. When it is accomplished at the expense of vital and valuable services, it may prove very uneconomical indeed, Need
A1426 is a relative thing, of course, and the im- portance of desirable services must weighed against the importance of tax re- duction and budget balancing. We can call to mind at least two Federal undertakings now threatened with extinction in order to save money, the abandonment of which, in our judgment, would be plain penny-wise foolishness. One of these is the school-lunch program. This involved, for the fiscal year 1946-47, less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the Federal budget—actually about $75,000,000. The program will come to an end on March 81 unless a deficiency appropriation is pro- vided to carry it on. The money that will be saved by withholding an appropriation will be paid for in the health of some 5,000,- 000 school children now benefiting from nutritious lunches furnished at their schools. through intelligent Federal-State-local co- operation. In a good many cases, these lunches have meant the difference between physical well-being and malnutrition. It would be an exceedingly myopic economy to cut off this sound investment in the health of the country's school children 3 months before the school year ends. It seems to us that there is equally short- sighted penny-pinching in the proposal to liquidate the Division of Labor Standards by excising from the Labor Department's ap- propriation the $800,000 needed for the di- vision’s work. Here is a modest Federal agency functioning in close cooperation with State agencies, helping them to develop sound administrative standards and to keep work places safe and healthy. Along with State labor departments, it works with man- agement and labor to reduce industrial ac- cidents, to minimize the evils of child labor, and to encourage peaceful and productive collective-bargaining procedures by training representatives of both sides. The cost of carrying on this division is far less than the cost of industrial accidents and strikes which its activities prevent. Economisers would do well to remember the shoe that was lost for want of a nail, the horse that was lost for want of a shoe. Conditions in the Near East EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947° Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted me to extend my remarks in the Recorp and include there- in an editorial, I am glad to make avail- able to my colleagues an editorial writ- ten by Mr. Barnet Hirsch which recently appeared in the Monmouth American, of Long Branch, N. J. The Monmouth American was founded in 1917 and is edited and managed by Mr. Benjamin Boisseau Bobbitt. There is no doubt that it is very diffi- cult, as Mr. Hirsch says in his editorial, to handle the Near East situation in Europe without including Palestine. If the United States is to take over the British responsibilities and obligations in Greece and Turkey, it would be only logi- ca] that the British would also liquidate their responsibilities in Palestine. The more the proposal made by the President is studied, the more we are forced to the realization that the impli- cations contained in his recommendation are far-reaching and, if accepted, will seriously affect the future of America. Bargina Reve rw Garesce On BurrisH TERMS Szen Peer. Overshadowing topic of the week is Presi- dent Truman’s request that Congress appro- priate $400,000,000 to help Greece and Turkey resist Russian aggression, ing a sort of new lend-lease against communism in the Near East. The Monmouth American has invited Bar- ney Hirech, prominent local merchant who is also an able magazine writer and who is a thorough student of and understands condi- tions in the Near East probably better than any other person in this vicinity, to con- tribute a guest editorial on the subject. This was so clear and reasonable that it is being featured on the first page. It reads: “We have it today in our power to become, by virtue of our military, material, and moral Positions, a force for real good in a chaotic, confused, and intrigue-ridden world. “For that reason we need to approach the problem of support to Greece and Turkey, as requested by our President, with a good deal of caution, with clear thinking and with frankly expressed statements. “True it is that under no circumstances May we permit Communist infiltration into these two countries. But are we to under- take this immunization on British terms? Are we to forget that Greece, since the Nazis were driven out of there, is being governed by an iron despotism of British inspiration and origin which is no less severe and repug- nant than that dictatorship which reigns rampant today in Poland, which is Soviet inspired, and against which we but recently so vehemently and articulately protested? King George and his prime minister are as much creatures of the British Foreign Office, maintained in quisling power by 10,000 Eng- lish bayonets, as are Bierut end his ministers puppets of the Kremlin, installed and main- tained by sheer force of Russian arms! “No, if our intervention is at all to be justified it must be on the basis of true democracy, untainted republicanism and un- biased justice. “And yet, the picture is not complete. To deal with the Soviet specter in Turkey and Greece and ignore the British destructive designs upon the Jewish Homeland in Pales- tine would be fruitless and fragmentary on the one hand, and playing the role of an ignoble accessory to anti-democratic projects on the other. “For Palestine is an integral and organic portion of the Near Bast mosaic. Hf the English are permitted to work their lethal imperialist will on the hard-beset Jewish community of Palestine then our efforts will pe a travesty in Greece. For we will merely it possible for the British to withdraw their military garrisons from Helas to install them in the Holy Land in order to complete the utter liquidation of the only genuinely democratic entity in the entire Near East. “If the situation in Greece and Turkey is 80 urgently desperate as to warrant our im- mediate intervention before it is referred to the United Nations, is not the Palestine problem incalculably more in the nature of an emergency, requiring America’s immedi- ate inclusion of it in the total Near East pattern? “Only by a combined, coordinated, and comprehensive effort, embracing the entire Near East, including Palestine, can we both seal off Communist influence in that re- gion of the world and at the same time pre- vent British attempts at liquidation of the democratic Jewish national home, to the establishment and growth of which America is irrevocably committed by the Anglo-Amer- ican Convention on Palestine of 1924, by the many pronouncements of every American President since Woodrow Wilson, by the po- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD litical platforms of both major American parties, and by the joint congressional reso- lution of 1945, which strongly supports a democratic Jewish state in Palestine.” What the United States Does To Solve the Problem ef Refugee War Victims Is a Test of Our Sincerity in Seeking Just and Lasting Peace EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ADOLPH J. SABATH OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. SABATH.. Mr. Speaker, there ap- peared in the Chicago Sun for March 16, 1947, an article written by Cecil Holland, a reporter whom many of us Know for his accuracy and his quality of objective writing. Mr. Holland describes the work of the Citizens Committee for Displaced Per- sons in this article. It is a work which a)! of us should kuow about. Probably in no other field has so much misinformation gained currency as fact. Repeatedly it has been charged that aliens are illegally entering the United States by thousands; that all sorts of rackets are involved; and all the bogeys of the ultranationalists have been trotted out to frighten the American people. Passing over entirely for the moment the moral, economic, and legal ques- tions involved in the basic questions of immigration, the fact is that during the war years less than 15 percent of avail- able quotas were used, and that since the Immigration and Naturalization Act was passed the annual total of immigration has been less than contemplated by Con- gress under that act. Under permission to extend my re- marks, I insert here the article from the Chicago Sun to which I have referred: UNrrep STATES NEARING SHOW-DOWN ON WORLD ReErucer IssuE—ACTION oF ConGREss To BE Virwen AS REFLECTING NaATION’s Goon FaITH IN SEEKING PEACE (By Cecil Holland) WASHINGTON, March 15.—Congress will be called on soon to pass upon another matter vital to the position of the United States in world affairs. It will be a decision as to whether this country will assume its fair share of the burden of giving refuge to the displaced persons of Europe. The action Congress takes on the issue will be widely viewed as refiecting, in a large measure, the good faith of the United States in seeking world peace. It is a problem which hardly can be solved without the full as- sistance of this country. FEAR YOR THEIR LIVES The humanitarian aspects of the problem are obvious. In Burope there are an esti- mated 850,000 persons representing a hard core of “nonrepatriables.” They are indi- viduala who cannot or will not return to their land of origin because of fear for their lives or liberty or because of pay bar- riers raised by the horrors they underwent at the hands of the Nazi persecutors. These are now living fm camps scattered throughout central Eurepe. Some
