APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD We have had a Government that was and is working for the people, not for special interests. These measures have helped to distribute buying power more widely among the people. They have provided larger markets for the increasing products of our factories and our farms. They have protected our economy against shock. They have provided business with a stronger banking structure and a more flexible credit system. They have heiped to sustain farm income. A LESSON TO BE LEARNED These results have not been achieved through public action alone. In private enterprise as well, employers and workers have placed more emphasis upon the human element. They have learned more about how our economy functions. They have con- stantly adopted more enlightened and pro- gressive policies. There is a great lesson to be learned from what we have accomplished. We have learned that it is within our power as a people to make full use of our tremendous resources of farm and factory and human skull. We can use that lesson and we must use it to build for the future. There are two conflicting schools of thought about the future of our economy, just as there are about its present condition. Those who can see nothing but evil in the present situation can see nothing but gloom for the future. They have been saying all along that our programs could not succeed, even though the programs were succeeding at the very time they were denying it. Now they are saying the same old things—that the country is going bankrupt, that depression lies ahead and that the only thing to do is to pull in our belts and save what we can from the wreckage. I don’t agree with them. I believe that we know more now than ever before about how to keep our economy strong and prosperous. I believe that we can con- tinue to rely on the programs that have served so well for the last 17 years—use them and improve them. TI face the future with confidence that our Nation will continue to grow in freedom and in material and moral strength. I am sure that the people of Oregon an all the Pacific Northwest share that cone fidence. It is the character of those of you who live in this region to dream big dreams and plan big plans. ‘You will not join with the little men who throw up their hands and cry, “It can’t be done” when we set up our goals for future prosperity. I want to tell you about some of those goals. And I assure you that there is noth- ing fantastic about them. ‘They are merely based upon the belief that we can improve as rapidly in the future as we have in the past. I am sure we can do that well and even better if we follow wise policies that are for the benefit of all the people and not just for the special interests. GOALS OF NEXT 10 YEARS Here are some of the things we can do. In the next 10 years we can reach toward higher standards of living for all. We can lift our annual output of goods and services to more than $350,000,000,000 by 1960—a one-third increase within 10 years. And I am talking about real output measured in dollars of today’s purchasing power, We can increase real wage and salary in- comes, and farm incomes, as our economy grows. We can increase the profits of busi- ness, not through higher prices or higher profit margins, but through increased vol- ume in a growing economy. I have said before, and I repeat, that by 1960 we can and should achieve a far better standard of living for every industrious fam~ ily in the city and on the farm. Now I want to tell you about some of the things we must do to achieve these goals. First, the efficiency and capacity of our industries must be increased. Despite the large investments which industry has made since the war, there is urgent need for fur- ther investment and improvement to meet expanding markets and to take advantage of the rapid gas in technology. This is a job for private owners and man-= agers in manufacturing, in power, in trans- portation, in many other industries. It 1s also a job in which the Government must participate through resource development, sound tax policies, housing and small busi- ness programs, and many other ways. Second, purchasing power must be ex- panded to develop and maintain markets for our increased production of goods. The final market for all products is the ultimate consumer. Our economy cannot expand as fast as it should as long as we have a large number of families with sub- standard imcomes. One out of four Amer- ican families now has an income of less than $2,000 a year. Our goal over the next decade should be to lift every hard-working American family to an income of about $4,000 a year—not a mere dollar increase, but an increase in the real standard of living. We have the re- sources to do this by balanced national growth. SEES BENEFIT TO ALL Raising the standards of our poorest fam~- flies will not be at the expense of anybody else. We will all benefit by doing 1t, for the incomes of the rest of us will rise too. Third, we must maintain a sound balance in the programs of our Government, faced as it is with huge and unavoidable responsibil- ities. 70 percent of the Federal budget is required to pay for past wars and our work to pre- vent another war. However, they often fail to realize just how vital the other 30 percent is to our welfare and progress. The costs of sound programs to improve the Nation’s health and education, to stabilize agricul- ture, and to develop resources, are sensible investments in a better future. . IT want to balance the budget of the Fed- eral Government just as much as anybody else does. I would like to see taxes reduced. We will do both of these things just as soon as we safely can. We must continue to strive for every true economy in national affairs. But I will not join in slashing Government expenses at the cost of our national security or national progress. Fourth, we must continue to improve our economic relations with the rest of the world, We must develop a larger flow of interna- tional trade and international investment on a sound basis. This will result in larger markets for ourselves and larger markets for other free countries. Just as our Nation has grown through en- Jarged production and trade from which all sections of the country have benefited, so the expansion of world production and trade can strengthen all the free countries. That is an essential step toward world peace. We must not be turned aside or slowed down in our efforts to help the other free nations get back on their feet by those who would retreat into isolationism in order to save a few dollars. We would pay for that folly many times over. It would greatly in- crease the chances of a third world war. PUTS WORLD PEACE FIRST As long as I am President we are not going to put dollars above world peace. These things that I have been talking to you about the growth of our economy and the policies needed to make that growth Most people realize now that more than | A3559 possible, have very definite meaning for you folks here in Pendleton as they do for people all over the country. They are not just ab- stract theories. They are matters that will have a very important effect on your daily lives. Our wheat and livestock growers cannot prosper without good incomes and high con- sumption in the rest of this country and in the other countries, too. The same thing is true of the Columbia River fisheries. Ore- gon’s lumber industry will have good times only if our Nation builds the houses our people need. And it works the other way, too. The Nation needs the products of your agricul- ture, forests, and fisheries. The whole coun- try becomes stronger when Oregon and the Northwest grow and prosper. We are a Nation that advances by cooper-~ ation and mutual benefit. We do not want any State or any group to grow at the ex- pense of another. Our strength, the strength of free men, is in a society that works to bring better living to all our people. We have demonstrated in our country that we can all move forward together. I believe profoundly that this forward movement is going to continue. I believe that ultimately it will extend to the farthermost corners of the earth and that with the United States as a shining ex- ample we shall succeed in bringing greater welfare and freedom to all mankind. Curtailment of Mail Deliveries EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTHONY F. TAURIELLO OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. TAURIELLO. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the REconp, I include the following letter and resolution: Erre CouNnTy CoMMITTE£E, Tue AMERICAN LEGION, Buffalo, N. Y., May 8, 1950. Hon, ANTHONY TAURIELLO, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: Enclosed, herewith, please find copy of a resolution pertaining to the cut- pack in the Post Office Department which was unanimously adopted by the Erie County Committee of the American Legion on April 27, 1950. ‘We shall appreciate your assistance in this matter. Respectfully yours, Tomas F. CAULFIELD, Erie County Commander. Whereas a recent order of the, Post Office Department has been sent to every Post Office to curtail the delivery of mail; and Whereas this order would give only one de- livery of mail daily in residential areas and two in business sections; and Whereas the Post Office Department is the direct contact of the public with one an- other and is the most essential public serv- ice granted the peoples of our great country; and Whereas the dire consequences of the elim- ination of this necessary public service can- not be measured in dollars and cents: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Erie County Committee of the American Legion go on record con- demning such contemplated action on the part of the United States Post Office Depart- ment; and be it further
A3560 Resolved, That we send a copy of this res- olution to our two United States Senators, namely, the Honorable IrvING M. Ivrs, and the Honorable Hersert Lenman, together with a copy to our local United States Con- gressmen; and be it further Resolved, That we inform our local news- papers of the action taken in reference to this matter. THOMAS F. CAULFIELD, Erie County Commander. EE Republican Party Should Stand on Per- sonal Freedom as the One Great Issue EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 10, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, on last Saturday I addressed the Young Republicans in their annual State convention at Janesville, Wis. I am in- cluding the remarks which I made at that time: As members and workers in the Republican Party, it is well that we consider the posi-~ tion we must take in the coming campaigns, 1950 and 1952. There are those who feel that the Republican Party has no future in view of defeats in past national elections. We should not be discouraged. Republican- ism in the State of Wisconsin is in a healthy condition; here is the place to strengthen our great party. We must arouse those who be- lieve in the principles we support. There is an imperative need for productive action. We cannot hope to win on the weakness of our adversaries or in advocating ‘““me-tooism.” We must have a program of positive action consistent with the principles of freedom. The question presented, therefore, is where do we stand on State and national matters? Let me suggest that there can be no more sound program than a platform for free Americans. Our position must be grounded in personal freedom. This means freedom to work on our own initiative at any honest oc- cupation we choose. It follows that personal freedom means the right to keep what we have earned. The opportunity to save, to in- vest, or to engage in business, or to work in a factory or on a farm, and thus face the fu- ture as free men in a free land. This concept is indispensable to the basic principle of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are inalienable rights for all Americans. The founders of our Nation fought and died to obtain these rights and we, as Republicans, must wage a fight to transmit them to those who come after us—unimpaired. To preserve freedom and for no other purpose the people of the United States created a government under our Constitu- tion. They realized that no simple de- miocracy could long survive the lure of po- litical demagogues, leading to the dictator and they deliberately limited the power of their government and divided it into three separate parts; legislative, executive, and judicial. This was intended to be a check on each department so that no one of them might become supreme. The purpose of the Contitution was not to convey rights to individual citizens but to specify the limi- tations imposed by free citizens on govern- ment. Today we are cognizant that this Umitation is being submerged by those who have become securely entrenched in gove ernment. Our forefathers desiring freedom above all else and having won it with their blood did not propose to permit any new gov~- ernment to usurp authority or to interfere with their personal lives as free men. This principle, too, has been forgotten. Those who organized the Federal Government did so with the clear thought in mind of a government of limited powers in a general grant of sovereignty. ‘You will recall that the Bill of Rights provides that the enumer- ation in the Constitution of certain rights shail not be construed to deny or disparage those retained by the people and further that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor provided by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. One hundred and sixty-three years have passed. True only a brief period in the his- tory of the world and what do we find hap- pening to this Republic? There can be no doubt that the trend we are following is leading to the abolition of personal free- dom and reliance upon omnipotent gov- ernment under socialism. I hesitate to use that term for it is greatly misunderstood and people pay little attention to it. We know, however, that socialism is govern- ment ownership or management of the na- tion’s economy. Socialism leads to the denial by the Government