APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD way of life but of the right of every people to be secure from external aggression. This singleness of sentiment in our coun- try is reflected in the present bipartisan foreign policy in the Congress. I want to emphasize that this bipartisan policy was not and should not be achieved at the price of surrender of vital principles. But the bi- partisan policy does require some compro~ mise, just as world peace requires a degree of compromise. We should be willing to make proper concessions both at home and abroad where necessary to win or to secure peace with justice. Flexibility is a mark of strength and not of weakness. But the isolationists want compromise neither on the home front nor on the world front Thumbing their noses at the rest of the world, they demand its unconditional surrender. They want no part of this bi- partisan foreign policy. They are as much opposed to the views of Senator VaNDENBERG as they are to the views of Secretary Acheson. They are the true irreconcilables, whose attitude is just as intransigent at one pole as is the attitude of the Communists at the other; as I have just indicated, these two extremes meet more than occasionally. But I have talked enough about the isola- tionists. I haven’t talked at all about our positive role in world affairs or the role which the rest of us must play in order to enable our country to discharge its inevitable responsibility in the present world situation. We must reject, not only passively but actively, the inconsistent philosophy of the isolationists. We must oppose and break the reign of terror which these harbingers of hysteria have succeeded in setting loose in this country. We must support with all our vigor and energy the democratic principles which we advocate in the world today. Civil rights and human rights for all our people here at home and for all the peoples everywhere in the world must constitute our platform in world affairs. We must support the principle of world cooperation for peace with justice, of inti- mate cooperation with all freedom-loving peoples, and of guarded cooperation with all others in the interests of peace and world security, for each as well as for all. We must be ready and willing to surrender some of the extreme aspects of national sovereignty in favor of world peace and order. This is the basic principle of the United Nations. It is the only way to a lasting. peace. Just as State’s rights have had to yield in some respects to national rights, so national rights must also give way, under all necessary safeguards, of course, to world rights. These are concepts even more basic today than national rights. Our banner in world affairs must be human rights. In passing I might mention an interna- tional agreement which is, at this time, under the consideration of the Senate Foreign Re- lations Committee, and which has been at- tacked in some legal quarters as a partial surrender of our sovereignty. I refer to the Genocide Pact. This great and historic document declares it to be an international crime wilfully to destroy groups of individ- uals because of their race, creed, or color, or to inflict conditions leading to the de- struction of such groups. The purpose of the Genocide Pact is to out- law such bestial crimes as the mass murder of the Jews of Germany and of eastern Europe. It would also place beyond the pale of organ- ized and civilized society such destruction of . peoples as is now said to be going on behind the iron curtain in the Ukraine and Poland and the Baltic States. - I hope with all my heart that this Pact will be approved. For the United States to refuse to approve it, merely because it in- XCVI—App.——249 + posals. volves the surrender to an international body of the right to sit in Judgment on such crimes within another country—even within our own country—is a sorry reflection not only upon our democracy but upon our sense of justice. I hope that you and the Demo- cratic Party of the entire Nation, and all like~ minded individuals of all parties, will insist that the Genocide Pact be approved without further delay. I have not tried tonight to give you a com- plete description of what I consider to be our proper role in world affairs. I have merely sketched in a few high lights, some of the more important obligations which we as citizens and as members of the Demo- cratic Party must assume. We are in this undertaking together—asfel- low Democrats, as fellow eitizens, and as fel- low human beings. There are really no party lines, State lines, or national lines across which the perils of this day will not pass. If we would save ourselves from deadly danger—and I believe it is a danger far great- er than that which has ever been faced by the peoples of the world in my time and perhaps in all time—we must accept and seek the help of all men and women of good will, of every part of our country and of every part of the world. Compulsory FEPC Law EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD B. RUSSELL OF GEORGIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed inthe Appendix of the Recorp an editorial en- titled “Senate in Mourning,” from the Washington Star of May 21, 1950, relat- ing to a proposed compulsory FEPC law. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorn, as follows: SENATE IN MOURNING Having never been among those who be- lieve or who profess to believe that a com- pulsory FEPC law would be good legislation, this newspaper is not to be listed among those mourning its defeat in the Senate. The most sincere believer in the merits of FEPC, however, would be hard put to join in the Senate grieving. The FEPC defeat came in the form of fall- ure to adopt a proposal to limit debate on @ motion to call up the FEPC bill. The vote was 52 for and 32 against. Since 64 favor- able votes were needed to invoke cloture, this means that FEPC is dead for this session, Majority Leader Lucas talks bravely of trying again, but the plain fact is that the FEPC advocates have not the necessary votes, and they know it. In the Star's opinion not more than a cor~ poral’s guard of Senators really believe in and want to adopt a compulsory FEPC. No - other issue has been so shot through with partisan politics as this one, and that is something which has to be kept in mind when, in the wake of the vote, the sena- torial pot begins to call the kettle black. The Republicans obviously are trying to make all of the political capital they can out of the administration’s embarrassment. The President has put FEPC at the head of his civil-rights program, although it is by far the most objectionable of those pro- When the test came only 19 Demo- cratic Sonators voted for cloture and 26 A3949 voted against. So it is not surprising, our politics being what they are, that the Repub~ licans should he pounding the partisan drums. Senator Tarr is taking the lead. He points cut, in doleful tones, that the Democrats could muster only 35 percent of their total strength for cloture, that the President did not put pressure on his party members, that Majority Leader Lucas did not bring up FEPC at the beginning of the session, etc. But how is this to be taken? Senator Tarr heretofore has advocated a voluntary FEPC, Does he now favor compulsion? Would he vote for such a bill on a final test? On both counts the true answer probably is no. The Chio Senator, by implication, rebukes the President for not putting pressure on the Democrats. Would he feel the same way if the issue had been repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and the President had refrained from pressuring the Democrats? And why chide Senator Lucas for waiting to bring up FEPC? The votes for cloture would not have been forthcoming at any time, and to have brought FEPC up at the beginning of the session would have delayed and might have Killed other more important legislation. So as the Senate goes into mourning over this matter the people have reasons to frown on the whole performance. It is a perform. ance which, on both sides of the aisle, un- masks politics in its drabbest form. The only Senators who can be said with certainty to have voted according to their convictions are the 6 Republicans and the 26 Democrats who combined to beat the cloture move. “Who Killed Cock Robin?” EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KENNETH S. WHERRY OF NEBRASKA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WHERRY. Who killed Cock Robin? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair does not know. [Laughter.] Mr. WHERRY. The Vice President did exactly what I thought he would do; he said he did not know. So I want to give him the information. I ask unanimous consent to have in- serted in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial from the Wilmington (Del.) Journal-Every Evening for May 20, 1950. The editorial is headed ‘‘Who killed Cock Robin?” and in the opinion of the junior Senator from Nebraska correctly places responsibility for failure of cloture to be applied on the motion to consider the FEPC bill. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: Wo Krep Cock ROBIN? As a result of a test vote in the Senate - yesterday the FEPC hill, heart of the Presi- dent’s civil-rights program, now becomes offi- cially “unfinished business.” That’s a mis- nomer. The correct word is “finished”— meaning that no further attempts can use- fully be made tlis session to translate the measure into law. We can understand the disappointment many persons feel today in consequence of the failure of a Democratic Senate to re- deem one of the main pledges of the Demo- cratic Party’s platform. But the vote yester- day shows well enough where the blame lies.
A3950 Only 19 Democrats supported the motion for cloture, while 26 opposed 1t. On the other side of the Chamber there were 33 Republi- cans in favor and only 6 against. If, therefore, the FEPC bill is dead for this year—as is now generally agreed—it was the Democratic majority which killed it. The record is clear and it will remain there for all to read. In view of this latest development it may well be asked if President Truman is still insisting; as he kept repeating on his non-~ political western tour, that the present Democratic Congress is infinitely better than its Paws ps temtye cd wredcecces. And, by “CALL, 1 te tO te tls ee 8 > now? Grievances of the American Chamber of Commerce of Morecea EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I would like to call the Senate’s attention to page 25 of the House statement regarding treaty compliance, especially that part stating: The committee of conference took note of f reassuring letter of May 5, 1950, from Ad- ministrator Hefman * * * which letter is quoted. Mr. Hoffman is quoted as saying: A similar amendment was carefully con~ sidered by the Foreign Relations Committee which decided that it was not necessary in view of arrangements made with the French Governr'' .)c.2 with this situation by the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and ECA. These arrangements have keen operating since December 31, 1949. Mr. President, I have before me a copy of a letter written on May 12, 1950, by the president of the American Chamber of Commerce of Morecco, a member of the United States Chamber of Commerce, This gentleman says: The entire membership of the American Chamber of Commerce of Morecco was sur- prised to learn that a formal claim had been made to the effect that our grievances had been or were being remedied by official action in Morocco or in Paris. You will recall that similar claims have been made each time Congress became interested in the Moroccan situation to the point of seriously considering legislation that will remedy it. Mr. President, the chamber of com- merce lists 11 grievances which the De- partment of State has been unable to remedy. I am sure that it will convince anyone who reads it that the conference decision unfortunately relied too fully on ECA and State Department state- ments. As a matter of principle, Iam averse to restrictions in appropriation measures which bring about results that are more appropriate in authorization acts. In this case, however, I strongly recom- mend to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee that his committee take cognizance of these two documents and remedy once and for all the rank injustice which they indicate and which the Senate was unfortunately deterred from remedying by action of the conference whose report is before us now. Task that these documents be included in the Rrcorp at the conclusion of these remarks. There being no objection, the excerpt and letter were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From hearings on the Foreign Economic Assistance Act of 1950] Treaty compliance: The Senate version (sec. 106) sought to add to the act (sec. 115) a provision forbidding the expenditure of counterpart funds by any country having a dependent area which fails to comply with treaty obligations to the United States. The Senate version (sec. 107) also sought to add @ provision to the act stating: “The terms of any treaty to which the United States and any “i '‘«iui‘*+ , country are parties shall rema 1 v.i oo? and effect until super- seded by a new treaty ratified by the Senate unless, prior thereto, it expires by its own terms.” The House version contained no such provisions. The conference agreement omits them. The relevant provision of the Senate ver- sion was designed to deal with a situation in Morocco, where a number of Americans have complained of alleged discriminatory acts of local officials against United States nationals engaged in business, This topic was discussed briefly above in connection with the language pertaining to discrimina- tory trade practices. As noted, the lan- guage of the Senate version, strengthened at the instance of the House members of the committee of conference, has been in- eluded in the conference agreement. The committee of conference took note of a@ reassuring letter of May 5, 1950, from Ad- ministrator Hcffman to the Honorable Tom CONNALLY, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, which letter is quoted. (The amendment referred to in the letter is the above-discussed amend- ment in the form prior to the addition of strengthening language in the committee of conference): “An amendment has been proposed to * * * which would prohibit release of counterpart funds to any country so long as there exists a violation of a treaty ke- tween the United States and a dependent area of that country. “This amendment 1s aimed at alleged dis- criminations against American businessmen in Morocco. A similar amendment was care- fully considered by the Foreign Relations Committee, which decided that it was not necessary in view of arrangements made with the French Government to deal with this situation by the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and ECA. These alrangements have been operative since De- cember 31, 1949. They provide a consulta- tive machinery in which American consular representatives can take part in the consid- eration of actions of the local French au- thorities in Morocco with respect to the granting of import and exchange licenses in circumstances where discrimination against American traders in the area is claimed to exist. If such local consultation does not satisfactorily take care of any particular com. plaint, the matter can be raised on a diplo- matic level with the French Foreign Office and this has, in fact, been done when it appeared necessary. ECA is of the opinion that these arrangements should be adequate to protect American citizens against im- proper discriminations, and that a manda~ tory requirement to immobilize the entire counterpart account (which is used for large and important projects connected with the recovery of the entire French union) is a wholly excessive sanction. ‘APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “Furthermore, the * * * amendment * * * gives the Administrator an explicit pasis in granting dollar assistance or in act- ing on proposals to release counterpart, for taking action to see that discriminatory business restrictions against United States citizens are terminated. Under this provi- sion, I would consider myself bound to take suitable action in accordance with the in- tent of this provision in cases where it is established to the satisfaction of the respon sible United States Government authorities that such discriminations are not corrected, Hence the * * “™ amendment gives as- surance that discriminations against Amer- ican businessmen can be dealt with promptly and effectively.” The committee of conference took note also of a Memorandum of May 9, 1950, from the Department of State reviewing the prob-« lem in detail and stating the same conclu- sions as the above-cited letter. In view of the above communications the committee of conference concluded that no provision additional to that added to the act in relation to discriminatory trade practices would be necessary. AMERICAN CZIAMEER OF COMMERCE OF Morocco, Casablanca, May 12, 1950. Mr. Rosert BE. RODEs, Washington, D.C. Drak Bow: The entire membership of the American Chamber of Commerce of Morocco was surprised to learn that a formal claim had been made to the effect that our griev- ances had been or were being remedied by Official action in Morocco or in Paris. You will recall that similar claims have been made each time Congress became interested in the Moroccan situation to the point of se- riously considering legislation that will rem- edy it. There follows a list of current complaints which have not been remedied and which, we are all convinced, will never be remedied until stiff legislation is passed which re- quires Morocco to live up to its treaties: I. Customs are still valued by local authors ities at the port of entry, whereas treaties require their valuation by an international commission on 4 long-term basis. While these valuations are not as flagrantly dis- criminatory as they were when the Depart- ment of State promised to remedy them a year ago, there still is much discrimination and much delay in customs that will not be avoided until treaty provisions are strictly applied. Furthermore, no provision has been made for refunds of any of the over- assessments which were admitted by the Department of State. II. “Consumption taxes” which applied to certain necessities like lubricating oil, sup=< plied principally by the United States, and do not apply to French luxuries like furs and jewelry, still are being collected in spite of the fact that they are in addition to the treaty-fixed 1214 percent customs duty and despite the fact that our members were offi- cially informed in writing by the Consul General that they were in no way required to pay these taxes. Til. Final agreement by the Department of State with the Protectorate was, in my opinion and that of the membership, a com- plete victory for French interests. However, as unfavorable as it is, it is not being applied honestly by Protectorate officials. Americans repeatedly have been refused licenses au- thorized under the agreement, and licenses actually granted have been subjected to de- laying tactics. On the other hand, licenses not permitted by the regulations have been granted to favored persons, IV. One of the most recent cases of License refusals is preventing an American from ob- taining spare parts necessary to operate his bus line. The same American has likewise been delayed for months in obtaining lt- censes for spare parts for the Piper Cub