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD place in the world must be found for them. The success of that undertaking depends largely on the action taken by the United States through the Congress. There are two immediate actions facing Congress. They are: 1. Approval of United States participation in the International Refugee Organization set up by the United Nations. 2, Relaxation of immigration laws to al- low the entry of 100,000 displaced persons a year into the United States for 4 years. Legislation authorizing United States participation in the IRO has been ap- proved by the Senate Foreign Relations Com- mittee. It is now pending on the Senate Calendar. Senator Tart, Republican, Ohio, chairman of the Senate Republican policy committee, has listed it as one piece of legis- lation he hopes to see disposed of within the next 2 weeks. DIRECT ACTION NEEDED This participation, if approved, will prob- ably be accompanied by a $75,000,000 appro- priation as the American contribution to the 8$151,000,000 budget proposed for IRO. If carried out, this action would throw American financial and organization support to the problem of caring for the displaced persons. But more direct action is needed and needed urgently. That is why the United States Congress is being asked to pass legislation permitting the entry o: 400,000 refugees into this coun- try over a period of 4 years to establish homes and a new life far removed from the scenes where they suffered tortures and dis- illusionment, HEAD OF COMMITTEE Spearheading this humanitarian movement is an organization known as the Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons. Its head is Earl G. Harrison, dean of the law school of the University of Pennsylvania, and for- mer United States Commissioner of Immi- gration, The committee's primary objective is to get the United States to take the lead in working out a resettlement program for the European homeless and set an example for the rest of the world to follow by permitting them to enter this country outside the regu- lar quota system. Contrary to much misrepresentation, this would not be letting the bars down to whole- sale immigration from middle Europe. In the first place, the legislation being urged by the committee would definitely limit the entry of displaced persons to 100,000 @ year for 4 years. After that the regular quota system would prevail as !t does now. ONLY 15 PERCENT OF QUOTA USED In the second place, the entry of 400,000 homeless refugees into the United States would be far less than the number that would have been admitted during the years of war. Only 15 percent of the 154,000 quota of immigrants permitted annually by the immigration laws passed in the 1920's were used during the war. Quotas are not allowed to accumulate, and for this reason there is no way legally of making up the deficit of immigrants during the war years. Many of the displaced per- sons come from countries which had a very small quota. For this reason, it is proposed that there shall be no nationality restrictions on the persons who can enter under the program. From 16 to 20 nationalities are represented in the displaced persons, The largest groups are Poles, Balts, Yugoslavians, Ukrainians, and Austrians, in that order. Although some of them still bear the effects of brutality, they represent in a sense the survival of the fittest who escaped or endured what many others were unable to survive in torture and privation, BASED ON 1946 FIGURES The estimate of 850,000 persons who cannot be repatriated is based on a 1946 tabulation of 1,179,420 persons. Since that time some repatriation has occurred. Of the 1,179,420 originally listed as displaced persons, 572,920 were Poles, 97,830 were Latvians, 60,500 were Lithuanians, 51,5830 were Yugoslavs, 31,910 Estonians, 387,830 were Austrians, 11,300 Czechs, and 11,530 were Russians. About 80 percent of the displaced persons are Christians. Roman Catholics, comprising slightly more than 60 percent of the total, are the largest group, followed by Protestants, Greek Orthodox, and others. About 20 per- cent are Jews. The present immigration restrictions on health, morals, and politics would be kept in effect in admitting the refugees. In this way no undesirables would be able to get in, as all would be screened by the Army and other Federal agencies. NO ECONOMIC BURDEN In a very real sense such immigrants would strengthen the United States population without becoming an economic burden. Be- fore they can be admitted immigrants must provide proof that they will not become pub- lic charges. Welfare organizations and in- dividuals are being used to give this guaranty now, and it is expected that the system would be continued with the refugees, On December 22, 1945, President Truman ordered that Central European quotas of 89,000 be made available primarily to dis- placed persons. Only about 5,000 entered the United States in 1946. The United States, then, is faced with the need for doing more as an expression of its faith in the United Nations—and in a larger sense in world peace. VFW Stand on Unification EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JAMES T. PATTERSON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orp, I include the following letter sent by Omar B. Ketchum, director, national legislative service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Washington, D.C. The sentiments expressed herein are to be covered by a proposed amend- ment which I will present to the commit- tee when hearings are opened on this subject. The letter reads as follows: MaRcH 28, 1947. Hon, JAMEs T. PATTERSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Srr: I am quoting below for your se- rious consideration a statement recently re- leased to the press by Louis E, Starr, com- mander in chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars, concerning the United States Marine Corps: “It is a matter of some concern to the Vet- erans of Foreign Wars that the armed serv- ices unification bill now under consideration by Congress places the United States Marine Corps in an embarrassing position. It is en- tirely possible within the structure of the pending legislation that the Marine Corps can be relegated to an insignificant status within the armed services by Executive order, by a single directive of the Secretary of Na- tional Defense, or by departmental budgetary restriction. A1427 “It is highly significant that the United States Marine Corps is mentioned only once in the entire bill. As the bill is now phrased, officers of the Marine Corps can be excluded from serving as Director of the Central In- telligence Agency, Director of the Joint Staff, as members of the Joint Staff, or as military assistants to the Secretary of National De- fense. Surely, this does not augur well for the future of the corps, which for 172 years has heroically defended this Nation and its ideals. “The Veterans of Foreign Wars has taken @ positive stand with regard to continuance of the Marine Corps. Our organization urges Congress to amend the proposed unification bill to the end that the future duties of the Marine Corps and the part they shal) play in our armed services be spelled out and not left dangling in space, subject to possible whims, of interservice intrigue.” In behalf of our great overseas veterans or- ganization of approximately 2,000,000 mem- bers, I urge your favorable consideration of amending pending unification legislation which would insure for the Marine Corps @ permanent retention of its mission as the Nation’s primary landing force. Respectfully yours, Veteran at School EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. E. (EDWARD) A. MITCHELL OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, the dean of women of Evansville College, Miss Wahnita DeLong, has expressed in verse her reaction to the many GI stu- dents now attending that school. This poem appeared first in the January issue of Ohio Wesleyan Magazine, an alumni publication of Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio, from which Miss DeLong was graduated. I think it is a fine de- scription of our GI’s in school and worthy of inclusion in the Recorp: VETERAN AT SCHOOL Always before, I played at teaching men. But now that you have come Fresh winds blow through my classroom; What had become routine you find important, Apathy gives way to earnest seeking; And getting-by is done with. You bring in life: The world of bread and butter, Of rising rents, Of children’s shoes and family doctor bills; You work night shifts at factory pay To supplement your GI benefits And yet not once have you come unprepared. Fresh winds blow through my classroom And sweep it clean. You bring in too That other world you dreamed Out of the blood, the hate, the hunger Even before you found confusion here at home— Labor and management, white and black, Christian and Jew. War has made you gentle, Human beyond your years, Sharp-eyed and unafraid. The fresh winds sweeping through my class- room Carry the one hope for peace in our time.