of the right or ca- pacity of individuals to manage themselves and their property. In effect, socialism sets up a government which is the master of the people and not its servant, Today a young man cannot work at a trade without the consent of a labor dictator to whom he mus“ ror re“i*‘erl *ribute. Today @ young man crs es cc a business of his own without the consent of bureaucrats who tax away profits and leave him losses so that business cannot grow under his direc- tion and management. In many fields of business the Government, through loans and subsidies of special favors, actually competes with a man in business. Government threatens the professions; medicine and education, and the minds of our children may be subservient to governmental duress. Without young growth a forest passes away and with young people, who will make the jobs for them in the future? ‘Will it be Gov- ernment or will it be enterprising young peo- ple who have vision and faith in these United States. Let me remind you of certain facts that are discernible today. We know that other Jands have greater natural resources than our own and larger populations, Yet with only 6 percent of the world’s land area and less than 7 percent of the world’s population, we have produced a standard of living that is the envy of the world. What have we had that other nations had not? It seems to me the principal ingredient has been liberty, freedom from the avarice of government. If there is one deterrent to the healthy rehabili- tation of the nations of Europe and Asia, it is that of oppressive governmental organiza- tions geared to the principle of state socialism. In our own country we see personal and corporate savings for expansion purposes drained into unproductive governmental projects. The average man is working 2 days of every week for government before he can earn his own living. On Monday and Tuesday he works to pay for government. Wednesday he starts keeping what he earns as a free man should. Of course we need some government to keep us free and we are all willing to pay a reasonable sum for it, but there is a limit and we are rapidly reach- ing that point today. In 1980 the national debt was $131 per person, now it is $2,000 for every man, wo- man, and child. Yet there are those who think they can get something for nothing just so long as it comes from the Govern- ment, This is a fallacy that people are just APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD beginning to realize. Government has no money of its own, whatever it spends it takes from all the taxpayers in this country. There is and can be no national gravy train. No program can guarantee something for nothing, year in and year out. Taxes are derived from productive enterprises. Only production stimulated by free mar- kets can give us anything. Every hour taken up in Government red tape is an hour taken from production and produces nothing but scarcity. It is sad but true. There is no such thing as free money. Government can ouly print money, it cannot create @ value for it, Now we find that Government is tak- ing money from the people in three ways; by direct taxation, indirect taxation, and by paper-money inflation. Durect taxation is such as the income tax; indirect taxation is anything involved in what we buy; bread, clothes, autos, movies, in fact, all of our daily needs. The only other way that Govern- ment can get ‘noney i- by the paper-~money inflation route, which arises as a result of deficit financing. Today we have a 60-cent dollar, probably less. This devaluation of our money is actually a loss. It seems to me that the time has come to restore the value of that money by stopping deficit financing and by the establishment of a balanced budg~ et. I think it is ir-rozter* to realize that Government can c'. -uy.:. @ favored few. It cannot suppor. c! uu. It has nothing to give but what it takes from the people. Ouwr real security in this country must be measured by production. We cannot con- sume more than we produce. Whatever kills initiative and incentive kills security. All around us there is evidence that men and women in the past have been ambitious and willing to earn, save, and invest. England fell for the welfare state and today it lives its meager existence dependent upon our bounty, but it will not let a man build a chicken coop in his own backyard without governmental consent, Socialism kills the spirit of adventure by distributing our wealth in numerous ways and it finally ends by distributing poverty to all but the ruling class. If we slip into the twilight of social- ism and economic conditions become dif- ficult, what nation on the face of this earth is there to send us its bounty and support us on its charity? All this adds up to the point that I have been attempting to make, namely, that in the Mght of our history as a guide to save ourselves and our country, the Republican Party must stand for personal freedom with- out equivocation; the right to work as we please without fear of domination or con- trol from any source; a public policy re- dedicated to the protection of the right to acquire and own private property; a tax system that will restore incentive to pro- duction; a public policy containing and eliminating Federal subsidies; reduction of Federal expenditures in every department of Government; a balanced budget in time of peace and a prompt termination of wartime powers; a judicial system where judges rise above politics; withdrawal by the Federal Government from competition in private pusiness; the restraint of all monopolies whether of Government, business, or labor, so that no man or group of men would have the power to tie up our national economy; a systematic plan for the payment of our national debt; and finally economy in gov- ernment and the restoration of a sound mon- etary system. Only by freedom can the energies of the people of this country be realized. We must restore the dignity of the individual and re- turn again to the fundamental and basic principle that government is still the serv- ant and not the master of the people. The second principle of our platform, in order to preserve our freedom and our con- stitutional Government, it seems to me, is
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD insistence upon the sovereignty of the in- dividual States. The Federal Government has no inherent sovereignty as I have al- ready said. It only has limited powers dele- gated to 1t by the Constitution. The inher- ent sovereignty of each State goes back of the Federal Constitution and 1s, in effect, broader and more basic. It was Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Inde- pencence who realized that the Federal Gov- ernment might become strong and oppres- sive. He said, “I see with the deepest af- fliction the rapid strides with which the Fed- eral branch our Government ls advancing toward the usurpation of all the rights re- served to the States and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic, and that too, by constructions which if le- gitimate leaves no limits to its power.” We see today that the prediction by Jefferson has come into full bloom with a Federal Government attempting to usurp all rights reserved to the States under our Constitu- tion. This is a situation that calls for dras- tic action. We believe as did the founders of our Nation in a Federal Republic of lim- ited controlled powers and in the system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial departments—no one supreme, no packed court and no rubber- stamp Congress. It may seem strange but we know that an atom bomb might be smuggled or flown into this country and might someday explode in Washington, destroying in an instant, our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, and our War Department, while saboteurs cut our communications. Is it not well then that our States retain their native strength and organization for independence so that an enemy may know that there is no simple path to the conquest of the United States? We have 48 States and thus we differ from European countries where the killing or the intimidation of central government officials has surrendered nations to communism. It is significant that all Communist policies favor centralization and the setting up of a strong centralized government. This is a matter that should have the serious thought of the American people immediately. The third principle which we must con- sider if we are to preserve our personal free- dom and the freedom of our States, deals with the freedom and independence of the United States against any foreign control whatsover. It can be said that there are two present threats to the independence of the United States—(1) military and (2) sub- versive activities. We humbly confess that with our own aid Russian communism has grown enormously, while nations fighting it have been under- mined and abandoned. We have poured bil- lions of dollars worth of military supplics in- to Russia, when it seemed as though Russia would fall before the onslaught of Hitler’s hordes. At Yalta, our statesmen delivercd 7 nations and 85,000,000 people into the hands of communism including, our own ally Poland. Betrayed without her knowledge, Poland was left to learn her fate from conversations in Moscow. When our armies drove rapidly against Germany toward the eastern border and were about to take Berlin, word from Washington halted them, saying Russia must enter Berlin first. That American General Patton saw his victorious sweep across Eur- ope brought to a halt by diplomats who did not realize what they were doing. Patton was humiliated but the die was cast. We continued and still are continuing to pour billicns of dollars into a continent where Russia can take over at will. And today we find that communism is being consolidated behind the iron curtain and we are forced again to expend billions of dollars more to prepare for the war that might come. We have been chagrined by the Berlin blockade which cost millions of dollars and took many American lives in an effort to keep food going into Berlin proper. While subsidizing socialism in western Europe w:th a show of strength and insist- ing that Communists stay out of the Greek Government, our same State Department in- sisted that the Chinese should admit Com- munists to thelr government and when the national government refused, they opposcd it with obstruction and delay. After giving Manchuria to Russia which did not belong to us but to China, we now find that the Communists have conquered all of China. All this has been very satisfactory to Rus- sia who preaches war against America and foresees us outnumbered, 10 to 1, by an enemy controlling the greatest land mass in the world. This presents a dificult question and calls for a higher order of statesmanship than we have had in the past. The problem will not be solved by indiscriminate spending in all quarters of the globe nor spending in areas where the benefit flows readily on to help the Russians. The Communists plan to defeat us by making us spend ourselves into bankruptcy and we have made a good start. Former President Hoover was right when he recently said that if the Nation is to sur- vive, no new special projects however worthy, should be undertaken until the cold war is ended, since $23,000,000,0C0 of our $45,000,- 000,000 budget 1s needed for defense in the cold war. The danger that comes in our preparation to establish a defense sufficiently strong to meet any thrust by a potential enemy arises in the transformation of our industrial econ- omy from a peacetime to a wartime footing. In this country we could easily be spending forty or fifty billions creating a condition which would not be healthy from the stand- point of a sound industrial economy. Finally there is this threat to our inde- pendence by subversive activities within the United States. Those of us who live and work in Washington know that this threat is a real one. Russian Communists have made great inroads within our land. Yet the President of the United States denies such to be the fact. Aside from influencing foreign policy their immediate purpose in the United States is to weaken us internally by cultivating conflict between Americans, Trained trouble makers, who urge the Prot- estant to hate the Catholic, the black to hate the white, the employee, the employer; love for Russia, but not friendship and under- standing among Americans. To delude our people they have developed the technique of the Communist front and their sympa- thizers are prominent in the literary, educa- tional, religious, and scientific worlds. It is a known fact that Russia organized cultural conferences in various countries, the American one at the Waldorf in New York, where writers, scientists, movie actors, and other such intelligentsia rush to attend. In this group there were 100 professors from 51 colleges in 21 States, and a former Vice President of the United States. Just a year ago our own Atomic Energy Commission en- trusted our allies’ fortunes and honor by presenting scholarships to known Commu- nists and then defended its action in so doing. Activity in known Communist fronts becomes fashionable in educational and scientific circles and no bar to high official positions close to the atomic secret, In- vestigations are blocked or turned secret, and the President puts an official gag order on 2,000,000 Americans forbidding them to testify before a congressional committee without his consent. I believe that the people of the United States want no secret government for it is alien to the American tradition. Subversive- ness and corruption thrive in darkness and wither in the light. We want no iron cur- tain in our country. Good administrators should frankly cooperate with representa- tives of the people in investigations of cor< A3561 ruption and subversion, particularly in their own administration. Gcod administrators don’t cover up, they clean up and they are glad when others help them to find bad spots. That 1s the kind of administration we want and the people of this country are entitled to know what kind we have. After