A3172 Because Wisconsin is a self-reliant State, her Senators and Representatives in Con- gress are not called on as frequently as those from many other States to plead for special interests. Some of our Western States are almost wholly dependent upon the Federal Government, which owns much of the land in them. In making a vigorous fight against the oleomargarine bill anc in promotion of the dairy and other Wisconsin industries, how- ever, Witry has found a field in which he can rightly claim a square deal for his State. In any event, he seems determined to cham- pion Wisconsin causes most vigorously in Congress. Rent Control EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARRY P. CAIN OF WASHINGTON IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Washington probably re- ceives as much mail on the question of Federal rent control as does any other Member ‘of the Senate. Citizens write to me from every State in the Nation about their views, and their letters find a very warm welcome. Because both the Senate and the House of Representatives are presently considering whether Fed- eral rent control ought to expire on June 30, 1950, or be extended for a further period, I wish to share some of my mail on the rent-control subject with my col- leagues. Those who wrote the letters are not my constituents, but I gladly seek to provide them with an oppor- tunity to be heard. I believe their ob- servations to be valid and deserving of consideration. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Appendix to the Rrcorp. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: APRIL 26, 1950. Hon. Harry P. Carin, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear Str: Knowing of your good works and of your interest in the rights of property owners, we thought you might like to read the enclosed article on rents in politics. All our lives we have been good little Democrats but since the Democratic Party is leaning heavily toward socialism, we, the De Leuws, are determined to be Republicans from here on in, Sincerely, HELEN M. ve LEvw. . ANDREW J. DE Leuw, [From the Los Angeles Times of April 25,- 1950] RENTS IN POLITICS Rent control is now out of the realm of economics and into that of demagogic poll- tics. This is made evident by recent utter- ances by President Truman and his stooge and supporter, Governor Bowles of Con= necticut. : Truman says that millions will suffer be~ cause of a wave of exorbitant rent increases if rent control dies June 80, while Bowles weeps for industry and business with the declaration that tenants will have at least $1,500,000,000 less to spend if rent controls expire. Both, are talking for Buncombe County, without the slightest sincerity or intention to be accurate. Taking Bowles’ statement first, if tenants will have $1,500,000,000 less to spend because rents go up, then landlords will have $1,500, 000,000 more to spend and the net effect on the economy will be nil. Bowles must be aware of this enormous hole in his argument, put thinks the public is too dumb to see it. As for H. S. T., he likewise Knows better. The decontrols already put into effect in large arcas have caused no appreciable hard~ ship. There have been no, or at least very few, exorbitant rent boosts. That there would be hardship to tenants is not a certainty but speculation; while the hardship to property owners who are losing money with rents frozen at depression levels, while taxes and all other costs have pyra- mided, is a certainty. Meanwhile rent control, present and pros- pective, hangs over the rental building situ- ation like a dark cloud. Even though new construction is not currently controlled, in- vestcrs fear it may be. The politicians want rent control for one reason: They think there are more tenant voters than landlord voters. WintiaMm H. Maxant, /TTORNEY at Law, Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1950. Senator Harry P. Carn, United States Senate, - Washington, D. C. Dear Sewator Carn: I understand that you are in favor of abolishing rent control, and I want to tell you that I appreciate it, I think that rent control was needed up to this time, but to continue it any longer is just political selfishness, Many Senators and Congressmen are un- able to face this issue honestly and do not mind stepping on the feet of some people and injuring them unjustly, just to help other people. Rrn-away exploitation by landlords would have been possible a couple of years ago, but today there are places available in sufficient quantity to at least limit landlords from hbe- coming foolish and charging exorbitant prices. But certainly you know that a land- lord is entitled to 15 percent or 20 percent increase in view of the tremendous increase in taxes and other costs which have limited the income from rental units to a point where people dependent upon them are often in severe straits. And how shall they keep their buildings up to date? Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Wittiam H, MAxanrt. P. S.—Please balance the budget. And stop deficit spending. Defeat the Presi- dent’s Reorganization Plan No. 12. Don’t surrender our freedom by spending us into slavery, please. . A. B. Aymarp, Memphis, Tenn., April 17, 1950. Senator Harry P. Carn, Washington, D. C. Drak SeNaTOR CAIN: Along with several million other native-born decent American citizens, I want to congratulate and com- mend you for the efforts you are making to forever remove from our United States some of the communistic things that are fast de- stroying this grand Nation. I am now 65 years of age. Over a period of 45 years I have pinched a few pennies from every dollar I have ever earned and placed these savings in a little rent property for my old age security. Like millions of others who have followed this course, I now find my working capital APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD liquidated, my property unsound physically due to inability to maintain it properly un- der this un-American, communistic, Socalist- labor rent control law. People need roofs under which they may install the equipment for cooking these highly inflated potato and other farm prod- ucts, but the people who have supplied these roofs have been sliced off from our economic structure, singled owt for complete bank- ruptcy and destruction, discriminated against by our own Government and left to struggle single-handed and in despair at a time when the revenues from their proper- ties is sorely needed. The statements -nade by some of the hous« ing expediters and broadcast over this Na- tion, that to remove this communistic rent control would upset the economy of this Nation, are grossly overstated and the scare- crow of economic chaos, broadcast in this same connection recently, are absurd and distasteful to the thinking people of this Nation. On the face of the fight being made to perpetuate these men in office and con- tinue this needless waste of public money it is my personal opinion that a wedge is be- ing driven into the solidarity of this Nation that will be far-flung unless immediate relief is had. The property owners form the vertebras of this Nation’s backbone. They realize that their wares will have to go through decent channels of competition and price. More power to you. Sincerely, A. B. AyMmarp. Sr. Lovis, Mo., March 7, 1950. Senator CaIn, Senate Building, Washington, D. C. Dear Senator: As small property holders, my husband and self appreciate and com- mend very highly the stand you are taking on rent control. We just happened to catch your radio talk last Friday night. We have a run-down 6-family apartment which rep- resents 10 hard years of self-denial and sacri- fice and with rents frozen at a depression level it seems impossible to make any head- way. Last year we spent $1,400 more than our income on the place and when we asked for an increase, it was denied and the rent- board told us we made 20 percent. It is our understanding anyone that received a 15- percent increase will not be granted more. How any fair-minded American can con- done such actions is more than we can understand. Our tenants with their 1950 salaries can afford new cars, fur coats, and televisions, while we must continue to skimp to pay the coal bill which has almost tripled since we bought the place. Our place is be~ coming more and more run down and there is nothing left over to pay for more than just the absolute essentials. Please Keep up your good fight. Sincerely yours, Mruprep K. SCHALL. DENVER, Cou0., March 10, 1950. Hon. Harry P. CaIn, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Drak Sir: Once again comes June 380, with its rent control extension problem, discriminating against property owners throughout these United States. As owners of a small apartment, we de- sire to solicit your further efforts in be- half of freedom, by allowing the rent con- trol law to expire this year on its expiration date, June 80. We appreciate your support in the past and know that you are right in trying to aid the property owners in their present struggle to regain the right to manage their own businesses, which they have built through the years by hard work and good judgment.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD As taxpayers, we believe, that the expen- sive and expansive pay-roll set-up that the OPA rent control maintains in the cities in the United States and in Washington, D. C., is now a needless extravagance. Ending rent controls would be an excel- lent way to start balancing the budget. It would be a boon to business in many ways. We hope that you will continue to do what- ever possible to give the property owners of America the relief to which they are en- titled, from a law that, in peacetimes, has no place in our American way of life. Very respectfully, JAMES G. PERISHO. (Mrs. J.G.) Manet H. PERIsHo, THE Horns, Williamsport, Md., March 3, 1950. Dear Seraror Carn: Just finished listening to Meet the Press. Several times I have heard you concerning rent control and I ad- mire your courage. There are 20 families living in my various properties and although I have mortgages totaling $10,000 and notes totaling $3,000 I have lowered some rents and intend lowering others in near future because I want to be fair to my tenants. I do dislike the Government telling me what to and what not to do with my prop- erties which I labored so hard for 40 years to obtain. I am a retired retail “merchant 58 years old and due to several permanent ail- ments cannot attend to daily routine of pusiness. I live on rent income and even though I am sending my son to college to secure the needed education in order to meet the world, I do not intend raising my rents one cent, control or no control. Just would like to at- tend to my own business. True, I am not one of your constituents and I have never written or spoken one word concerning rents to my own Senators TyDINGS and O’Conor or my Representative Braun (Republican) for I did not wish to attempt to influence them but I think so very much of you for your “spunk” I just felt like letting you know it, for which I beg your pardon knowing you receive plenty correspondence due to the long distance from your State of Washington to Washington, D. C. I am a registered Democrat but it did not and will not do H. S. T. any good. My best to you and yours, Wriuiam S. Hurp. VENTURA, Catir., April 14, 1950. Senator Harry P. Carn, Washington, D. C. Dear SENATOR CaIn: I wish we, the people of America, had more men like you in Wash- ington to represent us. If Congress could just realize what rent control has done to the morale of the landlord, and how hopeless our future seems since Truman and Con-~ gress have decided to go into the housing business. I am 66 years old, a widow, and worked, saved, and put all my life savings in a few houses, trying to be self-supporting in my old age. But now you feel like the thing to do is sell everything you have, squander the money, and get on the old-age pension, and be under the Government support, as the present set-up wants to kill all free enter- prise. All other price control has been can- celed. Rent control now amounts to con- fiscation of the prosperity of a single class, landlord, for the benefit of another class, tenants, without any public purpose, and with no public benefit. The vast majority of the cases, the income of the tenants whose rents have been frozen, and are still frozen after war has been over 5 years, their incomes have doubled, and in many cases, trebled. They can well afford to pay higher rent. My income for 5 years on 6 houses, 4 and 5 rooms and furnished, has been $160. I did some repairs and leased them, and now get $180. My tenants all made three times that, but still they must have cheap rent. My taxes have doubled, all labor, paint, maintenance, every item has trebled in price. You vote subsidies to keep food prices up, and we pay taxes to pay Tighe Woods $22,000,000 a year to rule landlords as they see fit. Give us back prosperity without any string tied to it. Give us home rule, our free enter- prise. Get us out from this Communist principle. I do not see why there is so much fuss made in Washington about communism, and still keep rent control. May God help you to be heard. Rent control must die. Sincerely yours, Saraw ELLEN GRAY. Marco, N. Dak., April 14, 1950. Senator Harry CAIn, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: Wish to thank you for stand you are taking for a fair deal to the landlords. On April 1, 1949 the new law was drafted by Mr. Tighe E. Woods, to give the landlords a fair deal as those operating one to four rental dwelling units will be allowed rent increases if their net operating income is less than 25 percent of gross income in such cases rent will be hiked to a 30 percent. Wish to have Mr. Tighe E. Woods, explain to you why he does not live up to his promise he drafted. On January 1949 we put our saving in this house located at 703 Thirteenth Street, South Fargo, N. Dak., and made it into a 4- family apartment, a kitchen in each with city tas stoves and refrigerators. My net income is $177.90 for the 12 months not including the $605 interest on this house, as this does not go on the expense. Your Fargo, N, Dak. area rent director, Mr. A. H. Kurth, orders me to refund to the tenants $400. I asked your director, Mr. Kurth, re- gards to the 30 percent I have the right to as drafted. His answer was that they are not going by the drafted law on net income percentage. Your Mr. Tighe E. Woods stated you want more housing as there is a shortage. Who wants to buy or build while the Fed~ eral rent lids are on when your Fargo, N. Dak. area rent director, Mr. A. H. Kurth, dictates without facts or figures for a test year, and force me to operate at a loss? My gross income, etc., for the above from February 1, 1949 to January 31, 1950: Total income, $3,027.47; operating expense, $2,= 849.57; net income, $177.90. You are free to use this letter as you see fit, I remain, Yours sincerely, L. W. JANSEN. Senater Myers’ Reports to the People of Pennsylvania—No. 23, No. 24, and No. 25 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANCIS J. MYERS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp three radio addresses by me to the people of Penn- sylvania, the 23d, 24th, and 25th in the biweekly series, on April 3, Apri: 17, and April 30, 1950, A3173 There being no objection, the broad- casts were ordered to be printed in the ReEcorpD, as follows: Text or TRANSCRIPTION BY UNITED STATES SENATOR Francis J. Myers OvER PENNSYL- VANIA Rapio STATIONS, WEEK END OF Marcu 31-Aprin 2, INCLUSIVE—No. 23 IN BIWEEKLY SERIES Well, you’re going to be counted. But that’s no real surprise to you, be- cause for the last month or so, there’s been a@ lot in the papers about the 1950 census. Probably most of you have read some of the stories or discussed this with your friends, and it’s entirely possible that you know one or more of the 140,000 people who are going to help Uncle Sam tally our population. What some of you may not know is the fact that this census of the American people is required by our Constitution. Actually, the original purpose of taking a census once every 10 years was to determine the number of Members each State was entitled to have in the House of Representatives. Our founding fathers, in addition to the many other problems that confronted them, spent a long time working out a method for representing each of the Thirteen Col- onies in our Legislature. The largest of the Colonies felt that each colony should be represented in proportion to its population. The smallest ones naturally objected to this on the grounds that the large States would simply snow them under if representation was based on population. So the inevitable followed. A compromise was reached that satisfied everybody. It was decided to have two Houses in the Congress, as you know. In one of these two Houses, each State was to have two representatives, regardless of its population. This body be- came our Senate, and to this day each of our 48 States has two Senators. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, answered the criticism of the larger States, by providing that the mem- bership in the House would be apportioned according to population. Even here, how~ ever, there was one more qualification. The Constitution required that every State, hewever small, should have at least one Representative in the House. So the census got started under a constitu- tional mandate to count our population once every 10 years in order to readjust things so that each State was properly represented in the House. The first United States census took place in 1790, just a year after the First Congress had assembled. By comparison with the elaborate affair that is planned for 1950, the census in 1790 was a pretty crude business. The census was conducted by 17 United States marshals, who were, in turn, assisted by 600 clerks and interviewers. They took their information down on little scraps of paper, and when the job was finished they found that the population of the Thirteen States had reached the magnificent total of 3,929,214 people. In 1940, just exactly 150 years later, the population of the United States was found to be 131,669,275. Based on that 1940 finding, the apportionment of the 435 Representatives among our 48 States was completed by 1944, when elections were held for the Seventy-ninth Congress, and thus the Seventy-ninth, the Eightieth, and the Eighty-first Congresses have been select- ed on the basis of the populations of the several States of 1940. New York, being our most populous State, has a total of 45 Mem- pers of the House of Representatives. In other words, more than a tenth of all our Congressmen come from New York alone. We in Pennsylvania have 33 Congressmen, since our State in 1940 was second largest. Four States, including our neighboring State of Delaware, have only one Representative each. For these 4 smallest States it is in- teresting to note that their representation of
A3174 2 Senators out of the 96 is overwhelmingly out of proportion with the ratio of 1 Con- gressman to 435. It is just such a result as this which caused our founding fathers to establish two Houses of Congress as a safe~- guard to the rights of people 1n every State. I’ve already indicated that the 1950 census will be # very elaborate affair. We plan to do far more than count noses. The Bureau of Census has estimated that our 1950 popu- jation will be somewhere around 150,000,000 people, and in order to do the work of count~ ing the number exactly the Government is hirmg 140,000 people whose job it will be to call at your home to make sure you are counted. It may interest you to know that we are going to count our population as of the 1st day of April 1950. Thus, a baby born on or before April 1 of this year will be counted, but if the child is born after that time he will not be counted, even though the census taker hasn’t yet called at your home, By the same token, if a person dies before April 1 he will not be counted, but if he is alive on that day and dies April 2 he will nonetheless be counted in the census, regardless of whether or not the census taker has called by that time. Now if the Census of 1950 were confined merely to counting noses, it certainly wouldn’t be much of a job, and it certainly wouldn’t require the services of 140,000 peo- ple. There has, over the past hundred years, been a steady change in the type of informa- tion acquired by the census-taker. Back in 1850, the census-takers were required to ask personal questions like “Are you a pauper?” “Are there any idiots in this household?’ and “Yow many of your relatives are convicts?”