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD planes for which he is agent. The effect of this will be to cause future purchasers to turn to other makes. V. Reverting to the regulations themselves, they are drawn in a way that is intended to give almost all business to the French syndicates and cartels. Most of the products selected for unrestricted import are those which were controlled largely by French in- terests. The fact that the list includes man- ufactured tobacco products should be ample proof that more concern was shown about profits to favored concerns than to the eco- nomic requirements of the country. As you know, Morocco has ample tobacco manufac- turing facilities for ordinary products. The imported products will be primarily luxuries, and will, of course, profit only the tobacco monopoly, in which the Paris and Nether- lands Bank have a heavy interest. On the other hand, cotton textiles, used clothing, and most other necessities formerly sold by Americans still are under rigid embargo. VI. The agreement absolutely overlooks the fact that independent Americans did one-third of Morocco’s total import business in 1948, when free competition prevailed. We should have been assured an over-all vol- ume that represents the 1948 percentage. I believe that our negotiators tried to make this arrangement, but were rebuffed by the Protectorate government. As it now stands, most of the business that we did with our own dollars has been wiped out by the em- bargo. The influx of official dollars made possible by ECA is diverted to our former competitors. This is done by claiming a “historical basis” of allocations with provi- sions usually of 15 percent of the total to be shared by all “new importers.” French new importers by far outnumber American importers. When one remembers that Mar- shall-plan money has increased imports in some categories to 10 times the prewar figure that determined the historical pattern, it will be easy to see how wealthy and power- ful some of these cartel members are becom- ing, while their former American competi- tors are being driven out of business. VII. There are many other discriminatory provisions in the agreement. For instance, importers of tractors must have repair fa- cilities which the cartel considers adequate. Since the cartel members have large shops which were necessitated by the requirements to keep up old equipment during the war and postwar period, this is merely another way of ruling out our members. Obviously, if a user wishes to buy tractors and keep them up himself, we should be able to com< pete for this business. VIII. One of our members who represents Remington-Rand consistently receives an allocation of official dollars for office equip- ment, which is about one-tenth of that of his French competitor, who represents Underwood. TX. The regulations cite the Compagnie Marocaine des Transports as a priority user of certain products purchased with ECA funds. This company was created by the French administration with the intention of giving it a monopoly on transportation. The United States has repeatedly refused to rec= ognize the legality of the position claimed for it. The recognition in the final agree- ment is the first step toward breaking down our resistance. An example of how this company operates can be seen from the bus situation. Morocco needs additional bus service desperately. Some Americans here have been successful in providing American-type bus service with superior American equipment. They are un- able to expand their services because the au« thorities have arbitrarily decided to limit the number of total passenger capacity allotted to Americans to a few hundred, while the Compagnie Marocaine des Transports, a non- American firm, has an allocated capacity of 17,000 seats, of which only 10,000 are in operation. X. To add to the other difficulties which have been placed in our way, the French Government now is encouraging barter trans- actions which are costly to the whole French economy and which virtually freeze out nor~ mal enterprise. In order to be sure that Americans do not compete in this, the prod= ucts offered in barter are not Moroccan prod-= ucts, but are taken from other colonial loca= tions where Americans have no treaty rights and are not allowed to operate. XI. During the discussions that followed the State Department’s temporary accept- ance of the decree of December 28, 1948, which put a ban on imports without official ex- change, the American members of the so- called mixed commission, required that American citizens be granted the right to import any article they need for their per- sonal use, With assurances that they would not to be resold. The Protectorate Govern-~ ment acquiesced to this clause, which, how- ever, was not honored in practice. As soon as the Protectorate Government obtained the State Department’s extension of the pre- liminary acceptance of the edict, it refused to permit the entry of any article that was not in the list of free imports. AS an example, Americans have been and still are being, refused the importation of a personal car, which invariably is essential for the conduct of their business. Mr. Ed- win Sendro, an American citizen, established in transport business in French Morocco, in returning from the United States brought with him his personal car. He has recently been ordered by the Cherifian customs au-~ thorities to ship the car out and pay a fine of approximately $25. The enclosed let- ter signed by Mr. Sendro is self-explanatory on this subject. Another example of this type: In return- ing from Tangier recently, my personal car broke down in Spanish Morocco. I man- aged to reach Casablanca, where, upon in- quiry, it was discovered that replacement parts for the car were not available either in French Morocco or in Tangier, and that their shipment from the United States would require 2 to 3 months. As president of the American Chamber of Commerce of Mo- rocco, the car was indispensable both for my business as well as for the chamber. A letter to the consulate general (copy en- closed) brought a negative reply from the local customs authorities. Simultaneously, @ request to official Rabat for a car, even on temporary admission until my car was re- paired, met with as little success. In the meantime I was obliged to rent a French- manufactured car that cost me $10 a day. The attitude of the French administration on this matter is most incomprehensible. We, however, can draw our own conclusions, In summarizing, you may be assured that any change in our situation since January 1 has been for the worse, that no special machinery for adjusting claims exists that did not exist before (conferences between consular and residency officials involve the same personnel and lead to the same frus~ trating results even though they are now called deliberations of a mixed commis- sion); that no attempt is being made to obtain reimbursements of the millions of francs that we have paid under protest, with United States official advice to do so; and that nothing is being done to ameliorate our situation. Very truly yours, Gus G. Srratron, President of the American Chamber of Commerce of Morocco, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Washington, D. C., May 17, 1950. Mr. Roserr E. Ropes, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Ropes: This is to inform you that the American Chamber of Commerce of Mo- A3951 rocco, of which Gus G. Stratton is president, is a member in good standing of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Cordially yours, ~ Samuet §S. Ericsson, Assistant Manager, Foreign Com= merce Depariment. Wisconsin Essay Contest on Employing Physically Handicapped Workers EXTENSION OF REMARES oF HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I have prepared a statement on the subject of a@ wonderful institution, so to speak— a Nation-wide essay contest—which has developed in the crusade for employment of physically handicapped Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the state- ment be printed in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT By SENATOR ALEXANDER WILEY ON EMPLOYING PHYSICALLY HanDICAPPED “Hire the handicapped, it’s good business.” This is the title of the 1950 contest spon- sored by the President’s Committee on Na= tional Employ the Physically Handicapped Week, associated with the United States De- partment of Labor. This essay contest is open to students in public and private high schools in the eleventh and twelfth grades throughout the Nation. These original es= says of 1,200 words or less are to my way of thinking a brilliant way of snothchting the attention of the 48 States on this c2hucel subject. As I was happy to do last year, I should like once again to invite the attention of the Senate to the splendid way in which this essay contest has been conducted in my own State of Wisconsin. Our able Governor, the Honorable Oscar Rennebohm, appointed a committee on employment of the physically handicapped. Its secretary is Mr. A. L. Beier. As in 1949, when I commented on this issue in the ConGRESSIONAL Recorp, I feel that this committee has carried through its assignment with exemplary skill. The State prizes and honorable mentions have now been awarded, and I want to ex- press my sincerest congratulations to the Governor’s committee, to the winning youngsters, to their proud parents, to their teachers and principals, who also feel justi< fiable pride. I want too to express my felli- citations to the Wisconsin Association for the Disabled which made available the State cash prizes as well as to the members of President Truman’s committee, the Inter< national Association of Machinists, and the Disabled American Veterans through whose courtesy the national cash prizes were made available. Let me express by congratula- tions, too, to the members of the Governor's committee of the physically handicapped, to the interagency committee, and to the 1950 essay contest judges. These three groups comprise an honor roll of some of Wisconsin’s most outstanding citizens—men of all political faiths, men de-« voted to the great goal of the essay contest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be appended to my statement a
A3952 fact sheet, listing the prize winners, as well as alist of the distinguished panel of leaders who serve in the various capacities I have mentioned, and that there follow this list the 1950 Wisconsin first prize essay by young Miss Betsy Ann Barland, age 16, of Eau Claire, Wis., Senior High School. The matters referred to follows: Pacts on Essay Contest, “Hire rHE HaNpI- CAPPED. . . Ir’s Goop BUSINESS” WISCONSIN STATE PRIZG WINNERS First prize, $50 United States Savings Bond; entrance in national contest: Betsy Ann Barland, age 16, Eau Claire Senior High School, junior class. Parents: Mr. and Mrs. George C. Barland (occupation real estate, Eau Claire). Second prize, $25 cash award. Barbara Alice Murray, age 16, Wauwatosa Senior High School—junior class. Parents: Mr. and Mrs. Ned Murray, (occupation, sales engineer, West Allis). Third prize, $20 cash award. Byron Lee Barrington, age 17, Little Wolf High School, Manawa—senior class. Par- ents: Mr. and Mrs. Harold Barrington, (oc- cupation, instructor in agriculture). Fourth prize, $17.50 cash award: H. James Smith, age 17, McDonell Me- morial High School, Chippewa Falls, senior class. Parents: Mr. and Mrs. Levi E. Smith. Occupation, logger, Chippewa Falls). HONORABLE MENTION Audrey Clemens, Hartford High School, Hartford. Donald S. Clow, Milwaukee. Leon David Hamilton, Appleton Senior High School, Appleton. Kenneth Hintzman—St. Francis Seminary, Milwaukee. Charles Lipscomb, Wauwatosa Senior High School, Wauwatosa. Betty Mayer, Hartford High School, Hart- ford. St. Francis Seminary, CERTIFICATES OF MERIT State prize winners will receive parchment awards signed by the President of the United States. Contestants selected as State prize winners and for honorable mention will re- ceive certificates of merit signed by the Gov= ernor of Wisconsin and the committee chair= man. THE GOVERNOR’S COMMITTEE ON THE EMPLOY= MENT OF THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED Oscar Rennebohm, Governor; Harry Lip- part, chairman. Members: Harry Lippart, chairman, Mad-= ison; C. H. Crownhart, Madison; George Haberman, Milwaukee; John M. Sorenson, Milwaukee; William J. Petersen, Madison; Robert A. Ewens, Milwaukee; William F. Faulkes, Madison; Harry A. Nelson, Mil- waukee; William H. Siemering, Madison; A. D. Kvool, Milwaukee; Ben E. Kuechle, Wau- sau; D. Weston Day, Milwaukee; Arthur F. ‘Trebilcock, Madison; Jack Spore, Milwaukee; Robert W. Hansen, Milwaukee; Max Ninman, Reedsburg; Fred MacMillan, Madison; Milo Swanton, Madison; O. H. Plenzke, Madison; Joseph D. Mackin, Marinette; Mark R. Byers, Wausau; Sid Bliss, Janesville; A. L, Beier, secretary, Madison, INTER-AGENCY COMMITTEE Hobart Bondi, Veterans’ Administration; Joseph Brown, Vocational Rehabilitation; L. T. Burdick, Veterans’ Employment Serv- ice; Max Hays, Wisconsin State Employment Service. ESSAY CONTEST JUDGES, 1950 Hon. Lyall T. Beggs, past national com mander, Veterans of Foreign Wars. Hon, Walter S. Bottsford, secretary, Wisconsin Free Library Commission. Hon. Harry J. Burezyk, commissioner, Industrial Commis- sion of Wisconsin, CASH PRIZE DONOR Wisconsin Association for the Disabled, R. E. Ballietie, president, Tsar Is WHY THE ImraIrEp WorkER Dozs Betrrer Work (By Betsy Barland, Hau Claire (Wis.) Senior ‘ High School; David Barnes, principal; Ethel M. King, English instructor) America cannot be called the land of op- portunity unless it means an opportunity for all people regardless of whether they have a physical disability or not. Each year ap- prceximately 250,000 more men and women are added to the ranks of the handicapped. These Americans have as much right to be independent and self-supporting to their fullest capacities as they have to freedom of speech and freedom of worship. The prob- Jem of finding a job is a very serious one for these people. The American system of in- itiative and free enterprise is not working for them if they fail to find some sort of job with which they can provide for them- selves and their families. Today’s handicapped have the full support of the United States Government. For more than 26 years there have been rehabilitation programs going on in one form or another. Sometimes the progess has been slow, but it has always been going forward. Now today, thanks to several bills passed by the Govern= ment, which provides “an effective job coun- seling—service,” many more of the nation’s handicapped are finding good jobs. The heaviest burden of the disabled is their idle- ness. Through the rehabilitation programs they can have the privilege of going forth each day to their chosen work. That is the greatest gift that free men may enjoy in a democratic society. There are no financial yardsticks to measure the difference be- tween a self-reliant, happy worker carrying his own responsibilities, and a glum, de-~ pressed citizen depending on others for his everyday needs. The difference is more than in dollars and cents. It is in happiness, good citizenship, and social usefulness. Rehabilitation means the “restoring of the handicapped to the fullest physical, mental, vocational, and economic usefulness of which they are capable.” The services provided by this program vary with the individuals who are served; but in each case the particular difficulties and aptitudes of the persons con- cerned are the factors which determine which services are necessary. One person may need an artificial limb, another may need just ad- vice and counsel. While one may need train~ ing for a job, another may need just a change in the type of work he is doing. No job can be considered entirely suitable for a given person until his remaining abilities have been found sufficient for that job. When the handicapped person is properly trained and properly placed, he can work as well as anybody. Production records prove it. It’s not what a man has lost, but what he has left that is important. With proper place- ment, disability disappears as a job factor. The ability to do a thing is much more im- portant than the disability. Before the war, the normal tendency of the employer was to place the impaired worker in clerical or sedentary work. How- ever, times have changed, and the handi- capped are now taking the actual manu- facturing and productive jobs. During the war when there was a scarcity of man- power, an armed America, stimulated with the urgency for maximum production, scraped the bottom of her manpower barrel and uncovered a veritable gold mine. The handicapped were called at last to the pro- duction benches, because there was no one else, In the war years there were three- quarters of a million impaired workers work- ing in war plants. Their performance was praised by the management, and they made a marked contribution toward the winning of the war, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD During these hard-pressed years, the em- ployer found out a great deal about the impaired worker. I’any jobs thought pre~ viously to need two Lands, were found to be done just as well with one hand and a hook. In quite a number of jobs it was found out that the handicapped do better. For in- stance, midgets were found to te very use-~ ful and suitable for working in small spaces. The blind have developed an almost “super-~ sensitive” feeling in their fingers, doing very well in jobs requiring a highly-developed sense of touch. The deaf do very well in large, noisy factories where the noise doesn’t bother them, permitting them to concen- trate much better. There is much less nervous strain on the deaf in these jobs than there is on the normal worker. In having lost the use of his eyes or ears, or having lost a limb, the impaired worker seems to have gained courage, stamina, re- sponsibility, mental alertness, and stronger motivation. Most individuals use less than 10 percent of their physical potentials, Only in emergencies do they call on all of their tremendous reserves. When one organ is injured, nature automatically compen- sates psychologically. The same occurs with the loss of skills and abilities. When greater demands are placed on the differ- ent limbs, they become more sensitive. Fingers become dextrous, arms and shoulder muscles are abnormally powerful. That is why the impaired worker does better work, A national survey was conducted recently by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It was so organized that the difference between the impaired and the unimpaired worker was focused solely on the existence of the im- pairment. He was matched with someone of his own approximate age and work ex- perience. These are the results of the survey: 1. Handicapped workers come to work regularly: 55 percent were absent less fre- quently than the able-bodied. Forty per- cent had the same record, and 5 percent of the impaired had worse records. 2. Handicapped workers stay on the job longer: 82 percent stayed on the job longer. Sixteen percent had records as good as able- bodied workers, and 1 percent had worse records than the unimpaired. : 8. Handicapped workers are equally as efficient or slightly better: 66 percent were equal with the unimpaired. Twenty-four percent were better, and 10 percent of the handicapped were worse. 4, Handicapped workers have better safety records: 56 percent had fewer accidents. Forty-one percent had as good records as the able-bodied, and only 2 percent had worse records than the nonhandicapped. These facts show that the impaired worker should not be set apart from society as a group for whom special privileges must be sought. The evidence of the survey showed that the impaired worker had a slight edge over the unimpaired. This can be explained by the fact that most of the impaired work- ers got their impairments through accidents, causing them to he extra careful so as not to let it happen again. They stay on the job longer because many of them know how it feels to be dependent upon someone. To be dependent upon anyone is the last thing that the handicapped person wants. No forward-thinking company can ignore the employing of the impaired. The em- ployer is the vital factor in the whole rehabil- itation program, but in practice he is often considered by himself and others as an out- sider. A great many large business concerns, such as the Ford Motor Co., the Bulova Watch Co., Western Electric Co., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and many others, employ substantial numbers of men and women with impairments and say that they are just as good as, or even superior to, able-bodied workers.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD With sultable Jobs, handicapped Ameri- cans are an asset to their employers, com- munities, and Nation. ‘Through a survey taken, 1t was shown that there was a major econemic and moral gain in the Nation. If there were no work for the handicapped, he and his family would have to go on relief. This would cost the Nation an average of $1,248 a year for each family. This cost would go on year after year. It costs an average of $260 for rehabilitation and is paid only once. After rehabilitation 50,000 men and women were paying $5,000,000 a year in Federal taxes plus county, State, and local taxes, As can plainly be seen, the total cost of rehabuitation is repaid many times over in increased income tax payments alone. If able to work, the physically impaired are entitled to employment security and the opportunity to help the community and Nation produce needed goods and services. The employer does himself a genuine service py hiring the handicapped, as they ask for jobs not as a matter of charity, but on the pasis of their abilities to deliver the goods, The handicapped are not excluded when the brotherhood of man is spoken about. The Declaration of Independence was de- signed to give justice and freedom to all Americans, not just the nonimpaired work- ers. Show your faith in democracy by hiring the handicapped, because our democracy rests upon the belief in fundamental worth ef every individual. Our Nation would be materially strengthened and our democracy enriched if all citizens capable of perform-~- ing any sort of useful labor were afforded the opportunity of having employment. At a time when Europe and the hungry world need our help, we should indeed utilize the ability of every American willing and able to work. Hiring the physically handicapped is not a risk, it is a sound investment, Proposed FEPC Legislation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD B. RUSSELL OF GEORGIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REcorp an editorial entitled “Proposed FEPC Bill Is Unwise Legislation; It Should Not Pass,” pub- lished in the Deseret News, of Salt Lake City, Utah, May 10, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: PRoroseD FEPC Binz Is UNwist LEGISLATION; Ir SHovup Not Pass Just what political advantage the White House can find in forcing Senate Majority Leader Lucas to bring a Fair Employment Practices Commission bill before the Senate at this time is not clear to the nonpolitical mind. There must be some. Mr. Truman is a shrewd politician. But the only practical effect of this move that the layman can see is that it will stop all Senate consideration of legislation which is immediately and ur- gently important, while the southern fili- busterers talk FEPC to death. . Filibuster is a dangerous weapon because it is plainly tyrannical when used by Sena- tors more deeply pledged to selfish interests than they are to the national good, But it ever its use is justified, it must be in this case. FEPC is morally and socially and humanly wrong. It is wrong because it purposes to use an unconscionable means to force a social change which can come properly only by social evolution. It purposes to use informers, Government spies, and the State police power, to force employers to hire people whom they may not want in their employ. The FEPC issue is as simple as that. The southern filibuster will be widely deplored again as another example of anti-Negro in- transigence; and some of the southern re- sistance to FEPC may be exactly that. But that is an instance of being right for the wrong reason. Given time, prejudice will yield to reason but those who are on the right side now will stay there still. Manda- tory legislation implemented with the ap- paratus usually assigned to the use of a despot’s police is not correct. The measure which has been presented for consideration by the Senate would set up a five-man Federal board, called the Fair Em- ployment Practices Commission; make it il- legal for an employer to refuse to hire a job- seeker because of his color, religion, or race; and give the FEPC—meaning, this Federal agency—power to compel an employer not to discriminate in the selection of the work- ers he hires. If a worker felt that he had been denied @ job because of his color, race, or religion, he could hie to the nearest agency of the FEPC and lodge a complaint. He would be encouraged by that apparatus to become a stool-pigeon for the FEPC. The board would then look into the case. That would mean that its police would enter the employer’s premises—farm, school, fac- tory, store, office, mine, mill, or very house~ hold—and pry about to find whether he was a discriminator or not. Once police are granted such a power any abuse is possible; the rifling of the content of records; violation of trade secrets; what~ ever else venal thought might conceive. Every effort doubtless would be made to make the FEPC’s agents persons of char- acter above reproach; but black sheep do slip in. Consider some of the n-anihitis~ agents during the life of the €:: 2m .. amend- ment. Consider the current case of Dr. Fuchs. If, in the boaxi’s opinion, the employer did exercise discrfmination in his choice of an employee, the FEPC could ask a Federal court to compel the employer to stop dis- crimination in his hiring practice. So the employer would have an expen- sive lawsuit to fight—or he would have to give in and hire whoever the FEPC told him to hire, whether they were satisfactory em< ployees in his case or not. This newspaper believes absolutely with- out quibble, that any American 1s entitled to be hired on his merits for the job for which he is fitted better than other applicants for the same job, and not on the basis of race, creed, or color—-except in such instances as some such element is an essential to the job. If, for example, it should be useful that a secretary be able to speak fluent idiomatic Yiddish—or Persian—or Japanese, a highly skilled Negro who might Know well a half dozen other languages but not the one de- sired, might be refused the job. And he might feel that he was refused because of his color. And he might so re- port it to the FEPC. And the FEPC would send its police intg the organization to in- vestigate. Absurd? Of course it is. Outrageous? Precisely. Impossible? Not at all. Such things happened in New York when that State adopted such a law and put it into operé tion, A3953 Utah’s Senator Exsrrr THomas, chairman of the Senate Labor Committee which re- ported the FEPC bill out for Senate con- sideration, says that the measure is “de-~ signed to right a wrong which shouts for a remedy.” . The wrong that FEPC cannot correct, but rather must make worse, is this: If five peo- ple representing as many races, colors, reli- gions—-each all three—apply for a job the person who can do it best should get it. Do- ing it best includes satisfaction of the em- ployer. A law may force employees on an em- ployer, who are unsatisfactory to him. Under such circumstances an employee of decent sensibilities would hesitate to take the job. He could not be satisfied in it because he would know, constantly, without surcease, that however hard or even well he worked, his employer still would not be satisfied. Some are not equipped with such sensibil- ities. They become FEPC “informers.” Then follows the tyranny of this antisocial law. Perhaps Senator THomas was thinking of mass employment in certain mass industries. We are thinking of human beings as people. Propesed Transfer of the Navy Special Devices Center From Sands Point, Long Island EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. IRVING M. IVES OF NEW YORE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. IVES. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Rrecorp the text of an editorial entitled ‘“Johnsonian Econ- omy,” published in Newsday of Garden City, Long Island, on Friday, May 19, 1950, expressing opposition to the pro- posed transfer of the Navy Special De- vices Center from Sands Point, Long Island, to the Washington-Philadelphia area. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: JOHNSONIAN “Economy” While we have always been sold on unifi- cation of the Armed Forces, we deplore the asinine byproducts of unification. The old service tradition of R. H. I. P. (rank has its privileges) is hard to control, particularly when it originates at the top of the unified command. Interservice operations too often express interservice jealousies—and the re- sults are unfortunate for the services. We have on Long Island this month an example of how unification can give service operations a set-back instead of a stimulant. . Today we expect official decision on whether the Navy Special Devices Center is to remain at Sands Point or be uprooted and moved to the Washington-Philadelphia area. The move is advocated by Gen. J. T. McNarney, an Army efficiency expert intrigued with the idea that it would save a lot of paper work. If nothing else were involved in the transfer we could see good sense in it. But it is by no means a major considera- tion. The Navy has leased its establishment from the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences and invested public money in adapting and im- proving the plant. The Institute will sell
A3954 the property, a 16l-acre waterfront estate, to the Navy if the House passes an appro= priation bill providing $850,000 for the pur- chase. As a real estate transaction that would be a good buy. The estate is worth far more and will increase in value. Furthermore, it is conceded at the Special Devices Center that to move would mean a 2-year setback in its work. Of 500 em- ployees, mostly Navy reservists, who work there, 82 percent would quit their jobs rather than move. They have bought homes here on GI loans. They intend to stay here. These are highly trained personnel, many of whom have been at the Center for 7 years. The Navy therefore opposes the move because it would break the back of its research pro- gram—and the Navy should know this bet- ter than the Army, which benefits equally from the results of that program without being responsible for it. If McNarhey wins he can boast a paper saving, while the Navy must explain a failure to progress. Boasts ring louder through the halls of the Pentagon, and are broadcast to the Nation from the Office of Defense Sec- retary Louis Johnson. The Sands Point proj~ ect is something to keep in mind when the Secretary brags of his achieved economies. How much waste is behind the rest of them, and how much more development has heen stymied? Tribute to Address of Hon. William Benton, of Connecticut, on FEPC EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the Minneapolis Morning Tribune in its edi- torial of Saturday, May 13, 1950, enti- tled “Cousinly Resemblance,” paid ap- propriate tribute to the brilliant address on fair-employment practices legisla- tion by Senator Benton. Senator Bren- TON, through his experience in the State Department as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, has an intimate and practical understanding of the psy- chological aspects of the cold war. His address on fair-employment practices legislation demonstrated his clear un- derstanding of the weaknesses in our foreign policy which are a result of our failure to guarantee equal rights and equal opportunity to all people regard- less of race, color, religion, or national origin. The relationships between a domestic program and a foreign policy are inseparable. We cannot effectively champion human rights in the councils of the United Nations on the one hand and refuse to take positive action for the guaranty of human rights in the Chambers of the Congress on the other hand. I join with the editor of the Min- neapolis Morning Tribune in paying a deserving tribute and thanks to the statesmanlike remarks of our colleague, Senator BrenrTon. I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Appendix of the Concres- sionaL Recorp the editorial entitled “Cousinly Resemblance.” There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: CouUSINLY RESEMBLANCE Senator Wiut1am BeNnTON, of Connecticut, 2 former Assistart Secretary of State for Public Affairs, was discussing this country’s civil rights problems in the upper House the other day. Our racial and other discrimina- tions, he said, are providing Russia with propaganda ammunition that is having a dreadful impact in Europe and Asia. It is true, he said, that Soviet propaganda of the sort consisted mostly of lies; yet it bore “a cousinly resemblance to things which have true, or have an element of truth in them.” It is this “cousinly resemblance” which is so disturbing in terms of American foreign policy and the cold war. It would be far easier to combat this Soviet propaganda if it were completely unrelated to the truth; what damages is the hard little kernel of fact at the center of each mass of lies. This kernel of fact usually involves the denial of certain rights to Americans because of the color of their skin, and is artfully dis- torted by Soviet propagandists to prejudice millions of nonwhites against us. Senator Benton happened to be srguing for a compulsory fair employment practices pill, but whether one believes in such a step or not, no serious observer of Russian tactics in the cold war can fail to be distressed by the effective uses to which they put our treatment of minorities, particularly the Negro. It is this gap between democratic profes~ sion and democratic practice which raust be steadily closed if we are to roll back the Rus- sian propagandists on this cold war front. Much progress has already been made in clos- ing it, but much progress remains to be made, too. The “cousinly resemblance” that Ban- Ton speaks about is still too strong for comfort. . James Madison and the American Ideal EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HARRY P. CAIN OF WASHINGTON IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Washington was recently privileged to be a member of the Board of Visitors during its annual visit to the United States Military Academy at West Point. During this all-too-brief tour through an outstanding American insti- tution, I spent one evening in listening to an oratorical contest in which Cadet Walter C. McSherry, of McAlester, Okla., participated. Cadet McSherry did not win the first prize, but he brought a full measure of credit to himself and the uniform which he wears so proudly. Cadet McSherry spoke of his hopes for the future and of his desire to compete among free men for success and his liv- ing. I was moved by his remarks hbe- cause his faith is in liberty and a freedom of action rather than in security. What stimulated my admiration for this young American may arouse a similar feeling in others, and I ask unanimous consent that the McSherry oration be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There being no objection, the oration was ordered to be printed in the Rrecosrp, as follows: JamEs MADISON AND THE AMERICAN IpEaL (By Walter C. McSherry, class of 1950) During the early days of our Republic giants walked the earth. Our young Nation was fortunate in having such men to guide its destinies as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton—to mention merely a few. And among the greatest of these was James Madison. He had a very long and dis-~ tinguished career in service to our country. He drew up our Bill of Rights, was a leader in our first House of Representatives, founded one of our first political parties, was Secre~ tary of State under Thomas Jefferson, nego= tiating the Louisiana Purchase, and finally served for two terms as President of the United States, guiding our young Nation through its most critical period, the War of 1812. Yet it is for none of these great achievements that James Madison is remem-~ bered—his name comes down to us for the first great achievement of his life, his work in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Let us go back to that year and consider the situation which confronted the dele« gates to that Convention. The 13 American Colonies had emerged from the Revolution as 18 separate sovereign States, with their own governments, their own currencies, their own tariffs, their own petty jealousies. These 13 States had never agreed under the Articles of Confederation, and yet this Convention was to reconcile the differences of these 13 disunited States and mold them into one nation. This was certainly a task for great men. And great men were present at Phila« delphia. George Washington, who, as Com« mander in Chief, had led the Revolutionary, armies to victory, was there; the wise and experienced statesman, Benjamin Franklin, then 82 years old; Robert Morris, who had financed the Revolution; John Rutledge, Roger Sherman, Gouverneur Morris, and many other men of wide experience and reputation. Yet to none of these older and more experienced men was there accorded the leadership of the Convention. That po- sition was held by James Madison, aman with little experience save in the Virginia State Legislature, a man unknown outside his home State, the second youngest delegate at the Convention. It was this young man whose work at the Convention earned for him the title of “the father of our Constitution.” It is fortunate for us today that James Madison guided the making of our Constitu- tion. For he was a young man, who built a document for the future in which he was going to live. He was looking forward to the ideal of a great and united America, not backward to the experience of the Revolu- tion. His was a young and adventurous spirit which looked to the future, and built a Constitution to endure. And the value of his vision has been proven—that Constitu- tion has endured longer than any other writ- ten document under which a nation exists today. Ou: Nation needs more Madisons—more young men who look forward to a growing America and not backward, to rest on past achievements. Perhaps we as a Nation find ourselves today committing the error of looking backward. The cry today is not the ery of James Madison, not the cry of a young and adventurous spirit. It is instead the ery for security: our unions for noncontribu- tory pensions, our electorate for social se- curity, unemployment compensation, sub- sidies for particular groups. Our economists tell us that our economy is “mature’’—in effect, that we have gone as far as we can go. Our philosophers tell us that we should be more concerned with the distribution of what wealth we have than with the creation
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of new wealth. Our citizens are apathetic toward their blcod-bought right to vote, and then tend to use it in favor of the party that can give them the most promises. Each of these ‘‘programs” may k : fine in themselves, but are not they all symptomatic of a nation which is looking backward, which has stopped its headlong progress, which is resting on the achievements of its great and glorious past? Yes, we are in need of more Madisons, more young men—you and me—to take an interest in cur Government and to help build for that future in which we are going to live. Perhaps the most fitting tribute paid to James Medison was that of Fisher Ames: “Here was a man to whom principles came first.” To us also should come first that principle which James Madison cherished: the principle of liberty, and not the desire for security. It was that principle which un- derlaid the young and adventurous spirit of James Madison, a spirit which never said we have gone as far as we can go, a spirit that was the great American dream, that is the great American dream, and that always will be the great American dream—so long as there are Americans who believe in it. Rejection of Reorganization Plan No. 12, Relating to NLRB EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, on Saturday, May 13, 1950, there appeared an editorial in the Washington Post dealing with a recent decision of the Sen- ate to reject Reorganization Plan No. 12, I ask unanimous consent to have the edi- torial printed in the Appendix of the REcorRD. At the same time, I want to associate myself with the opinion expressed in the editorial that the President of the United States remove Mr. Robert N. Denham from his office as general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board. I am convinced, in the light of my experience as a member of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee as well as a member of the Senate Committee on Ex- penditures in the Executive Departments which held hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 12, that Mr. Denham is chiefly responsible for the friction within the Nationa’. Labor Relations Board which impedes its effective operation. I join in the request to President Truman to remove Mr. Denham from office. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered printed in the Appendix of the REcorD, NLRB: WHat Next? Now that the Senate has rejected a plan for reorganizing the NLRB in a way that would enable the Board to exercise general supervisory powers over prosecuting activi- ties, its operations are likely to be severely hampered so long as General Counsel Robert N. Denham remains in office. For Mr, Den- ham has been openly critical of Board de- cisions. He has issued complaints that he knew the Board would dismiss, causing a waste of time, energy, and money on the part of the Government, as well as private parties, and creating uncertainty as to the rights of labor and management under the law. As a result, the work of the Board has keen need- lessly increased and its efficiency has been impaired. The conflict of personalities exacerbated by Mr. Denham’s disposition to play the role of a mentor instead of a cooperator is chiefly re- sponsible for the internal friction that has interfered with efficient administration. The defects of the existing organizational set. up call for a thoroughgoing reform along the lines of the rejected plan to remove the danger of future conflicts. Meantime the ap- pointment of a successor to Mr. Denham who could be relicd upon to work with the Board instead of okstruci':2 :ts activities would en~ able this “two-headed freak” to function with some degree of smoothness. We hope the rumor that President Truman is contemplat- ing such a move is well founded. Hon. Raymond S. McKeough EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BARRATT O’HARA OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of great pride to me that a distinguished predecessor of mine, as Representative from the Second District of Illinois, the Honorable Raymond 8S. McKeough, has emerged from the clouds of criticism long surrounding the Mari- time Commission as a knight with white and unspotted armor. In recognition of the great and fear- less public service he has rendered as a member of the Maritime Commission, and which has won him the acclaim of the Nation, the Illinois Democratic dele- gation in the Congress, both Senate and House, waited on the President to con- gratulate him on having in the service of the Nation in a post of high responsi- bility and during a trying period such a stalwart of integrity and such a force of brilliant ability as our former col- league, the Honorable Raymond S. Mc- Keough. The delegation was composed of Senators Scorr Lucas and Pav. Doveias, and Representatives SaBATH, O’BrIEN, GORDON, PRICE, BUCKLEY, CHES- wey, LineHan, Mack, Yates, and O’Hara, all of whom joined in the hope that the President might avail himself of the service of Mr. McKeough as the new Chairman of the Commission. I may say only that the President’s re- ception of our delegation was most pleas- ant to all of us, and his words left no doubt of his high esteem of the char- acter and ability of our fellow-Tlinoisan and his personal affection for him. We have the happy assurance that the great abilities, the loyalty, and the integrity of Raymond S. McKeough will not be _lost to the Government, and that in whatever place of great responsibility he is called upon to labor he will continue ._ to reflect bright credit upon the admin- istration of President Truman. I extend my remarks to include the fol- lowing editorial from the Washington Post of May 23, 1950: A38955 Maritime ScanpaL The new and searing blast at the Mari- time Commission by the House Executive Expenditures Committee has had immediate impact in the acceptance by Concress of the President’s reorganization rie. i000. sni0S the Commission. The unanimovs commuit- tee report covering Maritime Commission ship subsidy and sales operations, though temperately worded, is crushing. It chron- icles a record of incompetence, procrastina= tion, and evasion rarely equaled in a Covern~ ment agency. Some of the statements are disturbingly reminiscent of the Black report of 1935, which exposed the then current scandals and led to the passage of the Mer- chant Marine Act. The Hardy subcommittee conducted lengthy hearings at which Commission mem- bers testified in detail. These hearings, stimulated by the findings of the Comp- troller General, probed into the contention that higher ship subsidies than the law con- templates were justified because virtually every case was “exceptional.” It concludes that: (1) Maritime Commission administra~ tion has been “deficient”; (2) better infor- mation on foreign costs could have been ob~ tained for construction subsidies; (3) aid for reconstruction and reconditioning has been based on “unwarranted assumptions and error’; (4) operating differential subsidies are “inadequately supported”; (5) the record is replete with “inordinate delays” and “ad- ministrative lassitude”’; (6) there has been reshuffling of personnel of “doubtful quali- fications and competence.” In light of the Commission majority’s ef- forts on behalf of shipping companies which complain about profit recapture provisions, the figures on one company’s benefits from tax advantages under the law are most in- teresting. Since 1986 that company has paid $570,000 in Federal taxes; without tax bene- fits the same company would have paid $13,- 846,000. That record speaks for itself in showing the real nature of the huge subsi- dies, and it supports the recommendation that the tax advantages and intent of the 1936 act be restudied. Particularly shocking is the trap Chair- man Fleming made for himself when he wrote a letter justifying past subsidy ex- cesses while pretending a short time later that the matter was still being studied. This letter is described by the report as mere- ly an attempted defense of the Commission action which your committee concluded on the basis of earlier hearings to be fraught with error; characterized by administrative incompetence and ineptitude of the worst order; and unsupported by facts of the rec~ ord. Indeed, the only member not coming in for censure is Commissioner McKeough, who has a consistent record of dissents. Along with the recommendation that the Civil Service Commission examine qualifica- tions of Maritime Commission personnel (who, incidentally, have been under super- vision of the Maritime chairman) the report calls upon the Chairman and the Commis- sion to devote themselves to remedial en- deavor instead of justifying past actions found to be faulty. Congress has, done its duty in approving the reorganization plan. It is now up to the President to staff the revamped Maritime Board and Maritime Administration with the fearless, uncompromising men, unsusceptible to the insidious influence of selfish interests which the Black report called for 15 years ago. That cannot be done by carrying over ‘to the new set-up men who, with the con- ‘spicuous exception of Commissioner McKe- ough, have shown themselves unable to dis- charge their public responsibilities.