all 1t 1s our country. Now let me summarize the points that I have been trying to make in this presenta~ tion: (1) We stand for personal freedon to live and work as we please, subject only to laws designed to preserve similar freedom in others. We believe in the right of freemen to own and keep property, as indispensable to human rights. We seek a sound and frugal government, without which there 1s no security for any man. And we would restore the dignity of the individual and return to the fundamental principle that the Government is the servant, not the master, of the people. (2) To preserve our constitutional gov- ernment we would faithfully observe the checks and balances created for that pur- pose, and protect the rights of the States and the people in their freedom. (3) To preserve our personal freedom and the freedom of our States, we stand for the freedom and independence of the United States and against any foreign control whatscever. (4) We will oppose communism. We will aid those who fight against it in China and Asia as well as in Europe; we will husband our resources and carefully prepare for de- fense; we will cease to coddle communism within our own gates. We will not submit to any world government or alien associa- tion; we would help the world by example, not by conquest; we do not seek to conquer, neither will we be conquered. Integration of Heavy Industry in Germany and France REMARKS HON. HALE BOGGS OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. BOGGS of Louisiana. Mr. Speak- er, the proposal made yesterday in Paris by the French Government to inte- grate the heavy industries of Germany and France is one of the most far-reach- ing and significant developments of cur time. It is doubly gratifying that our Secre- tary of State has immediately hailed the plan as entirely consistent with Ameri- can objectives in Western Europe. Mr. Speaker, the integration and con- fiscation of the 270,000,000 free peoples of Western Europe will defeat and turn back aggressive communism. There is cause for rejoicing in the free world today. I include herewith a splendid editorial from the Washington Post of this morn- ing. I also include the text of the French proposal as well as a news story giving the American reaction. [From the Washington Post of May 11, 1950] UNION IN WESTERN EvROPE There’s a logic about the French plan for supranational control of heavy industry in western Europe that will doubtless repel the opportunists and the doctrinaires and the
A3562 Grifters in foreign-policy making. Let us examine the logic. The French are weak, the Germans strong. It is unrealistic to expect a Franco-German combine without either the entry of the British as a balancer or a real merger of the tools of war which would erase nationality. An inner advantage is that amalgamation would allow the French to absorb two or three million Germans in their population without fear of internal upset. Britain’s cool and cautious attitude toward unity in Europe requires concentra- tion on the alternative of a non-British con- tinental authority. Approach the problem in another way. There can never be any unity in Europe with- out the prior establishment of a vested in- terest in it. This thought was one of the great contributions to political theory of Alexander Hamilton. In assuming the pre- existing debts of the constituent States, he built up a vested interest in Federal union on the part of the moneyed class of the young America. Similarly the control of heavy industry by the affected countries in unity would create a vested interest in Euro- pean unity. So the French policy represents a contribution to integration of the utmost significance. Our satisfaction is influenced by the fact that since the war ended the Washington Post has advocated exactly this plan as the necessary first step in establishing the Euro- pean system in accordance with modern re- alities. It was given priority over Mr. Hoff- man’s payments union in our last c~mment. Mr. Schuman is still nuclear in concept. As a starter he would restrict control to Germany, France, and the Saar. Clearly the Foreign Minister wants first of all to over- come the stumbling block over the Saar which has created a new controversy between France and Germany. Incorporation in a wider union would simply swallow the Saar problem. In time, however, the authority would doubtless take in Luxemburg, Bel- gium, and Holland, for these three countries, now working toward unity themselves, have a vital stake in the Ruhr complex. It has been our experience that two ob- jections are usually advanced against such an economic union. One is fear of worker hostility, the other fear of cartelization. However, as to the workers, these have long been in advance of their governments. On March 15 a year ago, the union leaders of the metal workers of Germany, France, Lux- emburg, Holland, and Belgium met to try to promote the idea of a continental indus- trial entity. The upshot was the estab- lishment of the Joint Committee of the Metal and Mine Workers Unions. Head- quarters are at Luxemburg, where the meeting was held, and there could have peen no better place for the achievement of consolidation, for Luxemburg was the former headquarters of the Ruhr cartel. Cartel! Does the word apply to the pro- posed new authority? Mr. Schuman takes specific pains to apply just the opposite description. He says it would be an anti- cartel authority, dedicated to free expansion, and in an effort to meet objection by the anticartelists, the United Nations would be invited to have a representative sitting with the authority. In sum: Mr. Schuman has the root of the matter in him. A new Europe, as he puts it, will never be born by decision, but by action—action based upon what Metternich called “a unifying idea.” The only “unify- ing idea” in a context of postwar modern life which has made prosperity and peace indivisible is unity itself. The Schuman policy is based upon the concept of a new Europe which shall be coprosperous and co- peaceful. Many have had this idea before Mr. Schuman, including Messrs. McCloy and John Foster Dulles. It may be well here to pay tribute to one of them, for Wash- ington will soon be the poorer because of his departure. This is the Netherlands’ Ambassador, Mr. E. N. van Kleffens, who, as far back as 1948, proposed something very similar to the Schuman idea. It has been left to Mr. Schuman to spark a plan, which, we are confident, had been thor- oughly studied and prepared before it was offered for public and ministerial consider- ation. [From the Washington Post of May 11, 1950] TEXT OF FRENCH PROPOSAL—-POOLING WOULD Uniry Europes anp KEzp PrEAcr, SCHUMAN Says (Details of the plan for the industrial uni- fication of Europe, as set forth by Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, were made public here last night by the French Embassy. Schuman made the statement in Paris on Tuesday. The text follows:) It is no longer a question of vain words, put of an act, a bold act, a constructive act. France has acted and the consequences of her action may be immense. We hope that they will be. France has acted essentially for peace. If peace is to have a chance, there must first of all be a Europe. Five years almost to the day after the unconditional surrender of Germany, France is taking the first decisive act in the construction of Hurope and is associating Germany with it. This act must necessarily transform European conditions. This transformation will make it possible to take other common action that has been impossible until now. Out of all this will emerge a sound, united, and strongly con- structed Europe, a Europe whose standard of living will rise, thanks to the pooling of pro- duction and the extension of markets, which will bring about a drop in prices. In this Europe, the Ruhr, the Saar, and the French Basin will work together and their peaceful neighbors, followed by United Nations ob- servers, Will benefit all Europeans, eastern as well as western, and all lands, especially Afri- ca, that look to the older Continent for their development and prosperity. Such is France’s decision, and these are the considerations that inspired it: World peace cannot be safeguarded without creative efforts proportionate to the dangers that threaten it. The contribution that an or- ganized and vital Europe can make is in- dispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. As the champion for United Eu- rope for more than 20 years, France has al- ways had one main objective: To serve the cause of peace. Europe has not been or- ganized; we have had wars. . Burope will not be built at one stroke or by means of one over-all structure. It will be built, first by means of concrete steps that create real solidarity. The unification of the European nation demands that the age-old enmity of France and Germany be elimi- nated. The action undertaken must apply primarily to France and Germany. 'To this end, the French Government proposes im- mediately to take action on a limited but decisive point. It proposes to place all French and Gorman steel and coal production under a common high authority in an organ- ization opened to the other European coun- tries. The pooling of coal and steel productions will insure the immediate establishment of common bases of economic development, the first stage in European federation and will change the destiny of these regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of weapons of war, of which they themselves have been the most constant victims. The solidarity of production thus estab- lished will prove at any war between France and Germany has become not only unthinkable but materially impossible. The ereation of this powerful production pool APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD opened to all countries that wish to partici- pate in it and making available to all its members on the same conditions the basic necessities for industrial production will lay the real foundation for their economic unifi- cation. The output of this pool will be offered to the whole world without discrimi- nation or exclusion as a contribution to the improvement of living standards and the advancement of peaceful enterprise. Europe will have increased means with which to promote the realization of one of her essen~ tial tasks; the development of the African continent. The fusion of interests indispensable to the establishment of a broader and deeper com- munity between countries that have long been kept apart by bloody conflicts will thus be realized simply and rapidly. By pooling their basic industries and establishing a new high authority whose decisions will be bind- ing for France, Germany, and the other par- ticipating countries, this proposal will lay the first concrete foundation of a European federation which is essential for the safe- guarding of peace. In order to work toward the realization of the objective defined above, the French Gov- ernment is ready to open negotiations on the following basis: the common high authority will be charged with insuring, in the shortest possible time, the modernization of produc- tion and the improvement of its quality, the supply of coal and steel on the same terms to the markets of France, Germany, and other member-countries, the increase of joint exports, the improvement and equalization of the living conditions of the industrial workers in the participating countries. Since production conditions are very dif- ferent in the member countries, certain con- ditional measures must be adopted to achieve these objectives: the application of a produc- tion and investment plan, the establishment of mechanisms to equalize prices, and the creation of the reconversion fund to facili- tate the rationalization of production. All customs duties on coal and steel between participating countries will be abolished im- mediately and the same railway freight rates will be applied. Gradually, conditions will be created which will automatically insure the most rational distribution of production at the highest level of productivity. In contradistinction to an international cartel which tends to divide and exploit national markets by restrictive practices and the maintenance of large profits, the pro- posed organization will assure the merging of markets and the expansion of production. The basic principles and engagements de- fined above will be the object of a treaty to be signed between the states and submitted to the Parliaments for ratification. The nego- tiations necessary to work out the measures of implementation will be carried on with the assistance of an arbiter designated by com-~ mon agreement. It will be the arbiter’s re- sponsibility to see to it that the agreements reached are in conformity with the princi- ples, and in case of a deadlock, he will decide upon the solution to be adopted. The com- mon high authority responsible for the func- tioning of the whole organization will be composed of independent personalities desig- nated on a party basis by the governments, and a president will be chosen by common agreement of the governments. This deci- sion will be enforceable in France, Germany, and the other member countries. Appro- priate provisions will insure the necessary means of appeal against the decisions of the high authority. A United Nations repre- sentative attached to this authority will make a report twice yearly to the United Nations Organization on the functioning of the new organization, especially with respect to the safeguard of its pacific aims, The establishment of the high authority in no way prejudices property rights in the enter- prises concerned, In the exercise of its task,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the common high authority will take into ac- count the powers conferred upon the inter- national authority for the Ruhr and the obligations of all kinds imposed upon Ger- many as long as these obligations subsist. FRENCH PLAN GETS BacKING or ACHESON— BrrrisH ARE CaGEY ON PROPOSAL FOR UNI- FIED CONTSoOL or HEAVY INDUSTRY Lonpon, May 10.