. I think you can understand why questions of this sort were resented and later dropped. By 1880, the census-takers were asking ques= tions about our health; for example, determ- ining the number of people who were crippled or disabled or ill, and for the first time there were some questions asked in that year of 1880 about unemployment. Still later, more questions were added to shed more light on our economic life. There were questions about the number of telephones, whether you owned or rented your home, how much you paid for rent, and in 1940 every person above the age of 14 who made less than $5,000 a year was asked to state the exact amount. Persons who made more than $5,000 annually in 1940 simply reported that their income was above that level, and let it go at that. This year the census-takers are going to ask some more detailed questions about income. They don’t intend, however, to ask everyone the income questions. One person in five over the age of 14 will be asked his income. If he makes over $10,000 a year, he will simply state that as a fact and he will not have to give the amount. Those who make less than $10,000 will be requested to list in detail the various sources of their incomes. However, there aren’t any names involved in taking this income information, so you have abso- lutely nothing to worry about if you’re afraid the information would be misused, or turned over to the neighbors for gossip purposes. The facts about your income, if you happen to be one of those asked, are reported sep-~ arately on a confidential form, and if you like, you can even fill out the form after the census-taker leaves, and mail it in later, so long as you do mail it in. Now why on earth is the Government going to ask you all these questions about the num- ber of years you spent in school, the money you make, where you were living a year ago, whether you’ve ever been in the armed serv~- ices, and so forth? Well, as a matter of fact, this information is being requested because the census provides us with the clearest pic- ture of America that we have. Much of the information that will be collected in the cen- sus has been requested by businessmen to give them a better picture of their markets for various products in terms of the amounts of money the family has to spend. As an il- lustration of this, a manufacturer who dis- covered that almost no family under a cer~ tain income level bought the kind of product he made, might well decide to come out with a cheaper model in order to enlarge his busi- ness. A great deal of the information that will be gathered in the 1950 census will prove extremely useful to State and local authori- ties interested in matters like building new schools, playgrounds, public-health facili- ties, etc. They will rely upon census in- formation to give them a picture of the number of school-age children that they can expect 8 years or 5 years from now, basing their estimates on the local birth rate, and the increase in the number of children now below school age. These same local authorities will also be interested in the income information from the census, because it will give them a better knowledge of their community’s resources compared with State and National averages. So I think you can see the importance of giving the census-taker the most exact in- formation possible. I know all of you, at one time or another, have got into discus- sions and arguments, comparing your sec- tion of the country with some other sec- tion. And about the only real source of in~ formation you have for settling them is by turning to the facts set forth in the census reports. In fact, a great many of the sta- tistics that you see quoted every day in your newspapers are based directly on informa- tion found in the census reports—the aver- age family size, the number of families, num- ber of people living on farms, the number of women at work, the number of homes with electricity, etc. So once all this census information is col- lected and published, as it will be by 1952, it will provide the foundation for all the economic and social studies that will be conducted in America for the next 10 years— studies that are useful alike to private in- dustry, charitable organizations, farm and labor groups, and officials of all levels of Gov- ernment carrying out their duties as public servants. So your census-taker isn’t being nosey in coming around and questioning you. He’s gathering facts that will allow us to draw an accurate picture of America, and every one of us will benefit from this new knowl- edge. You and your family won’t appear by name in any of the 50 volumes that will ultimately be published to summarize the 15,000,000,000 facts that will be collected in the census. You'll be in the census all right, but you'll appear there in the form of sta- tistics that will describe your family and all the other 40,000,000 families of America. The chances are the census taker who vis- its you will be a woman, but this isn’t neces- sarily so. I might point out in connection with the census taker that he or she is under oath to keep in absolute confidence every- thing you tell him. In fact, if the census taker violates this oath, he is apt to spend up to 2 years in prison or might find himself subject to a $1,000 fine. This wasn’t always the case, however, in the past, and for the first few times that the United States took a census, there were some pretty serious viola~ tions of confidence, but it’s been many, many years now that the census taker has been required to treat as confidential the informa- tion he gathers. As a matter of fact, it’s illegal for anyone to refuse to answer the questions asked by the census taker, and anyone who does turn the enumerator away without answering the questions is Mable for a $1,000 fine or a pris- on sentence. The truth of the matter is that this provision in the law is more or less mean- Ingless, because people have always cooper= ated very well with the enumerators. Even when they are busy, most people seem to en- joy answering the cuestions and view census APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD taking as being sort of a quiz that they’re all prepared to answer, This is perfectly under- standable, because after all, the questions you will be asked all concern the things you know about, and most of them are things that no one else is prepared to answer for you. So sometime in the course of the next couple of weeks you’ll have a visitor who has a lot of questions to ask. Perhaps if you're living on a farm, it may be as late as the end of April before the census taker gcts around to you, but Dr. Peel, who is the Director of the Bureau of Census, estimates that most of the questionnaires will be completed by April 15. So I urge you to cooperate, as I know you will, because the census is really important to us all, By the 4th of July the Census Bureau will give us a provisional estimate of our 1950 population, but when you stop to consider that 15,000,000,000 facts must be tabulated and compiled in different tables, you can readily appreciate why it will be late in 1952 before the job is finished. Your part of that big job comes up within the next 2 weeks, and after that, we'll have to wait until 1952 to see what we look like. TEXT oF TRANSCRIPTION BY UNITED STaTEs SENATOR-FRANCIS J. MYERS OVER PENNSYL- VANIa Rapio SratioNs, WEEK END oF ApRIL 15-17, Incuusive—No. 24 IN Brwerrxty Szrres I'd like to discuss on this broadcast two recent pieces of legislation which, though they haven’t made big headlines, will mean a great deal to many Pennsylvanians, Last week, the Eighty-first Congress com- pleted action on its second major housing bill. Most of you are probably familiar with the public housing law passed last summer, but before going into the details of the 1950 law just passed, I’d like to summarize some of the developments tinder the 1949 act. Thus far, as a result of the 1949 law, seven Pennsylvania communities have been allocated about $13,000,000 in direct grants for slum-clearance and urban-redevelopment projects. In addition, almost 23,000 low- rent public housing units are scheduled for construction by 35 local housing authorities in Pennsylvania by the middle of 1951, as part of the 6-year program to furnish ade~ quate housing for 810,000 American families whose incomes are in the lowest-income brackets. The farm home loan section established under the 1949 housing act has perhaps been the biggest success of all, To date, $2,000,000 have been distributed in Pennsylvania to farm owners in the form of long-term, low- interest loans and grants to enable farmers to rebuild run-down buildings, put up new structures, and in general, get their farms back into the black. I had the privilege, several months ago, to present the first of these farm-loan checks to a young veteran and his wife who lived near Lewisburg—and I know that he, and many others, are finding this farm-loan program of great value in getting their farms on a sound economic footing. Now the new Housing Act, just passed last week, make comprehensive additions to our housing programs. For one thing, a num- ber of changes have been made in the FHA mortgage-insurance program to encourage construction of housing for families who can afford to pay only $50 to $70 a month for a place to live. The new changes in the FHA program are designed to get on the market soundly constructed housing at costs that just aren’t to be found today. For one thing, the new bill visualizes the construc- tion of two-bedroom houses that can be pur- chased with down payments as low as 8350, and with monthly payments of about $50. The 1950 act just passed will also en- courage construction of apartments with two
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD or three bedrooms—recognizing that in re- cent years there has been a tendency to build rental apartments entirely too small to house a family. The new bill should also be a big help to many of the veterans who haven’t thus far been able to get GI loans for their own homes. As of the end of this year, the veteran will no longer be required to get a combination of a GI loan and an THA loan to build and buy his home. Henceforth, he will be able to get a singie GI loan at 4 percent covering 100 per- cent of the value of his house up to $10,000. And if the veteran is unable to borrow the money at 4 percent from private sources, he will be able to get it in the form of a direct loan from the Government—though as a practical matter, I seriously doubt that the direct Government loan feature will be widely used, simply because I’m sure that our banks and other private lending organizations will make the money available under the new GI loan insurance program. And incidentally, widows of veterans who died from service- connected injuries will be able to participate in the GI home loan program, This is the first time in which the GI privileges have been extended to their widows, and is the result of an amendment which Senator McManon, of Connecticut, and I submitted. Another and very important new feature in the housing bill just enacted is the $300,- 000,000 housing loan program for colleges and universities. This is the first peacetime aid to education bill ever passed by Congress, and both State schools and private, nonprofit colleges and universities will be able to bor- row direct from the Government for student and faculty housing construction. The loans to the schools may run for a period of 40 years at an interest rate of 24% percent, and it is estimated that college students living in dormitories that will be constructed un- der this program will be able to save as much as $170 a year in school housing costs. So, as you can see, this should be a big help to families who plan to send their children on to college in the future. If you want further details about the new housing act, I urge you to write me, Senator Francis J. Myrrs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., and I shall be happy to send some additional information to you. Well, so much for housing. Perhaps some of you noticed that the Senate had a regular Seld day April 5 in veting on the displaced persons bill. I must confess that by midnight of the fifth, there wasn’t a single Senator who could remember another day quite like it. But before telling you what happened between 2 p. m. and midnight dn April 5, I’d like to tell you a bit about the background of the DP legislation. The initials DP—standing for displaced persons—entered the world’s vocabulary in the closing days of World War II. You will recall that Adolf Hitler developed, over the course of a dozen years or so, between 1933 and 1945, a number of methods for making people miserable—and it’s pretty hard to say which of his many devices was the worst. Certainly he refined the art of operating concentration camps, and we're still shocked to remember his death camps like Belsen and Dachau where human beings were burned like firewood. But another trick Hitler developed was in an, effort to solve his wartime labor shortage by uprooting people from all of conquered Europe and dragging them off to Germany to work as slave laborers. These were among the first of the displaced persons, although there were other hundreds of thousands made homeless by the advancing armies of Ger- many and Russia. Thus, by the termination of World War It there were more than a million DP’s, exiled and homeless, floating around in Europe. The problem of resettling them was one of international importance if peace and sta- bility were to be achieved in Europe. To resettle this group of a million or so uprooted people, the International Refugee Organization was formed, and by 1947 the IRO had special camps established through- out central Europe in which, for the time being, the refugees were housed and fed until a way could be found for resettling them. Of course, the resettlement job was badly complicated by the fact that the Commu- nists were spreading their political control over the countries of eastern Europe, and pretty obviously, a tremendous number of the refugees from eastern Europe either could not return home, or did not wish to do so. It was possible, however, for more than 100,000 DP’s to return home—they being, for the most part, those who lived in the coun~ tries of western Europe that were still outside the Communist orbit. In addition to those who returned to their native countries, about 800,000 other DP’s have immigrated to new Jands, 140,000 have entered the United States under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, and the rest have gone to Israel, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and several of the South American countries. In the postwar years, Communist activities behind the iron curtain has created another kind of DP—that is, people who were forced into exile by the Communists as a result of political and religious persecution. But these postwar DP’s, like the wartime DP’s be- fore them were also victims of totalitarian oppression. In the spring of 1948, Congress enacted the displaced persons law which has en- abled America to play its role 1n settling the international refugee problem. There was a bitter controversy over the legislation at that time, particularly in the Senate. The opposi- tion to the bill came from a handful of Sena- tors who took the position that the DP was a European problem, and that America had no business opening its doors to a bunch of foreigners. To many other Senators, that attitude made no sense whatsoever, because America has traditionally been a home for the oppressed, and from our earliest colonial history, people have come to the New World to find hope and freedom denied them else- where. But, as I say, there was a lot of contro- versy over this point, and the 1948 DP law was pretty much of a compromise that had many contradictions init. Opponents of the legislation managed to insert into the law many restrictive provisions which made the act very difficult to administer, and which, furthermore, discriminated badly against many groups of people. I will say, however, that despite the many discriminatory provisions, the 1948 DP law was made to work surprisingly well. The primary reasons for this lay in the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans pitched in to help out in every way they could to bring DP’s here, and private charitable groups—Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish alike—joined hands, and with the help of the Displaced Persons Commission itself, and the cooperation of State and local officials, a miracle was accomplished in bringing in 140,000 DP’s under the 1948 act. By the end of 1949, however, the restrictive provisions of the law hampered the opera- tion of the DP program seriously. In a very short time, the number of incoming DP’s dropped from 18,000 monthly to a third of that number. This situation had been fore- seen, and the House of Representatives had, in June of last year, passed a new DP bill which corrected,the bad mistakes in the ex~ isting law. In the Senate, though, the House pill bogged down. Opponents of the DP program charged that a great many unde- sirable people were coming in as DP’s, and that there had been a great deal of fraud In the administration of the program. Senate committee hearings dragged on and on, and by March of this year, the DP pro= A38175 gram was just about stalemated by the de- lay. Those of us who felt that the law had to be revised and made workable did every- thing we could to bring the DP bill to a vote and get the program back in operation. As the evidence piled up in the Senate committee hearings, it became increasingly apparent that the charges of fraud were not supported by the facts, and that all the charges leveled at the DP program had been. raised for no other purpuse than to delay action on the bill. It’s true, of course, that the evidence did disclose a tiny handful of DP’s who hadn’t worked out. There were a few who were lazy, and a few who couldn’t get along with the Americans who sponsored “row - trourh it wasn’t always clear whethe: -*+ iM? ¢* the sponsor was at fault. Most significant of all was the fact that no evidence showed any basis for believing that potentially sub- versive people were coming in under the DP program. So 1t was clear that the way to handle the very small group who hadn’t got along well was to give them another chance, or deport them if they didn’t work out. This was especially true when you consider that, ex- cept for this small group, the other 140,000 DP’s were proving themselves to be splendid people. Finally, on April 5, we were successful in pringing the DP bill to a vote in the Senate. Voting started at 2 p.m. Opponents of the bill had lined up an impressive array of crippling tactics—tactics designed either to delay passage, or to give us, once more an unworkable bill. Between 2 p.m. and mid- night of April 5, the Senate voted on more than 120 separate amendments to the DP bill before it was finally passed. I will say, however, that during this 10- hour period, almost the entire Senate stayed on hand for the voting. It was clear from the first vote at 2 p.m. that those of us who had fought so long to get a good DP law were in the majority, and our only problem was to stay at our job and beat off the amendments. The opponents, on the other hand, were counting on us to give up in dis- gust rather than sit for 10 hours or longer just to get a good bill. Well, the result was a splendid bill as it left the Senate—and a real victory for inter- national cooperation, All told, the bill as it passed the Senate authorized the admission of nearly 420,000 refugees in the period be- tween 1948 and 1951. Among them, nearly 55,000 German ethnic expellees under the amendment submitted by Senator DoveLas and myself, and 5,000 refugees from the Yugoslav sections of Venezia Giulia, as a re- sult of an amendment submitted jointly by Senator Ives and myself. The new DP bill owes its existence to the splendid bipartisan cooperation of the R»- publicans and Democrats who worked so closely together in getting a good bill through. And in the important business of winning the cold war—of preserving democ- racy and freedom on earth—every American should be proud, not only of this oil, “ut also of the fine bipartisan cooperation which its passage reflects. ‘Text oF TRANSCRIPTION BY UNITED STATES Senator Francis J. Myers OvER PENNSYL- VANIA RADIO StaTIONS, WEEK END oF APRIL 28-80, INcLUSIVE—No. 25 IN BIWEEKLY SERIES Tne Post Office Department has been in the headlines recently, ard I thought I’d devote some of this broadcast to a bit of post-office history. Benjamin Franklin, in addition to his many other accomplishments, became—as you know—the father of our postal system. This came about in 1775, the year before we declared our independence from Britain. A few years later, our founding fathers in- cluded the operation of the postal system
Adl76 as one of the duties of the Federal Govern- ment, and spelled this out in the Constitu- tion itself. In the earliest days of our Republic, the Federal Government merely undertook to carry the mail from one State to another— and left to each State the task of distribut- ing the mail. This didn’t work out par- ticularly well, and before 1800, Congress authorized the Post Office to distribute mail between communities within each State. It was about this time, too, that it was decided, a: @ mater of national policy, that mail should be delivered to people who lived out on the frontiers—and because the distances involved were frequently great, and the volume of mail was usually small, this proved to be rather expensive. As a result, Con- gress felt it would encourage the develop- ment of the country if postal rates were kept down, and thus it came about that things like the Pony Express—which oper- rcted at a loss—were supported directly by the Government as a matter of public interest. . So, almost from the start, the Post Office was never consciously intended to make a profit. On the other hand, it’s always been our policy to keep postal losses at a mini- mum—and the question usually boils down to a determination of what phases of the postal operation should be continued at a loss. As a matter of fact, the Post Office has actually made money in 15 of the past 100 years—not much—but a Little bit. Recent years postal subsidies have grown larger for a number of reasons. For one thing, mail rates have stayed down much more than have prices generally—and for another, there has been a big increase in the use of certain classes of mail that are handled at a loss by the Post Office. One of the big money-losers for more than 50 years now has been rural free delivery. RFD, as rural free delivery is known, was inaugurated in the Democratic administra- tion of President Cleveland, back in 1896. Prior to that time, rural people were forced to go into to town for their mail—or hired someone to deliver it for them. RFD was certainly a good idea, because it gave the farm and other rural people the same op- portunities that city people had where use of the mails were concerned. Now here are some interesting facts about various kinds of mail, and some of the spe- cial things our postal service helps us provide. For one thing, the Post Office makes money on the ordinary 3-cent stamp—the so-called first-class mail. The profits on first-class mail last year amounted to more than $82,000,000. The 6-cent air-mail service is a money- loser. On the other hand, air-mail subsidies have had a lot to do with the growth and development of our air lines. For years, when the commercial air lines first got their start, the air-ma‘l subsidies were an important part of the revenue they received. It’s true, of course, that many people have criticized the air-mail subsidies, but when we stop to con- sider today that the experience gathered by our commercial air lines in the 1930's gave us a tremendous advantage in developing our air power in World War II, the mail subsidy was a@ small price to pay. . Parcel post operates at a loss, too, Not a big loss, considering the volume of business handled, but it does come to $73,000,000. The biggest Post Office deficits are run up by our .o-called second- and third- class mail- ing permits. These permits, you may recall, allow special rates to newspapers, magazines, periodicals, books, and so forth that are ship- ped through the mails. The question is fre- quently asked why Congress doesn’t increase the rates on publications of various sorts. The answer to that is pretty straightfor- ward: It goes back to freedom of the press, as a matter of fact. Take newspapers as an example. A great many local papers are dis- tributed through the mails. If the postal rates went up, that would simply be the last straw, and some of them—which make very little money now—would be driven out of pusiness. Surprisingly, the importance of low mail rates for newspapers isn’t confined to papers with small circulations. A great many of the larger papers don’t make much money, and they, too, would be seriously af- fected if postal rates went up. Congress has long telt—and I believe, wisely—-that it is in the best interests of our country for people to get information easily and inexpensively. If rates on magazines, newspapers, books, and so on, were to rise, the prices would go up, fewer people would read them, and our democracy, which de- pends so heavily upon an informed public, would suffer. I might point out, too, in connection with postal rates on books, that many libraries in rural areas circulate books to schools, and to others, by use of mail rates that are quite low. Here again, an increase in mail rates would have a serious effect. There is a bill pending in Congress to raise the rates on certain classes of mail, and hearings are presently being conducted in the Senate on that bill. The Senate committee has not yet reached a decision as to what mail-rate increases, if any, it will recom- mend to the Senate—and I think you can understand why any such recommendations would have to be considered quite carefully in terms of the importance of having our people acquire good information at reason- able