A3956 Seeds of Treason EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HARRY P. CAIN OF WASHINGTON IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr.CAIN. Mr. President, I ask unani-~ mous consent to have printed in the Ap- pendix of the Record an editorial which recently appeared in the Review which is a weekly newspaper published in Rose- mead, Calif. I know the publisher, Mr. T. A. Stevenson, as a distinguished and completely patriotic American. In his editorial he has reminded all of us of those sentiments which bring real mean-~ ing to citizenship. I think that his sug- gestion that we read Seeds of Treason is deserving of our consideration. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: SEEDS OF TREASON If you are the type that would really en- joy hearing Charles Laughton recite The Face on the Bar Room Floor; If you would rather hear Lawrence Tibbett sing Home on the Range than O Sole Mio; If something inside you swelled up when you first heard Kate Smith sing God Bless America; If you preferred heazing Lionel Barrymore in the Mayor of the Town to Jimmie Fidler or Louella Parsons; If you have a little difficulty in remember- ing the names and correct pronunciation of “cavvier-r” and “orr-derves”; If you like your corn on the cob without the inadequate man-made handlebars on the ends; If you like your chicken drumstick sans knife and fork; If you like the covered-wagon movies and the rhymes of Eddie Guest; If all these things fit your mien and man-~ ner, then lift up your chin, brother—you have about everything but wings. We hope all such people, from Maine to California, will buy or borrow the current issue of Reader’s Digest and read Seeds of Treason. It is the story, and it is well written, of the Communist cells in the bosom of our Government down in Washington. It is not a political yarn. It is true detec~ tive and the creator of Sherlock Holmes never dreamed up anything so gripping, May God help the United States if we fail in our efforts to unveil and contain these traitors who would destroy the Government as we have known it since ’76. Read this story, please. Mundt-Nixon Bills EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FRANCIS E. WALTER OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc« ord, I include the following editorial from the Lutheran for May i7, 1950: MUNodT-NIxon BILLS Washington has produced more than its share of hysteria lately. Senator JoszrH McCartHy’s charges and the public reaction to them are symptoms of a state of patholog- ical fear. These Communist jitters seem strangely inconsistent with the soundness of American economy and the strength of United States national defense, The latest contribution to this alarm psy- chology is the passage by the Senate Judici- ary Committee of the Mundt bill (S. 2311), known as the Subversive Activities Control Act. This bill, together with the almost identical Nixon bill (H. R. 3342) in the House, purports to protect the country against communism by requiring the regis- tration of subversive organizations. Ac- tually, passage of these bills would aim a severe blow at the freedoms on which our country was founded and would place sin- ister power in the hands of a few men. PROVISIONS The Mundt-Nixon bills call for the set- ting up of a Subversive Activities Control Board of three men appointed by the Presi- dent and confirmed by the Senate. This Board would be responsible for drawing up two lists, one of Communist political organ- izations and one of Communist-front organ- izations and of ordering them to register. Groups which register would be required to submit annually a complete financial re- port. A Communist political organization word have to submit the names and ad- adresses of all its members. A Communist- front organization would have to report the names and addresses of all its officers during the past year. These lists would be made public. The criteria by which the board would determine which groups should be on this blacklist are vague and inconclusive. Fail- ure to register would be punishable by $5,000 fine and 5 years’ imprisonment, with each day of failure to register and each member’s name left off the lst constituting a separate offense. Every piece of mail sent by a registered agency would be labeled “Disseminated by , a Communist organization.” Mem- bers of these organizations would be denied passports to travel abroad. Public inspec- tion of membership lists might be expected to result in loss of jobs and persecution of individuals and their families. IMPLICATIONS ; The basic danger in this legislation is that it attempts to control the things a person may believe and the company he may keep. It substitutes guilt by association for guilt on. the basis of overt acts. It introduces the principle of goveznment by intimidation rather than by impersonal legal processes. In seeking to fight communism, it has adopted communism’s own favorite tactics. Part of our country’s strength lies in the fact that here a man is free to differ from the majority in his beliefs. If the power which it is proposed to vest in the Subversive Activities Control Board were to fall into the hands of prejudiced and unscrupulous men, no group of dissenters from majority opin- jon would be safe. Two years ago a similar bill was intro- duced by the same two men. It passed the House, but was buried under an avalanche of popular protest in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar expression of senti- ment may be needed to reassure the men In Congress of the essential level-headedness of the American people. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Honors for Scranton Times Newsmen EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARRY P. O’NEILL OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. O’NEILL. Mr. Speaker, under Jeave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following editorial from the Scranton Times honoring Scranton Times newsmen as follows: Honors ror Times NEWsMEN Scranton Times newsmen—reporters to you—are tops in their calling. As proof of that claim can be cited seven awards—two first prizes and five honorable mentions—in a State-wide writing contest sponsored by the Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers’ As- sociation and the department of journalism at Penn State College. The seven awards, by far the largest number received by a regional newspaper in any year of competition, were by four prominent members of the Times news department. To J. Harold Brislin, Times general assign- ment reporter, goes the honor of having won two first prizes. He is the first writer in the history of the contest to win more than one first prize in a single year. His awards were in the category of municipal or government story division and in court coverage classi- fication. In addition he received first honor- able mention in the public service campaign or crusade series. Nice going. Other Times men receiving honorable men-= tion were Neil L. Whitney, Times court re- porter; John E. Mulherin, labor reporter, and George P. Walsh, general assignment reporter. Good work, boys. To merit consideration each story had to meet three key tests—quality of writing, sus- tained reader interest, and general effec- tiveness. Quality of writing was the basic requirement. Judges in their comments said the entries demonstrated an increased inter- est among reporters to “go beneath the sur- face through independent research on the reporter’s own initiative.” In newspaper cirqes that has always been the standard by which a reporter’s effectiveness and capable- ness are judged. He must be a digger. The honors which have come to the Times newsmen are all the more gratifying when it is kept in mind that more than 1,100 en- tries were submitted for consideration, the greatest number in the history of the con- test. Needless to say the Times management is mighty proud of the achievement of its staff members. Fellow workers also received - the news with great satisfaction. Only recently the Times received honor- able mention in the Ayer Cup award contest for typographical excellence in first-page make-up in competition with many of the great papets of the Nation. It is writing of the type recognized by the contest judges which has helped to make the Times such an attractive and popular newspaper. It is worthy of note that Mrs. J. Harold Brislin, woman’s page editor of the Scran- tonian-Tribune and: wife of the Times staff writer, also won a PNPA honor, having been awarded first place for a news story in the field of women’s activities. Mrs. Brislin was a winner in other-years, Mrs. Brislin's father and brother are likewise newspaper- men. It would appear that good writing abile ity runs in the Brislin family. Robert Mang, court reporter and political writer for the Scrantonian-Tribune, received honorable mention in court coverage classification,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Socialized Medicine’s Ills EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. L. MILLER OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Speak- er, I ask permission to insert my re- marks in the Recorp and to include the editorial from the Christian Science Monitor on the subject of socialized medicine’s ills. Mr. Speaker, a careful reading of the editorial points out the difficulties that England is having with her socialized- medicine program. It has always been true that sickness and days lost from work goes up under any system of gov- ernment-sponsored medicine. It was true in Germany and has been true in every country that has tried compulsory health insurance. Mr. Speaker, the President’s national health program goes beyond politics. It is a bitter fight by misguided radicals of the New Deal to foster left-wing legis- lation which would destroy the bulwark of freedom. and our American way of life. Its proponents give it a high-sounding name and claim that it is not socialized medicine. They do not tell the people it is compulsory. They do not tell the citizens that out of their pay checks will come the funds and that the citizens will have to comply with Federal regulations. . These left-wing proponents even tell you that there is a free choice of doctors. This is not true. Limits would be placed on the number of patients a doctor could serve. You might want the good physi- cian “A,” but he is overworked and his panel is full, so you must select some other physician. The better doctors in England find long queues of patients; some who are neu- rotic, some with minor ills, and some very ill. The patient becomes a mere num- ber. The doctor can give but a few min- utes to each patient. The quality of medical care is lowered. It takes a great deal of time to fill out required endless forms. The program sponsored by the admin- istration becomes a political set-up with a horde of clerks and inspectors trying to keep track of 150,000,000 people. Medicine in the United States, under our free institutions, has advanced the healing art until it is the envy of the world. We have the finest hospitals, the best medical equipment, technicians and the finest scientific research in the world. This did not come about under national health insurance; it came about because free men with free minds were permitted to work unhampered by Government regulations. Socialized medicine always destroys freedom of action. It is an as- sembly-line type of medicine. It de- stroys the personal relationship between doctor and patient. The practice of medicine is personal. There comes a time in the lives of all of us when cold facts of science do not pre- vail. The people want personal service with sympathy, pity, cheerfulness, and confidence in the doctor. No amount of scientific efficiency can take its place in the dark hours of sorrow and trouble so common in the experience of all of us, ‘These are intangible things and only your physician knows that, through the troubled situations of life, fame dies, honor perishes, but loving kindness is immortal. I hope my colleagues will read care- fully the following editorial which so truthfully points out the many problems England has encountered in her national health insurance program: Soctanizep MEDICINE’s ILLs The increase in reported sickness during Great Britain’s first full years of socialized medicine has its significance for the United States. Much of the British program is embraced in the proposal of government medical care insurance which the Truman administration is promoticz This part of British experience wil vce system will hardly recommend it to Americans. Sickness among adult Britons rose 8 percent and workdays lost through illness 22 percent, according to a government-spon- sored survey. The increase occurred for the most part among women, The workdays lost by young women climbed 32 percent and by elderly women 41 percent, while the work- days lost by men went up 8 to 9 percent, Officials credit the growth of reported illness mainly to economic reasons—people now getting medical service who previously could not afford it. But there are additional reasons. In the experience of European countries with com- pulsory sickness insurance it has long been observed that when workers are taxed for medical care they often claim it unnecessar- ily. That is the only way that many figure they can get something back for their money. The situation encourages a flood of patients with minor illnesses for which they would not ordinarily seek medical attention. Some doctors are consequently overworked to the point of hasty, careless diagnosis and treat= ment, It is also a standard part of the govern= ment insurance system to give weekly cash payments to claimants. The chance to stay at home and live for a while with the aid of state funds frequently mulitates against a speedy return to work. In many instances the cash benefits delay recovery. The more workdays lost through illness, the smaller the production and the lower the general standard of living. These and other disadvantages of a na- tional system of government insurance for medical care are getting no publicity from the Truman administration. British expe- rience, however, is bringing out some of the missing facts. Statehood for Alaska EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LOUIS B. HELLER OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, the ques~ tion of statehood for the Territory of Alaska is no longer only the concern of the people in Alaska. It has become the A3957 concern of every American citizen whether in Alaska, Florida, Texas, New York, or elsewhere. The Second World War emphasized the Territory’s strategic location and importance to the United States. It is the only part of the Ameri- can continent that reaches into the Eastern Hemisphere. Across narrow Bering Strait, Siberia can be seen with the naked eye. Alaska lies on the great circle route to the Orient. Its Pacific coastline is longer than that of the three Pacific States of California, Oregon, and Washington combined. It is truly America’s last frontier. Alaska’s importance to the United States does not rest solely on military considerations. Itis a vast storehouse of largely undeveloped resources. These include fish and fish products, furs, hides, minerals, oil, forests, and hydroelectric power. One of the reasons why these resources are only partially developed is Alaska’s Territorial status and the discriminations against her which re- sult from this status. Alaska was purchased from Russia on March 30, 1867, for $7,200,000. Until the discovery of gold in the Klondike in 1898, Alaska’s impact upon the United States was practically nil. The purchase had been termed “Seward’s Folly” by some, a contemptuous name derived from the fact that William H. Seward, Secretary of State at the time, had been chiefly responsible. During the years 1867-84, the area was under the con- trol first of the United States Army and then the Navy. In the latter year, how-~ ever, Congress passed the first organic act providing solely for the adminis- tration of justice in Alaska, and includ- ing no provisions concerning legislation, The general laws of Oregon were ex- tended to Alaska as far as they were applicable and not in conflict with the laws of the United States. The first criminal code was enacted in 1899 and the first civil code in 1900. Alaska was granted a Delegate in the Congress in 1906, and in 1912, another organic act set up a formal Territorial government, Though amended several times since 1912, this act still provides the basic law under which Alaska functions. It has never been thoroughly revised to keep pace with changing conditions in the Territory. In effect, the organic act has been discriminatory in character and opera- tion. Under it, the legislature may not authorize bonded indebtedness or create any debt. It may not alter, amend, re- peal, or modify the fish and game laws passed by Congress. The amount of general property taxes which may be levied is fixed by Congress instead of by the local legislature. The latter body may not provide for county government within Alaska without congressional ap- proval. Restrictions such as these are not the attributes of free people. Alaska has served a very long period of tutelage in a Territorial status—longer than all but four of the States that have “grad- uated” from Territories to statehood. Until she is permitted to settle her own local problems, all our protestations
A398 about the self-determination of peoples must continue to have a hollow ring. There are a number of arguments ad- vanced by the opponents of statehood. Most of them can be refuted with not too great difficulty. The proponents of statehood fail to understand why the fact that Alaska does not touch an existing State at any point should be an argument against her admission to full participa- tion in national affairs. In point of time, Alaska is closer to the seat of Gov- ernment than all but the immediately adjacent States were when Washington first became the capital city of the United States. Using modern means of transportation, it is possible to travel from Juneau to Washington in less than 24hours. Facilities exist for rapid com- munication by telephone, telegraph, and mail. There exists within the Union, as parts of States, several areas of noncontiguous territory. In addition to islands, these include two portions of the North Amer- ican mainland separated entirely, as is Alaska, by interventing Canadian terri- tory. One is the portion of Minnesota lying north of the Lake of the Woods. The other is the peninsular portion of Washington, containing the village of Point Roberts, which is cut off from the rest of that State by the forty-ninth parallel and Boundary Bay. At onetime, Congress considered seriously, and ap- parently without mental reservations, a proposal to annex all of Alaska as a county of the State of Washington. If, in principle, parts of States may be non- contiguous with the rest of the Nation, why not entire States? Eight of the present States were not contiguous with the body of States at the time of admission, for example, Louisi- ana and California. The latter was sep- arated from the nearest State—Texas— by more than 450 miles. That was in 1850, when many weeks of difficult over- land travel were involved in covering the distance. Only 515 miles of friendly Canadian territory separate Alaska from the present body of States. One of the arguments most frequently advanced against statehood for Alaska is that the population of the Territory is too small. The 1940 census recorded @ population of 72,524. In the years Since then, Alaska’s permanent popula-= tion has steadily increased with esti- mates now placing it anywhere from 95,000 to 105,000. In relation to Alaska’s vast area—586,400 square miles—her population is small. Twelve States had smaller populations than the Territory at the time of their admission, however. Historically, there always has been a rapid increase in population through settlement upon admission of a Territory to statehood. What are the advantages of statehood for Alaska? ‘There are many indeed, both for the Territory itself and for the Nation as a whole. A rapid increase in the number of permanent inhabitants will follow statehood. This will mean an increase in the investment capital available and the establishment of new industries which are essential for Alaska’s devel- opment. Statehood will mean that Alaska will have a State constitution drafted in terms of the needs of Alaska rather than an organic act outmoded in many of its provisions and not tailor-made for Alaska even when first enacted. With the advent of statehood, Alaska will automatically become entitled to the benefits of the Federal Highway Aid Act. With the help of this act, an ade- quate network of roads can be con- structed and maintained, linking cen- ters of trade with outlying districts and acting as an incentive to larger com- munities. As a State, Alaska will also ecome entitled automatically to bene- fits under other Federal grants-in-aid programs that are carried on in the States. This is in sharp contrast to Alaska’s experience as a territory, when it either did not become entitled to them, as in the case of the Highway Aid Act, or waited for years for extension of such legislation, as in the case of the Adams and the Smith-Lever Acts for agricultural development. As a State, Alaska will be entitled to two Senators and one Representative, eiected by the people of Alaska, chosen to represent them, familiar with their constanily changing problems, and able to exercise much greater influence in the enactment and administration of national legislation affecting the welfare of Alaska, Under statehood, it is to be expected that Alaska’s judiciary and police sys- tems will be expanded and adapted to the physical conditions of the area. At present, the District Court of the United States for Alaska combines the normal jurisdiction of similar Federal courts in the States with a general jurisdiction of all civil, criminal, equity, and admi- ralty cases. Court is regularly held at but four places in the whole vast Terri- tory of 586,409 square miles, with addi- tional terms left to the discretion of the judicial council. Alaska as a State would be permitted to borrow for State purposes, pledging the faith of her people. This is a com- mon practice among the States at the present time, but under the organic act is forbidden to the Territory. Alaska is able to raise the revenues necessary to support statehood. This is evidenced by the recent enactment by the Terri- torial legislature of an income tax on personal and corporate income at ap- proximately 10 percent of the Federal levy, and a general property tax, the first such taxes in Alaska’s history. It must be remembered that not all Federal services and activities will cease with statehood any more than they have ceased in continental United States, Ex- penses of activities peculiarly the prob- lem of local administration will be shifted to the State, but Federal-aid programs will continue. Mr. Speaker, all Americans agree in principle on the desirability of self-gov- ernment and the largest possible meas- ure of home rule. The advantages of statehood for Alaska seem obvious. The APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD time has arrived when she should en- joy these advantages. She has served her apprenticeship faithfully and well, She should be welcomed into the Union and given full partnership as our forty- ninth State. Hauling the Mails REMARKS oF HON. THOR C. TOLLEFSON OF WASHINGTON IN THE HCUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 1950, I questioned the Postmas-~ ter General’s effort to econom:Ze on pos~ tal expenditures by curtailing mail de- liveries. I suggested that the Postmaster General revoke his order of April 18, 1950, making the letter carriers the scapegoats of a delusive economy meas- ure. My remarks in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL REccoRD, on pages A3277— A3278, concluded as follows: If he is sincere let him do what he can to economize by paying the railroads no more than the law entitles them to. In the course of those remarks, I called attention to the overpayments which the Postmaster General was giving the rail- road carriers. I quoted his own testi- mony to the effect that he was paying them for about twice as much car space as the mail actually used. I quoted also from the General Accounting Office Re- port showing that the Postmaster Gen- eral was paying de luxe passenger rates for mail carried in refrigerator and other kinds of freight cars. With mail pay- ments to the railroads running about a quarter-billion dollars a year, these over- payments struck me as a very serious matter. In a statement to the press released May 12, 1950, and styled “a factual state- ment to clarify the situation,” the Post- master General took up my remarks, He did not deny that he pays passenger rates for mail carried in freight cars. Nor did he claim that the law requires him to do that. The Postmaster Gen- eral’s position was that it is “futile to say that the Postmaster General should take some action to reduce the payments to railroads.” Regarding the enormous waste of mail-car space, he said the law requires him “to pay for space in two directions when it is ordered in one direction.” To imply that the Department can correct this situation, he went on, is error. Briefly, then, the Postmaster General did not deny my statements about over- payments made by him to the railroads. Instead, he derided them as “facetious statements.” I am serious about these surcharges which the Postmaster General magnani- mously pays the railroads. I see nothing droll or comical in a tight-fisted policy being applied to letter carriers while at the same time railroad carriers receive
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD millions of dollars of public funds under an open-handed policy that deliberately overpays them. I doubt very much whether this Congress or the people to whom it is responsible appreciate that brand of humor. Let us take a look at the record and see the actual situation. First, take the Postmaster General’s statement that he cannot correct the situation which finds him paying for about twice as much car space as mail actually uses on the trains. The Gen- eral Accounting Office report submitted to the Senate Post Office and Civil Serv- ice Committee earlier this month, which I quoted in my remarks, states, on page 8, as follows: Congress has established two necessary standards for the payment of railway mail service: 1. The service must be prescribed by the Postmaster General (39 U. 8. C. 545). 2. The service is to be increased, reduced, or discontinued (necessarily by the Post- master General) with pro rata reductions as the needs of the postal service required (39 U.S. C. 564). In other words, the Postmaster Gen- eral, according to the General Account- ing Office, controls the amount of service the railroads are to be paid for. This appears to have been Mr. Donaldson’s own view about his authority when he was still new in the office of Postmaster General. In reporting on the Railway Mail case now pending before the Inter- state Commerce Commission, his 1948 annual report, on page 70, stated: As a result of studies made by the Depart. ment in the course of the pending proceed- ing, the Postmaster General, on July 2, 1948, filed with the Commission a new comprehen- sive plan for the transportation of mail by railroad. The purpose of this plan, which supersedes the original plan filed in 1917, is to enable the Commission to fix fair and reasonable rates for the transportation of mail in accordance with the service pre- scribed by the Postmaster General, and to revise and improve the manner and condi- tions of the service to meet modern postal needs. By order dated August 30, 1948, the Commission recognized the new comprehen- sive plan as effective October 1, 1948, and ruled that rates for the services prescribed thereby must abide final disposition by it of the pending proceeding. What happened to this comprehen- sive plan of the Postmaster General which, less than 2 years ago, was an- nounced to be a significant improvement in the railroad mail situation? Let us go back to the General Accounting Office report again. That report states: By the act of 1916 the Postmaster General is required (39 U. S. C. 546) to file with the (Interstate Commerce) Commission a com- prehensive plan for the transportation of the mails on said railroads and shall embody therein what he believes to be the reasonable rate or compensation the said railway carriers should receive. The Postmaster General, under date of July 2, 1948, filed a comprehensive plan with the Interstate Commerce Commission which provides a basis for the changes necessary in the rules of the post office to ameliorate the difficulties attendant upon the round- trip provisions and otherwise. * * * The next step in implementing the meas- ures recommended by the Postmaster Gen- eral would, of course, be the establishment in the Post Office Department and promulga- tion to the railroads of the necessary rules and regulations to bring the plan to prac« tical operation. This plan would not eliminate the round- trip provisions but would work toward better control and greater utilization of the space paid for under the provisions * * * (pp. 31-82). However, no regulations have been issued under the plan but the Interstate Com- merce Commission by order of March 380, 1950, has set hearings for September 19, 1950 * * * (p.8). . Pending changes which may be made in the law it would appear to be highly de- sirable that the possibilities under the com- prehensive plan be realized immediately so that an early and clear picture of the un- justified deadheading be obtained and so that difficulties in the way of proper audit of railway pay matters be eliminated (p. 36). In other words, less than 2 years ago Postmaster General Donaldson started out to effect big economies in railroad mail service through a new comprehen- sive plan therefor. He was required by law to file such a plan with the Inter- state Commerce Commission and he did so. The Commission recognized the plan as effective October 1, 1948. That was just before the last general elec- tions, All that remained to put the plan into practical operation was “the estab- lishment in the Post Office Department and promulgation to the railroads of the necessary rules and regulations.” Almost 2 years later, however, the Gen- eral Accounting Office reports to the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee that “no regulations have been issued under the plan” although “it would appear to be highly desirable that the possibilities under the compre- hensive plan be realized immediately.” Now, what does the Postmaster Gen- eral say about the railroad mail situa- tion today? He says it is a situation that can be corrected only by Congress or the Interstate Commerce Commis~ sion, but is beyond his power to correct. He does not mention his comprehensive plan at all. Much less does he explain why he has not issued the regulations to put the plan into practical operation. Does not the Postmaster General be- lieve that Congress and the people are entitled to know what he has done or intends to do about his comprehensive plan for economies in railway mail pay- ments, and what his reasons are? Self- styled “factual statements” of the kind recently released by him do not “clarify the situation” to my way of thinking. I, for one, would like to know why it is “futile to say that the Postmaster Gen- eral should take some action to reduce payments to railroads,” particularly when the Postmaster General himself has gone on record with an elaborate plan for that very purpose which the Comptroller General strongly recom~ mends should be put into practice im- mediately. When we pass a law in Con- gress and the President approves it, it is effective unless a court sets it aside. I think Congress and the publie are en- titled to know why the Postmaster Gen- eral still has not put into effect his railroad mail service economy plan which the Commission recognized as effective October 1, 1948. A3959 Note that under this economy plan, the Postmaster General would not be baying passenger rates for mail carried by freight. The new plan stipulates that “the character of trains carrying the mails shall be that of passenger train. In the event mails are transported in freight trains, no more than the usual and just freight rates shall be paid in accordance with the classifications and tariffs approved by the Interstate Com- merce Commission.” ‘This can hardly ke called radical. Why, in the name of common sense, would anybody pay pas- senger prices unless he got passenger service, anyway? It looks wrong on its face. If there is any reason other than a deliberate policy of overpayment to railroads, I, for one, would like to know what it is. Here again the Postmaster General’s “factual statement” does not “clarify the situation” for me. It does not deny that he pays passenger rates for mail carried in refrigerator and other kinds of freight cars. Nor does it claim that the law or the Commission require him to make such overpayments. It may well be that it is necessary for the rail- roads to carry mail in “nonstandard equipment,” as said in the “factual state- ment,” but where is the necessity of paying deluxe passenger rates for such service? If it isn’t in the law or in the Commission’s rate orders, the only place it can be is in the Post Office Depart- ment’s policy of deliberately overpaying the railroads, Let me emphasize that I am serious about these surcharges which the Post- master General magnanimously pays the railroads out of public funds while he justifies reductions in mail deliveries as @ necessary economy measure at the ex- pense of letter carriers. I stress again that this entire matter should be thoroughly investigated by the General Accounting Office, the agency of Con- gress charged with the duty of super- vising payments by the Post Office De- partment. And to the Postmaster Gen~ eral, I say again that if he is sincere, let him do what he can to economize by paying the railroads no more than the law entitles them to. James Madison, Father of Our Constitution EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. FREDERIC R. COUDERT, JR. OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. COUDERT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the following article by Mr. Harry Schlacht, which appeared in the New * York Journal-American of May 10, 1950: JamMEpS Mapison, FatHer or Our CONSTITUTION ; (By Harry H. Schlacht) The orator is the voice of the Nation. We congratulate the young American ora= tors who participated in the Hearst news-= papers’ forensic competition of 1950.