—France and the United States appeared to be strongly united tonight on a policy of tying Germany into western Europe industrially and politically. There was doubt, however, as to Britain’s attitude. Secretary of State Dean Acheson issued a statement giving sympathy and approval to the significance and far-reaching intent of the surprise French offer yesterday to pool French, German, and possibly other Euro- pean coal and steel production. This proposal dominated top-level diplo- matic thinking today in London, where Ache- son and British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin held two long secret discussions on German and other phases of the cold war. Acheson said of the French proposal: “It is plain from the announcement that the spirit prompting it was the furtherance of rapprochement between Germany and France and progress toward the economic integra- tion of western Europe. LONG FAVORED BY UNITED STATES “These are objectives which have long been favored by the Government of the United States.” He added, however, that “thorough analysis and final judgment” must await further development of the plan. Thus, for the first time since the war, France and the United States appeared to be going into a western Foreign Ministers’ Conference with common aims. The con- ference opens Thursday. French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman arrived from Paris tonight. British officials did not seem to share the enthusiasm of one American diplomat who commented that “this is the first time the French have taken the initiative in a major constructive fashion to solve the German problem.” A British Foreign Office spokesman danced all around the subject when questioned by reporters. Most of the British press expressed reserve toward the idea. ADDRESSES PILGRIMS In an address tonight before the Pilgrims, a society to foster American-British friend- ship, Acheson said both the United States and Europe must sacrifice some national in- terests to make the world secure against war. Acheson said the job of bringing Germany back into the family of western civilization “must be a cooperative enterprise in which the risks and responsibilities are shared by all.” Though remarking on the success of Amer- ican economic aid to Europe, he said remain- ing troubles can be cured only through “co- operative international arrangements in which some sacrifices of purely national in- terest will be unavoidable for all of us.” A combination of French and German heavy industry, as represented by coal and steel, would outweigh Britain in the Euro- pean scales. If Britain entered the pool, as suggested by Schuman, the Government would have to take account of the pro- nounced effect on its planned economy schemes, Aside from still nebulous phases of the Schuman idea, there remained a question of the extent of support the plan will get from the French people. The plan escaped an adverse slap by only one vote in the foreign affairs committee of the French National Assembly today. When a rightist deputy moved that the Govern~ ment get prior approval from Parliament for eny pooling scheme the committee voted him down 18 to 17. The plan is the most daring ventured by any French Foreign Minister toward Germany since the war. It probably would have top- pled any French Government if attempted @ year or more ago. Many French, as well as German Socialists, were expressing misgivings that the plan would cut across their ideas of public own- ership. At Bonn, however, the West German Chan- celor Konrad Adenauer has called the plan @ generous step. Western Germany would have little to lose. France is in control of the Saar coal mines, whose output would be thrown into the pool for German use. Cer- many’s coal and steel from the Ruhr already are under an international authority. The scheme closely fits Acheson’s urgent aim of knitting Western Germany so closely to the west that there will be no question of her sliding into the Russian orbit. The speed of Russian armament has im- pelled him to seck bold cooperation from America’s partners in the Atlantic Pact. Britain has given the impression that she is unmoved by the same sense of urgency. Consequently, few concrete decisions have been expected from the three-way meeting of Acheson, Bevin, and Schuman. The French suggestion, however, may change that and give an impetus to the con- ference that was lacking before. Acheson and Bevin ended their talks to- night. No definite agreements were reached, it was reported, although officials described the talks as satisfactory. A wide range of subjects reaching from Europe and the European payments problem of the Marshall plan organization to the Middle East and Far East were discussed. The morning meeting of Acheson and Bevin presumably was devoted to Germany, since advisers on German affairs were pres- ent. These included United States High Commissioner John J. McCloy. The afternoon session turned to other world problems, including those in the Far Hast. Informed sources said they expected the three powers would make a joint decla- ration of aims in the Far East, and might work out a joint plan to aid anti-Commu- nists in Burma, Indochina, Malaya, and other embattled countries. Acheson went from Bevin’s office shortly after noon to an audience with King George. Later he and Mrs. Acheson had luncheon with the King and Queen, Investment in Friendship EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. W. STERLING COLE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, when the Philippine rehabilitation bill providing for $400,000,000 with which to restore war-ravaged properties of the Filipino people was passed, it was my pleasure to be a member of the House Committee on Insular Affairs, then hav- ing jurisdiction of the bill. I recall that at the time there was some indication that this sum would be insufficient to carry out all of the provisions of the act, and that a supplemental authorization bill may be necessary. Such a bill is now pending before the House Committee on A3563 Foreign Affairs providing for another $100,000,000, which I sincerely hope will receive early consideration, as being justified as expressed by the attached editorial: [From the New York Herald Tribune of May 11, 1950] INVESTMENT IN FRIENDSHIP Since the Philippines were cut adrift on the rough seas of independence they have continued to look to this country as a friendly beacon in a storm-tossed world. They have made mistakes, but they have stood by us. It can be said with equal truth that we have stood by them. The United Siates has made a heavy contribution to the rehabilitation of the war-shattered economy of its former ward. Not all our expenditures have been wisely utilized. Tales of corrup- tion and mismanagement have been too often substantiated to be ignored. It must be admitted, however, that the fault has not always been on one side. That was shown in this newspaper’s recent reve- lation of the dissipation and pilferage of surplus materials turned over to the Philip- pines after the late war. Although vigilance is necessary against a recurrence of similar incidents, these past happenings cannot de- ter us from fulfilling the special responsi- pility that we owe to a government and a people who fought loyally against the Japa- nese when collaboration was the rule rather than the exception in other southeast Asian countries and who now are endangered by Communist pressures, both from within and without. The United States Congress is being asked for an additional $100,000,000 for rehabilita- tion under our war damage program in the Philippines. Frank A. Waring, War Damage Commissioner, has pointed out that a grant of this amount would make possible pay-= ments up to 75 percent of the allowed claim. Thus the proposed appropriation is in no sense an act of charity; it is, in fact, an ob- ligation. The machinery set up for the carry- ing out of this program is such as to ensure careful and efficient dispensation of any funds that may be made available. These moneys would contribute to economic revival and general well-being in a hard-pressed country. If we are to keep faith with the Philippines and to keep them on our side, the proposed grant merits our fullest support. Americanism EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr. Speak- er, the Hunting Park Post, No. 265, Vet- erans of Foreign Wars, of Philadelphia, Pa., in cooperation with the Philadelphia County Council, representing 83 VFW Posts in Philadelphia, recently conducted an essay contest on Americanism. The winning essays were submitted by two students of the Olney High School, one by Norman Kaplan, 4921 North Ormes Street, Philadelphia, entitled ‘‘American- ism, My Creed,” the other by Sandra Gunther, 1869 Conlyn Street, Philadel- phia, entitled, “Americanism, My Faith.” These essays reveal gratifyingly the in- telligent perspective of modern American youth, and it is gratifying to me that by permission of the House they may be
43564 printed in the ConGRESSIONAL RECORD. In submitting these essays, I also wish to say “Well done!” to the Veterans of Foreign Wars for sponsoring such con= tests and instilling in our youth the prin- ciples of Americanism. The essays are as follows: AMERICANISM, My Cr&EepD (By Norman Kaplan, 4921 North Ormes Street, Philadelphia, Pa.) Mr. Noah Webster defines Americanism as; “the doctrine of United States citizen~ ship; patriotic attachment to the United States, its interests and institutions.” To me, however, my creed, Americanism, has come to mean a number of things. It means going to a baseball game and sing- ing the national anthem along with people of entirely different racial and religious backgrounds. It means going to an Easter sunrise service even though I was born Jewish. It means going to a Purim service with my friend, who was born Catholic. Re- ligious freedom, however, is just one of the things that Americanism means to me. To my uncle, who lives around the corner from me, Americanism means writing to his Congressman and telling him how he would run the Government. It also means sign- ing his name to the letter without fearing any unwelcome guests at his door. To my father, Americanism means free enterprise, the right to invest some money and become “your own boss.” It means being one of the owners of the Bell Tele- phone Co., and having a certain amount of “say-so” in their doings. To get back to myself, Americanism means going to a free public school. It also means doing 6 hours of home work occasion-~ ally, which is good or bad according to the perspective with which it is observed. Americanism means individualism and competition. Because of the individualism in America, producers and manufacturers are subjected to competition which means that their product had best be good or they will not remain in business. Perhaps the manufacturers do not appreciate this phase of Americanism as much as I, but to me, it means that I am buying the best that there is to be offered. It is for these reasons that when I, am asked my creed, I will proudly reply, “my creed is Americanism.” AMERICANISM, My FarrH (By Sandra Gunther, 1869 Conlyn Street, Philadelphia) Americanism means to me my entire ex- stence. It means I may have a date Sat- urday night. I can go where I please, do whatever I please, and enjoy myself with a carefree mind. I can go to a lecture where I can listen to another person’s ideas, beliefs, and opin- ions, and from these formulate my own opinions. I can express these ideas, too, without fear of being condemned because my ideas do not coincide with some dictator’s spiteful wiles. After school, I can come home to a house where I can have privacy or company as my whims fancy. I have no fears that a knock on the door will mean disaster for my fam- ily and me. I know we are free to live a life of our own choosing. I have the privilege of attending school and taking the courses of my own choice. I can read uncensored books, books free from political pressure, books written by freemen. I cannot be told that when I grow up I am to be a worker on an assigned farm. If I desire, I may be a doctor or even Presi- dent of the United States. I have the same opportunity to succeed in any enterprise I undertake as the man next door or the girl across the street. I have an unequivocal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I have this right because my ancestors fought and strug- gied so that I may live a free person, They settled in this land as a people seeking lib- erty and justice. They made certain that they secured these privileges. They secured their endeavor and they preserved it for me— a free girl in a free land. President Traman’s Speech at Crend Istand, Nebr., on May 8, 1859 EXTENSION OF REMARKS oFr RON. EUGENE D. O’SULLIVAN OF NESRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, the people of Grand Island, Nebr., were privileged to hear President Harry S. Truman, on May 8, last. His inspiring address was as follows: When I was here last time, I was here on a Sunday in 1948. Time passes very quickly. You gave me a pair of spurs, and I told you I was going to make good use of them, and I did. I used them on the Hightieth Congress through the second term of the Presidency of the United States. I still have those spurs, and I am going to keep them as long as I live, because they were a symbol at that time. I have just come from Lincoln, where I made a speech on the major farm problems which we face, and I made the speech in a terrific downpour of rain, and I got wet as a drowned rat, but I finished the speech, and I told them that I thought maybe they needed the rain more than they did me. They would not admit it, but they were very kind to me, and an immense number of that audience stayed in that heavy rain to hear what I had to say about the farm situation, and my pro- gram for settling it. I hope some of you heard that speech over the radio, and I hope you will all have a chance to read about it in tomorrow’s papers, There are four main principles on which our national farm program should be firmly based. First. We must maintain farm income at high levels. Second. We must expand the markets for farm