prices. All told, the Post Office Department went in the red last year by more than half a billion dollars, and suggestions have been renewed that postal rates be increased to cut down the loss. The big question to be set- tled in a situation like that is to find where rate increases can be allowed without causing harm—and some savings could undoubtedly be achieved by reorganization of certain sec- tions of the Post Office Department itself. Most of you undoubtedly saw the stories in the papers 10 days or so ago that the Post- master General had ordered home deliveries of mail cut to one trip daily. This order has been widely protested—and, I think, for good reasons. I don’t believe the Postmaster General is altogether to blame for the order. Apparently, members of the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives told the Post Office Department recently that It would not appropriate as much money to make up the Post Office deficit next year-—— and told the Postmaster General to cut down on mail service, or else. I think this was an ill-considered move— and most of the people I’ve talked with about the proposed cut in mail deliveries seem to agree. It’s possible we don’t need more than one home mail delivery in some parts of the Nation—but I feel we ought to get the facts before we move impulsively to cut service back to that level. As matters stand now, the order to reduce the number of deliveries comes before anyone has been given a chance to be heard. The Appropriations Committee doesn’t know how many people actually need more than one delivery daily. Before making any arbitrary decision of that sort, people should have an opportunity to express their feelings on the matter, I don’t expect that the order will go through, and Iam doing my level best to get the order rescinded. Certainly one of the big objections to the proposed curtdilmeni of mal services is found, as I’ve indicated, in the fact that a reduction in mail deliveries has never re- ceived any study. On the other hand, the Hoover Commission, in its broad study of the operating practices used by the execu- tive branch of the Government, devoted al- most 2 years to the organization and opera- tion of the Post Office Department—and the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD commission made a comprehensive body of recommendations that would save money and generally put the Post Office on a sound basis. The commission estimated that its recom- mendations would save about $200,000,000 annually if all of them were carried out, and furthermore, the commission felt its recom- mendations would improve mail service, rather than cut it back as the present order proposes to do. The Hoover Commission recommendations called for increases in some of the second- and third-class mail rates, and secondly, that a number of inter- nal changes be made in the organization of the post office itself. I’ve already mentioned that a »ill to increase mail rates is being considered by the Senate Post Office Com- mittee, and it is also important 1o point out that certain of the reorganiz tion changes submitted by the commission were Carried out last year by the President and Congress. Additional reorganization measures for the post office are included in the group of 21 reorganization plans recently submitted to Congress by the President, and further streamlining of the post office is contem- plated by other legislation now in Congress. These reorganization plans, based on long study, and on extensive hearings before Congress, are the sensible way to face the problem of postal deficits and the general efficiency of post-office operation. By and large, while there are undoubtedly some de- sirable changes that should be made in the postal system, it cannot be denied that the people of America have tremendous faith in the United States mail service. The mail does go through, and it is no answer to a $527,000,000 postal deficit to attempt a sav- ing of a tiny fraction of this by curtailing mail service, especially when no study has been given the question. In closing, I want to say a bit about the progress of the Hoover Commission recom- mendations. The Commission was estab- lished back in 19477 as a completely biparti- san investigation of the executive branch of Government. The members of the commis- sion included equal numbers of Republican and Democratic Members of Congress, rep- resentatives of the executive branch of Gov- ernment, and representatives of the public. The purpose of the study was to determine ways of improving the efficiency of Govern- ment operation. The commission made the first exhaustive study of our executive branch that had ever been made. During the 160 years of our national life, the Gov- ernment had gradually accumulated a vast and complex pyramid of agencies, bureaus, commissions, and so forth, that.ehad been designed to meet particular problems. The commission’s final report consisted of a 2,000,000-word blueprint for efficient gov- ernment. The recommendations in the Commission report were general in nature, and 60 per- cent of them required action by Congress to put them into effect. When you consider that our Government is the biggest business in the world, it is evident that all the changes suggested by the Commission will take a long time to carry out. To date, however, prog~ ress has been far above expectations. By the end of 1949, 20 percent of the recom- mendations were in effect, and it was esti- mated that those changes alone would save about a billion and a quarter dollars an- nually. Naturally, there has been some disagree- ment over the various recommendations to reorganize various agencies of Government, because differences of opinion have arisen over what is, in fact, the best and most efficient way to carry out a given function. These objections have been raised by Re- publicans and Democrats alike, but I am proud to say that the efforts to carry for- ward the reorganization plans have con- tinued on a broad, bipartisan basis, with
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD members of both major parties strongly be- hind the reorganization progrem. Next Tuesday, by the way, there will be a ceremony at Tnde~movdores Hall in Philadel- phia which to“ “. -* beginning of a Nation-wide program to promote interest in, and knowledge of, the reorganization pro- gram. A bipartisan group of private citi- zens, known as the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report, is sponsoring what they are calling a Cracker Barrel Caravan that will tour the country telling people of the Commiussion’s recommendavions, and inform- ing them of the progress that 1s being made. The caravan will tour eastern Pennsylvania in May—and later in the summer will visit the western part of the State. Dr. Robert Johnson, president of Temple University at Philadelphia is national chairman of the Citizens Committee, and he has invited me to speak at the Independence Hall ceremony. Unfortunately, I am so busy in the Senate just now that I won’t be able to attend. I do urge all of you, however, to watch for the Cracker Barrel Caravan in your own com-~ munity, and to learn everything you can about this important task of promoting effi- ciency :n Government. I have supported the Reorganization program from the start, and if you’d like some further details about the program, I urge you to write me for a copy of a recent news-letter I issued on the prog- ress of the reorganization work. Just ad- dress me, United States Senator Francis J. Myezrs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Business Week Magazine Commended on Editorial, Productivity: Promise and Problem EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WRIGHT PATMAN OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the purposes of the Murray-Patman Em- ployment Act of 1946 was to promote a fuller understanding of economic prob- lems. A dramatic illustration of the fact that this purpose is at least in part being achieved is found in the editorial en- titled “Productivity: Promise and Prob- lem” in the magazine Business Week of March 18, 1950. I commend this editorial to the busi- nessmen of America, both small and large. I commend it to the attention of business organizations in the fields of both distributicn and manufacture. In this editorial Business Week com- mits itself to the idea of a steadily ex- panding economy. Let me quote: If we are to balance the Federal budget and end deficit spending, we need to expand the whole economy in the same way. A bigger national income, which would raise Government revenues, would be the painless solution to deficit financing. This is the same position taken by President Truricn and his distinguished Council of Economic Advisers in the Eco- nomic Report which was transmitted to the Congress on January 6 of this year. As business conditions continue to im=- prove— Stated the President in this report— we should bring Government receipts and expenditures into balance, and provide some surplus for debt reduction, at the earliest date consistent with the welfare of the country. In the same report, the President also pointed out that—and I quote: Within 5 years, we can achieve an annual output In excess of $209,000,060,000. This goal also has now been taken over by the editors of Business Week. Let me quote once more from their editorial: A real gain in production per man-hour— not the spectacular 10 percent a year that came after World War I, nut a steady yearly ciimb of, say, 3 percent over the next 5 years—would add roughly $40,000,000,000 to the total of goods and services that the coun- try is producing. That would leave room for moderate wage increases, a gradual but sub- stantial increase in social services, and some tax reductio 1. The Busiiess Week editorial did not specifically say that we could reach a $300,000,0C0,C00 national economy within 5 years; it merely said we could increase our total production of goods and serv- ices hy forty billion. But since the pres- ent size of our national economy is just about $260,000,000,000, the simple addi- tion of these two figures shows that Business Week has accepted the Presi- dents target. To encourage the expansion of our economy, the editor of Business Week called for an expansion of domestic mar- kets. Let me quote their exact words: Our markets must be expanded to keep business expanding, and to provide enough jobs to maintain reasonably full employ- ment. We need more customers and better- heeled customers to take our growing pro- duction. This, of course, is only a more popular and somewhat less erudite way of say- ing what the Council of Economic Ad- visers has been saying for many years— namely, that an economy which is ex- panding at a healthy rate must be a high consumption economy. As the national income grows— States the Council in its annual eco- nome review of January 1950— a trend toward relatively greater increases in income for families in the lowest brackets of the income structure would therefore give an extra stimulus to demand of consump- tion goods. The editors cf Business Week also pointed out that as productivity in- creases, the people who may be hurt will need help. They may need help— The editorial states— from their communities in the form of ade- quate unemployment compensation, and in finding new jobs. On this point also their observation squares with the long-standing recom- mendations of the President and his eco- nomic advisers for a more adequate un~ employment compensation system and a more effective employment service. It is interesting to note that Business ‘Week makes no mention of what the President and his Council of Economic A3177 Advisers have said on the same subject. Someone who had not read the Economic Reports transmitted to Congress under the Employment Act of 1946 might think that all these thoughts originated in the minds of the editors of Business V7eok. Yet, I for one, am not interested merely in seeing that credit is given where credit is due. I am mucin more interested in seeing that sound thinking is done on the great economic problems that confront America. I am, therefore, deeply gratified to know that such an important business magazine as Business Week can put for= ward such forward-looking and construc- tive ideas and that they are not afraid to do so merely because the President and othcrs in Washington have said the same things. I hope that other business magazines and papers and journals will promptly address themselves to the same problem and in the same constructive spirit. The editorial is as follows: PropuctTiviry: PROMIsz AND PROBLEM Some of the best economic news we've carried since the war appeared in Business Week, March 4: The Nation’s industrial prod-= uctivity is climbing once more. Most postwar news about productivity has been discouraging. Production per man- hour in a plant is difficult to measure at any time. With all the changes war brought in the economy, it has been impossible to get good figures on what happened to our na- tional productivity. But even as late as 1942, the evidence seemed to show that the coun-~ try’s productivity was probably little if any higher than it had been in 1941. Now, Business Week’s spot-check of plants and of the opinions of a broad range of top- management men points to a sharp jump in industrial efficiency. It looks as if the long- awaited turn may have come. This is good news because it means that the country is again getting the kind of progress that made it great—stronger and wealthier than any other nation, and with living standards higher than most of the world’s people ever dreamed of. PROMISE OF BETTER LIVING Better productivity holds the promise of still better living. It is the way to make good on the things that people are talking about, and wanting, today: Better wages, pensions on a more secure level for all wark- ers, better social services. The country can have better educational systems, better hous-~ ing, more medical care, adequate unemploy- ment insurance, and all the rest—if we will buckie down to improving our industrial efficiency. If we are to balance the Federal budget and end deficit spending, we need to expand tne whole economy in the same way. A bigger national income, which would raise Govern- ment revenues, would be the painless solution to deficit financing. It would make it pos- sible to keep our big military establishment, and to continue to give economic aid to the nations that need it~—without sinking our currency and national credit. It would open the way for sorely needed reductions in busi- ness and personal tax rates. But, we can only have better living stand- ards and a bigger national income in real terms—more goods and more services—if we increase our efficiency to produce more in each hour of work. A real gain in production per man-hour— not the spectacular 10 percent a year that came after World War I, but a steady yearly climb of, say, 3 percent over the next 5 years— would add roughly $40,000,000,000 to the total
A3178 of goods and services that the country is producing. That would leave room for mod- erate wage increases, a gradual but substan~ tial increase in social services, and some tax reduction. This is a reasonable target for economic expansion—but even it cannot be reached without some growing pains. While better efficiency pays off for everyone in the long run, it is bound to hurt some people in the process. In fact, better productivity can be a hazard to the economy if we go on as we did in 1949—producing only about the same amount of goods, with fewer and fewer workers. NEEDED: BIGGER MARKETS As we see it, two things are needed to en~ courage better efficiency, and to minimize dis- locations: 1. Our markets must be expanded to keep business expanding, and to provide enough jobs to maintain reasonably full employ~- ment. We need more customers and better~ heeled customers to take our growing pro~ duction. If we are to expand the markets, the dividends of rising productivity must he widcly distributed. Workers must have a share in the form of wage increases. Busi-~ ness, itself, must have a share so that it will pe able to buy the new plants and equipment that will increase efficiency. Owners and stockholders must have a share to give them the capacity and incentive to invest in new enterprises. Finally, the country must de- cide how much of a share it will set aside for Government, and to expand social serv~ ices, pensions, and the like. 2. The people who will be hurt as produc~ tivity improves will need help. Some work- ers will lose jobs, because new machines will do them better. These people will need help from their companies in transferring them to other jobs, or in helping them get new jobs. They may need help from their communities in the form of adequate unem- ployment compensation, and im finding new jobs. We may, too, have some of the trouble that we had in the thirties, during the great de- pression. Then the technocrats, and others, spread the idea that better industrial pro~ ductivity was a ruthless destroyer of jobs and men. To avoid that, the people who are hurt in the process will need to understand what has happened to them, and to have other people understand it. They will be in trou- ble, not because they fell down on their jobs, but because they are displaced by prog~ ress. They will Le temporary casualties who deseive decent consideration and help. Increasing productivity is not a new thing in this country. It has been the key to the whole history of our economic progress. But, in the years of the war and postwar ex- pansion, when we had overfull employment, it lagged badly. We had prosperity but no progress toward better productivity. That's why word of a gain now is good news. Voluntary Health Insurance EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 1, 1950 Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include a recent guest editorial from the Rochester (N, ¥.) Times-Union, supporting legis- Jation which I introduced earlier this session to encourage participation in voluntary health insurance programs by providing for tax credits of a percent- age of the premiums paid. The author, Sol M. Linowitz, now an able practicing attorney of that city, has made a care- ful study of the subject and was an early proponent of such a plan. The need for some type of health in- surance is undeniable. But to compel a man to subseribe to health insurance by forcing deductions from his weekly pay check is contrary to our American tradition of individual freedom of action. A compulsory system would, in the long run, be detrimental to the maintenance of both individual initiative and the standards of the medical profession. In addition, the cost to the taxpayer involved in this inventive to subscription to voluntary plans would be incompara- bly less than the establishment and maintenance of a governmentally oper- ated compulsory health insurance pro- gram. There would be no cost of Gov- ernment administration and the loss of tax -revenue to the Government under my bill (H. R. 6819) would be but a frac- tion of the estimated annuel involve- ment of the Federal Government to the extent of about $6,000,000,000 for the compulsory system. Ler’s MaKkE Hreatta InsurANcE Too Goop To Miss Early last year I set forth in this column a proposal for a national health insurance program based on the use of an income tax credit or allowance. The plan itself was simple: the Federal Government would pro- vide that every person who insured himself and his family in an approved type of health insurance program, commercial or noncom- mercial would be entitled to a tax credit (di- rectly against the payable tax) for a desig- nated portion of the premium to be paid. The allowable tax credit would vary in the different brackets, offering the highest al- lowance to those in the lowest income groups and decreasing as the income in- creased. In short, the schedule of gradu- ated income tax credits would be set up in * such manner as to induce rather than com- pel Nation-wide health insurance. On its face, the idea seemed to offer some fairly obvious advantages: 1. It would avoid the necessity for an involved and costly governmental regulatory agency contemplated by the administration compulsory program. 2. It would rely on existing commercial and noncommercial health insurance plans and groups established to handle just such programs. 8. Each State and community would be free to,make its own voluntary arrangements to meet its own particular needs. The proposal afforded a possible compro- mise program acceptable to the various fac- tions, and quickly won support in a number of quarters. Men such as Bernard Baruch, Senator Ives, Dr. Paul Magnuson (Chief Medical Director of the Veterans’ Adminis- tration), Dr. Paul Hawley, and others close to the health insurance problem, announced their endorsement of the plan. , The plan was not actually presented in the form of legislation until early this year. In January 1950 Representative KznnetH B, Keatine introduced a bill based on the pro- posal and providing a schedule of income-tax credits for premiums paid in private health {osurance programs. Because of Representa- tive Kzatine’s interest and support, Congress today has a real opportunity to consider the , APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD validity of the tax credit plan as an answer to the health insurance problem. The real significance of the plan and the widespread support it has received lie in the fact that it undertakes to meet the national health problem on a wholly volun- tary basis and without resort to compulsion. During the past months the American people have been subjected to a high-pow- ered hullabaloo about national health in- surance, They have been dismayed and con- fused by the ferocity with which drums have been beat by both sides. One group has vied with the other in broad characterization, claims, charges, countercharges, high-pres- sure campaigns, and publicity build-ups. As Mr. L. R. Blanchard recently pointed out in his address before the Orange County Medical Society, the medical profession, caught in the midst of the fray, has not always seen its responsibility clearly and has peen trading punches with the best of them. None of this has been helpful to the Amer- ican people who are entitled to an alterna- tive program on a voluntary -basis rather than merely an irate condemnation of the administration proposal. Those who have been studying the income- tax allowance plan believe that it may offer the alternative which has been sought. First, because, when combined with appro- priate provision for the nontaxpaying group (as under the Taft or Hill bills pending before Congress) it promises truly Nation- wide coverage. Secondly, the role of the Government, Federal or State, is cut to a minimum; the initiative is in each case left for the .individual; and the goal of full- scale health insurance throughout the coun- try becomes the personal concern of the private party. Will the tax-allowance plan work? The only way to find out is to try it. If it oper- ates to induce widespread health insurance, the need for a compulsory sysiem will be obviated. If not, resort can always be had to the type of program the administration now seeks. The time is not yet, however, for plunging headlong into a far-reaching compulsory health program which is in so many respects beset with so many dangers. Experience abroad demonstrates that com- pulsory medical care is no panacea, and that once the step is taken there can be no turn- ing back. To the factions engaged in spirited battle on the health-insurance front, the tax-allow- ance plan seems to offer a simple, sensible middle road toward the common goal. To the American people, it holds out the real possibility that the fight against the ravag- ing cost of ill health can be won on a vol- untary Nation-wide basis. One Hundred and Fifty-ninth Anniversary of Signing of the Polish National _ Constitution EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. SCOTT W. LUCAS OF ILLINOIS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous conseni to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a statement I have prepared on the one hundred and fifty-ninth anniversary of the signing of the Polish National Constitution.