APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to our national security which world condi- tions impose upon us. Defense expenditures differ from the re« mainder of the Federal budget in still an- other respect, for defense expenditures do not really constitute a budget at all, but consist of the translation into dollars of the operating force plans evolved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is a point which has been frequently misunderstood, and I men- tion it here in the interest of clarity—for I think it is important to understand that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not a group which sits around deciding how many dollars shall be allotted to the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force As distinguished from this rather widely held but mistaken view of the func- tioning of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the true picture—which is that of a group of men working out comprehensive plans for the armed forces which this country, in concert with its allies, must maintain in order to protect our national security. Once these operating-force plans are worked out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the job of affixing dollar tegs to them can be handled with compara- tive ease. In this connection, it is significant to note that the strength levels in uniformed man- power recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the coming fiscal year are not altered in any way by last week’s request for addi- tional procurement funds. In other words, the operating force plan of the Joints Chiefs of Staff—which calls for an Army of 630,000 men, naval and marine forces of 461,000 men, and an Air Force of 416,000 men—con- tinues to be the basic operating force plan to which the military budget is addressed. The augmented strength which the addi- tional $350,000,000 will provide is to consist, in Secretary Johnson’s phrase, of “hardware, and nothing else’—that is, more matériel rather than more men. Summing up the pic- ture, I would say that our Department of Defense*military expenditures for this year— the total of $12,300,000,000 which I mentioned earlier—can be broken down as follows: Major procurement, including aircraft, ships, tanks, and the like, will account for $2,400,000,000, or about 20 percent of the total. Pay and support of uniformed personnel will account for $4,500,000,000, or 36 percent of the total. Pay of civilian personnel—a field in which our economy program has already resulted in savings in salaries and housekeeping costs that will amount to more than $500,000,000 @ year—will account for approximately $2,000,000,000, or 16 percent of the total. Research and development—a field to which we have given, and will continue to give, the closest of attention—will account for $600,000,000, or 5 percent of the total. All other costs will account for $2,800,000, 000, or 28 percent of the total. In conclusion, I shouid like to address my~ self to a statement which, while frequently made and apparently fashionable, does not seem to me to be wholly accurate. I refer to the rather apologetic statement one fre- quently hears from Government officials to the effect that most of the difficulty one en-~ counters in Government fiscal matters stems from the fact that Government has no sub- stitute for the profit motive. I realize that many departments and agencies are not as fortunately situated as the Department of Defense in this respect, but I submit that we do have a reasonable substitute for the profit motive, and that substitute is this: The Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, have the best of all “profit motives” in that each of them knows that the money which he saves can be used to buy additional striking power. Admiral Sherman summed up this point of view in admirable fashion in a message he recently sent to all Naval personnel, In which he said: “Navy Depart- ment is exerting every effort to translate available appropriations into maximum fighting strength and mobilization potential. Savings made are generally available for in- creasing the state of readiness of authorized forces. Economies already effected have per- mitted increasing previously planned fieet strength by one large carrier and one cruiser, to provide additional equipment for anti- submarine warfare, and to augment general readiness. Planned economies are an impor- tant contributing factor in retaining two ad- ditional Marine battalions’’—to which could be added, in the light of last week’s an- nouncement, the four additional Marine air combat squadrons I have already mentioned. In my opinion, this is indeed a powerful substitute for the profit motive—and it is being so utilized by the patriotic and con~ scientious men, military and civilian, who head the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. The caliber of these men, coupled with the able and aggressive leadership of the Secre- tary of Defense and his Deputy Secretary, seem to me to be the best assurance that the American people can possibly have that the aim of the Department of Defense will con- tinue to be a stronger and more efiective military establishment, wherever possible at a reduced cost to the taxpayer. John F. Moran and Alvin Goodman EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. HARRY P. O’NEILL OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- ORD, I include an article, which appeared recenily in the Scranton Times, Scran- ton, Pa., honoring John F. Moran, Tech- nical High School’s first blind valedic- torian, and Alvin Goodman, also a 4-year honor student and a member of the sight- conservation class. ‘The article follows: West Locusr Strert YourH Caps His 12-YEaR Pusiic SCHOOL CAREER John (Jack) F. Moran, 18, son of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Moran, 904 West Locust St., to- day capped his 12-year public-school career as a “blind conservation” student by becom~= ing Technical High School’s first blind vale- dictorian. Also, it is said that he is the first blind student to take top honors in any dis- trict school. Young Moran, who became totally blind at the age of 14, will deliver the valedictory address when the school graduates 391 stu- dents Tuesday, June 13, at 8 p. m. in West Scranton High School, on the basis of hav- ing the highest average in the class during his 4 years in high school. While he has many accomplishments to his credit, the most important, according to his teacher, Miss Helen Smith, is that he pro~ vided proof that handicapped children can be educated in schools in their own home town among familiar surroundings. According to Miss Smith, she began teach- ing Jack in first grade at Benjamin Franklin School at the inauguration of the Scranton school district sight conservation program. Partially blind since birth because of a con- genital eye disease (one eye was removed when he was an infant), Jack was her first student. During the first 4 years the pro- gram was in an experimental stage. Miss Smith later began picking up other sight- A3519 handicapped students. Her class at Techni- cal now numbers 14 students. Miss Smith and Principal W. Albert Mur- phy praise Jack highly. He is editor of the senior-class yearbook. An all-around, well-built, and good-look- ing student, Jack has a high interest in sports. For writing several songs for the football team, this year he was elected hon- orary captain. He never misses a Technical football or baskethall game. Possessing a good tenor voice, Jack has been soloist of the school choir and has entertained at many local affairs. No story would be complete without men- tioning his “eyes,” friend and constant com- panion, Alvin Goodman, son of Morris Goodman, 630 Taylor Avenue, also a 4-year honor student and a member of the sight- conservation class. Jack and Alvin are familiar sights around the school. Although they use the elevator to go from first to the other floors, the two boys walk down the stairs when changing classes. Both Jack and Alvin plan to enter college— Jack in law and Alvin in Government work. To gain college credits, the past 2 years they have taken Latin a period a day in Central High School. This gave them 4 years of Latin. The district’s program has heen little pub- licized in the belief that attention to handi- capped students is not desirable. The students go to regular classes with the sighted students but return to the special class for reading and writing. Special text books with large lettering and typewriters, also with large letters are provided. Jack, who learned to typewrite in the fourth grade, knows little Braille. In this special class “black” boards become “green” boards for the benefit of the students. The walls are painted a dull green. There is no glossy finish in the room and it is lighted with bright flourescent bulbs. The class is scheduled to graduate four students this year. With Jack and Alvin as honor students, it gives the class a 50-percent average of 4-year honor students—a record probably unmatched-in any other class, school, or district. What’s Ahead for the Nebraska Cattlemen? EXTFNSION OF REMARKS HON. A. L. MILLER OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speak- er, under leave granted to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing speech I made before the Ne- braska Stock Growers Association at O’Neill, Nebr,, on Tuesday, April 26: It is good to be back in Nebraska where people live close enough to the soil and the sun to know what makes America tick. It is good to be present at this district meeting of the Nebraska Cattlemen’s Association. It was possible to come because for the next 10 days there is only general debate in. the House and no urgent roll calls. I miss very féw votes. The Fourth Congressional District in Nebraska has more cattle than any one of the other 435 congressional dis- tricts in the United States. What’s ahead for the Nebraska cattlemen? In my opinion if employment arid wages
A3520 stay high, there will be a continued demand for meat. If unemployment increases and the people’s confidence in our money de- creases, then I would expect a general pull- ing in of the belt and less buying all along the line. I am suggesting that this association join with the National Meat Institute to promote an “Kat More Meat” campaign. Actually the per capita consumption of meat has been declining since the war. Less meat was con- sumed by the public in 1949 than in 1948. It is estimated less will be consumed in 1950. Part of this is due to agencies of Govern- ment who are constantly seeking and adver- tising substitutes for meat. The American people have always been meat eaters. Meat has been the principal item of diet for the human race from the beginning of time. Primitive man found satisfaction in making a kill and eating the meat. Asa physician, I can tell you that the human body is especially adapted to the consumption and digestion of meat and ani- mal products. There is no food which nature has endowed so lavishly with the necessary proteins, vitamins, minerals, and fat. In fact meat is the master piece of nature’s labora- tory. It contains 22 amino acids, 10 of which the body needs to keep healthy. Peo- ple who are big meat eaters are large in stat- ure and have great energy. The Hindus, Chi- nese, Japanese, and the inhabitants of Oki- nawa, who eat litile meat, are small of stature. This good meat is produced from Nebraska grass and feed. The people of Nebraska should be thankful that they have a quan- tity and quality of grass upon which to grow their livestock. There are more than 26,- 000,000 acres of grass in Nebraska. Yhen it is properly pastured, it will give excellent returns on labor and investment. Your live- stock makes a good harvesting machine that seldom needs repairs. Some of this livestock comes off of the range ready for the butcher’s block. Again, speaking as a physician, I feel that an eat-more-meat campaign would dispel the false idea that hospital patients and youngsters should not eat meat. For many years I operated a hospital in Kimball, and at that time there was the feeling among medical men that patients should be given fish and chicken instead of red meat. Re- cent experiments have shown that red meat is not harmful, but can contribute to the patient’s recovery by supplying many of the vitamins, minerals, and acids so necessary to tissue repair and health. It is estimated that in 1950 there will be 23,200,000,000 pounds of meat produced. This is 6 percent more than in 1949 and 8 percent less than in 1944, when production reached the all-time peak. This would mean a possible per capita consumption of 150 pounds, as compared with 145 pounds in 1949, The United States imported 241,000,000 pounds of meat in 1949, the bulk coming from Canada and Argentina. We exported 130,000,000 pounds. I would also point out that we imported 10,000 carloads of potatoes from Canada, a million and a half pounds of powdered eggs from China, 48,000 cases of crab meat from Russia, and huge quantities of beans, fish, and other agricultural prod- ucts from other countries. When we con-~ sider what is ahead for the cattlemen we must consider what the international trade organization will do when the nations of the world meet in England on September 17, 1950. If they follow the pattern of their last meeting they will make further reductions in tariffs on agricultural products. In their last meeting 80 percent of the reductions on imports coming to this country were on eericultura! products. This could have un- uLual refulis to your business. The production of cattle has increased about 2,000,000 head in the last year. It is estimated that all types of cattle in 1949 amounted to 80,277,000 head. The all-time high was in 1945 when there were 85,573,000 head. It is estimated that beef cattle num- bered about 43,000,000 head. It should be remembered that our human population is increasing about 2,500,000 a year. It would seem that the number of cattle should increase to 90,000,000 head in the next few years if we are to keep pace with the demands of our increasing population. Thirty years ago we had 70,000,000 head of cattle when our population was only 105,- 000,000. The increase in the number of livestock would solve another problem. It 1s esti~ mated that if an additional 2 percent of the cattle were fed grain, 1t would completely wipe out our surplus of feed grains. It is natural that the high support leveled on grain will discourage feeding it to livestock. In considering what is ahead for the catitle- men, we must speculate upon how far the administration will go in adopting such measures as the Brannan farm program, s0o- cialized medicine, or the so-called Spence bul, which is nothing more than a super- duper OPA with more trimmings and regu~ lations than we have ever had before. If we adopt the Brannan plan, which is similar to the English agricultural program, you would not be able to sell your cattle without a permit; you could not kill them or produce more than the Secretary of Agricul- ture would indicate. You would be told when to sell and what to feed. The regula- tions in England, and those under the Bran- nan plan, would be so numerous that incen~ tive and free enterprise would then be smothered. There are 15 pages of penalties in the Brannan farm program, which would require you to keep such records, letters, memoranda, accounts as the Secretary would indicate. Your books would be inspected. For nc-etmplcres you could be fined $5,000 or ke shes ir ial. Adopt this plan and the turure ef vic livestock industry would not be very bright. There is another move that should be watched carefully by your association and that relates to the intense pressure by the consumers of the East to lower the barriers and permit cheap meat to come in from South America. I know there are groups who .are considering ways and means to bring this about. If fresh meat is permitted to come from Argentina, Mexico, and other countries infested with foot and mouth dis- ease, and this disease is transplanted to our cattle herds, as it surely will be, then the future of the cattle industry again grows precarious. I must sound another warning on what is ahead. In my opinion we have two Franken~ stein monsters facing our people today. One is increased inflation; the other more taxes. Either can destroy the economy of this country. You people on the farm will be in an ideal position, if an uncontrolled infla- tion takes hold, because the quart of milk and the dozen of eggs, and your meat still has the same food value regardless of the value the dollar may assume, You cannot escape so readily the taxes, The huge spending of this administration, with a $7,000,000,000 deficit this year, can mean but one thing—more taxes and more inflation. Another note of warning must be sounded and that refers to the growth of socialism and regimentation. It is not only in the Brannan farm program, socialized medicine and attempt to nationalize steel and other industries, but it means bigger government with more controls in Washington. I am fearful that socialism, like the termites in a building, is silently destroying our way of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD life. It is destroying the rights of the indi- viduals. The holding of property should al- ways be a hurz.~ ~“irh*, but under socialism, Government ‘:-..1.¢: "*s ownership and de- nies that individuals have the right or the capacity to manage their property and econ- omy. We have seen big government grow, from 1933, when there were only 533,000 on the Federal payroll, a debt of $16,000,000,000 and only $5,000,000,000 to run all phases of government, up to this time when we have more than 2,000,000 on the payroll; a debt of $260,000,000,000; and $43,000,000,000 to run the Government. This does not include a deficit of $7,600,000,000,000 for this year. In 1933 there were 351 departments of govern- ment. Today there are more than 1,850. The need for the adoption of the Hoover Commission recommendations is imperative if we are to rid ourselves of the deadwood duplication, and extravagence in Federal Gov- ernment. In 414 peacetime years, we spent more than $190,000,000,000. This is more than 32 Presidents spent in the first 152 years of our existence, and during that time we went through several wars and depressions, We cannot be in a good position with print- ing-press money. It seems to me that our Government, the banks, trust and insurance companies, who are the unofficial custodians of the peoples’ money, ought to be able to tell the citizen that the dollar that he puts in bonds today will always be worth a dollar, Unsound economic policies, with more un- employment, mounting surpluses, declining exports, with threats of Government opera~ tion of business are real storm clouds. I also know that our citizens have great faith, energy, character, and are of sound moral fiber. We have more food, electrical gadgets, and new inventions than any other country in the world. We have great power to produce. The strength of our country rests in our soil and the spiritual make-up of our people. We are a Christian Nation—a praying Nation. We have the ability to meet great emergencies and still keep our eco- nomic and social balance. Our know-how of production leads the world. It is a bright shining beacon light. It is my great hope and fervent prayer that the Congress and this administration will be able to guide the frustrated world through the international fog and rough economic waters so that we may be able to pass on to future generations a type of society in which they can be secure and our Nation will remain strong. Development of Irrigation in Nebraska EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. A. L. MiLLER OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speak- er, on April 25, it was my privilege to ride over and inspect the Loup River Basin irrigation project. With me were Gov- ernor Peterson, of Nebraska; Paul Lar- sen, of St. Paul; Avery Batson, from the Bureau of Reclamation; and many other interested citizens. That evening more than 500 folks had supper in Scotia and listened, with much interest, to the pros- pects of irrigation in this area. I hope this project can come before Congress next year. It is feasible. The farmers and the city folks realize the value of water on good land at the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD proper time. Irrigation is a great stabi- lizer, and assures the farmer a backlog of safety and security. Irrigation brings new wealth to a community and the Nation, and provides food for our ex- panding population and economy. It brings new purchasing power and im- proved standards of living. Nebraska has more than a million acres that can be successfully irrigated. This is one of our great natural re- sources that deserves the support of the Congress. When these projects come before the committee of which I am a member, they will be easy to defend because they are feasible. Our natural resources are the cornerstone and foundation of cur coun- try. They should be developed for the benefit of mankind. The people of the country are brave and hospitable. Give them fertile soil, a sound government, and they will reach new horizons which have been denied the present generation, A Balanced Economy and the Brannan Plan EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. COMPTON I. WHITE OF IDAHO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, so much is being said about the Govern- ment price-support program and the Brannan plan that I have taken occasion to express my views concerning price parity and stable national economy in a letter written in response to an editorial sent me from the Cleveland Plain Dealer which is inserted here: QUESTIONS oF MoraLity Can a Government behave in an immoral manner toward its own people? Can it de- ceive them, rob them, cheat them, plunder their resources and infringe on their liber- ties? We know how a community would con- demn a man who ran up charge accounts, went on a binge every Saturday night and didn’t pay his bills. What would the neighbors say about a housewife who carted home large quantities of food from the grocery and butcher shop every day and then, instead of preparing it for her family, let it spoil? How long could a respected citizen borrow money from his friends and, when the time came to pay it back required them to settle on the basis of 60 cents to the dollar? How lenient would the community be with a@ door-to-door salesman who insisted at the point of a gun that every householder buy his products? Or with a smooth talking pro- moter who tried to force his neighbors to turn over a large percentage of their incomes to him on the promise that he would take care of their insurance, their medical and hospital bills, and send their children to college? Surely any community would frown on a person who indulged in these practices and at least call for the police or the men in the white coats with the strait-jacket to come. and get him. But when a government does these things, is its conduct any less immoral? The United States Government is on a big Spending binge. It is living beyond its in- come, not accidentally or because of misfor- tune, but deliberately. The United States Government has ar- ranged to have more food delivered to the markets than the people can consume and the surplus is either spoiling or is in storage, which merely deleys the process of spoilage. This didn’t happen accidentally, either, but was done deliberately. The United States Government«has bor- rowed money from its citizens, promising to pay $100 after 10 years for every $75 that was loaned through the purchase of savings bonds. But when the time comes to repay, the lender gets back only $60 in actual pur- chasing value, in terms of the value of the original $75 loan. Then, to add insult to injury, the Government requires him to pay a tax on the fictitious $25 profit he has col- lected. The United States Government forces its citizens to buy things they don’t need or don’t want or can’t afford, at the point of the tax collector’s gun. Every subsidy paid out by the Government to some special in- terest or pressure group is a forced purchase by all the citizens of the products or services of that interest or group. Since the citizens do not or will not of their own volition buy the products or services of the favored inter- ests or groups, the Government takes ,the money away from the citizens anyhow in taxes and makes the purchases. The