products. Third. We must conserve and improve our soil and water resources. Fourth. We must preserve the American tradition of the family-size farm. If we are to keep our farms prosperous, we can't sit still and do nothing while sur- pluses pile up, or when farm incomes drop, or when dust storms threaten. We have to take action, and that is exactly what I am proposing to do. One thing we need is a system of produc- tion payments which will be beneficial to the farmer, the consumer, and the taxpayer alike. By using production payments, we can give farmers the proper incentive to grow more of the kind of food which the country needs, and Jess of the kind we don’t need. We can prevent big surpluses. The consum~ ers will get more food, and at lower prices. We shall get more livestock. Some people will try to tell you that this idea of production payments is regimentation or socialism, The opposition has used lan-= APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD guage like that against every piece of progres~ sive legislation for the benefit of the farmers or for the benefit of the people. Back in 1933, after years of deep depres- sion, when farm prices were at rock bottom, and your homes and farms were being fore- closed, the New Deal passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act. What do you think the opposition said absut the ASA in 198389? One Member of the Congress called the AAA “niore bolchevisiic than any law or regulation now existing in Soviet Russia.” That was in 1933. Ancther Congressman predicted that the AAA would put the farmer “under bondage to the Gov- ernment.” Well, you know that didn’t happen after 1933, any more than it will happen now un- der this plan of production paymenis. Whatever scare words the opposition uses, we intend to move forward with a positive program to keep high incomes for the farm- ers. We know that in order to kcep the coun- try prosperous, agriculture must be procper- ous. And there is no surer way to guarantee world peace than to keep this country strong, Now, there have been all sorts of conversa. tion about farm programs and labor pro- grams and business programs. In 1948 I \ ont over the country and told you what I stood for. I am back here now, in 1950, re- porting to you on what I have tried to do, reporting to you that the welfare of the country as a whole is my first job. Iam your hired man. You hired me in 1948. I am trying to live up to the responsibility which you gave me. I am trying to obtain world peace. Iam trying to keep the farmers pros- perous. I am trying to keep labor on the same basis, and I am trying to keep business going as it should in this country. And I think we have been very successful at it over the last 5 years. I want you to weigh the situation as you see it. I want you to look at the facts. I want you to know what the facts are, and that is the reason I am with you tonight. I am trying to tell you what the facts are. I am trying to tell you what I still stand for. I am trying to let you know that I came out here in 1948, and I was then running for President of the United States, and I was asking for votes on a certain kind of platform. I am out here now to report to you, to let you look at me, and to let you talk to me, and to let you know that I haven’t changed since 1948. I am still working for you and the welfare of the country. Thank you very much. Reorganization Plan No. 12 Will Promote Better Administration and Industrial Peace REMARKS : or ‘ HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, having seen the conflict and confusion that have ‘resulted from the present division of authority within the National Labor Re- lations Board, we now come to the ques- tion of how Reorganization Plan No. 12 would cure that split. On this point, it is important at the very beginning to clear up a misconception that has been permitted to gain some currency.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Critics have suggested that the plan merely substitutes for unmanageable one-man rule of the general counsel a super-one-man rule by the Chairman. This assertion has no basis in fact. The plan contains no such proposal. The language of the plan itself is clear and unambiguous on this point; to dispel this misconception the Chairman of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, speaking for the unanimous Board, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Attor- ney General of the United States have gone on record, clearly and unequivo- cally, to state that no such thing is con- templated or even suggested by the plan. The only powers of the general counsel transferred to the chairman are those of agency housekeeping and the admin- istrative direction of the field and oper- ating forces. The general counsel’s power over un~ fair labor practice charges is transferred to the five-member Board itself, subject of course to the internal separation of investigation and decision-making func- tions required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, the Board has announced that, when plan No. 12 becomes law, it plans to adopt safeguards for the rights of parties coming before it that will go even beyond the Administra- tive Procedure Act. ‘These additional safeguards are intended to assure that there will not be even the shadow of a question of the agency’s complete im- partiality in the handling of unfair labor practice charges nor even the faintest suggestion of prejudgment of any case. Under the Board’s proposal its power of initial review—in the very small num- ber of cases which might come to it ini- tially as a policy question—would amount to nothing more than the power to say that, on the facts turned up by preliminary investigation, it looks as if the case merits a full-dress investigation and a formal decision based upon a sworn record. Reposing this power in the hands of an officer beyond the con- trol of the Commission-——as is the case today— is a quite different thing. In the hands of an independent officer, it amounts to the sweeping power to with- hold from the Commission itself the power to implement and enforce the de- cisions and rules that it is empowered and directed by Congress to make. Just how this can work was clearly re- vealed recently in the case of the build- ing industry’s plea to the Board for relief from turmoil which the industry’s man- agement and labor representatives said the union security restrictions of the law were causing. Appearing before the Board to make a statement on the issue, the general counsel simply announced he had adopted the policy of not issuing complaints where the activities of labor and management in the building trades were technically illegal but would have been lawful were they able to obtain the union shop elections that they have so far been unable to obtain because of cer~ ‘tain seasonal and organizational factors in the industry. By the general coun- sel’s announcement, in the course of his statement to the Board members, their XOVI—App.——225 consideration of the question became largely academic. The general counsel, acting well within his final authority over the issuance of complaints, had made it clear that the Board would never have the opportunity to consider the question. In fact, he revealed to the Board members and the interested pub- lic for the first time that he had been pursuing such a policy all along. The Board, which has never passed on the issue, now will never have a chance to exercise the power Congress sup- posedly conferred only upon it and the courts to interpret our national labor policy. I mention this instance without passing in any way upon the merits of the matter or the soundness of the gen- eral counsel’s decision. I mention the matter only as an illustration of how easily the general counsel, as a wholly independent officer, may completely close the door to a whole field of enforce- ment of a right in the Board’s face. This can happen wherever or whenever the uncontrolled general counsel arrives at an interpretation of the law different from that reached by the Board. More- over, his refusal to act, even through ar- bitrary, is unlimited and beyond any re- view whatever—either by the Board or by the courts. The Board and the courts will never have an opportunity to con- sider his refusal to act, let alone being able either to agree or disagree with him as a matter of decision. This is one fantastic facet of the evil . farce that Reorganization Plan No. 12 will demolish. It will replace this Alice in Wonderland comedy of divided and inverted authority with a unified admin- istration of the national labor policy. As the courts and this Congress have long recognized, the enforcement of the national labor policy is not a matter of private combat between private litigants, nor is it a matter for enforcement by public combat between the two seg- ments of a double-headed administra- tive agency. Nowhere more than in the labor policy does uncertainty and con- fusion so plainly thwart the very pur- pose and intent of the policy itself. How can peaceful and fair relations between employer and employee be fostered when the very rules of such relationships are the center of a storm of friction be- tween two segments of the agency which must enforce those rules. This objec- tive can be achieved only when the policy clearly and unmistakably enunciated by the Congress is given a uniform enforce- ment by a single-headed agency. In- dustrial peace is not maintained or fés- tered by litigation, friction, and conflict. It can best be brought to flower by ne- gotiation and settlement. But such ad- justments become impossible when two authorities are given power over the applicable rules and they then come into conflict over the application of the rules. That is precisely the situation that confronts us today in the National Labor Relations Board between the 5-member Board and the general counsel. It is that impossible situation which Reor- ganization Plan No. 12 remedies. A3565 The Late Maj. Thomas B. McGuire EXTENSION OF REMARKS - OF HON. WILLIAM B. WIDNALL OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, my dis- tinguished colleague, Congressman CHARLES R. Hows, and I join in an- nouncing to the Congress that on Wed- nesday, May 17, at 3 p. m., the body of Maj. Thomas B. McGuire winner of the Medal of Honor and one of the most out- standing and celebrated Air Force aces of World War II will be brought to Arling- ton National Cemetery in Virginia for burial. The decision to make Arlington the final resting place of the hero of the Pacific air war was made by his father, Thomas B. McGuire, of Ridgewood, N. J., who will fly 10 Washington for the cere- mony with a number of relatives and close friends of the late Air Force officer. My colleague joins with me in paying tribute to this great hero, as the Repre- sentative from the district where Mc- Guire Air Force Base is located. This major Army Air Force base was named. in honor of the valiant record compiled by Major McGuire during his period of service. Major McGuire’s body was recently returned from the Pacific theater, the scene of the combat exploits which won for him the highest honors awarded by the military services. At the time of his death, Major McGuire had destroyed 38 enemy airplanes in aerial combat, and had become legendary throughout the Air Force. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry in action over Luzon, Philippine Islands, during December 25 and 26, 1944. Dur- ing those 2 days Major McGuire shot down 7 Japanese fighters while lead- ing a flight of 15 P-38 Lightnings flying as top cover for heavy bombers attack- ing Mabalacat Airdrome and Clark Field on Luzon. As the formation crossed Luzon on Christmas Day, it was attacked by 20 Japanese fighters. In the battle that followed, Major McGuire shot down three enemy planes. In two of the en- gagements he was outnumbered 3 to 1. The third plane was destroyed while attacking another pilot in Mc- Guire’s flight. Although McGuire’s guns jammed, he continued to attack and brought another enémy plane into his wingman’s line of fire, thus aiding in a fourth victory. The following day he volunteered to lead an escort squadron to Clark Field. Over the target one of the bombers was hit by flak. As the bomber left the for- mation it was atiacked by Japanese fighters. McGuire entered the fight and deliberately exposed himself to enemy fire to enable the crippled bomber to es- cape. He shot down one plane and was attacked by four more, He outmaneu- vered the four, shot one down, and pur- sued the other three. He destroyed one of them before leaving the scene to join