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorpD, as follows: STATEMENT By SeNatTor Scorr W. Lucas on THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE POLISH CONSTI- TUTION I think it is not at all irrelevant to pause in the midst of our debate on the European economic aid program to note that today is an important anniversary in the history of man’s struggle for liberty. Today is the one hundred and fifty-ninth anniversary of the signing of the Polish National Constitu- ticn under which the Polish people ob- tained the bill of rights that now they are denied. To note that fact is completely to the point for many reasons. We are engaged in the vital matter of exploring all aspects of the program of economic aid to strengthen and bring to full recovery the freedom- loving democracies of western Europe. These free nations, devastated by one form of totalitarianism, face the threat of an- other, more insidious, totalitarian regime. That recalls some important events of recent history. On September 1, 1939, the Nazi hordes began to pour across the border into Poland. The brave Polish people, jealous of their freedom and willing to die for the rights they won in their constitution of May 3, 1791, chose to defend their beloved home- land in the face of hopeless odds. Their allies, Britain and France, with whom they were bound by mutual defense treaties, im- mediately responded with declarations of war against Germany. Britain and France joined Poland in living up to the highest traditions of national honor. Less than 3 weeks later, in contrast, one of the low points in the history of honor among nations was reached, The Soviet Union, united with Germany under the in- famous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, stabbed Poland in the back with an invasion from the east. Subsequent history is well remembered. Today through our economic aid we are seeking to strengthen in western Europe the kind of spirit the Polish people showed when their nation was submerged under the attacks of two ruthless, totalitarian war machingas. For the sake of the people of Poland who still remain under the heavy hands of one of those dictatorships let us regard our work here today as @ measure to keep the light of freedom burning in Europe. Let us work to make it gleam as a beacon of hope to all those who are held captive against their will. Let us show the oppressed people of Poland that we are determined to keep the demo- cratic spirit alive throughout the world. America’s greatest chance for preserving peace in the world lies in keeping hope in the hearts of those held in Communist bondage and in providing material aid to those free people who are actively fighting the battle against communism. Our ties with the Polish people extend back to the days when America was strug- gling for its freedom. Those great Polish soldiers, Kosciusko and Pulaski, came across the seas to join our fight. Count Pulaski laid down his life in our soil. Thaddeus Kosciusko carried back to Poland’s fight for independent, the American ideal of liberty. Brave Polish soldiers fought alongside Americans, among them thousands of Polish origin, in the bloody campaigns of the last war. The blood of the two nations has thus been blended together for nearly two cen- turies. We are prevented at the moment from di- rectly aiding the captive Polish people, but there is much that we can do indirectly. The United States can, as the Senate has rec-~ ommended, admit some 18,000 Polish veter- ans under our displaced persons law. But, more important still, America can render real service to the Polish people by finishing well the task of restoring the strength and vitality of the free nations of Europe. Po- land can become free again if the spirit of man’s liberty and freedom is kept strong and vital throughout the world. There is nothing more contageous than freedom. If we insure that western Europe remains free, the spirit of freedom will hur- dle all Communist barricades and one day aid the Polish people to regain the rights set forth in their glorious constitution. Gallup Poll on Dissemination of Information About America EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp a recent Gallup poll as reported in the Washing- ton Post of April 28, 1950. Here again, as so often in the past on other issues, the public seems to be ahead of the Gov- ernment, including the Congress. By majorities which would be regarded as very substantial in election campaigns, the public approved stepped-up efforts and greater expenditures to offset the Russian propaganda and to strengthen the Voice of America. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: [From the Washington Post of April 28, 1950] THE GALLUP POLL—VOTERS Favor WIDER SPREAD OF UNITED STATES INFORMATION ABROAD (By George Gallup) Princeton, N. J., April 27.—Even before President Truman’s strong appeal before the American Society of Newspaper Editors for intensive efforts to spread information about America to the people of other countries, the weight of opinion throughout the United States was in favor of an expanded program along those lines, This is shown in interviews conducted among a representative cross-section of Amer= ican voters during the last week in March. These interviews show substantial popular sentiment for spending a great deal more money than we are now spending to offset Russian cold war propaganda throughout the world. Voters who are aware of the work being done by the Voice of Americ. in its broadcasts overseas are more in favor of an expanded program than the general public is. Here is the national vote in the survey: Some people believe the United States should spend a great deal more money than we are now spending to offset Russian prop- aganda (information) and to tell our side of the story to Europe and the world. Do you agree or disagree? Percent In favor of more expenditures...-.-.. 47 Against... eee 38 No opinion....-.--.---.-- weemenewenen 15 Total_....-------.------ ceeemene 100 A3179 The survey also indicates that part of the job facing the State Department is to ac- quaint people here at home with the work being done by the Voice of America in bring- ing the American point of view before the people of foreign lands. A total of 46 percent, or nearly half, of the persons questioned in the survey said they had not read about or been told any- thing about the Voice of America broad- casts. When each person was asked, “Have you ever read or been told anything about the Voice of America broadcasts to foreign countries?” here was the vote: Percent Yes, have heard about VOA 54 No, have not..--------....--~-.---~-.-- 46 100 The 54 percent who were aware of the Voice broadcasts voted as follows on the question of an expanded program overseas: . Percent In favor of more expenditures 58 Against .--.--.-~--.---------- 35 No opinion_..-.--..--.---.-------.--- 7 100 A resolution calling for a greatly expanded overseas program of information about the United States was introduced in the Senate last month by 11 Senators, with Senator Wi1amM BENTON, of Connecticut, acting as spokesman. The proposal included a net- work of long-wave, medium-wave, and short~ wave radio stations capable of reaching every receiver in the world. President Truman, in his speech to the newspaper editors on April 20, declared: “Unless we get the real story across to people in other countries, we will lose the battle for men’s minds by default. * * * We cannot run the risk that nations may be lost to the cause of freedom because their people do not know the facts.” The survey also brings out the fact that voters who have had the most education are the most in favor of expanding the work of publicizing the American point of view abroad. Here is the vote by degree of education: Col- | High | Grade lege | school | school . Percent| Percent) Percent In favor of more expenditures. 59 47 44 40 37 13 19 pnennnensenncereerse 100 100 100 Air Warfare and Morality EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ESTES KEFAUVER OF TENNESSEE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to offer for insertion in the Recorp a very fine article by Maj. Gen. Orvil A. Anderson, the Com- mandant of the Air War College. I think that General Anderson has ably presented an argument for strategic bombing during time of war. It is well for us to discuss matters such as this so that we may be more fully prepared against any emergency.
A3180 There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: AIR WARFARE AND MORALITY (By Maj. Gen. Orvil A. Anderson) Throughout recorded history, evolution in the nature of war has been associated with evolution in the technical and mechanical characteristics of weapons. Over a period of some thousands of years we have progressed from the stone and club age, through the spear, bow and arrow, crossbow, and gun- powder periods, finally to arrive at the atomic era. Each major advance in weapons has been marked either by an increase in the range of the weapon or by an increase in its destructive capacity, or by both. We have gone from the war capability of the club, the capacity to bruise or kill a single individual ata range of a few feet, to the war capability of modern air weapons, the capacity to de- stroy whole cities of key industrial systems at ranges of thousands of miles. The frightening increase in the potential of weapons has been matched with an evolu- tion in our social and economic structure which adds further hazard to modern exist- ence. The simple agrarian life, with human- ity living close to the soil, dispersed and largely independent, has been replaced with a complex social and economic fabric which is supervulnerable in many critical areas. As the power of weapons has increased, con- centrations of population, industry, and transportation have developed which pro- vide highly profitable targets for destruction by modern military weapons. Thus the evolution of our social order into a compact industrialized structure has placed us in double jeopardy: First, it has produced long- range weapons capable of great destruction. Second, it has created the targets for these weapons. This observation has a singular significance to our problems of today, when the fate of America, the fate of world civilization itself, is primarily dependent upon the strategic concepts that guide the provisions we make for our sustained security. here to note that, as in most fields of human endeavor, the evolution of military strategy has not been completely abreast of the evolu- tion in weapons, Most military strategists—not being re- sponsible for, and in some cases not famiiiar with scientific developments—have normally resisted new weapons. Strategic thinking generally has tended to retard the rapid de- velopment and exploitation of the full poten~ tial of new weapons because the new weapon tends to upset the familiar relationships that the strategist has been accustomed to em~- ploy in his thinking. The revolutionary po- tential of modern weapons so far exceeds the power of traditional weapons that it is ques- tionable if there is much in common between past military objectives, and consequently military strategy to achieve these objectives, and the military objectives of a possible third world war. Wars in the past, including the Second World War, have been fought basically to a surface strategy. By this is meant one in which surface-force operations dominated the grand strategy. Either a final assault and invasion of the enemy homeland by ground troops was visualized, or sea blockade, with its attendant economic and military strangulation, or both, was intended to be decisive. .- For example, the strategy of World War II against Germany was a surface strategy. Its objective was invasion and occupation of Germany proper. In implementing this strategy alr power was employed to prepare for the invasion and sea power was employed . to project the invasion forces and their logis. tics across the sea, The strategy of the war against Japan, as implemented, was little It is pertinent . more complex. The grand strategy still vis- ualized final invasion of the Japanese home islands, but the economic vulnerability of Japan was such that she could have been de- feated primarily by sea power exercising @ technique of blockade and strangulation, The complexity of Pacific strategy was fur- ther corapounded by a command structure which led to two major surface thrusts aimed at Japan and by the new weapons system— the long-range air force—which upset the intention of the planned invasion by forcing surrender before the final invasion could take place. These examples from the Second World War point up the inherent tactical capabili- ties of land power, sea power, and air power, and show that the requirement for these various capabilities should be judged in rela- tion to the potential of weapons currently available and in relation to the other factors in war. The ultimate strategic objective of all three military forces is identical. It is the reduc- tion or elimination of the power and power potential of the enemy in order to remove his capacity to threaten our security. The techniques employed by the three categories of military force are dictated by the capa- bilities and limitations of the weapons em- ployed by these forces. Land power, in order to accomplish the strategic oLjective, must invade and capture the territory of the opposing state. By occu- pying vital areas it deprives the enemy of the use of the resources of the area occupied. These resources may be raw material, com- munications, industry, or government insti- tutions. Sea power, by establishing contre: of the sea lines of communication, may strangle or starve the economic life of a nation, provid- ing that nation is dependent on these lines of communication to a large extent for sur- vival. Great Britain or Japan would be out- standing examples of insular nations which are wholly dependent on sea lines of commu- nication for bare survival. Similarly the strategic objective of air power is the elimination or reduction of the enemy’s power and power potential. The technique employed by air power in accom- plishing this objective is to attack directly the power and sources of power of the enemy state. The targets may be selected segments of his industrial establishment, his commu- ications or transportation system, the source of his governmental or social control, or his military forces in being. Land power, in invading and occupying, may have to fight land armies, but the de- struction of those armies is not the ultimate strategic objective of land power. Sea power, fo accomplishing sea blockade, may have to fight sea battles; but these battles, again, are not the ultimate strategic objectives of sea power, And air power, in neutralizing an enemy, may have to fight air battles, but vic- tories in the air are not the ultimate stra- tegic objectives of air power. If these fufidamentals were fully under- stood, thinking on the present security problem would be improved. The destruc- tion of armies, navies, and air forces is not the ultimate strategic objective of the va- rious components of our armed forces. At best, armies, navies, and air forces are but means to ends. If our present position is viewed in the light of the techniques ap- propriate to the three categories of military force (land, sea, and air) there is immediate indication of a solution, What should be the core of our strategy for a possible future war? Invasion and occupation—sea block- ade ond strangulation—or air neutraliza- on If a possible military enemy in the for- seeable future is a land-mass power, oper- ating on interior land and river lines of communication, geographically and econom- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ically it is not particularly vulnerable to sea blockade and strangulation. Thus a strat- egy based primarily upon offensive sea power would not defeat that enemy. If this potential enemy has a powerful land force-in-being backed up by a rela- tively secure and adequate logistic base, and if we want something near a numerical land- power equality with this potential foe, we then would be required to maintain con- stantly an army as large as the ore we built for World War II. Further, even this force could be outnumbered very quickly by full mobilization of the enemy’s potential land power. The continued maintenance of an army of this size would impose such a staggering load on our economy that our standard of living and our democratic way of life would be seriously affected. We know also that the projection of land power, in mass, across the seas requires control of those seas. At the same time a potential enemy nation—herself relatively invulner- able to sea power attack—through effective use of a modern submarine force could se- riously interfere with and possibly defeat any opposing force requiring vast movement of logistics across the ocean. It would ap- pear then that a strategy based upon land power would be costly, hazardous, and un- certain of success. Logic, therefore, strongly supports the conclusion that a basic strategy which ex- ploits the power potential of new weapons to the fullest is our soundest hope of suc- cessfully defending ourselves. The com- bination of air vehicles and atomic ex- plosives represents, at present, our greatest power potential. Such a strategy does not mean that land power and sea power are excluded from the operation. They would participate in roles appropriate to the support of that strategy. All our military forces would be integrated toward the one common strategic objective. This strategy would permit maximum uti- lization of our technological superiorities and maximum exploitation of enemy weak- nesses. It would avoid the areas of greatest enemy strength. It would be most econom~ ical in American lives and resources. It would be designed to the geography of the situation, to our own strengths, and to the achievement of our postwar objectives, This basic strategy in the foreseeable fu-~ ture involves what is commonly referred to as a strategic air offensive. Recently the concept of a strategic air offensive has come in for some rather violent criticism. It has been charged that a strategic air offensive cannot be carried out and that, even if it could be carried out, it would have no mili- tary effect or value. These criticisms are both transparent and senseless to a thinking person. There is, however, one criticism against the strategic air offensive which, if properly nourished and expanded, could cost us a war. This argument attacks the concept of strategic bombing from a basis of morality, It has a certain attraction to people of west- ern culture. Traditionally we have at- tempted to maintain a combatant and non- combatant status in our wars. The distinc- tion between the two has, however, been more difficult to discern as wars have be~ come more nearly total in scope. The cliffer- ence between the citizen soldier and the factory worker who provides the tools of war is rather nebulous. The soldier and the worker are complementaty in modern war. It is naturally abhorrent to us to consider that war may be fought which will involve our homes and families. We want it to be fought at the greatest distance from them as possible. An aggressor is not concerned about these values. In essence the argument from morality condemns strategic bombing as an effort aimed at women and children and the civil-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ian population. It alleges that strategic bombing kills the innocent nonu'ation and is not directed against legitumate mulitary objectives. Under analysis this argument 1s fallacious. Before the airplane and the atomic bomb became significant instruments in the mili- tary arsenal, the same basic problem in hu- manity was present. During World War I and World War I, which were fought with traditional weapons on the surface of the earth, it was recognized that noncombatants in a@ combat zone were very likely to get hurt. Insofar as practicable, the problem was solved by evacuation. Women and children and noncombatants were cleared out of the combat areas. If the principle of evacuation was not or could not be em~ ployed—if the noncombatants happened to be in a village under artillery bombard- ment—the artillery shells did not differen- tiate between enemies in uniform and civil- jans that might be present. If the civilian happened to be in a foxhole, he could expect the fire of the battlefield. During World War I, insofar as air action was concerned, this principle of evacuation was still employed. The French civilians living adjacent to the railroad marshaling yards which handled German army logistics were warned by leaflets that the marshaling yards were critical targets and that they should get out of the area. Likewise the residents of Japanese cities were warned that the cities were military targets because of the dispersed home industry which was so essential to the Japanese economy. Those who abandoned their homes lived. Those who did not, in effect, remained on the bat« tlefield and took the chances of a battlefield, The important point is that the categories c* wiiarr targets appropriate to modern Weapon ‘ expanded the battlefield to in- ec ace whe industrial and economic sources of strength of a nation and that these criti- cal elements of economy are Jeg:timate mili-« tary targets because they crerte arc main- tain the enemy’s fighting forces. The prin- ciple of evacuation can still be applied, as it was applied by the British in World War II when thousands of women and children and noncombatants were removed from city areas, In other words, nothing completely new in the field of ethics or morality has been added to the grim problems of war. No new issue of morality is involved. Only the de- gree of hazard has changed. There is no new principle. It is significant to observe that aggressor nations normally do not like the idea of strategic bombing. It is not consistent with the philosophy of conquest and exploitation. Hence it may be expected that through es- tablished international agencies and by means of every known type of propaganda, the attempt will be made to discredit and .to outlaw strategic bombing. Hitler himself spoke out against strategic bombing during the last war. Certainly he had no moral objections. A monster who would tolerate— in fact, encourage—such pestholes as Buch-« enwald, Dachau, and other concentration camps and mass-murder sites would not he deterred from killing