United States Government has al- ready taken away a large percentage of its citizens’ incomes in the form of taxes, thus depriving them of the freedom of spending their own money, and is demanding a larger share, for the purpose of looking after more and more of their affairs. It is not surprising that a large number of people have lost confidence in the Gov- ernment, for the Government is conduct-~ ing itself in a manner which, if an individual so conducted himself, would be condemned as profligate and immoral. Nor is it any excuse to point out that some Government administrators and policy makers who commit these offenses may be well intentioned and may sincerely believe they are acting in the best interests of the people. Others, we fear, and this goes for the practical politicians, are not always well- intentioned. Their promises, their deceit and their loose handling of other people’s money are deliberate, for the purpose of maintaining themselves in power. But they will not remain in power, we believe, if the people insist that their Gov- ernment adhere to the same standards of morality which apply to individuals. May 8, 1950. Mr, J. Ceci Rowe, Cleveland Heights, Ohio. Dear Mr. Rowe: I received your letter with which you enclosed a reprint from the Cleve- land Plain Dealer. This deals with one of the most important issues concerning the people of this country today—sound national economy and stable price structure. From time immemorial, the necessary ad-~ justments in the price structure have been regulated by competition and the law of sup- ply and demand. If for instance, all the farm-~ ers chould take occasion at one time to raise watermelons, and a great many more water-= melons than are needed and could be used were produced, the price of melons would fall. And melons being a perishable food, much of the crop would, waste, and for that reason, people would reduce the production of watermelons. And so it is with everything else. If the butcher shop in your town were charging too high prices for steaks, chops, hams, and other commodities he sells in his shop, and some enterprising men wanted to go into the A3521 butcher business and sell meat at fair prices, and they went down the street and rented a building and equipped it with a refrigerator, butcher block, and other necessary facilities for a butcher shop; then went out and bought livestock from the farmers and slaughtered them, and brought beef, pork, and mutton into their shop and sold meats at a reason~ able price, and so as to make a fair profit the fellow who was charging too high prices for his meats would have to meet competi- tion and sell at the right prices or people would purchase from the new butcher shop. It has been this way in every line of human endeavor. When the Government adopts a “‘hands off” policy, the big manufacturers, business or- ganizations, and large combines, monopolize the business, drive small competitors out of the field, raise the prices on things people must buy to unreasonable levels, whether it is meat from the butcher or a mowing ma- chine from the manufacturer, and so some- thing has to be done to keep prices within bounds, which we call price parity, and to maintain a stable economy. The Congress has been struggling with this problem for a great many years, and has finally adopted the support price program for farmers, as well as producers of most everything in the basic industries, whether it is farm products, lumber, brick, lime, lead, zinc, copper, and things for the mining in- dustry. To maintain price parity, we must have a balance between the prices of the things the consumer must buy, and the price of things he produces to sell, which is being done by price support programs. ‘This scheme has worked pretty well in recent years. The farmers have prospered, and so have the manufacturers and their employees. But what about the businessman who has saved up a few dollars and retired; the re- tired engineer, the retired policeman, re- tired street car man? The manufacturer is making big profits; the farmer is making big profits. So the only way I can see how these retired men can buy the things they need and must have from the farmer and the manufacturer is for the Government to step in and skim the cream off the money taken in by these excess profits and price support payments and pay it over to the people sup- plying the market so that they can reduce their prices and sell at a fair price to the retired businessman under arrangements which make it possible for him to go into the market places and buy the things he must have at a fair and reasonable price that he can afford to pay. Now, this is called the Brannan plan. If you have a better plan, let’s have it. The Congress has been strug- gling for a great many years with this problem. Sincerely yours, Compton I. WHITE, Member of Congress. Bad Samaritans EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH W. GWINN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. GWINN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rxc- orp, I include the following article: Bap SAMARITANS - You will remember a stranger on the road to Jericho fell among thieves. They robbed
A3522 and beat him, and left him half dead. The Good Samaritan, moved with compassion, pound up his wounds, took him to the inn and told the innkeeper to do what was nec-~ essary and he would pay the bill. Are we forgetting about the place of the Good Sa- maritan in the world today? Can you picture the Good Samaritan as the agent of a Government bureau? A cer- tain priest, a bureaucrat of the temple, and ® patronage holder under the Roman con- querors, looked at the stranger in trouble, and passed by on the other side. His official duties did not cover this situation. The Levite also passed by one the other side. He, too was a part-time officeholder whose official duties did not include attending to an un- usually distressing case by the roadside. Can’t you imagine their counterpart, the modern bureaucrat, from Washington or London or Berlin? He must examine his book of regulations to see if he is under any legal compulsion to bind up the wounds of the stranger. He must go to some division chief for instructions and for authorization of funds to cover this particular situation, Most likely he returns to the poor fellow still lying on the roadside, and says, “Sorry, old man, your case is unfortunately not covered in our regulations. Congress failed to ap~ propriate enough money for our department to take care of you. But when you're well again, old chap, you should organize a group of voters in the same kind of trouble and introduce a bill to cover such cases. And if you will vote for our party we will pass the pill, levy a new tax on the people, and fix everything up.” The Good Samaritan was an individual guided by his own conscience. He gave of himseif, of his own money, of his own time, of his own mercy. He did not avoid his own personal moral responsibilities. Indeed he could not. He could not shift the responsi-~ bility to some government employee. For government has no capacity and no property with which to do charity. It does not pro- auce. It certainly can’t steal from one to do charity for the other. Yet I work with new style “Good Samari- tans,” who think this can be done. They come to Coigress demanding that we take more of your money for them to give away and they insist on keeping a goodly portion for themselves. I know what it is like to refuse their demands, and have them threat~ en me on election day. I hear their clever arguments showing the easy way to hide taxation in the price of things you buy. They call this “taking money by the demo- cratic process” to distinguish it from outright robbery. ‘They never ask for small appropri- ations. They ask for more and more. Does anybody believe that anywhere in the world we have solved any problems by mak-~ ing government officials bad Samaritans? Can they relieve our individual consciences from the duty to be Good Samaritans our- selves? As Roscoe Pound, dean emeritus of the Harvard Law School, said, “Achieving of high humanitarian purposes by the easy method of using the involuntary Good Sa- maritan * * ™ is not edifying. There ought to be @ better method of making the legal order effective for our humanitarian ideals than that * * * of the pickpocket who went to the charity sermon and was 50 _ moved by the preacher’s eloquence that he picked the pockets of everyone in reach and put the contents in the plate.” Robin Hood is dramatized in almost every language as a legendary figure true to every people. We thought we had completely fettered our governing men so they could not steal like Robin Hood and become bad Sa- maritans, It is only the free men exercising a free conscience and producing men who have a surplus capable of being given away that can be Good Samaritans, The Indochina Problem EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHESTER E. MERROW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. MERROW. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RecorD, I include therein an editorial from the New York Times of May 9, 1950, entitied “The Indochina Problem.” THE INDOCHINA PROBLEM The first question that Secretary Acheson has had to tackle in his current discussions in Europe is the problem of aid to Indo- china and what we propose to do about it. That problem is closely tied up to the ques- tions of strength and stability in western Europe, since the French hold that they cannot sustain the cost and effort of a sub-= stantial contribution to European defense while they are obliged to spend $500,000,000 a year to fight off the Communist advance ‘in southeast Asia. We have talked about glob- al strategy and global diplomacy, and here is @ swift instance of the indivisibility of the fight for the right to remain free. The Indochinese problem, however, is not simple. It is not an open-and-shut case, right or wrong, black or white. We cannot approach the French in a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, since we, like they, are on the horns of something of a dilemma. We want to sup- port nationalism and the movement toward independence in Asia. We want the French to help us in the defense of threatened peo- ples against the onslaught of aggressive com- munism. But we can hardly demand that the French continue to give their lives and half their military budget to preserve a posi-~ tion merely for the sake of abandoning it. We are certainly not prepared to assume all of the French obligations in southeast Asia, 60 We are scarcely in a position to dictate all the terms of our assistance. Indochina occupies a critically strategic position. It borders on Thailand, Burma and south China. It is a gateway to Malaya, as the Japanese demonstrated. It flanks the Philippines. It is a big arch in the bridge to Indonesia. If it falls to the Communist advance the whole of southeast Asia will be in mortal peril. Indochina, moreover, is not a political unit. Two great partially autonomous areas, Laos and Cambodia, are under French pro-~ tection. They are fearful of the Annamese, who are the dominant element in Viet Nam, and wish to preserve their identity. Viet Nam, taking in the areas of Tongking, An- nam and Cochin China, has two rival claim- ants for nationalist supremacy. In the north, chiefly, is the Communist-led Viet Minh regime of Ho Chi Minh, recognized by the Soviet Union and its satellites as a republican government. Farther south is the French-sponsored Viet Nam government of Bao Dai, former Emperor of Annam, which has been made partially self-governing but which is still under strong French control. Both regimes are nationalist. The Ho Chi Minh group stands for complete independ- ence from the French. How far it can be independent of Moscow is another matter. The Bao Dai group proposes to stay within the French orbit. How far, therefore, it can command profound popular support as truly nationalist is also a question. The United States Government decided that Bao Dai, with his recognized short- comings, was at least the lesser of two evils and granted recognition to his regime. It was therefore presumed that United States aid would be forthcoming to strengthen that APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD government in its resistance to the Commu- nist attack. It now appears that the United States wishes some further French commit- ment in respect to Bao Dai that will enlarge the powers of the regime and enhance the prospects of early tndependence. The French are convinced that Indochina does not have the requisite trained leaders to undertake all the obligations of an in- dependent state at this time and they do not believe that those necessary leaders can be found in the near future. The defense of Indochina, for example, cannot possibly be conducted at this time by Indochinese alone. It is against this background that Secre- tary Acheson has discussed the Indochinese situation in Paris. It is a situation, ob- viously, that is not susceptible to any ready- made doctrinaire solution. If Indochina is to have a chance for eventual freedom, and if southeast Asia is to be preserved, the Communist threat must be met. This is not just a choice between colonialism and inde- pendence. There will be no free Indochina in a slave world, and we and the French, with British help, must find the means to prevent that eventuality. If You Were Born in Russia EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JACOB K. JAVITS OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, a new book, If You Were Born in Russia, has just been published, detailing the every- day life of an ordinary citizen in the Soviet Union, and pointing out very vividly what we all know—communism is the sharing of want and despair and the complete denial of freedom, while it indoctrinates its victims so that reality and truth are replaced by propaganda. Appended is a review of this book from the April 16 edition of the Washington Post: TERRIFYING Book CARRIES READER THROUGH Lire or Soviet Crrizen (By J. R. Wiggins) If You Were Born in Russia, by Arthur Goodfriend. Farrar, Straus, 191 pages. $5. This is one of the most alarming books ever written about Soviet Russia. Arthur Goodfriend takes the reader through the life of a Soviet citizen, from cradle to grave. The journey reveals the endless flood of indoctrination that engulfs the individual in this Communist society from early youth to old age. : It is a frightening trip for those who still dare hope that somehow the east and west may avoid a conflict that appears sometimes inevitable. It is a discouraging experience for those who still search for a meeting of minds. For this book discloses, with pain- ful clarity, how different are the minds that come to the council table when spokesmen for the Soviet world and the free world fore- gather at international conferences. This book is no anti-Communist tract, mind you. The author obviously has done his level best to present objectively a sum- mary of the lifelong process of party indoc- trination to which Russian citizens are sub- jected. Only those who are intimately ac- quainted with the process can judge how well he has succeeded. He confesses the handicap of his own point of view. But he has exerted himself to es-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cape it. He has tried so hard to do so that some readers may be misled into regarding this book as a sympathetic study of Soviet Russia. He does not intrude into the narra- tive to point out the falsehoods in the stream of Soviet propaganda, to warn against the lies about the west to deplore the distortions of fact. He just ucseribes ve floodtide of prop- aganda as it exists. Perceptive readers will find this book, ina far different way, as terrifying as George Or- well’s “1984.” They will put it down in a kind of despair. Can the free world hope that the victim of such a tyranny can retain anywhere in the mind an isolated island of objectivity where truth could find lodgment? Obviously, Mr. Goodfriend did not intend to inspire such despair. It is his business, and the business of the firm with which he is associated, to help the free nations of the world utilize modern communications to dis- seminate their story. The real lesson of this book is that we must proceed with our own indoctrination more vigorously and energetically than ever before, if we are to have any real hope of success. This book is an intelligence estimate of the enemy’s weapons in this field. It should frighten us into action. We Are Under Siege EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HAROLD D. DONOHUE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, I should like to recommend to the Mem- bers’ reading, an excellent editorial which appeared in the May 9, 1950, issue of the Christian Science Monitor. The writer points out the absolute necessity of the peoples in the demo- cratic nations understanding and sup- porting the common program against the advancing strategy of the Communist cold war. The sustained effort to stand together will demand, for a long time, extreme sacrifice, personal and national, for indi- viduals and countries, that hope to re- main free. We must continually re- mind ourselves we are under siege and we cannot, for a moment, forget that the realistic objective is survival itself. The article follows: We Are UNvdER SIEGE This is no time for hysteria. This is no time for apathy. The democratic nations of the world are under siege. That is why the United States, Britain, and France are holding conferences of their foreign ministers in London this week, The moral and practical advantages of righteousness and freedom are on the western nations’ side. But advantages don’t count unless they are used. Let us use them, let us develop them. Messrs. Acheson, Bevin, and Schuman can do what is needed for peace and freedom at London if their peoples do what is needed. The United States, Britain, and France can be built into a dynamic core at the center of western defense if their peoples show that they understand how urgent is the necessity. Of the three men at London, Mr. Acheson needs and deserves the greatest support from the home front. This is true partly because the State Department is suffering from at-< tacks which in a parliamentary system such as Britain’s or France’s could be answered by a timely vote of confidence, but which have no such adequate answer in Washing- ton. But it is also true because Mr. Ache-~ son’s responsibility for world leadership is greater than that of his London colleagues simply because of American power. Yet, Mr. Acheson had to prepare for London with knowledge that the European recovery program would be subjected to attack from Senator Tarr and other legislators who re- fuse to recognize any vital difference between foreign aid and domestic spending. Mr. Acheson had to go to Europe, backed up by a Senate vote on ERP which says that Amer- icans may have what it takes to save freedom and prevent war, but they are not prepared to give Europe’s survival a priority over un- usable beds for veterans’ hospitals or un-= timely expenditures for improvements to American rivers and harbors. This really isn’t America talking. But it’s time the real America began. It’s time for Americans and their allies to be counting the strengths in the free-world position and organizing these strengths against the threats against that position. The strengths are not too little and we are not yet too late. At London the Big Three skould deter- mine how American economic power can be deployed usefully throughout the western community. The relationship of America, Britain, and France requires tightening. A basis for using West German resources safely, for keeping Germany as a member of the western group instead of letting it drift to an uncertain neutrality, should be found. The risks which France must take in such an association must be balanced by Amer- ican and British guaranties. British partici- pation in a united Europe must be made economically safe. The question of relieving Communist pres- sures on French military resources in the Far East must be faced. At the same time ways must be found to show far-eastern peoples that the west is not an obstacle to their natural development. The first requisite to success in such a chal- lenging program is the equipment of states- men to deal with it. This equipment con-= sists mainly of the knowledge that .the peo- ples they represent are prepared for the decisions which must be taken—decisions with no less compelling an objective than survival itself. The Welfare State EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HAROLD H. VELDE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the ReEcorpD, I include the following edi- torial from the Peoria (Ill.) Journal of May 8, 1950: THr WELFARE STATE The term “welfare state” recently has come into wide use, particularly in a politi- cal sense, with Republicans accusing Presi- dent Truman of attempting to set up a wel- fare state in this country and defenders of the President either denying that he has any such intention or asserting that the welfare state is a good thing. Different persons have different ideas as to just what a welfare state is or would be. Generally, however, it is used to describe a A3523 country in which the government has taken over almost entirely the responsibility for providing for the general welfare of the peo- ple. A welfare state usually is conceived as one that attempts to provide for “cradle to the grave” security with all manner of assist- ance being given by the government from provision of medical care at birth to old age assistance in later years. The welfare state runs the gamut from socialized medicine and Federal aid to education, through unemploy- ment insurance, widespread social security benefits, guaranteed wages, and crop insur- ance to pensions and subsistence in old age. It is possibly best described as paternalistic government and on the face of things may appear to be a pretty good thing. It is not until consideration is given to the manner of payment for all these benefits and the way in which they are to be admin- istered that some doubt about its advisability will arise. England today is a fair example of a welfare state. There the people have medi- cal care provided by the government, social security and government housing. They also have lost their choice of selection of a physician, much of the right of selection of where they will live or work, and pay a tax rate far higher than the one that we grumble about in the United States. Always with a welfare state comes restric- tive governmental controls. Farmers are told what they can pinnt to a far greater degree than exists in .he Uri.ea States. In- dustries are taken over and operated by the coverrment. Gradually, one by one, the Y.g2 >» <G: .c'f determination are surrendered by the people in return for what they think is free assistance from the government. In reality, of course, the cost of these free serv- ices must be borne by government and the cost is paid by the taxpayers. The welfare state holds out a rosy promise for the unthinking but it is a trap in which people lose their independence and freedom, It leads the way to totalitarian dictatorship and is to be shunned by everyone who is convinced that free enterprise is a desirable system of economic control. Missing Files EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HAROLD H. VELDE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 * Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, under ‘leave granted to extend my remarks in ‘the Recorp, I include the following edi- torial from the Peoria (Ill.) Journal of May 9, 1950: Missine FILEs When. President Truman, on the eve of his departure on a 16-State political tour, released a limited number of State Depart- ment loyalty files to the Tydings subcom- mittee, we expressed the suspicion that the files might not be complete. Senator Mc- CarTHY, in a radio address Saturday, elab- orated on the same thought and read from an Official FBI report of the laxity of the State Department in allowing access to its files. Are suspicions justified? A succinct an- swer may be found in this brief paragraph from the May 8 issue of Newsweek: “The House Judiciary Committee’s entire file on its 1945 closed hearings in the Amer- asia case, in which six were accused of steal- ing Government documents and passing them to Communists, is missing.”
