A3676 I tried to convince you of that while I was out here in 1948 running for President, and trying to get votes. I am not running for anything now. I am out here to report to you on exactly what I am trying to do, and I want your help to help me put it over. Imay come back a little later and talk a little poli- tics to you, but I am not doing it now. Thank you very much. See nEEEieenesianenmneenemee” Assistant Secretary of Interior William E. Warne Speaks on Public Power EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLAIR ENGLE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. ENGLE of California. Mr. Speak- er, under unanimous consent, I place in the Appendix of the Rrcorp an address made by Assistant Secretary of the In- terior William E. Warne at the thirty- eighth annual meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States here in Washington, D. C., on May 2, 1950, in regard to the Government’s program and aims in regard to power develop- ment, which I am sure will be of general interest: THe GOVERNMENT’s ProcRaM AND AIMS IN PoweEr DEVELOPMENT Two weeks ago, the National Association of Electric Companies invited the Washing- ton press corps to breakfast. Represent- atives of several large electric-power com- panies, in a series of speeches, accused the Federal Government, and more specifically the Department of the Interior, of all man- ner of crimes against the country in general and the utility industry in particular. It was charged that the Government’s power policies were confusing and needed clarifica- tion; that public power programs were “‘con~ trary to the public interest’; and that these program were “leading the country into socialism.” Iam glad indeed to be here today to clear up some of the confusion which seems to trouble the privately owned electric utility industry. To appraise the problem of energy produc- tion and distribution in the United States in its true dimensions, we need some perspec- tives, Consider first the enormous growth of electric power development in this country since the First World War. In 1920, electric utility plants had an installed capacity of about 13,000,000 kilowatts. By the end of 1949, capacity had increased nearly five times—to sixty-two and one-half million kilowatts. And while capacity increased fivefold during the 30-year period, the out- put of electric energy from the generators multiplied about seven times—from 40,000,- 000,000 kilowatt-hours in 1920 to 291,000,~ 000,000 kilowatt-hours in 1949. The plain fact is that, except during pe- riods of severe economic depression, supply of electric power in this country has never caught up with demand. Today, in spite of the very large additions to generating capacity made both by private industry and by Government during and since World War TI, we are still short of power. This is so, despite assurances to the con- trary. We were told that we would not live to see the day that the Government would market all of the power to be gen- erated at Hoover Dam on the Colorado River, the first large-scale Federal hydroelectric in- atallation, Yet the generators at Hoover Dam have been operating at top capacity ever since the first unit was installed in 1936. Still other dams and other generating plants have been required and provided in the area. We were told also that Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River would turn out to be a gigantic white elephant, and yet demands for power from Grand Coulee constantly have raced far ahead of supply. The war effort of the United States would have been severely restricted had it not been for the large blocks of electric power gen~- erated at Hoover and Grand Coulee, at Bonneville, and at the dams operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Since the war, while some utility execu- tives have been assuring us that the power emergency is over, demand for electrical en- ergy has continued its upward spiral. At hearings before the House Appropriations Committee in 1946, the president of the Pa- cific Gas & Electric Co. was asked whether there was any shortage of power in the Cen- tral Valley of California. He replied, and I quote: “There is none now; there has been none; and there will be none in the future.” Less than 2 years later, while the Central Valley was experiencing one of the most acute shortages in history, P. G. & E. found it necessary to pull switches on its overloaded lines and to cut down deliveries to its cus- tomers. As most of you know, brown-outs have plagued many other sections of the United States in.the last few years, and shortages still exist due both to lack of supply and transmission facilities. The Federal Power Commission reports that in 1948, the last year for which com- plete figures are available, nearly half of the country’s major utility systems had to make maximum-load curtailments—that is, to cut power deliveries to their customers below demands at peak periods, These cur- tailments occurred in every region of the United States. In total, they amounted to 2,571,000 kilowatts, or about double those of 1947. Unfortunately, these figures by no means indicate the true dimensions of the country’s power shortage. Our actual deficit of elec-~ trical energy is much larger than is generally realized. It is a concealed shortage, because it must be measured in demands that never develop because the power is not there to meet them. In the Tennessee Valley and in the Pacific Northwest, abundant low-cost power sup- plies, by stimulating industrial and agricul- tural development and raising living levels, create power markets that never before ex- isted. And they create these demands by creating business and industrial opportuni- ties in large numbers for private citizens. In addition, as electric power rates go down, the use of electricity goes up. In 1925, for example, with electricity selling at a little over 7 cents a kilowatt-hour, annual domestic consumption in the United States averaged only about 400 kilowatt-hours per customer. But by 1948, with the average rate down to approximately 8 cents do- mestic consumption per customer had quad- rupled, amounting to about 1,563 kilowatt- hours a year. This means more comfortable and better living in millions of homes. Considering all of the dynamic factors in- volved, the Federal Power Commission fore- sees the country’s annual electric power requirements adding up to the enormous sum of 600,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours by 1960, Electrical output of this magnitude would require 134,000,000 kilowatts of capacity in- stalled in both utility generating stations and industrial plants. This means that power plant capacity by 1960 must be ex- panded to twice its present size and three times its size in 1940. Doubling the size of the country’s power plant in the next decade and preparing for still greater future expansion is a task which calls for all of the ingenuity and resource- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD fulness which private industry and the Go*- ernment can bring to bear upon it. In World War II the Federal dams proved the key to large parts of our armament prob- lem, and they provided the power for the atom bomb. Since VJ-day, they have been utilized and desperately needed in our na- tional economy. In the future, which we hope will be peaceful, they and many more will be needed. If the cold war becomes hot, which God forbid, electrical energy supply will immediately become a crucial problem despite all that anyone is doing or planning to do now. The private companies are planning sub- stantial additions to the generating capacity of their plants within the next few years. But within the next decade they will be faced with the necessity of retiring about 10,000,000 kilowatts of existing capacity because of age and obsolescence. Net additions to plant by private industry in future years will fall far short of the amount needed to close the gap between power supply and demand. For this reason alone, and there are a number of others, the job of plant expansion can only be done by industry and Government work- ing side by side. The question is not whether public and private power agencies can live together, but whether public and private agencies, work- ing together at top speed, can expand power output fast enough to sustain our dynamic American economy. In the building of a national power plant adequate to meet future needs, the river basins of the country will play an indispens- able role. The Federal Power Commission estimates that, if sound, multipurpose methods are applied to their development, our rivers can be harnessed to provide nearly 77,000,000 kilowatts of additional hydroelec- tric capacity. A large share of this vast po- tential is located in the West. The State of Washington alone has undeveloped hydro capacity amounting to more than 15,000,000 kilowatts. But there are substantial reser- voirs of undeveloped water in other parts of the country as well. More than 3,000,000 kilowatts of capacity can be installed, for example, on the Androscoggin, the Penob- scot, the Merrimack, the Connecticut, and other rivers flowing through New England. The rivers of the Middle Atlantic States have a potential capacity of more than 5,000,000 kilowatts, and those of the South Atlantic States nearly 7,500,000 kilowatts. . There are compelling reasons why we should put our rivers to work. Most of the power which energizes America today is pro- duced by drawing upon fuel resources we cannot replace. Forty-six million kilowatts of our national capacity are installed in plants which feed upon coal, oll, or gas. Only 16,000,000 kilowatts of capacity make use of our renewable river resources. Of the 12,- 000,000 kilowatts adeed to national capacity since the recent war, 11,000,000 kilowatts have been installed in steam plants driven by fuel and only about 1,900,000 in hydro plants. To produce in steam plants as much electri- cal energy as we can develop by tapping our unused hydroelectric power resources would require on the order of 800,000,000 barrels of oil a year. It was partly his concern for conservation of our dwindling fuel reserves that led Sec- retary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman to say recently that with our peacetime econ-~ omy expanding we should certainly install at least 25,000,000 kilowatts of additional hydro capacity within the next 15 years. While development of our rivers will be important in our efforts to meet power re- “quirements of the future, of much greater significance to the public even than this is that use of the hydro potential is important in the public development of the river basins, Power production is the key with which ‘we can unlock the priceless resources of our
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD river valleys for the achievement of other important conservation objectives—irriga- tion, domestic water supply, flood control, navigation, recreation, salinity control, fish and wildlife protection, and pollution abate- ment. Coordinated use of the water im- pounded in storage reservoirs enables us to meet all of these urgent needs, with revenues from power development paying a substantial part of the check. No private enterprise can finance an in- tegrated, multiple-purpose river basin de- velopment. This is the job of the Govern- ment, and it is inescapable. In the West, many of whose citizens have had a chance over two generations to share in the manifold benefits of reclamation and related programs, the importance of basin- wide water and resource development is now well understood. The average westerner realizes that the Federal power and reclama- tion program is an integral part of the over- all basin development program. This west- ern program, as it is now developing in the Missouri, Columbia, Colorado, and Sacra- mento-San Joaquin Valleys, could not exist without the power features—and for the reason that power revenues pay an essential part of the cost. With the irrigation job in the West but half done, we are approaching the point at which we must undertake proj- ects where the payoff will be smaller than in our earlier programs. In these circum- stances, power production assumes crucial significance. Without power revenues, some of our future projects would be economically unsound and great developments serving many public benefits would be lost. We need more, not less, planning and con- struction to make full use on an integrated basis for all purposes of our rivers, and we need it in the East as well as the West. Our -water problem is no longer sectional and .confined to the arid West. It is in the east- _ern city which is the pride of the whole Nation, New York, where today you must ask for a glass of water in a restaurant and _are officially frowned upon if you take too many baths. When spokesmen for some of the power companies opposing public power develop- ment raise the cry of socialism, they seek to obscure the real issue. The river re- sources of the country belong to all of the people. While the Federal Government is not proposing a public monopoly of hydro power nor proposing to prevent privately owned utilities appropriately to use these re- sources, the Government cannot permit pri- vate companies to skim the revenue-produc- ing cream off our national water resources. ‘Nor can it allow piecemeal, single-purpose river development to foreclose the opportu- nity to undertake bold, efficient, and truly economic multiple-purpose programs di- rected toward the whole range of our con- servation objectives. We still have magnifi- cent opportunities in this great country and we must not fritter them away by such narrow actions. The public interest clearly demands public developments. For the reasons I have outlined, among others, public power is here to stay. But we in the Department of the Interior do not believe that the development of integrated river-basin programs by public agencies spells the doom of private enterprise. Re- cent history does not support the view that -public power is pulling the props out from under the electrical-utility industry. Thirty years ago public power made up only 4 percent of our total annual output of electrical energy. Last year public pow- er’s contribution amounted to 20 percent of the national output. Measured in relative terms, private power lost ground. ' But the industry’s markets actually expanded more than six times over the years. The output of privately owned plants jumped from 38,- 000,000,000 kilowatt-hours in 1920 to 233,- 000,000,000 in 1949. XCVI—App.—— 232 Since the Holding Company Act was ap- proved by Congress 15 years ago, Govern-= ment regulatory agencies have forced pri- vate-utility companies to write off $1,500,- 000,000 in inflated stock valuations, accord- ing to the Securities and Exchange Commis- sion. Despite this, net income of private utilities in 1949 amount to $753,000,000. This was nearly 55 percent more than they earned in 1938. And this rise in profits took place during the period in which public power was making its most rapid growth. This is hardly a calamitous situation for the utility industry. In 1940, with Federal power development on the Columbia River in its early stages, the Big Five companies in the Northwest— Pacific Power & Light, Washington Water Power, Puget Sound Power & Light, Port- land General Electric, and Mountain States - Power—showed a combined net income of $7,866,000. By 1948, public-power plants at Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams were turning out 10,900,000,000 kilowatt-hours of energy. The output of the Big Five, ex- cluding their large purchases of Federal power, had risen from 3,000,000,000 to 4,400,- 000,000 kilowatt-hours and their net income of $13,484,000 was almost twice their 1940 earnings. As compared with a return on capital and surplus of-4.8 percent in 1940, their investment paid off at the rate of 8.55 percent in 1948. No wonder that the vice president of Pa- cific Power & Light told breakfasting Wash- ington newspapermen 2 weeks ago, and [ quote: “It is obvious that the (Pacific North- west) region must have more and more power to support its growth. * * * That is why we of the private-electric companies of Oregon and Washington have been com- ing back here to Washington from year to year, urging the Appropriations Committee to keep the Government’s power-plant pro- gram on the Columbia going forward on schedule. * * * It has been a little diffi- cult for some of our associates in the elec- tric industry to understand our position.” Less than a week after Mr. John Dierdorff made this statement, Pacific Power & Light made its annual report to stockholders for 1949. Net income of this company, operat- ing in an area where more public power is produced at lower rates than anywhere else in the United States, was up 44 percent over 1948. So, in the Pacific Northwest where the Government has its largest block of power and its most extensive transmission grid, in- stead of dissension and disagreement, we now find in that area an effective working partnership between the Government’s wholesale electric system, the power com- panies, and the public distribution agencies, all of whom operate in a single power pool, Viewed in this light, the long-standing opposition of New England utility com- panies to public-power development there has penalized not only the citizens of that region but the utilities themselves. Look at some figures. Using the years from 1929 to 1947 as a yardstick, power-~ generating capacity in the New England States, owned entirely by private companies, increased 48 percent. For the country as a whole, the increase averaged 77 percent, for the TVA States 140 percent, and for the Pa- cific Northwest 146 percent. In this same period, total income in New England rose 91 percent while the increase for the coun- try as a whole was 129 percent, for the TVA States 198 percent, and for the Pacific North- west 202 percent. . These comparisons make plain why two New England governors have recently gone on record as favoring river development in-~ cluding electric-power production and why Senator GREEN, of Rhode Island, has intro- duced legislation in Congress which would ‘establish a New England commission of Fed- eral and States representatives to investigate available water-power resources in that region, , . ae A3677 Let me turn now to Federal power policy, which has been reiterated by the Congress for more than four decades and is said to be confusing some of the utilities. This policy can be simply stated. Federal dams shall include, where feasible, facilities for generat- ing electrical energy. Preference in power sales shall be given to public agencies and cooperatives. Power disposal shall be for the particular benefit of domestic and rural con. sumers. Power shall be sold in wholesale quantities at the lowest possible rates con- sistent with sound business principles. It should be noted that the Federal Government is not in the retail distribution business. Disposal shall be such as to encourage wide- spread use, and to prevent monopolization. I find nothing confusing here. These prin- ciples are clear-cut. Their basic soundness is apparent. Some of the utility companies, conceding only that the Federal Government can build great dams, would have the Government turn over to them at the bus-bar the power gen- erated at public expense. But if control over public power were relinquished at the point of generation, many of the purposes I have stated could not be so well served. To carry out the mandates of Congress, construction of Federal backbone transmis- sion lines is required. Generating stations, for efficiency, must be tied together, and the responsibility of the Department of the In- terior does not end until the power has been made available to the consumer, preferably through public agencies or cooperatives, un- der circumstances that encourage use and prevent monopolization, and at rates con- sistent with sound business principles. In some instances the need for investment of Federal funds in transmission facilities can be obviated through the use of proper wheeling contracts. These are arrangements by which utilities agree to deliver public power over their lines to public distributors, ‘Such contracts, several of which have been signed within recent months, help to inte- grate private and public power supplies for the benefit of consumers and give the power company a part in the continuing ef- fort to serve the respective regions. The guideposts I have enumerated are those by which the Department of the Interior, which markets Federal power outside the Tennessee Valley, conducts its business through the Reclamation Bureau, the Bonne- ville Power Administration, the Southwest- ern Power Administration, and the newly es- tablished Southeastern Power Administra- tion. Under these principles the program is car- ried out not just to produce kilowatts of energy, or to make the Treasury whole, im- portant as these objectives may be, but in addition to aid the general economic busi- ness and industrial development of the regions where the power is produced and to benefit the people as directly as possible. I think we can report good progress in at- taining these goals, which seem wholly de- sirable to me and in conflict with no Amer-~ ican principle. Chancelor of Great University Says Worth Thinking About—Education Not Re- pression Is Progress EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CLYDE DOYLE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 20, 1950 Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, at Easter recess I again had the inspiration of at- tending church services in my home city