A3566 his formation. On the way out of the target area, McGuire shot down another enemy aircraft, his fourth for the day, bringing his total to 38 enemy planes destroyed. Major McGuire died attempting to save a fellow pilot. On January 7, 1945, he was leading a flight of P-38’s over a Japanese held airstrip on Negroe Island, when a lone Japanese plane suddenly sprang from the concealment of the clouds. The Japanese began his attack while the P-38 formation was at 2,000 feet where it hoped to intercept enemy planes taking off. McGuire led his squadron into a tight Lufbary, snaring the Zero inside. The Japanese made a sharp turn in an effort to break out of the trap, but the P-38's stayed with him all the way down to 200 feet. The forma- tion scattered and the enemy pilot maneuvered into position on the tail of one of the Lightnings. The attacked pilot called for help on the radio and McGuire responded. He was so close to the ground that his aircraft fell off and crashed. He was fully aware of the risk he took and knew full well the small likelihood of success in what he at- tempted, but in order to rescue his com- rade he sacrificed his life. Major McGuire, who was 23 years old at the time of his death, was born in Ridgewood, N. J., and lived in Paterson during his youth. Prior to Pearl Har- bor he was an aeronautical engineering student at Georgia Tech. While in school he was an officer in the ROTC Coast Artillery Antiaircraft Unit. Upon completion of his junior year at college he returned to Ridgewood and entered the Army Air Forces in July 1941. He won his wings at Randolph Field, Tex., and was assigned to duty in Alaska, and thence to the Aleutians in May 1942. He returned to this country after 6 months’ service, and after a short time at Glen- dale, Calif., was sent to New Guinea, and then to Leyte, which was the scene of much of his combat experience. Major McGuire had been awarded be- sides the Medal of Honor, the Distin- guished Service Cross, three Silver Stars, six Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Purple Hearts, two Distinguished Unit Badges, and the Air Medal with 14 oak leaf clusters, Curtailment of Postal Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTHONY F. TAURIELLO OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. TAURIELLO. Mr. Speaker, un- der the leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following letter and resolution: Crry or BUFFALO, OFTICE OF THE Ciry CLERK, May 9, 1950. Hon. ANTHONY F, TauRIZtLo, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sm: At a session of the Common Council of the City of Buffalo, N. ¥., held on ‘port. Tuesday, May 2, 1950, a resolution relating to the proposed curtailment in postal service was adopted, copy of which is transmitted to you herewith. Very truly yours, Dr. JoszpH J. TRONOLONE, City Clerk. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON CoUNCIL, Burrato, N. Y., May 2, 1950 RESOLUTION 128—POSTAL CURTAILMENT (By Mr. Cooley ) Whereas it has just been learned that the United States Post Office Department con- templates a curtailment in postal service; and Whereas the curtailment of this important service will allow only one delivery of mail daily, which will cause serious inconvenience and hardship for business people and those using the mails for personal reasons; and Whereas curtailment of postal services will result in unemployment: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Common Council of the City of Buffalo being opposed to any curtail- ment in postal service, hereby directs the city clerk to forward a copy of this resolu- tion to the Postmaster General and to the area Senators and Congressmen, ‘Adopted. Address of Hon. Paul G. Hoffman EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the ReEcorp, I include the following address by Paul G. Hoffman, Administrator, Economic Co- operation Administration, before the Textile Workers Union, CIO convention, Boston, Mass., May 3, 1950: Iam delighted to be here at the invitation of President Rieve, since it gives me the op- portunity of thanking your organization for the loyal support extended to the Economic Cooperation Administration and also of ex- pressing my appreciation of the good work of some of your officers in our behalf. Wesley Cook, national director of your rayon and synthetic yarns division, is with our mission in Austria; Ken Douty, your Georgia State director, is with us in France, both on leave of absence. Another of your officers, your research director, Sol Barkin, conducted a study of the British textile in- dustry for the U. K. mission at the special in- vitation of our then mission chief, Thomas Finletter. We are grateful, too, for the co- operation and assistance of George Baldanzi. So I feel that our organizations have strong bonds. I assure you that we count heavily on your understanding and continuing sup~ If any of your delegates to this con- vention entertain any doubts whatever as to the wisdom and necessity of our program I am sure it is because we have been at fault in not making our aims understood. I realize that you are immediately con- cerned with the problem of unemployment in your industry. I know that you are nat- urally concerned with the impact that ECA programs, formulated with the purpose of balancing international trade at a high level, may have on unemployment. However, before approaching that discus- sion, I would like first to describe the world situation as I see it. On my return from Europe recently, I glanced at the first American newspapers I APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD had seen in 10 days. The headlines were de- voted to H-bombs, mysterious flying saucers, the latest spy hunts, and other sensational news. The second section bristled with ads of movies dealing with World War II, reviews of books on World War II, and so forth and so forth. Only in one or two papers did I see any articles stressing the fact that here and now we—the American people—are in the middle of the most titanic struggle the world has ever known. That conflict is between the free world and the slave world of Russian communism. The stake is western civilization itself. The challenge is to the basic principle of that civilization—its faith in man as an individ- ual. The realities of this fateful world sit- uation are, I suppose, hard to grasp. There are few headlines and little obvious drama in what has been called the cold war. There are no jet planes, no guided missiles, no giant bombers. Yet the fate of free men every- where hangs in the balance. There are four fronts in this mighty con- flict in which we are so intensely involved. They are economic, political, Informational, and military. As in modern warfare, where the battles are fought on these same four fronts, the drama is confined to the spectacu- Jar fourth front—the exploits of the warriors with the modern engines of destruction. But in this gigantic conflict between the free and the slave world it is crystal clear that battles are constantly being waged on the unspectacular three fronts—economic, political, and informational. And they must be won by us if we are to prevent the out- break on that fourth front which would mean the change from the cold to the shooting war with all its terrifying implications for man- kind. If there is any doubt in your minds as to whether tangible results can be obtained from pressing the fight on the other three fronts—economic, political, and informa- tional—I ask you to witness the fact that since 1945, when the end of the war came— but no peace—the Kremlin has extended its baleful domination, through the employ- ment of its cold war techniques, to Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Manchuria—without firing a shot. Without any action on that spectac- ular fourth front, Soviet Russia has obtained domination of more territory and more peo- ple than any nation in history has ever ac- quired through a shooting war. We are winning the cold war in western Europe—and winning it by means appropri- ate to our end, which is a strong, free Europe able to be self-sustaining without extraordi- nary outside assistance after Marshall-plan aid terminates. Our methods have been to provide food for the hungry, clothing for the ill-clad, housing for the homeless, tools for the workers, essential machines for in- dustry and agriculture, and the application of the most modern methods, through tech- nological advice in both industry and agri- culture, so that output per man-hour may be increased. We are winning—and our gains are evident—despite Soviet attempts to sabotage our efforts in every unscrupulous way imaginable. With our help, this is what the peoples of western Europe have been able to accom- plish: There has been a 20-percent increase in industrial production over the prewar level. Agriculture has been restored to ap- proximately its prewar level, Inflation has been brought under control. There is food enough not only to give the people a better than sustaining diet but to provide workers with enough energy to apply themselves to their jobs and produce. Wages are higher and living conditions have improved. Com- munism has been held at bay, democratic institutions preserved, individual freedoms strengthened, Nevertheless, all these encouraging achievements can be jeopardized unless these countries, by the time Marshall-plan
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD aid ends, find themselves in a position to earn the dollars they need to buy the vital necessities which they can obtain only from the United States. Their cotton mills can’t operate unless they receive the raw material from us; modernization programs can’t be carried out Without essential machine tools that are procurable only from us; agricul- ture cannot develop to its full potential with- out the necessary modern implements that are obtainable only here. Ii the dollar gap is to be closed without serious consequences, Europe, between now and 19538, must effect savings of more than $1,000,000,000 and at the same time increase her earnings kv stmc*hin~ less than that amount. Shes ~. 2-0 .5 buy a billion less and earn a billion more, Provided these goals are achieved and a reasonable amount of capital investments are made abroad, I believe that trade be- tween the United States and western Europe can be brought into balance at a figure be- tween $3,000,000,000 and $3,500,000,000. That would protect our employment and at the same time create an economically healthy Europe. Of the $1,000,000,000 in increased earnings required by Europe, not over $400,000,000 will come from additional exports. end con- sidering our economy as a whole, thai $400,- 000,000 cannot conceivably affect us adversely in view of the fact that nvoduction in *re United States amounted ‘5 7/0. ) 600,900 in wholesale value in 1949. If the dollar gap were to be closed as of this moment—~if exports from dollar areas in Europe were reduced to what Europe can currently pay for with her present earnings— it would mean a $3,000,000,000 drop in ex- ports—and that would obviously create un- employment here and generally threaten our prosperity. Now I want frankly and firmly to grasp the thistle of serious unemployment in the textile industry. I know there are more unemployed in New England than in some other parts of the country, and I know a good many of those New England unem- ployed are in the woolen mills. I have not been one of those who look upon unemployment merely as a statistical matter. An unemployed worker, without in- come, is not only in a tragic situation for himself and his family, but he is not a good customer for the products of industry. Working people need incomes to be cus- tomers, and businessmen need customers so they can employ workers. I suggest that we look at the latest figures from the Department of Commerce about imports. and compare them with figures on our domestic production. Let’s find out pre- cisely how much competition there is in the textile field. Last year wool fabrics production in the United States was 356,100,000 linear yards. Total imports amounted to 6,000,000 yards, or 1.7 percent of our production. I wish to em- phasize that most of these imports are spec- ial patterns and types of fabrics which are particularly adaptable to European produc- tion and not generally produced economically in the United States. Any increase in im- ports of woolen fabrics from Europe would undoubtedly be of those having these same characteristics. Cotton fabrics production here last year was 9,296,000,000 square yards as against total imports of 19,743,000. These imports repre- sented only 0.2 percent of our domestic pro- duction. Production of rayon fabrics in the United States last year was 1,929,621,000 linear yards. Total imports amounted to 443,300 or 0.02 percent of our production. Since these figures on imports represent the world-wide picture, if the data were con- fined to the European countries these tiny percentages would be even smaller. It seems clear to me that we can’t meet the problem of unemployment in the textile " nomic fronts. industry in the United States by cutting off this modest—this infinitesumal—volume of imports from western Europe. In fact, it is perfectly clear that if we cut off imports—in any industry—we are going to have to cut down exports. And that would really create unemployment in this country. Not just in one industry, but in many. And it would spread. We all know about the chain reaction that unemploy- ment in any one industry can create. The way to solve unemployment in the textile industry—or again, in any industry— is to expand our domestic consumption, and increase our exports. That means that we must exploit our mass production methods to the fullest to produce goods at prices that people can afford to pay. And, it means that we must not—not even for a moment— forget that if other countries cannot sell to us, they cannot buy from us. This I know sounds like an over-simplifi- cation of a problem. Actually, the problem is as simple as that—it is the solution that becomes more complex. There would not be time, at this large convention, to go into the details of a possible solution. But there is one, and it must not just be found—it must be put into effect. And it can be done by the industries and unions of this country. They have never yet failed to meet the chal- lenge of changing conditions. I am sure that they will meet this one, and that they will not do it by what appears to be an easy out—surplus dumping. That would be a temporary alleviation—not a cure. I do not wish to leave with you the im- pression that even if Europe, by 1952, is ina position to earn all the dollars she requires, all her problems will be solved. Fundamen-~ tally, there must be a closer union of the free nations of Europe, a willingness on their part to draw together and work together more harmoniously and purposefully than they are now doing, on the political and eco- Even that will not be enough. We must help these nations in their e™ ° Europe needs us, but we also need her. destinies are inevitably joined. I see ) ehance for an enduring peace unless Euroge becomes strong and srccn-vou-. It was the poet, John Donne, vio #9 i. a “ong time ago that no man is an island unto himself. That can be said with equal verity of nations. To-~ day America is strong, prosperous, blessed above every nation on earth. But she is still not an island sufficient unto herself. The free peoples of the world need each other. Economic integration in Europe, of Jtself and by itself, is not enough. There must be a knitting together of all these