A3524 No official Washington file, it seems, is ine accessible to spies Those who have the greatest trouble getting to the files are com- mittees that are looking for the spies. If there are disloyal employees in the State Department, they have had 6 weeks to alter and remove material from the Department’s files. If the Tydings Committee accepts them at face value, the committee itself needs investigating. EE Protest Against Curtailment of Postal Services EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. LOUIS B. HELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 26, 1950 Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, Iam this day introducing a bill, the effect of which would nullify the intent of Postmaster Donaldson’s order of April 17, 1950, cur- tailing postal services. I am taking this means of calling this legislation to the attention of my colleagues, many of whom have already indicated their op- position to the Postmaster General’s or-= der. Mr. Donaldson’s crder would cut resi- dential mail deliveries from two to one a day. Most persons will get their mail in the afternoon instead of in the morn- ing, aS at present. Collections from boxes would be curtailed; deliveries in business districts reduced by one deliv- ery on Saturdays; post office windows would be closed at 5:30 p, m.; and par- cel-post deliveries limited to one a day. In New York City alone, between 4,300 and 6,450 faithful postal workers are facing the loss of their jobs because of this order. In addition, the public will be inconvenienced, and business handi- capped. It has been stated that most of the em- ployees who will be affected by curtailed employment are veterans. According to some persons, many of them are 10- point disabled veterans. These postal employees, most of whom are low-paid substitute workers, will be on the receiv- ing end of the brunt of this directive. The resulting unemployment will be a severe blow to the morale of the postal workers. Mr. Philip Lepper, president of the New York branch of the Associa- tion of Letter Carriers, AFL, declared that the order had thrown panic into the hearts of the letter carriers in his organization. Likewise, David Silverglied, president of the Joint Conference of Affiliated Postal Employees of Greater New York and Vicinity, stated “that the American people are entitled to the continuance and maintenance of the best postal serv- ice in the world. This order will not only disrupt the postal service as we have always known it, but will destroy all feelings of security on the part of its faithful employees.” This curtailment of employment and service in the post office will result in irreparable damage to our postal sys- tem, With the resulting lowered morale of postal workers, shipments will not re- ceive the attention they have been re- ceiving in the past. Mail will necessarily be delayed. The departmental order will promote inefficiency in our great postal service. The daily mail is the backbone of our communication system. The demand and need for postal service is now greater than ever. It is a Government function that has become essential to the growth and economic well-being of our country. It is unfair to deny our people the service they want and the service to which they have become accustomed. It is unjust to throw faithful employees out of work when they are providing such a service. The curtailment of postal services would result in sizable money losses to American business. The proposed cut in postal appropria- tions amounts to $24,921,000, or only 1.4 percent of the total requested budget. It does not seem reasonable that this small a cut would warrant such a sweeping re- duction in employment and in service. Indeed, it is estimated that 10,000 jobs in the Post Office Department will be lost and that 8,000 first- and second-class post offices will be affected. There are other ways to save money than to fire $40-a-week postal workers, most of whom are veterans. For ex- ample, some of the postal subsidies could be reduced or Congress could provide the sum of money requested. In speaking of subsidies, the Postmaster General has called our attention to the $200,000,- 000 subsidy to second-class mail. In addition, the Post Office Department’s budget supports a fifty to sixty million dollar airmail subsidy. Last year, third- class mail was subsidized to the extent of $129,000,000, and fourth-class mail was subsidized in the amount of $90,- 000,000. Our foreign mail costs $74,000,- 000 more than the revenue generated from this service. We do not have to hire $40-a-week clerks to same money— there are better ways to do this. Mr. Speaker, I urge the preservation of jobs to the faithful postal employees and the uninterrupted excellent services of the Post Office Department to which we have all so properly become accustomed. Who Won in Chrysler Strike? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 3, 1950 Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include a very interesting article by John‘R. Stew- art, which appeared in the May 8 issue of the Detroiter, published by the Detroit Mich.) Board of Commerce: Wxo Won? Last week the 100-day Chrysler strike nded, the second largest and costliest in the utomotive industry. Who won? Certainl no one in any way connected with the makin, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD or selling of Chrysler-made cars and trucks. Certainly not the merchants, the service- establishment owners, or the employees of such places in Detrolt and other cities where Chrysler plants or Chrysler supplier plants are located. Certainly not the city of De- troit which paid out nearly $2,000,000 in wel- fare funds. In short, nobody won. This billion-dollar strike resulted in a few wage adjustments in certain plants and classifications, and minor noneconomic changes. Against these small gains, which could have been obtained without suffering a strike, the Chrysler workers lost $87,000,000 in wages and forced losses well over twice that. 2.02.4 ciaci~ fallow workers in sup- plier .i.+ o- .ccioa i those in raw-material plants, transportation facilities, mines, and farms. Chrysler’s 89,000 workers lost 72 working days’ pay, about $984 per worker, or a total of $87,000,000. (Figures based on eornings of $1.71 per hour, average figure for ali hourly paid factory workers in Wayne County, 1949 ) Automobile production during period of the strike approximated 1,930,000 cars and trucks. With Chrysler in operation, total would have been somewhat greater, probably averaging out at about the 158,400-car weekly level pre- valling just prior to the strike. On this basis, total autorchbile ertrut over the 100 days would have hcen 2 263,C03. Chrysler’s share— as indicated by its proportion in the year 1949—-would have been 463,000 cars and trucks. Total cost of these cars at retail was approximately 950,000,000. This loss was divided about as follows: Chrysler employees lost 7-2... $108, 000, 000 Chrysler stockholders lost 74... 14, 000, 000 Employees and stockholders lost (retained earnings) 1.__. 27, 000, 000 Loss in taxes 42000-2------- 66, 000, 000 Loss in depreciation fund... 22, 000, 000 Suppliers lost (largely wages lost, ultimately) 7---.-._- 413, 000, 000 Factory cost of lost . car output ..2. oe 650, 000, 000 ——— Dealers lost. .-..---.-------~ 162, 000, 000 Optional equipment, handling charges, sales tax, etc_-...- 138, 000, 000 300, 000, 000 Retail cost of lost car output ~~~ 950, 000, 000 1 Based on Chrysler Corp. financial state- ment for 1949. Before strike started, workers were promised $100 a month pensions. After 100 days of strike, workers got $100 a month pensions. Did Reuther win? Time will tell. Is Our Denazification Program Working? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 8, 1950 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following state- ment I made at Harrisburg, Pa., on April 30, 1950: Is Our DENAzmFICATION ProGRAM WorKING? I bring this question before you because it is basic in any understanding of foreign policy. Nobody seriously believes that the allied victory resulted in the disappearance of the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Nazi ideology, and nobody seriously believes that Germany welcomed with open arms the occupation authorities, and nobody serious- ly believes that the Germans have learned or are learning the meaning of democracy. No- body seriously believes any of these things, and yet we find that the problem of denazifi- cation is being treated with more than a measure of indifference and that there are a gocd many who hold the view that there are many, many m-~a Secret ~~~tlems pressing upon ~- ot res + and that denazification is ‘certainly the least of them. Nothing could be more fallacious and nothing, but absolutely nothing, could be more dangerous. How many wars must be fought before we learn the lesson that ideas are as powerful as weapons? The sword follows the word. The Fascist and Nazi ideology which brought so much **a--4r +t “he world must not, in the name . «lui +. + must not be permitted to flourish again. To ignore the danger signals in Germany is to ignore a threat that some day will grow into a confia- gration that will burn the very pattern of civilization. Let us not make light of this. What hap- pened after World War I is happening after World War II. Germany is again being wooed. She is being groomed to be the belle of the ball and is being made to feel that she can sell her charms to the highest bidder in the cold war. What madness is this, what consummate folly to feed in this way the dangerous German ego—to give her a weapon of blackmail? Let me read to you a resolution I, together with several others in the House and Senate, have introduced: “Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed to con- duct a full and complete study and investi- gation of all matters relating to the conduct and status of the denazification program in the zone of Germany under occupation by the United States, especially as concerns (a) the result of transferring re~none™litr ‘or denazification to the Geri: Wy enh dns (b) whether or not there is infiltration of former Nazis, Nazi supporters, and other antidemocratic elements into denazification tribunals; (c) whether or not former Nazis and other antidemocratic elements have been eliminated from high position in public of- fice and the economic life of Germany; (d) whether or not there has been reinstatement of thousands of Nazi teachers to former or higher positions in the Bavarian and other public-school systems; (e) whether or not there is resurgence of intensive antisemitism and militant nationalism in the United States zone; (f) whether or not there is a rise of strong new political parties based on Nazi doctrine and militarism; (g) whether or not there has been reappearance of Nazi- type propaganda in the German press; (h) whether or not there is development in the German youth of appreciation of and devo- tion to democratic institutions; and to re- port with expedition its findings, together with such recommendations as it deems proper, to the House of Representatives.” There is no doubt in my own mind of the urgency of such an investigation. If peace is to be deserved, peace deserves to be worked for. It would be a bitter mistake if this resolution were permitted to die in this ses- sion of Congress. Let me point to a few of these danger sig- nals I made reference to earlier. For exam- ple, we learn that the Intelligence Service of the western occupying powers in Germany are now employing former Gestapo person- nel and former members of the SD, the Nazi security service, whose main task was once espionage, sabotage, and special assignments outside the Reich. We learn, too, that the German Party, which has 17 members in the Ca Bundestag, submitted the following motion . to the Bonner Assembly: “The Bundestag resolves to request the Government of Western Germany to submit to the Assembly a bill ordering the imme- diate conclusion of all pending denazifica~ tion cases and a law of amnesty in favor of denazified persons in classes III and IV.” While classes IIT and IV refer to lesser offenders and followers, it would nonetheless mean the reinstatement of former civil servants in government, state, and municipal services. We know that the major offenders, the former top Nazis, have not been brought to trial due to the failure of the denazifica-~ tion tribunals to act vigorously. Party offi- cials, hke Franz Richter, member of the West German Parliament, asked not only that the amnesty resolution be adopted, but urged the granting of restitutions for dam- ages inflicted by denazuification. Now let’s look for a moment at some of the appointments to official posts in the Western German Republic. We read that such men like Dr. Hans Ritter vonLex (once in a high government office in the Chancellery of the Reich) and Dr. Hans Globke (once adviser to the Minister of the Interior when Hitler was in power) are high in counsel in Western Germany. The occupying Western Allies abandoned the licensing system for the press. What followed revealed immediately the prevail- ing temper of the German people. Not less than 30 former Nazi publishers rushed back into the newspaper business in the United States zone of occupation alone. Among them was Max Willmy, the notorious pub- lisher of Der Stuermer. Likewise a few days after the discontinu- ance of the licensing system for political parties in the American zone, three political units made their azrerresce: (1) the Social- ist Reichs Party ::. Fe -, 2) the German Action Party, and (3) the German Commu- nal Party, all of which hastened to proclaim the policy of an unbridled nationalist. Let us look a bit further. As reported by the New York Times, Germans no longer ask whether their country is to be rearmed, but when. There 1s talk of a limited Ger- man army. Just what is meant by a limited Germany army? One that will impress the Soviet, but will not alarm the French? Does it mean strength when marching toward Russia, but weak when facing the west? What ridiculous contradiction is this? Both the Associated Press and Interna- tional News Service keep sending reports of secret formation of former German cfficer cliques. Naturally, in the short space of time I have with you I cannot dwell in too much detail on all these symptoms of the resurgence of German nationalism, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not sound the alarm. Now, for example, in contradiction to the occupation statute which states that dis- placed persons and the admission of refugees are among the powers reserved to the occupa- tion authorities, the Allied High Commission of Germany recently passed a law, No. 18, dealing with judicial powers in the re- served fielc~. According to the new law, al- most all persons may come within the juris- diction of German criminal and noncrim- inal courts. The only persons exempted are members of the Allied forces, persons ac-~ credited to the Allied High Commissioner, and their families. This may mean that dis- placed persons who still are concentrated in camps will in the future be subject to the jurisdiction of German courts. Of course, it is true that article 7 of this law contains the provision that the occupa- tion authorities may, either generally or in specific cases, withdraw from a German court any proceeding directly affecting persons or matters within the jurisdiction of the oc- cupation statute or suspend any decision of a German court affecting such person. The fact still remains that an act of withdrawal or suspension would be necessary after the A3525 German courts have had the original jur- isdiction. We know how the German courts have he- haved in denazification cases, as witness the Hedier case. We know how the German courts have behaved when any claim has been pressed against a German citizen. We know that the German courts have been affording every opportunity to the extremist and naticnalists to make themselves heard. What groundwork is this for future trazedie? Let us return now to the rore 7 18rAl scene. In the United States zone of west- ern Germany, there are now a number of active groups which are busy inflaming the wounds of the defeated German. There is, for example, the League for German Revival, whose leader is Otto Strasser, now in Can- ada. There are various educational organ. izations which exist as cover-ups for Fas- cists, Nationalists, and anti-Semitic groups. The political contact office led by Klaus Mehnert is a typical example. Other groups are the St. Goarer Circle, the Heiligenberger Circle, the Laupheimer Circle, and the Hum- boldt Association. The hazardous fact remains that the Lib- erals in Germany find neither a race for themselves nor encouragement. We know that the Soviets are flirting with German writers to disparge democracy, to build a powerful militant Germany, and to fight for a united Germany. According to Drew Middleton of the New York Times, Com- munist pressure for the unification of Ger- many is exerted through the medium of the radical right-wing political groups which in- clude industrialists, former officers, anti- Semites, and opportunists. It cannot be said often enough that the most potent weapon against communism is the ideological one. Rearming Germany, bribing Germany, wooing Germany, is not the answer. It sounds to some like an ex~ pediency we must use in the cold war, but they lose sight that a German-Russian pact was once in existence and could be again if the two contracting parties believed it could be used to a self-serving end. Mr. McCloy, High Commissioner of Ger- many has stated unequivocally “There is nationalism in Germany. There is a nation~ alist fringe on the extreme right which is more active than it has been. There is a Communist fringe that plays the Soviet game, and there is the persistent tendency of both these fringes to work together.” It has been said that it is difficult to undo the 12-year rule of Hitler in 5 years. Of course, it is difficult. Does that mean we work less toward that end instead of more? Does that mean that we are to proclaim that we are permitting the resurgence of nazism and nationalism in Germany because not that we dislike the German less but that we dislike the Russians more? Iam not discounting the Russian threat of aggression. I am as gravely and as seriously concerned about it as is every citizen of the United States, but I maintain and I shall maintain with all the strength possible, that only an active, thriving liberalism—watered and nurtured—in all the countries of the world wherever possible can help us in the diminishing of the Russian threat. Must we forget Buchenwald and Dachau? Must we forget the poison and venom and the murder by Nazi Germany because a country of an~ other name now threatens world peace? Certainly denazification of Germany is not an easy task. It involves vigorous activity on almost every plane of existence—social, cultural, educational, economic, etc. For ex- ample, only a few short days ago testimony was received by the subcommittee on the study of mondpoly power, of which I am chairman, that there is every sign of a re- viving steel cartel. That is what I mean by activity on the economic plane. If ‘we pay lip service to democracy and lip service alone, and do not let our right, Sand know what our left hand is doing, then’
A3526 henceforth we shall have ourselves to blame if disaster overtakes us. As citizens of the United States, as mothers and fathers, as free men and women who have a stake in the future, who have a responsible part to play—I ask you to take cognizance of this problem and through your Representatives in the Congress express your concern with this growing resurgence of German nationalism and that you ask your Representatives in Congress to act now on a thorough explora- tion of our denazification program, Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. RALPH W. GWINN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. GWINN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrec- orp, I include the following article. CURTAILMENT OF PosTaL SERVICE The Post Office, the perfect case the So- cialists always cite to prove that socialism is better than free enterprise, has come a cropper. Though it has a Government mo- nopoly, it can’t pay expenses. The loss for 1949 was more than half a billion dollars. Politicians do not like to raise the price of the services they give away, so they wanted to let the taxpayers pay the differ- ence. Congress thought otherwise. Congress said, “Improve your methods, cut costs. Put in machinery and cut down the losses.” The House reduced the budget the Post Office asked for by only 1 percent. But immediately the Post Office politicians retaliated by re- ducing services, reducing deliveries, delaying mails, delaying business, and throwing thou- sands of men out of jobs. Home deliveries will be cut to one a day, collections will be cut, post offices closed at earlier hours. Let- ters in New York City must be mailed before 6:30 p. m. or lose a day. This, in Mr. Tru- man’s most prosperous period of all time, Here we have the old game of squeezing the people, to make them bring pressure on Congress to pay the losses. The Postmaster General even instructed all the postmasters across the country to give wide publicity to the readjustments provided for in this order. Time is short. Congress must be made to jump through the hoops by violent protests of the public. A big part of the loss is incurred through carrying mail for the Government. It gets free postage to the value of $149,000,000, ac- cording to Postmaster General Donaldson. The Government propaganda for social secur- ity, public housing, socialized medicine, the Brannan plan, and all the rest, is carried by trains and planes and on the backs of mail carriers free—at taxpayers’ expense. The Administration sends out trainloads of prop- aganda free of postage to put over its so- cialized measures. The cutting down of the service to the public will not disturb the free service td the Government agencies. That will go on unimpaired, It is interesting to note that all Members of Congress, both Republican and Demo- cratic, in both Houses, spend only $1,200,000 on franked mail against the Executive’s $149,000,000. Those whose secret aim is to attack Congress complain about the Con- gressmen’s franking privileges. In fact, cons gressmen spend only 1 cent for every $3 the administration spends on postage alone. Why not turn the post office over to prie vate enterprise to deliver our mail more effi< ciently and at less cost? Then the bureau-~ crats would have to pay the postage for their propaganda. We did this in the early days. Private carriers carried the mail so much better and more cheaply than the post office that several times they nearly put the post office out of business. They would have done so many times in the past if Con- gress had not come to its rescue. Finally, Congress had to prohibit compe- tition. It made a legal monopoly of the mail business for the Government alone to do. All private competitors have been barred, by law, from showing how much cheaper and better the work can be done by them. Isn’t it fortunate that we have not yet put all of our housing and food and medi- cine and manufacturing in the hands of the Government to manage? We have not gone completely Socialist. If we look closely at the Socialists’ pet projects we may yet reverse our steps and recover our liberties, Czech Shoe Probe EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 4, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Boston Traveler of May 8, 1950: CzEcH SHOE PROBE No more Czech-made shoes will be dumped. in the United States. This is the gratify- ing result of the campaign of the New Eng- land Shoe and Leather Association. It takes the form of instructions to the United States appraisers of merchandise at the various ports to withhold appraisement of shoes from Czechoslovakia according to the terms of the Antidumping Act of 1921. The New England association has evidence at hand that shoes costing the equivalent of $7.50 in Czechoslovakia are being retailed at $2 in this country. Obviously that sort of business is not covered either by the laws of economics or the national objective of promoting foreign trade. Czechoslovakia is now @ Russian satellite. It would be hard to find anything better calculated to help the Red cause than to cause unemployment and unrest in the United States by flooding us with the products of iron curtain slave labor. It is one of the cold war strategies against which we must be ever on guard. Drain on Coking Coals Spurs Research EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. AUGUSTINE B. KELLEY OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. KELLEY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks, I am including an article from recent issue of the United Mine Work- ‘'s Journal. Much publicity has been Minin to the tonnages of coal still re- ae unmined in the United States ‘has left the impression that a Plea of coal are included in that cate- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD gory. But the rapid depletion of some of the very highest grades of coal is a source of anxiety to the consumers of such coals. One of these high-grade coals is coking coal. During the past years, through the profligacy of mine owners and operators, valuable coking coals have been put to low-grade usss, and the two World Wars have also spurred their depletion. The article that I have permission to include in my remarks is culled from the Bureau of Mines report, Coal and Coke Production, and it poinis up the rapid “depletion of these coals and the attend- ant anxiety among coke producers. DraInN ON COKING Coats Spurs RESEARCH Spurred by heavy drains on the best-known and most easily mined beds of coking coals, Government and industry are working to- gether to stretch the available supply. What is being done in this direction, in- cluding research and a new survey of our coal reserves is Outlined in a Bureau of Mines report just released, Coal for Coke Produc- tion. Some of the best seams of coking coal have already been exhausted due to the heavy demand for steel in two world wars, plus the mounting peacetime insistence on using increasing amounts of the available smoke- less type of bituminous coal. Virtually all of the best coking coal is in the Appalachian region, the report poirits out, but these deposits represent only about 4 percent of the Nation’s estimated coal re- serves, if allowance is made for unrecover- able and low-grade coal. Thus, the foreseeable exhaustion of good coking coals has added to the pressure for research to develop more effective blending of high-ranking coal with lower grade types, as well as the up-grading of those coals with high ash or sulfur content so that they may be made to yield coke acceptable for blast furnace use, the report states. Since World War II, Bureau of Mines field and laboratory studies on this problem have in the main been concerned with: (1) a survey of the washing characteristics of coals, by beds and mining fields; and (2) an experi- mental study of processes for separating the good from the poorly coking constituents of coals of marginal coking qualities. The Bu-~ reau has installed experimental slot-type ovens at Pittsburgh, Tuscaloosa, Ala., and Golden, Colo., to study various blends of eastern, central, and western coals. At present the Bureau and the Geological Survey are engaged in making a reappraisal of the national coal reserves, the results of which will be ‘published on a county basis, giving the tonnages of each coal bed and the ranges of quality. Reserves will be reported in two classes: measured (proved), and indi- cated (probable). The President’s Speeches at Burlington, Ottumwa, Creston, and Pacific Junc- tion, Iowa EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GUY M. GILLETTE OF IOWA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 11 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp the speeches