A3678 of Long Beach, Calif. The Pilgrim is the name of the church bulletin or calendar of events. The distinguished and be-~ loved pastor is Dr. Stuart LeRoy Ander~ son, D. D. Quite regularly this church paper, the Pilgrim, also carries some short but appropriate words to think about other than just the local church events. The bulletin for Easter carried the following statement by Dr. Robert M. Hutchins, chancelor of the University of Chicago: Wortt THINKING ABouT (By Robert M. Hutchins, chancelor, University of Chicago) It is now fashionable to call anybody with whom, you disagree a Communist or a fel- low-traveler. So Branch Rickey darkly hinted the other day that the attempt to eliminate the reserve clause in baseball contracts was the work of Communists. One who criticizes the foreign policy of the United States, or the draft, or the At- lantic Pact, or who believes that our military establishment is too expensive can be called a fellow-traveler, for the Russians are of the same opinion. One who thinks that there are too many slums and too much lynching in America can be called a fellow-traveler, for the Russians say the same. One who opposes racial discrimination or the Ku Klux Klan can be called a fellow-traveler, for the Rus- slans claim that they ought to be opposed. Anybody who wants any change of any kind in this country can be called a fellow-trav- eler, because the Russians want a change in this country, too. The Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble. The American way has been to encourage thought and discussion. We have never been afraid of thought and discussion, The whole edu- cational system, and not merely the Univer- sity of Chicago, is a reflection of the Ameri- can faith in thought and discussion as the path to peaceful change and improvement. The danger to our institutions is not from the tiny minority who do not believe in them. It is from those who would mistakenly re- press the free spirit on which those institu- tions are built. The miasma of thought con-~ trol that is now spreading over the country is the greatest menace to the United States since Hitler. There are two ways of fighting subversive ideas. One is the policy of repression. This policy is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of this country. It can~ not be justly enforced, because it Is impos- sible to tell precisely what people are think- ing; they have to be judged by their acts. It has been generally thought that the widest possible latitude should be given to freedom of speech and publication, on the ground that the expression of differing points of view, some of which are bound to be unpop-~ ular, is the way to progress in the state, Hyde Park Corner in London, where anybody may say anything, has long been a symbol of the confidence of the Anglo-Saxon world in the ability of democratic institutions to withstand criticism, and even to nourish it- self upon it. There are numerous laws al- ready on the books which provide for the punishment of subversive acts. The policy of repression of ideas cannot work and never has worked. The alternative to it is the long, difficult road of education, To this the American people have been com~ mitted. It requires patience and tolerance, even in the face of intense provocation. It requires faith in the principles and practices of democracy, faith that when the citizen understands all forms of government he will prefer democracy and that he will be a better cltizen if he is convinced than he would be if he were coerced, Pacific Northwest Growth Has Solidity EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. THOR C. TOLLEFSON OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Speaker, we of the Pacific Northwest are proud of its rapid and substantial growth. We feel that our part of the United States has a great future in store for it which will re- dound not only to the people of that area but to the people of the entire Nation. I include herein an article written by Mr. Hal Boyle, Associated Press staff writer, entitled “Pacific Northwest Growth Has Solidity.’ This article appeared in the Seattle Daily Times, May 11, 1950. It fol- lows: . Paciric NortHwsest GrowtH Has So.mniry The great Pacific Northwest is beaver busy today. It feels it 1s the promised land of the American future. But it is something like @ young boy reaching the weed stage, who is growing right out of his clothes. The area is developing so fast it is finding it difficult to keep up with the demands of its postwar expansion. It is still building like mad. Almost everywhere you look, you see trees going down and homes going up, as the cities reach out into the woods. And new fac- tories are springing up to serve a mushroom- ing population. The power supply is already strained in some sections, and dozens of dams are being built, or are in the planning stage, to tap fresh might from the Northwest’s roaring mountain streams. To a casual visitor there appears to be no let-up in the postwar boom. But it is curi- ously unlike other booms in United States history. There is an unmistakable solidity about it. You get the feeling there are almost as many real-estate offices about as there are filling stations. But the land salesmen aren’t serving free lunches or hiring jazz bands to lure the customers in, as was cus- tomary in Florida during the hectic boom there in the 1920's. It’s a high-priced area and the wages gen- erally are high. I found this out when I got a shoeshine at the Seattle-Tacoma air- port, and the boy said: “Iwo bits please.” That didn’t include a tip, either. But they don’t tip as much out here as they do in the East. There are short cuts to keep down the costs. People in the Northwest seem to know how to do more things for themselves than they do in some other sections. At one small party I attended, for example, two of the men were building their own homes. They didn’t see anything unusual about it—and they were white-collar workers. Even in Portland, the city of lovely homes, they will tell you—without envy—that Seat- tle probably will be the real metropolis of the west coast. “Seattle is sure to pass Los Angeles and may even in time outrank New York,” said one man, who has made a study of the region’s resources. “It has unlimited water and power supply to draw on—Los Angeles hasn’t. And Se- attle is the nearest big port to the Far East, @ trading area with 800,000,000 people. That’s a potential market much bigger than Europe.” Such bright visions don’t thrill as many residents here as you might think, The APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pooster attitude isn’t particularly strong in the Pacific Northwest. Those who live here like it because the recreational facilities of seashore and moun- tain and forest are unspoiled—and uncrowd-~ ed. They fear that if millions of other Americans move out here to enjoy the mild elimate—who minds if it drizzles on many, many days?—they themselves will be en~ guifed. Their attitude is that of a family which settles down to enjoy a fresh picnic site, only to have six other families come whooping up to share it, too. “The real trouble is so many people are coming out here it’s hard to adapt them all to our western way of life,” sighed one lady. “They’re beginning to swallow us— and we were here first.” But it is doubtful if that will slow the poom in the Pacific Northwest. It has a crowded time a-coming. Resolutions of Thirty-fifth Convention of Kiwanis International EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE H. WILSON OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. WILSON of Oklahoma. Mr, Speaker, under unanimous consent, I in- clude in the Appendix of the RrEcorp a copy of the resolutions adopted by the Thirty-Hfth Convention of Kiwanis In- ternational which has just been con- cluded at Miami. I believe the first eight of these resolutions to be of such gen- eral interest to merit the study and con- sideration of Members of Congress as well as the people as a whole. They are as follows: RESOLUTIONS BY THE TrrIRry-Firra ANNUAL CONVENTION OF KIWANIS INTERNATIONAL 1. THE HOME, THE CHURCH, AND THE SCHOOL Whereas the home is the cradle of our lib- erties; and Whereas the school is a complement of the home, and shares the responsibility of perpetuating the ideals of a free people; and Whereas the church is the tabernacle of truth and faith and the greatest force for the promotion of the moral welfare of all the peoples and the fostering of true brother- hood: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That Kiwanis International re- iterates its most sincere belief in these in- stitutions and recommends to all Kiwanians, their families, and friends, that their con- tinuing wholehearted support be pledged to the end that they may always be funda- mental in our way of life. 2, YOUTH SERVICE, Whereas Kiwanis International recognizes its obligation of training young people so that they are better prepared to take over the responsibility of leadership of tomorrow; and Whereas it is the belief of Kiwanis Inter- national that the education of youth in the principles of our way of life is a means of better preparing them for their future re- sponsibilities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That Kiwanis International does hereby reaffirm its belief in character, lead- ership, and moral training engendered by such youth organizations as Key Olubs, Circle “K” Clubs, and all other similar or- ganizations: and be it further Resolved, That Kiwanis International does hereby pledge its support to promote and
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD assist all youth activities which strive for the education, training, character building, and leadership training of the youth of today. 8, STATEHOOD FOR ALASKA AND HAWAIY Whereas Kiwanis International in conven- tion assembled at Los Angeles, Calif., in June 1948, did by proper resolution, petition the Congress of the United States to give prompt consideration to the admission of Hawaii and Alaska as States of the Union; and Whereas we believe statehood for these Territories would be mutually beneficial: Therefore be it Resoived by Kiwanis International in con- vention assembled, That we urge the Highty- first Congress to take immediate favorable action on their petitions for statehood. 4, INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE The peoples of Canada and the United States are by birth, tradition, and training, believers in the basic concepts of a free society of freemen. Thousands of men and women of both nations have given their lives to insure the continued blessings of liberty to those of us who cherish it and who, too, are willing to fight and die for it. Linked inseparably with individual free- dom is our system of free, competitive enter- prise—a system that has brought our two nations to world leadership, economically and industrially, and has raised the living stand- ards of our peoples to where we are the envy of the world, Free enterprise has carried our Nation through two world conflicts. It furnished not only food and materials of war for our allies but is now rehabilitating our former’ enemies as well. We are proud of a system that is respon- sible for keeping the torch of liberty burning in most of the nations of the Western World. Gradually, but inexorably, we are being led, perhaps unconsciously, toward the so- cializec state. Witness the growing power of government over the people; the expansion and waste in government; the increasing tax burdens; the substitution of an artificial economy for a natural economy; the assump- ti. . by the state of financial responsibility for the health and welfare of every human being; the arraying of economic and social groups, one against the other; and the con- tinued inroads of government into the fields of private enterprise: Therefore be it Resolved by the delegates assembled at the thirty-fifth annual convention of Kiwanis International at Miami, Fla., That we vigor- ously emphasize our belief in and support of the free enterprise system, and that we con- demn the efforts of individuals and groups that would have us substitute state socialism for our present system and form of govern- ment; and be it further Resolved, That we express to our duly elected representatives in the Canadian Par.~ liament and the Congress of the United States, an emphatic protest against any effort toward the socialization of any industry or profession or groups of workers. 5. ECONOMY IN GOVERNMENT Whereas efficiency in Government and bal- anced budgets are now major concerns of our peoples; and Whereas no individual, private corporation, or Government can long continue to spend more than its income without a Collapse of his or its business structure; and Whereas a large portion of the Govern- ment tax collections is being spent, and a larger portion thereof is proposed to be spent for more and bigger Government and ex- tended Government controls and operations: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by Kiwanis International, in con- vention assembled at Miami, Fla., That a major objective of Kiwanis International shall stress efficiency in Government, and balanced Government budgets. 6. HOOVER COMMISSION REPORT Whereas the Congress of the United States has, after exhaustive study by the Hoover Commission, adopted the Reorganization Act as recommended by said Commission; and Whereas certain sections have been imple- mented by order of the President of the United States, and there are many provisions which have not as yet been acted upon: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by Kiwanis International in con- vention assembled, That the President and the Congress of the United States be com- mended for the action heretofore taken and it is recommended that further action be taken which will result in greater efficiency and economy in the administration of the executive branch of the Government. 7 COMMUNISM Whereas the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada as the world’s great bulwarks of freedom are confronted with the menace of communism which ideology is foreign to our way of life; and Whereas its influence seeks to undermine free enterprise, destroy individual initiative, deny the right of free speech, and banish religion; and Whereas communism is seeking among other things to distort the mind of our youth and to destroy righteousness, patri- otism, and good will which are fundamental to the growth of liberty-loving peoples; and Whereas the proponents of communism are engaged in seeking to corrupt the edu- cation of the youth of America, basically af- fecting the moral precepts of the ennobling objects and objectives which we of Kiwanis International cherish and promote; and Whereas we hold sacred those great human and inalienable rights vouchsafed unto us, and upon which solid foundations our gov- ernments have progressed and found favor in the family of nations; and Whereas communism does present a real challenge to the peeples of the United States and Canada: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That Kiwanis International re- affirms its belief in and support of a repre- sentative form of government and our way of life and we denounce communism as op- posed thereto; and be it further Resolved, That we enlist the aid and as- sistance of all patriotic citizens to the end that through eternal vigilance, liberty may be preserved and the forces which seek to undermine and destroy us as a free people, be not permitted to exist anywhere through- out our great nations. 8, WORLD PEACE Whereas history shows that peace is the product of law and order, and that law and order are the products of government; and Whereas disarmament and world peace can only be achieved by world order, under in- ternational law; and Whereas the peoples of the United States of America and Canada, while now enjoying peace and security under the laws of their local, State, provincial, and Federal Govern- ments, deeply desire the guaranty of world peace; and Whereas the United Nations is an organi- zation in being, and its Charter is capable of amendment so as to make it an effective instrument for the maintenance of world order; and Whereas the United Nations, as presently constituted, though accomplishing great work in many fields, lacks authority to en- act, interpret or to enforce world law and under its present Charter is incapable of restraining any major nation which may foster or foment war: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this thirty-fifth annual convention of Kiwanis International in Miami, Fla., reaffirms its confidence in the A3679 purposes of the United Nations and gives wholehearted support to its constructive work; and be it further Resolved, That Kiwanis International calls upon the leaders of government in the United States and Canada to initiate such amendments to the United Nations Charter as will strengthen the United Nations and make it capable of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing international law to insure world peace and guarantee to all peoples their right to maintain their own domestic, political, economic, social, and religious in- stitutions; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Canada and all members of the Federal legislative bodies of both countries. Presidential Veto of Kerr-Harris Amend- ment to the Natural Gas Act of 1938 EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. TOM PICKETT OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1950 Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, on the 15th day of April 1950 the President vetoed the Kerr-Harris amendment to the Natural Gas Act of 1938. In his mes- sage vetoing the amendment the Presi- dent made certain assumptions and ad- vanced certain arguments which are refuted by a critical examination of the facts. Below is a statement of each of his principal reasons for vetoing the bill and of the facts to show that the veto was not in the public interest. First. The President stated that the bill would preclude the Federal Power Commission from regulating sales of natural gas by independent producers and gatherers to interstate pipeline com- panies for resale in interstate commerce. This is a correct statement of the prin- cipal object of the bill. However, the bill would in no wise change the original intent of Congress in passing the Nat- ural Gas Act in 1938 or the interpreta- tion the Commission has heretofore placed upon the act. The Commission has not undertaken to regulate a single sale of natural gas by an independent producer to a natural-gas company. In- deed, in its order No. 139 of 1947 it dis- claimed any power, authority, or inten- tion to do so. Despite this fact, the Commission states with obvious satis- faction that the price of gas to consum- ers has decreased 12 percent since the act went into effect in 1938. It appears conclusively, therefore, that experience has demonstrated there is no necessity for regulating the price at which pro- ducers sell their gas to interstate pipe- lines in order to prevent price increases to consumers. There is a good and sufficient reason for this decrease in price to consumers, even though the demand has greatly in- creased and the average field price, now only about 6 cents per thousand cubic feet, is considerably above what it was when the Natural Gas Act was passed. The transportation of gas yields to the
A3680 economies of large-scale operations. With increased volumes, the unit cost of transportation has materially decreased. The pipeline companies have been able to install larger lines, more compressors, and to operate their lines at close to 100 percent capacity. Since the Commission regulates the rates at which the pipeline companies sell gas to most of their cus- tomers, these economies in transporta- tion are passed on to the ultimate con- sumers. To illustrate the effect of volume upon domestic consumers prices: According to a statement filed by Mr. Leland Olds with the Senate Interstate and Foreign Com- merce Committee when he testified dur- ing the hearings on the Kerr bill in the Senate, the average cost of 1,000 cubic feet of 1,000 b. t. u. gas to consumers in . the city of Washington, D. C. on sales of 2,000 cubic feet per month is $1.355 per thousand, but if the customers’ con- sumption increases to 20,000 cubic feet per month, the price drops to $1.079 a thousand. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the independent producer receives an average of 6 cents per cubic foot at the well, Volume, not well-head price, is the controlling factor in the deter- mination of consumer prices. There is every reason to believe that if producers were left free to sell their gas at competitive prices, abundant sup- plies would be forthcoming and the pipe- lines could continue to buy and transport gas in increasing volumes, thus further reducing the unit cost of transportation. The field price of gas is only a fraction of the price paid by the ultimate con- sumer; and economies realized in han- dling increased volumes of gas should more than offset any probable increase in field prices incident to augmented demands. Second. The message asserts that au- thority in the Commission to regulate sales by independent producers is neces- sary in the public interest, because pipe- lines are not able readily to find new sources of supply, thus creating an in- flexibility which ties the pipeline down rigidly to a limited number of suppliers. This argument completely miscon- ceives the factual situation which exists in the great gas-producing areas in the Southwest. There close to 175 trillion cubic feet of gas are available largely in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Louisi- ana. Vast reserves are found in the Hugoton-Panhandle area and others in Carthage, Katy, Pledger, and all up and down the coastal area in Texas and Louisiana, to say nothing of the enor- mous volumes of gas produced with oil in these States. Furthermore, there are thousands of gas wells in Texas alone which have no market outlet; although most of them are readily available to pipelines. General Thompson of the Texas Railroad Commission is authority for the statement that there are over 3,000 of such wells in Texas alone. The pipelines running from Hugoton to the north and east, from west Texas to Cali- fornia or from southwest Texas through tie Gulf coastal area to the north and east will be able to tap almost unlimited ‘ supplies of natural gas; and it is perti- nent here to state that natural gas is being discovered several times faster in these areas than it is being utilized. Many trunk lines constructed as indi- cated, as many of them already are, can, by making relatively short extensions of feeder lines, have available to them abundant supplies of natural gas. The necessity for laying such short feeder lines offers no impediment to the gas companies in obtaining an abundant supply of gas. They could and would lay these lines if conditions were such as to induce producers to sell their gas. There are two great obstacles which dis- courage producers from selling gas. One is the insistence by FPC that inter- state pipelines show supplies available for operations over 15 to 20 years before granting certificates of convenience and necessity, and by gas companies that the producers sign long-term contracts. Producers hesitate to sign such contracts, largely because they are unable today to know at what price they would be willing to sell 10, 15, or 20 years from now, in the face of increasing costs, mounting tax burdens, and possible inflation. If they sell on long-term contracts, prudent producers will wish to insert provisions, such as inflation and price escalation clauses, which will protect them against these hazards. The other obstacle, the threat of regulation by the Federal Power Commission, is a real deterrent to the sale by producers of their natural gas in interstate commerce. The burdens inci- dent to FPC regulation are so onerous and the risk of confiscation so great, as will be shown below, that many pro- ducers simply are afraid to sell their gas to interstate pipelines. Third. The message states that com- petition is further limited by the degree of concentration of ownership of natu- ral-gas reserves, and that a relatively small number of producers own a sub- stantial majority of the gas reserves. It reasons that “there is a great possi- bility that competition will not be effec- tive, at least in some cases, in holding prices to reasonable levels,” and that to remove the authority to regulate does not seem to be a wise public policy. The ownership of gas reserves is widely dispersed in the hands of multiplied thousands of operators and royalty hold- ers. While only relatively few companies and individuals sell to the natural-gas companies, this is only because most of the gas must be processed before it is taken into the pipelines. The gas is purchased from the owners by the op- erators of the processing plants, and in turn is sold by them to the pipelines. All of these producers, large and small, are competitors in the sale of their gas; and while a considerable amount of gas reserves are held by some 20 or 30 pro- ducers, they are in stiff competition with each other and all other producers in making sales. Competition has been very effective in holding down the price of gas in the past. As is stated above, the average field price of gas today is only about 6 cents per thousand cubic feet, which is the equivalent of 36 cents per barrel of oil when comparative heat units are con- sidered, and is only a small fraction of parity with coal. ‘If the obstacles to free competition mentioned above in point 2 are removed, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD it will continue to be effective in the future. The price of no other com- modity which enters interstate commerce is now regulated by the Federal Govern- ment. OPA controls have long since been abandoned under the pressure of public opinion, and Congress has refused administration requests for stand-by au- thority to impose such price controls, The wisdom of this policy has been amply demonstrated, because under the spur of competition adequate supplies of all com- modities entering interstate commerce have been forthcoming. This is the way, our competitive free economy works. It has supplied natural gas at low prices in the past and can be depended upon to supply it at reasonable field prices in the future, unless arbitrary bureau- cratic price controls are imposed or threatened by the Federal Government. Fourth. The message argues that standby authority in the Commission to regulate field prices of natural gas will not discourage exploration and devel-~ opment of new reserves, because the Commission can be depended upon to apply price controls only to such extent as will prevent the producers from mak-« ing unreasonable increases in their prices. The message concedes, however, that the Commission has not found it necessary to regulate prices charged by. independent gas producers and gatherers, - that producers’ prices have risen and that this process of adjustment should properly continue “if held within rea- sonable limits.” It concedes that pro- ducers and gatherers are finding strong incentives to search out new sources of natural gas, and asserts that power in the Commission to regulate sales of gas by independent producers offers no dan ger to continued growth of sales of gas in interstate commerce. It expresses the opinion that the Commission, if clothed with this price-fixing authority, would apply standards of regulations which would take account of the peculiar cir- cumstances of natural-gas production. These statements are based upon the assumption that any regulation by the Federal Power Commission would be a simple matter, that it would be benevo- lent, that producers of natural gas would have no fear of the consequences of such regulation and that they would continue to produce and sell gas in interstate com- merce despite threatened or actual price regulation by FPC. Producers and royalty holders who sell natural gas are numbered in the multi- plied thousands. They are ready and Willing to sell their gas under reasonable terms and at fair prices under competi- tive conditions. They have risked their capital in a very hazardous business, and have no desire to subject themselves’ to regulation upon utility principles. To discover a gas fleld it is necessary on the average to lease vast areas, to incur, great exploration costs, to drill at least four dry holes for each discovery, and otherwise to invest great sums of risk capital. Gas producers know they cannot stay in business if their operations are sub- Jected to regulation by FPC on utility principles. There are several reasons for this.