A3960 We commend the high-school and college students who were privileged to speak on the subject of James Madison, the father of our Constitution. Our young Americans have done them- selves proud. All Americans are proud of them. They will be among the leaders of to- morrow. They will be among the defenders of democracy. The Hearst newspapers’ oratorical compe- tition is sponsored in the interest of better speech, in the interest of better citizenship, in the interest of better Americanism. As the poet derives from reading the poetry of the masters, as the painter derives from studying the great paintings, as the com- poser derives from listening to musical mas- terpieces, so our young speakers improve by taking part in oratorical contests. This is the object of the Hearst oratorical competition. Great men are the guideposts and land- marks in the Nation. James Madison—gifted, favored, venerated man—father of our Constitution, fourth President of the United States, friend of lib- erty, friend cf peace. He was one of the pillars of his country. He was one of the ornaments of his age. We see him playing a glorious role in the War of Independence. We see him fearless in his fortitude. We see him bidding defi- ance to the arms of power. We see him con- fident in the righteousness of his cause, We see him toiling in war and in peace to form and perpetuate a Union to secure for an invisible posterity the priceless blessings of inseparable liberty and law. We see him standing beside the Constitu- tion as with a naked sword flaming with truth to protect it from desecration. We see him sounding an instant loud alarm to awake the hosts of the Nation to its rescue. We see him as President of the Republic with a presence of purity, elevation, and moral dignity. We must catch the spirit of his noble ideals. We must rise to the contemplation of the conscious virtue that inspire them. It is our duty to preserve and cherish our inheritance which our forebears have be- queathed to us. It was won by their toil. It was watered by their tears. It was fertilized by their blood. James Madison was the father of our Con- stitution. That document is the inspiration of our American way of life. James Madison was the voice of peace, harmony, and union. And may we, his fellow Americans, to the last second of recorded time, fix our eyes upon the memory of, and even listen with our ears to the life and achievements of this great American. He glorified the generation in which he lived. Future generations will be honored by his glory, british Income From Latin-American Investments EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BARRATT O’HARA OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the subject of investments of American capital in foreign fields is one of wide interest in connection with the develop- ment of point 4 of the President’s plan and the Export-Import Bank Joan guar- anty bill which was approved by the Banking and Currency Committee of which Iam amember. Part of our loans are going, and will continue to go with increased volume should the bank guar- anty bill be passed, to the countries of Latin America, As contributing, there- fore, to the fund of information on the general subject available to the Mem- bers of the House, I am extending my remarks to include the following article by J. Fred Rippy, the eminent Latin- American scholar and professor of Amer- ican history on the faculty of the Uni- versity of Chicago, from the April 1950 issue of the Journal of Business of the University of Chicago: BririsH Income From LATIN-AMERICAN INVESTMENTS, 1989 anp 1948 (By J. Fred Rippy, professor of American history, University of Chicago) In explaining the economic difficulties of the United Kingdom, the proponents of the Marshall plan have strongly emphasized the recent shrinkage in British foreign invest- ments and the consequent loss of income. Testifying before the Senate Committee on Appropriations on June 17, 1949, for instance, Paul Hoffman, Administrator of the Euro- pean reconstruction program, stated that British “overseas investments” had “all been washed out” by the recent war. (Hearings on the foreign aid appropriation bill (81st Cong., ist sess.), p. 446. Mr. Hoffman prob- ably meant to say that the United King- dom’s foreign debts now exceed its foreign investments. According to Cleona Lewis, the United States and the Foreign Investment Problem (Washington, D. C., 1948), p. 60, British overseas investments declined from £4,600,000,000 in 1939 to £3,300,000,000 in 1947.) This article will examine the extent to which that statement holds true in re- spect to British investments in Latin Amer- ica. (The statistics which follow have been compiled from the South American Journal (London) for 1939, 1940, 1948, and 1949. Stock-Exchange Official Year Book (London) for the same years has been utilized for back~ ground and some checking of detail.) It may be stated at the outset that there had not been any marked decline in the net earnings of British capital in Latin America since 1939. The net income from this invest- ment in 1948 was £18,536,620. It was £19,010,329 in 1939. The difference is only £43'7,'709! A decided decline in the nominal value of the aggregate investment had occurred, but the average yield had improved, rising from 1.6 percent in 1939 to 2.9 percent in 1948. Nearly 62 percent of the total British invest- ment in Latin America yielded no return APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in 1939; the capital earning no income was less than 40 percent in 1948. The total in- vestment had been considerably reduced, but there had been more than a corresponding shrinkage in the “sour” part of it. The Latin-American segment of the British over= seas investment had not been ‘‘washed out.” It had been pared down by expropriations, redemptions, liquidations, purchases, and various other means, but the net yield on what remained had gone up, especially the returns on shipping, banking, mining, petro- leum, and various miscellanecus enterprises. All statistics in this analysis dealing with income refer to net income after payment of Latin-American taxes. British capitalists received an income of £4,030,466 in 1989 from an investment of £324,149,88 in Latin-American government bonds. The rate of return was approximately 1.2 percent. In 1948 they received an in- come of £4,248,693 on a nominal investment of £206,145,017 in these government securi- ties. The rate of return was more than 2.1 percent. A total of £210,891,878 invested in government bonds in 1939 yielded no income; this “bad” portion of the investment in gov- ernments had been reduced to £5,457,460 by the close of 1948. A nominal shipping investment of £12,753,< 848 in the Latin-American sphere in 1939 yielded an income of £593,241, or 4.65 percent. The yield in 1948 on a nominal capital of £10,404,468 was £719,199, or 6.9 percent. An aggregate of £1,407,054 invested under this heading in 1939 brought no return; the com~ parative figure for 1948 was zero. British investment in Latin-American panking, £8,977,630, returned an income of £202,000 in 1939, about 2.25 percent. In 1948 income was £242,400 on a nominal invest~ ment of £4,040,000, making a rate of return of 6 percent. The unprofitable segment of the banking capital, which stood at £4,937,= 6380 in 1939, had disappeared by 1948. Owing to sales negotiations and delays in liquidation, the return on railway capital was smaller in 1948 than in 1939. The Brit- ish investment in Latin-American railways has not been profitable for many years, A nominal capital of £477,765,391 yielded only £5,773,648 in 1939, approximately 1.2 percent, The return in 1948 was £1,080,599 on a nomi- nal investment of £176,215,257, considerably less than 1 percent. Rail capital, yielding no return in 1939, totaled £336,082,299, as com< pared with £152,865,562 in 1948, On a miscellaneous investment of £304,= 258,078—in mining, petroleum, agriculture, manufacturing, public utilities, trading, and a few other enterprises—the return was £8,410,974, around 2.9 percent in 1939, with £144,799,022 paying no dividends. Income under this category in 1948 amounted to £12,245,279 on a nominal capital of £236,018,~ 182, the yield being 5.1 percent, and only £93,438,089 failed to return dividends. Omitting the bad investments, which will be referred to again in another connection, the salient details are set forth in table I. TaeLE 1.—Income from British investments in Latin America: Distribution by types of investment eee 1989 1948 Capital Income Capital Income Rate £324, 149, 858 £4, 030, 466 £206, 145, 017 £4, 248, 692 2.1 477, 765, 391 5, 773, 648 176, 215, 257 1, 080; 599 6 12, 753, 348 593, 241 10, 404, 468 719, 199 6.9 8, 977, 630 202, 000 . 4, 040, 000 242, 400 6.0 304, 258, 078 8, 410, 974 . 236, 018, 182 12, 245, 279 5.1 Total_.......---.----- 1, 127, 904, 305 19, 010, 329 632, 822, 869 18, 536, 620 2.9 1 Includes‘mining, petroleum, agriculture, manufacturing, public utilities, trading, and a few other enterprises,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The major British investments in Latin America, in both 1939 and 1948, were in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Uruguay, Cuba, and Peru. But the best rates of return were not obtained from those countries, where much of the capital was invested in Government securities, railroads, and other public services. The highest yields came from Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador and from petroleum and mining enterprises. The comparative data for all but three of the countries are presented in fable 2. TaBie 2——Income from British investments in Latin America: Distribution by countries 1939 1948 Caprtal Income Rate Capital Income Rate Argentina. £428, 518, 172 £10, 984, 919 2.56 £88, 145, 690 £3, 390, 377 3.8 att 260, 780, 683 ’ 419 242 207, 973, 684 6, 643, 312 3.1 i 172, 578, 888 489, 734 +28 141, 809, 181 ‘ 9 85, 878, 232 1, 501, 340 47, 180, 823 661 1.9 39, 281, 186 , 111, 614 a 28, 888, 503 4.9 34, 403, 941 65, 335 5 27, 503, 497 9 29, 321, 862 313, 349 . 25, 133, 624 13 18, 888, 408 9.9 10, 738, 300 2.3 5, 797, 087 8.8 4, 701, 600 9 4, 481, 469 . 21.9 4, 363, 609 . 4.0 8, 185, 080 . 4 1, 728, 400 L Niu 889, 8 Nil 1, 105, 240 Nil Ni 1, 698, 690 1.8 416, 220 16, 648 4.0 341, 300 40 1, 106, 173, 327 18, 215, 088 1,6 618, 378, 400 17, 575, 021 2.8 12, 758, 348 593, 241 4.65 10, 404, 468 719, 199 6.9 Banking 8, 997, 630 202, 000 2.25 4, 040, 000 242, 400 6.0 Grand total... 2... 1, 127, 904, 305 19, 010, 329 1.68 632, 822, 869 18, 536, 620 29 A comparative view of the British capital yielding no income in 1939 and 1948 is pre- sented in table 3. TaBLE 3.—British capital returning no in- come: Distribution by countries E] Salvador_.. Nicaragua... Ni} Nil 1939 1948 Per- cent of Amount | total vest- ment £188, 762, 997 . 0} £37, 837,121) 42.8 233, 574, 950 5] 38, 973,278] 16.3 546 .1| 97, 752,152] 68.9 8} 10, 427, 844] 29.1 . 8 Nil Nil 8] 23,166,975) 84.2 21 19,159, 764) 76.2 .8| 9,982, 847) 53.9 6| 6,288,228) 56.0 1) 1,143,647} 21.4 6) 3, 804, 9 85.3 .0} 1,720,817] 56.0 .2) 2, 236, 51.2 .3| 2,809, 280} 84.5 889,820} 100.0 41.4 N! Nil Shipping-..... 1, 417,054, 11.1 Ni Nil BankKing...... 4, 937, 630} 55.0) Ni Nil Total._..... 608, 077,803] 61.9] 251,806,111) 89.8 Tables 2 and 8 should be scrutinized to- gether. They disclose striking differences in the yield of investments among the 17 countries and within each country. (Al- though no satisfactory statistics are avail- able for Panama, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, which are therefore not included in the tables presented here, it is likely that the British have some capital in all three of them.) If the income on the aggregate investment had been as large as the income on nearly 60 percent of it, the return in 1948 would have been approximately 4.4 percent on the total investment. If the yield on the aggregate capital had been as high as the return on the Venezuelan portion, Brit- ish income in 1948 would have amounted to around £62,000,000. If the income on all the nominal capital had been as large 98 it was on the Bolivian investment, Brit- ish investors would have received some £138,000,000. Englishmen would have been fortunate if all their capital in this and other out- lying regions had been invested in tin, que~ bracho, petroleum, and other monopolistic enterprises. Instead of drawing a good part of their income from their colonies, as in the past, the inhabitants of the United King- dom, if they could greatly expand such in- vestments, might obtain their income from a@ much wider area by monopolizing some of the world’s most necessary commodities, British income from Ecuador, Venezuela, and Bolivia in 1948 should be examined closely. The return on nearly half of the Ecuadoran investment averaged above 8 percent. The yield on 46 percent of the Venezuelan investment was only a little short of 22 percent. It pays to invest in petro- leum. British income from 44 percent of the investment in Bolivia was at the rate of 50 percent. Capital invested in tin brings good returns. ‘There was a time when the yield of nitrate capital in Chile was equally profitable, but the competition of synthetic nitrates destroyed those bountiful yields. (I have dealt with British nitrate profits in an article published in Pacific Historical Re- view, XVII (November 1948), 457-465.) It is obvious that most of the “sour” in- vestments in the 2 years under consideration were in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, Peru, and Chile and that the major part of them were in government bonds and railways. ‘The Peruvian Corporation, a giant organiza- tion which owns most of the Peruvian rail- ways and a few other enterprises, has never been profitable except to the managers and the debenture holders, The United Railways of Havana, the biggest railroad enterprise in Cuba, has rarely paid dividends on its stock. The Argentine railways, enormously overcapitalized, yielded only scanty returns for decades, and the same has been true of the municipal transport system of the city of Buenos Aires. Only the S&o Paulo Rail- way, among railroads owned by the British in Brazil, has been profitable, and that has been sold to the Brazilian Government, which, after several years of default, reduced both the principal of and the interest on its government bonds held hy foreign investors. Mexico not only has followed the same course, but its Government-controlled railways have paid almost no dividends in more than three decades. Ouba, however, requires further comment. The return on British capital not A3961 invested in Cuban railways was approxi- mately 21 percent in 1948. The investment was in two American-controlled firms manu- facturing tobacco—another virtual monopoly. Regarding the remaining countries, little needs to be said. According to the South American Journal, t:e¢ Bt:.1sh investment in Honduras yielded no income either in 19389 or in 1948. This capital is involved in scandalous issues of government securities sold in the late 1860’s and the early 1870's, but at least a part of the principal is being returned. The bad investments in Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Paraguay are in rails and government securities. The capital yielding no returns from Bolivia seems to be invested in gold mines and forest enterprises. In Ecuador a large part of it is in government bonds, . Further ight may be thrown on this “sour” segment by approaching it from another angle. Table 4 distributes it among the five types listed in table 1. The “sour” invest- ments in the miscellaneous group are mostly in public utilities and port works. TABLE 4—British capital yielding no income: Distribution by types of investment 1989 1948 £210, 891,798 | £5, 457, 460 $36, 032,299 | 152) 8c5, 562 1, 407, 054 Nil 4, 987; Nil 144, 799, 022 98, 483, 089 251, 806, 111 Finally, it may be rewarding to view the data in a tabulation combining the leading countries and the major types of investment. Table 5 is an effort to present this combination. A careful examination of tables 4and 5 will reveal two important facts. The main prob- lem of low returns and complete lack of returns from British investments in Latin America arises in the fields of government securities and railways and in some sectors of the broad miscellaneous group, and the solu- tion of low returns will have to be found, if any solution is possible, mainly in Argen~ tina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Cuba, Peru, and Venezuela. Although the percentage of the investment yielding no returns or low returns is as high or higher in some of the other countries, the total investment in them is much smaller. TaBLE §.—Rritish capital yielding no income: Distribution by principal countries and types Country and |Government Miscel- year bonds Railways | janeous Argentina: ‘ 1939. - Nilj £156, 864, 364] £31, 898, 633 1048_ - Nil 8, 518, 987| 34,328, 134 Brazil: 1924_ 2 ~' L1FR OQ HI! 25, 968,616} 49, 082, 816 1.73. ...---- _ bea 28, 489,852; 4,828,724 exico 88,597,180) 89,541,495) 34,355, 921 Nil] 78,151,940] 24, 600, 212 Nil) 11,400,544) 8,738, 805 Nil 7,615,344] 2,812,500 Nil} = 25, 991,661] 1, 158, 700 re) 28, 166, 975) Nil 5, 559, 100 2 Nil] 2 16, 500, 000 2, 416, 000) (®) | 216, 743, 764 8 1, 999,482) 7, 222,330 G 1, 628, 922} 8, 263, 365 1 No investment. 4 AH except one of the British-owned Peruvian rafl- ways were listed by the South American Journal in 1939 @ er ‘‘Miscellaneous,”’ and all were so listed in 1948. ‘hey are controlled, it will be recalled, by the Peruvian Corp., which accounts for nearly alt the unremunerar tive capital attributed to Peru im this table.