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD delivered by the President of the United States at Burlington, Ottumwa, Creston, and Pacific Junction, Iowa, on May 8, 1950. There being no objection, the speeches were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT BURLINGTON, Iowa Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I don’t think I have ever had such a happy birthday. It is good to be back in Iowa again, I as- sure you. It always makes me feel at home in this great corn State. You see, I live in acorn State to the south of you, and I never have admitted that Iowa grows taller corn, but sometimes I have to. I am making a trip across the country so that I can see first-hand how the people are getting along and what problems they are facing. I also want to talk about the prob- Jems that all of us are facing together. I want to tell you the truth about public affairs. There is no other way for me to get the truth to the people but to come out and tell it to you. That has been demonstrated— 2 years ago—very well, I think. When the people know the truth, when the people can weigh the facts, I have no qualms about the decision they will make. It’s the democratic way for people to argue the issues—the only way you can understand what I am trying to do. The only way you can understand whether I have carried out the platform on which I was elected in 1948 is for me to make a report to you, and that is what I am doing, and I have a perfect right to do that. It is not political, it is what any head of an organ-~ ization does once a year. I didn’t get a chance to do it last year, I had too much to do, but I am with you this time to tell you the facts, and when you have the facts, I am perfectly happy on what you will do with them. Our democracy works because there is al- ways a free and open discussion between the citizens of this country and their elected representatives in town halls, State capitals, and in Washington, D. C. Sometimes, the discussions in Washington, D. C., are not exactly to the point, but they still have dis- cussions. This is what makes this country different from a dictatorship. Our Government works for the people. It is a Government of and by and for the people, and its only reason for existence is to help build a more secure and a better life for its citizens. What we are trying to do now is to make sure that our economy continues to grow and prosper, so that everybody in the coun- try can have a better living standard. We have a higher living standard in this country now than we have ever had before, the high- est in the history of the world. The way for us to keep these gains and do even better in the future is to see to it that farmers and businessmen and working men and women move forward together. Everybody ought to have a fair and square chance at the economic prosperity of this country. That’s all I’m working for. Here in Burlington, I need hardly tell you people that the people in town are pros- perous only when the farmers are well off. Certainly the farmers have learned that they have good markets only when wages are high enough for the people in town to buy what the farmers grow. I am working for a farm program that will give the farmers a good income. I am going to make a speech later in the day, at Lincoln, Nebr., When I will tell exactly what kind of farm laws we need on the books so that farmers will always have good incomes, and will always be raising the kind of crops we need, rather than raising huge unusable sur- pluses that the Government has to buy, and sometimes has to destroy. Of course, I am just as interested in work- ing for the welfare of people in cities and towns as I am for those on the farms, be- cause you can’t have one section, or one sector, of a population prosperous and have the others in misery. They must all belong together and share the gocd things of life. We have passed a housing law last year that will mean nearly a million new housing units all over the country in the next 5 years, for families who otherwise couldn’t afford decent houses. That is the Kind of progressive, forward- looking measure I am working for in the fields of social security, health, and educa- tion. Many States need new schools and more teachers. The only way our boys and girls can get the kind of education they need is for the Federal Government to help the States improve their school systems. A lot of people are expecting me to talk about what the Highty-first Congress has done on these matters, just as I told the country 2 years ago the truth about the Hightieth Congress, I will say one thing, and say it emphatic- ally, the Eighty-first Congress has done a lot better than the Hightieth ever did, and it is going to do a lot more than it has done up to date. The record of the Eighty-first Congress is not complete yet, but when it finally finishes its work and goes home, then I will be ready to come back and give you the full details, and let the chips fall where they may. The country is entitled to know the facts, and that is what I am out here for now, is to tell you the facts in language that you and I speak, and that you can understand. And I believe that when I get through you will understand just exactly what I am trying to do. And when the Eighty-first Congress quits, I think it is going to have a good record. I am going to bet on it, anyway. Thank you very much. I appreciate all these happy birthday greetings. REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT OTTUMWA, IOWA Thank you very much; thank you very much. I can’t tell you how very much I appreciate this warm and wonderful recep- tion. It is one of the finest gatherings I have ever seen in a long time. Not since Dexter, Iowa, have I seen such a gathering. In 1948 that was, you remember. There were 10 acres of people at that meeting, and I was asked how I measure people, and I said you can put 9,600 people on an acre, and if you multiply that by 10, that’s 96,000 people. I don’t know how many there are here. I have been reliably informed that there is a young man, working for the opposition, who has been following me in a plane to look the situation over. Now that young man is perfectly welcome to save himself a little money, and if he will buy a ticket and get on the train, I will take him along; and I sin- cerely hope that he has been as highly pleased with the reception I have had this morning and with the crowds as I have been, and I hope he will make that report to the opposition so that they can govern them- selves accordingly. This morning I want to talk to you briefly about your future, and the future of the rest of the people all over the country. That is why I am here, to tell you the truth about what your Government is doing. It is a most difficult thing for me to get the facts to the people, but I think I have demonstrated on another trip—-and on that trip I was followed also—I demonstrated to the people at that fime that when they know the truth and the facts, you can’t fool them. These are troubled times in the world. All of us know that the only way we can get a peaceful world is by keeping the United States strong and prosperous. We can have such strength and prosperity only if the farmers, the businessmen, and the workers are well off. ‘You know, right here in Ot- A3527 tumwa that your meat-packing house and all other businesses in town depend on the in- comes of the farmers for miles around. You know, too, that your businessmen and your farmers and your workers have a mutual in- terest in the prosperity of all our economy. Well, that is true of the whole country, too, because this country can’t remain prosperous unless you in this area prosper. We must make sure that Iowa farmers never again have to burn their corn for fuel like they did 20 years ago. I intend to keep on working to see that farmers and workers and business- men get a fair deal, and that’s all anybody can ask for. I am going to make a speech in Lincoln today—in Lincoln, Nebr.—and I am going to tell you what kind of farm program we need, and I am going to make it easy and simple for everybody to understand, and it won’t be complicated or garbled. It will be just ex- actly what we need. I am going to discuss those problems specifically, without dodging the issues, as many people have dodged them in the past. You hear today a lot of wild charges that anything new which we propose for the farmer is socialism and regimentation. That’s an old cry that has been going on for along time; in fact, ever since 1887. That reminds me of a story about a man from my kome State who was in Congress back in the eighties. His name was William Henry Hatch, and his name was attached to many laws which benefit the farmer. Congressman Hatch was the author of a law in 1887 which granted $15,000 a year for each State to set up agricultural experiment stations in connection with its agricultural college. There were a lot of folks who raised cain when that bill got to the Senate. You would have thought that the end of the world was just around the corner. One Sen- ator from the great State of Kansas said that this proposal was cooked up in response to the “clamor of a certain select class of self- constituted reformers.” This Senator went on to say, and these are his exact words—now this was in 1887— sounds like an argument in the Senate now: “Tt illustrates a tendency of this class of agi- tators to demand the continued interposi- tion of the National Government in State and local and domestic affairs, and with the result, as I believe, of absolutely destroying the independence and freedom of individual conduct, and subverting the theory on which the Government is based.” Now, that is an exact quotation from the Senator from Kan- sas, who is also famous as a poet. Now, that sounds just like the attacks which are being made today against any pro- gressive measure. But it is even more inter- esting because a few miles north of here, at Ames, the Iowa State Agricultural College has been using the Hatch Act funds since 1887. It is still using them today, and there has been no limitation of anybody’s freedom in Iowa as a result that I know of. I think that our system of agricultural research and educatior provides real strength for our democracy. Your own Iowa State College at Ames is an outstanding part of this great system. We have the same situa- tion down in Missouri, and even in Kansas, where that Senator made that statement. The agricultural colleges in the other States are doing likewise. Each one is a part of this great system of research and education that extends all the way from the Federal Government to the individual on the farm. Whenever you hear people attacking agri- cultural education, or other progressive measures that will benefit the farmer and the worker and the rest of the people, just remember that agricultural education has been a part of our democratic way of life since the days of Thomas Jefferson, and X hope it always will be in the future.
A3528 Now, I want you people to distinctly un- derstand that I am here reporting to you as the President of the United States, giving you an outline of things just as they are in Washington, and just as I would like to have them to be in Washington. I have a perfect right to do that. That is part of my job, to let you know just exactly what the facts are; and when f tell them to you I think you can understand that they are not garbled by somebody who wants to give a wrong im- pression. You understood them in 1948, and you are going to understand them in 1950, and when we get through, when I re- port to you the next time, you are going to pe happy and satisfied with the results. I can’t tell you how very much I appreci- ate this magnificent reception this morning, It is grand. I will remember it all my life. Thank you very much, REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT CRESTON, IOWA Thank you very much. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to stand around in the rain like this for a chance to get a look at and to hear your President. It certainly is a compliment to me, and I appreciate it more than I can tell you. You know, this city is almost due north of Independence, Mo. They are in the same kind of bluegrass country down there that you are here. You people are fortunate in having some of the best growing soil in the whole Middle West. I have been glad to see that you know how to take care of that soil and that you know the importance of the farm problems with which we are faced to- day. Two of the biggest problems in many parts of the country are electric power and an adequate water supply. I was glad to get a report a few days ago from the Department of Agriculture that shows that you are well .on the way to solving your electric and water problems. This report—I have got it right here; I have to keep it chained down to keep it from blow- ing away—tells how the Rural Electrification Administration has joined with the city and the State of Iowa in a project to build a new dam and reservoir. They ought to bring tre- mendous benefits to this good city of Creston. They will mean more power, a better water supply, and a better life for this entire area. You know, there are all sorts of places in the United States that are having water and power troubles. I appointed a Commission here not long ago to look into the whole situation from Maine to California and from the State of Washington to Florida. I think that is the way in which the REA is working, together with Creston and the State of Iowa, in this project. It is a sample of the way in which we are joining in cooperative effort all over the country. Some people tell you that the Federal Government in Washington is trying to take over everything. That kind of talk is just plain nonsense. It is Just not true. We are all partners together. We believe that we can solve our problems by the kind of city, State, and Federal cooperation which is helping you build this new dam and reser~ voir in Creston. If we could get the same kind of coopera- tion with all the rest of the world that we have here, the problem of guaranteeing world peace would be a simple one. This cooperative spirit is the very founda- tion. of the Fair Deal program, By broaden- ing the opportunities for a good education, health, social security, and a high standard of living, we are helping each other and, at the same time, keeping the United States strong and prosperous. You don’t know how glad I am for the opportunity to stop here and how much I appreciate your willingness to stand around in the rain to listen to what I have to say. It is a compliment to me, and it is a com- pliment to you, because you are interested in public affairs. Iam here to report to you, to tell you what the problems are with which this great Nation is faced, and to give you some idea of how I am trying to solve them as your public servant. Again I want to thank you very much. I have had a most cordial welcome all the way across the great State of Iowa. I don’t think I ever had @ happier birthday than this one. Thank you very much, REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT Paciric JUNCTION, Iowa Thank you very much. You know, I have had a grand trip through Iowa today. In some places the weather has not been all that you would expect for a meeting of this sort, but the people turned out just the same, and that is a compliment, a high com- pliment, when people come out in inclement weather, although I understand you wanted the rain, anyway, so maybe you wanted the rain and not the President—I don’t know. I have been through some great country this morning. It is fine to see Iowa looking sO prosperous. I remember very clearly what conditions were like in Iowa just about 20 years ago. We were just as badly off down in Missouri. Corn was selling at 30 cents a bushel, and the farmer was scraping the bot- tom of the barrel. Farm mortgages were be- ing foreclosed. I can remember it very dis- tinctly. I remember one Iowa judge almost got hanged for foreclosing a farm up here. Just think of the difference today, not a single bank failure in a year, here in the State of Iowa or anywhere else in the United States. That is because we have had a won- derful prosperity all over the country in the past few years. Business has been booming. Factories have been working at peak peace- time rates. The farm income has been high, too. Of course, it has not been as high as it was during the war, and it fell a good deal last year, because we do not yet have the right kind of farm legislation on the books. One reason why no banks have been fail- ing these days is because people now have complete confidence In them. They know that their deposits are protected by the Fed~ eral Deposit Insurance Corporation. We take the FDIC for granted today. But, when President Roosevelt first pro-~ posed it back in 1933, a lot of reactionaries set up a terrible howl. One prominent Gov~ ernor said—and he was a neighbor of yours: “The guarantee of bank deposits will com- pletely destroy the entire banking system of the Nation.” Think of that—think of that! Well, the prediction was nonsense. So were all the other predictions against the other great progressive measures of the thir- ties and forties. And so are all of the pre- dictions about doom and disaster which some people are trotting out today. The same old scare words about improve- ments in housing, farm legislation, and so~ cial security, are being used over and over again by the people who don’t want us to continue growing and becoming stronger. I don't think you are going to be fooled by those scare words any more than when peo- ple told you 20 years ago that guaranteeing bank deposits would ruin the country. It takes a lot of hard work on the part of the Government in Washington, working right along with all the people of the coun~ try, to keep us growing and prosperous. Iam making this trip so that I can find out just exactly how things are going, and what it is you want your Government to do. I want to keep us on the road to prosperity, and I want you to understand what I stand for, and why I send down the messages I APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD have been sending down to the Congress in the interests of all the people, the farm- ers, the businessmen, and the workers. I think it is proper, and I think it is right that the President, who is your hired man, should come out once in a while and let you get a look at him and listen to what he has to say, and find out if he is the same fellow who was out hunting for votes 2 years ago. I have enjoyed today very much. You know, it is quite a day for me. I am 66 years old today. I know you will say I don’t look it, but I am. It has been great. The pecple of Iowa have shown me a wonderful, wonderful wel- come, and I am going over into Nebraska now, and I am going to Lincoln and make a specific speech on what I believe is proper for the farm program of the United States of America, and I am going to make it per- fectly clear and simple so you can under- stand it. Nobody will have a chance to garble it up, because I am going to talk to you over the radio, and you are going to hear just exactly what I have to say, and nobody will have to interpret it but yourselves. That is the reason I am out on this trip. I want you to understand the facts as they are. You don’t very often get a chance to do that, because people don’t have the oppor- tunity to read all the records of the Con- gress, you don’t have a chance to read the messages which I send down, you don’t have a chance to read the debates. What you read is something that is skimmed off the top, that will maybe make a headline, and some- times it doesn’t mean a thing. I do thank you most sincerely for your cordiality to me today in the great State of Iowa, and I want you to understand that I am the servant of the people. I am still working for you. I am trying to do just exactly what I told you I would do in 1948, and I hope I Kaven’t changed a bit. Thank you very much, The President’s Speech at Galesburg, Ill. EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ADOLPH J. SABATH OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 1950, President Truman made a speech in the city of Galesburg and in my State of Illinois. Although he stopped there at an early morning hour, he was re- ceived by a gathering of eager men and women, greater than ever before wit- nessed by that city. His speech was of course received with great enthusiasm and acclaim. Of course, this indicates and I am con- fident that the American people approve of his utterances and policies. Reports indicate that President Truman has been similarly received in every town, hamlet, village, and city that he stopped at. On May 15, our beloved President will be in my own city, the great city of Chicago, where arrangements have been made for him to make a major speech. I know that he will be received by the greatest crowd ever to assemble in the Chicago Stadium, and same will be over- filled with some 250,000 admirers. He will speak on Monday evening, May 15, 1950, from Chicago.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I am indeed happy to insert the text of President Truman’s speech made at Galesburg, Ill, to be read by all. More- so, I am pleased at the privilege given me personally, to see and hear the Presi- dent in Chicago next week, The address follows: Mr, Chairman, it certainly is good to see all of you. I appreciate your coming out this early in the morning to see me. I am more than happy to be back in Illinois once more, They tell me that Knox College in Galesburg is famous for some very great people. I have been told that Carl Sand- burg and Hugene Field were alumni of Knox College. My wife had a great uncle who was a graduate of that college and one of our great Circuit Judges in Jackson County, Mo. I am also told that Adlai Stevenson ame from this town, and that reminds me of something—my first “sashay” into politics was 1n 1882 and I wore a white cap to school, and across the top of it it said Cleveland and Stevenson. That was Adlai’s grand- father, that Stevenson. Well, some big Re- publican boys took my cap away from me and tore it up, and the Republican boys have been trying to do that to me ever since. I am starting out on this trip which will take me almost to the Pacific coast. I am mak ng the trip so I can give a report to the Americ.~ v-c~"c¢ on some of the major problems «,°.