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Each producer and royalty holder would be required to keep complicated books of account as prescribed by FPC. He would be recuired to make numerous and burdensome reports to FPC. FPC would be in a position to prescribe the price at which each producer or royalty holder would sell his gas to an interstate pipeline. In order to determine this price FPC would have to hold a rate hearing, and the producer or royalty holder would find it necessary to employ an attorney and accountant to go with him to Wash- ington and attend a long, detailed and complicated hearing. Furthermore, if he desired to invest in new leases or to drill additional wells, he being a utility, would find it neces- sary to obtain from FEC a certificate of convenience and necessity before making the investment. How in the world could he hope to compete with others not subject to FPC regulations under these conditions? There would be thousands of other producers and royalty holders in the same situation, and a long jam of hearings would be created causing maddening delays. Furthermore, each seller would be regulated on utility principles by the FPC yardstick which would allow him a 6-percent return on the depreciated cost of the properties placed in his rate base. There is no assurance that he could recover the cost of bonuses and rentals paid on wildcat leases and ex- ploration costs incurred in other areas. His 6-percent return on depreciated cost of producing properties would not re- cover risk capital, The cost of gas pro- duced with oil under the Commission’s formula could be thrown largely, if not completely, upon oil. Under these con- ditions the producer would be required virtually to give his gas away. He would face bankruptcy; and in disgust, if not despair, he would be driven out of the producing business. ‘All of this would result in chaotic prices among producers and royalty holders, for the Commission’s formula would result in fixing a separate price for each of them. Only by accident would the price of one seller be the same as the price of another seller under FPC regulation. Some prices would be very high, so high in fact that the pipelines would no doubt refuse to take the gas; while prices of most of the sell- ers would, while variable, be so low as to deter them from making sales at all. There is no warrant for believing that FPC regulation would be benevolent. If the future is to be judged by the past, the foregoing presents a true picture of what would happen. Furthermore, the experience with price control by OPA after the war cannot justify any such assumptions. While many producers have sold their gas to interstate pipelines in the past, they have done so in reliance upon the belief that FPC had no authority to reg- ulate them, and upon FPC’s Order No. 139 made in 1947 which expressly stated that it did not have the right and would not undertake to exercise control over Independent producers. The Commis- sion in specific cases has repeatedly held it has no jurisdiction over arm’s-length sales by independent producers to pipe- lines. Naturally, under these circum- stances many producers were willing to sell. But conditions now are quite dif- ferent, in that a majority of the Com~- mission have announced that if Con- gress coes not amend the Natural Gas Act so as expressly to deny to them au- thority to regulate field sales by inde- pendent producers, they will regulate such sales, In some cf the debates in Congress sreat resentment was shown when it was suggested that producers would be un- willing to sell their gas to interstate pipelines if subjected to FPC regulation. Producers of gas are only human. They have no desire to be subjected to con- fiscatory regulation. They have risked their capital in finding gas reserves, and may be pardoned if they object to having their gas reserves partially or largely confiscated by a Federal agency. No cther producer of raw materials who ships them in interstate commerce is subject to Federal price controls. A producer of natural gas wonders why he should be singled out and branded as a culprit if he objects to Federal price con- trols which he honestly believes will be ruinous to him. He cannot justly be criticized if he too desires to live in a competitive free econ- omy, and to let the price at which he sells his product be determined by the interplay of forces of supply and de- mand. This sort of economic freedom has been sufficient to bring forth the present supplies of natural gas, and if allowed to continue, can be depended upon to maintain future supplies. If prices should temporarily rise beyond a reasonable level, new exploration and development will be encouraged to such an extent as to cause the discovery of new supplies and the readjustment of prices to desirable competitive levels in a free economy. With thousands of pro- ducers of natural gas anxious to sell their product and with the enormous un- tapped gas supplies readily available under competitive conditions, the con- sumers have no basis to fear runaway prices. But they should entertain grave fears of shortages in supplies of natural gas if FPC price controls are inaugu- rated or threatened. The Kerr-Harris bill would only have continued conditions as they have ex- isted in the past. Gas producers have been able to find supplies sufficient to maintain field prices for natural gas at a comparatively low figure, far and way below the well or mine price of compet- ing fuels. The public may safely place their trust in competitive free economy to continue to produce adequate supplies if economic forces are permitted to have full play in the gas-producing industry. Fifth. In the message reference is made to “imaginary fears” and to the Commission’s record of accomplishments thus far in administering the Natural Gas Act. As I have illustrated, the fears enter- tained by producers are by no means imaginary, and again it must be pointed out that the record of accomplishments made by the Commission thus far has been made by abstaining from any effort to regulate the price at which the inde- pendent producers sell gas to natural gas A3681 companies. If this condition has brought about such desirable results, there is every warrant that it should con- tinue. If the Kerr-Harris bill had he- come a law, it would only have main- tained these conditions which have pro- duced what the President calls very de- sirable results. The President Reports to the People EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. MIKE MANSFIELD OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 16, 1950 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Speaker, un- der unanimous consent, I am inserting in the Rrecorp copies of speeches made by President Truman in the State of Montana. From Paradise in the west to Fort Peck in the east, the President was received by large and enthusiastic crowds. The people liked him and they appreciated the fact that he was reporting to them directly in his official capacity. We, of Montana, feel honored that he came out to see us, and we are proud of a leader who calls his shots as he sees them. Come back to Montana again, Mr. President. The latchstring will always be out for you, Mrs. Truman, and Mar- garet. The speeches follow: REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT PARADISE, MontT., May 11, 1950 Governor, I appreciate that introduction very much, and I hope that every governor in the country will feel the same way about the way they are treated. I always like to come to Montana. The people of Montana were very kind to me when I was out here 2 years ago and gave me afine welcome. From the looks of this crowd here tonight in Paradise, it seems to me that you are going to outdo the welcome of 1948. And that is what I like. You live in one of the most beautiful parts of the United States. I wish I had time to go up to Glacier National Park. I spent a great many summers in the national parks. When I lived in Missouri, I used to drive to the Rockies every summer with my family. This time I am not out here on a vacation. I have been making a cross-country trip to talk to the people, and to tell them the facts and give them a report on the state of the Union. You know, the Constitution requires the President to give a report on the state of the Union once a year to the Congress. I do that, but I don’t think it is enough. Not very many people get a chance to read that message to Congress, so that is why I like to come out and let you take a look at me and let you hear just exactly what it is that I am working for. In my speeches, I have described the kind of farm laws we need that will put farm prosperity on a permanent basis. I have described the work we need to do to make better use of our natural resources—our riv- ers, our forests, and our minerals. I want a small-business program, the kind of laws that will help businessmen get the financing they need so that they can com- pete with the big, rich corporations. All these things are of real importance te you people here in Paradise. We can be well off only when all parts of the country are
A3682 well off, and all groups of people in the coun- try are doing well. When we are all prosperous, we shall be able to keep the United States strong enough to maintain world peace—that is certainly the most important thing in the lives of all of us. It has been a wonderful thing to see you here at this time of night. I was told that there wouldn't be anybody out here. I have been told that at nearly every place I have been, but people always fool the prophets. I found that out in 1948. Now, I have a telegram here from the senior Senator from Montana, which says: “Deeply regret that Mrs. Murray’s critical illness prevents my being on hand to extend im person a cordial and warm welcome to the State of Montana. On behalf of all the peo- ple of our great State, I wish to express the sincere hope you will enjoy Montana’s tradi- tional friendliness and hospitality during your visit. "You may be sure that the people of Montana fully support your leadership in the never-ending struggle to keep America strong and free “Kind regards and cordial best wishes. “James E. MuRRAY.” I appreciate that telegram, and I am sorry that Mrs. Murray is ill. I hope that she will be all right, and I hope it isn’t fatal. Now I am ready to present to you Mrs. Truman. REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT MISsoULA, Mont., May 12, 1950 After that introduction, I will have to de- liver the goods, won’t I. This is a grand‘reception, and I appreciate your willingness to come out at this hour of the day—of course, we farmers think this is pretty late in the day—but I do appreciate the fact that you were willing to come out at this hour of the day to listen to what I have to say. I was glad to meet your Governor yesterday at Grand Coulee. It has been a pleasure to see Mike this morning, and I am extremely sorry that Senator Murrar’s wife is sick so he can’t be here. I am told that this is one of the wonder cities of the great State of Montana, and looking at this crowd, I am inclined to be- lieve it. One reason I like this city is be- cause it has giver me one of the finest men I know in public service, and that is my good friend Mrkr MANsrFienp. Mike works not only in the interests of his district in Mon- tana, but Mike has a national outlook that jis for the welfare of the country as a whole. He is not sectional. There are few men in this country, in the Congress or out, who can equal him in the farseeing grasp he has of the country’s international and domestic problems. You Know, some people will take a look at an acorn and all they can see is just an acorn. But people of Mixz MANSFIELD’s type are something different. They can see into the future. They can see a giant oak tree, with its great limbs spreading upward and outward coming from that acorn. In Washington there are some men, no matter how hard they try, who can only see little acorns. I don’t have to call any names, you know who they are. Even give them a magnifying glass or even a pair of spyglasses or even a telescope, they just shake their heads and all they can say is, “I'm sorry, I can't see anything but an acorn there.” Let me give you an example of how this little mind works. Down on the Colorado River, there is a structure of which you are all proud—Hoover Dam. Here is an inter- esting thing. When that dam was being planned back in 1928, it was violently fought by special interests. One Congressman from the same political party as the gentleman after whom the dam is named, had this to say about it in Congress: He said it would damage industry, it would waste the tax- payer’s money, and it would lead us into communism. That’s real acorn thinking, I think. Hoover Dam was built. I don’t need to tell you that this democracy of ours is the world’s greatest bulwark against commu- nism, and it is stronger because of the great reclamation, irrigation, and power and flood control projects like that dam, and like the one I dedicated yesterday. Not so far north of Missoula, up near Glacier National Park, we are building an- other great dam—Hungry Horse. It will be one of the largest concrete structures in the world. They told me yesterday that Coulee was the largest in the world, so you have got to make a pretty big one to make it larger than Coulee. And it will provide vast new benefits to this entire region. Hungry Horse Dam will produce 285,000 kilowatts of power itself, and we will begin getting that power just 2 years from now. This is a key project in the long-range pro- gram for harnessing the great water power of the Columbia River Basin. It is a major step toward the full development of Mon- tana’s water resources, much of which now lie idle and unused. Hungry Horse Dam will be valuable not only in bringing cheap power to this area, put it will aid in the production of additional cheap power at some of the present and pro- posed dams farther downstream. It will be helpful in cooperating with them in giving cheap power all over this whole district. Its beneficial effects will snowball all the way along. I am interested in seeing some of this power used to develop the important phosphate industry, that will bring new jobs to this State of Montana, and it will be a great boon to farmers all over the Western States, Hungry Horse will also be valuable for flood control. When I was out here in 1948 I could see that the big floods on the lower Columbia River were really started by the upstream tributaries. We shall be able to control some of these streams by dams like this at Hungry Horse. ' Like Hungry Horse, these dams have many values. And they are paying propositions for the taxpayer. The investment in power and irrigation are repaid direct, and the en-~ tire investment is repaid over many, many increases in the national wealth. People don’t take into consideration that the construction of public works such as Hungry Horse and Grand Coulee and Hoover Dame create industries, which create new jobs, which create prosperity for immense numbers of people. Many people who talk loosely about the size of our national budget forget that many of our expenditures are investments which will make a stronger and a better country. I often think that projects like this must make the Communists wonder. They must wonder how it is possible for free men, in a democracy, to plan and develop a vast coun- try, and do it in ways which increase the liberty and the welfare of all the people. The Communists think the only way to run things is from the top down. Our system proves that it is much more effective to run it from the bottom up. We will never be in danger from commu- nism in this country as long as we keep look- ing forward and doing things to increase the welfare and freedom of our people. I hope the country never gets into the hands of little men with acorn minds. Let us keep it in the hands of men who can see the trees and who will work for a nation and a world at peace. You people have been grand to me here in Montana, and I appreciate it, and I hope that on this trip I can persuade the people of the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Nation that it is their welfare we are working for. I am out here to make a report to you, just as I would make a report to Congress, and I think you have a perfect right to that re- port. And I know you are interested in it, or you wouldn’t get up this early in the morning to hear what I have got to say about it. And I thank you very much. REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT GARRISON, Mont., May 12, 1950 Iam so happy to see all you school children out here this morning. I imagine you must have had a holiday today, didn’t you? We have been traveling around over the country meeting people and explaining to them var~ ious aspects of the Government, because we believe that people are really interested in the Government. I am more than happy this morning to have the Governor of the great State of Montana and Mixz MANSFIELD, the Congress< man from the First Montana District, here with me. . We have some tremendous problems fac- ing us in the operation of the Government of the United States. The Government, as you Know, is your Government. The President is your President. He is the only national Official besides the Vice President who is elected at large by the whole country. I deem it my duty, and it is a constitu- tional necessity for me to make reports to the Congress once a year on the state of the Union. This time I am going around over the country trying to make a report on the state of the Union to the people themselves. Iam glad to see you all this morning. I have been discussing the farm problems, reclamation, the national resources of the country; and yesterday I dedicated Grand Coulee Dam to the uses of the people. That is one of the greatest projects in the history of the world. When it is finally finished, it will create more than 2,000,000 kilowatts of electricity. That is a wonderful thing. It was running yesterday at the rate of 1,580,- 000 kilowatts, and there were all sorts of gadgets for us to look at. Not only does that dam create power for use in that section of the country, but it will also eventually lift water into the desert and put a million acres into cultivation. Sometime beginning in 1952, I think, the first irrigated farm will be opened up. Now you have projects like that in Mon- tana. Hungry Horse is one of them. That great dam will create 2,285,000 kilowatts when it is finished. It will create jobs. It will create cheap power. It will help this part of the world go into industry, and you can’t lose anything by it, and neither can any of the rest of the country. I explained yesterday that we have a northwest power construction, and a south- west power construction, a southeast power construction, and we hope to have a north- east power construction, if we can ever get phe St. Lawrence development as it should e, Then we have the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio River Valleys which can be developed in exactly the same way. All that will create wealth, create jobs, create industries; and it helps the country. There are some people who think that these things ought not to be done, because they like to have things stay just as they are. I am not one of them. I believe in progress, and I am happy to say that your Congressman, Mrkm MAaNnsrieLp, believes in progress, too. He is one of our ablest public officials tn this country, and I depend on him a great deal, because I know he has good judgment. I know his heart is right, and I know he believes in doing things for the benefit of all the people. It has been mighty nice of you to come out here this morning. I am more than happy to see all of you, and I am glad I got