A3$62 Mexico, Brazil, and Peru accounted for £202,684,748 of the total of £210,891,798 de~ faulted Latin-American government securi- ties held by the British in 1939. Chile’s governments were paying the British only 2.1 percent that year; Argentina’s yielded them 4 percent, and Cuba’s 4.6 percent; they had no investment in Venezuelan Govern- ment securities. Peru and Brazil accounted for £3,070,700 of the British-held Latin- American government bonds in default in 1948, more than half the total of £5,457,- 460 for that year. The amount of bonds in default was far smaller than in 1939. But the yields were low: Argentina, 4.1 percent; Brazil, 2.2; Mexico, 0.9; Chile, 1; Peru, 0.6; there was no British investment in 1948 in Cuban or Venezuelan Government securities. By presenting the British bondholders with the choice between continuation of defaults and reduction of interest rates or principal, or both, many of the Latin-American coun- tries have succeeded in reducing both their English-held debts and the interest rates thereon; but can principal and interest, once pared down by negotiation, ever be raised by the same process? The average return of 2.1 percent on Latin-American government securities held by the British in 1948 was low; put by what means can the rate of return be increased? The average yield on the British railway investment, 0.6 percent in 1948, compared with 2.1 percent in 1939, seems preposterous, Perhaps the ultimate solution, except in Mexico, where the British investment is now in government railways, will be found in the sale of these British lines to the govern- ments of the countries in which they are located; and it may be that the same solu- tion can be worked out for the public utility and the port segment of the miscellaneous group. In the rail and miscellaneous classifica- tions, as in the case of government bonds, the problem is again largely concentrated in the nations listed in table 5, although the Argentine railway problem, so far as the English are concerned, has been practically solved by the recent sale of the major British lines. More than 95 percent of the British capital yielding no income in both these categories, in 1948 as well as in 1939, was invested in the seven countries listed in this table. The average yield on the British railway investment in six of these seven republics was as follows: Argentina, 1.7 percent in 1939 and nothing in 1948; Brazil, 0.6 percent in 1939 and 0.9 in 1948; Mexico, no returns in either year; Chile, 1.5 percent in 1939 and 1.9 in 1948; Cuba, 0.5 percent in 1939 and 0.8 in 1948; Venezuela, 0.4 percent in 1989 and slightly more than 1 in 1948. The earnings on the Peruvian railways are not available, but they are known to be very small. Average yields on miscellaneous invest- ments were better, especially in 1948: Ar- gentina, 3.7 percent in 1939 and 3.9 in 1948; Brazil, 1.2 percent in 1989 and 6.7 in 1948; Mexico, 1.1 percent in 1939 and 2.8 in 1948; Chile, 1.6 percent in 1939 and 4 in 1948; Cuba, 3.1 percent in 1939 and 20.7 in 1948; Venezuela, nearly 8.5 percent in 1939 and 11.5 in 1948. Average returns on the British miscellaneous investment in Peru were brought down by including under this head- ing the capital in the Peruvian Corp., most of which was actually in railroads; the per- centages were 1.2 in 1939 and 1.4 in 1948, Is there anything which the United States might do, by persuasion or investment, to improve the yield of British capital operat- ing, and in some cases practically sunk, in Latin America? There is much talk these days of relieving the dollar shortage in the United Kingdom by pumping United States capital in the underdeveloped areas of the British Empire. Could the same objective be attained in part by employing this or some other means nearer home? Address by Hon. Emanuel Celler, of New York EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDNA F. KELLY OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mrs. KELLY of New York. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to insert my remarks in the Recorp, I include the speech made by our distinguished colleague, the Hon- orable EMANUEL CELLER, of New York, on May 20, 1950, on the occasion of the first dinner given by the Association for the Help of Retarded Children. This association is an organization of parents, those with normal children, and those of the pitifully handicapped little ones, the mentally retarded. These are the forgotten children and for them we are trying to make a better life and a better world. The dinner on May 20 was not only to inaugurate a campaign for financial assistance, but also to acquaint the public with the conditions surround- ing these children and with our plans to help them. As cochairman of this organization for Kings County, Brooklyn, I am privileged to ask that you read Congressman CEL- LER’s inspiring address: It is heartening to know that at long last, the parents of mentally retarded children have reached the point in their travail where it is possible for them to submerge their per- sonal sorrow at the fate thrust upon their offspring and band together with others equally burdened in an effort to bring to the attention of all members of our community the touching, the overwhelming plight of some of our children. When a new-born child is abandoned on a doorstep or under @ bush somewhere, we all shudder at the des- peration, perhaps the innate cruelty inher- ent in the act. Our sympathy for a child so victimized by human irresponsibility is in- stinctive and instantaneous. Fortunately, most mentally retarded children are not thus deprived of the love, the comfort, and the de- voted interest of mother and father. But they do suffer the indifference, the neglect, the lack of understanding on the part of the general public. We have homes for foundlings and a pro- gressive program of care for foster children. Our energies have been directed toward tha improvement of the physically handicapped child, who has proved to be considerably en- hanced and psychologically sustained by our educational projects. But the problems at- tendant upon mental deficiency and mental instability, on all levels seem to founder us. While there has been a tremendous improve- ment in the housing and treatment of such individuals, we still appear to resist coming to grips with these situations. Perhaps it is the vast complexities involved and the in- ability on the part of the afflicted to give us much cooperation. However, in the field of care for mentally retarded children, we have had, here and there, the ardent pioneers who refused to be licked by the apparent im-~ APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD possibility and the apparent hopelessness of the task. Motivated by a deep-seated sym- pathy, an unusual insight into the emo- tional reactions existing in these little souls hold these courageous people to their ideal of trying to establish some standards, some procedures, some techniques with which to aid in rehabilitating and alleviating the con- dition of backward children. Perhaps the most beneficial result was the dissipation of many of the superstitions, the tabcos, sur= rounding mental incapacity. Pearl Buck, the distinguished author and one of the sponsors of the Association for the Help of Retarded Children, in a recently published article, has written from the depths of a full heart of the anguish she endured in seeking an ade= quate adjustment for her dear daughter. No one could treat the subject more eloquently, We are tremendously impressed by her in- spired and intelligent efforts to seek the most comfort, the most love, that could be found anywhere for her child. As she knows, her child will never know the joys and sorrows of a full life, but Mrs. Buck has achieved, for herself and her child, as much a measure of happiness as is possible under existing conditions. Her great heritage is hope—and I am very much encouraged to know that she joins with us in this movement, as I feel we will all benefit immeasurably from her personal experience. In casting about for solutions one surveys the programs inaugurated in other countries. In reviewing the English experience one is struck by the fact that a very definite em- phasis is placed upon the differences existing between mental deficiency and lunacy. The British Mental Deficiency Act of 1913 was a very ambitious program, but it was almost lost in the exigencies of World War I and mounting costs. The basic act was amended in 1927, but again mounting costs curtailed the plans. Although local educational au- thorities were empowered to provide special schools, occupation day centers, etc., activi- ties have been run for the most part by vol- untary mental welfare associations attempt- ing to supply supervision and control. Some European countries have a fine record of assistance to the mentally retarded chil- dren. The Scandinavian countries, I believe, have a good system of special schools and special institutions, universally recognized. In Brussels there is the famous institute at Gheel. As I understand it, those responsible for the very successful experimental work at Vineland studied closely the methods pur- sued at Gheel. Before the war Germany, too, had a very fine system of educational and occupational programs for the mentally deficient. In the United States the care of the men- tally deficient children has been relegated entirely to the individual States. In 1940 there were only 61 State institutions throughout the United States for such care. In New York State today there are only six institutions for the care of mentally retarded children and daily applicants are refused for Jack of space and trained personnel. This tragic dearth of facilities is most dis- couraging to the parents of a child needing such treatment. However, this lack may be due in part to the fact that it has been almost impossible to determine with any de- gree of exactitude the number of deficient children. Many parents are reluctant to re- veal that their child is so afflicted. Many parents do not recognize such an incapacity at an early age or are unaware that such a handicap may be helped by new methods and educational efforts. The problem is twofold. First, we must establish the over-all need as accurately as possible. Some authorities believe there is basis for the assumption that almost 1 person in every 100 is mentally retarded,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and of these the majority are retarded from noninherited causes. Secondly, we must spark public interest to the point where remedial efforts will gain wide support. To do this, those most concerned must be con= vinced that something can be done. Parents must be encouraged by the fact that groups such as ours are springing up all over the courtry; that there is a distinct possibility that their child may be aided to meet the criterion of social adequacy and adapt to the requirements of what we accept as a normal environment. Parents must recognize that psychotherapeutic help is absolutely essen- tial to any solution of this problem. We must not allow ourselves to be hampered by @ limited horizon. We must avoid reproduc- ing the mistakes of the past in this field. As we now have something definite to look for- ward to, we must assume the role of pace- makers. As you may know, scholarships and fellowships for individuals, grants to colleges and industry for basic research, aid for scien- tists, are to be provided in the future through the new National Science Foundation. This is the first time the Federal Government has ever directed itself to the basic sciences out of which may come the discovery of the causes of and the cures for disease and physi- cal and mental maladjustments. It is, in- deed, a great forward step, although the lib- erals in Congress, like EpNa KrLiy, myself included, had to battle against terrific odds to get the bill through. The President has just approved this act creating the National Science Foundation. Five hundred thou- sand dollars will be available to set up an organization and to start opcratiors. It will be July 1, 1951, however, bercre cash can begin to flow in any appreciable quantities to individuals and institutions interested in research in basic science. There will be $15,- 000,000 to spend in the first full operating year and $15,000,000 a year after that. Money will go to aid research in basic sci- ences as they relate to mathematics, engi- neering as well as physics, biology, biochem- istry, medicine. psvchiatry. Almost any in- dividual or insillution qualified to carry on research might be in line for a grant from the Science Foundation. At the moment it is assumed that most of the research will be done in universities, with emphasis upon fellowships and scholarships. A university may apply for a grant to carry on a particu- lar line of research, or it will be selected so to do. As to scholarships, the plan is to make cash grants to individuals entirely on the basis of merit and ability. In most in- stances, however, it is believed that the grants will be given to experienced persons carrying on postgraduate studies or research, It is hoped that out of these inquiries and research may come the cause and cure of the mentally retarded. I think it is clear to all of us here tonight that we can no longer afford the short cuts. We must have the clinics, the guidance bu- reaus, the special schools, the research, the educational training, and the occupational training. We must see to it that trained personnel are developed to handle such an ambitious project. We must secure the as- sistance of scientific investigators to explore the possibilities of the development of psy- chiatric techniques, both with individuals and with groups. New methods must be de- vised to cope with the individual, the insti- tutional, and the community problem of the mentally deficient. Too much? Not at’all. It is only the beginning—and the National Science Foundation is the first step in many which should help the Associa- tion for the Help of Retarded Children to- ward its final goal—the elimination, if hu- manly possible, of all types of congenital and postnatal brain impairment. Not one of us can reach this objective alone. We must all work at it together, The Delaware River Basin Integrated Water Project EXTENSICN OF REMARKS HON. F. H. LICHTENWALTER OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. LICHTENWALTER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I de- sire to place in the Rrcorp an address given by my friend and coworker in the field of conservation and water resources, Mr. James H. Allen, executive secretary, Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin, delivered before the fortieth annual convention of the National Rivers and Harbors Congress, together with an address he delivered before the Lehigh Valley Flood Control Council: THE DELAWARE River Basin Intrecraten WATER PROJECT Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to be somewhat brief in my presenta- tion for the principal reason that I have brought with me a reprint of an address which I made recently, which quite thor- oughly explains what the big water problem is in the northeast section of the country, encompassing particularly the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Dela- ware. I was interested in the remarks of the gen- tleman from Texas in which he told us about the Texas Water Conservation Association and the way that it is planning, and not only planning but executing its water pro- gram. In the section which I represent, the prin- cipal problem is the problem of supplying adequate water for domestic and industrial purposes to a section of the country in which resides approximately 10 percent of the entire population of the United States. Here are located the country’s largest and third larg- est cities, New York City being the largest, and the third largest, Philadelphia. Also in this area 1s a very rapidly growing metro- politan area in northern New Jersey. Each of these sections, for a long while, has been cognizant of the fact that it must plan carefully to meet future water-supply needs. In each case, they have made numer- ous surveys to determine how those future demands could best be met and, in every instance, it was found that the most satis- factory source of additional water supply was the Delaware River Basin. But, the Del- aware River Basin is an interstate stream and all of the parties making these individual suryeys found quickly that, in order to go ahead with an individual project, they had to overcome a lot of interstatr implications. As a consequence, 8 years ago the Inter- state Commission on the Delaware River Basin, which was created about 10 years pre- viously, suggested to the States and to these political subdivisions that the time had come when they must abandon looking at this problem on a mind-your-own basis, and unite and find out for once and for all whether the Delaware River Basin could ap- propriately meet their future demands. As a result of that suggestion, the Legislatures of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, in 1949, directed the Interstate Commission on the Delaware River Basin to make the necessary engineering surveys. This work is now in progréss, About 3 months ago, we presented to the Governors of the three States a preliminary report set- A. ting forth that it was feasible and adv for the States to join in the future struction of a single integrated water ect for their mutual welfare. That p wil supply anticipated future addition: mands for water supply for New York and New Jersey in a total aggregate an of arzrovimatety 1,000,000,000 gallor water ¢ car. Iv will also provide the ¢ Philadeiphia, if it Cesires, a new sour water supply amounting to about 500,0¢ gallons a day. Furthermore, the projec provide a very necessary stream regul advantage. In the lower reaches of the Delaware I every time there is a drought, the indu: are confronted with a situation that is cult, damaging, and expensive, that s tion being the upstream movement of b ish water. Under this proposed proje Will be possible to release into the Dela Curing times of drought, a quantity of ' sufficient to keep that brackish water 1 any point where it can cause damage t dustrial development. In order to carry this project out, it is posed that the States negotiate a cor creating a Delaware River Water Con sion. To that commission would be gated the responsibility for financing, structing, and operating the proposed ect. Like the projects in Texas, Mr. Jac we believe that this project will be en self-liquidating and that it will be unn sary to call for subsidies on the part of eral and State Governments. I agree you that, if we are to make progress in country, the States and the local go ments must face these obligations an willing to meet their responsibility in fiz ing such programs. Thank you. [Appla THe De~aware River Basin INTEGRATED V PROJECT (By James H. Allen) I appreciate very much this opport to acquaint you with the general feat and more particularly with the signific of the proposed Delaware River Basin 1 project which was submitted last Frid: the Governors of Pennsylvania, New Je and New York by the Interstate Commi on the Delaware River Basin. In all the country’s history, probabl incident has arisen which so well dramz man’s dependency upon a supply of adec water as the situation which now conf. New York City. The critical water shor involving the Nation’s largest metropo population in a series of bathless Thurs focuses national attention upon the ] ware River Valley and a crucial issue a ing decision regarding its development. The four States in which this watersk located now have a glorious opportuni achieve a high standard in wise governr They must take advantage of this opp nity or it undoubtedly will be lost fa time. It’s now or never. The States—New York, New Jersey, P sylvania, and Delaware—are about to wi with a problem which is as vexing as critical, If solved sensibly they wil themselves a tremendous service, ind ually and collectively, socially and econ cally. Of greater significance, they wi setting a new pattern for a national p concerning control and development oi land and water resources of interstate regions. One certainly is needed. F dent Truman’s recent appointment of a tional Water Resources Commission to s this problem is evidence of the fact, Will the States meet or muff the < lenge? The entire country is profoundl terested in the answer. Residents of the Lehigh Valley should more than passing interest in the ques
A3964 for yours is a highly industrialized valley and industrial areas throughout the Nation have come to realize that their future expansion is intimately related to ability to develop in- creased water supplies. This stark fact was strikingly brought home very recently by Mr. Eugene Grace, chairman of the board of Bethlehem Steel Co. On the occasion of a testimonial dinner, tendered by the leading citizenry of Bethlehem, the noted indus- trialist stated with emphasis that any sub. stantial expansion of the steel company’s operations in the Bethlehem region will hinge upon the availability of adequate and satisfactory sources of water supply. I feel quite certain that Mr. Grace would agree that the future of his company will also depend upon the continuance of the principles of free enterprise upon which this country has prospered so well. BACKGROUND Most of you know that Incodel has gained the reputation of being quite a prognostica- tor. In June 1948, well over a year before the streams and reservoirs in this section of the country began to go dry, it suggested that the time had come to find out whether the upper Delaware River Basin should be de- veloped for metropolitan water supplies and other beneficial purposes. I assure you that it was just plain luck, not crystal-gazing, that caused Incodel to advance its proposal weil in advance of the period when the rains failed to come. In any event, the Incodel suggestion was well received and in July of 1949 it began to carry out the reciprocal directive by the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York to determine whether it would be ad-~ visable for the three States to join in the future construction of a single integrated water project for their mutual benefit and welfare. Incodel engaged consulting engineers to make the necessary investigations. It re- ceived last Thursday a preliminary report covering the results of the first of two steps in the survey. The report confirms what Incodel anticipated, namely, that there is an urgent need for an integrated interstate water project for the development and con- servation of the resources of the upper Dela~ ware River Basin. It is not ~v ~wrre-> this evening to de- scribe the w... 2. «4 vects of the proposed project in great detail, Rather, I propose to explain briefly the high lights of the project and then to discuss some of its implications, particularly those which concern the ques- tion of Federal-State relationships in the development of the water resources of the country. INCODEL WATER PROJECT First stage The first stage of the proposed project is designed to provide the equivalent of 1,000,- 000,009 gallons of water daily. Of this quan- tity, it is estimated that about 450,000,000 gallons daily will be needed to meet addi-~ tional requirements in northern New Jersey and New York City areas during the next 25 to 30 years. The project, in its first stage, will also provide for the storage of sufficient water to maintain a minimum flow in the Delaware River at Trenton of approximately 3,000,000,000 gallons of water per day. This will result in practically doubling dry- -weather flows in summer and fall such as existed last year. Periods of low run-off of this type sometimes last as long as 6 to 8 months. The first-stage project is comprised of the following elements: 1, A storage reservoir on the west branch of the Delaware River at Cannonsville with a total capacity of 118,000,000,000 gallons. This reservoir would be used primarily for the purpose of furnishing water in order to increase low river flows in the entire length of the river. 2. A diversion dam on the main river near Barryville holding about 10,000,000,000 gal- lJons. The major purpose of this dam will be to permit diversion of flood flows for water supply. 