%.: %...3 country faces today. I wanted to come out here to find out what you think about them, and to let you know what I am thinking about. There is nothing mysterious about it. I am not running for office. I am merely making a report to the citizens of the United States on what has happened since you honored me by making me President of the United States, and I have a perfect right to do that, and that is my privilege and my duty. Our democracy is strong because we have always had this kind of free and open ex- change of ideas between our citizens and their elected officials. One of the great Lin- coln-Douglas debates was held right here in Galesburg. Democracy was strengthened in those days by the Lincoln-Douglas debates on the great problems which confronted the country at that time. We can make our country stronger today by the same kind of discus- sion. I like discussion. I like discussion of the issues, and I like to confine the discussion to the issues, not the side issues and foolish- ness. Today, May 8, is the fifth anniversary of VE-day. Instead of having the Kind of world we hoped we would get after the war, we find that the kind of freedom and de- mocracy we enjoy here in the United States is being threatened all over the world. It is being threatened by Soviet communism, which is trying to wipe out democratic countries everywhere. The kind of decisions you and I make in the next few months and years will deter- mine what kind of a world we are going to live in, and whether or not there will be a third world war. We face a clear-cut choice between two courses of action. We can either isolate our- selves from the rest of the world, or we can take constructive steps to build lasting world peace. And that is Just exactly what I am trying to do. Now, isolationism would be a cheap policy to follow. It would be easy and cheap to stop spending money on our Army and Navy and Air Force, and to stop sending supplies to other countries who survived the great war. We can stop these things today. Isolation- ism would be mighty cheap for today and tomorrow, and maybe next week. You re« member how cheap isolationism was in the 1920’s. Taxes were cut, at least for the big fellows, but look at the terrible price we have paid for isolationism in the Second World ar. Today, exactly the same issue faces us. There are still some men who keep telling you that we can economize by following an iso- lationist policy. These men can’t see be- yond the ends of their noses. They don’t see that isolationism would let the rest of the world be swallowed up by communism. That would certainly bring on a new world war, just as it did mm 1839. We reneged in 1921, just as Russia today is doing it with the help of our own isolationists. I don’t think I need tell you that another world war would not be fought and carried on on foreign soil, as the last two have been. The terrible weapons now available could be used to tear up our cities by the roots. Some people get hysterical in the face of problems like these. I believe that we should meet this challenge calmly. We should do everything in our power to support the United Nations and to help the free nations abroad who are putting up such a good fight against communism. And we ourselves must stay strong. I have often said, “Our goal must be not peace in our time, but peace for all time.” We can have peace, but it takes hard work, and it will cost a great deal of money. We are now spending 71 percent of our budget to pay the cost of past wars, and to prevent a future war. It would be easy enough— it would be easy enough to cut the expenses of our Armed Forces and to cut off heip to European countries that are trying to sur- vive communism. That would be easy enough to do, and we would have a balanced budget. But in the long run we would pay the fiddler. This is the financial load which is causing a deficit, trying to prevent a third world war. But I want to say to you from my heart that this cost is nothing compared to the cost of losing the peace. In 1945 the budget of the United States was $103,000,000,000. When Japan folded up in September, I cut off $65,000,000,000 of that budget and canceled the contracts so that money would not have to be spent. I have been asking the country to expend over a 4-year period about $20,000,000,000 to pre« vent another world war. Now, which is cheaper, $20,000,000,000 over 4 years, of $100,- 000,000,000 a year to fight another war? I don’t think I need to argue that question with you. I am not afraid of losing the peace, be- cause I believe that the people of Illinois and others like you all over the country understand the situation in the world today. I think you know that international cooper- ation is the key to world peace. We had ex- perience with not cooperating in 1920 and it brought on another war. We must cooperate to end another war. I think you know that we will never have to worry about the strength of the United States as long as we keep moving forward with measures to provide prosperity and a better life for our fellow citizens. A fair deal for more people in agriculture and in industry and in housing, health and education, will strengthen this country and make the road to world peace less difficult. I can’t tell you how pleasant it has been to be with you this morning. I had no idea that there were 10 acres of people in Gales- burg. This is, you know, the fifth anni- versary of VE~day. Also, incidentally, it makes the sixty-sixth anniversary of the President of the United States. I appreciate this delegation. It makes this a very happy birthday for me. Thank you very much. A3529 The Farmers’ Interest in the Kerr Gas Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT S. KERR OF OKLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 11 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KERR. Myr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a statement prepared by me concerning the farmers’ interest in the Kerr gas bill. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR KERR ON THE FARM- ERS’ INTEREST IN THE F"ERR GAs BILL A pick-up truck comes to a stop in front of a local bank; a farmer swings from the driver’s seat and makes-his way inside to the cashier’s window. Without fanfare but with deep satisfaction, this Oklahoma farmer lays out a fresh, crisp check from oil and gas royalties or lease bonus. He adds to his bal- ance, starts a nest egg, or pays off his note, guaranteeing his family a better future and a greater security. This is a typical experience. In the past half century, thanks to the production of oil and gas, thousands of Oklahoma farms have literally been saved from the auction- eer’s hammer and countless farm families have been given a new lease on life. A steady stream of cash—miullions and millions of dollars—has flowed annually into the pockets of Oklahoma farmers. This welcome income from royalties and leases often has meant the difference he- tween real comfort and bare existence, be< tweon solvency and debt. The farmers call it easy money, and they certainly know whereof they speak. It involves none of the hardships of digging a living from the soil. It is not subject to the hazards of flood or drought or storm, green bugs, or boll weevils. No wonder every Oklahoma farmer lives in the hope that some day he may strike it rich below the surface of his land and open a finer way of life for himself and his family. But there is bad news from Washington for the farmers of Oklahoma. President Tru- man’s veto of the Kerr gas bill may upset this whole picture and puncture many a landowner’s dream for quick prosperity. The purpose of the Kerr bill is really sim- ple, and so desirable as to carry the unani- mous indorsement of the Oklahoma legis- lature. It was sponsored and urged by Sen~ ators THomas and Kerr, in accordance with a special resolution by the State legislature. Despite the misrepresentations of its ene- mies, the Kerr gas bill does not involve one jota of change. The Kerr bill seeks only to continue a system which has been both fair and satisfactory to landowners, producers, and consumers, throughout the long history of the industry. The Kerr bill does seek to stop the new and revolutionary threat by the Federal Power Commission to fix oil and gas prices at the production level, and there- by freeze the field developments which have brought big money to the farmers of Okla- homa. If the FPC is successful in tagging the well- head with an OPA nonprofit price tag, this would knock the props out from under the oil and gas industry and freeze the flow of gas to northern consumers. It would be the worst blow ever delivered at this multi- million-dollar income so vital to Oxlahoma farmers.
A3530 How well do I know what a windfall a little cil and gas money can mean to an Oklahoma farm famuy. When I was a small boy in Oklahoma, I remember the day that Bill Skelly paid my father $500 for an oil and gas lease on our farm home near Ada. That was one of the imnertant economic events in my father’s :.cec I. v:s a matter often discussed not only by my parents but all of the children. In fact, what we and other nearby owners received was the talk of the neighborhood. We got our precious lease money, but the drill never went down into our land. The field played out before reaching us. Skelly bought the lease because he thought our land migh* prsccicc ta3. However, if the FPC had trer re-ii -: the price of gas at that time, as it now threatens to do, Skelly would not have paid my father $5.00 for the chance to drill. There would have been no incentive to hunt for oil or gas. We have been fighting a battle here in Washington so that Oklahoma farmers can continue to have a chance for the dividends which belong to them. Many thousands of farmers already have benefited from their subsurface property rights in the past, and we expect to win this battle so that they may do the same in the future. If the northern consumers could just un- derstand that they have the same interest in a healthy, stable gas industry as the Okla- homa farmer and the producer, then selfish politicians and subversive forces would not be able to exploit the issue and build up false pressure. Lacking any sound case based on facts these enemies of the Kerr gas bill deliberately resorted to the personal abuse of its sponsors and the misrepresentation of its purpose. Through carelessness or ignorance, the press and radio of populous consumer areas picked up and peddled what appeared to them to be popular propaganda, But, ironically, in the name of the consumer they only added to his present confusion and his future insecurity. We intend to keep telling the true story to the consumer, and we think time will drive it home. There are currently nearly 60,000 produc- ing oil and gas wells in Oklahoma. This means the jackpot for between 600,000 and 800,000 acres of Oklahoma land. Okla- homa farmers and other royalty owners share in this tremendous income to the tune of $50,000,000 annually. The Kerr gas bill seeks to preserve that income for the future. Oklahoma farmers get another big chunk of cash each year in lease money. They enjoy a substantial income before the der- ricks march across their fields. Twelve mil- lion acres of Oklahoma land are now under lease for oil and gas. Oklahoma farmers collect more than $12,000,000 each year in annual rentals from these leased lands which are not yet producing even a drop of oil or sO much as a cubic inch of gas. They receive at least another $8,000,000 each year in the form of bonus money for renewals of the leases. Now, let me tell you what this Federal bureau in Washington seeks to do to this Oklahoma industry and the farmers who share in it. (The McAlester News Capital calls it “the Federal Pizen Commission”). The FPC wants to force the producer to sell his ‘gas at what it costs him to produce Jt, plus 6 percent. For all the dry holes, the bureau wants the producer just to go in the hole himself. He is supposed to profit only 6 percent from the wells that hit. But, the Commission does not allow the producer anything for the value of the gas, under the established formula for regulation. This would mean that the FPC could fix the price at 1 cent per 1,000 cubic feet, or 2 cents per 1,000 cubir feet, if it was found that the operator could drill the well and produce it for that price. This, of course, would completely destroy the value of the farmer’s royalty and the operator would receive only the amount required to drill the well. Naturally, under such an artificial arrangement, the imdorendent producer wouldn’t be intereste. 1. ov. °° any wells. No business man just goes around asking for bankruptcy. And what happens to the farmer’s inter~ ests? Trclevaticn fcr rew gas fields would dwindle. end produciio: would drop. His chance to secure bonus money for oil and gas leases would lessen, because the pre- mium on his mineral rights would be de- stroyed. His opportunity to collect annual rental on existing leases would all but dis- appear. His chance for new royalty checks would be mighty slim. Yes, the Oklahoma farmer is in for a big shock when the FPC starts to move in on the oil and gas in- dustry, and I think only Congress or the Supreme Court can stop them. They have served notice that they aim to move in to regulate the price of gas. Every schoolboy knows that if they regulate gas today they will get the oil tomorrow. What the gas producer wants is simply the continued right to sell his product in free, open competition at whatever price it will bring. And, not even the hardest critics of the bill ever have dared to say that gas prices are out of line. They simply raised a bugaboo about what might happen to prices in the dim future. Gas producers simply want the same free- dom, for example, enjoyed by the citrus growers of Florida, the farm machinery man- ufacturers in Senator Doucias’ home State of Iilmois, the shoe manufacturers in Sena- tor DonwnELL’s St. Louis, and the dairy people in Wisconsin. But, the populous industrial States, for some reason, think that the big “price-fix” should hit nobody cnrwhere ex- cept the gas producers of Gkialiema avd the Southwest. Of course, the same che ™:07S of price fixing for gas producers *°*".< 2c stricken with horror if the same “price-fix” was clamped on the finished products which Oklahoma must buy. They would “holler” at the very idea of a Federal bureau regu- lating the price of cars, farm imnlements, refrigerators, radios, and other maniac -1red goods sold by the industrial North and East to Oklahomans. I still agree with Aunt Eller in the show Oklahoma when she said: “We don’t claim to be no better than anybody else, but we dern sure are just as good.” The fallacy of this great effort to discrimi- nate against Oklahomans is obvious. The time will come when misguided consumers realize the shortsightedness of their cries of alarm, By imposing this price-fix penalty on the farmers and operators of Oklahoma, the FPC would fail utterly to profit the northern and eastern consumers, whom they say they want to benefit. This price-fix would mean that Oklaho- mans could not afford to sell their gas in interstate commerce because they would get nothing for it if they did. They would be forced to keep their gas inside the State and sell what they could in Oklahoma for Okla- homa consumption. This would mean less gas at higher cost to eastern consumers, It would mean that the interstate pipeline companies would handle less volume at less profit. The result would be that everybody from the farmer who Jeases his land and the operator who drills the well, to the consumer who burns the gas, would lose and nobody would profit. . Of course, the FPC will move very slowly in putting the shackles of price regulation on Oklahoma operators and farm landowners. They will slip up on our blind side if we let them. But we must not be deceived. Unless stopped by the Supreme Court or con- gressional legislation, exactly like the Kerr bill, this is as sure to come as death and taxes, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Is It Not a Fact That Secretary of State Acheson Contemplates Increasing the Level of German Steel Production From 11,100,000 Tons to 16,060,060 Tons? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ADOLPH J. SABATH OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, on Janu- ary 26, 1949, soon after ke became Sec- retary of State, Mr. Acheson assured the American public that the United States is not planning to increase Ruhr steel nvesuction herend the 10,700,000 tons @ \¢a- ebiaor.zoed by this country, France and Great Britain. It is also a policy of the United States Government to prevent the iron curtain countries frdm receiving badly needed strategic materials. The conference of foreign ministers is meeting today in London to discuss Germany’s integration into western Eu- rope economically, politically, and stra- tegically. The Germans have stated they would be glad to cooperate with us in the integration of Western Germany on the condition that they be given greater sovereignty in foreign affairs and that they be granted the right to increase the level of industry from 11,100,000 tons (which includes 400,000 tons of steel pro- duced in the French zone) to 16,000,000 tons. The facts are that the Germans have been selling 18 to 20 percent of their products exported abroad to the areas now behind the iron curtain, and fur- thermore, they have been and are ship- ping approximately 1,000 tons of steel daily to Russia. If the German steel production is increased to 16,000,000 tons, the only market available for Germany will be Soviet Russia, Mr. Speaker, is not Mr. Acheson going far afield in contravention of his former pledges and commitments on behalf of the United States Government? Such unauthorized activity should not be per- mitted. . Implications of the Hiss Case EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. STYLES BRIDGES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 11 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an article entitled “Hiss Case Said To Have Aroused Irate Demand for Full Spy Story,” written by Mark Sullivan and published in the New York Herald Tribune of May , 1950,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Hiss Case Sap To Have AROUSED IRaTE Dz- MAND For Fut Spy Story—Marx SULLIVAN Sars Pusuic Cry ror TrutH Stirs TurmMor THaT Is HARMING FoREIGN PoLicy (By Mark Sullivan) An emotion widespread among our people is described by Mr. James Rorty in the New Leader. He is writing a review of a book about the Alger Hiss case called Seeds of Treason and is dealing with American con~=' ditions and events during a period of more than 15 years preceding and including the revelations brought out in the trial of Hiss, Concluding, Mr. Rorty says, “Instinctively the masses of the people have grasped the truth. * * * Fear and rage are burning at the American grass roots.” While these words are strong, it can be said with com- plete restraint that America is beset by anger and anxiety. The people have grasped the truth, but only the central truth, and the grasping of that has led to demand for further and com- plete light. The Hiss case was of only limited scope; it covered the accusation that Hiss had delivered copies of secret Govern- ment documents to a courier for a Russian Communist spy ring, and Hiss was convicted of perjury for having denied that accusa- tion, From what was only alluded to in the Hiss case, it was apparent that there was more; that there must have been what Mr. Rorty calls “the mountainous molehills thrown up by the Communist underground that had infiltrated * * * Government departments.” RAISES TRYING QUESTIONS The public demand for more light, for complete light, is at the bottom of what now rages at Washington. It raises trying ques- tions. Part of it is the demand by a com- mittee of Congress that the President turn over to it for inspection files assembled as the result of previous investigations of Gov- ernment employees by Government agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion. This demand was at first strongly re- sisted by President Truman, but has now been in part yielded to. This raised a question of fairness and justice to Government employees who had been exonerated by the preceding investiga- tions. It raised a question of public interest, brought up by FBI head, J. Edgar Hoover. He feared, with obvious good reason, that in- spection of the files might lead to leaks, which would handicap the work of the Bu- reau by revealing the names of sources of information which the Bureau had used. Ordinarily the plea of Mr. Hoover for keep- ing the files secret would weigh strongly with the public. Ordinarily also the early resist- ance of President Truman to the demand for the files by a Congressional committee would receive public support. Secrecy of docu- ments in the executive department has been a tradition generally respected since the Presidency of George Washington. But the present case is bedeviled by recollection of a past attitude of Mr. Truman. More than 2 years ago when a committee of Con- gress was making an early investigation into the Hiss case, Mr. Truman jeered at the in- vestigation as a “red herring.” And there is a longer recollection, Throughout some 18 years, following the cre- ation of a committee of Congress to investi- gate un-American activities under the chair- manship of Representative Dies, the picture has been one of Congress giving hearty sup- port to such investigation, with jeering at it from the school of thought that created much of the atmosphere of Washington dur- ing the Roosevelt and Truman administra- tions. What is now going on is a climax of that long controversy, precipitated by the Hiss case, UNITED STATES SOLIDARITY QUESTIONED The pending investigations, and proposals of more, work tragic harm to the conduct of our foreign relations. They present to for= eign governments a question of whether or how completely the Truman administration has the confidence of the people and of Con- gress. Domestically, they create difficulty for Republicans who recognize the imperative necessity of bipartisan support of the ad- ministration’s foreign policy. Beneath all is the public disquiet which causes the investigations and to which the investigations respond. In the present phase the investigations tend to focus on our policy about China during the years in which that country was overcome by Communist Rus- sia. So great a tragedy as the fall of China is not likely to be permitted by the people to pass without investigation. Indeed there will be investigation by historians for gen~ erations to come. Address by Mrs. Oveta Culp Hobby at Annual Journalism Banquet, University of Missouri EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LYNDON B. JOHNSON OF TEXAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 11 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi- dent, Texans have long been proud of the outstanding leadership of Mrs. Oveta Culp Hobby. During wartime, Mrs. Hobby served her country and the cause of freedom well as director of the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps. In peacetime she has served with even greater benefits her chosen profession of journalism as executive vice presi- dent of the Houston Post. Well-deserved recognition of Mrs. Hobby’s effective crusade for responsible journalism came last week when the University of Missouri honored her for distinguished service to newspapering. At the time the award was presented to her, Mrs. Hobby presented an address outlining her philosophy of newspaper service and responsibility. Her remarks are inspiring to laymen; they should also be challenging to jour- nalists of the Nation. I ask unanimous consent to include her remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the ° RECORD, as follows: Considering the world as a whole—if I may use a phrase which has in it more of hope than reality—the profession of journalism and the existence of free, courageous news~« papers have seldom been in a worse position. In a large segment of the world, free journal- ism has been destroyed by dictatorships; a free press still exists in our own country, put even here there are certain elements of weakness. The first is that we take freedom too much for granted. In the days of Peter Zenger, th words “freedom of the press’ were an -oriflamme and a battle cry; today, to many A3531 people, they are merely a cliche in oratory, the slogan of a fight won long ago, the dusty echo of an old battle. But, as we are learning painfully, the fight for freedom is never won permanently. Free~ dom can be destroyed suddenly, by fiat; but it can also be nibbled away while its de- fenders are engaged on some other battle front. It can be lost in translation or dis- torted in application. Freedom of speech, of religion, of associa- tion, and of the press are basic to the Amer- ican way of life. THREAT IS HERE Freedom of speech and of association are now being threatened, as anyone who reads the news must realize. Freedom of religion is not yet in crucial danger, but the rising tide of Ku Klux Klanism in some Southern States, and the bitter social ostracism and divisions into social cliques based on re- ligious differences found in many northern and eastern seaboard cities, prove that there are forces within the United States which could threaten freedom of religion were they ever to gain even a local control. Freedom of the press therefore becomes doubly important, for without it no other freedoms can long exist. This is not just a high-sounding generalization; it is some- thing that anyone in this audience may need to remember in a very personal way. Sup-~ pose, for example, that one of you Missouri students is arrested for reckless driving, and your home-town paper prints the fact. Your family may find it hard to understand that the publication of the incident, though em- pbarrassing to you and them, is really proof that you have a God-given protection against something much worse than embarrassment. For so long as no young men can be arrested without a newspaper knowing it and pub- lishing it, that young man cannot vanish without recourse into a dictator’s prisons. When the newspapers of Nazi Germany could no longer publicize the arrest and disappear~ ance of private citizens, the people they served were no longer either safe or free. But freedom of the press is not merely a privilege given to newspaper editors and pub- lishers for their special enjoyment. It is rather a sword of trust with the obligations as well as the privileges of usage, And this brings me to what I feel is the second element of weakness in our press freedom today. We do not use that sword often enough. Too often we remain silent in the face of obvious injustice, when we ought-to be crying aloud— or at least questioning. Take, for example, the case of Doctor Con- don. A respected scientist and a public serv- ant, he was labeled one of the weakest links in our atomic security in a report released to the press by J. Parnell Thomas, then chair- man of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Though Doctor Condon repeat- edly demanded the right to a public hearing and official denial, he was not granted this right. The American Press should have de- manded the right for him, and continued relentlessly to demand it until it was granted, But worse, some of us gave, by column count, three and four times the amount of space to the charges than we later gave to the state- ment relating to his innocence. There was a time when every citizen was adjudged innocent of a crime until legally proved guilty in court. This was a precedent we inherited from English Common Law, Now almost suddenly, in mid-twentieth century, this long-established protection of the ordinary citizen against possible injus- tice is being nullified. When sensational charges are made by anyone—not by a grand jury, not by a district attorney, but some= times by vacant-minded hysterical, or politi- cally malicious people—the .charges are broadcast from coast to coast. And the pubs lic instinct often is to accept charges as proof.