Al428 Harmony and Progress ix the Eightieth EXTENSION OF HON. ALBERT L. REEVES, JR. or MISSOURI . IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. REEVES. Mr. Speaker, despite insistent propaganda to the contrary, this Congress has made an excellent leg- islative record in an atmosphere of har- mony on the majority side. Last week Mr. Charles V. Stansell, associate editor of the Kansas City Star, was in Washing- ton for a close-up study of national and international affairs. In an article pub- lished in the Star on March 27, Mr. Stan- sell analyzes the situation with clarity and objectivity, and concludes that the accomplishments of the Eightieth Con- gress to date have been substanttal, con- structive, and in fulfillment of the cam- paign platform of the Republican Party. As @ part of my remarks I include his penetrating article, and commend it to the reading of the House: AHEAD on Laws—Rzat Procazss ow DavricuLt ASSIGNMENT SHOWN BY GOP CONGRESS, Wrrrzr Deciartse—Srzs No MAsoriry RirtT— Pomra, Pay BIL, PReswwxenriAL TEwurr Vorrp—Procrrss ON ECONOMY AND TAXrs— Moucn ToucH Com™errrer Worx Aso Dis- vosmn ov, Cmantus V. Srawsziz Porurrs Out (In Washington for a close-up view of the national scene, Charies V. Stansell, associate editor of the Star, looks at the recosui, to date, of the Republican-dominant Congress, and finds the lawmakers forging ahead on a difi- cult assignment.) Wasnincron, March 27.—Repeated charges of majority division and delay in the new Congress do not stand up well under exami- ‘These reports were started earty in the ses- sion and have continued to the present, when nearly 3 months of it have passed. Strangely enough, the reports have persisted despite abundant evidence to refute them, evidence that seldom has been cited by the mafortty in its defense. Republican spokesmen indi- cate they are perfectly willing to let the record speak for itself, especially when the session has ended. Only then, they explain, can the accomplishment be fully gaged. But a brief survey of the last 90 days is revealing now. It includes several basic points that are commonly overlooked by the critics, who are mainly columnists and com- mentators in search of a subject—if not a little biased in the effort—the remnant of the New Deal in Congress and out, and a few other Democrats who do not object to mak- ing political hay regardless of the season. MANY ANGLES INVOLVED Here are considerations that must be taken into account in any fair-minded appraisal of the majority's legislative task tn the eartier part of this session. The Repubiiecan Party took over Congress for the first time in 14 years. In thet ex- tended period it had been able to exercise but Mttle infmence and therefore had felt only limited responsibility for what was done. Despite campaign statements last year, its leaders were surprised when they were given control of the Senate, as wel) as the House, and were forced to realiae that entire respon- sibility for the achievements of the Eight- jeth Congress had been dropped into their laps. The fact they could not also be given control of the Presidency was a great hand!- cap. At the same time this relieved President ofa which he had conservative Democrats had balked by voting rather consistently with the Republicans. STRAIN OFF TRUMAN Now, Mr. Truman can sit back in compara- tive ease, making only his recommendations to Congress, leaving that body to respond with such attention to the popular reaction as it might deem safe and advisable for its own . Later, if the President should find ft expe- dient to veto certain major bills sent to him by Congress, the mafority could prevatl only in the event it could muster a two-thirds vote, and the Republicans can't do that in either the Senate or the House without Democratic aid. Except possibly on such measures as the portal pay and labor bills, the Republicans will have difficulty in lining up the two- thirds. That suggests the political phase of it, But the new majority has had to take over just at the time the sweeping Congressiona! Reorganization Act became effective. This meant, for one thing, a complete shake-up of the traditional committee system, with the number of committees reduced by the two- thirds or more right when a flood of new Members wanted recognition and when old Members wanted the old seniority rule re- spected. This caused some friction, with complaints from the so-called freshmen es- pecially, But these now have largely sub- sided und the majority is getting down to serious business. BIG JOB FOR COMMITTEES Some of its more aggressive spokesmen contend it has been so engaged from the beginning. They point to the prodigious labor of committees in their prolonged study and extended hearings on major bills. Pro- posed labor legisiation is cited as an example. The other day a colwmmnist reported that the House Labor Committee at least was getting around to hearings on a Jabor bill, when as & matter of fact this same committee had already held hearings for nearly 7 weeks— and not on a labor bill but nearly three- score such bills. Now the committee will be able to report its own bil] out within a few days. Various committees have worked day and night on major proposals and still are not through. But results are beginning to appear. The bill outlawing the bulk of portal-pay suits and designed to make a repetition of such claims impossible has passed both Houses with more than the two-thirds ma- jority required to override a veto, should it be forthcoming. The resolution Hmiting Presidential tenure to two terms or the equivalent also has been adopted by both Houses with the required two-thirds majorities. It does not go to the President but to the States, where it must be ratified by legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of them if it is to become a part of the Constitution. Whether it is to be legislatures or conventions is a point that must be determined in the adjustment of certain differences between the Senate and House proposals. BCONOMY PLAN PENDING In addition to these two measures, both the House and the Senate have voted for an economy program—another major achiere- maent. The fact that the House approved @ Dudget cut of $6,008,008,000 and the Senate only 94,500,000,00@ bas necessitated confer- ence sessions to adjust this difference, The ‘APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD inability of the conference groups to agree at once on such a proposal is & familiar if not a customary expertence. But here again has arisen the charge of delay and division. The House also ts now advancing the much-discussed tax-reductton bill. [ft is expected to have tougher going In the Senate but to be there, even with major revi- sion, either to give greater consideration to the small incomes or to reduce the percent- ages of cuts, if not both. But it is pointed out that on all these measures to date the new mafority in Con- gress has voted as a untt or approximately so. There has been minor Republican protest over the House tax reduction bill and morc opposition already is coming from the Benate. But it is believed that in the one case as in the other there will be ample votes to put 1 sizable reduction through, with some assist- unce from the Democrats. There is, however. more partisan opposition to this measure than has appeared against most others. The writer hopes to show the reasons for this in a later discussion. On the whole the majority record to date has not been bad and the session is not yet half over. Under the Reorganization Act Congress is expected tc adjourn not later than July 31, unless it should agree upon some other date. Few members at this time would venture an opinion as to the actual close of the session. ° Furthermore, the Eightieth Congress will have another session before all Members oj the House and one-third of the Benate must report to the people on what has been ac- complished. On the basis of the showing thus far, majority leaders profess satisfac- tion. They profess an ability to take it now to move ahead in their none-too-easy task: and finally to make good on most of thelr promises at least. New England Needs a TVA EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF R: TATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Racoap, I wish to include herein an article by Bill Cunningham which appeared in the Bos- ton Herald, Boston, Maas., Friday, March 28, 1947: New Ewclanp Nexps a TVA—Dams 10 OTHER Secrsons Can Muaw Povanry Hens (By Bill Cunningham) Cuatranooca, TENN., March 26.—The latest dispatches from Washington reveal that the Senate still is having difficulty in making up its august mind concerning the ‘tdeologica! acceptibility of Mr. David Lilienthal. Michigan's Senator Homer Fsxcvson charges that the gentleman, while possibly not a Communist personally, was too in- aifferent to the presence of some commu- nistic influences in the TVA. “Some,” where communism ta concerned, is too much, says Senator — IM POSITION TO REPORT T wouldn't be able to do much reporting