citizens because of any moral issue involved. The reason for his efforts to outlaw the bombing of cities is quite evident. It stems logically from his war aims. Germany under Hitler was bent upon dominating the whole of Europe, if not the whole world. She was embarked upon a policy of expansion and aggression. It would not have served her purpose to destroy the economic plant which she wanted to control. She was not threatened by Hol- land, Belgium, France, Poland, or England, They were not attempting to take her over, ‘The reverse was true. Thus Germany’s war strategy was based upon an occupation of the other continental powers with ground forces, after a minimum destruction of the economy of those countries. Germany also realized that the Allies were not prepared to take the war to Germany on the ground. However, from British bases the air war could be launched against Ger- many herself. Obviously, in a situation such as this, wherein Germany had nothing to gain and everything to lose, she would come out strongly against the weapon which could hurt her most-—strategic bombing. To rely, however, upon the belief that any possible enemy, because 1t is committed to @ policy of aggression, might not use strate- gic bombing on the United States would be to take an unnecessary and unrealistic gam- ble. Hitler believed that he could take over Europe without involving the United States in war. If an enemy believes to the contrary, she could be perfectly willing to destroy Brit- ain and the United States to gain the rest of the world—and, under another circum- stance, could be willing to destroy Britain and the United States to prevent collapse from the inevitable internal corrosion asso- ciated with any dictatorship. In the mean- time it would be distinctly to her advantage to outlaw strategic bombing and to con- vince the Western World that they are too moral and too humane to employ their best weapon in their fight for survival. If we permit ourselves to become mesmer- ized with this humanity aspect, we can place ourselves in position to lose a war, because we will have failed to exploit the power of modern science in our own defense. A longer-term view of humanity would un- doubtedly recognize that humanity is best served by the survival rather than by the destruction, of western civilization. An in« formed viewpoint will also recognize that the survival of western civilization will depend in large measure upon the utilization of those weapons 1n our arsenal in which we are superior—chief among which is our sci- entific and technological potential. Those who condemn the strategic air of- fensive on morality grounds also maintain that the destruction incidental to such an attack ensures losing the peace even though we win the war: Germany, after World War -II, is frequently cited as a case in point. Again this is a most superficial type of rea- soning. It is a matter of record that the grim determination of the Allies, as they went to war with Germany in World War II, was so to reduce Germany that she would never again constitute a threat to the peace of the world. Our basic strategic thinking was founded on this tenet long before the power of the strategic air offensive was com- prehended, and the extension of that national intention was found in the postwar applica- tion. of parts of the Morgenthau plan. If strategic bombing so decimated Germany that it was not consistent with our national objectives, why then were German industrial plants dismantled and destroyed by the Allied occupying powers after the war ended? It is obvious, from the course of action which we followed, that strategic bombing—in spite of the great destruction wrought—had only partially satisfied Allied policy. The wrecking of Germany continued long after the last bomb fell. The strategic air offensive had been de- signed to destroy only certain vital segments of the German war economy—such as oil. In this it succeeded, and the German war machine ground to a halt. However the strategic air offensive had not been designed to destroy the total industrial fabric of Ger- ‘many, and the dismantling of German in- dustry continued for some time after the war ended. Hence it becomes obvious that the destruction from the bombing was consistent with our national objectives, but being con- “fined to certain segments of the German war ecohomy, it was not sufficiently widespread to prevent the recuperation of German in- A3181 dustry. Reduction of the recuperative power of the industry was apparently one of the objectives of the postwar dismantling pro- gram. Actually, we did not come close to losing the peace in Europe because of the physical damage we did to our enemies in defeating them, but rather because of the unmasking of a former ally as another totalitarian ag~= gressive power bent on world domination. In visualizing the =*7s'er" «rd material damage which might Le Lictxa upon an enemy in a strategic « ~ c.i-. .. , it is well to compare such damage with the disastrous losses to France and England of their young manhood during World War I. The cream of the manhood of both nations was lost, in traditional surface warfare, and the impact of this blood bath was one of much greater sism:feare? ther the destruction of factor-= w+. Geis i. are required to rebuild a race. On the other hand our own casualties during World War II, in surface combat, were the lowest we have ever suffered, percentage- wise. This was true in spite of the greatly increased killing power of surface weapons. Our World War II casualties were low simply because we partially exploited the power of an air offensive in preparing for our surface operations. We reduced the capability of the enemy for effective and sustained surface warfare prior to the time that we committed our forces to surface combat. United States military leaders would be derelict in their duty to the people of the United States and the western democracies if they did not fully exploit the power of the air offensive in a future war and so minimize the casualties which would be suffered by us and our triends. The whole issue of morality as applied to warfare engaged in by peace-loving people must be considered against a background of war aims. Traditionally the United States will fight only if her security or the security of other peace-loving peoples is threatened. We have no aggressive intentions toward any other power. If we had such intentions, we would be subject to censure before world opinion being unnecessarily brutal to use ‘weapons of mass destruction in accomplish« ing our aims. If, however, our position as a champion of the dignity of man and human rights were threatened by a totalitarian power which has indicated it has no such standards, we would clearly be at fault if we did not use the key means at our disposal to defend ourselves. We are only defending ourselves, albeit we are doing it by taking the war to the enemy. To summarize, fallible man, adhering to the pattern of past thinking, resists the evo- lution and change dictated by the power of science. He resents the threat to his estab- lished order and traditional patterns. These failngs have been able to slow down but not stop progress. Such weaknesses can be sources of great danger when our security is threatened, It has been, pointed out that the strategic objectives of land, sea, and air warfare are similar. An objective analysis of the specific factors in the situation will logically dictate a certain course of action. Sea blockade and strangulation will not defeat an enemy who is not dependent on sea communications to a@ large extent for survival. Invasion and oc- cupation in the face of heavy odds, if suc- .cessful at all, would be terribly costly in American lives and resources. Utilization of strategic air power presents the soundest so- lution to our military problem. This will re- quire the wisest balance and employment of our integrated land, sea, and air forces to attain maximum effectiveness. The employment of weapons of mass de- ‘struction is not immoral. This propaganda line will probably be exploited by an ene=- my—as it was by Hitler—to suit his own pur- pose. He realizes that he has little to worry
A3182 about in a war with us fought according to traditional patterns. An enemy having noth- ing to fear will feel free to continue a policy of aggression and expansion until his aim of world domination is achieved. We are not only morally justified but morally obli- gated to develop our maximum strength to provide our own security. A Report on Progress of Connecticut’s Project for State Government Reorgan- ization EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. SENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendiy. of the Recorp an article from the current issue of the magazine State Government which describes the methods and procedures followed by the Connecticut Commission on State Gov- ernment Organization. This article was written by Mr. Ralph P. Sollott, the able staff director of the Connecticut commission, and represents a unique and fundamental approach to the task of government reorganization. I under- stand that 20 other States and Terri- torizs are presently engaged in working out more 2fficient and manageable pat- terns. The Connecticut survey of gov- ernment might well serve as a model for others to follow in the tremendous task of making our State governments more effective, responsible, and ecorfomical. There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: ALL THE FUNCTIONS oF STATE GOVERNMENT— A Report ON Progress To DaTE IN CoNn- NECTICUT’S PROJECT FoR STATE GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION (By Ralph P. Sollott, staff director, Con- necticut Commission on State Government Organization ) As this is being read, the Connecticut General Assembly is in special session. Its purpose is action on the report of the Com- mission on State Government Organization. Less than a year ago, Gov. Chester Bowles approved special act No. 28, 1949 session, creating this five-citizen commission. In a politically divided general assembly there was bipartisan agreement on the need for a thorough reconsideration of the State government. Noteworthy in its charter was the legis- lative mandate that the commission shall study all the functions of State government. This direction obviated the key weakness of most other such studies—there was no liml< tation to the executive branch. The legis< lative and judicial branches, as well as the constitution, were made the subjects of study. The principle of “one world” has found its way into government-organization studies, No single branch can be made more effective in vacuo. The interrelationships of execu< tive, legislative, and judicial branches are here to stay. FIVE CITIZEN COMMISSIONERS Bivwttsin cereement resulted directly fru’ Soi ..1 of the gubernatorial nomi- nees. Each of the vr %7d eommissioners had a long record of + © .ue. °.¢' 1 experience and interest in governmental affairs. Carter W. Atkins, chairman, is executive director of the Connecticut Public Expendi- ture Council; he has made a career of gov- ernmental research. James Lee Loomis is the retired chairman of the board of the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. Oliver B. Ellsworth is president of the River- side Trust Co. G. Keith Funston 1s presi- dent of Trinity College and has a long back- ground in business and government. James G. Rogers, Jr., is a management consultant with extensive prior experience in business and government. The commissioners, all with other obliga- tions, devoted upward of 15, and as many as 40, hours weekly to their deliberations. THE WORKING PLAN The commission selected as staff director the man who had been the Governor’s con- sultant on budget and organization. His background has been in management engi- neering, law, business, and government— Federal, State, and municipal. In the formulation of Connecticut’s first consolidated executive budget, specific data had been developed to give the commission staff a running start into its work. With the executive budget and the State Register as its base, the commission divided the whole loaf of State government into 22 manageable slices. Each of the existing agencies of govern- ment (then believed to number some 108, since determined to be 202) was allocated to one of the 22 organization survey units. Pro- vision was made for the coordination of in- evitable overlapping between horizontal (across all agencies) and vertical (within specified agencies) survey units. A commission program and policy state- ment was prepared to define the commission's understanding of its charter. This same statement served as the basis for negotia- tions for technical staff. Although less than 7 months were avail- able to do the job, negotiations for staff extended over 8 months. The time was well spent. Each of the project directors was enabled, through the specific working plan, to submit a required outline prior to the con- tract commitment. The commission thus had early, competent estimates on unit work program, manpower, and budget require- ments, as well as time accomplishment ob- jectives. Thus, from the outset, the entire technical staff, whenever and wherever acquired, orig- inated and developed its thinking against a single frame of reference—the commission’s program and policy statement. THE SURVEY PROGRAM Each department head was requested to designate an organization liaison officer and deputy. Their duties were to establish en- trance communications directly to agency personnel best equipped to supply required information. Simultaneously, these officers provided a continuing agency awareness of our survey unit activities. While negotiating for technical staff, we initiated the development of essential data for each survey unit. Binders were com- piled for each project director containing all pertinent statutes, digest of all prior related * studies, directory of agencies and officers, digest of current administrative reports and bibliography. Ten-year fiscal histories and other useful data was added. This process not only expedited the actual surveys, but also saved Many more expensive and other- wise irreplaceable technician man-days. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Our operations were begun with an original appropriation of $50,000. The detailed, esti- mated requirements of our first survey units soon confirmed the inadequacy of this sum to accomplish even a minimum worth-while job. Governor Bowles promptly added an- other $75,000 from his contingent fund. The 202 State agencies were allocated to survey units designated as follows: Execu-« tive, fiscal, education, health, highways, pub- lic works, industrial relations, agriculture, conservation and development, regulative, licensing and examining, State police, mili- tary, welfare, hospitals, corrections, purchas- ing and procurement, management of land, buildings, records and communications, re- search and statistics, legislative, judicial, constitution. Some 120 specialists were engaged for near« ly 3,000 man-days at approximately $'70,000 in salaries. The project directors and their associates represented a diversity of skills, talents, and experience seldom gathered in a single venture. Several were former staff members of Hoover Commiussion studies. More than half had prior experience in gov- ernment operations or surveys. Others had both specialized business and technical ex- perience in the survey study areas. The commission, having confirmed each survey unit work outline, knew the proposed direction and required coordination of all. Therefore, for the duration of each project, its director reported weekly to the staff director. The weekly reports covered days worked by each staff member, budget status, staff services or policy resolution required, accomplishment objectives, or any deviations. Each commissioner was designated as sub- committee chairmun of four or five survey projects for consideration, review, and con- ference with the project directors. By this means, over-all workload for each commis- sioner was reduced and, at the same time, a degree of specialization provided to assure the most effective results In review of the various reports. As soon as the project director felt that the direction of thinking and fact develop- ment had taken concrete shape, he submitted a preliminary report. Its principal purpose was to keep the commission fully informed and call attention to any required modifica~ tions of original work plan. At this time, also, were confirmed the accomplishment ob- jectives for interim and final reports. The interim report, some time before ter- mination of field work, provided a compre- hensive statement of progress development and survey trend. Major policy questions were raised at this time. Signilicant areas of overlap were here identified and resolved. From detailed consideration at this time, such additional field work or coordination as required could be provided for. At this stage, also, the commission held several round-table sessions with groups of rroject directors to get the advantages of the exchange of ideas on broad policy questions, In most cases, it developed that the in- terim report represented 85 percent or more of completion. In its final report, in addition to report substance along generally uniform lines, each survey unit outlined its recommenda- tions in three groups—those which might be accomplished by executive authority; those which would require statutory enactment; and those which required constitutional change. SYNTHESIS From the outset of its work the commis- sion recognized the distinctions between or- ganization analysis and management audit. It resisted the temptation to follow tradi- ‘tional lines in attempting to achieve econ- omies directly. No mere elimination of car- bon copies or file cabinets could establish a
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD solid foundation for future governmental effectiveness. In one survey unit after an- other, the same factors were disclosed as fundamental causes of confusion, ineffec- tiveness, and waste. 1. The management of the functions of the State government is so decentralized and So illogically divided among nearly 2C0 sep- arate departments, boards, commissions, and agencies, as to lead to uncontrolled State ex- penditures, without any means under this system of producing an efficient and econom- ical government. 2. The citizens are not getting 100 cents worth of Government service for their dollar. 83. The best interests of the public are not being served under this system of govern- ment. Too often the agencies under this decentralized system respond to interests which are special and local rather than to the larger interests of the people of the State as a whoie. It became increasingly clear to the com- mission that a mere functional analysis of major departmental grouping would be in- sufficient. There were some obvious general principles applicable to all the functions. These principles the commission stated. “1. We helieve our Government is not an end initself hutameans * * * toa assist free men and women to live their lives peace- ably, securely, and prosperously, in a free saciety. “2, We believe that our State government should be competent. It should do well the things it undertakes to do. “3. We believe that our State government should be economical. The citizens have a right to expect that the State’s affairs will be prudently managed, to yield full value for the dollars spent. “4. We believe that better organization— for responsibility, competence, and econ- omy—is essential to a better government. “5, We believe, finally, that public office is @ public trust, not merely a way of making a living, or of serving the interests of special groups.” By these standards, the Commission made its recommendations. The frame of reference adopted by the Commission—fundamental issues and gen~ eral principles—clearly indicated that its work could, at best, provide the foundation upon which progressive application of known management principles might per- fect our State government structure. 1. The statutory mandate called for a re- port looking to the most economical method of furnishing “the present State services.” The Commission straightforwardly conclud- ed: “It follows from this that the results of our recommendations, if carried out, will show up principally in the form of better government with its resultant benefits to the people, rather than in wholesale cuts in State expenditures.” This in spite of the fact that a probable $2,000,000 savings was apparent in one area atone. No price tag was placed on better organization. 2. Citing the truism that “we cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs,” the Commission bespoke the support even of those whose responsibilities might be al- tered. 8. Defining its task “to chart a pattern and @ course of action” the Commission called for debate, understanding, approval, or mod~ ification. It emphasized that the third step of detailed application and instalation must be shared by all agencies. Only with com- pletion of installation can our task have successful outcome. LIAISON From the outset of its work the Commis- sion met frequently with the leaders of both houses of the general assembly. These meetings not only accomplished an impor- tant exchange of views but also were requi- site in clarifying Commission objectives and direction for cur politically divided general assembly. At an early date the Commission met with the publishers and editors of the State’s major papers. Our working plan, survey program, and objectives were outlined. Sub- sequently, the Commission met from time to time with the press—the political report- ers of those papers. These men understocd and guided us objectively, as technicians rather than as representatives of any par- ticular policy. Both the legislators and the press were largely responsible for the Commission’s de- cision to release its report chapter by chap- ter in advance of printing the text as a whole. In this manner, chapter mailings Were made directly to each member of the general assembly and the Governor, simul- taneously With release to the press and radio. Our coverage, therefore, was point-by-point and, as a result, far more extensive and effec- tive than if the entire report had been re- leased at one time. As the commission came to the point of formulating its own report, a citizen’s com- mittee on State government was created. Its members sat frequently with the com- mission during discussions of its report. A nonpartisan group, they hecame wholly famil- jar with the commission’s work and survey techniques. When, therefore, they set forth to explain our report to the people, it was of their own knowledge and conviction that they were enabled, through pamphlet, press, radio, and direct speech, to support our work. THE COMMISSION’S REPORT As its findings merged into fundamentals and principles previously set forth, the com- mission believed that the general assembly, the governor, and the people would be best served by brevity, simplicity, and cohesive pattern. The commission realized also that its report must he its own. The specialized technical studies had to he integrated and synthesized. The survey units could not have the over-all view. Their work, in many cases, was completed before other vital studies had resolved overlapping questions. Hence, although the survey units reports will be available for next analysis and installa- tion stages, they were not published as part of the commission report. Brevity and simplicity were served by con- fining the report to fundamental points of organization and major principles arising from findings which were generally appli- cable. The objectives of cohesiveness and “single pen” writing were believed essen- tial. The commission engaged the services of Harvey C. Mansfield, now chairman of the political science department, Ohio State University, and a Connecticut resident for a dozen years before the war, as its editor- writer. The editor-writer sat throughout the final meetings of the commission, and having become saturated with the philosophy of the several commissioners, was able to translate their conclusions into language ac- ceptable to each and all of them. The 11 chapters, the last setting out the proposed legislative program, were released at intervals of 2 to 3 days. This provided chapter content coverage on the first day and analytic or speculative stories on the intervening day. The wire services of press. and radio thus were enabled to give broader coverage to these stories as gradually re- leased. Following this month-long chapter coverage, the entire report and legislative program were bound into the consolidated report for general circulation and use. The chapter titles of the report, which fol- low, indicate its pattern. The first 10 chap- ters varied in length from 1,400 to 2,700 words. Chapter XI, containing the'text of 10 acts to accomplish the program and in- cluding a proposed constitution, is approxt- mately 14,000 words. A3183 I. Principles. Il. Financial Management. TiI. Personnel Management. IV. Management in the Executive Branch. V. Eoards and Commissions. VI. Elective Offices in the Branch. VII. Strengthening Local Government. VIII. Strengthening the General Assembly. Ix. Strengthening the Courts. XX. Strengthening the Constitution. XI. Ten Acts To Accomplish the Program. 