A35382 In the case of accusations such as those against Doctor Cencon, it is the duty of the press to demand evidence. If the evidence is lacking, it is the further duty of the press to male the accused person’s vindication as widely known as was the charge against him. Sometimes the fatlure of hewsneners to do thisisan vr wil ae. re cher trhicte Gehere ie, one. A peper miy De Loner Dle ci ire tent, but lack alertness in editing. For ex- gry ‘cusation is made by the House ~ oo :.° * Activities Committee in time for all morning editions. But the denial mey reach the wire services only in time for a late evening edition—thereby corer- ing perhaps one-fifth of the readershin of- fered the accusation story. Unkss £2 un- usually fair-minded and alert news editor is on the desk, it is even unlikely that the late-edition denial will be picked up and carried in the first four editions next day. Papers may also be unjust in more subtle ways—by the words they include or omit in what seems to be a factual story. Some always identify the race of a man in a mur- der story—‘Matthew White, Negro, confessed to the slaying of two white men”—but never mention race if the story is one of honorable portent: “Lawrence Keenon, long time pro- fessor at Industrial High School, has been awarded the Carver medal for outstanding service to the cause of science.” This kind of hidden editorializing may sound unimportant. But as in the case of the watcr torture, the steady, incessant drip of a word many times has a stronger effect than a cataract. PROFESSION All cf the ~cfnts about journalistic free- dom, ‘c.,.11°", "" :* and weakness which I have discussed so far are already well known to you through your studies. But I have diagramed them again in order to under- line the point that journalism is a profes- sion of many facets, many techniques, many greatnesses, and many potential evils. I used the word “profession” naturally, but I should like to do it again deliberately. For journalism is a profession—regardiess of those who try to make it simply a skill, a matter of man-hours and. the ability to type. Newspapers—with all the world—have changed and are changing continuously. The old-time reporter of the five-star-final days would not feel at home with today’s best~ known journalists, though you may still see him in an occasional moving picture. There he still sits, hat on the back of his head, cigarette dangling from cynical lips, rattling away with two fingers, turning out sensational scoops. If you would like a nostalgic review of that period read Paris Herald, by Al Laney. Laugh affectionately at those good old days— but don’t expect to find any remnant of them left on today’s metropolitan news- paper. The major newspaper stories of that era were accounts of bank robberies, kidnapings, homicides. Such stories are still played daily—but they no longer are considered the top presentation the paper has to offer, The newspaperman who had never gone be= yond high school could cover any of these as well—perhaps better—than the intellec- tual and highly literate product of today’s schools of journalism. But a world war—and the thought-pro- voking, soul-stretching years of this peace which is no peace—have given newspapers greater depth and a broader perspective. Today’s stories of the new medical center, the city-hall probe, the murder trial, are be~ ing written with a new clarity and vigor. And with new brevity. And newspapers in Bay City, Tex.; Anniston, Ala.; St. Joseph, Mo., are carrying more international news than. did many metropolitan papers back in the 1920’s, Journalism is maturing. The emphasis has shifted from scoop to scope. ¢ Such schools as this one have played their important part in the growth of our profes- sion. By turning out graduates trained in political science, philosophy, music, and art— as well as in the art of pyramiding a story— the colleges of Journalism have taught news-~ paper editors to lift their standards in hiring new cubs. Since the present and future of journalism are yours as well as ours, let us consider our future: First, in terms of style and perform- ance; and, second, in terms of thought and idea. Murders, court trials, explosions, mine dis- asters, and the small, heart-touching human- interest stcries—all these, of course, must still be covered. They are day-to-day living. But now they are handled more intelligently than formerly, wrstten in better prose, freer of the hackneyed sentimentalities of the sob sister and her time. Less and less are we Using the “it was alleged” and “a spokesman said” type of re- porting. More and more the newspaper man or woman is expected to be widely read, widely trained, and widely thoughtful. He is also expected to be a writer—a literate writer—able to give a fresh, vivid coverage of facts with the greatest possible clarity and interest. RUNYON VERSUS WEST For a perfect contrast between what yes- terday was called great and what is today our target of achievement, read Damon Run-« yon’s book, Trials and Other Tribulations. Then read Rebecca West’s Meaning of Trea- son. Both are newspaper coverage of famous court trials. But what a difference. Runyon was a superb reporter of his time. His fast-paced copy—spiked by an occasional tear-jerking paragraph—was the envy of newsmen everywhere. But when you reread those famous stories of his you find that his style is already dated. He was writing jour- nalese, not English prose. Today journal- ism and literature can be synonymous—or should be. Rebecca West, in her accounts of the trea- son. trials in England at the close of World War II, has lifted journalism into the realm of great prose. The editors of Harper’s have called her “the world’s best reporter.” Of course, not every story you write can be a great one. As cubs, you will find your- ‘selves coping with what seems a heartless load of routine—unless you learn to see and appreciate the humanity behind it. The church page and the PTA beat seem tame to someone with ambitions to be an Anne O’Hare McCormick or a Walter Lippmann, But the reporter who learns to cover the people behind the simple announcements, to grasp the idea behind the work they are do~ ing, will find this training exceedingly val- uable when he becomes, perhaps, a political interpreter or a Washington correspondent. People are still people, and their desires, motives, and reactions are much the same, even though they may have moved from Main Street to Constitution Avenue. The newspaper writer must not only be well informed, but continually alert to be- come even better informed. However stimu-~ lating or inhibiting an editor may be, the responsibility for professional growth rests primarily with the reporter himself. He must continue to learn every day of his life—or expect to be left behind by those who have gone on learning. Fortunately, many outside influences are now coming in to help the individual news- paperman grow. The Neiman fellowships to Harvard, and the Reid Foundation fellow-~ ships for study abroad are sending many men back to their newspapers with broadened concepts and vastly increased stores of in- formation. The American Press Institute—another fine undertaking—offers seminars—10 days to 2 weeks each—on every specialized aspect APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in newspaper production. There is a seminar for managing editors, another for city edie tors, others for picture editors, sports edi- tors, composing-room heads, municipal af- fairs reporters, music and drama critics, and s0 on. It is continuous, drawing into New York from over the Nation a selected group of men, 1 from each of 25 to 27 sov~r--- s over the country. While in New 7. :- > visitors see large metropolitan papers, talk to atomic scientists at Columbia, attend United Nations meetings, and do whatever else interests them and the API can arrange. Now, with these new skills of ours, how much are we advancing in the realm of thought and ideas? In common with that of the minister and the scientist, the responsibility of the Jour~- palist to the public is far heavier than that of the average man. Tacitus once said that in time of revolution the greatest difficulty for an honorable man was not so much to do his duty as to know it. We have clarified our style, we have trimmed the flowers and flour- ishes from our prose; but each day it becomes harder to clarify our thinking. The press in all its expressions is the eyes and ears of the world. The lawyer, the cook, the college student, the mayor of a@ small town—none can go to Germany to trace the progress of postwar democracy, none can stay at United Nations to watch the develop- ments and achievements. They know only what they read in the papers, in news maga- zines, or what they hear in brief comments on the radio. TELL ALL—TELL TRUE This means that the press has a great re- sponsibility to tell all and tell it true. You will find that is not always easy. How many of us here have informed our- selves on the facts of today’s world events? And how many of us have analyzed our opin- ions to find the degrce to which they have let prejudice color facts? The newspaper writer who is uninformed or prejudiced is, in part at least, responsible for the misinfor- mation and prejudice of thousands of other people—sometimes of millions. It all boils down to this: Every newspaper writer, however obscure or however famous, is first of all a public servant. The news- paperman who forgets this has betrayed his profession as surely as the doctor who misses his chance to help a patient. Second to serving the public, the journal- ist must serve his own profession. Service to a profession means doing all within one’s ability to lift the profession to new heights of speed, accuracy, truth, and good taste. Cheap sensationalism may draw readers for the moment, but the highest type of jour- nalism helps to develop an increasingly high type of readers for all time. Of recent years, there has been a tendency in many fields of expression to try to find out what the public wants and then give it to them at all costs. This is always a precarious move, since none of us singly or collectively know what we want when we have never yet seen the best possible. It is significant that, in moving pictures, the slavery to the s0o- called box-office appeal has produced neither a large percentage of excellent pictures nor an eager public reaction to pictures as a whole. Newspapers cannot live without circula- -tion. As a consequence, many formulas are devised to obtain and retain circulation. The formulas may begin with the “A” of art and run to the “Z” of zither. The rea~ son for such an infinite variety and some- times questionable taste is elther the editor’s poor taste or a desperate effort to attract readers. Newspapers, in these times of in- creasing production costs, have as their first obligation the duty to live—to continue to exist as voices in the choir of information. But blended with this obligation is the duty to lift steadily the level of public taste,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In law, @ man may not practice until he has passed the State board examinations. In teaching, a professor must have a certain amount of training and must have received certain college degrees. In medicine, the standards, set by law and by the profession itself, are equally exacting. But in the profession of journalism, each journalist must set his own standards. I should like to see us work out a journal- istic form of the Hippocratic oath, such as is taken by all doctors. Or perhaps we could call ours the Socratic oath. Socrates, the man with an inquiring mind, is surely a model to whom journalists could look for inspiration. SOCRATIC OATH Each man or woman who goes to work for @ newspaper might be given a copy of the Socratic oath, which could run something like this: “I will strive to write the truth with com- plete accuracy, with no expression of my own personal bias or opinion, in order to give the facts I transcribe the chance to be judged for themselves alone. “I will work to improve my own knowledge in many fields, in order that I may better understand the facts presented to me, and more clearly transcribe them to the reading public. “I will keep myself aware that my work is a service to my community, my nation, and my world—that I serve all men rather than myself; that man’s right to know, rather than the private furtherance of my own career, is, and must always be, the first goal of my endeavor.” Electrical Cartels in Postwar Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 11 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the ConerEssionaL Rrc- oRD an article from the New York Times of May 10, 1950, discussing a report by a committee of the Swedish Government on electrical cartels in postwar Europe. This report illustrates the heavy price paid by Europe due to the business habits which underlie the great cartels. These habits do not flow from the Socialist gov- ernments of Europe. Indeed, they lead to the development and strengthening of such governments. This fact is but little understood by the American busi- ness community. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: SweEvEN UNcovers ELECTRICAL CaRTEL—-WoRLD CoMBINE ALLOTS MARKETS, FIXES PRICES FOR ‘Wire, CapLe—‘Weirare” Is a DISGUISE GrENEva, May 3.—The first authentic infor-~ mation about postwar cartel agreements in Europe has been published by the Swedish Government after an investigation that oc- cupied nearly 2 years’ time of a 10-man com- mittee. Copies of this committee’s report, entitled “The Capacity and Competitive Position of the Swedish Electrical Industry,” have just reached here. The chairman of the group is XCVI—App.——223 Prof. Ingvar Svennilson. The committee consisted of representatives of industry and labor and experts appointed by the Govern- ment. In meters, cables, and copper and copper wire, all vital components of the entire range of end products of the electrical industry, the investigation revealed the revival of in- ternational cartel arrangements to restrict competition. This happened as early as 1946, when Europe was laboring through a period of great shortage of nearly all electrical products. The report throws more light than a dozen speeches on the real price Europe pays for the system of national protected markets in which combinations to curtail competition are tolerated and, indeed, almost inevitable. The progress of the investigation itself brought to light such unpalatable facts about the control of the industry that some of the agreements—not the international ones— have already been canceled. WELFARE STATE NEW DISGUISE The postwar cartel builders have learned to dress up their agreements to make them look like part of the welfare state. The agreement on copper products (without which the motor and generator factories could not operate) states that “The parties shall try to attain a high and stable level of employment and a satisfactory standard of living for everybody employed in the non-~ ferrous-metals industry and to give every part of the industry unrestricted access on the same conditions to world trade in these products.” These phrases are precisely those used to state the aims of the International Trade Or-~ ganization and appear to have been culled from the. original Atlantic Charter. To this high-sounding agreement belong 8 Belgian companies, 1 French national car- tel grouping 50 companies, an organization of 10 British companies representing 85 per- cent of British nonferrous metals output, 2 British export companies controlling 100 percent of British exports, a group of 3 Swiss companies, and the leading Swedish com- pany. No German companies belonged in 1946, but some may have joined since. The method of giving everybody unre- stricted access to world markets is to divide such markets into two sections—the home market of cartel members and markets that have no members in the group. PRICE CONTROL IS RIGID In the markets of members no other mem~ ber may sell below that member’s price—the member being itself a cartel that sets na~ tional prices or has them set by government machinery, which it usually controls. In other markets no member may sell below an agreed price list kept up-to-date by a perma~ nent secretary. The committee found that agreements on similar lines had existed since before World War II on cables and electric meters. These both had German membership. The evi- dence collected in Sweden indicates that they were originally formed when electrical in- dutries in Sweden were threatened with ruin by persistent German dumping. These agreements have persisted, sometimes purely informally, despite the break-up of the pre« war world cartel agreement covering finished ‘products of the electrical industry. The committee unanimously found that articipation in these arrangements by wedish companies was contrary to the Swedish public interest. The agreements now in force affect com- ponents, not finished products, bought by consumers, and they require a minimum of enforcement or of formal written agreements or records. A3533 Comments by Hon. Kenneth S. Wherry, of Nebraska, on Statements by the President EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KENNETH S. WHERRY OF NEBRASKA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 11 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Rrcorp my radio address of May 9, 1950, commenting on statements made by President Truman during his present western tour. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recor, as follows: Thanks, fellow Americans, This transcription is being made for radio broadcasting from the radio studio of the United States Senate. My duties in Congress, in these fateful times, prevent an extended tour of the country. But, as Republican floor leader of the Senate, it is my responsibility to report on public affairs, from time to time, to the people of Nebraska and the Nation. It is for that reason I avail myself of this oppor- tunity to speak to you by radio. It is vitally important that the people are given the facts if they are to make the right decisions. President Truman is on the rainbow trail again, promising everything to everybody. When he was on a similar campaign in 1948, some of our highly placed Republican leaders assumed that the people were fully informed and that it was unnecessary to refute mis< leading statements made by Mr. Truman. But this time, 1950, it is going to be dif- ferent, and every time the President, in his role as leader of a political party, divided though it is, makes misstatements we shall answer him. We shall go further: expose the dangerous road to ruin down which he is leading the Nation, and submit our constructive pro- gram for getting the United States onto the road to solid prosperity, and to fulfill our obligations in the troubled world. As we Americans cross the threshold, into the crucial congressional and State elec- tions of 1950, may I implore you, all patri- otic Americans, to weigh carefully the evi- dence, for freedom is everybody’s business. As a nation, we are today in great danger of losing our liberties; our freedom of choice. Our republican form of government has accomplished more for our country, in its short span, than all other systems of gov- ernment combined have produced for their people over 2,000 years. But, if our country is to survive as a Tepublic, there must be a Nation-wide re- vival of the spirit of °76. Fellow-Americans, from the firing line in “Washington, I tell you it is Just that serious. Our national economy is resting on arti- ficial props, huge Government spending, ‘goods produced in this country to arm and support half the world, and shots in the arm, from time to time, such as the $3,000,000,000 in refunds to veterans on their insurance policies, overcharges against veterans be- cause of faulty actuarial tables prepared by the administration at Washington. TRUMAN IS CONFUSED President Truman recently sought to be- little the rise of communism within the