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this 5-minute stop here, so that I could get a chance to say a few words to you. Thank you very much. REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT aT HELENA, MONT., May 12, 1950 Governor, Congressman MANSFIELD, and ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate very much this fine reception which the people of Helena have given me today. I certainly am glad to be here on Vigilante Day. I wish I could have seen that parade. I wer ~tcad +o get a chance to see those floats:’ -. Gc. ve train on each side, I think my family has enjoyed them as much as anything they have seen on the trip. I appreciate also the introduction from Governor Bonner. I think he has given me a little too much credit, but I appreciate 1t just the same. The Governor was with me yesterday at Grand Coulee, when I had *he vrivtoer2 of dedicating Grand Coulee, Tu. t ns. nam is just about the biggest man-made struc- ture in the world; it is generating more power than any other power plant in exist- ence, and in a few years it will be providing water for hundreds of thousands of acres. Grand Coulee is a product of the vision and farsightedness of the people of the Northwest, people who can make bold plans for the future, and who not only can make the bold plans but who have the courage and the energy to carry them out. I am glad that Canyon Ferry Dam is being built not far from here. While Canyon Ferry Dam is not as big as Grand Coulee, it will be of tremendous importance and bene- Hit to all this area. It should provide water for nearly half a million acres, and the power from Canyon Ferry will mean low-cost elec- tricity for farms, city homes, and new in- dustries. Projects like Canyon Ferry benefit every- body in the country. They are a real in- vestment in the future of the Nation as a whole. You only have to travel across the coun- try, as I have been doing this week, to re- alize what a wonderful future is ahead of us. Everywhere I have been, I have seen encouraging evidence of expansion and growth, and preparation for future pros- perity. Of course, I have met a few skeptics who have been saying that the country is going to the dogs. They say that we are going bankrupt, or that we are headed straight for socialism. But the fact is, these calamity howlers have been saying the same thing for years. They have always been wrong in the past, and they are just as wrong now as they were 1n the past. Let us take a look at some of the recent progress we have made—progress, by the way, that we have made in spite of those same skeptics. Twenty years ago, we were at the beginning of a terrible depression that lasted over three long years. Beginning in 1933, we began a vigorous reform. By 1939 we were producing more goods and services than we had in the last boom year before the depression. Since 1939, we have done even better. Since 1939 the annual per capita income of our citizens, after taxes, has increased by more than 40 percent. The income of farm owners, although it has slipped some in the last year or so, is more than 50 percent higher than it was in 1939. And annual wages and salaries of em- ployees have increased about 5 percent. And, slespite terrible howlings from some quarters, the annual income of corporate businesses, after taxes, has increased 100 per- cent since 1939. Doesn’t look very much to me like the country is going to the dogs. I am convinced that we can do just as well in the future as we have done in the past. I am convinced that we can lift our annual output of goods and services tg more than $350,000,000,000 by 1960, This will be a one-third increase, and that increase will be good for everybody. Farmers and work- ers and businessmen can and should all prosper together. Iam convinced that by 1960 the standard of living of every industrious family in the country will be far better than it is now. I wish I had time to give you some statis- tics that come to me each month. I know, if you had a chance to study them, you would be just as optimistic and enthusiastic about our future asIam. Every month, and then quarterly, I receive an economic report from the economic advisers to the Presi- dent of the United States, and that report goes into great detail on the situation as 1t develops in the country each monh. The reason I am optimistic, this report shows that employment is on the rise, that income is on the rise, and that prices are holding steady. It shows that unemployment is far less than it was at the beginning of the year. It shows that the output of goods and services is far greater than 1t was at the be- ginning of the year. This report is a combination of all the re- ports in the country, made up from reports by the Securities and Exchange Commission, reports of the Department of Labor, reports of the economic experts, on the Board of Trade, on the New York Stock Exchange, re- ports by the Chicago Board of Trade, reports from all the departments of the Govern- ment—the Department of Commerce, the Treasury Department—the reason I was de- layed a little bit, the Secretary of the Treas- ury had to call up and talk to me about some business that had to be transacted over the telephone; but the report gives the complete picture of the economic situation in the United States every 30 days. And I know what I am talking about when I talk to you optimistically about what the future holds. And don’t let anybody tell you anything different but that this Repub- lic, the greatest 1n the history of the world, is on the road to becoming greater and greater. And when we do that, we will get peace in the world. Of course, this won’t all happen by just sitting down and waiting for 1t to happen. You have got to do something to make it happen. We must work toward the kind of farm: program that will put farming on a permanently sound basis. We need to expand and extend our social- security laws; we need a housing program that will enable low- and middle-income families to own their own homes. We must conserve and develop our na- tional resources to better advantage, and that must be developed in the public inter- est and not for the greed boys. We must see that our children get a good education. If we have these measures, and others like them, then the United States will continue to grow and to prosper, and our Nation will continue to exert a strong force for peace in the world. Since September 2, 1945, my whole time has been spent in an effort and an endeavor to get a lasting peace for the world. One of the first decisions I had to make when I was sworn in as President of the United States on April 12, 1945, after President Roosevelt had died, was the decision as to whether we should hold the San Francisco Conference and form the United Nations. I said “Yes, we will go forward with it,’ and we were suc- cessful in organizing the United Nations, and we are going to be successful in making it work for peace. To do that, we must have the wholehearted support of the people of the United States for that purpose. That is the reason I am going around over the country reporting to you on just what conditions are, and what is necessary to obtain the world objective for which we work and pray. I hope that you will inform yourselves completely on all the issues, I hope you will A3683 find out just exactly what is meant by the messages which I send to the Congress. I hope you will find out just exactly what the debates in the Congress mean. And I hope you will study very carefully those people who are trying to overturn our in- terest in the United Nations, and who are trying to put us back in the 1890’s. We are not going back—we are going for- ward, to 1960, and 1970, and 1980, and 2900. We are going to be better after each decade than we were when we started on that decade. We can do that, if you will wholeheartedly help to do it, and work to do it—and that is what Iam asking you to do. And that is the reason I am out here. Washita Agricultural Flood Control Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. VICTOR WICKERSHAM OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Speaker, the Washita drainage area was author- ized for an agricultural flood control pro- gram about the beginning of the war but due to the war work was not prosecuted extensively until the last 2 or 3 years. Since that time, the Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with organized soil conservation districts, have con- structed a considerable number of small projects, which have amply demon- strated the importance and value of the program. For example in Washita County on Cloud Creek, some detention structures have been built which are amply demonstrating that the program of the Soil Conservation Service in coop- eration with the local farmers can con- trol soil erosion and floods. The Depart- ment of Agriculture has selected two wa- tershed areas in the Washita drainage basin to concentrate their work on during the next 2 or 3 years. One of these is Mill Creek in Johnston County and the other is Sandstone Creek in Roger Mills and Beckham Counties. It was determined after the general Soil Conservation Service flood-control program was initiated that additional au- thorizations should be made by Congress in order to allow detention reservoirs to be constructed on the tributaries down stream to the point where the Army en-~ gineers take over with their flood-control program. Senator Kerr and Senator THOMAS submitted an amendment to the rivers and harbors and flood-control bill to accomplish this purpose but were unsuccessful in securing the adoption of the amendment. Congressman Tom Strep has introduced H, R. 8404 and I have introduced H. R. 8531, which bills are identical to the Thomas-Kerr amend- ment and these have been referred to the Public Works Committee. If passage of these bills can be secured, it will al- low considerable expansion on the Wa- shita program. The work planned by the Soil Con- servation Service on Sandstone Creek 18 estimated to cost $1,568,552 but the bene- fits to pe derived from this expansion are
A3684 equivalent to two and one-half times that amount. The structures to be con- structed are 21 detention reservoirs, 15 drop inlets with fills, 1 mile of channel improvement, 1.3 miles of floodwater di- versions, 5,783 acres of seeding retired area, 48.7 acres of farm waterways, 432.9 miles of terracing, 17.1 miles of farm diversions, 125 farm ponds, 48.7 miles of farm fencing, and 65,013 acres of farm and ranch planning and application. The total cost of these structures is esti- mated to be $1,568,552; $195,046 of this amount will be borne by the farmer. The present rate of appropriations for the agricultural flood-control program on the Washita is approximately $1,- 000,000 per year and at that rate is ex- pected that it will require 15 or 20 years to complete the program even with the efforts of the individual farmer and the soil-conservation districts; however, it is anticipated that the Sandstone Creek watershed will be completed as one of the first units in order to thoroughly demonstrate the value of a completed watershed program. The Washita River drains a portion of five counties in the Seventh Congressional District of Okla- homa. I have been one of the outstand- ing proponents for the project, even be- fore I became a Member of Congress and while I was connected with the State of Oklahoma in an official capacity. Hav- ing been raised in western Oklahoma and having observed drouths, floods, and sandstorms, I naturally was intimately acquainted with the waste each year and the destruction of the farmers’ crops; therefore, I determined that if there were a means by which this waste and destruc- tion could be stopped, I would pursue it to a successful conclusion. I have been outspoken at every opportunity before the Appropriations Committee and hbe- fore the Agricultural Committee in favor of the type of program now being car- ried out by the Soil Conservation Serv- ice. As proof of the benefits that can be derived from this program, I point to the annual estimates of the Soil Con- servation Service for the Sandstone watershed: Flood-control benefits: . Reduction in flood damages... $57, 461 More intensive land use... 11,019 68, 480 88, 039 Total eee nee 156, 519 The farmers and landowners of Sand- stone Creek and the Washita River know that I will be fighting their battle for adequate appropriations to carry on this program at every opportunity. American Policy Toward Israel EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ROY W. WIER OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 16, 1950 Mr. WIER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include a reso- lution expressing concern over the policy of our country in the Middle Hast. Day by day, over a long period of time now, this Nation has been sittimeg idly by with full knowledge of England’s action in arming and preparing Egypt and the Arab States for a shooting war. The resolution was prepared and is supported by thousands of good, peace- loving citizens in my district. The resolution is as follows: RESOLUTION ON THE ARMING OF THE ARAB STATES BY GREAT BRITAIN We are deeply concerned over the Ameri-~ can policy with respect to the rearmament of Egypt and the Arab States by Great Brit- ain, and we are greatly disturbed because of the threat to the peace of Israel implicit therein. The United Kingdom insisted that any supply of arms sent by her to those middle- eastern states would be for the internal se~ curity and defense requirements only. However, the purchase by Egypt of 100 jet planes, 10 Centurian tanks, and 260 Sherman tanks, as well as pocket submarines and torpedo boats from Britain, Belgium, and Italy, far exceeds armament necessary for the purpose of maintaining internal law and order. , Estimated figures cited by the Royal In- stitute of International Affaus show that Egypt’s budget for armaments for 1 year ac- tually exceeds total estimated costs of re~ settling all the Arab refugees. The fact that it is Britain which is ex- tending this aid to the Arab States should not obscure the fact of imdirect American participation, for it is American Army equip- ment that is being used in many cases, and it is thus that the United States is pro- viding’arms for countries which divert their stocks to the Near East. We respectfully urge our Government to reconsider the problem in the light of the facts herein set forth. We ask that it use its great influence to avert the dangers to the peace of Palestine involved in the situa- tion which is being created; and that the United Kingdom be requested to discontinue this extensive shipment of arms to the Arab states, while imposing an embargo on the supply of arms to the State of Israel. We also submit that this critical situa- tion is greatly aggravated by the fact that our own State Department also refuses Is- rael’s request for arms for its defense. We urge that in the name of justice and peace Israel be permitted by our State De- partment to purchase arms from the United States, as, In the “ace of strongly armed Arab States, arms for Israel are essential for the maintenance of peace in the Middle East. The Recent Bus Ride EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. KENNETH B. KEATING OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 16, 1 950 Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, as I think back over the passage of the omni- bus appropriation bill, I cannot refrain from pondering how appropriate is the title “omnibus.” The bill just passed re- minds me of a nice, new, shiny bus. This omnibus, jet propelled and steam heated, started out with the brave legend, ““Econ- omy or bust,” stenciled on the side. At the end of last week, it limped back into the Senate garage covered with dust and APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD amendments, and all you could read was the bust. The weary taxpayers, who had been taken for this expensive ride, were as- tounded at the fare which the driver de- manded. They had had been told that this year they were going to get the economy size ride and had been promised that the fare would not be more than they had in their pocketbooks. It had been explained to them that the bus had been very expensive to operate in war- time, what with shortages and high op- erating costs, and that the bus company had come nowhere near breaking even, but they had been told that was a tem- porary condition which would now be corrected. They had understood that the stop at the Pentagon would still be very costly, but, outside of that, the gentleman from Missouri who scheduled the tour promised that every effort would be made to cut corners on spending. The start was promising. The first stop was at the Nation’s Capital where 10 percent was cut from the estimated cost. The riders were elated and applauded, and even when Capitol Hill itself was reached, the driver remained economy- minded. Things were looking up. But then as they rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Government depart-° ments, the riders seemed to sense that the driver was feeling more expansive, and had read the travel posters and promises issued by the agencies. All of a sudden, with a whoosh, the bus roared off, heading south and west. The trip out West was a mad whirl of parks, reclamation, irrigation, and power pro- jects. The sales talk at each project was terrific, and the taxpayers heaved a sigh of relief when the bus turned its nose east again. At the very last minute the driver re- lented and scaled down his estimates of the gas necessary to visit all the Govern- ment departments and agencies. Some. what relieved, the passengers settled back and counted the dollars they had saved. But they were still overburdened with subsidies, pet projects, and other memen- toes of their trip. Thus, they had come to the end of their bus ride. The trip had cost less than they had feared, but much more than they could afford. And they still ran the chance that after they thought they were safely home, they might get an added bill for repairs from the Senate garage. Every passenger ought to sit down and write to the re- pairmen at the other end of the Capitol that they hope, when the bus is overhaul- ed, it will be found that riders have a re- fund, rather than a further charge, com- ing to them. Slow Down Resolution on Ireland EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. MIKE MANSFIELD OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 16, 1950 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD RecorD, I include the following article from the Boston Post of May 10, 1950: Stow Down RESOLUTION ON IRELAND—ACTION Runs INTO JaM IN HOUSE FoREIGN AFFAIRS Group ‘WASHINGTON, May 9.—Resolutions to put Congress on record as opposed to partition of Ireland have run into a jam in the House Foreign Affairs Committee that could block action this session. WIDE SUPPORT The antipartition move, which had vociferous support at a hearing April 28— particularly from Irish-American groups from Massachusetts and Rhode Island—has been put aside temporarily while the com~ mittee considers international trade organi- zation proposals. A committee aide said today that when the hearing on the ITO legislation is com- pleted the committee probably will turn to measures dealing with military aid for par- ticipants in the North Atlantic Treaty. This activity, the committee spokesman said, has prevented the committee from con- sidering any action on the Irish resolution. DORCHESTER SPEAKER The testimony given April 28 led House Majority Leader McCormack, of Massachu- setts, to tell the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Kr, of West Virginia, that he would seek quick House action should the committee approve @ resolution denouncing partition of the “gallant little island.” Support for the proposal to have Congress advise Great Britain that it favors unifica- tion of Ireland came from Representatives LANE, of Massachusetts; Focarty, of Rhode Island, and Kennepy, of Massachusetts. Other supporting witnesses before the com- mittee hearing included Daniel Doherty, of Dorchester, Mass., representing the Central Council of Irish Country Clubs; and Thomas H. Buckley, Massachusetts commissioner of administration and finance, representing Gov. Paul A. Dever. Home of Credit Union National Association EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WiSCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, 2 days ago, Sunday, May 14, the people’of Wis- consin and of all America rejoiced in the dedication of the new international home and headquarters of the Credit Union National Association, an inspiring building dedicated as a living memorial to its founder, a great American, Mr. Edward A. Filene. The President of the United States was on hand to dedicate the building, and it was my pleasure to have received an invitation to the cere- mony. While I was unfortunately not able to be on hand because of a previous commitment for the dedication of the Rock County Airport in the southern part of Wisconsin, I was indeed happy to send my greetings to the Credit Union National Association and its many friends. Naturally, we of the Badger State were particularly glad that the capital city of Wisconsin should have been honored by the location of this vital headquar- ters. Madison is more than just the cap- ital of our State, the seat of our great State university, and the county seat of Dane County. It is a symbol of the productive, agricultural, industrial, so- cial, and intellectual wealth of Wiscon- sin. With the exception of the huge, sprawling area of Los Angeles County on the west coast, Dane County pro- duces more milk than any other county of the more than 3,000 counties in the United States. This renowned county also rates as one of the highest of all American counties in the annual value of its agricultural products. But Madi- son is not only a great dairying center. It is founded on a prosperous, stable va~ riety of wholesome industries, over 110 different plants, most of them of me- dium size. The distinct cultural leader- ship of the city consists, of course, in major part from the presence there of the great University of Wisconsin, with its esteemed faculty and its student body of over 18,000, a university which has made magnificent contributions in every phase of American life. One of the vital features of Madison research is the great Forest Products Laboratory housed in a million-dollar plant and ra- diating scientific research and demon- strations in forestry and forest products to all the world. - Madison is these things and many more. It is an insurance center and a convention center which is reputed to entertain more conventions than any other city of its size in the United States. It is a great transportation hub, a major wholesale and distributing center. Enhancing all these features is its beautiful geographic location, lying on a scenic isthmus between two lovely lakes, Mendota and Monona. Supple- menting the natural beauty of the loca- tion is the great park and playground system and the beautiful capitol grounds, all of which contribute many reasons which justify Life magazine telling the world, as it recently did, the opinions of countless folks that Madison is the best city in the United States in which to live. Progress in Madison is sparked by the live wire Madison and Wisconsin Foun- dation, which is always ready, willing, and able to cooperate in the constant im- provement of that great center. In the latest bulletin of the foundation there is a very interesting lead article on how the civic-minded folks of Madison carried on a continuing effort to locate and keep the headquarters of the credit union move- ment there. I believe that this article will be of interest to all friends of the credit union movement and of the vital cooperative movement of Wisconsin. It lends a fascinating historic foot- note to the memorable event of Sunday, May 14. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that the text of this article published in the May 12 issue of the bul- letin of the Madison and Wisconsin Foundation be printed in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: A3685 There occurs in Madison this Sunday, May 14, 1950, an historical event that deserves recording in the saga of Wisconsin’s capital and university city. The Credit Union Na- tional Association (CUNA) dedicates its international home and headquarters as a living memorial to its founder, Edward A. Filene, distinguished merchant philan- thropist of Boston. A great humanitarian, Mr. Filene believed he could help his fellow men most by en~ abling them to help themselves. Knowing that almost all employees must borrow money to pay for illness, new babies, house- hold furnishings, living expenses, or other needs, he conceived the plan for CUNA. His purpose was to enable worthy borrowers to escure the money they needed at lowest interest rates and on repayment terms they could meet. To set up the program through- out the country Mr. Filene contributed a million dollars. Came the time to establish @ national office for the organization he created. Since Wisconsin was the first State to enact legislation favoring credit unions, it had strong appeal to him as a desirable location. In 1934 word came that Madison was being considered. The late Paul E. Stark, one of Madison’s foremost builders, went east to investigate. Later, Roy F. Bergengren, Mr. Filene’s representative, came here. A site was tentatively selected—the old Boyd home on Wisconsin Avenue. While negotiations were being carried on at long distance, others made a cash offer for the Boyd property. Conditions made it necessary to accept that offer. The CUNA people were greatly disap- pointed and almost gave up Madison because they thought no other place as suitable could be found. The old Carl A. Johnson home on Langdon Street adjoining the governor’s mansion was accepted as even better for them than the Boyd property. But CUNA was on the march, and within a few years outgrew those quarters. Then Mr. Filene died. The battle to keep the headquarters at Madison began. Again and again it became necessary to sell and resell Madison as the best location. CUNA had spread throughout the United States and Canada, which made Madison the geo- graphical center of their entire membership. The old Fuller and Johnson office building on East Washington Avenue was up for sale and with a good bit of team work, it was acquired for the CUNA headquarters. And it was soon outgrown. Then came plans for a new building—a liv- ing memorial to Edward A. Filene. Again flared the battle to take it from Madison. Again Madison rallied to its support. The CUNA board of directors—100 men from over the North American Continent—came for what was hoped to be the final decision. They were shown a dozen sites and agreed that if Madison was to be the city, the old Malt House property on Sherman Avenue was the spot on which to build. Thereupon Madison _ proposed to buy that sight as an outright gift to CUNA—a rather large undertaking as the price was $20,000. Madison responded nobly. Men in all walks of life—including local members of CUNA—Joined forces, The money was raised, the property was pur- chased, and tendered to the international organization. Again, the old battle for re- moval flared up, but eventually it was accepted. Then began the campaign to raise the building fund of $350,000. Fortunately for all concerned, our Joseph R, Rothschild was selected as one of three trustees to manage that building fund. When everything ap- peared set to go, the old fight to move it from Madison blazed cnce more. But fireman Joe put it out—for keeps. Today CUNA has 6,000,000 members in 18,000 credit unions in every State and in every Province of Canada. Forty-six Madison credit unions have <2,305 members and $2,« 000,000 resources. They loan $2,000,000