1. An act to provide for the organization of the State government. 2. An act to provide for the organization and operation of the departments of the State government. 8. An act to provide for the recrganization of executive departments. 4. An act concerning administrative pro- cedure of executive departments. 5. An act concerning the establishment of administrative adjudication boards for the executive departments. 6. An act concerning the revision of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut. 7. An act concerning compensation of the governor and lieutenant governor. 8. An act concerning the appointment, tenure, salary maxima of executive denart- ment commissioners, administrative adjudi- cation board members, and executive officers of legislative and judicial departments. 9. An act concerning the appointment and tenure of executive and departmental assist- ants. 10. An act concerning the receipts and dis- bursements of State funds. Following is a summary of consolidations of officers and departments which will be effective if the proposal covering such econ- solidations is appraved. Executive Existing agen- cies from which it would assume New agency functions 3 E . Executive Offiee of the Govarnor-. . Office of Personnel Services_.------ . Office of General Services....------ Office of Public Works Services... . Finance Department ' . Labor Department--..- . Commerce Department Agriculture and Natural Resources ra OP Nwowor POI OA Cobo Re mee roe Bane aod woo _ DOM MFO 19. HOOOHWRHHOF FON CNONUHE Subtotal, whole agencies___.. Total___---.--.----.-~---+4-- 184 |1 (85) 18 202 1The 35 agencies from whieh fanctions would be assumed in part are equivalent to 18 full agencies, NEXT STEPS The commission recognized in Aet No. 1 that there cannot be an intelligent detail- ing f plans and specifications until the basic arrangement of existing governmental func- tions is agreed upon, In Act No. 2 the commission proposed the termination of its own existence—l4 months before its statutory Hmit. The mission of stage one accomplished, the commission rec- ommended its replacement by a temporary commission on organization and operation of the departments. An appropriation of $500,000 was proposed for the job of detailing plans and specifica- tions for operation of the consolidated de- partments. The commission noted that this
A3184 amount represented only one-fifth of 1 per- cent of appropriations for 1949-51. It fur- ther concluded that this amount monthly was viewed as a savings goal to follow com- plete installation. Many commission proposals involved basic constitutional changes. These included short ballot (for financial and executive management); initiative, referendum and recall (for executive and party responsi- bility); and new means of constitutional change. These constitutional changes being so fundamental, it was clear that mere amend- ment was not the means. The commission proposed an entirely revised constitution for submission to referendum in November 1950. No attempt was made to write an ideal doc- ument. The effort was limited to mod- ernizing the language of the 132-year-old constitution, incorporating the proposals essential to accomplish the State organiza- tion plan, and adding other matter now partly covered by statute, which the commission believed should be included in a constitution written for 1950. Act No. 6 carries the text of the proposed constitution. In Acts No. 4 and No. 5 the commission proposed the adoption of an administrative procedure act and the establishment of ad- ministrative adjudication boards for the ex- ecutive departments. In Acts Nos. 7, 8, and 9 provision was made for the appointment, without confirmation, of department commissioners, bureau direc- tors, their executive assistants, and confi- dential assistants. Act No. 10 proposed the consolidation of all funds into the State gen- eral fund. On March 9, 1950, the general assembly, convened in special session. It is now study- ing and debating the report, which is avail- able upon request. Attacks on Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy, of Wisconsin EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH R. McCARTHY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an edito- rial entitled “Red Defenders Smear Senator McCartuy,” from the Maynard News, Maynard, Minn., of April 7, 1950. There being no objection, the edito- rial was ordered to be printed in the RecorpD, as follows: Rep Derenpers Smear SENATOR McCarTHy “To Senator McCarTHy: . “We are not deceived by the propaganda being used against you in your present ex- posé of communism, The 159 members of this organization feel that you are doing a great patriotic work. May God sustain you in this great effort. Signed Lutheran Men’s Club, Silo Lutheran Church, Cottonwood, Minn.” This resolution was forwarded to Senator McCartHy in Washington, D. C., and to the Minneapolis and St. Paul newspapers. The propaganda against Senator McCar- THy has been more vicious than usual. Drew Pearson has been especially vociferous in his insinuations against the Senator from Wisconsin, In its more academic style, the editors of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune have cre- ated the impression in the minds of their readers that McCartry is irresponsible, that his statements are groundless and false and that he is doing a great deal of damage to our State Department, They have by innuendo and insinuation indicated that there is something not quite honorable about the fighting Senator from our neighboring State. At the same time, the Star-Tribune have published the mali- cious statements of Drew Pearson and Mrs. Roosevelt, who are notorious for their smear attacks against anyone who dares point a finger of suspicion at the radical “untouch- ables” in the Federal administration. As a result of the one-sided reporting job being done by the Associated Press and the prejudiced editorial handling of the McCar- thy incident, most people in Minnesota are of the opinion that McCarry made a lot of wild charges and then failed to produce the evidence. As a matter of fact, McCarrHy has pro- duced evidence of his charges. This writer has just finished a careful study of a 24,000-word speech made by Sen~ ator McCarTHy on the floor of the Senate last week Thursday. Included in this speech were dozens of af- fidavits, sworn statements, letters, and other documented material which prove conclu- sively that Owen Lattimore and John Service are poor security risks at the very least, and possible conspirators against the Govern- ment of the United States. Senator McCartuy did not accuse Judge Doris Kenyon of being a Communist and a traitor, but did say that she had an affinity for Communist fronts because she belonged to 28 of them. Judge Kenyon called Mc- CarTHY a liar, and the newspapers played up that story. A few days later Mrs. Kenyon admitted to the Senate Investigating Com-~ mittee that she had belonged to these or- ganizations, declared by the FBI to be Com- munist fronts, but that she was not a Com- munist or even a Communist-fronter. If a person belongs to the Baptist Church, he is a Baptist. If he belongs to the Luther- an Church he is a Lutheran. If he belongs to 28 Communist-fronts, then he must be a Communist-fronter. That makes _ sense, doesn’t it? The critics of Senator McCarrHy say that he should not have publicly exposed the names of the suspected reds in the State Department until proof could be established. That is exactly what McCarruy asked of the Senate investigating committee, but because of the insistence of two Senators, Lucas and WitHERS (both Democrats), Senator McCar- THY was eventually forced to testify at a public hearing instead of an executive ses- sion of the committee. McCarruy showed more restraint and common sense than did the administration forces on the Senate com-~ mittee. Yet, he is the only one criticized by the propagandists. The Democratic members of the committee had been encouraged by the statement of President Truman that he would “cooperate with the committee” to disprove the accusa- tions of Senator McCarrmy, Neither he nor the committee were open minded in their consideration of McCartuy’s charges. Because Owen Lattimore is by far the most implicated in the Communist conspiracy, and because he is the brains behind some of the other figures in the controversy, Senator Mc- CarTHY has decided to make his first fight on the one case. As he unveiled the affi- davits and evidence last Thursday afternoon he handed the documents to an agent of the FBI with the request that the FBI follow up the leads and compile the evidence which will prove or disprove his charges. It is not hard to understand why he has bypassed the partisan Senate committee and is taking his case to the American people via the Sen~ ate floor. The CoNGRESSIONAL RECorD of March 30 de- tails at considerable length, the long history APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of collaboration by Owen Lattimore with the Communists of this country and China. In fact, the evidence turned over by McCartuy to an agent of the FBI who was in the Senate at the request of the Wisconsin Senator, was so conclusive that McCartHy named him as a Soviet agent. Bere is a brief summary of the evidence McCartHy turned over to the FBI: A former top Communist will testify that Lattimore was known to him to be a mem- ber of the Communist Party, over whom they had disciplinary powers. He presented an affidavit showing that Lattimore received instructions in Moscow from the Soviet Government as to the line which the Institute of Pacific Relations ought to follow. He turned over an affidavit from a former general of the Russian Army, who agrees to testify also, that he had received informa- tion from a top Russian intelligence officer to the effect that the Russian Communists were having excellent success through the Institute of Pacific Relations and he par- ticularly mentioned the name of Owen uat~ timore. Another affidavit tells of the six persons involved in the Amerasia case at the home of Lattimore where they were declassify- ing secret documents. The FBI arrested the six the next day, and charged them with stealing secret documents. They were in- dicted later, but in spite of what the FBI called an airtight case against them, only one was indicted and fined. John Service was fired by the State Department and then rehired and promoted when Dean Acheson became the new Secretary of State. In a letter to Joseph Barnes, former head of the OWI, Owen Lattimore instructed him to fire all Chinese who were loyal to the Nationalist Government of China, and hire Chinese from the staff of the New China Daily News, which was a well-Known Com- munist publication in New York. This was at a time when the United States wus com- mitted to all-out cooperation with the Na~ tionalist Government which was helping us in our war against Japan. McCartHy turned over another affidavit from a man who lived with Lattimore in China, who declared that Lattimore was the leader of several pro-Russian student up-~ risings in China. Throughout Senator McCarruy’s speech he was heckled by proadministration Senators, seeking to embarrass him and to confuse the issue. Our own Senator Humprrey was particularly loud in his abuse of McCarrry, but the fighting Irishman from Wisconsin soon put him to rout, much to the amuse- ment of the galleries and the other Senators. In addition to the evidence briefly men- tioned above, this writer has spent several hours reading excerpts from books written by Mr. Lattimore. They were filled with a great deal of pro-Russian, pro-Communist bias, and, on the other hand, the author was apolo- getic when he mentioned the United States, its foreign policy, and the capitalistic system. Senator McCartruy is doing his country a great service. In spite of what the so-called intellectuals of the country may think about his methods, this writer has observed that it takes a blast of dynamite to Jar loose the little click of left-wingers, sly subversives, and radicals who infest our Nation’s Capital. We predict again that Senator Jos—erH Mc- CarTHY will win his fight and that American. democracy and our world prestige will gain, rather than lose, by the house cleaning that we hope will follow. More power to you, Senator McCarrzy. A Chinese newspaper summed up Sena- tor McCarryy’s charges against alleged Com- munists in the State Department by a single line: “What do you know, Joe.” The editor might have acded, “Why be so wary, Harry.” Drew Pearson, hatchetman for the Frank- furter clique in the administration, tried to
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD make it appear that McCarrHy had com- mitted some kind of a crime when he ran for the Senate without resigning his judgeship in Wisconsin. He also made insinuations about McCartHy’s income-tax squabble with the State of Wisconsin. Now who’s making wild accusations? Drew Pearson is a regu- lar contributor to the editorial page of the Minneapolis Star. Spartanburg County, S. C. EXTENSION OF REMARKS ° OF HON. JOSEPH R. BRYSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Speaker, the county of Spartanburg, S. C., has been recognized as the greatest fresh-fruit producing county in the United States. Her orchardists have invested much la- bor and money in the cultivation of their trees. Occasionally late frosts de- stroy the crop, as is the case this year. Peaches valued at approximately $6,000,000 have been destroyed, but in spite of this unprecedented loss the farmers and orchardists of Spartanburg County have not despaired. They are carrying on with courage which has made them self-reliaat. In this connection, under unanimous consent, I insert in the Recorp the fol- lowing statement recently issued about the outstanding accomplishments and productive capacity of both farmers and industrialists in Spartanburg County: Spartanburg County has turned the mid- century point, riding the highest crest in her history. She has had her ups and downs during the past 50 years but today faces the future with confidence. The picture, as it will look in the year 2000 A. D., will depend much on the courage, foresight, initiative, ability, faith, and hard work of her people. That, plus the intelli- gence with which the county’s God-given assets are utilized. Before we tackle the second half of the century it would be well if every citizen of Spartanburg County paused for a moment to take inventory to see just what it is that makes us tick. A look at Spartanburg County’s economy proves conclusively that her future is bound inescapably to the fortunes of her greatest industry, the textile industry. The textile mills of the county provide the motor which makes our vehicle move. The direction in which we move—either forward or in reverse—pretty much depends on the driver. If the motor is kept in good condition and enough fuel is available to keep it run- ning, Spartanburg County can expect to continue to improve her lot. : You and I, the drivers, hold the key to the direction in which we move. Forty and eight-tenths percent of Spartan- burg County’s white population, over 16 years of age, is employed today in one of the county’s 43 textile mill units, operated by 23 companies. Twenty thousand, three hundred and thirty Spartanburg County people are em- ployed in the textile mills of the county— this number is 110 percent greater than the total of all farm owners, farm managers, farm foremen, paid farm laborers, and unpaid family farm laborers in the county. Forty-four million, eight hundred thou- sand, nine hundred and fcurieen dollars in wages were paid to Spartanburg County tex- tile mill employees last year. That sum represents 85 percent of all of the industrial wages paid in the county during the year. Twenty times more dollars in wages were paid to textile workers in Spartanburg County last year than the total cash value of the county’s important peach crop during 1949. Twelve times more dollars in wages were paid to textile workers in Spartanburg County last year than the total cash value of the county’s important cotton crop dur- ing 1949. Seven times more dollars in wages were paid to textile workers in our county last year than the combined value of the peach crop and cotton crop of the county during the year. Two hundred and fifty-eight days was the average number of days worked by Spartan- burg County’s textile mills during 1949, thus providing stable year-round cmployment. Agriculture and textiles are the basis of Spartanburg County’s economy. The growth of each has been both tremendous and healthy during the past 50 years. Today, when the farmer encounters diffi- culties other than weather, labor, or insects he van usually look to the Gcvernment for help in the form of price supports and Gov- ernment purchase of surpluses. When the operators of our textile mills meet with difficulties of any nature they must work out their problems for them~ selves. They are dependent on the stability of market, labor, and legislation for their survival. Agriculture is important to all of us. It must be advanced and maintained in a healthy condition. And so, also, must we help to keep the textile industry healthy. The continued successful operation of the textile mills in Spartanburg County is the greatest single guaranty for security for the individual man and woman of the county. If our textile mills prosper we will all share in the benefits. If our textile mills are allowed to become sick, the result will be the biggest calamity in the history of the South. Such is our dependency upon the condi- tion of the textile industry here in Spartan- burg County. Because it means so much to each of us and because it forms the basic economy of our county, the textile industry deserves the interest, cooperation, support, and sympa- thetic understanding of every citizen of Spartanburg County. The Truth in Russia EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LOUIS B. HELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 26, 1950 Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following article from Washington Evening Star of May 1, 1950, entitled “The Truth in Russia”: THE TRUTH In Russia The latest example of how truth is muti- lated behind the iron curtain is furnished by A3185 Pravda’s presentation to the Russian people of Secretary Acheson’s recent address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Never has the Soviet propaganda machine done a more thorough job of making words mean the exact opposite of their real mean- ing. The distortions involved, the absolute butchery of fact, the deliberate transforma- tion of white into black, and vice versa, can only be described as an almost perfect appli- cation of the totalitarian technique of tell- ing lies so big, bold, and dazzling that the masses are mentally numbed and blinded in- to believing them. Thus, in substance, Mr. Acheson’s speech amounted merely to the outline of a peace policy calling for six lines of action: (1) That the American people keep alive a militant faith in freedom for themselves and the world; (2) that they join with like-minded peoples in letting mankind know what this faith is and what it has accomplished and can still accomplish for human betterment; (3) that the United States be strong and ade- quately prepared to preserve liberty wherever it now exists; (4) that present and future aid programs be used to improve the economic lot of free humanity; (5) that the non-Soviet, independent nations organize politically for common action through existing interna- tional machinery, and (6) that the idea of aggression be eliminated between these na- tions and Russia. But how has Pravda—which, ironically enough, means “truth’—reported and inter~ preted all this to the people of Russia? Un- der the name of M. Marinin, one of its high- powered international commentators, it has summarized Mr. Acheson’s program as fol-~ lows: (1) ‘A further armament race, a greater orgy of militarism and an extension of the cold war”; (2) action to bring about the “eco- nomic enslavement of western Europe by the forcible creation of a single western European market under complete domination of Amer- ican monopolies”; (3) placing all dependent and colonial countries under the mastery of. the United States; and (4) enlargement of the Atlantic Pact bloc into “a kind of super- state of Wall Street.” Taken simply by itself, this complete mis- representation of Mr. Acheson’s address might be a source of amusement to people interested in the absurdities of totalitarian editorializing. But there is nothing really funny about it. It is tragic, poisonous, dan~ gerous. It is all of these things because the Russian masses—sealed off as they are from the outside world—have access only to Moscow’s version of the facts, the Voice of America being pretty much jammed out, In time, unless this condition can be cor~ rected, the falsehoods they are hearing will become gospel truth to them, and the out- look for peace and understanding between their world and ours will be bleaker than ever. A — Investigation of Subversive Activities EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. JOSEPH R. McCARTHY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 2 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Charges of ‘Asset. of the Krem- lin’ Boomerang” from Capper’s Weekly of April 8, 1950. .