A3534 United States, when every observing citi- zen in the land knows that Communists, and their fellow-travelers, are boring into every segment of our population, a larger percentege than that which took over the Government of Russia. Eefore President Truman started on his present political tour, he told the country that the international situation is better today than it was in 1946. At the same time, through the national defense establishment, he was asking, and still is asking for a $350,000,000 increase in appropriations for national defense. General Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited the Communists’ con- quest of China, the fall of Hainan, the crisis in Formosa, armed conflict in Indo-China, the shooting down of an unarmed American plane by Soviet fighters, Yugoslavia’s de- mands that western powers withdraw from Trieste, cur break in diplomatic relations with Bulgaria, and friction in Hungary. “Frankly,” General Bradley said, ‘it gives us little cause for comfort, and little excuse for delay.” Then, President Truman on his present vote-iuring tour of the west, performed one of his all-too-familiar zig-zags, and is re- ported to have told one of his whistle-stop audiences, that the next few months may determine whether there is to be a war. Fellow-Americans, we are worried enough about the cold war, without having the President confuse the situation. But is it any wonder that the President is confused on domestic and foreign matters, when he harbors in the offices of government 50 many pro-Communists, and other alien- minded radicals, who do not have faith in our republican way of life, and concoct a steady stream of proposals for spendthrift socialism? Since entering the White House, Presi- dent Truman apparently has forgotten, or just brushed aside, the ingredients for a strong agriculture and a strong United States—spiritually, economically, and finan- elally. NEBRASKA REJECTS SOCIALISM We Nebraskans hope that during his Journey across our beloved State, he ab- sorbed some of the sound thinking that has made Nebraska a great State; sound think- ing that is incompatible with his specious proposals. In Nebraska, he found a frugal people pioneering to greater heights, a State that has no bonded debt, no general sales tax, and no State income tax. Like other States, Nebraska welcomed the President of the United States, although we reject his program for strait-jacket socialism, with an all-powerful government at Washing- ton. His program does not square with the faith of the people in the dignity of the individual and his inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, The President, in his campaigning across the country, partly at the expense of the tax- payers, professes wholehearted support of liberty and freedom. But his official acts speak louder than his words. The President has presented officially to the Congress proposals for Government con« trol of industry, agriculture, and labor; con- trol of prices, wages, and materials. He wants to socialize medicine, have Gov-= ernment “snoopers” invade the confidential relationship between doctor and patient. And, on the eve of his departure from Washington, despite all of the protests against socialism, the President sent to the Congress a special message to establish a beachhead for Government control of small and independent business firms, all in the name of freedom and liberty. BRANNAN PLAN IS MONSTROSITY At Galesburg, Ill, the President fittingly recalled the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and then moved on to Lincoln, Nebr., named after the Great Emancipator, where he advocated the stupid Brannan farm plan, which car- ries fines and jail sentences for farmers who refuse to goose-step upon command of Washington bureaucrats. Under the Brannan plan, which the Presi- dent now unblushingly champions, pro- ducers of perishable commodities would be- come wards of Government. The Govern- ment would manage their farms, and tell them what to plant and how much, with an eye to price-wrecking surpluses. The Government, dependent upon the will of Congress for appropriations from year to year, theoretically would give to each pro- ducer a production payment. Now, the preduction payment is nothing more or less than wages, wages to make up for the farmer the difference between the market price for his commodities, and what the Secretary of Agriculture may in his wis- dom decide is a fair income for doing the work. And, all taxpayers, including the farmers, would pick up the check. Of all the fantastic proposals, the Brannan plan takes first prize. Obviously, the Presi- dent is trying to please CIO bosses and Americans for Democratic Action, with dirt- cheap prices for food and win the farmers’ votes with a pap-knows-best proposal that they stand in line with tin cups in their hands, Problems that confront the farmers are national problems, for unless the farmers are prosperous there can be no national pros- perity. Even leaders of the President’s own party in Congress have spurned the Brannan plan, pecause it is an economic monstrosity. While the President is out peddling the Brannan plan in political speeches, responsi- ple leaders of both major parties in Congress, including a former Democratic Secretary of Agriculture, are trying to work out a states- manlike approach to the farm problem. We need a farm program that will give the farmers a fair return for their products at the market places, A sound farm price-support program, aided by full crop utilization, and by devel- opment of new markets at home and abroad, is more in keeping with the American tradi- tion than the give-away proposals of the Brannan plan, which can result only in the total destruction of the normal markets for the farmers’ produce. TARIFF CUTS ARE RUINOUS By his tariff and other international pol- icies the President is digging the grave of ruin for American agriculture, labor, and in- dustry. He is pursuing the unsound theory that by abolishing tariff protections for American industry, labor, and agriculture, the United States will maintain prosperity. The truth is, his tariff-slashing policy is leading the United States down to the world level of low prices, low wages, low standards of living, and jobless millions, Against American products foreign coun- tries now have their highest barriers in his- tory. Of course, even though their produc-~ tivity is on the average 20 percent above pre- war level, they continue to ask for more and more gifts from the producers and taxpayers of America. In the United States, tariff barriers are at the lowest level in all history, with an average rate of duty of 5.7 percent and 60 percent of all imports coming in free of duty. In the first 2 months of 1949, we exported agricultural products valued at $172,000,000 more than we imported. In the first 2 months of 1950, we imported $116,000,000 worth of agricultural products more than we exported, and the Truman administration js now preparing for another tariff-cutting spree next fall, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD If the present trend continues, the excess of imports of agricultural products over ex- ports will reach $1,000,000,000 by the end of 1950, and millions of men and women will find their jobs have heen exported. At Casper, Wyo., the President dug up the Teapot Dome scandal of 30 years ago. He failed to say that it was a Republican Presi- dent who brought that case to justice with convictions for the guilty. This is strange talk from a President who tried to suppress the Alger Hiss case with claims it was a “red herring”; strange talk from a President, whose lieutenants in the Senate sidetracked a resolution to have a thorough investigation of interstate gamblers and racketeers, such as the old-time Pender-~ gast gang of Kansas City; strange talk trom a President who refuses to cooperate whole- heartedly in ridding the Government of pro- Comunists out to destroy our country, SPENDTHRIFT SOCIALISM Is COSTLY President Truman is telling the people at the whistle stops that it is too bad the cost of Government is so high, but rast wars and the cold war are chiefly to blame. Listen to the official figures. They come from the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. Senator Jonnw MCCLELLAN, a Democrat, is chairman of the committee. Now, the truth is, the report shows that $6,000,000,000 of the nine billion increase in the cost of Govern- ment in the last 2 years, is due to domestic civilian spending—not national defense or aid to foreign countries. Senator McCLELLAN’s committee says, in Senate Document 150, that 15 new programs and expanded governmental services officially recommended by President Truman to Con- gress, would cost $7,000,000,000 the first year and twenty-five billion annually within 5 years. And, the truth is, under President Tru- man’s leadership, we are losing the cold war with Russia, and heading for strait-jacket socialism and national bankruptcy. This time, next November, we Republicans are going to see to it that the people have a clear-cut choice between candidates who believe in Truman spendthrift socialism, and our candidates, who support the American way by which America became great and strong, for only such an America can stand against communism like the Rock of Ages. The President’s Western Tour EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. STYLES BRIDGES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 11 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial from the Concord Daily Monitor of Fri- day, May 5, entitled, “The ‘Non-Political’ Tour” on which the President recently entrained at the taxpayers’ expense. I assume, of course, that he will refrain from discussing directly or indirectly any subject relating to politics. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THe Nonrorirican Tour The last time the President took to the stump he was trying to save his own po- litical life, for he was the principal candidate.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD This time, as he departs on a 9-day, 16-State tour he is not a candidate, at least not in this year’s elections. What he is attempting is to preserve Democratic majorities in bota branches of Congress. A politician can speak best for himself. That is, not even a President in an off-year election can deliver support which he might have if he were a candidate to other candi- dates. He may help create a partisan atmos- phere, but the individual candidates for the United States Senate and the House of Rep- resentatives are pretty much on their own in each of the States. The President might have intervened in the Florida contest for the senatorial nomi- nation, but SMaTHErs would undoubtedly have defeated Peprrr anyway. In the same way, where the fight is not within the party, the voters of each State will tend to resent presidential influence. They did when Pres- ident Roosevelt attempted to do some purg= ing within the Democratic Party. They will again. Even in advance of his speaking trip the President has been on the defensive. He has at the last minute reversed himself in the matter of congressional access to State De- partment loyalty files. He asked Messrs. Cooper and Dulles to become State Depart- ment advisers. He has issued statement after statement trying to discredit the general charge that left wingers have not been kept out of the administration. These actions are not the same as those with which he campaigned when running for reelection. Then he gave Congress hell. It happened to be a Republican-controlled Congress. But now the Congress is controlled by his own party, yet it has not managed to repeal the Taft-Hartley law nor has it bal- anced the budget. Otherwise it has done almost nothing, except raise the President’s salary. It wasn’t so much the effectualness of the Truman tour of 2 years ago which won for him as it was the ineffectualness of the Re- publican opponent, Governer Dewey, who was a@ little too much “me-too” on socialism, and far too gentle in his approach to the issues. Today Truman effectualness is at an all-time low, as measured by popular re- sponse. Popular sentiment has changed. The Communist investigation and the vari- ous convictions—the Communist leaders, Hiss, Coplon, Bridges, etc-—have made the people more conservative. The President will have some explaining to do on the stump. If he avoids trying to explain some things his omissions will speak louder than his words. The people want to know more about the Reds in Gov- ernment, the gamblers in big-city political machines, the surging operating deficit of the Federal establishment. They want tax relief. They want an end to the folly of billions of dollars thrown away on unneces- sary surpluses, and the continuing high cost of too many products. The President can’t blame the Republi- cans for all his troubles and get away with it, though he will try. He and his party are the majority in the Government, and with that power goes responsibility. Even the war scare grows less and less, for the ad~ ministration has cried wolf so long the people no longer heed the cry as they once did. The President is the President. People will turn out to see and hear him. They should, even though the pretense that he is making a nonpolitical tour is so thin it fools nobody. The respect Americans have for the office of President has to be tempered with critical analysis of the man who may hold the office. If often hasn’t been but in this spring of 1950 it will be more than for a@ long time. Not even the political cleverness of the President can much longer overcome his lack of adeptness at being the Nation’s Chief Executive. The office glamorizes any man, for a period of time, but in the end the men who occupy the office get found out for what they are. The finding-out process will fomnue during the current presidential our. Double Standard in Administration Harasses Private Parties EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ANDREW J. BIEMILLER OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, it has been stated that Reorganization Plan No. 12 is a back-door effort to amend the Taft-Hartley Act. That is utter non- sense. Reorganization Plan No. 12 is no more and no less than an effort to correct an experiment in administration that failed—failed dismally. It is the very type of structural debacle in Gov- ernment that the Reorganization Act is best adapted and aimed to remedy. Here we have only one thing: the question of the proper and efficient or- ganization of an administrative agency of the Government. The particular agency involved happens to have the task of enforcing the national policy on matters of a dynamic character. But the question is still the same: the proper structure of an administrative agency. Should this question be considered as a side issue in the heat of debate? Or should it be considered away from the vigorous contests over high policy? It seems to me the latter is the only choice of a rational man desirous of reaching @ Wise and reasoned solution. And cer- tainly it it most appropriate that this should be done under the provisions of the Reorganization Act. That was the very intent of that act. The matter we have before us today might be called the experiment of the governmental agency with two steering- wheels. The experiment, you will re- call, began 3 years ago when the Hightieth Congress set up the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board as a completely independent officer—inde- pendent of the Board and independent of the entire executive branch of the Government. He was given final au- thority over the investigation of charges of unfair labor practices, the issuance of complaints based upon such charges, and the prosecution of the complaints. He was authorized, also, to supervise all at- - torneys employed by the Board except trial examiners and the legal assistants of the Board members themselves. He also was given supervision over the offi- cers and employees in the regional offices of the agency. These powers, which never before had been exercised in the administrative agencies of our Govern- ment by anything less than a board of three or more commissioners, were all concentrated in a single man—with no provision for review except when he A3535 acted affirmatively. As the present gen- eral counsel himself has said, he was vested with powers that are broad and absolute and his authority final to an cutstanding degree seldom accorded a single officer in a peacetime agency. The Board, however, enlarged from three to five members in order to expe- dite decisions. The Board members could make its decisions, however, only after the general counsel had decided to give them something to decide. And the Board members could get their decisions enforced only through the office of the general counsel. This experiment in dual control was launched in the atmosphere of heat and horse trading that seems always to ap- pear whenever the emotion-packed issue of the regulation of labor-management relations comes up. Two years later the Senate specifical- ly rejected the experiment as a failure. One of the two distinguished lawmakers who gave the Taft-Hartley Act its name was at the forefront in urging the re- jection of this experiment. Yes, Sena- tor Tart himself proposed, and the Sen- ate approved, the abolition of the inde- pendent office of the general counsel. In the House, you will recall, the mat- ter became entangled in the contest over the whole labor policy, and, despite @ powerful recommendation by the House committee that the experiment of a two-headed agency be rejected, this lame-duck experiment was permitted to continue solely by inaction. It was pre- served by being lost in the consideration of larger issues of the national labor pol- icy. This is the very same mistake that certain opponents of plan No. 12 are ask-~ ing us to repeat by postponing this mat- ter of efficiency in governmental organ- ization for a time when we may again be considering the national labor policy. Now, the President has reported that the experiment is a failure, and by the completely legal and appropriate use of the Reorganization Act has offered the Members of Congress an opportunity to consider the matter solely on its merits— divorced completely from the heat and fireworks of debate over substantive policy. Oddly enough, it was the general coun- sel of the National Labor Relations Board himself who first publicly predicted that the establishment of the Board as a two- headed agency “could lead to fantastic results.” As long ago as September 1947 he told the American Bar Association: There are bare spots in the picture and there are spots where a protracted division of opinion between the Board and the gen- eral counsel could lead to fantastic results. Particularly is this true in matters pertaining to the jurisdictional features of the law. The Board on appeals in representation cases may find jurisdiction and entertain a petition. On the same facts the general counsel may refuse to issue a complaint for what he con- eeives to be lack of jurisdiction. In neither decision will a direct appeal lie. It is an absurd situation but it can happen in the present state of the law. The general counsel deserves a high mark as a prophet in this case. The fantastic. results and the absurd situa- tion he foresaw came to pass very soon,
A3536 They came to pass in spite of the long and earnest efforts of the Board and the general counsel to make the experiment work. So far, just as the general counsel fore- cast, most of the conflict and confusion has centered around the question of the extent to which the agency should assert its constitutional jurisdiction over small businesses. The general counsel, as you know, has taken the position that the agency’s powers should be exercised over any and all enterprises, however small, that have any affect upon interstate commerce. He has sought to exercise jurisdiction over such local businesses as corner grocery stores, neighborhood drug stores, bars, and restaurants. The Board, on the other hand, has declined to take jurisdiction over these small businesses mainly on the ground that they are essentially local and that the Federal Government should not inter- fere. But the general counsel has refused to accept the Board’s decision in the matter. In fact, he has taken the posi- tion that the Board has no power to reject any case that he may present to it. In a case involving four neighborhood drug stores out in Oregon he proceeded to issue a complaint based upon charges of unfair labor practices after the Board had declined jurisdiction over the very same employer in a representation case. In spite of the fact that it was certain the case would be dismissed, this was fully within his authority as indepen- dent general counsel. The same thing has happened in other cases. In short, what we have here is a pic- ture of a Federal office so constructed that it can put private parties and Gov- ernment officials to the expense of pre- paring cases, conducting hearings, and engaging in lawsuits when everyone— including the general counsel—has full knowledge that the entire matter will be dismissed by the Board on appeal. This indeed is a spectacle. Parties being con- fronted by a two-headed agency of the Federal Government which has two dif- ferent policies applicable to the very same case—to the utter confusion and waste of Government and private funds. Whatever may be the ethics of the case from the standpoint of a zealous Gov- ernment official, such a fantastic double standard can result in nothing but con- fusion for private citizens endeavoring to abide by the law. Employer and em- ployee alike are left in a state of com- plete uncertainty. Instead of minimiz- ing industrial strife, such confusion can only multiply it. This chaos can be eliminated only by recognizing that the National Labor Re- lations Board is simply a regulatory com- mission engaged in carrying out a single national policy, whatever that policy may be. Reorganization Plan No. 12 merely makes the National Labor Fela- tions Board exactly like its sister regula- tory commissions—an agency with a sin- gle head. The head will be the five- member Board. That is all there is to the plan, Reorganization Plan No. 12 EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN F. SHELLEY OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Speaker, under the guise of remedying a complaint that the National Labor Relations Board com- bined the functions of grand jury, prose- cutor, judge, and jury, vitally important administrative and policy-making func- tions were taken away from the Board members and concentrated in the hands of a single officer, the general counsel. This transfer of functions was one of the many ill-advised features of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947—the Taft-Hartley law. Let me now call your attention to one incident which is part-of the background of the passage of that law. We all know that in 1947 there was a rash of legisla~ tive proposals for revising the Wagner Act or writing a new labor law. Early in 1947, before the enactment of the Taft-Hartley law, there was pending in the Senate of the United States a bill known as S. 360, introduced by then Senator Ball, of Minnesota. At the in- vitation of another Senator, a distin- guished attorney, with years of familiar experience with labor law, expressed his views in writing concerning the merits and demerits of the Ball bill. One of the proposals in that bill was for the sepa- ration of the functions of the NLRB, and the assignment of