8. A storage reservoir with a total capacity of 263,000,000,000 gallons on the lower Never- sink River and on Basher Kill extending from Godeffroy to Summitville. The principal function of this reservoir will be to store the flood flows captured at Barryville and transported therefrom by tunnel connection between the two structures. 4. A transmission tunnel from the upper part of Godeffroy Reservoir to New York City’s existing main supply tunnels in Brooklyn. From this common transmission tunnel branch connections would be ex- tended to the major water-supply systems of northern New Jersey. The total storage provided in the first stage of development is 390,000,000,000 gallons, of which at least '78,000,000,000 gallons will re- main in the reservoirs to maintain minimum conservation lakes. No detailed estimates of cost of the first- stage project have yet been made. Pre- liminary estimates indicate it will amount to about 8500,000,000. The project will be large- ly self-liquidating. Subsequent stages The order of subsequent construction stages will depend upon the occurrence of expected future events. If and when a further additional supply, above the 450,000,000 gallons a day provided by the first stage, is required by northeastern New Jersey and New York City, it will be necessary to build two additional reservoirs; one on Flat Brook in New Jersey, and one at Fishs Eddy on the East Branch of the Dela- ware in New York. The former would have a storage capacity of 84,000,000,000 gallons, and the latter, 15'7,000,000,000 gallons. When Philadelphia, or the Philadelphia and southern New Jersey areas, desire to obtain water from the integrated project, the construction of a large storage reservoir with a total capacity of 121,000,000,000 gallons of the main channel of the Delaware River at Wallpack Bend will be required. Water can be delivered from Wallpack Bend to these areas in either one of two ways. The first would be by tunnel and aqueduct to points of delivery. The second method would use the Delaware River to transport water by gravity to a point immediately above Trenton. The second method is obviously more eco- nomical and would provide a good quantity of raw water. It would also result in further augmentation of dry water stream flows. No extensions to the first-stage project are expected to be necessary for at least 25 years. Lehigh Valley needs The survey gave consideration to the prob- able future requirements of every section of the Delaware Basin and its adjacent re- gions. It was determined that the demands for water in the Lehigh Valley would prob- ably increase by 100 percent during the next 50 years. These requirements can be hest met by the development of the upper Lehigh and its tributaries. It appears that the es- tablishment of a metropolitan water district to meet the future needs of the region may be desirable. This is a problem to which the Lehigh Valley Flood Control Council could advantageously direct its attention. SIGNIFICANCE OF WATER PROJECT I would like now to discuss aspects of the proposed integrated water project which, in my mind, have far greater significance than its physical features. First, I would state that, in Incodel’s judgment, the project will be built. The only question is: Who will do the job—and how? We believe the project—or a reasonable facsimile—will become a reality because it is APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a public necessity. Both New York City and northeastern New Jersey have to secure ad- ditional water supplies. Otherwise, their growth and prosperity will be imperiled. Philadelphia probably will not find it ad- visable to abandon its present sources in favor of supply from the integrated project for many years. Nevertheless, there is an urgent and immediate need for a program which will iron out the violent fluctuations in stream flows, thereby reducing floods and increasing dry weather flows along the en- tire length of the Delaware. It has been well established that projects in the upper Delaware Basin will accomplish these ends. But, in this day and age, de- velopments to meet these requirements can no longer be carried out on a disconnected piecemeal basis. That is why each State should do everything in its power to avoid acting on a mind-your-own-business basis. This would only lead to one result—litiga- tion in the United States Supreme Court. Such procedure would involve bitter and ex- pensive litigation, serious delay, and, most probably, disapproval of any individual project except under conditions which would make it economically unattractive. Nor can the States procrastinate. The public is now insisting with increasing ve- hemence that the many uses of water re- quired to meet the demands of modern life must be made available. People are no longer concerned about who will do the job. Re- sults are what they are after. If the States don’t move, the Federal Government will. Make no mistake about that. Federal regional authorities I’m in a position to know what I’m talk- ing about. The advocates of centralization are a persistent, ambitious lot. Why, last year, as in the several preceding sessions of Congress, they introduced numerous bills de- signed to blanket the country with federally controlled river valley agencies, patterned after the Tennessee Valley Authority. The same bills are before the present Congress and are being vigorously promoted. Mind you, I do not say that TVA has not done wonderful things for the Tennessee Valley. However, there is nothing amazing about that. With the faith and credit of the National Treasury behind it, with no obligation to make a complete accounting to the public, when a large part of its cost can be charged off to inflated or dubious bene- fits from navigation and flood control, it has been no great task to build the grandiose and awe-inspiring structures which made up this huge and complex project. On the chance that I might be accused of being prejudiced, I refer you to the article by John T. Flynn, in the Reader’s Digest of December 1947, entitled “The Hidden Red Ink in TVA’s Books.” In a foreword by the publisher attention is called to the fact that Mr. Flynn was formerly an advocate of TVA's. But the foreword goes on to state that, after months of investigation, he changed his mind. Mr. Flynn’s main theme has to do with TVA’s accounting procedures which, accord. ing to him, are obscure, if not deceptive, to say the least. But, to me, Mr. Flynn’s most significant observations deal with the ques- tion of the fundamental philosophy under- lying our constitutional form of government. Mr. Flynn describes TVA as a Federal cor- poration cunningly devised to accumulate power and to elude congressional authority. Having pointed out that David EH. Lilienthal, its former Chairman, calls TVA democracy on the march, Mr. Flynn observes, “I think it is democracy in retreat, a return to the Euro- pean system of centrally controlled provin- cial governors. With TVA as a beginning, the advocates of regionalism are planning, under the guise of flood, navigation, and forestry control and other excuses, to blanket America with this new type of government
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD which represents a complete revolution in our political system. Other Federal threats I, for one, do not want to see such a revo- lution materialize. Nor doI believe that this threat appeals to the people of the Lehigh Valley. But do not think for a moment that it is the only danger of federalization in this region. Longer established agencies of the Federal Government are licking their chops in anticipation of finding other areas upon which to fatten. One of the most ag- gressive and ambitious is the Department of the Interior. I would like to inform you that its Assistant Secretary, William Warne, hasn’t let the critical water shortage in New York City go by without an attempt to use it asa springboard to win greater power and au- thority for his bureaucracy. In an interview with representatives of the press on December 20, he made it clear that the Department is looking forward to the op- portunity of assuming control of the rivers in the eastern half of the United States. Mr. Warne said, “We don’t have any new programs formulated yet for river develcp- ment in the East, but there will be more of them. The present situation is leading in- evitably to that. Only through comprehen- sive development of eastern streams can you solve the problem of water supplies which will become critical.” We of Incodel do not understand where the Department thinks it derives its juris- diction in the matter of formulating water- project programs in the East. Certainly the Army engineers would not go for that. On the other hand, we are aware of the fact that congressional laws do delegate power to the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclama- tion in certain Western States with respect to the planning and construction of projects for the irrigation of arid lands. Signifi- cantly, we have heard numerous complaints from these areas to the effect that this essen- tial use is being subordinated and penalized economically in favor of an obsession by the Bureau to produce so-called cheap public power. Hoover Commission findings And we are also aware of the findings of ex-Gov. Leslie A. Miller, chairman, Natural Resources Committee of the Hoover Com- mission. In an article in the May 14, 1949, issue of the Saturday Evening Post, he takes the Bureau to task for incredible extrava- gance resulting from their money-spending contest with other Federal agencies in har- nessing western streams. We in the East, and particularly in the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl- vania, and Delaware, have always been in the forefront in campaigning for govern- mental reforms. We certainly do not want any part in extending a system which prom- ises to destroy us. Already we are paying a disproportionately large share of the bill for unduly ambitious schemes now being foisted upon other sections of the Nation by federally controlled river basin development agencies. A NEW OUTLOOK We admit that we are now confronted with @ critical water situation and will be for years to come. We know that the problems involved are complex. We are convinced that they can be best solved by the appli- cation of the principle of wholesome gov- ernmental cooperation. We claim we have the capacity to make that principle work. The Delaware River Basin water project is our challenge. We intend to meet it. ‘We propose to do so by establishing by compact among the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and probably Dela- ware, a Delaware River Basin Water Com- mission which would be empowered to plan, finance, construct, maintain, and operate the recommended water project. We have al- ready taken steps toward the drafting of XCVI—App.——250 such a compact. A subcommittee of Incodel is at work on this task. Under present policies and precedures now being followed in the execution of Federal water projects we would be perfectly justi- fied in asking the Federal Government to finance the entire cost of the Incodel water project. But we do not propose to do this. Rather, we intend to set an example by pay- ing the cost of all of the program which is obviously primarily for our own benefit, and to campaign for the adoption of a compa- rable policy for the Nation as a whole. We are convinced that this principle is sound and would be advantageous and equi- table to Pennsylvania and its component regions including the Lehigh Valley and also to the other States in the great Northeast- ern section of the country. At the same time we recognize there are States and regions in the country that are less fortunate economically than this section and that we have an obligation to assist them in the development of their resources and economy. We should be willing to do this, but not to the extent of footing a grossly disproportionate part of the bill, as we now are doing. At the present time, something like a bil- lion and one-half dollars a year is being ap- propriated annually by the Federal Govern~ ment for Federal land and water development projects. Over 30 percent of this money, or approximately $450,000,000, comes from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Dela- ware. I doubt very much if more than 10 percent of what we pay in, or $45,000,000, is returned to us in the form of facilities and services. The balance goes to our poor coun~ try cousins. Incidentally, one of the principal deficien- cies at present in Federal programs for water- resource development is the lack of sound, uniform standards and criteria for the allo- cation of costs and evaluation of reimburs- able features in determining the economic feasibility of multiple-use projects. That is one of the reasons why we in the Northeast are not getting a fair break. It’s time, in my judgment, for the adoption of some new standards. I’m wholeheartedly in favor of economically sound land and water projects, whoever may carry them out, But we have a tremendous job to do right here at home and I think we should have some of our own money to do it with. I suggest, in principle, the adoption of the fol- lowing policy to accomplish this end. Let the Congress annually set up a budget for land- and water-development programs, including stream clearance and pollution abatement. Based upon my experience and observations, I believe such programs are usually at least 75 percent for the benefit of the areas in which they are located and not moye than 25 percent in the national interest. On the assumption that these ratios are reasonable, I would suggest that the Federal Government return to the States 75 percent of their share of the funds earmarked for land- and water-conservation programs and let the States decide how and where to spend this money on projects for their particular benefit. The balance could be put in a Federal pot to be used where most needed. ’ Some program cf this general nature must be adopted, I believe, if the goal is to estab- lish honest natural resources development programs in keeping with a policy which will put an end to the present type of sit- uation which Governor Miller has described as “the battle that squanders billions.” Your council has definite reason to be in- terested in and to lend its support to changes that will result in the adoption of @ sound national policy for the development of the natural resources of the country. The future of your region’s foremost indus- tries, the tax-paying producers of electric power, steel and cement and the railroads, A3965 and the future of your local governmental structure, are at stake. No organization is better qualified than your group to under- stand and cope with the problems involved. If you are truly concerned about the future welfare and prosperity of your region—and of your country—you should work unceas-~ ingly for the wise utilization, conservation and development of the natural resources of the Lehigh River Valley under a system which will preserve the maximum degree of control in the hands of the people in the region directly affected. Point 4 and the United Nations EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN OF NEW YORE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, May 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, the eminent economist, Dr. Mordecai Ezekiel, has written a very informative and illu- minating discussion of the relationship between the point 4 program and the economic activities now being carried on by the United Nations. This article was printed in the weekly publication New Republic, in the issue of May 15. I ask unanimous consent to insert this article in the Appendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Pont 4 anp THE UNITED NaTIoNs (By Mordecai Ezekiel) For most of the world’s population, the great wartime pledges of freedom from fear and want—for all men everywhere—are still largely a dream. Three-quarters of the world’s people live in underdeveloped coun~ tries in malnutrition and poverty. They share but little in the dynamic progress of the rest of the world. The war lifted their aspirations toward political independence and economic progress, yet in most cases their food and consumption standards have not yet regained even the low prewar levels. Meanwhile the economic outlook of a great capital-supplying regicn—western Hurope— grows darker as the years of ECA aid run out. President Truman’s point 4 proposals of- fered a way to start attacking the problems of economic development in the poorer na- tions of the world. They also offered west- ern Europe, where substantial progress is under way, an answer to the great economic question: What happens when the Marshall plan ends? When approved by Congress and imple- mented by international agreement, the point 4 program will provide technical ex- perts to assist countries to develop their economies. But Know-how alone is not enough. Technical services are useless, as President Truman has said, unless they are followed by international investment to make the blueprints function. In prewar days the underdeveloped coun- tries helped finance a triangular (or multi- lateral) flow of trade which supported the prosperity of western Europe. The under- developed regions (especially in the Tropics) regularly sold to North America far more in raw materials (rubber, copra, petroleum, silk, sugar, jute, copper, coffee, tea, and many others) than they purchased in North Amer- ican exports. Their surplus dollar earnings
A3966 went to western Europe, as profits and in- terest on investments and as payments for western European industrial prcducts and services. There, in turn, dollars helped west- ern Europe finance its great net imports of goods from America (including purchases of our cotton, tobacco, dried fruits, corn, wheat, pacon and lard, automobiles, office machin- ery, and heavy electrical equipment). Today the underdeveloped countries are no longer able to earn a dollar surplus in foreign trade and the increases in self-gov- ernment and the liquidation of foreign hold- ings have reduced their cbligations to Europe, Instsed of receiving a steady current net in- flow of dollars from the underdeveloped countries, western Europe has been paying pack for wartime contributions, notably in the gradual liquidation of biccked sterling balances. Western Europe has thus been unable to finance its postwar import needs from Amer-~ ica not only because of the war’s devastation in Europe, but also because cf the havoc in other parts of the world and the consequent disappearance of dollar payments. That is @ major reason why, as European industry and agriculture complete their rehabilitation and as Marshall plan payments approach their end, Europe still finds itself faced with a continuing inability to buy and pay for its needed imports from the Americas. Since western Europe broadly imports raw materials and exports finished products, no amount of integration of its own national economies can solve its over-all dollar prob- lem; nor can the increased cooperation of western European economies with those of other soft-currency areas in Asia, Africa, and Latin America provide Europe with all the raw materials it needs; it must draw on North America, too. This economic background is essential to an understanding of point 4’s broad basic conception: To give underdeveloped nations the know-how and the means to help them help themselves; to raise their production and consumption, their exports and their imports; and to bring about a steady, dy- namic increase in the world’s economic ac- tivity. This increase would simultaneously make markets for the expanding industries of the Americas, Europe, and the underde~ veloped countries. But whether the program can contribute to a rapid reestablishment of a multilateral system of world trade, or whether it simply creates direct markets for United States goods which will dry up as soon as our financing slackens, depends on the way in which it is carried out. The extent of dollar investment abroad needed to enable world trade to function is indicated roughly from past experience. Since the war, the United States and Canada have financed world recovery by loans and grants running from $7,000,000,000 to #8,000,- 000,000 a year. In 1949 these declined to $6,000,000,000, and 1950 will be lower still. Most of those funds went to western Europe, To make point 4 really effective in the fu- ture, international investment in the under- developed countries will be needed eventually in sums of around $5,000,000,000 a year. Later, the nations can pay back these invest~ ments from their expanded exports to the United States and other countries. American national income has doubled every 20 years. With continued growth in our economy, even if it is not quite so rapid, we shall need more and more imports in the years ahead, espe- cially of raw materials. Thus we can help to provide expanding export markets for pro- duction in backward countries. During the period in which the funds are being advanced, they will provide dollars for the rest of the world to continue to buy American exports. If a considerable part of these dollar invest- ments is spent for European products, in- creased investment in the underdeveloped countries can also help to restore the tri- angular flow of world trade. This would sup- port the recovery of western Europe and the continuation of democratic governments, thereby making markets for European indus- trial products. It would also give Europe the dollars to continue its imports of American goods. Over the longer pull, as the world economy and our own expand together, we then would have time to adjust ourselves to fewer and fewer net exports, instead of hav- ing to make the change almost overnight. If these good results are to follow, three conditions are necessary: The funds advanced, whether loans or grants, must not be tied to direct expendi- ture in America. Europe must produce the largest part of the industrial equipment needed by the un- derdeveloped countries. These countries in turn must spend a sub- stantial part of their foreign funds in Eu- rope rather than in the United States. All of these conditions are germane to the current issue, now hotly debated in Wash- ington, as to whether the United States share of point 4 technical assistance should be provided directly by the United States, or whether a substantial portion r.ould be channeled through the UN and its special- ized agencies. On their side, the manifold departments and agencies of the United States Govern- ment rightly stress the fact that they are already in the technical-assistance business. Under Nelson Rockefeller’s Office of the Co- ordinator of Latin American Affairs and its successor agencies in the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations in the Department of Agriculture, and in parallel activities in other agencies, a steady stream of American experts has gone to many countries, espe~ cially in Latin America. Cooperative ar- rangements with governments have been worked out, joint corporations have been set up to finance economic development, and loans from our Export-Import Bank have backed this development. Since the war, the bank has loaned nearly three times as much to Latin-American countries as to all other underdeveloped countries, in ratio to popu- lation. Alone of the backward regions, and in large part because of American aid, Latin America’s people are better fed today than they were before the war. In the same way ECA is providing technical assistance to European countries and their colonies and territories. In addition, thousands of men and women throughout the world are re- ceiving practical experience each year in the Bureau of Mines, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Rec- lamation Service, the Public Service and other Federal agencies. Our Government bureaus are already spending millions of dollars a year in tech- nical-assistance activities. They are expe- rienced in choosing personnel, establishing relations with countries, giving practical help on the spot. All they need to do is to expand their present scale of operations. On the other hand, the UN institutions have had