A3686 annually, and have loaned over $12,000,000 to their members. From its modest start here in 1934 CUNA has grown to such a gigantic force, with a billion dollars of re« sources, and $452,000,000 insurance in force, that the President of the United States and the Premier of Canada came to Madison to dedicate its memorial home, All’s well that ends well, but when Madisonians contem- plate this splendid asset let them realize it represents a tremendous amount of time, thought, energy, and $20,000 devoted to its creation. To that the Madison and Wiscon- sin Foundation contributed 16 years of con- atant work. Government Spending EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GORDON CANFIELD OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 16, 1950 Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Paterson (N. J.) Evening News of May 15, 1950: Hich Tre To Srorp WIsHFUL THINKING AND To View Tue Facts REALISTICALLY Congressman B. W. Kearney says he’s wor- ried over the attitude of the American public as a whole toward present day excessive Gov- ernment spending. He said in Washington, “I can only conclude that most of us, for tolerating such mammoth expenditures, have taken leave of our senses.” Regarding the pills introduced every day for more and more reckless expenditures, Mr, Kearney said, “My way is clear: On each and every unnecessary proposal I shall vote “no.” We're happy to see Pat Kearney among the ranks of those who believe a halt must be called and who are willing to help in halting it, It is nota desire for penny pinch- ing that prompts such demands. All of us realize it takes billions of dollars to run the country. But some of us have thus far been unwilling to face the fact that a nation can- not spend more and more without producing more and more and the trend in recent years has been to spend recklessly without regard for capacity to produce for revenue. In this matter, Congressman Krarney is no doubt well aware that it’s not enough to reel off a lot of enormous figures in effort to impress the voter and taxpayer. The word “‘billions’’ no more impresses the man in the street today than “millions” did 20 years ago. Somehow, the citizen has to be shown in words of one syllable what it will mean to him and his family if the United States spends itself into economic collapse. The people are willing to be led. Civil Service Survivorship Benefits EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT A. TAFT OF OHIO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I ask unani- mous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp an article en. titled “S. 878 Should Be Enacted Into Law,” published in the Postal Record of May 1950. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: S. 878 SrrouLD Br Enactzen INTo Law Retired letter carriers recalling the valiant part that Senator Tarr played in the enact- ment of Public Law 426 will hail the follow- ing statement as a rainbow in the legislative sky. The statement of Senator Tarr follows: “T favor the enactment of S. 878 which provides that survivorship benefits shall be paid to the survivors of retired Civil-service employees, in addition to the cost-of-living increase in their annuities. These employees will thereby receive a somewhat greater amount from the Treasury than that con- templated in the payments made during their service. The change in the value of the dollar, however, and the great increase in the cost of living made the original pen- sion wholly inadequate and unfair. We are raising the payments under the Federal old- age and survivors insurance fund, for the same reason, to millions of citizens over 65. Surely the Government has a special obliga- tion to its own employees. ‘I might point out that the surviving spouse of a retired civil~service employee is one of the few widows in America today who does not receive some sort of an annuity. Social Security provides annuity for all wives of employees covered under the Social Se- curity Act on reaching the age of 65, “In February 1948, the Congress passed Public Law 426, a very fine bill modernizing the civil-service retirement system, and I was proud of the part I played in the enact- ment of that legislation. “That law did recognize the increase in the cost of living but did so by providing that civil-service employees then on the retire- ment rolls could either accept an increase in their annuity of 25 percent, not to exceed $300, or turn down this increase and estahb- lsh survivorship rights for their wives. The average annuity of the civil-service employee then on the rolls was approximately $900. Through stark necessity, 80 percent of these retired employees were compelled to take the increase. “It is my opinion that, when these old people were given the difficult choice of de- ciding whether they should have a little bread-and-butter money, or whether they should gamble on the future and provide an annuity for thelr wives, they were given too hard a choice. “Last year S. 878 was held up on the unani- mous-consent calendar because there was a dispute as to the amount of the cost, and be- cause the retroactive policy under the Social Security Act had not been determined. There is no longer any reason for delay. I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on it in the near future.” , Selling American Farmers Down the River EXTENSION OF REMARKS fe} HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “Selling American Farmers Down the River,” written by my col- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Jeague the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER] and published in the May 1950 issue of the National Republic, of Washington, D. C. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: SELLING AMERICAN FarMERS DOWN THE RIVER (By Witt1am E. Jewnenr, United States Sena- tor from Indiana) In the highly productive American agri- cultural area of which my own State is an important part, there is grave Concern to- day over the general farm outlook. But it is not the farmers alone who are worried. We all have learned through bitter experience that what affects agriculture affects every one of us. Farm income in 1949 dropped alarmingly pelow the high level achieved during 1947 and 1948—the years of the Republican Hightieth Congress—and it is continuing to move lower. This is happening at a time when the income of other sections of the population remains at or above the rate of earlier years. There is no quick or easy solution to the farm problem, but I believe it is becoming abundantly clear that it will not be solved either through the free-trade policies of the Truman administration or such panaceas as the Brannan plan, Speaking at Dexter, Iowa, during the 1948 Presidential campaign, Mr. Truman said: “Today farmers are faced with the threat that markets will fail to keep up with their production. * * *“ But the Democratic Party has a constructive way of preventing such a collapse. We are reaching out to de- velop world markets which will absorb pro- duction above America’s own needs.” Despite this promise, administration trade policies are fast making the United States a dumping ground for foreign agricultural commodities and at the same time we are subsidizing exports of foreign producers in direct competition with American farmers. For example, since ECA began functioning in 1948, this international give~away organi- zation has supplied Great Britain with $529,- 000,000—more than half a billion dollars— fust to buy wheat. American wheat, you might think, American wheat which is cur- rently glutting our markets to a point where domestic producers have been ordered to curtail their acreage sharply this year. It would seem reasonable that this wheat should have come from the United States. It didn’t, however. It came from Canada, where farmers are free to grow as much wheat as their lands will produce. More than half a billion American dollars spent for Canadian wheat in just 2 years. That is one major contribution of the Truman ad- ministration toward the solution of the American farm problem. In Washington, D. C., today, even in the Senate’s own dining room, when I order American fried potatoes, the chances are they’ll be Canadian fried instead. While our own Department of Agriculture is dumping surplus potatoes for livestock feed and in- dustrial alcohol purposes, Canadian spuds are flooding the country. Some 7,000,000 bushels already have moved in and it is expected that a total of 15,000,000 bushels will arrive during the current marketing season. If you want potatoes for livestock feed you can buy the American variety from the Gov- ernment for 1 cent per 100 pounds. If you want potatoes for human consumption, you can buy the Canadian-grown variety in Washington today for about $4 per 100 pounds, . The Henry Wallace followers who still in- fest the Department of Agriculture may be able to explain this successfully to each other—but I am sure the American people will not understand the explanation.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In my own State of Indiana and in the surrounding States farmers produce many millions of bushels of oats, barley, and rye. The prices of all of these commodities are currently well below parity and all are being supported through loans and purchase agree- ments by the Department of Agriculture. Nevertheless, during the 6-month period, July 1, 1849, to December 31, 1949, we 1m- ported from Canada 9,500,000 bushels of oats; 8,000,000 bushels of barley and 17,500,000 bushels of rye. Little wonder then, Amer- ican farm prices are moving lower in spite of the hundreds of millions of dollars which are being spent by the Government in a vain effort to bolster domestic prices. Now, of course, Canada has a surplus of virtually the same grains that we do. But do you know what would happen if we attempted to dump any of our surpluses there? They would halt the importation of even as much as 1 bushel of wheat, oats, rye, barley, or potatoes by the simple ex- pedient of refusing to permit payment for the goods. They would not allow the money to move out of Canada and consequently our grains could not move in. I believe we might learn something from our neighbors to the north. Just a year ago, when legislation to extend ECA operations was pending, I attempted to write into the basic law an amendment which would have prevented such deals as the expenditure of $529,000,000 of American funds for the purchase of Canadian wheat, My proposal would very simply have directed ECA not to authorize the purchase off shore of any commodity which had officially been declared surplus in the United States or which was currently selling below the parity price. It seemed to me this would only in- sure simple justice for American producers and taxpayers. I don’t suppose I need to tell you what happened when that amend- ment came to a vote on the Senate floor. The Fair Dealers beat it down. But I see a ray of light breaking through the clouds. The American people are awak- ening to the dangers we face. I can see the time coming soon when they will realize they cannot entrust the future to those who have betrayed the past and they will take the destiny of this Nation back into their own hands. I am firmly convinced that so far as America and the world are concerned, there is just one basic thing wrong now. Some- body has sent Uncle Sam into exile. He has become a man without a country, and what the American people must do now is to send out a searching party to find him and bring him home, I believe Uncle Sam is coming home from his wanderings sooner than many of us be- lieve, despite the fact that President Truman has promised to campaign again this fall as he did in 1948, making every whistle stop to promise the American farmer a continuance of wartime prosperity prices if he were only elected to the Presidency on his own. This promise has borne bitter fruit and the taste still lingers. Victory will take a lot more fruit-selling on Mr. Truman’s part this year. And I am one of those who believe that the unexpected 1948 result was due not so much to Mr. Truman’s political effectiveness as to Republican overconfidence and lack of politi- cal effectiveness during the campaign. Out.in the grass roots one may sense a rumbling of the people against the continu- ous whirligig of fear, crises, high taxes, and high prices, of hot wars and cold wars in which they have lived for 17 years—a deter- mination on their part to throw off a gov- ernment that pioneers in the manufacture of the atomic bomb and the only government in the world that ever dropped it—and at the same time, works assiduously to keep its own people in the deadliest fear of it. Despite Mr. Truman’s apparent cockiness at this time I believe you are going to see a great awakening on the part of the Amer- ican people come next November. And this, in spite of Mr. Truman’s proposed talks at the whistle stops; despite the promise of the Fair Dealers that we are to see a much bigger man this time, a man grown 1n stat- ure and very likely the Indispensable Man of 1952, a man who understands the Mar- shall plan, the Brannan plan, and the A and H bombs, one who has become acquainted with foreign diplomats. As a closing reminder let me advise the readers of the National Republic, if there could be any doubt in your minds that the Fair Deal program, if completed, would spell bankruptcy and extinction of our form of government, consider the Spence bill under which, by a single stroke of a pen, the Presi- dent would be able to achieve totalitarian powers which it took Hitler years to wrest from the German people, and would permit nationalization of industry and complete control of our economic system. Study this one carefully. Statement by John J. O’Connor, Concern- ing Reorganization Plan No. 21, Relat- ing to United States Maritime Commis- sion EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OWEN BREWSTER OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp the state- ment made by John J. O’Connor, former acting majority leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives and former chairman of the House Rules Committee, dealing with Senate Resolu- tion 265, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 21, relating to the United States Maritime Commission, in which state- ment Mr. O’Connor favors the adoption of the resolution. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, aS follows: My name is John J. O’Connor. I am a lawyer, with offices in the Washington Build. ing, Washington, D. C., and at 29 Broadway, New York City. I represent Isbrandtsen Co., Inc., of New York, the largest independent, nonconfer- ence, nonsubsidized American-flag steam- ship owner and operator. I also appear here, today, on my own account, as a citizen and a lawyer, and because of my interest in such matters, over the past 20 years. We support this resolution to reject Reor- ganization Plan No. 21, but only on these particular two grounds: First, while the United States Maritime Commission, as presently functioning and performing, should be subjected 10 a major operation, to rid it of its festers and malig- nancy, this, in our opinion, is not the way to do it; and Second, this particular Reorganization Plan No. 21 is invalid and inoperative, because it does not comply with the precise provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949. 1. The Maritime Commission deserves re- organization or other drastic treatment, but not this particular prescription. Mr. Ed- ward P. Tastrom, an editorial writer on ship- A3687 ~~ ‘y 4“e New York Journal of Commerce »* . ¢ , “Reorganize the Maritime Com- mission, if necessary, and certain changes could very well be made in the present set- up.” As typifying the atmcsphere surrounding this particular agency of Government, is the belated and amusingly circuralocutory approach toward fixing (and I use that word advisedly) to scuttle this plan, On March 13, and in every minute of every hour since then, everybody connected with shipping, officially or industrially, have been dead set . against this plan, but not until nearly 2 months later, were any of those chiefly con-~ cerned, courageous enough to stand up and be counted, in the open, as being in opposi- tion. Instead double-talk representations have been made to the White House, to offi. cials of the Commission, and to Members of Congress, as to the attitude of the ship-oper- ating companies, for instance, especially the Big Twelve, and their so-called “leaders,” and perennial and interminable lobbyists. For some reason, they have had an agueish cringing against speaking out in town meet- ing, while in every club, alley, back room, and cafe, here and in New York, they have denounced the plan in words which could not be reported in your official records. Mr. Walter Hamshar, one of the couniry’s leading writers on matters maritime, cor- rectly wrote in the New York Herald Tribune of May 3, 1950: “Whether ship operators will actively as- sist in the opposition drive (against the Reorganization Plan No. 21) was uncertain yesterday. Although the majority of this phase of the maritime industry is privately opposed to the Commission’s relegation to being a minor bureau of the Department of Commerce, the National Federation of Amer- ican Shipping, representing a majority of the operators, announced in March it would not oppose the reorganization.” This resolution has one merit, at least-— that it has smoked out some of those inter- ested, into the open glare—and if this dis- tinguished committee did have the time and the patience, it could get to the bottom and discover the timorous but factual attitude of all parts of the possibly affected industry by subpenaing their “leaders” and omnipresent lobbyists and putting them on the spot. I forcibly stress this point because it is so inseparably tied in with the influences which have brought the Maritime Commission to the low estimate in which it is held today by many, including the Chief Executive, the Comptroller General, congressional commit~ tees, and courts. Its deterioration can be debited against the exploiting perversion practiced by the “big shots” of the maritime industry, espe- cially the subsidized lines, generally referred to, especially within the four walls of the Commission, as “the twelve apostles.” TI apologize for the sacrilege—they themselves revel in the impious grouping. These favored few to whom operation sub- sidies have been practically restricted have elbowed out of fair entree to the Commis- sion the other 40 or 50 American-flag op- erators. This “knot, a baker’s dozen,” as Rabelais counted, have mouthed much and long about promoting an American mer- chant marine, while, at the same time, they have accomplished the reverse—the increase in foreign merchant marines—and this partly by their subservient submission to these for- eign lines, which overwhelmingly dominate every one of the 100 or more steamship con~ ferences, or cartels, to which they all belong. One truly anomalous situation is, that one of the favored few, probably the most active operator in opposition to any inde-~ pendent line, is none other than a com- pany now controlled by the Commission, it- self, and headed by a former treasurer of a national political party. Not only has this ownership control put the Government in