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD towns it has magically turned into blazing electrical show places. I have talked with enraptured representa- tives of the many who love it and with some of the few who still decry the idea while admitting the unbelievable transformation it has brought to this formerly hard-bitten valley. This was and is all Lilienthal's. He did it. None denies it nor tries to con- tend it wasn't done with amazing vision and solid efficiency, granting, even as the critics insist, that saving money was no object. Personally, I am against the idea of soctal- izing anything or anybody, and the works of the New Deal to me were and are anathema. I am even prepared to argue that anything they did well was done by accident. But here in the valley of the Tennessee River, forgetting such intangibles and imponder- ables as possible governmental trends and probable long-range significances, disregard- ing any issues of the Lilienthalian political philosophy, ignoring the fact that Willkie fought it, Roosevelt blessed it, the Democrats claim it, and the Republicans attack it—for- getting all that and merely pondering this mammoth project, now in its virtually com- pleted state as a fait accompli, one is forced to concede it is the most amazing job of creation since at least the garden of Eden. A man would need all the space represented in the full rack of volumes of the Encyclo- pedia Britannica to describe this tremendous world’s wonder in all its phases, present per- formances and future possibilities. I shall do my bounden best to sKetch at least a recog- nizable portrait of it in next Sunday’s Herald, and the people of New England, whether humble or lordly householders, poor farmers or plutocratic industrialists, will do well to peruse it carefully, if not prayerfully. This is one we should have thought of first. NEW ENGLAND JEOPARDIZED Maybe it's not too late even if we've thought of it last. Not only should we have one in, say, the Connecticut or the Merrimac River Valleys, built and operated by private enterprise preferably; but the chances are that if we don't get one in, say, the next 50 years, these things are likely to make peas- ants of us. Other sections are after them. The Missouri Valley now wants one. So do the regions along the Arkansas River. A half-dozen strategically situated dams could well put New England out of business in the next few generations. But read here Sunday and learn that the TVA is really a major development in the history of mankind and not just a dam of some sort on the Tennessee River—and a lot of damns from an old bee- zark named Senator MCKELLAR. For the moment, however, I'd like to re- port that the getting of this story has been one of my happiest journalistic experiences. It began in a strange sort of way. I was fishing languidly off the sea wall of that hotel at Belleair without much hope of rais- ing trout when a nice-looking fellow-guest sauntered down and asked how I was making out. I told him the usual, and he said he'd been there before and he thought there was a better place farther down, and why didn’t we drive down there in his car? I said that would be fine and as we walked over to his handsome hansom, I noticed the Tennessee license plate and told him this was a coincidence inasmuch as I was planning to go by Tennessee on the way home and try to see what in thunder was the TVA and was wondering just where to go and who to see. “Well, you can see me, for one,” he said; “my name is Probasco, Scott Probasco. I was ag’in it. Still am, in principle. I was on Willkie'’s board of directors. Joe Gill, head of Tennessee power, is my best friend. They licked us. I'm against ’em in principle, but I've got to admit they've done a great job for the people of Tennessee and the towns of Tennessee. I can give you that side of it, but to do a real job you'd want to talk to some people on the other side of course. STATES RIGHTS FINLEY KEYMAN “You come to my town, Chattanooga, and I'll put you in touch with States Rights Fin- ley, and he can give you the other side.” “How's the best way to get a hotel reserva- tion?” I asked. “I'll take care of that,” said Mr. Probasco. “Just wire me when you're coming.” The madam and myself in due course found ourselves in what must be quarters of especial reserve in the city’s best hotel. “Scott called up and said there was a Yankee newspaperman coming to town,” the manager said, “and I said ‘well you just send him on, We'll take good care of him,’" They eminently did. Mr. Probasco, who turned out to be the head of a bank, had me down in his office and produced States Rights Finley, a former Clemson football star who heads the power board of Chattanooga. They kept calling him “States Rights” and “States,” which I thought was a gag. I could eee from some reports and things that his initials were 8. R., and, since he was finally calling me Bill, I eventually asked him what his name really was. And, believe it or not, his legal, baptismal praenomen is really States Rights. He's furthermore named for an uncle who was a general in the Confederate Army and whose baptismal name was States Rights Gist. More than that, Mr. Finley has a son named States Rights Finley, Jr. You gather that these people believe in states’ rights. Then one, or both, produced .a Mr. Emmett Newton, who has a beautiful new cabin cruiser no more than 2 weeks old, and a Mr. Paul Mathes, who is the State commissioner of conservation. States Rights produced a charming Mrs. States Rights, and Scott Probasco a lovely Mrs. Probasco, and we all boarded that yacht along with reports, arguments, conversation, charts, maps, fried chicken, deviled egs, and all affiliated refreshments and if there’s any- thing about that river, how it’s harnessed, what it does and whom it serves that I don't know at this point, I'll guarantee to swim it with States Rights in my teeth. It really is a tremendous story, and these are wonderful people. I1 the rest of us had to pay $700,000,000 to buy somebody some dams, it helps a little to know it happened to folks such as these. Hon. Charles Aubrey Eaton EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM M. COLMER OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Honorable CHARLES AUBREY Eaton, the distinguished and lovable chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and a Member of Congress from the great State of New Jersey, cele- brated his seventy-ninth birthday. Many tributes were paid to Dr. Eaton on that occasion, including a surprise birthday party which was arranged by the members of his committee. While many well-deserved compliments have been paid the venerable leader of the Foreign Affairs Committee, none in our opinion were more deserved or more ap- propriate than one which appeared in the Newark Evening News (Newark, N. J.) of Friday, March 28, in which the Congressman from New Jersey was re- A1429 ferred to as the “conscience of the House of Representatives.” This tribute to this Republican Member of Congress from New Jersey, it should be pointed out, came from one of the leading Democratic papers of that State. And that is as it should be, for while the able statesman from New Jersey is affiliated with the Republican Party his devotion is first to his country. In his approach to the momentous problems confronting this country in this critical period of interna- tional affairs, Dr. Eator recognizes no party lines. The foreign affairs of the United States could not be guided by a firmer or more patriotic hand. The editorial referred to follows: SALUTE CHARLES AUBREY EaTON will be 79 tomor- row, You wouldn't believe it. The voice of the Representative from New Jersey’s Fifth District still booms without aid of micro- phone, his stride is vigorous, his big hand Offers a bear’s grip, his eyes are clear and merry, and his mind is free of cobwebs, His 23 years in Congress, where he has served with credit to himself and his State, have made him neither timid nor turgid. Mr. EATON says what he thinks with youth- ful candor, and he thinks with considerably more foresight than many of his colleagues. The November election made him chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House. Seniority could not have produced a happier result. Representative EATON was never an isola- tionist, and, through the years when insular- ity was a fundamental American policy, he boldly preached international cooperation. So ill he feared he might dle, h: neverthe- less accepted President Roosevelt's appoint- ment as a delegate to Gan Francisco an‘ there helped found the United Nations, of which he had dreamed for decades. Now, with health restored, he finds himself in a powerful position to promote the policies which he believes offer the world its sole hope of enduring peace. “The earth has shrunk to a neighborhood and commerce is now a matter of continents and hemispheres,” he said as long ago as 1901. “Into the matrix of a common life all civilizations are flung and must give and take what they can. * * * All peoples will be modified in ideals, institutions, and meth- ods. The mighty hand of God is pressing the nations together.” No wonder Mr, Eaton has been called the conscience of the House of Representatives, for he upholds with eloquence and sincerity the ancient aspirations and virtues. There he stands, the symbol of what is good and great in American life, Duty of United States to Support Free Peoples EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN W. McCORMACK OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks, I include a very important part of an address made recently in Boston, Mass., by Rev. (Fr.) Edmund A, Walsh, 8. J., regent of the School of Foreign Service,
A1430 Georgetown University, D.C.: In condemning aggressive war at Nurem- berg the Government of the United States committed itself not only to prevent as far as possible the launching of any further ag- gression but to forestall conditions which might lead to later armed conflict. The issue was squarely faced and bluntly formulated by President Truman in his forthright rec- ommendation to Congress on March 12, 1947. Recognizing that the American democracies cannot long exist in a world where totali- tarian regimes were being imposed in in- creasing numbers on free peoples, he related conditions in Greece and Turkey to the sur- vival of freedom everywhere: “This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free people, by direct or indirect aggression, un- dermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States. * * * I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted sub- jJugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures, : “I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way. * * * If we falter in our leader- ship we may endanger the peace of the world—and we shall surely endanger the welfare of this Nation.” Here was affirmation of a new foreign policy which involved a collateral application of the principles established at Nuremberg. Sometimes a blinding flash of lightning will illuminate a conventional] landscape and set gome massive landmark in such stark per- spective that it takes on new and unrealized contours. It was always there, to be sure, but reposed indistinct and undefined in a murky atmosphere. In that address to Con- gress, which is bound to mark a transitional moment in American history, President Truman extended the principles of the Monroe Doctrine beyond the territorial limits of the Western Hemisphere to the world-wide realm of human freedom. Just as the warn- ings of James Monroe in bis seventh annual Message to Congress on December 2, 1828, Washington, emphatically against the territorial encroach- ments of imperial Russia on the North American continent, so tke Truman doc- trine of 1947 clearly indicated Russian com- munism as the fountainhead of the spiritual menace threatening the present generation. To be sure, the designs of the Holy Al- Mance of which Russia was pert, and the possibility of European intervention in South America, played their role in clarifying the issue in the mind of the