A3186 There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follovs: CHARGES OF “ASSDT oF THE KEREMLIN” BooMERANG (From a radio address broadcast by Arthur Capper, former Senator from Kansas, over WIBW, the Capper publications station at Topeka, April 2, 1950) President Truman’s scathing denunciation of Republican Senators for criticisms of the State Department, in a press conference in Key West last Thursday, centers attention on some vital developments affecting the foreign policy of the United States. The President accused Senator McCartHy, of Wisconsin, and Senators associated with him of attempting to “sabotage the bipart- isan foreign policy of the United States.” I had been of the opinion that the White House and the State Department, through concealing from Senator VANDENBERG and other Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—as well as from Gen- eralissimo Chiang Kai-shek—the promises to Stalin at the Tehran and Yalta Confer- ences that resulted in turning over China to the Communists, had pretty well sabo~ taged the bipartisan foreign policy some time ago. SECRECY ON FOREIGN COMMITMENTS A bipartisan foreign policy in which the administration makes secret commitments as far-reaching as those made at Yalta and other conferences, and then calls on the op~ position party to support these regardless, is not much of a bipartisan foreign policy, according to my way of thinking. It is more like calling for bipartisan sup- port for a very partisan foreign policy of very dubious value to the United States. And when the President of the United States follows up that charge with the further di- rect charge that Senator McCarrmy—and by implication also Senators WHeRryY, of Ne- braska and Brincgs, of New Hampshire—are the Kvemlin’s greatest assets in this coun-~ try, I think he is venturing rather far afield. Now I do not hold any particular brief for Senator McCartHy in his specific charges as to how many and which persons in or con~- nected with the State Department are, or have been in the past, promoting the in- terests of a foreign government. He says the evidence is in the loyalty files of the Department. And so far the contents of those files have been kept secret. But I do happen to know this much about the matter. Neither Senator WHrrry, nor Senator BRIDGES, nor McCaRTHY, was present at the Yalta Conference where the Chinese National Government, our ally, was sold down. the river and Stalin was given the go ahead signal for the conquest of China. OTHER EXAMPLES OF AIDING RUSSIA Nor were any of these three consulted when other commitmenis were made which gave eastern Germany, and most of central Europe, over to the control of Soviet Rus- sia. We do know that Alger Hiss sat in with President Roosevelt and Stalin at the Yalta Conference. And that Alger Hiss was a power at the San Francisco Conference which drew up the United Nations Charter, which con- tains provisions that turned out to be much more favorable to the interest of Soviet Rus~ sia than to the interests of the United States of America. And through the work of the House Com- mittee on Un-American Activities, and the activities of a Federal grund jury, and the action of two Federal trial juries, we have learned considerable as to Alger Hiss’ extra< eurricular—if that is the right term—ac- tivities while he was in the State Depart- ment. Also there is little real doubt in the minds of those who have been in touch with the results of our foreign policy, par- ticularly our Far East foreign policy, that what has resulted from that program has been of more benefit to Soviet Russia than to the United States of America. Or to our ally, China. AND WHO BETRAYED CHINA TO RUSSIA? The tale of what various persons repre- senting our State Department, and various organizations and persons which and who Secretary of State Dean Acheson says have no State Department ties, is a long tale, and does not redound to the credit of this country. So I say it comes with a very poor grace for President Truman to charge that Repub- lican Senators trying to clean up the State Department are the greatest asset of the Kremlin in this country, when the record of the past 4 or 5 years seems plain enough that it was the State Department’s Far East policy which did so much to turn China over to the Communists. I again call attention to the fact that no Republican Senator was present, or had any- thing to do with, or even had any knowledge at the time of the betrayal of our ally, Chiang Kai-shek, to Stalin at the Yalta Conference, but that Alger Hiss of the State Department was there, and was said at the time to be one of President Roosevelt’s most trusted advisers. On the record as disclosed to date, would you say that the Senators, WHERRY, BRIDGES, and McCarrHy, or representatives of our State Department dealing with the Far East (specifically China) have been assets to the Kremlin? WILL TRUMAN BLUFF AGAIN IN 1950? I believe the answer is self-evident. And I hope the Republican leadership will stand by their guns, instead of running for cover as they did when President Truman, in 1948, made equally unjustified charges against the Republican Hightieth Congress. Harry S&S. Truman bluffed the Republican national leadership to a fare you well in 1948. Will he do it again in 1950? I note also that on Friday Secretary of State Dean Acheson made two pronounce- ments concerning far-eastern affairs. First, he announced that one Owen Latti- more, now just home from Afghanistan (where he had been investigating for the United Nations the prospects for the United States sending funds into that region under President Truman’s point 4 program for de- veloping backward countries) is not in the employ of the State Department. Also that so far as Secretary Acheson can learn, he never carried much weight in the State Department. Senator McCartHy maintains differently. Perhaps some day we will get at the facts of this case. Dr. Lattimore is said by his friends to be a recognized authority on Asia and Asiatics. He at one time was head of the Institute of Pacific Relations and editor of its official or- gan, Pacific Affairs. Also, he wrote a book, Solution in Asia, of which the publisher’s announcement (1945) said, and I quote: “sle (Dr. Lattimore) shows that all the Asiatic people are more interested in actual democratic practices, such as the ones they see in action across the Russian border, than they are in the fine “heories of Anglo-Saxon democracies which come coupled with ruth- less imperialism.” Perhaps it is just as well, if Dr. Lattimore sees actual democratic practices across the Russian border, and contrasts these with the fine theories of Anglo-Saxon democracies— coupled with ruthless imperialism, that Dr. Lattimore wields little or no influence in our State Department. But in our dealings with Russia over China the past few years, our APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD State Department seems to have held much the same views. UNPUBLISHED PROVISIONS AT YALTA But not now. Not anymore. For on Fri- day last Secretary Acheson’s other pro- nouncement deal with the ruthless imperial- ism of Russia in grabbing half the oil and minerals produced in the far west province of Sinkiang in Communist China. “It seems clear,” he added, “that the effect of the unpublished agreements arrived at in Moscow last winter was to award to the U.S. S. R. preeminent rights in China’s stra- tegic western provinces.” . Secretary Acheson said such exploitation has been witnessed in Manchuria and east- ern Europe. But he said nothing about the unpublished provisions of the Tehran and Yalta agreements President Roosevelt and Mr. Hiss entered into with Mr. Stalin by which Russia was assured control of Man- churia, and as an end result of which she has taken over all the mainland of China. Americans have little to brag about in the history of our Far East policies the past de- cade. I doubt very much if President Truman can dispose of the charges of disloyalty in the State Department, by saddling on Senators who most emphatically have not been al- lowed even to know the inside of what has been going on there the responsibility of being the greatest assets of the Kremlin in this country. You may remember he tried to dispose of the Whittaker Chambers charges that Alger Hiss furnished secret State Department infor- mation to Russian agents, by calling them a red herring. CRYING “RED HERRING” NOT ENOUGH Since that time Alger Hiss has been con- victed of perjury for denying, under oath, the truth of these charges. A Dr. Charles Fuchs, a refugee German scientist entrusted with top atomic secrets, has admitted in London to being a Soviet agent at the time he was under loan by Britain to the United States during the war. A woman employee of the Department of Justice has been convicted of betraying offi- cial confidential material to a Soviet citizen, an employee of the United Nations. A number of persons are reported to have been released from the State and Commerce Departments as being poor security risks. It is odd how many of these have shown up later on the pay rolls of the United Nations and its agencies. I don’t believe this situation can be cleared up by counter-charges of “red herrings” and assets of the Kremlin in this country. Our German Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. F. D. ROOSEVELT, JR. OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. ROOSEVELT, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental reason for my joining in the sponsorship of this resolution for an over-all review of our German policy leaps from every newspaper, magazine, and book that deals with the future of Europe. Reporters of every political per- suasion agree that the key to that fu- ture is Germany. Each day, skilled jour- nalists, public officials, businessmen, scholars, and trade-union leaders re- mind us of this.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Here are some of the quotations from articles that I have seen within the last few days. The last issue of Time Maga- zine quotes John Cowles, president of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, who is just back from Europe: The German problem * * * vital factor. The New York Herald Tribune carries a column by Joseph Alsop that begins: This complex, fear-distorted German sit- uation is the key to the European future. is the The New Leader carries a provocative article by Irving Brown, AFL represent- ative in Europe: This symbolic demonstration of Russia’s major concern with China in the east and Germany in the west sums up Soviet aspira- tions for eventual world domination. The current issue of Congress’ own Legislative Reference Service’s Public Affairs Abstracts bears further witness to this. Writer after writer on the Prob- lem of Germany makes the point that “Germany occupies a focal point in the current east-west conflict”; that “‘settle- ment of the German problem may well determine the future of Europe.” There is no need to belabor this fact. The success or failure of our occupation policy will be felt by unborn generations on every continent in the world. Our foreign-policy makers and administra- tors, on the whole, have possibly done the best that could be expected in’ the face of ominous, world-wide cold war. But German policy cannot b2 made effec- tively on a basis of moving from crisis to crisis; often of not moving until a little too late. It is time the very fun- damentals of our German policy were reviewed, and our west German goals restated. It is time for a national, bi- partisan audit of the net effect of the day-to-day decisions of the military and civilian leaders who deal with Germany, We need the greatest clarity of pur- pose in Germany. -We need continual assurance that our victory was not a vain one, that our expenditure of Ameri-~ can treasure for that victory and for the occupation has not been a waste. We went to war in 1941 because we hai no choice, because we were attacked. But we fought for more than survival, we fought for a peaceful world in which democratic freedom could flourish. I do not think that it is too much to say that Germany may well be the cradie oz the grave of new freedom and a new peace. There are no higher stakes; there is no greater challenge. We should not need the spur of Rus- sian competition in this matter; but need it or not, we have it. Soviet leadership well understands the all-pervasive im- portance of the direction of Germany’s development. Abundant evidence of that is in the opening portion of the report of the AFL’s Irving Brown: New GERMAN “Dranc NacH OsTEN” EXTENDS From Rusk TO SHANGHAI—Moscow, BE- TWEEN BotH, Horrs THus To CoNrTRoL Entree WorLpb The new German “Drang nach Osten” is under way. This time the drive to the East extends to the very shores of the Pacific Ocean. For the Russians are now attempt- ing to win the battle of the Ruhr via China and thus conquer all of Germany. In addition to the markets of eastern Eu- rope, Ruhr industrialists cannot but cast longing eyes on the great and vast areas of primitive, underdeveloped China now rest- ing in Communist hands. On December 21 the seventieth anniver- sary of Joseph Stalin’s birth was celebrated in Moscow. At the side of Stalin were Mao Tse-tung, leader of the Chinese Communists, and Walter Ulbricht, president of the Soviet- dominated East German Republic. This symbolic demonstration of Russia’s major concern with China in the east and Germany in the west sums up Soviet aspi- rations for eventual world domination. This symbolic joining together of China and Ger- many via the U. S. S. R. became a little more concrete when, on February 9, Herr Ulbricht announced that his Minister of Trade, Herr Handke, had been taking part in trade negotiations with Mao during the lat- ter’s stay in Moscow. Ulbricht further re- vealed that Handke had been instructed in the negotiations to take into account export possibilities of the West German enterprises. Thus the Soviets have advanced one step further in their drive to conquer the Ruhr and Western Germany through the bait of eastern markets—European and Asian. And as history has shown, such economic rela- tionships with totalitarian nations give rise to eventual political pacts or traps. What will the West do? What can it do to resist this growing menace of a new eastern orientation on the part of Germany? What markets in the West will be open to German industry which will permit some solution of the growing and disturbing mass unemployment, now reaching 2,000,000 out of a working force of 12,000,000 in Western Germany? Can western Europe and the United States provide not only markets but an integra- tion of the West German economy into the Occidental world? Many of the West’s in- dustries are competitive to Germany’s and therefore do not easily permit the kind of complementary arrangements usually pos- sible between industrial and nonindustrial areas. . The urgent need for west European inte- gration in which Germany plays its part has become the order of the day. However, more than the mere offering of markets is neces- sary to prevent the threatening German- Russian alliance. No matter what the West does in the way of integration, expanding markets, and the opening of new market areas, the fact remains that Germany will still have to seek markets in the East. Therefore we need political allies in Ger- many more than economic solutions. Re- liable democratic forces in control of the German economic and political system can bar the way to any new German-Soviet polit- ical alliance. Integration into western Eu- rope must be backed up by a policy of supporting the internal forces of German democracy, which are the only guaranty against this rising tide of the East. This can be found in the organized labor move- ment. If the trade-unions are given a decisive voice in the control of the Ruhr coal, iron, and steel industries, no German nationalist deal with Stalin is possible. These pro-West forces can prevent the rise to power of a renascent and insurgent German nationalism and prevent entry into a pact with the Rus- sians, who are now offering what appear to be juicy business contracts. But if unemploy- ment continues to mount and no economic solution is forthcoming from the Western. World, these growing economic relationships with the Hast will constitute the material foundations for a united Germany under Soviet domination. Mr. Speaker, whether the colors of their flags are brown or red, totalitarians have a way of winding up together. We A3187 cannot risk, nor can the other peoples of the Western democracies, a union of Communist and reborn Nazi imperialism. Such a union would be a disastrous end to the cold war. Such a union would crush all hope for a lasting peace. The only sure way to prevent the emergence of such a union is to build a stable democracy in Western Germany, and then to cement it into a cooperative alli- ance of free peoples. If we can bring about that “situation of fact,” our “total diplomacy” cannot fail. We can lose nothing by a Presidential Commission such as is proposed here. If it makes the slightest contribution to strengthening our German policy, it will have justified itself. Compared with the billions of dollars we are spending, com- pared with the millions of men we have committed, this step is a tiny one. But there is, at the very least, a strong pos- sibility that it would help us to make use of these billions and millions with greater wisdom and sharper effect. Cotton EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH R. BRYSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Speaker, Cotton Week is being observed throughout the country. ‘The Mai of Cotton, Miss Eliz- abeth McGee, after an extended tour of Europe, has been fittingly welcomed to her home town of Spartanburg, S. C., in my district. The importance of cotton is so well ex- pressed in the accompanying statement, under unanimous consent, I include it as a part of my remarks: Corron anD You As you read this, no matter where you are, you can reach out and touch cotton. If it’s daytime and you're fully dressed, you will find cotton in your clothing even to your shoes. If you're in bed you are lying on cotton. Even if you read this in the tub, you can reach out and touch a cotton wash cloth or towel. Maybe you have thought of cotton as some- thing growing in a field, as something they use in textile mills, or as all sorts of things in your favorite store. Cotton is all of that, but all of its leads to you. You and cotton depend on each other in hundreds of ways— so many ways, in fact, that if some devil- inspired magician should wave a wand and suddenly take cotton away from you— Your first handicap and major embarrass- ment is the immediate disappearance of cot- ton from your clothing, even to the reinforce- ments in your hose, and the laces and linings in your shoes, You are up against it even to get home. If you walk, you have to go barefooted because your shoes have fallen apart for lack of cotton stitching. And you can’t ride, because no buss, cab, bicycle, or railroad car runs without cotton In its elec- tric wires, tires, seats, or other parts. When you get to the living reom, you find a drastic change. The malicious magician has removed the strong cotton tapes that held the venetian blinds or has taken out your cotton shades. The beautiful fresh curtains and drapes are gone from the windows. You
A3188 start for the easy chair to relax and pull yourself together, only to find that the hand- some washable slip covers have been taken away and the soft cotton padding has van- ished. The floor may seem more inviting than the naked frame and springs of the big chair, but cone is the cotton or cotton stitch- ing from the rug and from the mat beneath it. But the kitchen is having troubles, too, with no cottonseed oil shortening or salad dressing, and no meat from animals fed to tender perfection on cottonseed meal. The electric refrigerator has shortcircuited be- cause of no cotton windings for the wires. And there is, in addition, the problem of dish cloths and towels and pot holdezs, But dinner can be prepared, if there is a coal or gas stove in the house—no kerosene because of the cotton wicks, and no electric stove. You have to sit on the bare frame of the dining chair because the familiar cotton- covered seat has done a disappearing act. Snowy fresh table cloths and napkins are out unless you happen to have some pure linen ones around. (Don’t forget to eut before dark, for the cotton wrappings are gone from the electric wires all over the place, and lamps and candles are no good without cotton wicks.) A bath before bed—and what would be more soothing now than a hot bath and then a rub-down with a clean, fresh towel? But that’s impossible * * * there are no towels, no wash cloths, no bath mats. And so to bed. But how different your bedroom is tonight. The anticotton magic has left you no spread, sheets, or pillow- cases. The mattress is bare of ticking and padding—you will probably want to dis- card the whole thing, because even the inner springs are no longer boxed in cotton. You can’t even rest your weary head on your pillow—with no cotton ticking it is now only a pile of feathers. You can’t hop into the family car and get away from it all—you can’t even use the car without the 65 pounds of cotton that should be in its various parts. To make matters still worse, you can’t use the telephone or radio—they are both out of order. (It’s those cotton-wound wires again.) Minor medical care, much less an opera- tion, is practically out of the question. A doctor’s office or hospital where there is no gauze, absorbent cotton, adhesive tape, X- ray machine, table pads, sheets, mattresses, or ether applicators would be a dangerous place. ; But no magician could do that. Cotton is with and around you day and night, from the time you start life in a cotton diaper to the time the undertaker lays you on cotton padding in a casket. From cradle to coffin, and every day of every year in be- tween, cotton is serving you in dozens of ways you see and recognize, and in hundreds of ways you don’t, Cotton’s service, its certain comfort, its easy washability, its convenience and beauty are so ever present that they often come to be taken for granted. Yes, cotton is important to you—so im- portant that you use nearly four times as much of it as of all other fibers combined, And you are important to cotton—tre- mendously important. Fifteen million workers on cotton farms, in cotton factories, and in processing plants are glad when you buy, a spool of cotton thread, a cotton hand- kerchief, or cotten clothes for work or play or dress. They are glad when you buy flour or feed or sugar in cotton sacks, when you put on cotton socks or hang cotton drapes or curtains. Because you mean jobs and health and happiness to them. You and cotton—you two have done, and can do, a mighty lot for each other, Repeal of Excise Taxes on Distilled Spirits EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. LOUIS B. HELLER OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 26,°1950 Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, distilled spirits excises were imposed by the Fed- eral Government from 1791 to 1802, again from the Civil War to the World War, and again after the repeal of prohibition. During the whole history of such taxes it has been argued that taxation restricts drinking of the beverages on which levied; and that if drinking is not stopped by taxation, at least those who drink must be patriotic about it. Their beverage must help pay for the war—civil war, world war, or cold war—and they must drink down the national debt—1791 and post-Worlc. War II. The first of the purposes, to restrict consumption, is not valid other than in wartime, as it con- stitutes a discriminatory burden on a necessity and an unwarranted infringe- ment of personal liberty. The excise is not justifiable at any conceivable sched- ule of rates, other than as a means of picking up revenue for immediate war purposes when no other revenue resource is available. But even if the purposes of the tax were accepted, the rates have been so immoderate as often to result in a confusion of purposes and to thwart their accomplishment. Repeal of the excise on distilled spirits is urgent now, as is apparent from a re- view of the character of the tax when in operation. First, excise rates on dis- tilled spirits have been so high as to cut into the yield of the tax. In recognition of this effect, the tax was repealed in 1802, and rates were sharply reduced after the Civil War. Following the re- duction in rates after the Civil War, this excise became the principal source of Federal internal revenue, from 1873 to 1915. Current tax rates, established during the Second World War, subject this commodity to higher excises than are applicable to any other commodity affected by wartime excises. As a re- sult, the yield of the tax has fallen dur- ing a period of expanding adult popula- tion, higher incomes, and availability of materials of manufacture. Second, the tax has been, at whatever rates levied, an infringement of the liberty of con- sumers and of the liberty of business to pursue and develop a line of manufac- ture and sale. In recent years the ex- cise, levied on a commodity which al- ways has been more a necessity than a luxury, has tended to lower standards of living, and to bring business difficulties to the retail and manufacturing firms engaged in the industry. Diminishing returns to the Government have been accompanied by loss to consumers and to the producing interests. Third, this excise, urged on the pretext of reform- ing the public morals to suit certain conceptions which never in any place have been universally accepted or even long accepted by a majority, has always APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD contributed to lawlessness. It led to the whisky rebellion in its earliest days, and in later periods has led to moonshining and bootlegging. It contributes toward intemperate use of the beverages on which it is levied. These characteristics of the excise are discussed in more detail in the follow- ing paragraphs: First. The rate of tax established by the Revenue Act of 1943 is $9 per proof gallon. This rate is about 42 cents out of every dollar of the price to the con- sumer—a rate more than twice as high as the highest rate—20 cents—levied on any other commodity subject to the war- time excise taxes. The rate, in addi- tion, is heaviest on the workingman or workingwoman who buys less expen- sive brands; the rate does not go up or down with the price per bottle. The re- pressive effects of the tax are clear in the following figures showing reductions in revenues, whisky withdrawn, and purchases aS percent of spendable in- come: Reecipts from] Whisky with- Fiscal year distilled- drawn, tax- spirits tax paid Tax galions 1950 (6 months) $788, 058, 000 |...