A3688 pusiness—shipping—without any authority in law, but the chief contrifution (?) of this political steamship line to the develop- ment of an American merchant marine is to afford world-round cruises, of 3 months or more, on lush ships, at rates of $4,000 and up to the few of our citizens who can afford such extravagances—after taxes—another ex- ample of how the whole maritime structure has collapsed—as the Comptroller General has pointed out—and more than once. The influence which these presently sub- ‘ sidized lines possess, within the agency, con- firms a statement made some years ago by the distinguished former Senator, Burton K. Wheeler, who said, in effect: “It seems to almost invariably happen, that when Congress attempts to regulate some group, the intended regulatees wind up doing the regulating.” Let it be understood at the outset, how- ever, that any remarks herein of a critical nature are not directed personally against any one of the present five Commissioners. The sty was, as is, when they took over. The present Chairman and some of the other Commissioners have attempted to accom- plish some disinfecting. Their heritage ac- quired its tarnish, however, back over 15 years, as I personally know. In the thirties, even before the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, meetings were held before the Rules Committee of the House of Representatives, of which I was then chairman, at which Officials of the then Shipping Board, the predecessor of the present Commission, and later, after 1986, the Commission officials, were questioned as to certain practices and proceedings of their agency and of them- selves. As I recall, those meetings were held in executive session, because of the nature of the matters under inquiry. COMING OR GOING Over the years one has not been required to have a very extended contact with the Commission and its offices to become aware that much of its personnel has either come from the big operators whose affairs are sub- ject to the Commission's regulation or are going to those shipping companies when they quit or retire from the Commission, all as per prearrangement, for favors deliv- ered. Subsequent happenings have often corroborated the latter end of this route. Again, the Commissioners cannot be includ- ed, at least as to the beginning of these journeys, because they have been practically Ineligible for appointment if they came from the industry, As matters have worked out, however, in some instances, the prac- tical benefits of this disqualification have, at times, been at least dubious. LIKE UPROOTING A TREE To dig out this Maritime Commission, however, and replant it—bodily, personnel, and what not—except that two of its five principal roots are sawed off—is like trans- planting a badly tainted tree, merely to some new location, without even spraying it, or pruning it. It will still be the same old eye- sore. The jungle of the Commerce Depart- ment will be penetrable to all who needs approach the new Maritime Board of three, merely reduced from five. They will not eyen leave the building they’re now in—or even the corridors, now cluttered with the bowing and scraping contact men of the chosen. No improvement, over the present objec- tionable situation will result, since the new maritime board, of three members will have sole jurisdiction, and final say, concerning the most important, fundamental questions involved, the granting of subsidies and the regulation of conferences and their practices, As the plan clearly states, and as the Secre~ tary of Commerce has so interpreted it, in his recent letter to Senator Macnuson, he, the secretary, will have no voice, or even influ- ence, in the determination of these vital questions. The Big Twelve can remain in the saddle with only three targets to shoot at, instead of five. There is also a serious question, whether the world-flung Department of Commerce is not already top heavy enough, without ab- sorbing new responsibilities and supervision, as it would clearly, over the acts of the new maritime administrator. The recommendations of the Hoover Com- mission (No. 2, Rept. No. 10 on Department of .Commerce) have some features preferable to this plan No. 21. As pointed out, in the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD of March 21, 1950 (p. 8702), by this committee’s distinguished chairman, who was a prominent member of the “Hoover Commission,” that extraordi- narily capable group “did not recommend es~ tablishment of a maritime board within the Department of Commerce.” That Commission’s recommendations were most important in providing for a real sep- aration of the ordinary administrative fea- tures from the quasi-judicial functions of the Agency. A transportation Department, newly creat~- ed, within the Cabinet, as often suggested, might well afford a more appropriate de- partment of Government, in which to set up some maritime agency, or bureau, in suc- cession to the present Maritime Commission. In surveying all possible solutions, of course, one always comes back to the first ob- vious vehicle, an independent agency of Con- gress, separate from the executive depart- ment, such as the present Commission, after of course, it is thoroughly overhauled and regenerated. Until there is some such approach to the vexing problem, however, this particular plan No. 21, should not be permitted to be- come effective, and Senate Resolution 265 should be reported favorably by this com- mittee and adopted by the Senate. The second reason we advance for the re- jection of the plan is:— 2. Reorganization Plan No. 21, of 1950, is invalid and inoperative, because it does not comply with the provisions of the Reorgan- ization Act of 1949. That act, in the parts material to this point, provides, in section 2 (a), “The President * * * shall determine what changes * * * are necessary to the following purposes” (six in number), and in section 3, “Reorganization plans: Whenever the President * * * finds that” (any one of six purposes) “is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes of section 2 (a), he shall prepare a reorganization plan for making of the reorganizations as to which he has made findings and which he includes in the plan, and transmit such plan * * * together with a declaration that, with respect to each reorganization included in the plan, he has found that such reorganization is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes of section 2 (a) * * *, The President, in his message transmitting a re- organization plan, shall specify * * * the reduction of expenditures (itemized as far as practicable) which it is probable will be brought about.” The “Message from the President * * * transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 21”, states: “To the Congress: “I transmit herewith.” On page 56, in the second paragraph, it is stated, in said message: “After careful investigation I have found and I hereby declare that each of the reor- ganizations contained in this reorganization plan is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 2 (a).” In the last paragraph on page 8, of the message, it is stated: “While it is impossible to estimate in ad- vance the savings which will be brought APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD about by this plan, the improvement in ad. ministrative efficiency resulting from it should produce substantial reductions in ex- penditures for the programs transferred by the plan.” The plan is invalid for the following reasons: While the President finds the necessities, his findings are set forth in his message (not in the plan), which message may, possibly meet the requirement of a declaration, to be sent to Congress, together with the plan, but the President has failed, entirely, to com- ply with the strict requirement of the act, that the findings, which he has made, be included in the plan—and which he includes in the plan, being the language of the act, The plan is completely devoid of any find- ings whatsoever. It merely prescribes the operation of the reorganization—with no reasons given. This is a fatal defect, that is not curable by this committee, or by Congress, except by legislation, and questions might well be raised in court, against action taken under the re- organization. Many proceedings are pending before the present Commission. It should also be noticed that the Presi- dent has not followed, at least, the spirit of the act, in that he has not complied, in his declaration (his message) with the require- ment with respect to each reorganization— he has found that such reorganization 1s necessary to accomplish one or more of the six purposes of section 2 (a). In his message (p. 5) the President merely states the language of the act: “T have found that each of the reorganiza- tions contained in this reorganization plan is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section2(a) * ™ *.” Which one? If more than one, how many, and which? Or all six? Nor is it any justification that practically identical, blanket language, quoted from the act, is used in all 21 reorganization plans, submitted to Congress on March 13, 1950. Surely Congress is entitled to expect some specification rather than this sextet gener- ality. Like criticism can be directed against the President’s failure to comply with the direc- tive of the act (sec. 3) that he “shall spec- ify * bal the reduction of expendi- tures (itemized as far as practicable) which it is probable will be brought about.” Instead of “specifying,” and with no “item~ ization,” whatsoever, the President assumes, under advice, of course, to comply with this precise requirement, to “specify,” by stat- ing in his “message,” as in connection with all the 21 plans— “While it is impossible to estimate in ad- vance the savings which will be brought about by this plan, the improvements in administrative efficiency resulting from it should produce substantial reductions in ex- penditures.” Congress should not be satisfied with this generality, as constituting even a partial compliance with the extraordinary, drastic privilege, lodged in the Executive, to reor- ganize the branches of Government, which have been duly set up by legislation enacted by Congress, itself. We respectfully submit that this criti- cism of the President’s method of reference to the “purposes” of the plan, or the “re- ductions in expenditures” to result, 1s not hypercritical quibbling. One recalls Dis- raeli said, “It is much easier to be critical than to be correct,” but at least Congress, itself, is entitled to approximate correct- ness, in such consequential matters, and Congress should not countenance any eva- sion of that reasonable requirement. In any event, however and beyond ques- tion, the complete failure of the President to include “findings” in the “plan,” is irre- mediably fatal, and in itself should compel
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this committee, and Congress, to reject this Reorganization Plan No. 21, It 1s not asking too much, even of the Chief Executive, that he exercise his pre- rogatives, 1n accordance with the law which Congress has enacted, and which he, him- self, has approved. The President Reports to the People EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. MIKE MANSFIELD OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 16, 1950 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave granted to extend my remarks in the REcorpD, I include the following ad- dresses made by the President at Great Falls, Big Sandy, Havre, Fort Peck Dam, and Glasgow, all in the State of Mon- tana: REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT GREAT Fats, Monrtm., May 12, 1950 Thank you, Congressman MaNnsFrreLtp. It is a@ very great pleasure to have had the op- portunity to ride across the great State of Montana with your Governor and with Con- gressman Mansrizyup. The Congressman is one who really knows what it’s all about, and who works at it. I like him very much. I appreciate this welcome very much in this largest city in Montana. It seems to me that this great city knows how to do things. I have had a most successful and satisfactory trip across the country during the past week, and nowI amon my way back to Washington, On this trip I have been giving a first-hand report to the people of the great Northwest and the Middle West about the problems this country is now facing, and what we are do- ing about them, and what we need to do in the future. Here in Great Falls you are fortunate in having a fine newspaper, the Great Falls Tribune. I wish there were more Great Falls Tribunes around the country so the people could get the truth. In the past few days I have been describing the great work we have been doing in con-~ servation, irrigation, reclamation, electric power, and flood control. We have been building some magnificent structures like the Grand Coulee Dam, the Hungry Horse Dam, and Canyon Ferry Dam here in Montana. But these are only the beginning of the co- ordinated development of all of our national resources. We need to speed up the develop- ment of our resources, if we are to keep our economy prosperous and expanding. Down in Butte this morning, I explained what kind of labor-management laws we need on the books, and I explained why it is necessary to extend our social security sys- tem, and to expand and increase our systems of old-age insurance and unemployment compensation. We have done some fine work in the hous- ing field since the war, but we are still far short of our goal of having a decent home for every family in the country. Here in Great Falls, a city that has grown so rapidly in the last few years, you can certainly appreciate how badly we need a long-range, low-income, and middle-income housing program. In Lincoln, Nebr., the other day, and at a number of other towns since then, I have explained the kind of farm legislation we need to put on the books. Our present price support laws have kept farmers’ incomes from dropping as badly as they did after the First World War. But they are not good enough. In the last 2 years, farm income has dropped substantially. One of the main improvements we need to make in our present laws is to provide for a system of production payments. This would help us make sure that the incomes of farmers would stay at prosperity levels, that we would get greater amounts of the Einds of foods we need, and we would avoid huge surpluses. You know, to read som? 277-"7"7*r ~you would think that no one -*.". “9 sys- tem of production payments to farmers that I just described. But the fact is, more and more people all over the country are realiz- ing that production payments are exactly what we need, For example, after my Lincoln speech the other day, I got a telegram from the master of the Ohio State Grange, and he told me that he was very much in favor of the sys- tem. I have the telegram right here, if any- body has any doubts about it. Also, at the Minnesota State Fair last fall, they held a—what you might call a poll, but this was an actual poll, the people were there, and they voted themselves; and it came out nearly 2 to 1 for production payments, but they didn’t say anything about it in the papers that were against it. The American people support the pro- grams I have been discussing, when they learn the true facts about them. When the people understand these measures, they re- alize that they are vitally important to the future growth of this great country. It is Just as important to see that people in other countries learn the facts about the United States, and what we are doing for world peace. We face a great problem these days: the menace of Communist aggression. The Communists want to take over all the world, and they are trying to win converts to their side by telling preposterous lies about the United States. Out of one side of their mouths they say We are weak and that we are going to col- lapse. Out of the other side they say we are strong and we are getting ready to wage an imperialistic war. These lies are dangerous because there are millions of people in the world who don’t have accurate sources of information, and who simply don’t know the truth about the United States. And there are a lot of people right here in the United States that don’t know the truth about their own country, and I am trying to teach them. That is why I have been urging a great campaign of truth. I would like to see our newspapers, our magazines, our radios, and our motion-picture companies join with the Government in spreading the truth to Eu- rope, Asia, and Africa about what we are really like in this country. I think that when the people know the truth about the United States they will turn to our side, not the side of communism. The Communists are an organization which do not believe in morals or ethics or truth. They work with lies, and they try to mislead peo- ple, and when they get control they are just a plain police state. You can’t go anywhere or do anything or talk to anybody without permission from those up above. That is not the kind of country we fought for and worked for since 1776. I think we have got the greatest govern- ment in the history of the world, and I am trying to support that Government with everything I have. I have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that is what I am doing as Presi- dent of the United States. I am out here telling you the facts as I see them. That is my job. Every year I make a report to the Congress called the message on the state of the Union. I have made a trip around the country this time, giving the message on the state of the Union to the A3689 psople themselves, so they will understand what I am trying to do, and I believe they do understand it. Thank you again for this wonderful recep- tion. I appreciate it more thanW can tell you. REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT BiG SANDY, Mont, May 12, 1950 You know, I have been reading a lot of stories about Big Sandy, Mont., and most of them were most interesting. I have always wanted to see this location in the United States that was once one of the most famous cow towns in the country. I also heard from the brakeman on this train that this town during the war bought more bonds per capita than any other town in the United States, and I congratulate you on that, too. Everywhere I have stopped on this cross- country trip of mine, large crowds have come out to see me. I appreciate that very, very much. I think it means that the people are in- terested 1n their Government, and that they want to learn what the facts are about, what our Government is doing, and what I am trying to do, and what I am fighting for. One of the subjects in which I am vitally interested, and which concerns you people here in the West very directly, is reclamation and irrigation. Here at Big Sandy, you people are in the area which will feel the direct benefits from our construction of Tiber Dam, west of here on the Marias River. We have got a river of that same name in Missouri, also—named by the same Frenchman, by the way, too. I understand that actual construction of Tiber Dam will begin this summer. Great reclamation developments like this all over the country seem to cost a lot of money, but they bring back big returns. They are in- vestments, not expenditures. Tiber Dam will mean better incomes for the farmers now here, and opportunities for new farmers to come. It will help you build a bigger and more prosperous community. By carrying out the projects like Tiber Dam, we are building a stronger and more prosperous country. We are laying the foun- dations for lasting farm prosperity. I am very much interested in seeing farmers well off. I grew up on a farm myself, and I know how hard a farmer’s life can be. But a farm- er’s life these days is nothing like the life I had tospend. I have got a couple of nephews running the old farm together, and they do most of their farming sitting down. I used to stand up and walk to do mine. We have been doing a lot in recent years to make farm life easier and happier. Bring- ing electricity to farmers has made them much more productive, and it has certainly made life on the farm much more pleasant. Fifteen years ago, when the REA started, only 10 percent of the farm houses had elec= tricity. Now 80 percent of farm homes have electricity. Congress is authorizing a program—a Fed- eral program—to extend rural telephone facilities. I am very pleased to see ‘hat, be- cause I know how much telephone service means to people who are isolated, especially in areas where there are JOng and severe winters. Government money spent to help improve rural life is one of the best investments we can make in the future of the United States. Better farmers mean a stronger Nation, and a strong United States is the best hope of a lasting peace in this world. What I want to seu is a balanced economy in this great United States of ours. I want the farmer to have a fair share of the national income of this country. I want to see labor receive good wages so that they can buy farm products, and I want to see business, both big and little, prosper and able to carry on
A3690 the necessary distribution of the things that we need. That is what makes @ great country—a country in which all the people can share alike in its“wealth. If we do that, then we are in a position before the world to say that our system of government is the best in the world—is the best in the history of the world. If we can do that, eventually we will get a world peace without the necessity of having our young men slaughtered as they have been in the past. Thank you very much for coming out here tonight, I appreciate it. It has been a pleasure, REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT Havre, MONT., May 12, 1950 Thank you very much, Governor, for that cordial introduction; I appreciate it most highly. It is a pleasure to have the Gover- nor and Congressman MANSFIELD on. the train today in the trip across Montana. I had thought at nearly every stop that all the people of Montana were there, but appar~ ently they weren’t, because most of them are here tonight. Of course I am more than happy tod be here this evening, and to see so many musi-< clans in the audience. I understand that you are going to have a musical festival to- morrow. My only regret is that I can’t stay over, Maybe you have heard that I like music, too, The fact is that my whole family is musically minded. As I have traveled across the country in the past few days, I have been deeply im-~ pressed with the new opportunities that are opening up for the young people of this country. Many of you can’t remember the days in the early 1930’s, when young men and women were roaming the streets, looking hopelessly for jobs which never turned up. ‘Those were days of despair, when the future looked black for everybody. I hope you never have to go through a period like that, and I don’t believe you ever will, We know now more about how to keep our country prosperous than we did in those days. The young people who are growing up in this country now have many advantages that their parents did-not have. All of us want our children to have a better life than we had, and it should be the constant aim of each generation to make things better for the next. It has always been a part of the American dream, and I think we have been successful in accomplishing it to a most re- markable degree. However, I am very much afraid that we are in danger of losing ground in one field which is of greatest Importance, and the one where we have taken great pride in our past accomplishments, That is the fleld of edu~ cation. You know, there is no person has more Influence on the life and outlook of the young—besides his mother—than his teach-~ er, His teacher usually has a lasting influ- ence on how he conducts his life after he is grown, - Ican remember my first-grade teacher, and my second-grade teacher, and my high~school teachers, and the ideals they tried to instill into me I still remember and try to live up to, Our schools are already in difficulty in many parts of the country, and the greatly increased number of young children who will be reaching school age during the next few years will place such a load upon them as to bring on a real crisis. At the present time our schools are burst- ing at the seams. Buildings are at times too old, oy too crowded, and we do not have enough teachers, and those we have are over- worked and underpaid. Educational oppor~ tunities in rural areas do not measure up to those in the cities. We urgently need to construct more schools, and to provide the transportation necessary to bring the children to the schools. We also need to expand our vocational edu- cation program. Last year only one-half the high schools in the country were able to provide a vocational education program for their students. The plain truth is that the cost of pro- viding adequate school systems has long been beyond the financial resources of many of our States. I have proposed to meet this crisis through @ program of Federal financial aid to the States and Territories. The Senate has already passed such a bill, and I hope that the House will press forward to enact a law to aid education at this ses- sion. Some timid people have raised the false pugaboo of Federal control over education. I do not believe in Federal control, and I do not want Federal control in the schools. I am, wholeheartedly in favor of continuing State control over education. The right way to meet this crisis is for the Federal Government to provide financial assistance to the States, and let the indi- vidual States decide how the money shall be spent. This country has always been a land of opportunity, and I intend to do my part to keep it that way. The American people are deeply devoted to the ideal of universal free education. We must make sure that each boy and girl does get a good education. Money spent for education is a valuable finvestment in the future of this country. We should move forward and secure a bright~ er future for the generations in the com- ing years that will guide the Nation. There is nothing that could be more important to ‘our country’s welfare. You know, the next generation will either face the greatest age in history, or it won’t. And it is up to that generation itself to de~ cide on the course it will pursue. I think we are on the threshold of an age that will make the past 50 years look like the Middle Ages. I want to see this country go forward to the ideal condition which I know it is capable of. And I know that you young people can take us to that goal, if you go ahead with the proper education, if you learn to be the right sort of citizens of the greatest Republic in the history of the world. There is nothing in the world to keep us from doing all the great things that are now before us—to work for peace in the world, and