American President and his of State. That contin- gency was variously estimated at the time and there ts a difference of opinion among latter historians r thé degree and immediacy of the danger. But the signifi- cant fact remains that in the celebrated doc- trine of December 2, 1823, the phrasing used to formulate the besic noncolonization principle of the message was virtually identical with the language of the peremp- tory warning communicated to the Russian Minister 4 months previously. And the reference to Russia occurs in the opening paragraphs of the message—much earlier than the passage concerning the relations of Europe to the Latin-American Republics. The full implications of the Truman doc- trine will become apparent when one weighs the obligations arising from tt and compares them with the burdens implicit in the Mon- roe Doctrine. Hemispheric defense was both the limit and the extent of the former and ita essence was negative in character—a pro- hibition against any encroachment of the monarchical system on the territories of the recently won democracies of ths New World. It was not a philosophy of freedom for the Old World nor a direct political application of the Declaration of Independence to the actualities of the post-Napoleonic Age. There is only passing reference to the general wel- fare of mankind but much emphasis on the security of the United States through en- largement of a defense area. It was due warning to Alexander I of Russia that his policy of a creeping advance down the west coast of North America, based on his sov- ereignty over Alaska Was sure to involve him in conflict with the United States. His ukase of 1821 prohibiting non-Russian ves- sels from approaching within 100 Italian miles of the northwest coast of America brought his claims down to parallel 51, well into the Oregon Territory, while his Russian colonies and forts were pushing steadily southward in the Pacific Northwest until they had approached San Francisco. There is still a reminder of those times in mod- ern San Francisco—Russian Hill. Secre- tary of State Adams tells us in his memoirs, under date of July 17, 1823, that he lodged a vigorous protest with the Czar through the Russian Minister in Washington: “I told him specially that we should con- test the right of Russia to any territorial es- tablishment on this continent, and that we should assume gistinctly the principle that the American continents are no longer sub- jects for any new European colonial estab- lishments.” The noncolonization of new areas by Communist aggression is now declared to be @ cardinal principle of American foreign policy and support is pledged to any people seeking to maintain their freedom against ditect or indirect attempts to establish a Marxian dictatorship over them. The speed with which the American principle of free democracy rushed in to occupy the political vacuum created by the announced with- drawal of British power from the Middie Hast is an index of awakened responsibility in high places. It was a question of tmmediate response to an impelling emergency or else progreasive surrender to the calculated ad- vance of world communism. If nothing had been done, the conquest of Europe by com- munism would have been immeasurably ad- vanced; if the Truman doctrine is not now supported by the Congress and by the people of the country, we shall face the steady de- cline of the good name of the United States, particularly in the estimation of smaller na- tions who have been hesitating between Eaat and West. It is not probable that Russia will reply with any warlike attitude. She is in no position to challenge the power of the United States at this time, in view of the cruel devastation suffered under the Nazi invasion and in consequence of the exhaustion of her people after the prolonged war effort of past years. She will bide her time. She will wait until she is in of actual manufac- tured atomic bombs and until the Commu- nist Parties throughout the Western Hemi- sphere have infiltrated further into the de- fense installations, the industrial plants, the governmental structure, and the general Populations of North and South America. The action of the President does not imply either weakening or usurping the authority of the United Nations. A fire had broken out while the fire department of a new com- munity existed only aa a paper project. To wait until the issue in Greece and Turkey could be submitted to some distant of the Security Council where it would still be subject to'a sure veto by Soviet Russia would have been default in statesmanship, vision, and courage. The measures advo- cated by the President were the means most urgently needed; relief of distress and sta- to improve agriculture in the Balkans, build bridges, construct railroads, multiply elec- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tric power, increase the number of schools, hospitals and welfare facilities, stimulate in- dustry, expand trade and commerce, feed the starving, clothe the naked, and generally fmprove the lot of the ordinary citizen of Greece and Turkey, then the boon will be a domestic blessing and the bitter grapes of communism will wither on the vine. And no beneficiary need fear that one square mile of his territory will be annexed to the donor's empire, no Sring squad will accompany the invasion, no alien secret police will stalk him by day and terrorize him by night, no occu- pying army will consume his meager food, no convoys of prisoners will be deported to Siberia in the name of the proletariat, and no concentration camps established for po- litical opponents. Small wonder that the vision has thrilled and sustained the inhabi- tants of those beleagured outposts of non- Communist society in the Mediterranean world. The timing of the Truman doctrine was one of its most significant features, and the gesture which accompanied it was something more than lip-service to the ideals of the brotherhood of man. Words became deeds and the violent reaction of Soviet spokesmen is sure index of their thwarted hopes for u Communist seizure of power in Greece. One must not only be right in great historic crises but one must be right at the right moment. It is just as fatal to be right at the wrong moment as wrong at the right moment. President Truman was right at the right moment. Assistance to Greece and Turkey eee EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLAUDE PEPPER OF FLORIDA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, April 1 (legislative day of Monday, March 24), 1947 Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I ask unenimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a very able editorial relative to assistance to Greece and Turkey, written by John 8. Knight, owner of the Knight newspapers, and published in the March 9, 1947, issue of the Miami Herald. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: CAN SPREAD OF COMMUNISM BE MALTED BY YANKEE DOLLARS? Pleas by the Greek Government for sub- stantial assistance to prevent that stricken country’s economic collapse should be viewed realistically by the people of the United States. Sentimentally, our hearts go out to the Greeks who are torn by civil dissension re- sulting from Great Britain's insistence that King George II, a listless and near-Fascist ruler, be returned to the throne. We share also her fears of Russian aggres- sion and sympathize deeply with a gallant people facing up to the inevitable break down of an already tottering economy. Since Great Britain, Greece's traditional protector, has served notice that she can no longer support a substantial army in Greece to preserve order, the problem is thrown squarely in our laps because we are 80 closely tie to British foreign policy. The State Department is apparently com- mitted to Greek assistance in the amount Of $350,000,000. It is explained publiely that @ sum of this size is necessary to purchase food, clothing, and other emergency essen-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tials. Additionally, the Greek note to the United States explained that American tech- nical experts are needed to help the country to her feet. . What neither the State Department nor the Greek diplomatic dispatch did say, and this is the real issue, is that American money and perhaps her soldiers must be used if we are to prevent the spread of communism throughout, the Balkans and the rest of Europe. The argument, freely used by high officials and military leaders in off-the-record sessions with Washington newspaper correspondents, is “fight communism with dollars.” It is a cry that will be heard much more frequently and openly in the months and years to come. It is un assertion that should be shurply challenged before it becomes, through public inertia and Government propaganda, the pat- tern for our future foreign policy. Isn't it high time that we came to grips with the facts? American dollars failed to resolve the polit- ical differences in China between Generalis- simo Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists. We threw away hundreds of millions in # vain effort to bring order out of chaos and came away with nothing but the bitter taste of another political retreat. George Weller, of the Chicago Daily News foreign service, says that the postwar policy of “pay, preach, and retrcat,” which has failed on a gigantic scale in China, has failed in the Balkans, too, and it has cost the Amcrican people in postwar aid nearly $500,000,000 to lose their political shirts at the “little table” in tiny Greece as nt the “big table” in China. The Miami Herald favored the British loan as an outright gift with no thought that it ever would be repaid. We believe that the gift of a few billion dollars would prove either that Great Britain could survive as a greut power with this assistance or that her econ- omy had disintegrated so badly that it could no longer be propped up even with Ameri- can financia] support. The British are now back in the market for another loan. We made a very sizable Joan to France, timing it to provide a potent argument for the Rightists in the French elections. Yet France, with no semblance of strong leadership or direction, continues to drift gradually to the left. In the case of Greece, British insistence upon restoration of the monarchy prevented the people from having a government of their own choosing. We have backed the British experiment in Greece to the hilt and now find ourselves the unhappy legatees of a moral and material bankruptcy. Can we fight communism with dollars? The