little operating experience, and are hampered by multiple controls and inter= national frictions. Also it is easier and sim- pler for a Government department to get an appropriation from Congress, for use by established Government departments, spend the money directly, and account to Congress on how it is spent, than to follow through on the spending of the money as part of the operations of an international agency draw- ing funds from many countries. In these circumstances, many Washington officials honestly feel they are best qualified to spend the bulk of the proposed point 4 appropriations, and they reflect this feeling to Congress. - Here, on the other side, are the arguments which favor using the UN and its specialized agencies: First, if a substantial portion of the United States funds is channeled through the UN, it will stimulate corresponding contributions APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from other countries. These countries, in addition, have capable technicians in many fields available for foreign service. Why should we in the United States pay the whole cost ourselves when other advanced countries are prepared to share part of the burden with us? Second, direct assistance from any one nation is feared in many parts of the world. Many of the poorest countries have just succeeded in throwing off foreign control. They are jealous of their hard-won liberties. Their political opposition is quick to attack any move that may suggest new dependence on foreign powers or new concessions to foreign influences. Technical assistance through the UN is on a different plane. Their governments are members and help formu- late its policies; they do not endanger their independence, political or financial, in work- ing with the UN. Third, while the UN is newer to the busi- ness than the United States is, it has wider resources of technicians on which to draw. Even if funds are provided, the shortage of trained brains may for a long time be the factor limiting the extent and effectiveness of technical assistance. UN missions use technicians from many countries all over the world, while direct United States tech- nical aid is largely extended through United States citizens. This makes for greater variety of viewpoint and opinion among the UN experts, and probably sounder eventual recommendations, as the editors of the New Republic have pointed out. Further, Euro- pean experts, in particular, have had long practical experience in dealing with the problems of underdeveloped countries. They understand not only the physical and tech- nical conditions, but the habits of thought and work of the people. Now that colonial- ism itself is dying, most of these experts are ready to give intelligent and loyal service in helping backward countries increase their output for their own benefit. In many cases these non-American experts may be more realistic and understanding in dealing with the problems of more primitive countries than are American experts. For example, in my Own experience abroad, I have found American experts frequently overdisposed to assume that the answer to all problems is to do things just as we do them in the United States. Countries often may be better aided to take the next steps ahead by technicians from countries not so many decades or generations removed frédm them in economic and social progress. Thus Amer- ican experts frequently put great emphasis on efficiency, on saving labor, even in coun- tries where for many years to come the problem will be not to save labor but to use productively the labor already idle. Americans find it hard to understand that investment in labor-saving machinery may be wasteful compared to investment in sim- pler equipment to put more men to work. A fourth argument in favor of a UN ap- proach is that American technicians tend naturally to specify American equipment. The results were highlighted by the recent Seattle incident, where the low-cost British bid was rejected because it conformed to British instead of American methods of stat- ing specifications. If foreign investments in underdeveloped countries are to be spent in any substantial part for equipment from western Europe, European engineers and technicians will have to help draw up the plans. A fifth argument is that the UN agencies have much broader technical resources for giving students and workers advanced train- ing outside their own countries. The United States uses its scholarship funds largely to bring students here for advanced technical work) in colleges or professional schools, and for in-service training in public and other institutions. The UN can provide scholar- ships and in-service training not only in
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD American institutions, but also in institu- tions of all the other highly developed coun- tries. In many cases training in English, Duich, Scandinavian or Swiss technical schools, for example, may better prepare the trainees for practical work in their own countries than would American training adapted to our advanced technology and our enormous mass-production economy. Some international scholarships are already being provided by UNESCO. The tentative point 4 program of the FAO, UNESCO and other agencies as summarized in the UN publica- tion, “Technical Assistance for Economic De- velopment,” provides for a great expansion in such internationally sponsored technical training. Another argument for a UN approach arises from the need for international in- stitutes to provide short courses for qualified students from many countries. These train- ing centers, by adding to the skill of officials already engaged in point 4 work, can pro- duce improved technical skills in months in-= stead of the years that it takes for students sent abroad to return and make a contri- bution. Such international centers have already been proved both economical and effective in the statistical training centers, sponsored jointly by the FAO, the UN Sta- tistical Office and the host countries. These have been conducted during the last 2 years in Mexico City for Latin America, Cairo for the Near East, Paris for Hurope, and New Dehli for the Far East. Reliable facts are the basis for all sound planning and development. And by bringing about ma- terial improvement in both census and crop- estimate methods in many underdeveloped countries, these statistical centers have al- ready done a good job. Plans for large- scale expansion of such international train- ing can be put into effect as soon as funds are assured. The final argument in favor of a UN ap- proach to the point 4 program is the fact that international agencies can conduct activities requiring joint international action far better than individual countries. Many aspects of economic development re- quire this kind of international planning. The steps proposed in each country must be carefully balanced with what’s being pro- jected in other countries if some lines are not to be overstressed while others are neg~ lected. One of the UN’s major tasks is to study the economic programs of individual countries to see whether they make sense, and then to aid countries to redraft their planning in the light of the prospective world situation, and work out adjustments to make their progams more consistent. The United States has strongly urged this joint planning as a function of UN agencies, Notable efforts in this field include the work of the UN Economic Commission for Europe, in planning and adjusting European pro- grams of coal, steel, timber, and other prod- ucts, and of the FAO in developing a world- wide review of advance agricultural pro- grams at its annual conferences, and also more intensive regional reviews at regional conferences. Four of these regional meet- ings were held last fall—at Quito, Cairo, Rome, and Singapore. I made a round-the- world air trip to help staff the Singapore mecting and to listen in on the meeting in Rome. I found the frank analysis and dis- cussion of the readjustments needed in Asiatic and European agricultural programs most encouraging. ‘Yet this work is just beginning. If billions of dollars are going to be invested in worldwide economic de- velopment, the UN’s efforts to prevent losses and failure by advance international con- sultation and planning will need to be greatly expanded. No country has a monopoly on brains, skill, experience, and imagination. Many of the epochal discoveries—such as that of penicil< lin in this generation, or of the germ source of diseases and of the steam locomotive in earlier ones—were made outside the United States. Technical assistance through the UN and its agencies can mobilize all the technical skill and know-how of the world, to speed the process of worldwide economic expansion and to reduce the inevitable mis- takes along the way. If the United States places its major reli- ance on direct technical assistance through its own agencies, other countries, to the ex- tent they provide technical assistance, may similarly expand assistance directly. But they may limit it to their own areas of in- terest through their own technicians. Such a tendency is evident in the recent arrange- ments for expanded technical assistance by the members of the British Commonwealth at their recent conference at Colombo, in the programs of other colonial powers, and in the technical activities of the U.S. S.R. which so far have been entirely unilateral. Emphasis on unilateral, rather than international, technical assistance might be a decisive and disruptive force in the world economy, tend- ing further to split it into spheres of influ- ence, rather than draw it closer together through UN activities. Finally, the United States has been one of the main sponsors of the UN and its agencies, and has repeatedly pledged itself to work through them in international political and economic matters. Raising the standards of living of the peoples of the underdeveloped countries is a primary UN objective. If the United States desires to see the UN’s power and prestige grow, it must give the UN a fair chance to carry its share of the operating load in dealing with the world’s economic prob- lems. There are strong arguments for a dual ap< proach of direct aid and aid through the UN. The UN aid would draw on the reserves of trained skill from the great* army of expe- rienced technicians in western Europe and Oceania, and the less numerous but still im- portant able men in Latin America, the Near East, and Far East. It would help to bind closer necessary trade connections between Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. The funds needed to carry the plans into action might similarly be provided, partly from the United States and other countries, and partly from international agencies. But only by emphasis on an international approach can the European recovery program be carried through to successful completion as part of a recovery and expansion program for the world. Frank A. O’Connor EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HUGH J. ADDONIZIO OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. ADDONIZIO. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc-~ orp, I wish to insert the following edi- torial from the Newark Evening News, paying tribute to an eminent public ser- vant, Mr. Frank A. O’Connor, of West Orange, N. J., who has retired after 56 years of devoted service to the com- munity. I want to join the residents of West Orange in congratulating him upon his distinguished record and wishing him continued health and happiness. As the editorial points out, Mr. O’Connor carries into retirement the satisfying knowledge that his 56 years in elected office bear, A3967 witness to the trust reposed in him by his neighbors. AFTER 56 Years Through three wars, changing administra- tions, in hard times and geod, Frank A. O’Connor has served the town of West Orange. For 56 years he has been succes= sively tax assessor, tax collector and, since the introduction of commission government in 1922, a member of the governing body. During his lifetime of civic service, begun while Grover Cleveland was serving his sec- ond term in the White House, Mr. O’Connor has been witness to the growth and indus- trial expansion of north Jersey. He has seen the rising tide of commerce swirl about his town and, for the most part, leave untouched its tree-lined streets, quiet homes, and or-= dered gardens. Now, at 82, Mr. O’Connor has retired. One must suppose that for him life has had the usual complement of disappointments and compensations. But into retirement he car- ries the satisfying knowledge that his 56 years in elected office bear witness to the trust re= posed in him by his neighbors. And no small thing it is. The Frontiers of Freedom Have Widened in 50 Years EXTENSION CF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR G. KLEIN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave I am inserting in the REcoRD a re= markable tribute to a remarkable union. This is the regular daily column from today’s New York Post and Home News written by Murray Kempton, Post labor editor, paying tribute to the union his< tory written by the ILGWU: - Premy in 1900—Grant in 1950 (By Murray Kempton) ATLANTIC City, May 23.—-On January 6, 1909, John Dyche, secretary-treasurer of the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union, got a letter from one Charles Jacob-' son, one of that despairing union’s few active | members in Boston. Jacobson wanted to know how things were in New York. Dyche told him: : “Things are as bad as can be. Everything. is dead here—dead as Queen Anne as they, say in England. Locals 9 and 23 had no meet-' ings for the last few weeks * * * (Phila~, delphia) wants that we should send an or-_ ganizer from New York and here we have no money to pay the rent. ' “The monthly financial report shows a deficit of $92. That means I drew no wages.i All things considered it is as rotten as rotten ' can be. The trade is as bad as the union is: * * * I do not in the least exaggerate] when I tell you that you will be lucky if you can get a job to earn a dollar a day.” Thus, with typing corrected, an ILG officer wrote 41 years ago. The International Ladies’ Garment Work-| ers Union, in its fiftieth anniversary con- vention assembled this morning, owned puildings worth $9,000,000. The reserves in its vacation fund alone total $44,000,000. It owns 8 radio stations and 9 health clinics; it has 425,000 members, employs 1,500 officers and annually it collects nearly $2,500,000 in per capita dues. On July 1, 1890, the Gotham Knife Cut- ters—a precursor of the ILG—met with the pomp, the circumstance, and the poverty which attended union meetings in those
A3968 days and voted to contribute $10 of their small treasury to the striking metal workers. In the last 3 years the International La- dies’ Garment Workers Union has donated $2,100,000 to labor causes and institutions in the United States. The largest sum of all was $100,000 to support the CIO auto union’s 100-day strike against Chrysler. On March 25, 1911, there was a fire in the Triangle Waist Co. in New York. The girls who worked there had a choice of burning to death or jumping from the ninth floor of the tightly barred loft. When it was over 146 of them were dead. The union set up a relief committee to do what it could for the families of the dead. It surveyed among others the case of A. A., 16 years old, who had earned $5 a week. She had a father, a sister, and a brother who were union members. Since there were four wage earners surviving, it was decided to grant only the death benefit of $150. This year the ILG will raise each member's death-benefit policy to $1,000. But any ILG member who works in New York will prob- ably retire at 65 with a pension of $65 a month plus social security. A dressmaker today is paid 13 weeks’ sick benefits, and sur- gical and hospital expenses. The union provides her with free glasses, clinical atlention, and $50 a week vacation money. Her children are born at the ex- pense of the union welfare fund and, at work, it takes her less than 314 hours to earn $5. On June 8, 1910, the Philadelphia shirt workers went out on strike. One, Sachs, their secretary, sent an appeal to other unions in which he said that the girls were striking for shorter hours because they want the chance to get an English education and free time to use the night schools. Last year, the ILG spent $322,814 on the education of its members. The dressmaker goes to school by radio and with movies; she takes courses in art, handicrafts, history, and family problems. This year, the union opened its own college for training future officers; in previous years, it had sent some of them to Harvard. When you joined the ILG in 1903 you had to take an oath to defend freedom of thought by tongue or pen * * * and to strive to elevate the moral and material con- dition of the working class. The frontiers of freedom have widened in the last 47 years. The ILG, since 1947, has given $2,500,000 to help unions the world over. Some of that money has gone to the French and Italian and Israeli labor move-~ ments, to build orphanges in Italy, and China, to fight Communists in South Amer- ica and Asia. The ILGWU held its first convention in a loft on the lower East Side on June 8, 1900. Joseph Barondess, its first president, ex- pressed the prayerful hope that the enter= prise would bear good fruit. Five years jater, things were so bad that the New York cutters considered seceding from a union with less than 6 months to exist. This year, 14 men who joined that union 50 years ago will be guests of its convention. As a mark of what the years have done, they will wear special solid gold badges. Tri-State Spelling Champion Eighth-Grade Girl From Illinois EXTENSION OF REMARKS - HON. EDWARD H. JENISON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 _Mr. JENISON. Mr. Speaker, the Na- tional Capital is honored this week by the presence of outstanding young stu- dents who have won honors as spelling champions in their respective sections of the country. Under permission granted to me to extend my remarks in the Con- GRESSIONAL RECoRD, it is my desire to in- troduce to my colleagues in the House of Representatives a young champion from a three-State area whose home is in the Twenty-third Congressional Dis- trict of Illinois, which I have the honor to represent. Our representative in the national spelling bee to be held here this week end is 14-year-old Mary Kathryn Ruth, daughter of Mr. and Mrs, C. F. Ruth, Mount Carmel, IL, and an eighth-grade student at Mount Carmel Junior High School. After winning her local contest, she was victorious in a tri-State competi- tion held at Evansville, Ind., where she bested champion spellers from 20 junior high schools in the three States of Dli- nois, Indiana, and Kentucky. With her victory came the trip to Washington, ac- companied by her mother. The story of her triumph is told in the Mount Carmel Daily Republican-Register, and is as follows: Mary Kathryn Ruth, eighth grade pupil in the junior high school, daughter of Mrs. and Mrs. C. F. Ruth, Saturday night won the Tri-State spelling contest held in Evans- ville. Twenty junior high school pupils from the 8 States of Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky participated. The local spelier took first place in a spe- cial spell-off session held in the evening, Saturday, at the Evansville YWCA after a@ previous decision had given her second place, She defeated Max Eubanks, Washington, Ind., to win tri-State honors and a week’s all- expense visit in Washington, D. C., as an entrant in the national spelling bee to be held there May 26. There she will have a chance in prizes involving $3,000 in cash awards. By winning in Evansville she also was presented with a 19-volume set of world en- cyclopedia from the educational division of Field Enterprises Inc. The word on which Mary Kathryn won in the final special spell-off was “livelihood,” which the Washington boy spelled “lively- hood.” After he had spelled, she asked the pronouncer that he repeat his spelling of the word, and then she spelled it correctly. Then she also spelled the next word on the list, “imbecile,” according to the rules of the contest and was proclaimed winner and entrant in the national contest. An allowance of two spellings caused the spell-off session Saturday night. In the forty-sixth round of the first session Mary Kathyrn spelled “curtsey.” The bell rang signifying that it was the wrong spelling and the Washington boy spelled it “curtsy.” He was then declared winner. The local speller and her mother, Charles Weaver, principal of the junior high school and sponsor of the local entrant, together with county superintendent J. A. Gibson, who were interested spectators at the match, considered it was all over and were leaving the building when they were met on the steps going out by arrival of a man who asked, “Is this the girl who was spelled down?” He was informed that she was. The man declared that Mary Kathryn had spelled the word right and added, “I have a recording of it and I can prove that her spelling was correct.” Members of the group were a bit startled by this development and asked the man who he was and why his interest in the contest. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD He explained that he was Dr. F. W. Werk. ing, professor of modern languages at Evans- ville College. He had been listening to the contest by radio and had made a recording of it, as he frequently does of programs af- fecting languages and words, he explained. He declared that Mary Kathryn was not beaten and that he did not like to see her declared so. Representative of the Press, Evansville sponsor of the match, was found, and this situation explained to him, Judges were re- called separately, after departing, and each agreed that under the circumstances the contest should be continued. Then it was that the spell-off session was arranged and the final session held in which the local speller won the tri-State cham- pionship. Mary Kathryn, 14, comes of a family of spellers. Her maternal grandfather, C. S. Andrus, was years ago a teacher and spelling was his hobby. Her paternal grandfather, the late L. F. Smith, was a businessman meticulous in his spelling. Her interest is not confined to spelling and words in general. In school work she plays a flute in the band and also is a Camp Fire Girl, is recorder for Job’s Daughters, is a@ member of the Christian Youth Fellowship, sings in her church’s intermediate quartet and the eighth grade sextet. She has stated she wants to be a medical missionary when she grows up. Mr. Speaker, the national spelling con- test makes an important contribution to the educational program of the country. It stimulates study and encourages young students. I am proud to recognize its worth as well as our able young cham- pion from the Twenty-third Congres- sional District of Illinois. The Mundt-Ferguson Bills EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EMANUEL CELLER OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 24, 1950 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the REcorp, I include the following state- ment I made at the Brooklyn Academy of Music on May 18, 1950: THE MUNDT-FERGUSON BILLS This is a moment in history when every thoughtful person in this country must ask himself: What is this fear that is creeping through the land like a slow paralysis throttling freedom of speech and freedom of assembly? What is this fear that is caus- ing so many of us to look back behind our shoulders, to lower our voices and apologize for holding any unorthodox views? And above all what is this fear in the Halls of our Congress which mocks the strength of our own institution and which has resulted in the circus performance of trying to destroy the Bill of Rights in the guise of maintaining and protecting it? I say without equivocation the Mundt- Ferguson bills which have been combined into one bill, S. 2811, and reported favorably to the Senate floor is the frankest confession of this fear and cowardness. It says, in effect, that the right to talk must be licensed. It says that guilt is not personal, but derives from association. It says that not the deed, but the thought is punishable. It flies in the face of the constitutional protection