eventually we will get that peace, be- cause it is right, and we are on the right side in trying to get it. Thank you very much. (A little later:) I forgot to mention the fact that Senator Murray’s wife is exceed- ingly ill. He hasn’t been able to be out here today because she has undergone a very se~ rious operation. And I have had two tele- grams from him stating that he would have been here had it not been for the illness of Mrs. Murray. I am certainly sorry about it. (As the train pulled out, 9:25 p. m.:) Thank you all again. I appreciate those bands and the drum corps very much, I want to thank the Chief for that bonnet and that peace pipe. I hope we can always smoke the peace pipe with the rest of the world. REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT aT Fort Peck Dam, Mont., May 13, 1950 Governor Bonner, General Pick, ladies and gentlemen: I have known General Pick for a long, long time. I knew him when he was engineer in charge down at Omaha. I knew him when he went to Burma and built the Lido road, and I had the privilege of making APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD him chief of engineers when he came back, I think he is one of the ablest men in public service. We have paid a visit to the greatest con- crete structure in the world—the greatest concrete dam that ever has been buult, over in the State of Washington. I made up my mind that I was going to come by and see the greatest earth construc- tion 1n the flood control business that has ever been constructed in the world. I was in the Senate when this proposition was first considered, and there have been just as many misstatements and garbled stories about Fort Peck Dam as there have been about any of the other constructions for the welfare and benefit of the people of this part of the country. I made up my mind I would come by and see just exactly what it looked like so I could understand the statements that are some- times made about it, and that is why I am here. I should like to congratulate the Corps of Engineers and all the people who worked on this project on what has been accomplished here. Projects like Fort Peck have contri- puted to the welfare of the entire Nation. Fort Peck itself has helped prevent floods, has helped nevigation downstream, and is producing greal quantities of electricity. We don’t have enough Fort Pecks, however, to give us the protection that we need. We still have serious floods in many sections of the country. I am deeply concerned with the reports I have received about the floods in North Da- kota and Minnesota, and about the recent floods in southeastern Nebraska. We need @ great many more flood control projects before we can be safe from catastrophes like these. In the 13 years since Fort Peck Dam was first put into operation, the benefits from its flood control features alone have been estimated at $50,000,000. I am told that this figure is the damage which the Missouri River Valley would have suffered from the floods if this project had not been built. Flood heights have been reduced as much as three feet downstream at Omaha, Fort Peck has also helped navigation. Dur. ing the war years, for example, the Fort Peck Reservoir supplied enough water to float landing craft, built at inland shipyards down the Mississippi. Two years ago, when there was record low water on the Mississippi River, Fort Peck Dam. made it possible to continue navigation on the river. Otherwise, river navigation might have been seriously hampered for sev eral months. Fort Peck is supplying power in North Da- kota, Montana, and South Dakota. All told when tied in with the other main stem proj- ects now under “construction, I understand that we can get 185,000 kilowatts from Fort Peck. In addition, the reservoir behind the dam is becoming a great recreational center for this whole region. I am told that 90,000 people visited here last year, and camps for Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and other groups are being built, This is an example of how we get many different kinds of benefits from sensible plan- ning and development of our natural re- sources. This shows that the funds we spend on fiood-control, reclamation, irrigation, and public-power facilities are not expenses. They are investments in a bigger and better country. People who criticise the Federal budget often overlook these facts. When a manufacturing corporation bulas a new factory, that is not just an expense, it is a capital expansion. The company may have to float a bond issue and go temporarily into debt. The board of directors of the com- pany are willing to go into debt, because they
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD know that they will more than get their money back as the company grows and pro- duces more products. Projects like Fort Peck arc investments in the future of our country, just as a new factory is an investment in the future of a corporation. You should keep that fact in mind when you examine the Federal budget We need more projects like Fort Peck. I just want to say a word to you about this great Valley in which we landed yesterday— I guess it was about the time we left Butte and came over the I ivide—we came into the drainage area that is known as the Missouri Valley. The Missouri Valley is a tremendously rich valley, and in connection with the upper Mississippi Valley, north of Cairo, and the Ohio Valley from Pittsburgh down, it is the greatest bread basket in the world. It has dificulties to face in the form of flood con- trol, communication, and transportation. I have been exceedingly interested in the proper development of all these great river valleys. I was in the Columbia Valley the other day, and made some suggestions about proper procedure for developing that valley. I have made some suggestions about the Central Valley of California. I have made some suggestions about the Connecticut Val- Jey in New England, and I have made some suggestions about some of the southeastern rivers, and the Arkansas and Red Rivers in Texas and Oklahoma and Arkansas. This Missouri Valley development is a three-way proposition. It is radically dif- ferent from a great many of the other rivers in the country, for the reason that it has navigation to consider, it has flood control to consider, and the other power facilities, such as are at this dam. The flood-control dam, can also be used as a power facility, as you can see. The difficulty with the Missouri River is from Sioux City to St. Louis. It is a mud river—carries more silt than any other river in the world. Even the Yangtze doesn’t carry any more silt than the Missouri. Mark Twain once said that in a wet season you could pour the water of the Missouri from one vessel to the other, if you pushed it and stirred it around enough. I have seen dust storms rise up right out of the water of the Missouri River. You can't understand that, but the reason is there is a sand bar out in the middle of the river, and when the wind blows, it comes right up out of the middle of the river. What I want to do is create a situation for the development of the Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri Valleys on the basis of the great Tennessee, and what I have suggested for the Columbia, but it has to be done in a different way, for we have a different project and proposition to look at. Flocd control is of vital importance to the Missouri River, from Sioux City to St. Louis. Now, in 3 years in that valley, due to floods, some $500,000,000 worth of crops were de- stroyed. Five hundred million dollars prop- erly spent would prevent that flood situa- tion in the whole Ohio, Mississippi, and Mis- souri Valleys, and twice that much would accomplish the purpose which we have in view. And there have been in the last 10 years enough crop losses to have paid for the development of all three of those valleys. I think I understand the situation, to some extent, for I spent most of my life on the Missouri down in Kansas City. Inde- pendence, rather—Kansas City is a suburb of Independence. I know something about how it happened, and I know something about what ought to be done to cure it. Now, there is a reclamation proposition in the thing. There is a flood-control propo- sition in the thing, and there is a navi- gation proposition in the whole set-up. And Reclamation, and the engineers, and all the other departments of the Government in- terested in this sort of development ought to cooperate to get it done. And if I can succeed in getting all those agencies to co- operate, and then get about 15 or 20 gov- ernors of the States in the frame of mind to look after their interests, I think some- time or other we will get this job done as 1t ought to be done. This is the first step out here. This is only the first step. Now let’s go ahead and finish the job, because it means the proper development of the great Mississippi Val- ley, and if the great Mississippi Valley dcesn’t wake up and do its proper develop-~ ment, ail these great developmenis in the other parts of the country are going to take the population, they are going to take all the industries, they are going to take every- thing we have. And if we do the valleys of the \f'°~<j-~*+7', Ohio, and Missouri on the basis an on should be, we can look forward to the abil- ity to support the immense ‘-*y77-**7"6 which we will have in the year 2f0 i'.c, . That is what this generation should be look- ing after, and that is the idea I am trying to put over on this trip around the country. I want to thank you very much, REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT AT GLASGOW, Mont., May 13, 1950 We have a very short time to spend here; £ am sorry, but I do appreciate this won- derful welcome we have had here. I also appreciate most highly the privi- lege of having seen Fort Peck Dam, with the man who is in charge of 1t, the Chief of Engineers. I have a recollection of this town of Glas- gow, along about 1906 or 1907. I came up and registered for a claim on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. I didn’t get the claim— my number was about 59,000—but I enjoyed the trip, anyway. I am glad to be back once more. I appreciate again very much the cor- diality of your reception here. tae A. F. of L. Union Industries Show EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. IRVING M. IVES OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. IVES. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp the text of a brief article entitled “Big Fair Here Is Tribute to United States System,” writ- ten by Sylvia Porter, and published in the Philadelphia Inquirer of Wednes- day, April 12, 1950. it concerns the mammoth A. F. of L. union industries show which was recently held in Phila- delphia, Pa. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: Bic Farr Here Is Trrsure To UNniren Srares SYSTEM (By Sylvia Porter) Early next month the greatest display in American history of what United States man- agement-labor cooperation can produce in goods and services will open in Philadelphia— in the form of the mammoth A. F. of L. Union Industries Show. Over the week end I learned the details of the show, the tremendous business-union preparations that are going into it. A3691 After hearing the story it seems to me this event is more newsworthy and holds more significance for our future than a dogen- and-one strike headlines. For this unique show, staged voluntarily by hundreds of leading corporations in asso- ciation with over 100 unions, is a dramatic illustration to us and the world of what free cooperation between management and unions is achieving. More, it is a challenge to all segments of our economy to think in the exhilarating terms of what can be achieved. As President Truman put it to the A. F. of L.’s Matthew Woll, “1t’1l be one of the finest demonstrations of the value of teamwork be- tween management and labor, a good object lesson in democracy and tangible evidence of the economic progress that 1s fostered in our free-enterprise system. This unique industrial carnival, high- lighting the value of the union label as an emblem of decent working standards and in- dustry-labor harmony, is propaganda for the American system that will dwarf truck- loads of high-sounding speeches and pam-~ phiets. And as Woll put it, “our continued pros- perity is based on the increased production of American workers plus their ability, through high-wage purchasing power, to buy what they produce.” - Almost always, the emphasis these days is placed on management-labor conflict, its causes, pro and con. And this is understandable, of course. There’s plenty of conflict and a good fight usually makes a better headline than a con~ tinuingly cordial friendship. But at least now and then, a reminder of how much management-labor cooperation does exist and what that cooperation is pro- ducing is imperative for our own perspective. The fair will smash all records in every direction. It’ll take over Philadelphia’s huge Convention Hall and 1ts Commercial Museum, too, will run for 8 days from May 6 through May 13. Glass blowers are set to blow fine glass objects. Expert meat cutters are preparing to turn prize steers into scientific cuts. New gas and electric ranges are to be put together on an assembly line. A complete sanitary laundry is to be in operation. And garment workers will show ladies’ styles, bakers will bake cakes, the Allied Printing Trades will produce a tabloid news- paper, cigar makers will manufacture cigars, potters will cast china, bricklayer apprentices will compete in a bricklaying contest, the Armed Forces will show union-made weapons, etc. There'll be more thah 700 exhibits stretch- ing over a mile and a half of booths. Quite a@ spectacle indeed. But this is Just the superficial aspect of the show. The fundamental story lies in the fact that the fair is designed solely to illus- trate what management-labor harmony can produce. The provocative angle lies in the fact that it is an entirely voluntary effort. In no other country has anything like this ever been altempted. Fairs usually are put on to sell specific products or specific services or entertainment—not to pay tribute to an economic system and to the essential compo- nents of that system. In no other country actually could any- thing similar to this be staged. America’s industrial know-how, labor skills, and living standards have no parallels. In enlightened, voluntary cooperation be- tween management and labor hes the key to America’s industrial strength. In this strength lies the key to world sta- bility and peace. With a strong, prosperous economy, we still have a real chance for global peace. Without it, America is sunk—and the world is sunk with us.
A3692 Perhaps I am whistling in the dark as I seize upon this coming event as an instance of growing enlightenment on both sides. But I’m inclined to think it’s more than a frightened whistle. It’s a song of hope. The President’s Western Tour EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REcorD a radio - address delivered by me from Chicago on May 13, 1950, dealing with the Pres- ident’s western tour. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: We have been hearfng Mr. Truman brag and tell about himself and his type of gov- ernment on his present political trip. Now, it is up to you and me to ask our- selves: Can we afford Truman socialism? In order to answer that question you will have to have more facts than Mr. Truman jas seen fit to give to the American people in his nonpolitical talks. You must know, first of all, what his Bran- nan farm program is going to cost you. The farmer already knows that it will cost him a good share of his liberty and freedom. In fact, it will cost him all of his freedom if he violates any one of the scads of regu- Jations to be set down by a bureaucrat who will run the farms of the country. How much will it cost the taxpayer? Mr. Truman can’t tell you. Mr. Brannan can’t tell you. They like to have you believe that every~ body is going to get something for nothing. Let me give you some idea of how con- sistent and trustworthy Mr, Truman has been in the past about the farm program. From this record, perhaps, you can better evaluate his promises on many things. In his Lincoln, Nebr., farm talk last Mon~ day he criticized the present farm program which was passed by his own Highty-first Democrat Congress. . Well, we can have a little laugh over that criticism. You see, back on May 14, 1948, Mr. Truman wrote a letter to the Republican Eightieth Congress in which he sald: “Many shifts in production will have to be made and flexible price supports will help us make them in orderly fashion.” The EHightieth Congress went ahead to adopt the Hope-Aiken farm. bill, a long-range measure based on flexible price supports. In the fall of 1948 Mr, Truman campaigned in the farm States on a platform calling for rigid price supports and said a Demo-~ crat Congress would repeal the Hope-Aiken Act before it ever became effective. What happened, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer? You remember that Mr. Truman turned right around and told his Democrat Eighty- first Congress he was for flexible price sup~ ports. Iam not just telling you this. record, He said it in his budget message to his own Democrat Congress. We know, of course, the Hope-Aiken Act was repealed and the Democratic Congress enacted ils own farm pr¢egram. ‘ It is in the Now, Mr. Truman ts for neither flexible nor rigid farm price supports. He is for the socialistic Brannan plan. Why has he been so consistently incon- sistent about a farm program? Mr. and Mrs. Farmer, can you afford to believe anything Mr. Truman says about a farm program? Can you afford socialized farming? Why is your Government spending mil- lions to flagrantly lobby for socialized farm~ ing under the Brannan plan? Why is your Government spending mil- lions to flagrantly lobby for socialized medicine? You know about the great paid meeting in St. Paul, Minn., where Mr. Brannan and Senator Humprrey, who likes British social- ism and says so, spoke so eloquently about the Brannan farm program, You know, too, that many of the more than 2,700 publicity and public relations workers on the Federal payroll are daily spreading propaganda in support of these two particular socialistic programs. Mr. and Mrs. America, can you afford to let these changes be made in the American system? President Truman has also been talking on his nonpolitical tour about the great prosperity under his administration. He hasn’t mentioned, of course, that de- spite this great prosperity your Govern- ment’s financial situation is the worst in history. And he didn’t mention, either, that he has no plans for improving that financial situa~- tion in the near fuiure. Let’s look behind his nonpolitical words and get the truth about this prosperity we are having. We'll take our information from Mr. Tru- man’s own Labor Department reports. Back in 1989 when we still had 9,000,000 unemployed after 8 years of Democrat de- pression, the average gross weekly earnings of production workers in the United States was $23.86. On the basis of 1939 dollar buying power that left a worker with three children a weekly spendable total of $23.62. Now, 11 years later we find that the aver- age gross weekly earnings for production workers is $56.33, more than double what it was in 1939. But, the Labor Department reports show that the index of spendable earnings has jumped from 100 in 1939 to 236.1 in January of 1950. So, that leaves the spendable earnings today of a production worker with three children at $32.60. His weekly earnings increased $32.47 in those 11 years, but his spending power in- creased only $8.98. The buying power since 1939 has only in- creased $3 for school teachers; a little more than $1 for retail workers; $3.50 for automo- bile workers; less than $1 for railroad work-~ ers; less than 94 for steelworkers. These figures were arrived at after Federal taxes were deducted. After all, the production worker has been helping to pay for a very expensive Govern- ment. . He has helped to pay for a Truman spend- ing program that cost more than $191,000,- 000,000 in 5 years. That is $12,000,000,000 more than was spent by 32 Presidents in 156 years up to 1940. Mr. and Mrs. Production Worker, can you afford that type of Truman Government? On this nonpolitical tour Mr. Truman has given no indication whatever that he would practice economy in government so that some of that real wage increase for the workers could be turned into spendable in~ come. On the contrary, he has criticized the Republican Hightieth Congress for giving the productionrworker some tax relief, . APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD He has also contended that the failure to collect enough money from the reve Iv taxes has been the reason for an i: budget and deficit spending. The Eightieth Congress palanced the budget in addition to cutting taxes. In fact, it created a surplus. Why can’t the Eighty-first Congress do as well? Speaking of Mr. Truman’s criticism of the Republican tax reduction and blaming that reduction for creating the latest deficit brings to mind an interesting action which Mr. Truman does not like to mention for a couple of good reasons. The incident was the 5-percent tax re- auction voted by the Democrat Congress in 1945. The next year the country had a deficit of more than $20,500,000,000. First reason Mr. Truman neglects to men- tion it is because the administration was guilty of using the tax reduction for political purposes and gave no consideration to the financial status of the country. Second reason he neglects to mention it is because the reduction was a flat 5 percent which gave the big-income groups the greater penefits. He was President at the time, of course. Now let’s take another look at the record and see just what has caused the deficit which may run as high as §5,000,000,000 this fiscal year which ends next June 30. In the first year of the Republican Eigh- tieth Congress expenditures were held to $39,000,000,000 and the income totaled forty billion, which left a surplus of nearly one billion. The second year of Republican control, 1948, the expenditures were cut to less than $3'7,000,000,000 and the income rose to over forty-two billion, leaving a surplus of more than $5,000,000,000. The 1949 fiscal budget, the last over which the Republican Congress had any control, was held to $37,000,000,000 and even with the tax reduction limiting income to $38,000,- 000,000, the country was solvent for the year witr more than one billion surplus. But in the 1950 budget Mr. Truman’s Democrat Congress expanded the spending program to more than $43,000,000,000 and the income remained xt tr'rtv-c'sn* hitilicn, a counting for the wr ietpaced 35,060,000,000 deficit. There, Mr. and Mrs. America, you have the actual figures and you have the actual cause for the deficit under Mr. Truman and his Democrat Congress. I ask you: Can you afford to permit this type of spending and financing to continue? Can you afford to go along with the Tru- man program? In his nonpolitical talks, Mr. Truman was extravagant in his use of the word “isola~ tionist” in castigating those who do not agree with his international policies. It is quite interesting to note the change that comes over a man when he assumes domineering power. . I recall a very significant speech Mr. Tru- man made as a United States Senator in 1942. His specch was in defense of Senator Bur- ton K. Wheeler, who had not seen eye-to- eye with President Roosevelt's foreign policy in the 2 years prior to the recent war. Mr. Truman felt that Mr. Wheeler was being made the victim of unjustified criti- cism. These are the words of Mr. Truman—as & Senator—with respect to the right to take exception to foreign policy. Listen closely: “There are still some in this country who feel bitterness against Members of the Sen~ ate and House of Representatives and against others who do not hold public office, who were opposed to any aspect of the President's foreign policy during the last 2 years.”