projected $350,000,000 gift to Greece is but another in a series of well-intentioned but utterly futile efforts to buy off the Com- munists at so much a head. The history of the world proves that indi- viduals with strong ideological convictions are not for sale at any price, except when it suits their purpose to be cooperative until the money has been spent. There might be some military justification for the Greek gift if, in return, we obtained a few naval bases in Greece and Turkey. Financially, it could be justified if Britain agreed to transfer Greek credits frozen in London to the United States so that Greece could buy some of the things it needs with its own money instead of borrowing from us. It might even be morally justifiable if it meant a thorough political house cleaning in Greece with new elections so that the people might select the type of government they prefer. But, as George Weller points out, we are in effect only throwing more money into the bottomless kitty of nations who have anti- communism for sale, Can we fight communism with dollars? For one, Iam convinced that we cannot. The tragic plight of the Greeks can be alleviated through privately supported groups such as the Greek war relief associu- tion which has had years of experience in this field. Our government should be ready to ship surpluses of food and supplies and let their distribution be supervised by trained and competent organizations who understand the problem. But the policy of paying Greece to sup- port a token force of British troops as a bul- wark against the vastly superior Russiah armies in the northern Balkans is unrealism at its worst. For once, I agree with Senator CLaupE Perprre in his suggestion that the Greek question be referred to the United Nations on the theory that it is a global problem Vitally affecting the peace of the world. As time goes on and international difficul- ties increase, it will be impossible for the United States to patch up the remnants of shaky regimes and empires the world over. If the United Nations is to refute the rising tide of cynical comment that it is Just an- other debating society, the Palestine and Greek problems must have its immediate attention, At this point, someone may well ask: “If we are not to fight communism with dol- lars, what is the solution?” Unfortunately, the very simplicity of the question makes the answer more difficult. There seems to be almost universal agree- ment that Communism is abhorrent to free men. But who shall say that the people of any nation may not have communism if that ts what they desire? If the ideological and military conflict with Russia is as inevitable as the wise men of the radio proclaim it to be, another little nation or two gone communistic won't prove to be the deciding factor ir an atomic war. Let them demonstrate whether the com- munistic system can be successful. Let it be shown that people are happler without free speech, free elections and freedom of oppor- tunity. The capitalistic system is under constant attack from disaffected Americans who em- phasize its imperfections while enjoying all of its benefits. Perhaps the communistic system can pro- vide better living conditions, more abundant crops, finer cars, superior household acces- sories und greater liberty than we have in America. Possibly, some people could be happier living under the constant scrutiny of the secret police. Even a few of our sons and daughters see considerable merit in the communistic system. Let this be shown. We might all be convinced. Meanwhile, efforts to combat communism in the Balkans with American dollars are not likely to succeed. Then, when we have bankrupted ourselves trying to bail out the staggering nations of Europe, communism will have a fleld day in the United States. Of course, the capitalistic system will be blamed for the debacle when actually it is being drained so systematically that even today it has considerably less than an even chance to prove its worth. We have poured forth a golden and seem- ingly endless stream of American dollars in our policy of “pay, preach and retreat.” With nothing to show for our immature generosity except more calls for help, the time has come to call a halt before we join our friends in the international breadline. Joun 8. Kniost, Al1431 Yalta Secrets EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, as one who has spoken out repeatedly against both the methods and the decisions of the Teheran and Yalta Conferences, it is per- haps worth adding some of the post- scripts now appearing—tragically too late. But surely it is still not too late for the United States Senate to repudiate officially the iniquitous and illegal pro- visions of these deals, made without its advice or consent, in which we blithely agreed to the giving away of territory and rights here and there which do not and never did belong to us. Mr. Speak- er, America must get her own hands clean before we can rightly condemn others. Under leave to extend my remarks I include the following editorial from World and two articles: [From World] Ptacke TREATIES But No Prace—CHINESE Cuaim Lossrs From Treatire GREATER THAN DAMAGE SUFFERED IN War Last month a group of liberal Chinese in Shanghai issued a statement declaring that the Yalta agreement, designed to secure the peace, had been more damaging to China than 8 yeurs of Japanese aggression. So far as World could discover, the state- ment did not get into the papers, Yet here, in simple terms, was a capsule picture of peace in our time, a situation where bounda- ries and peoples and access to raw materials ure pushed back and fort.) on a human chess- board—by diplomats backed by armies, rather than by the armies themsclves. The Yalta agreement was drawn by Roose- velt, Churchill, and Stalin as the price of the Russian 6-day war on Japan. China was not even present, although she later accepted the terms in her treaty with Russia. As a result, China lost Mongolia’s 623,000 square miles and 850,000 people. She lost through Russian stripping $2,000,- 000,000 worth (United States money) of in- dustrial equipment in Manchuria, as well as $2,000,000, of United States gold bullion di- rectly confiscated. (Figures by United States Reparations Commissioner Pauley.) She lost half interest in the Chinese East- ern and South Manchuria Railways, lost sovereignty over Darien and Port Arthur. The railway is not being jointly operated, Chinese Government troops are still await- ing Russian permission to enter Darien, no Chinese ship has been permitted to dock at Port Arthur. Soviet recognition of full Chinese sovereignty in Manchuria has been technically observed, but this heart of Chi- nese heavy industry les shattered and picked clean. EUROPEAN TREATIES Last month in Paris five more treaties were signed, peace treaties officially ending Worid War II for Axis satellites, Finland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, and Italy. There was no indication that the documents were any bet- ter liked. Four of the nations (all but Finland) as well as two allies (Yugoslavia and Greece) asked for treaty revisions the next day. Yugoslavia, with a blast against the Allies’ stubborn incomprehension, stated frankly
A1432 that she was not giving up her claims to Trieste and other areas. The Vatican de- nounced all the treaties as diktats, com- menting: “The Atlantic Charter ship, flying the bat- tle penant of ‘four freedoms,’ has cause to rest on these rocks.” YaLTa SECRETS (By Edgar Ansel Mowrer) Foreign Commissar Molotov's revelation of the Yalta secret agreement on reparations shocks me. Not because of our late President's willing- ness to see Russia broadly indemnified for damage inflicted by Germany. I believe that the aggressor must not only be punished but pay to the full extent of what ts generally desirable. It seems to me right that German plants should be sent abroad to replace plants destroyed, often wantonly, by Germans. I have no objection against limited reparations out of current production provided they do not become a pretext for rebuilding German industrial power above the danger line. Moreover, it seems to me only natural that Germans should be made to rebuild physical- ly the plants and houses that Germans de- stroyed. Collective guilt always has been in- herent in the sovereign nation system. If it were not, how exact are any reparations at all? The individuals who inflicted the dam- age can certainly not be segregated and made to work for their victims. The whole de- feated aggressor nation has to work. Be- tween producing at home to repair wrong done by one’s nation and being sent abroad and working the difference is only of degrce, not of kind. If the principle of slave labor is involved in the latter, then it is also in- volved in the former as well. Therefore, I sincerely trust that the kus- sians receive all practical compensation. What shocks me in the Molotov revelation was that it was kept “top secret” for nearly 2 years after the war.ended. Apparently the mystery bags of Teheran and Yalta are bot- tomless. “We the people”’—allegedly sover- eign—do not and apparently cannot know all the undertakings which our late President took in our name. After the Yalta meeting a communique was issued. It was then stated that nothing further had been decided. Hardly was the ink dry when strange things began crawl- ing out of the mystery bag. There was the amazing decision to buy Russia’s entrance into the Pacific war—a fight they could not have been paid to stay out of—by giving them privileges in Man- churia and possession of the Kurile Islands, There was the revelation that Stalin was to have three votes in the United Nations against one for us. Somewhat later came the stunner—our President, not Premier Stalin, had hamstrung the new international organization from its birth by his insistence that each of the five bigger powers possess a veto over action. After each revelation, officials who had been at Yalta hastened to insure worried Americans, including me, that the latest revelation was positively the last. Only it wasn’t. New revelations of secret agreements se- cretly arrived at can follow any time. President Truman has very properly—in my view—called upon all citizens to back his new doctrine of opposing aggression everywhere. This need resulted from poli- cies, good or bad, pursued by our late Presi- dent during the war. Are American citizens never to be told precisely when, where and why decisions were taken, to repair which they now are asked to give their treasure and, if necessary, their