------ ann 1949 1, 431, 741, 000 52, 674, 904 1, 471, 209, 000 58, 603, 200 1, 728, 854, 000 58, 822, 676 1, 788, 460, 060 68, 226, 912 1, 516, 855, 000 63, 801, 224 918, 311, 000 58, 832, 992 we nneneennenee 87, 918, 792 mene ee eee 84, 709, L7L Distilled spirits purchases as percent of dis- posable income Fiscal year: Percent 949 on eee 2.0 1948 __ 2.0 1947 __ 2.6 1946 __ 3.2 1945 2 2.9 1944 __ 2.6 1943 __ 2.4 1942 wee 2.3 Losses of revenue are apparent in the years since the end of the war. Tax rates have gone beyond the point of di- minishing returns. In a period when the adult population was increased by more than 8 percent, total consumption of taxed spirits declined, and in a period of rising incomes, the portion spent on spirits fell. The tax has been discrimi- natory against the manufacture and con- sumption of distilled spirits. The war portion of the excise rate was intention- ally discriminatory, and consequently is peculiarly unjustifiable at the present time. The cost of excises excceds the cost of manufacture by 7 or 8 times, fol- lowing the Civil War pattern of im- moderate rates. At that earlier period, rates were 10 times the cost of manufac- ture. At the present, as at the earlier time, the rates exceed the point of di- minishing returns. Second. As result of discriminatory taxation, the purchase and production of whisky and like beverages is not regu- lated by a balancing of consumers’ de- sires and purchasing power against busi- ness costs, but by arbitrary legislation. The tax limits the operation of the forces
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of a free market, of the very foundation of economic liberty. As has been re- marked of the tax since first levied in 1791, it contravenes individual liberty. It operates in the same direction and under the same animus, as the prohi- bition amendment. But, unlike prohi- bition, it is in such form as not to be re~ ferrable to popular vote, where it would be rejected. Its infringement of per- sonal liberty, like that of prohibition, has brought resistance by consumers. Con-~ sumer resistance, as is obvious from data already quoted, has caused a loss of reve. nues and has become burdensome to the distilling and to the retailing industries, The excise makes the industry incapable of free and effective competition with other industries for the consumer’s dollars. The depressive effects on an important industry must be taken into account in a period of growing unemployment. 'The Gistilled-spirits industry directly employs 800,000 persons. There are 773 produc- ing and processing units in 26 different States, and 184,000 retail outlets, prin- cipally small businesses—in 47 States and the District of Columbia. These retail outiets have hundreds of thousands of owners and employees. The purchases made by the distilling industry provide indirect employment for hundreds of thousands of workers in other industries. Overtaxation of distilled spirits jeopar- dizes the markets and the employment of all these industries and workers. The tax is oppressive to those arts and indus- tries which require distilled spirits as a material in manufacturing. This al- ways is characteristic of such excises. Today, as in Civil War times, the tax ex~ ceeds the manufacturing cost of the al- cohol which goes into drug items. Repeal of the excise would free pur- chasing power, now taken by the Govern- ment, for consumer purchases of dis- tilled spirits in additional volhame. More than that, it would make available pur- chasing power which would move into all consumer spending channels, benefiting the entire economic system. Low-in- come groups in particular would be hene- fited, because 85 percent of all distilled spirits are purchased by consumers with incomes of less than $5,000 per year. It is obvious that the substantial cut in liquor prices would permit a fuller en- joyment of leisure time, enabling many people to entertain more frequently and at less sacrifice. A substantial contri- bution to improved business and to higher standards of living would be made possible by the repeal of the distilled- spirits excise. Third. An excise, which, together with State taxes, amounts to about $2.05 on the average per fifth of liquor, is so high that temperate drinking is almost pro- hibitively expensive for many working men and women. makes it possible to drink only occa- Sionally and irregularly. An immoderate use of the beverages becomes more likely as use becomes more irregular and longer postponed. , Excessive cost has another obvious and more readily measurable consequence. It increases moonshining and bootleg- The excessive cost” ging. Evidence of this is found in the increase by 46.4 percent from 1946 to 1949 in the producing capacity of illicit stills seized by the Federal Government. The stills seized in 1949 by the Federal Government’s agents alone, not includ- ing State seizures, had a daily capacity of 240,809 gallons. This represents a po- tential daily loss of $2,167,281 in reve- nues to the Federal Government in excise taxes alone. Further losses of income and other taxes would be involved. The high taxes make illicit operations ex- tremely profitable, to the injury of legiti- mate business and to the detriment of the consumer who gets a lower-grade product. Mr. Speaker, repeal of the excises would benefit consumers in terms of higher standards of living and greater in- dividual liberty, would be beneficial to industry generally, would reduce law- lessness by making it unprofitable, and would not involve commensurate loss of revenue to the Federal Government. Winning the Peace EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JOHN M. VORYS OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 2, 1950 Mr. VORYS. Mr. Speaker, under the leave given me to extend my remarks in the Recor», I include my opening state- ment in a panel discussion this morning with Mr. Walter Lippmann, newspaper columnist, Mr. Paul Hoffman, ECA Ad- ministrator, and Mr. Eugene Holman, president of the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, before the thirty-eighth annual meeting of the United States Chamber of Commerce in the National Chamber Building here in Washington on the suh- ject Winning the Peace: WINNING THE PEACE STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE JOHN M. VORYS, MAY 2, 1950 As a mere Member of the House, my view- point on our foreign affairs is probably very limited. I have no inside, advance infor~ mation, We House Members never hear offi- cially about any American foreign policy until it is time to pay; then it is presented as @ commitment we must carry out—or else. On the other hand, our policy makers know very little about the House. For in- stance, the President said last Thursday that he hoped the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House would see fit to adopt the Con- nally plan of area subcommittees to bring about greater understanding and confidence between the State Department and the House. Well, we have had such area subcom~ mittees in the House Foreign Affairs Com- mittee for the last 5 years, and the President didn’t Know it. Apparently these subcom- mittees did not bring about very much Presidential understanding. As for confi- dence, we might have more of it in the Presi- dent and the State Department, if they would, just once in a while, take us into their confidence. To arrive at policies for winning the peace, we need, first of all, a reform in some policies and politics right here in Washington. A3189 We are hearing a good bit these days about a bipartisan foreign policy, whether we have one or ought to have one. I wish we had a real binartiser foreign policy, but this will requize tlite? *.n.s. first, biparti- san consultation before the policy is de- termined and the country committed; sec- ond, cooperation during the committee and floor consideration of legislation, and third, proper credit given both parties for the formulation and implementation of the policies. In order to have a working hi- partisan foreign policy, politics must stop at the water’s edge not only in the spring when bills are on Capitol Hill, but in the fall during presidential and congressional campaigns. As to the need for unity in foreign nel:er; in this perilous period between nezce ard war, I believe it is more important for our country to be right than to be united. His- tory is strewn with the wrecks of nations whose people were united in the wrong course. But foreign policies on which we can safely unite should not only be bipartisan, but bicameral. There are two Houses of Congress and as our foreign policies have become more and more expensive, action by the so-called lower House has become more and more important, and its Members are becoming less and less inclined to furnish whatever the administration wants, merely because it has been approved in advance by a few Senators of both parties. At present, diplomatic relations are strained not only hetween Capitol Hill and “Foggy Bottom,” where the State Department is located, but also between the two Chambers on the Hill. One step toward developing policies that will win the peace, would be for not only the Republicans and Democrats, but the State Department, the Senate, and the House, to get together. Iam sure the House is willing. Under the circumstances, I can only pre- sent my own ideas on the cold war from a limited viewpoint and based on such in- formation as you all have. For 4 years lL have felt that in this deadly struggle be- tween communism and freedom war is in- evitable unless there is revolution over here or over there; but peace is inevitable some day, before or after war, and this time we want to win the peace. How will we know we have won the peace? From my limited viewpoint, it will be when we can safely reduce our military expendi- tures to police force size; when we will not have to cope with spying, sabotage, and subversive activities in Government and other key spots, directed from abroad and designed to overthrow our Government. Even if we win the peace, we will still have problems to solve, economic, military, po- litical, and moral. We may have inflation or depressions or bad government; we are sure to have arguments and crime and cus~ sedness. Eternal vigilance will continue to he the price of liberty. But when we can safely reduce our armaments and safely re~ duce our loyalty checks here at home, we will have won the cold war. That day looks a long way off right now. I have voted for all of the administration’s cold-war measures before the House to date: Voice of America, Greek-Turkish aid, Mar- shall plan, arms aid, point 4, increased nae tional defense, and they have not won the cold war. Instead, we need more arms and more loyalty checks here at home and we are on the way to bleeding ourselves white through the insidious, temporarily painless, method of inflation through an unbalanced budget. , Things have gone wrong in Asia and in Europe. Asia is being overrun by the Communists. We could have prevented it. In spite of the
A3190 defeatist attitude of Messrs. Acheson and Jessup, who follow the Lattimore line, we might still change the result in China, but only if our policy makers change their minds or if we change policy makers. We have had @ bipartisan China policy on Capitol Hill since 1947 and it is written into law in the China Aid Act of 1948 and that act is still the law, but it has not been carried out by the Executive. Instead it has been evaded and misconstrued and action delayed by those charged with making it effective. I have seen recent letters from Formosa from reliable military and governmental people, showing how the furnishing of aid now authorized by law to the Chinese Govern- ment we recognize might even yet be effec- tive to stop Soviet Russia in its conquest of Asia, but our policy is still to relax and enjoy it. I feel certain that we cannot win the peace while Asia is going Communist. In western Europe we have done our part, put the nations of Europe have failed to achieve the unity, economically and politi- cally, that is their only salvation in war or peace. Paul Hoffman has done his part. There is a propaganda of ridicule against him for carrying out the mandate of Con- gress encouraging unification of Europe. It is becoming the style in certain quarters to sneer at his attempts to break down the age- old rivalries, hatreds, and jealousies that these nations can no longer afford. Right now isolationism in Europe, particularly in Britain, is more damaging in the cold war than any isolationism in the United States. W> cannot win the peace with 17 separate, independent, feeble allies in Europe. We even have columnists who preach isolation, neutrality, as a policy we should encourage for Japan, Germany, and China. I believed 1n neutrality once. I thought we could remain neutral. I found out, however, after 2 wars, that this country was with neutrality as with prohibition; they could take it or leave it, but they always left it. In this present deadly struggle we will find out that those who are not for us, for the side of freedom, will soon be lined up against us, whether they want to be or not. We cannot win the peace with a neutrality belt around Russia, Point 4 will not win the peace, Technical assistance and encouragement of invest- ments are fine ideas, but neither of them is bold or new. I know of nothing in recent years that has been more thoroughly over- sold, here and abroad, than point 4. I was present in the United Nations when their point 4 program was adopted, last November, by unanimous vote, with no abstentions, This vote caused great joy in UN circles, be- cause the Soviet and its satellites joined in the vote for the first time since the early days of the UN, but it aroused my suspicions, Coming as I do from the House committee that picks up the check on our foreign aid commitments, I naturally looked into their resolution to see what the unanimous ar- rangements were for paying for this United Nations program, I found there was no pro- vision for payment at all. Who do you think those 59 nations think is going to pay the biggest part of the cost? What are 58 of those 59 nations going to say, especially the Soviets and their satellites, if we flinch when we are handed a statement for the total dollar cost of their program? Point 4 js still very fuzzy in UN and United States thinking. If it is cleared up and carried on sensibly, it can mean a better world some day, but it won’t win the peace. We now have the ITO charter before our committee. It is probably the most excep- tional document in world history. While it is supposed to set up a code of fair practice for all international trade, over ‘90 percent of world trade, except our own, will come under the exceptions for a period of from 2 to possibly 15 years. The pressing present problems of recovery, balance of payments, outworn historic trade preference and un-~ developed countries are not solved, but merely excepted and accepted. The ITO pro- posal is 5 years old, the charter is 2 years old, and the only nation in the world that has unconditionally approved it is Liberia, ITO will not win the peace. Perhaps all of this sounds depressing. It ought to; it seems so to me, Perhaps, even though no single one of these policies will win the peace alone, a combination of them will help, I hope so. Do we have any chance to win the peace? I think so. I am still for a policy of containment of Russia. No more territory must be yielded by the free people to Russian aggression or infiltration, and when free people are threat~ ened, we must help. This policy has worked in Greece, and Turkey, and Trieste, and western Europe. Where it was not tried, as in China, we have lost. It has been an ex- pensive policy. We must reduce the cost as postwar recovery progresses. We must insist upon mutual aid; other nations must help themselves and each other and us. There are two great risks in this policy: First, we may overstretch our resources, and second, we may get into war. Both of these dangers threaten if we abandon containment and try neutrality, appeasement, or isolation. We can bleed ourselves white arming to the teeth here at home and if we finally stand alone, we will have war. I have seen war- devastated countries; I believe our policy should be based on having our wars away from home if possible. This policy is not as selfish as it sounds. None of the other free nations want to be overrun again, because they know how little will be left next time for liberation. We give them their chance, too, when we arrange to start to fight along- side their forces, on their borders, and plan together to hold the arsenal of democracy intact. But we need to take the offensive on the ideological front. We must do more than tell how good we are and how bad the Com- munists are. What is the greatest need of the world today? Better world government, We have world government now, but it is not very good. A United Nations paralyzed by vetoes and walk-outs, international law as set forth in treaties and in books, plus 34 other international organizations, 7 semi- autonomous under the United Nations, 10 Inter-American, and 16 miscellaneous, plus ECA; these constitute world government now. These organizations, including the United Nations, cost the United States three or four million dollars a year. The failure of all of them to give us military security costs us about $14,000,000,000 a year in addition. Our part in all of these international organiza- tions is carried on by the State Department, which costs us over $100,000,000 a year. This is called total diplomacy. I think we need less diplomacy and more government in international affairs. We should try to strengthen the United Nations and seek its development into some sort of world organi- zation open to all nations, with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enact-~ ment, interpretation, and enforcement of world law. Note that I say “open to all nations’; the organization might not include all nations at the start; I do not see how it could include Soviet Russia on a basis that would be satisfactory to us without a revo- lutionary change in that country, but such an organization should leave its doors open for nations to join who can and will comply with its membership requirements. The principal foss of improved-world gov- ernment are: 1. Communists. 2. Certain patriotic organizations, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 8. The diplomats. The Communists are for world government, but it must be a dictatorship of the prole- tariat ruled from Moscow and anything else is capitalist imperialism. Certain patriotic groups in our country are expressing opposition to anything that sur-~ renders any of our sovereignty. They are too late. What we need is something that will regain for us a little more sovereignty. What we need is some organization where our vote counts for more than Luxemburg or Yemen, The highest attribute of sovereignty is to decide when to go to war. Actions of other powers over which we have no control at all, not even a vote, have thrust us, unwillingly, I think, into two world wars. We want at least a vote next time and we want a vote equal to our population or to our contribu- tion. We do not want to be relegated, by European ideas of national sovereignty that are only about 300 years old and already out~ worn, to a one-sixtieth vote in the affairs of the world. The diplomats like our present kind of world government. The United Nations at present is only a council of ambassadors. The United States delegation is chosen and instructed by the President. If there is to be any representation of the minority, the opposition party, the President selects the representative and instructs him. That is the diplomatic way of life. Running the world that way is total diplomacy. I think we want decisions on world questions to be made by representatives of people, not diplo- matic representatives. We need more of law and less of the fencing of diplomats, to win the peace. These are generalities. To work out the details of better world government is going to take a lot of work. A number of volun-~ tary groups are trying it now and they dis- agree among themselves, are misunderstood by the public, and are ridiculed by the old- fashioned diplomats whose work has always ended up in war. What is needed is some Yankee ingenuity and some American know-= how and resourcefulness and inventiveness, applied to international political problems. The Government will not do it. The Council of Europe, launched at Strasburg, was the work primarily of Eurcnean statesmen out of power, Those in power lixe the diplomatic way. Our work for better world government should be the spearhead of our ideological offensive, when we talk over the Voice of America. In our discussions we might even feel that the new United Nations should guarantee to every state, as our Constitution does, a republican form of government. This may have astounding results. Remember, the most revolutionary document in history is not the Communist manifesto of 1848, but the Declaration of Independence of 1776, which declares that when people are threat= ened with “absolute despotism it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such gov- ernment.” At the outset, I said war is inevitable un= less there is revolution here or behind the jron curtain. We want a revolutionary change in Russia. To obtain it, we must never again, in peace or war, make the mis- take of demanding unconditional surrender. We must remember that peace, not war, is inevitable. Holding out the mailed fist, and at the same time, the right hand of Ohris- tian fellowship, is difficult, but we must learn to do it. Force will rule the world, but we must depend more on moral force, spiritual force. Humanity is still incorrigibly religious and we must be on God’s side in the struggle for the minds and hearts of men against godless, ruthless communism. To win the peace, we must first of all deserve to win.