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Mind you, now, this is Senator Harry Ss. Truman speaking. I continue the quote: “T was gratified to observe that Winston Churchill, when he was in this country, took a far different attitude. “I know that many Members of the Senate who supported the President’s foreign policy throughout deem such recriminations un- wise and unjust.” Now, get this next line from Mr. Truman’s talk. This is good—coming from him. “T have throughout supported the Presi- dent’s policy, and I also believe that re- criminations of the nature referred to are unwise and unjust.” Then, Mr. Truman referred to Abraham Lincoln as follows: “It should be borne in mind that even Abraham Lincoln criticized the entrance of our country into the Mexican War in 1848; yet no one doubts his patriotism.” Yes, he spoke in different tones before he assumed imperious powers. Let me continue with the last two sen- tences of this same speech made on the Senate floor on February 3, 1942: “It is time that men cease to challenge the patriotism and loyalty of some of their fellow Americans simply because on some issue of the present day there happens to be some difference of opinion and an honest difference. “It is to preserve the right to hold differ- ences of opinion that we are entered upon the mightiest effort of our national career.” Those are the words of the same man who today, as the would-be creator of all opinion on foreign affairs, chastises and belittles and ridicules those who do not agree with his dictates. Mr. and Mrs. America, can you afford to go along with a man who—by his own words— is unjust and unfair? IT have had time to discuss only a very few of the vital issues which Mr. Truman has placed before the citizens of this country in his nonpolitical talks on his present non~ political trip. However, in each of these instances I have used the record for the basis of my discus- sions. I have not resorted to assumptions and coincidences as Mr. Truman has done. Had I been of the mind to follow Mr. Tru- man’s tactics I could easily have called to mind his Pendergast connections; his in- famous red herring application to the Alger Hiss case; his continued disrespect for the efforts of some to protect our country from subversives within the Government, and the many cases of gratuities for the privi- leged few. But I am willing to stick to the record and from that let you get your answer to this question: Can you afford to go along with Truman socialism? Investigation of Interstate Crime EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES P. KEM OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial en- titled “Kansas City Stares at the Kefau- ver Committee,” which appeared in the Courier-Journal of Louisville, Ky., on May 14,.1950. XCVI—App.——2338 There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Kansss Ciry Srares aT THE KEFAUVER COMMITTEE Senator Kerauver and his special commit- tee to investigate interstate crime are now ready to go to work. The task that awaits them is involved enough in its own right. But it is at the moment unfortunately en- meshed in politics to a degree that must tax all the patience and ingenuity of the mem- bership. Republican members of the Kefauver com- mittee are the amiable and well-mannered Senators Witty, of Wisconsin, and Tosry, of New Hampshire. The Republicans had wanted either their ace investigator, Frercu- son Of Michigan, or Missouri Senator Don- NELL who faces reelection this year. There is no reason to suppose that the committee as now constituted will pull any punches or shy away from delicate areas, but the prob- Jem of Kansas City will haunt it from the very start. Kansas City represents the political head- quarters of President Truman. It has been the scene of an extended grand jury inves- tigation of rackets and their political influ- ence, an investigation requested by President Truman. But the successive juries have un- earthed little that is concrete in the slimy mystery of Missouri’s politico-criminal alli- ance, and five jury witnesses have met sud- den and violent deaths. These deaths are included in a total of 22 unsolved gang mur- ders within the city’s jurisdiction, and the latest of them were the spectacular slayings of Charles Binaggio and Charles Gargotta in the First District Democratic Club. Furthermore, as Republicans have not failed to point out, the theft of evidence bearing on the Kansas City ballot frauds of 1946 was a Federal crime which has never been solved and in which prosecution will be barred by the statute of limitations on the 27th of this month. In all of these cases the Federal Government is open to a charge of slow and reluctant action. In the ballot fraud theft months went by before the FBI was even instructed to investigate. It has never been told to intervene in the murder situation in Kansas City, although the mur- der and sudden deaths of witnesses before a Federal grand jury surely constitute sufii- cient excuse to replace the inefficient and re- luctant local police with trained Federal investigators. Whether the Democrats like it or not, the unsavory Missouri picture will be a factor in congressional elections this fall. Republi- cans are already wheeling up their choicest guns for the campaign. The Democrats may have the situation for themselves, not by soft-pedaling a national scandal or trying to hush up further investigation, but by push- ing the sternest effort now toward a clean-up and prosecution of all guilty individuals, whoever and wherever they are. The FBI should long ago have been ordered into the Kansas City picture; there is ample precedent for its interference in a case which involved Federal witnesses and the theft of evidence in a Federal investigation. It may be that every effort has already been made behind the scenes to get at the truth in the Kansas City story. But the average man does not think so, and it is difficult to see why, if this were the case, the Department of Justice would continue to shrink into its shell whenever reporters for the Kansas City and St. Louls newspapers ask pertinent questions. Kansas City is certainly not an ideal start- ing point for the Kefauver committee, and it is one that the Senator himself would probably rather pass up. But it cannot be passed up or ignored, even temporarily, if its political implications are not to become am- A3693 munit on for the Republican campaign. No committee, however zealous, can be expected to enter a community as heavily involved in a criminal-political conspiracy as Kansas City and to dig out the truth in one shining nugget within a couple of weeks. There is probably nothing it can do at this late date to spark a last-minute investigation of the ballot-box thefts in time to bring its par~ ticipants to trial. But it can show that a senatorial committee, when manned by able and conscientious men,’can rise above pare tisanship and serve the truth, however un- palatable. Effect of Strikes on the Democratic Party EXTENSION OF REMARKS EON. FORREST C. BONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there may be set forth in the Appendix of the Rrcorp an article entitled “Wave of Crippling Strikes Hurting Democratic Party,” written by David Lawrence, and pub- lished in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat on May~12, 1950. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: WavVE OF CRIPPLING STRIKES HURTING DeMOcRATIC PaRTY (By David Lawrence) WasHINGTON, May 11.—President Truman had better hurry back home. An absentee leadership is a leadership ina vacuum. What votes Mr. Truman may be gaining for his Congressmen in the West may be offset by large losses in the Midwest and East. For the Democratic Party is bound to suffer in the congressional elections this autumn be- cause, as the party in power, it has been in a@ position to discourage strikes, but has failed to do so. The wave of crippling strikes which has been inflicting almost as much damage on innocent bystanders as on the disputants themselves is due primarily to the ingrained belief of labor-union leaders today that Pres- ident Truman doesn’t really care if they ex- ercise @ monopoly power. The constant reiteration by the President and by his Cabinet that the Taft-Hartley Act must be repealed, together with sabotage of the act itself by governmental agencies through indifferent enforcement, has bred a spirit of irresponsibility among labor unions. They feel they have virtually bought the ad- ministration with political support and with campaign contributions and that the Dem- ocratic Party must do the bidding of the union chiefs. There is heard even the black~ mail threat of a third political party to be formed out of labor-union membership if the administration doesn’t hew to the line. The railroad strike is an example of the breakdown of the Railway Labor Act, which up to now has been hailed as a splendid piece of labor-management legislation. But with the encouragement that comes from a labor~ union-dominated administration, it is nat- ural that the findings of all boards and tri- bunals recommending settlements will be disregarded by the unions. The issue in the rail strike—whether a third man should be required on the Diesel engines—has been passed upon and the proposal rejected again
A3694 and again by boards appointed under the procedures of the Railway Labor Act. Then why do the firemen insist on a strike? The answer is that economic power as exer- cised by unions today knows no limit. There is a prevalent feeling of self-assurance in go- ing to extremes because of a belief that the Truman administration will not dare to ask Congress to stop such tactics. It is signifi- cant that the presidents of the Pennsylvania, the New York Central, and the Santa Fe Rail- roads have all told 4 congressional committee this week that they no longer have faith in the Railway Labor Act and that they favor the bill introduced by Senator DoNNeELL, of Missouri, Republican, which meoeces coms pulsory arbitration of G26 ¢ tm on This means that collective bargaining has proken down among the railroads, just as it has broken down 1n the steel, coal, and mo- torcar industries, respectively. The Nation has suffered incalculable economic losses. It 1s plain to see that legislation regulating and restricting labor union power to damage the public interest awaits only the election of a Congress courageous enough to stamp out monopoly. The Supreme Court may be expected to declare such legislation constitu- tional. Clearly the labor union chiefs are overrcaching themselves and making anti- Democratic Party votes every day, particu- larly among the families of the workers themselves. Background on FEPC_ EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM BENTON OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (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 letter pub- lished im the New York Times this morn- ing, written by one of the most distin- guished citizens of my State of Con- necticut, Mr. Walter White, whose recent reelection as executive secretary of the National Association for the Advance- ment of Colored People assures the peo- ple of the United States of his continu- ing leadership of those great causes with which the people of the United States associate his name. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: « Backcrounp on FEPC To the Enrror or tHe New York TIMES: I ask permission to submit some first-hand evidence in support of Senator BrnrTon’s assertion that we need legislation to lessen violations of civil and human rights and thereby take away from Soviet Russia and other critics their most valuable ammuni- tion against us in areas such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which contention Arthur Krock derides in his column of May 11. On a recent tour of the Caribbean, on a trip around the world last year, on a Euro- pean tour in 1948, and on two trips overseas as a war correspondent, I witnessed tragic evidence that both nonwhite and white peoples believe less and less we are telling the truth about our devotion to freedom and equality as long as racial and religious discrimination continues here at home, American Ambassadors and other officials overseas told us everywhere that this is the $64 question with which we are confronted all the time. Even less explicable is Mr. Krock’s state- ment that “according to available records, a detailed demand for the FEPC and other antidiscrimination laws in behalf of Ne- groes first appeared in the Comriunist Party platform of 1928 * * *,” This is a McCarthyism if ever there was one. I was present at the White House con- ference in 1941 when for the first time a Fair Employment Practices Committee was cre~ ated and named. It came into being as a result of a threatened march on Washing- ton which was conceived by that most anti- Communist trade-unionist, A. Philip Ran- dolph, president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, an AFL union. Such aims were voiced 19 years before the Communists did so in 1928 in the call which resulted in formation of the National Asso-~- ciation for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909. Negro churches and other organizations have cried out against denial of the right to work by employers and labor unions long before the October revolution and even before Marx and Engles began to write. Mr. Krock does a dangerous disservice to accuracy and reason when he states that Negroes and other Americans opposed to job discrimination aped the Communists in- stead of its being the other way around. Water WHITE. New Yore, May 11, 1950. Big Gas Companies Real Scuttlers of Kerr Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON OF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, an honest fearless militant Progressive clears up the Nation’s $65 puzzle. Eugene Cervi, a fighting crusad- ing liberal Democrat puts the finger on the opposition to the Kerr gas bill which was vetoed by the President last month. In an editorial in Cervi’s Rocky Mountain Journal whose publishers have the nerve to call a spade a spade when he sees a spade, says the big pipelines who own large gas reserves plus the pipelines serving them “were directly responsible for the request of 18 mayors to the White House to veto the measure.” It is a serious charge to say that the 18 mayors of our great cities were yes-men for the big natural gas companies in seeking a veto, but I believe Eugene Cervi is ab- solutely right when he accuses them of doing so, I ask unanimous consent to insert the Cervi editorial in the Appendix of the Recorp where it may stand as a rebuke to the greedy gas companies and their too willing helpers. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Big Gas CoMPANIES R#aL ScurTiers or KERR Brun It’s all over—at least until next year— but the key fact in the fight over the Kerr- Harris natural-gas measure never was re~ ported to the press. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The chief opposition to the bill came from a few big natural-gas companies engaged in producing and transporting natural gas who would have gained no benefits from the measure, Led by Pan Handle Eastern Pipe Line Co., and United Gas Pipe Line Co., these segments of the industry inspired much of the oppo- sition to the measure that led to a Presi- dential veto. They were directly responsible for the request of 18 mayors to the White House to veto the measure. The veto came only because the storm of opposition mounted into a widespread clamor for rejection of the House and Senate passed proposal. The opposition of the big pipe-line com- panies sprang from the fact the Kerr-Harris measure would have stymied legislative plans of their own. When they produce their own gas, it is under price ceilings, giving their producing and transporting operations as a whole a certain percentage of profit—gener-~ ally about 6 percent. By defeating this bill, they hope for a broader measure in a year or two, that will take off FPC controls from gas sales by their own integrated production operations. Transfer of Watson Laboratories EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. IRVING M. IVES OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. IVES. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Rrecorp a news story appearing in the Rome Daily Sentinel of April 29, 1950, under the title “Foster Urges Lab Transfer in Nation-wide Broadcast,” which refers to the transfer of the Watson Laboratories from Eaton- town, N. J., to the Griffiss Air Force Base at Rome, N. Y. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Reconrp, as follows: Foster Urers Las TRANSFER IN NaTIOoN-WIDE Broapcasr The Watson Laboratories transfer situation was carried to millions of listeners yesterday over the Nation-wide hook-up of the Mutual Broadcasting System. In his 1 p.m. broadcast, Cedric Foster, Mu-~ tual news commentator, speaking from WKEAL, said a tour of Griffiss Air Force Base left no doubt in my mind as to why Watson Laboratories should be moved from New Jersey to this up-State New York city * *, In the Interest of economy and efficiency it is the logical thing to do. TOURED BASE Mr. Foster told his Msteners from const to coast: “Here in Rome, N. Y., I visited Griffiss Air Force base, which is one of the outstanding Air Force bases in the world, in a tour of inspection which left no doubt, in my mind, as to why Watson Laboratories should be moved from New Jersey to this up-state New York city. “Griffiss Air Force base was originally con- structed as an aircraft maintenance and sup- ply depot at a cost of about $36,090,000. The replacement cost is estimated at sixty-six million, “The base comprises an area of five square miles. The buildings are of permanent con- struction and they are in excellent condition.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD They are air-conditioned, centrally heated, and extremely well-lighted. They are sur- rounded by excellent concrete highways and the base is amply served with rail and truck terminals, “IN POOR BUILDINGS “In addition to this, the base has a first- class airport with runways and aprons. The air base is complete with admunistration building, signal tower hangars which can be used in connection with the type of work done at Watson Laboratories. The hangars are right now being used and they are hous- ing the experimental type of aircraft which are necessary to the work of the Watson Laboratories which are in New Jersey. “The Watson Laboratories in Eatontown, WN. J., are housed in temporary quarters built during the last war, made out of wood siding and tar paper construction. There is no landing strip at the Watson Laboratories so you have to drive 40 miles to McGuire Air Force base * * * if you want to engage in dctive test work. “It is no wonder the majority report of the House Armed Services Subcommittee recommended that Watson Laboratories be moved to the Griffiss Air Force base here in Rome, N, Y. “In the interest of economy and efficiency it is the logical thing to do. “What will be the work that is done here * * * electronics. At this magnifi- cent field the Air Force can concentrate its electronics experimentation work and it is to be hoped that the Congress will see to it that this work is carried out at Rome, N. Y.” The Railway Strike EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there may be set forth in the Appendix of the REcorp the lead editorial of today in the New York Times entitled “The Railway Strike,” the coneluding four sentences of which read: The present strike may be said to repre- sent the logical culmination of a labor trend that has been in progress on the railroads now for adecade. More and more the unions have moved in the direction of abiding by the decisions of fact-finding boards only when those decisions were favorable. But if the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1946— That should have been 1947, Mr. Pres- ident— proved anything it was that sooner or later labor legislation catches up with trends of this kind. If the railroad unions will not ac- cept decisions which are not legally bind- ing, then nothing could be more certain than that ultimately they will have to recon- cile themselves to a labor-management policy under which decisions will be binding. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Tre Ratway STRIKE , On May 28, 1946, two of the big railroad brotherhoods—the trainmen and firemen— walked off their jobs in protest against a decision of a fact-finding board awarding them a wage increase of $1.28 a day instead of the $2.50 they had demanded. In a Na- tion-wide radio address the following eve- ning President Truman appealed to the mem- bership of the unions over the heads of their leaders. His strong speech won immediate support from the Nation and broke the back of the strike. Among those who were outspoken in support of the President in his appeal to “get transportation moving” was the head of another of the Big Four railroad brotherhoods. This union leader was David B. Robertson, chief of the railroad firemen. Interviewed by newsmen, Mr. Rob- ertson publicly denounced A. F. Whitney, leader of the trainmen, and Alvanley John- ston, head of the engineers. They were, said he, two men who were “grasping for power.” Tronically, it is this same David B. Robert- son who has now called members of his own union off the job in open defiance of the de- cision of a Presidential fact-finding board and of the public welfare. True, in the case of the 1946 strike the Government had seized the railroads 5 days before the walk-out took place. Soin that case it might be said that technically the two brotherhoods were strik- ing against the Government. But the “seizure” of the railroads in cases such as this—as the brotherhoods themselves have frequently protested—is essentially a legal device employed for the protection of the public. In his radio appeal to the Nation 4 years ago the President denounced the walk- out as a challenge to the Government, but his principal stress was on “the specter of starvation and death that will result from the course which Mr. Johnston and Mr. Whitney are following.” It may be argued also, that in contrast with the walk-out of 1946 the strike of the firemen which began last Wednesday is not Nation-wide in scope, but is confined to four railroads. That argument, however, does not stand even the most casual scrutiny. In the first place, the only reason that all the railroad firemen have not been called off the job is that, as their leader knows from earlier experiences, such as that of 1946, such action would automatically bring the Government into the picture. Mr. Robertson apparently is convinced that he has discovered a new and clever technique which, like John Ll. Lewis’ 8-day week, will enable him to put the squeeze on the railroads, industry, and the public without precipitating an imme- diate country-wide crisis. In this he is no doubt counting to a considerable extent upon the negative support of the admin- istration, which, as we have seen in the case of Mr. Lewis, is notoriously slow to recognize the symptoms of a national emergency. But the four roads against which the strike was originally directed (it has now flowed over into a fifth, the Union Pacific) are the Pennsylvania, the New York Central, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, and the Southern. And it is hardly necessary for the public to be told that, in the words of the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, “You can’t strike on these four railroads without demoralizing the entire industry.” Meanwhile, if there are differences of de- gree of irresponsibility among strikes entered upon in a defiance of the public and the con- stituted authorities, then in one respect this strike of the firemen surpasses any of its predecessors. Hitherto, major railroad strikes have been resorted to only when de- batable differences of opinion existed over such issues as wages and hours. What sets the present walk-out apart more than any other thing is that the issue is not even arguable. The union has struck because the railroads will not assign two firemen to every Diesel electric locomotive, although Presi- dentially appointed fact-finding hoards have ruled flatly, not once, but twice, that there is no earthly justification for this brazen proposal for “‘featherbedding.” A3695 The present strike may be said to repre- sent the logical culmination of a labor trend that has been in progress on the railroads now for about a decade. More and more the unions have moved in the direction of abid- ing by the decisions of fact-finding boards only when those decisions were favorable. But if the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1946 proved anything it was that sooner or later labor legislation catches up with trends of this kind. If the railroad unions will not accept decisions which are not legally binding, then nothing could be more certain than that ultimately they will have to reconcile themselves to a labor-manage- ment policy under which decisions will be binding. The “Economy Brands” Make Their Case EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON Of VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 16 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an edi- torial entitled “The ‘Economy Brands’ Make Their Case,’”’ dealing with the sub- ject of a tax differential for economy cigarettes, published in the Richmond News Leader of May 10, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Tam “Economy Branps” Make THEIR CAsE In voting 18 to 12 last week in favor of reducing the Federal excise tax on “economy brand” cigarettes, the House Ways and Means Committee struck a blow for fair play that has been 16 years in coming. Since 1934 the makers of Dominoes, Wings, Marvels, and other low-priced cigarettes have been fight- ing for an equitable readjustment in tobacco taxes that would permit a more wholesome price competition in the cigarette industry. Their battle still is far from being won. All cigarettes now carry a flat Federal tax of $3.50 per thousand, or 7 cents a package. The bill approved by the committee last week would retain this tax level for the dominant brands that sell ordinarily for 17 or 18 cents, put would establish a tax of only $2.45 a thousand, or not quite 5 cents a package, on the “economy brands.” In short, the bill would apply the famillar ad valorem basis to cigarette taxation, and thus would bring cigarettes into the same tax structure under which most other commodities now are taxed by the Federal Government—fur coats, for example, and cigars, theater admissions, rail- way tickets, telephone bills, and night~club checks. It manifestly is unfair for the cheaper cigarettes to carry the same dollar purden of taxation as that carried by the more expensive brands. Under the pending bill, their tax rates would be the same— some 41 percent of the retail price. At the peak of their popularity, in 1939, the “economy brands” claimed only 14.8 per- cent of the total United States retail ciga- rette market. Now they have less than 1 percent of the market. Unless tax relief is provided, some of the remaining 18 manu- facturers may “give up the ghost* and let their brands go the way of Richmond Straight Cut and Melachrinos. The Treasury Depart- ment, which suddenly reversed its favorable view of this bill last February, has a strange notion that the tax cut might result in the “economy brands” taking 25 percent of the