lives. During the war—let us admit—some se- crecy was necessary. But don’t let them kid you. The Germans were perfectly aware that if they lost the war they would pay. To have published the Yalta reparation agreement would have done no harm. The same is true of many other agreements. For the most part they were kept secret less because of any danger in letting them be- come known to the enemy than in the in- convenience to the Administration in letting them become known to American citizens. For if known, they would have been subject to public criticism. The champions of secret statecraft know this. That is why they are so anxious to prevent the full publication of his official memoirs by ex-Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau. For if he tells all, a lot of officials’ faces are going to burn brightly. Citizens should welcome the Morgenthau memoirs because they will reveal what our Government did in secret in our name. Or is American democracy to be built upon blind trust in an elected person or persons—a leader complex? The defense will not be lacking. The President, it will be claimed, acted strictly within his constitutional powers. That's right. That's just the trouble. The American Senate has never insisted that the constitutional phrase “with the advice and consent of the Senate” must mean that said advice and consent be obtained by a Presi- dent before he makes decisions. Nevertheless, ever-increasing secrecy can stultify democracy. A safeguard might consist in the creation of a congressional committee of five members representing both Houses and parties. This committee should have access to all secrets. If it also had a veto power over decisions affecting foreign policy that the President wished to take in secret, Citizen Mowrer would sleep better. [From the Washington Evening Star] ROOSEVELT OUTTRADED BY STALIN AT YALTA (By Jay G. Hayden) The late President Roosevelt's amazing secret generosity to Premier Stalin at Yalta has again been evidenced in the publication at Moscow of the agreement of these two, with Churchill dissenting, on a $20,000,000,000 total of reparations from Germany, 50 per- cent of it for Russia. Secretary of State Marshall disputed Molo- tov's reassertion of this claim on the ground that it had been superseded at Potsdam, and Foreign Secretary Bevin said it was of no standing anyhow because Churchill re- fused to sign it. The ink scarcely had dried on the joint communiqué, following the Yalta Confer- ence, before it became apparent that much more went on there than was immediately revealed. The communiqué was issued on February 12, 1945, and just a week later it cropped up that the Atlantic Charter had been revised. As originally written, this document said its signers, Roosevelt and Churchill, wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly Geprived of them. AGGRESSOR NATIONS At Yalta there was added to this sentence the words, “by the aggressor nations,” the obvious purpose being to exempt territories taken forcibly by so-called nonaggressor nations, such as Russia’s conquests of the Baltic States and portions of Poland, Fin- land, and Rumania. Since the Atlantic Charter was issued solely by Roosevelt and Churchill, presuma- bly they had the right to change it in the game personal fashion, but it ts doubtful if this is so of other secret agreements which were subscribed to at Yalta. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD On February 27, 1945, Churchill for the first time revealed details of the agreement respecting Polish borders, including modifi- cation of the Curzon line to give Russia the tmportant city of Lwow, and allotment to Poland of the German province of Upper Bilesia and “such other territories east of the Oder River as may be decided at the peace conference.” The latter referred to the Oder-Neisse River line, transferring to Poland territory containing 9,500,000 Germans. In his Stuttgart speech last year Secre- tary Byrnes began trying to mitigate that commitment and Secretary Marshall is ex- pected to do the same. Yalta was little more than a month old before it leaked out successively that the Ukraine and White Russia had been recog- nized separately in order to give Russia 3 votes in the United Nations, and that Russia's insistence on an individual veto in that body also had been acceded to. BIGGEST CONCESSION Not till February 1946, did there come to light the biggest concession of all to the Soviet. This was the grant to her in ex- change for a promise to enter the war against Japan “within 2 or 3 months after Germany has surrendered.” To win that assurance Roosevelt and Churchill signed away to Rus- sia, Outer Mongolia, the whole Kurile chain of islands, half of the island of Sakhalin and in Manchuria, exclusive occupation of the Port Arthur naval base and a half share with China in control of the commercial port of Dairen. China was not even consulted before this purloining of her territory, and as subse- quently developed, Russia’s entrance into the Japanese war, on the very last day of her commitment, bred nothing but trouble. Ever since, the United States and Britain have been trying to get the Russian armies back home. Not the least interesting element in all this was President Roosevelt's assumption of the right single-handed so to commit the Na- tion. Members of Congress have searched in vain for any provision, constitutional or otherwise, that invests the President with such broad right, except as his proposals later may be submitted to the Senate and ap- proved by it. In this instance also there is the fact that Mr. Roosevelt, at Yalta, was reduced both physically and mentally. He died 2 months later. It is no wonder, perhaps, that he was outtraded by Stalin, but this circumstance calls all the more for some action to assure that this sort of thing shall not happen again. Let’s Avoid Escapist Illusions Regarding UN and Russia EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by William Henry Chamberlin: Let's Avow Escarist ILLUSIONS (By William Henry Chamberlin) As the day's news seldom fails to remind us, we are living in a time of disagreeable alternatives, hard choices, difficult decisions. Thig makes it all the more necessary to rule
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD out the pleasant pastime of wishful think- ing, to distinguish rigidly between sound and quack ideas and never to confuse the world we are living in with some ideal uto- pian world. We may be sure that we shall not solve any real problem by hugging escap- ist illusions. One of the most familiar of these illu- sions is to imagine that we can get away from difficulties by dumping them into the lap of the United Nations. The time may come in sume distant future when individual nations will be willing to cede substantial attributes of sovereignty to the United Na- tions and give that organization some of the power and dignity of a parliament of man, to recall Tennyson's phrase. But that time is certainly not now. As it is now constituted, the United Nations cannot tuke decisive action in the fuce of a veto by one of its five principal members. What is perhaps still more important, it possesses neither independent finances nor an independent military and police force. So the suggestion that the Turkish and Greck situation should be referred to the United Nations, however attractive in theory, would have only led to indefinite delay and sterile recrimination when prompt action is necessary. Our interest in Greece and Tur- key is primarily to stave off a crumbling process that would pave the way for Soviet domination of these strategically located countries. Would it be reulistic to expect the Soviet Union, as a charter member of the United Nations, to cooperate in curbing its own aggressive and expansionist designs? Yet this is what reference of the near-east- ern crisis to the United Nations would imply. THE BRITISH BACK DOWN ON PALESTINE The British decision to refer the Palestine question to the United Nations is a confes- sion of failure and weakness, rather than a symbol of hope for that divided and tore mented country. It is improbable that the United Nations can work out any scheme that has not already been weighed in the balance and found wanting by the harassed British administration, It would have been far more hopeful if the British Government had proposed a plan for Palestine as equitable both to Jewish and Arab communitics as possible and then asked for United Nations sanction and endorsement, It is also an illusion to suppose that we should get over the growing pains of the transition from imperialism to greater self- government for colonial countries by placing the United Nations in charge of those coun- tries which are not yet politically and eduCca- tionally prepared for full independence, Ex- periments in joint administration of colonial areas usually lead to confusion worse con- founded. A good example is the Franco- British condominium o.er the New Hebrides archipelago in the South Pacific. This is sometimes referred to as the pandemonium, If countries with broadly similar institutions like England and France could not work out a satisfactory system of joint administration for the New Hebrides it is casy to imagine the obstacles that would confront a joint American-Soviet trusteeship for Korea. What would seem right and natural to an Ameri- can administration would often seem wrong and unnatural to his Soviet collengue, and vice versa. The most grievious and dangerous illusion, perhaps, was that we could get rid of worrles about the atomic bomb by turning it over to the United Nations. What this would amount to in practice would be unilateral American disarmament in favor of the Soviet Union. The sound sense of the American people has pretty definitely ruled out any such naive proposal, although our wishful thinkers wistfully revert to it now and again. THE FRIENDLY COMPETITION IDEA There is another fallacious idea which seems reasonable in the light of previous American experience and which is some- times voiced in circles where there is no sym- pathy with communism. This is that our sys- tem and the Soviet Communist system are engaged in a kind of peaceful competition as to which can provide a better life for more people. Opposition to communism in the in- ternational field, so this argument runs, is futile. For, if our system is better, it will automatically win in the competition. If the Communist system is better it will win. Every American could be happy if the issue were as simple as this. By every ascertain- able