the prosecuting func- tions to the Department of Justice. I shall read briefly from the comments made at that time by that lawyer con- cerning this proposal. He said: The provisions for dividing the functions of the Board between the Department of Justice and the present Board savors of the wisdom (?) of Solomon in dividing the child. It simply will not work. The administra- tion of labor relations at the source involves much more than the trial and determination of adjudications. More than 90 percent of the matters which might develop into litiga- tions are disposed of administratively in the regional offices. These dispositions must be coordinated to the same general policy that influences the final determination of the litigated cases. This proposed division would only create additional confusion with policy emanating from two independent and uncoordinated sources. (Senate hearings 1949, p. 1130.) The author of these words is Mr. Robert N. Denham, the present general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Denham was a very ac- curate prophet. His words have been borne out. They have been proved. The separation of functions, with broad investigative, prosecutory, administra- tive, and policy making functions in the independent office of the general coun- Sel, “simply will not work.” It has not worked. Two and a half years of con- scientious effort on the part of the Board members and the general counsel to work together smoothly and coopera- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tively, as a team, has demonstrated this beyond any possible question, Mr. Denham also warned, in 1947 that is, that the administration of Labor Relations at the source involves much more than the trial and determination of adjudications. Of course this is true. It is true because the essence of the ad- ministrative agency approach to regula- tion in the public interest is flexibility. Flexibility in marking out and laying down policy within the framework of the regulating statute. That is why it involves much more than merely prose- cution and adjudication. The adminis- tration of the National labor policy un- der the Taft-Hartley Act involves in- numerable policy determinations. It involves determinations as to when to proceed and when not to proceed to com- plaint and injunction; it involves deter- minations as to whether the public policy will be better served by inviting compro- mise or by insisting on rigorous prosecu- tion; it involves determination of where to draw the line between industries that ought to be brought into conformance with Federal policy and industries whose total impact on the national economy is too small to warrant Federal inter- ference. All this and more is involved. All this is policy determination and un- der the present setup much of this policy determination is in the hands of the general counsel; some of it is in the hands of the five-member Board; and as to some of it, the two agencies are in irrec- oncilable conflict and nobody knows where it is. Mr. Denham also observed, in 1947, that “more than 90 percent of the mat- ters which might develop into litigations are disposed of administratively in the regional offices,” and that these dispo- sitions “must be coordinated to the same general policy that influences the final determination of the litigated cases.” In other words, the work of the fleld staffs should be consistent with and gov- erned by the policy of the agency that makes the final decisions in litigated cases—that is, of course, the Board itself. The experience under the present sepa- ration of functions justifies Mr. Den- ham’s early fears. The field and legal staffs of the agency are required to serve two masters, who frequently disagree. It is impossible for them to know which master to follow. Mr. Denham stated—still in 1947— that the proposed division ‘‘would only create additional confusion, with policy emanating from two independent and uncoordinated sources.” The confusion foreseen by Mr. Den- ham with respect to the transfer of Board functions to the Department of Justice it has been his misfortune to experience with respect to the -transfer of those functions to himself as general counsel. Despite Mr. Denham’s warning in 1947, the Taft-Hartley law provided for a divi- sion of the functions of the NLRB—with the general counsel as its alter ego. That officer now enjoys all the power of a grand jury—sole, unreviewable dis- cretion as to whether a complaint should
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD issue; all the power of a prosecutor— unsupervised power to prosecute cases and to apply for injunctions; and heavy administrative responsibilities, including supervision of the field and legal staffs of the agency. The separation of powers has not only placed a disproportionate amount of au- thority in one individual but it has sub- jected the entire agency to demoralizing friction and conflict, resulting in dual and confused policy making, inefficiency, and uncertainty in the minds of parties to Board proceedings. The hearings before congressional committees last year, as well as this year in connection with Reorganization Plan No. 12, have conclusively demonstrated that the public interest and a decent re- gard for good management require an immediate end to this monstrous organi- zational freak. Let me briefly repeat some of the outstanding reasons why the costly experiment in dual administra- tion should be terminated: First. The advantages of group respon- sibility are lost by assigning tremendous authority to a single individual. I quote from the task force report of the Hoover Commission: A distinctive attribute of Commission ac- tion is that it requires concurrence by a majority of members of equal standing after full discussion and deliberation. * * * A single official can consult his staff but does not have to convince others to make his views or conclusions prevail. The member of the Commission must expose his opin- ions and judgments to the critical scrutiny in his fellow members and must persuade them to his point of view. * * * De- liberation has certainly reduced the likeli- hood of capricious decision, and promoted objectivity (task force report, p. 21). Inevitably a five-man Board is a bet- ter guaranty of fair treatment than any one man can possibly be. Second. The general counsel, under this act, combines the function of prose- cution with that of rule making, which properly belongs to the five-member Board. As was pointed out in the task force report— Only in part are his present duties genu- inely prosecution. Some parts are adminis- trative, and some parts are a species of rule or policy making. It may be that the ad- ministrative and policy-making functions could be subordinated more clearly to the Board’s control while still maintaining an adequate separation of the truly prosecuting activities (Senate hearings, p. 6). Third. Dual policy making by the gen- eral counsel may result in the substitu- tion of district court judgment for the Board’s judgment in injunction cases. The statute empowers the general coun- sel to seek court injunctions. If he seeks and obtains an injunction, the result will be that a district court will have passed upon the legal theory of his complaint be- fore the Board has had an opportunity to say whether or not the complaint spells out an unfair labor practice. Where the Board itself seeks an injunction there is no similer danger that the entire pro- ceeding will ultimately prove abortive be- cause the Board rejects the theory un- derlying the prosecution. Fourth, The general counsel has super- vision over the field staff although that staff performs work which may be wholly under the control of the five-member Board. This tends to separate and iso- late the staff from the Board which is responsible for a large part of its per- formance. Fifth. As a result of the separation of functions as spelled out in this act, the general counsel’s authority impinges even on election cases which are supposed to be exclusively under the Board’s control. His failure to issue a complaint may ren- der a Board certification meaningless; his decision whether or not to issue a complaint may determine the outcome of an election held during a strike. Sixth. The dispute which has arisen between the Board and the general coun- sel over the power of the Board to refuse to take cases involving small employers has entailed endless confusion. Senator Tart made this the principal basis of his recommendation last June for the aboli- tion of the separate office of general counsel. Seventh. The general counsel occupies both the position of a litigant before the Board and the position of the Board’s at- torney when the Board seeks to enforce its orders in the Courts of Appeals. Sev- eral times the general counsel has asked the Board to relieve his staff of the re- sponsibility of enforcing Board decisions with which he disagreed. In one case he has threatened to file a brief in court dis- agreeing with the Board’s position. Yet, under the statute, all the agency’s law- yers are under the supervision of the gen- eral counsel. Eighth. The testimony and statistics introduced in evidence before the Senate Committee show that the present dual structure results in more litigation than formerly. A great proportion of all cases of the agency are, always, disposed of informally in the field. But the propor- tion of such cases that now have to go to formal hearing has risen. This is true not only of cases involving new kinds of unfair labor practices created by the present law, but even of cases involving unfair labor practices which were the same under the old law. This can only mean that the general counsel and the regional staffs are unable to carry Board policy to the parties at the initial stages of disputes, so as to keep down the num- ber of cases that have to go to formal. stages. Ninth. No necessity whatever has been shown for this unusual type of bifurca- tion. The needs of due process and fair- ness are adequately taken care of by the Administrative Procedure Act, which ap- plies to all administrative agencies and which provides for an efficient, yet fair internal separation of functions. ‘The NLRB was in full compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act ever since it became law. In fact some of the APA provisions are said to have been modeled on NLRB procedures. No reason has ever been shown why the NLRB should be saddled with a frustrating and in- efficient organization, in contrast with all other similar agencies. A3537 Tenth. The separation of functions now in effect at the NLRB is unique and threatens the organizational integrity of all administrative agencies in the execu- tive branch of the Government. As was cogently stated in the task force report: The existence of such an office independent both of the Federal department structure and of the Board marks a departure from previous administrative practice. If per- mitted to set a pattern for future Govern- ment organization it may lead to a diffusion of responsibility. (Senate hearings, p. 6.) It is time to return to a rational organ- izational structure, with clear lines of authority. The present split-personality of the Labor Board is wasteful and in- efficient. The Board can amply safe- guard public and private rights through an internal structure which isolates the purely prosecuting function from that of adjudication. All other regulatory com- missions in the executive branch of the Government do this successfully. No reason exists for an exception here. Re- organizetion Plan No. 12 should be adopted. This House should place itself emphatically upon record as favoring restoration of the Labor Board’s func- tions and abolition of the separate office - of general counsel through a vote of strong disapproval of House Resolution 516. United Jewish Appeal EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. STYLES BRIDGES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, May 11 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL REc- orp an editorial entitled, “United Jewish Appeal,” which appeared in the New Hampshire Morning Union of May 9, 1950. This editorial presents a real understanding of the problems in Israel which the United Jewish Appeal is or- ganized to help solve. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Reconp, as follows: , UNITED JewisH APPEAL The state of Israel owes much indeed to the generous understanding here in America of the new decomcracy’s problems. Israel itself is prompt to acknowledge that obligation with heartfelt thanks. Miracles have been performed. But the age of the need of more miracles has not passed. Great tasks have been performed. Greater tasks remain essential. It is in that realization that the Man- chester Jewish community, other Jewish communities throughout this State, and in the Nation, are now emphasizing the tre- mendous reasons for giving, with the same fervor and generosity marked in the past, to the 1950 United Jewish Appeal. Last evening here in Manchester marked the ini- tial gifts dinner. Now comes the campaign itself,
A3538 As in former years, again now! The local quota will be used not only in behalf of performing more miracles in Israel, but also for United States countrywide and local requirements. As an example of home bene- fits, advantage will occur to the Manchester Jewish Community Center. In Israel, the contribution of American Jews and their Christian friends will com- plete immigration tasks, will further reha- bilitation requirements, and will make new construction possible. Eighty thousand new immigrants in Is- rael are still living in tents. One hundred new settlements must be established. Five hundred thousand Jews in various parts of Burope require help if they are to live. Twenty-five thousand Jews are awaiting a new life in America. Hence—for these good causes and many more—the 1960 United Jewish Appeal, This is not alone the problem of the Jews—or for the Jews. It also is the prob- lem of all humanity, a truth recognized in the cooperation that the appeal is receiv- ing from leaders of other lands. Governor Adams, for example, is proud to act as a member of the National Christian Commit- tee associated with the appeal. In Man- chester, John P. Carleton has been glad to give of his energies and time. So it is throughout the country, among Jews and all other peoples of God, in the recognition that the moral and material assistance given during the appeal is an investment in the ideals of peace and free- dom. Directors of the appeal are stating the case in all essential detail. The verdict now rests with the people. Again they will make it possible for more miracles to be performed. By their good deeds Americans all will continue to be known, esteemed, and beloved. Is Not Secretary of State Acheson Exceed- ing His Authority and Presently Acting Contrary to His Former Assurances and Policies? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ADOLPH J. SABATH oF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the reports in various newspapers, and in particular, the May 10, 1950, edi- torial in the Chicago Sun-Times, about the actions of our Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson, are not going to form the basis for a change in our basic foreign policy. For instance, Mr. Speaker, within a few hours after he arrived by air in Paris yesterday, reports indicate that he quickly agreed with French Foreign Minister Schuman on aid to Indochina. Secretary of State Acheson and Minister Schuman specifically agreed to send Indochina military as well as economic aid—most of it being military aid. All of this assistance will go to Viet Nam, an independent state in the French Union, which is presently being torn by real con flict on the part of a revolutionary named Ho Chi Minh. The latter has fought for 40 years against French rule in Indo- china, and set up a strong nationalist movement shortly after World War II under an agreement with the French. In the latter part of 1949, France in- stalled a new government under the leadership of a former Annamite emperor whose family ruled in Indochina for four centuries. The above editorial suggests that the American people wonder by what au- thority does Mr. Acheson send military aid to Viet Nam? Is Veit Nam really threatened by Communists from outside or is Ho merely trying to give his country- men an independent government? Are we helping France hang on to a colonial possession against the will of the ma- jority of the inhabitants? In that connection permit me to quote excerpts from an editorial appearing in the Chicago Sun-Times on May 10, 1950, entitled “United States Tanks and Planes to Viet Nam,” wherein Mr. Acheson said: Neither national independence nor demo- cratic evolution can exist in an area domi- nated by Soviet imperialism. The editorial went on to point out: Nor as Mr. Acheson knows, can democratic evolution exist in an area dominated by European imperialism. While France con- trolled Indochina, it did nothing to solve problems of land distribution, illiteracy, poverty, and the like. The Communists make bright promises along these same lines to attract support. Let us consider what Mr. Ho actually stands for, keeping in mind that he has been a revolutionary leader fighting for 40 years against French rule in Indo- china, and I quote further from the above editorial: “The people must be given the means to rebuild, to eat, to live. If we cannot provide this for them they must fall into the misery on which com- munism thrives.” Are these the words of a Communist? The editorial further states: In addition to tanks, planes, and guns, Viet Nam needs other aid, including food. It also needs convincing arguments that France is really on the square when it says it wants the inhabitants eventually to run its own affairs. Mr. Speaker, if France wants Indo- china to run its own affairs, why did they agree to placing a former Annamite Emperor into the position of leadership? The editorial concludes with a gem of a statement, to wit: Our aim should be to stop not only Rus- sian imperialism but any imperialism that Sue peoples the right to govern them- selves. Food Prices and Politics EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. T. MILLET HAND - OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. HAND. Mr. Speaker, there re- cently appeared in the Cape May Coun- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ty Gazette a sensible editorial entitled “Politics Versus People,” which I feel is worthy of wide circulation. The edito- rial is appended: Pouirics VERSUS PEOPLE “A sensible, honest, radically new agricul- tural act * * * that will gradually ease the price-control falsework from under the farm economy” is urged in an-.article in the April Reader’s Digest, condensed from For- tune. Declaring that the Government's price structure would collapse if supports were suddenly removed, the article holds that this program is forcing farmers to produce wild- ly in excess of any reasonable American ca- pacity to consume. It is responsible for most of the $11,800,000,000 deficit in the last fiscal year. After 17 years the price-support program is coming full circle to its preposterous con~ clusion as one of our most potent inflationary influences, the article states. The Govern- ment’s recent wholesale destruction and dis- tress sale of surplus potatoes, a price-support- ing move, cost taxpayers $204,000,000. That is a fair illustration of what happens when the Government helps a special group main- tain or increase its share of the national in- come regardless of the group’s contribution to that income. Commodity Credit Credit Corporation has a current investment of nearly $3,000,000,000 in farm commodity loans, purchases, and agreements to purchase. Last year CCC took over 21 percent of the wheat harvest, 26 per~ cent of the cotton crop and enormous stocks of other commodities. Having disposed of minor quantities it 1s left with a $2,500,000,- 000 inventory, including: Nearly 5,000,000 bales of cotton, 600,000,000 pushels of corn, and 400,000,000 bushels of wheat—enough wheat for a loaf of bread a week for everyone in the United States throughout a full year. Millions of pounds of dried eggs, butter, tobacco, wool, soybeans, and other commodities are held by CCC. This immense inventory, the article states, would feed and clothe millions of poor peo- ple, were it not that CCC is forced by statute to price the products so high that poor peo- ple cannot possibly buy them. Present farm policies are certain to in- crease rather than liquidate this inventory. Following a bumper corn crop in 1949, hun-« dreds of millions of bushels of new corn will probably be put under loan. With prices of hogs at 3-year lows, CCC may soon sup- port hog prices by buying pork on a grand scale. Wheat promises another giant har- vest, with further Government loans and purchases indicated. Surplus farm commodities are being stored in oil tanks, hangars, schoolrooms, and even laid-up ships, the article says. At least $80,000,000 is being spent on additional stor= age space this fiscal year. The agricultural planners proposed two solutions: (1) To dump surplus abroad and to cut prices in the open market (against the policy of the State Department); (2) to limit output by curtailing planted acre- age. Despite smaller acreage, output may well be maintained at recent levels by better seed and more fertilizer. And acreage taken out of restricted crops will be shifted to other crops, causing new gluts. The average taxpayer, mystified by the in- tricacies of the farm price-support program, has remained inarticulate. But the time has come, the article concludes, for the poll- ticians to pay attention not only to the farm orea rations but to the rest of the people as well.