test of human well-being American free enterprise is far ahead of Soviet communism, and gives every promise of remaining ahead. We should have nothing to fear from the re- sults of a prolonged period of free and peace- ful competition. But the fallacy in this argument lies in the fact that communism, once clamped down on a people, cannot be shaken off by peaceful means. Communist regimes, once established in power, cannot be voted out of power, no matter how dissatisfied the peo- ples under their rule may be. This has been amply demonstrated by experience not only in Russia, but in its satellite states with Poland as a vivid illustration. COMMUNIST STATES HARD TO UNSEAT Accustomed to voting a party out of power when they are dissatisfied with it, Amer- icans assume too easily that peoples under Communist domination can resort to the same painless and easy process. This 18 unfortunately not the case. There is not a single country where communism won ma- jority in a genuinely free election. Yet com- munism dominates a considerable part of the surface of the earth. If our foreign policy should be governed by the soothing idea that we are engaged in free, peaceful competition with communism, in which we should be entirely passive, we should see Communist regimes come into power in one country after another by the familiar methods of intrigue from without and coup d'etat from within. And the peo- ples subjected to these regimes would not be able to get rid of them as we substituted a Republican for a Democratic Congress at the election. Nor would these peoples be given the slightest opportunity, so far as their rules could prevent it, to make an accurate and honest comparison between conditions under communism and conditions under free enterprise. Totalitarian communism is just as opposed to free ideological competition as it is to freedom of trade and commercial oppor- tunity. Coal Mine Deaths Call for Action EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FRANCIS CASE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, April 1, 1947 Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, the Centralia coal-mine disas- ter stands today as a reproach to the Government. No other conclus’ 1 can escape the fair-minded man as he con- templates the loss of 111 lives in the face of the record. A1433 The Director of the United States Bu- reau of Mines, Dr. R. R. Sayers, in a let- ter dated March 28, 1947, to John L. Lewis, head of the United Mine Workers of America, reveals that in 3,345 mine inspections in 1946 only 2 mines were found to be complying entirely with the Federal Mine Safety Code. He further reveals that in 1,723 inspec- tions made during the period of Govern- ment operation of the coal mines between July 29, 1946, and March 27, 1947, the ap- proximate average number of violations of the Federal Mine Safety Code was 27 per mine. And in this connection, the United Mine Workers call attention to the fact that the wage agreement executed at the White House May 29, 1946, provided, among other things, that “a reasonable code of standards and rules pertaining to safety” should be put into effect at the mines and that the Coal Mines Ad- ministrator was made “the exclusive agency charged with the enforcement of this code,” and that he should take “im- mediate action to cause all employees to be removed from the unsafe area until any imminent and serious danger is re- moved.” Mr, Speaker, it would be strange, in- deed, if there were not bitterness in the hearts of the families of the dead coal miners today, as they contemplate these facts. The responsibility of the administra- tion in this terrible disaster is squarely placed in the following excerpts from the bituminous wage agreement, executed at the White House, Washington, D. C., May 29, 1946, signed by J. A. Krug and John L. Lewis, to which the United Mine Workers called attention in their release of Saturday, March 29, 1947: 2. (a) Federal Mine Safety Code: As soon as practicable and not later than 80 days from the date of the making of the agreement, the Director of the Bureau of Mines, after consultation with representatives of the United Mine Workers and such other persons as he deems appropriate, will issue a@ reasonable code of standards and rules pertaining to safety conditions and practices in the mines. The Coal Mines Administrator will put this code into effect at the mines. Inspectors of the Federal Bureau of Mines shall make periodic investigations of the mines and report to the Coal Mines Adminis- trator any violations of the Federal Safety Code. In cases of violation the Coal Mines Administrator will take appropriate action which may include disciplining or replacing the operating manager so that with all rea- sonable dispatch said violation will be corrected. Excerpt from Federal Mine Safcty Code promulgated July 29, 1946, pursuant to agreement: ARTICLE XIV—-ENFORCEMENT Section 1, Enforcement: (a) The Coal Mines Administrator is the exclusive agency charged with the enforce- ment of this code and the correction of vio- lations thereof. (b) * * © In special instances where 8 Federal coal-mine inspector finds that im- minent and serious danger to employees in the mine exists, he shall promptly advise the operating manager or his representative at the mine, as provided in article XII, section 6b, and report by telephone to the Director of the Bureau of Mines, who shall report the
A1434 matter immediately to the Coal Mines Ad- ministrator. The Administrator or his rep- resentative shall take immediate action to cause all employees to be removed from the unsafe area until any imminent and serious danger is removed. Mr. Speaker, it has not been popular in the past year to speak a kindly word for John L. Lewis, but the general dislike for the methods he sought to employ must yield in this instance to the stark tragedy which has pointed his appeals in behalf of safety for the men who mine the Na- tion’s coal, In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the fact that Con- gress, itself, has a responsibility. Along with our efforts to obtain legislation to avoid stoppages of work by having better labor laws, we should make sure that Congress also does its part to eliminate these conditions in the coal-mining in- dustry which make such tragedies pos- sible. On January 6, the first Monday of this Congress, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 11, a bill to study the mining and distribution of coal. The resolution proposed to direct a joint study by the Committees on Education and Labor of the two Houses of Congress “of all fac- tors affecting the mining and distribu- tion of coal in the United States,” with special reference to “the conditions of the workers in the coal-mining indus- try, their safety, housing, wages, and comfort.” I proposed that this study be made and conclusions be reported not later than March 1], 1947. AsI said on the floor of the House, at the time, the purpose of that date was to make it possible for the House to consider remedial legislation before the so-called dead line of April 1, 1947, which would have been the date for the commencement of a new strike, or the expiration of the truce, had not the Supreme Court upheld the Lewis con- tempt citation. Today is that day, and it has been ushered in by the terrible tragedy of last week at Centralia. The Lewis conviction, no doubt, eased the urgency for remedial legislation in everyone’s mind. The Centralia disaster, however, gives & sad and solemn emphasis to my state- ment of January 6, 1947, that possibly there were special conditions in the coal mining industry which warranted a spe- cial study and special legislation. Mr. Speaker, no one has taken a more constant position than I that the Con- gress should pass and the President should approve sound Jabor legislation. The record has been clear on that point, and none will dispute it. I want the record equally clear that I have proposed and urged that we determine whether there are conditions in coal mining that call for special legislation to protect the safety of miners and the welfare of their families. The Congress did not write nor did it have any responsibility for the enforce- ment of the safety provisions in the bi- tuminous wage agreement, We could not have prevented the disaster at Cen- tralia. But we may prevent future Cen- tralias. We have it in our power to au- thorize and direct a study of coal-mining conditions which may lessen the chances of any such disasters in the future. We cannot reconstruct the past but we can do something for the future. I urge, most earnestly, Mr. Speaker, that the Congress now authorize the study pro- posed in House Concurrent Resolution 11, and thus make a fitting and constructive APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD memorial to the lives that were snuffed out in the Centralia disaster. Under permission granted by the House, I place the letter from Director Sayers to Mr. Lewis in the Recorp at this point: MARCH 28, 1947. Mr. JoHN L. Lewis, President, United Mine Workers of America, United Mine Workers’ Build- ing, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Lewis: In compliance with your request of March 28, 1947, I am submitting the following information: 1. Total number of mine inspections made during the calendar year of 1946 by qualified inspectors of the Bureau of Mines is 3,345. This figure includes inspections made prior to the effective date of the Federal Mine Safety Code (July 29, 1946). 2, The number of mines found to be com- plying entirely with the Federal Mine Safety Code, clear of all violations is two. 3. The approximate average number of vio- lations of the Federal Mine Safety Code per mine in Government possession is 27, You will note that this average covers only those mines in Government possession, and does not apply to reports on inspections made prior to July 29, 1946. 4. The total number of inspections of bitu- minous coal mines made under the Federal Mine Safety Code from July 29, 1946, to March 25, 1947, is 1,723. This information was not requested in your letter, but it may be of particular value in applying the ap- proximate average number of violations (27) of the code recorded in paragraph 8 above. The final report on the March 1947 inspec- tion of No. 6 mine, Centralia Coal Co., Wamac, Tll,, is expected to arrive in Washington later today. As soon as it is received here, it will be delivered to you by special mes- senger. If we can be of any further service, please advise. Very truly yours, R. R. SAYers, Dircctor.