free nations, econcmically, militirity, and polit- jeally. Benjamin Franklin's words---we must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately—are most apposite to this situation in which we find ourselves. Together—and only together—can we win this cold war and build a peace so strong and lasting that no aggressor of today or poten- tial aggressor of the future will dare to violate it. A Courtesy Week EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HAROLD D. DONOHUE OF MASSACHUSETTS , IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to includé an interesting edi- torial containing a tribute to our young- sters which appeared in the May 10, 1950, issue of the Worcester (Mass,) Telegram. A3567 In spite of many dire predictions to the contrary, most of our American youth today are Christian-minded and Chris- tian-acting. .The suggestion of the teen- agers at Mount Vernon, N. Y., fer a Courtesy Week is a commendable in- spiration and might well be adopted by every community throughout the country. The article follows: A Covrrrsy WEEK It is perhaps one of the more discouraging signs of our times that it became headiine news when the citizens of Mount Vernon, N. Y., a Westchester County community, de- cided to try out the gentle art of being courteous to one another for a whole week. Visitors to Mount Vernon this week are likely to be surprised to find how much real courtesy people can muster up, although it must be said that Mount Vernonites say they are usually pretty polite anyway. This week, however, they will be even more polite; there will be smiling traffic cops, eager assistance to help elderly folks across busy: streets and @ return to an era when folks seemed to take courtesy as a matter of course, and not something for which to be awarded a special medal. It all started when a trio of teen agers, of all people, persuaded Mayor William H. Hus- sey that he should proclaim the week as a “courtesy week.” The mayor agreed with the youngsters that perhaps much of the world’s troubles do come from the fact that too many persons are inconsiderate of one another. Perhaps Mount Vernon could lead the way back to a courteous age, a period of gallant manners when life was casual and a lot happier. It is to be hoped that this will be so. Itis perhaps slightly encouraging that the idea for a courtesy week did come from some teen agers. President Truman’s Speech at Ravenna, Nebr., on May 8, 1950 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EUGENE D. O’SULLIVAN OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, our people-~minded President, Harry S. 'Tru- man, on his westward dedicatory tour, had occasion to stap at Ravenna, Nebr., on May 8, 1950, and while there ad- dressed a splendid crowd, as follows: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. It is good to see all of you here in Ravenna this evening. I want to talk to you about one of your major problems, soil conservation. I hope some of you were listening to my rain- made speech in Lincoln this afternoon. We had a terrific rain there, and my thought was whether they wanted rain more than they did the President or wanted the President more than they did the rain. Our growing population and rising stand- ard of living require better and better use of our farmlands. That is why the dust storms in the Great Plains this spring have caused concern everywhere in the Nation. The farmers of this country know a great deal more about dust and other conservation problems than they did 20 years ago. Since the “black blizzards” of the thirties, farmers and the Government, working together, have developed an effective soil conservation pro- gram. As a result of the soil conservation districts, and the agricultural conservation
A3568 program, millions of acres of land are now being farmed with the best scientific prac- tices. In the Great Plains, an important aid to conservation is provided by shelter-belts of trees. Fifteen years ago last month the first tree was planted for the first shelter-belt. Now, I was in the Senate at that time, and Inever heard as much argument against any- thing in my life. The arguments were just as if the world was coming to an end if we planted a few trees. We planted the trees, in fact 25,000 miles of shelter-belts were planted. You remember that many people scoffed at the idea of growing trees on the Plains. I wish you could have heard some of the Senators that are still there, making speeches against the shelter-belt. They said it was just a boondoogle. But today the trees are growing, and they are breaking the force of the wind. Of course, we have a long way to go yet before we lick the problems of dust and soil erosion, and floods. We have got to move forward as far as we can, to find better conservation practices, and then put them into effect. We need more of the kind of pioneering work you people around here have long been doing with stub- ble-mulch farming. We have got to keep right on until we are sure there will never be another dust bowl, There is another thing we have learned about soil conservation, that is that good conservation is good business. The man who manages his farm with good conservation practices will have a permanent and steady income. We are going to keep right on moving ahead with soil conservation, just as we are with the other programs that will lead to more prosperity and a better life for all of us, such as improvements in our social-security system, Federal aid to States to help them improve schools, a broad Nation-wide health program, and better housing. Above all, we are going to keep right on working for world peace. Now, I am out here on this trip to tell you just exactly what is going on in Washing- ton, to give you first-hand information about what I have been trying to do as President. I came out here over the country in 1948 - and told you what I hoped to do. I talked to you very frankly. I talked to you as one of your citizens. I am talking to you now as your hired man. You decided to put me back in the Presidency, and I have Come out here and I am going all the way across the country almost to the Pacific coast to tell you just exactly what I am trying to do, and I am telling it to you first-hand so it can’t be garbled. I am letting you listen to me, and look at me and see if you still think I am the same fellow that was out here trying to get you to vote for me in 1948. I am going to try to keep on working in the public interest. I am going to try to balance the economy of this country so that the farmers, the workingman and the businessman will have a fair share of the tremendous income that the country has now. We have the greatest national income we have had in the last 3 or 4 years in the history of the world, and that income has been rather equitably distributed—the farm- ers, the laborers, and the businessmen have all had their fair share. Everybody has been put into the position of being a part of the economic situation of the United States, All I am trying to do is keep that up, and if we keep that up and improve it, we will come to the point where we Will have peace in the world. Because, our economic situation being strong, our defense situation being strong, the people in the world who are not for the things that we believe in will not directly attack us, And we don’t want to attack anybody. All we want is peace in the world, so that the distribution of things all over the world will be just like we want them here at home. Now, if you people will support that sort of program, I am very sure that we can put it over. That is the reason I am out here, to tell you what it means. I can’t tell you how very much I appre- ciate the reception I have received today across the State of Iowa. Thousands of people stood in the rain at Lincoln to hear what I had to say about the farm program. People have come out to see whether their President is what he was when he was a candidate. Now then, I am going to tell you just exactly what I stand for, I am going to tell the whole country what I stand for, I am going to tell the whole country what I am trying to do—and with your help I will get it done. Thank you very much, Tariff To Equalize Wage Rate Paid American Labor REMARKS HON. ROBERT L. RAMSAY OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. RAMSAY. Mr. Speaker, in a re- cent issue of the trade magazine Made in America, there is an article pertaining to the tariff as a measure to equalize the wage rate paid the American worker,, The article goes on to say: That under our foreign trade program, if we enter into a trade agreement, for example, with Canada or any other country, whose labor standards more nearly approach our own, the same reduction in the rate of duty extended to any of these countries is auto- matically extended to all other countries, such as Japan, etc. For example, on wool gloves which sell for $2.90 per dozen in Ja- pan and $7.67 for like merchandise from all other countries, the same rate of duty ap- plies to all imported gloves. That by doing this, we reward the low-cost producing countries, and, of course, it en- ables them to take over the American market, not only from the American producers, but from all other higher-cost producing coun- tries, as well? This is a true statement so far as it goes into the manner in which trade treaties fail to take into consideration the same wages and cost of production in the various governments of Europe, and the inability of trade treaties to meet such conditions. . However, it does not take into consid- eration the fact that the trade treaties are not all alike in the adjustment of the tariff rates upon the admission of goods and merchandise that are now admitted into our country. Nor does it make plain that tariff rates under our tariff laws are based on the value of such goods when they reach America; that none are admitted on the values prevailing in the country of exportation, ‘APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In all our former tariff legislation, in- cluding our present tariff laws, we only exacted equal tariff rates, regardless of the cost of such goods in the country of exportation. Such tariff rates ap- plied to all export countri@s, regardless of the low standard of wages earned. It is extremely doubtful if Congress would or couid, in the face of the exist- ing favorite-nation treaties with certain foreign nations, break and destroy such solemn treaties and exact from low- standard countries a higher rate of tariff on imports than those exacted from countries of a higher ‘standard of living solely for the purpose of equalizing the equality of competition. Surely, the same favorite-nation trea- ties would prevent us from exacting dif- ferent tariff rates from low-wage coun- tries, as it now seems to do through trade treaties. If Congress can exact different rates, the same Congress can exact different rules and rates for admis- sion of goods and merchandise into this country from abroad, by trade treaties and agreements. If this be trus, then Congress can, by legislation, determine the kind and character—yes, even the terms—upon which our State Department may enter into such agreements. And if Congress desires the State Department to abrogate all favorite-nation treaties heretofore made, who are now controlled by a total- itarian government it should say so by appropriate legislation. Personally, I do not believe Congress will ever vote to ignore and destroy any treaty ever made by its government, with free and uncontrolled countries. If I am right about this, then we must look to other methods left to Congress and grant to manufacturers and pro- ducers in our country, other necessary relief that will enable them to continue to pay the highest wages in the world, that guarantees the highest standard of living. We must examine thoroughly every . avenue of aid and protection possible. We cannot leave the whole problem to the ingenuity of the American producer and his employees. Because there is a limit to self-aid, some of us believe it has reached its Umit, and that within a short time all foreign manufacturers and producers will be enabled by the adoption of our manufacturing methods to produce vast- ly cheaper goods than they do today. We must meet this problem now. We cannot, we must not dodge it longer. We can grant relief to the injured American manufacturer, whose produc- tion is threatened, by granting to him in the way of a subsidy, a part of the tariff revenue obtained by the Government through the importation of goods. Congress can require by legislation the State Department to annul all trade and favorite-nation treaties now existing with countries behind the iron curtain. Wecan tighten up the amount of goods brought duty free into this country by travelers and others.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ‘We can demand and require our Treas- ury Department to place the exact Amer- ican value on all goods imported. We car demand that any country re- ceiving loans or gratuities from us will only export to this country goods and merchandise we do not produce in large enough quantities to supply the Ameri- can demand. We could pass legislation, setting aside a day each year to be known and ob- served as Buy American Day. All of us could concentrate on being better and more sincere Americans, and work for its full production and employ- ment, so as to give us a true and lasting prosperity. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CHASE GOING WOODHOUSE OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mrs. WOODHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on May 12, 1950, the Federal Deposit In- surance Corporation will enter upon its seventh year in which there has not been a loss to any depositor in insured banks. This remarkable record is commonplace today and we accept present bank sta- bility as a matter-of-fact occurrence in our everyday life. But it is not many years since every new day brought stories of bank failures and tremendous losses and suffering to depositors. The small depositors suffered most and their losses were reflected in our wavering economy. The FDIC was established in 1933 to protect the small depositor. That it has done its job well is attested by the record. Beyond that it has restored the confi- dence of all depositors—it has main- tained our banking system on a sound basis and has helped to stabilize our economy. - Under leave to extend my remarks, I include an editorial from the Hartford Times, Hartford, Conn., of April 24, 1950, as follows: SOLVENT AND SUPERSAFE The soundest and most widely accepted original New Deal agency, the Federal De- posit Insurance Corporation, continues to deserve this unqualified approval.. In its latest report the FDIC states that not one of the more than 100,000,000 de. positors served by the insured banks has suffered a loss from bank failure in more than 6 years. Total assets of all insured banks have reached an all-time peak of $170,000,000,000. These banks include 13,486 commercial banks and 192 mutual savings banks. The feeling of security which this insur- ance system has engendered has made the thought of bank failures almost academic. In the words of Chairman Maple T. Harl, “This record of solvency and stability 1s with- out parallel in the Nation’s history.” . An important aspect cf the FDIC’s useful- ness is that it works as a preventive. When people know their deposits are safe they don’t start runs on banks. Thus the sense of panic does not spread because it does not even get a start. Many a solvent bank was wrecked in the twenties because panicky depositors with- drew their funds for no reason except that of fearing the bank might close. They thus brought on the thing they most feared. All that is a thing of the past. The FDIC’s reserves are now so ample that the small assessments on the member banks may even be reduced and possibly be eventually elim- inated. Interest income from the reserves may be sufficient to meet administrative charges. The original Government loan which was the initial capital of the FDIC has long since been repaid. Veterans’ Training EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Chairman, I heartily congratulate and compliment the gentleman from Texas [Mr. TracuE] for his fine work in bringing this bill to the floor of the House and so ably and clearly debating the issues involved. It is high time that this House took notice of and effected a remedy for the present situation which permits so much misunderstanding, confusion, and dis- satisfaction among veteran trainees and applicants under the GI bill. Every Member of Congress is familiar with the discriminations and injustices which have arisen from the administration of the vocational and educational features of this program. I have been deeply impressed by the number of boys who have experienced difficulty in adjusting their training problems. Of course, there have been some instances of arbitrary decision by the VA militating against worthy, ambi- tious veterans. In the main, however, I think that VA officials have endeav- ored to be fair in passing upon these ap- plications. Certain regulations inter- preting organic laws have been misun- derstood and have also worked palpable and substantial injustice and hardship. It is this condition this bill seeks to remedy. It will regularize the status and eligibility of various schools providing veteran training. It will clarify the eligi- bility of the veteran himself and compel the VA in certain cases to recognize his entitlement to training. It will enjoin arbitrary, capricious action by VA offi- elals in a large number of instances. It will improve, I firmly believe, the ad- ministration of the training program. Moreover, it is stated in this debate that it will not impose substantial costs upon the Federal Treasury. Since I have worked for some time past for the principles of this bill, I in- tend to vote for it as amended. I be- lieve it will be helpful to our veterans. A3569 NLRB Administration Is Much Broader in Scope Than Prosecuting and Adjudicating EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD BOLLING OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr, BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, what is this “separation of functions” that we hear so much about? It is the elementary principle that the same officer should not prosecute and then decide as to guilt or innocence. To protect this principle, Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act re- quirement that no employee who en- gaged in prosecution or investigation of a case may participate in or advise as to the agency decision. The Administra- tive Procedure Act was passed in 1946 and applies to all administrative agencies equally. By the time of its enactment the procedures of the Labor Board were already in full conformity with its re- quirements. The Labor Board was al- ready operating under the internal sepa- ration of the functions required by the act, This is not what we have over at the Labor Board today. If that were all, there would be no necessity for plan No. 12. Today a great number of the func- tions of the Labor Board have been taken away from that agency and concentrated in the hands of a single officer, whose actions and decisions are largely free from review. Prosecution and ‘adjudication in their narrow sense are only two of the func- tions of the agency. It has the problem of administering and applying the con- gressional policy of the Taft-Hartley Act. This involves a host of duties which are broader than either prosecution or ad- judication of complaints. First, there is the entire field of so-called representa- tion cases, the cases which look to an election to determine who shall represent employees for bargaining. This is the bulk of the agency’s work. It is primarily administrative. Most of it is performed in the field offices. Theoretically, the final authority over representation cases is in the Board members. However, by statute the field staffs are all under the supervision of the independent general counsel, who frequently disagrees with the Board. This creates great con- fusion, In the second place, there is the func- tion of determining how far and how fast to go in applying the national policy to small employers and borderline indus- tries; the question of whether to ex- haust jurisdiction completely or whether to conserve appropriations by applying the mandate of the law where it will do the most good, The Board and the gen- eral counsel are in violent disagreement on this issue. The general counsel has sole and exclusive authority over com- plaint cases, because only he has power
A3570 to issue a complaint, and, although the Board disagrees with him as to the proper scope of the agency’s activities, it can effectuate its collective views only in the area of election cases. It cannot prevent him from prosecuting cases, although it can later throw them out. In the third place, there is the broad, over-all question of what kinds of activi- ties are forbidden by the act. The Board may believe that certain practices are unfair and should be stopped. If the general counsel disagrees, they never will be stopped. He alone may bring a case before the Board. If he does not bring the case, the Board does not have it. Conversely, the Board may believe that certain types of activities do not consti- tute violations. It may feel that these should be allowed without interference. Nevertheless, if the general counsel feels otherwise, parties will be subjected to lengthy, expensive litigation, and possi- bly injunctions, only to have the Board throw out the case when it finally comes up for decision. There is also the Board’s function of defending the orders it issues before the courts of appeals. This requires the services of lawyers. Under this remark- able setup, all the agency lawyers are under the supervision of the general counsel. He may disagree with a deci- sion of the Board. If he disagrees, the lawyers under his supervision are neces- sarily influenced by his attitude. Yet the Board is dependent upon lawyers as-~ signed by the general counsel to defend the Board’s own orders in the courts. The records before the committees of Congress demonstrate the friction and annoyance that has been caused when the general counsel, through members of his legal staff, has been called upon to defend Board positions with which he disagrees. It is one thing, and a good thing, to isolate the actual prosecuting attorney from the trial examiner or other adjudi- cating officer with respect to a given case. It is an entirely different matter to concentrate tremendous powers of in- vestigation, staff control, and adminis- trative policy-making in the hands of one man under the guise of separation of functions. The present system at the Labor Board does just that. It places unprecedented power in the hands of the general counsel, and prevents the five-~ man Board from playing its proper policy-making role in the executive branch of the Government. The sepa~ rate office of general counsel should be abolished. Unless plan 12 is adopted, the people of the United States may soon be treated to the insane spectacle of a single agency of the Federal Government appearing in court on both sides of the same case. The Board is empowered by the act to seek enforcement of its orders in courts of appeals. The general coun- sel, under the act, has supervision of all agency lawyers. As a result, the Board must use attorneys on the staff of the general counsel when it goes into court. . In several cases in which the general counsel has disagreed with the Board’s decision, he has been reluctant to per- mit his legal staff to enforce the Board’s order in court, claiming that it would be incompatible with positions taken by him, and would prove embarrassing. In two cases it was necessary for the Board to relieve the general counsel c* the re- sponsibility of enforcing its order. In one of these cases, the general counsel proposed, in addition, to present a brief to the court stating his views in oppo- sition to those of the Board, The case involved is that of the Hales- ton Drug Co. The Board dismissed the complaint because it found that the in- terruption of the employer’s drug-store business by a labor dispute would have “only a remote and insubstantial effect on commerce,” whereas the general counsel believes that the Board lacks the power to dismiss for that reason. The fantastic result, in which respon- sible officers of the same Federal agency find themselves on both sides of a law- suit, cannot be charged to the person- alities involved. It flows from the pecu- liar nature of the separation of agency functions. Any incumbent of the office of general counsel as now established might find himself in the position in which Mr. Denham now stands. There can be no excuse for permitting ‘this state of confusion to continue. Plan No. 12 affords Congress an excellent op- portunity to remedy it by restoring a sensible organizational pattern in which the Board will have authority to direct its own law officer, and not be dependent upon him for favors. Alaska and Hawaii Statehood EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. E. L. BARTLETT DELEGATE FROM ALASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp I include an editorial on Alaska and Hawaii statehood from the May 1 issue of the Courier-Journal published in Louisville, Ky.: Hawal AND ALASKA DESERVE STATEHOOD Bills granting statehood to Hawali and Alaska have already passed the House, and if common sense prevails the Senate will concur. There have been loud objections, of course, to statehood for either Territory, and these will undoubtedly be raised again. Al- ready in the Senate hearings all of the old and questionable arguments against ad- mitting the Territories into the Union are being raised. Some of them are selfish, such as the protest of the Alaskan fishing industry spokesmen who fear tax increases and stricter Government regulation. Some are downright stupid, such as the white- supremacy objection to the non-Caucasian people of both Hawaii and Alaska. But some of the arguments against state- hood merit at least an answer. It is pointed out, for instance, that Alaska has only 100,000 people. Is this enough to support state- hood? Apparently it is. Idaho and North Dakota had smaller populations at the time APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of their admission. And the blessings of Federal Government, including participation in the highway building program, will un- doubtedly draw more people to Alaska. Neither should their separation from the mainland be a serious handicap. Juneau and Honolulu are both closer to Washing- ton, from the viewpoint of communication and transportation, than were Ohio and Ken- tucky at the time of their admission. There are, it is true, Japanese and Eskimos among the people of the two Territories. But their patriotic conduct during World War II dispelled any possible doubts of their loyalty to the United States. Both have shown their capacity for self-government, Hawaii having had an efficient republican form of government for 50 years. And it is noteworthy that our highest military men have repeatedly urged the acceptance of Hawaii and Alaska into the Union, and have insisted that both strategically located Ter- ritories could best be protected if they were working parts of this country. Against these persuasive arguments, race prejudice and the selfish interest of a few fishing companies seem rather empty. May Day Demonstration at Mosinee, Wis. EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. REID F. MURRAY OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks, I include a front-page article of the Mosinee Times giving a report on the May Day demonstration held in that city on May 1: Mosinee’s May Day ENDs on Nove or RE.a- TIONSHIP BLTWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND DrE- Mocracy “We believe in the dignity of every human being in our United States of America re- gardless of his social or economic position; we believe in the existence of God and that all of the blessings we enjoy flow from God.” With this thought Charles Larson, Wiscon- sin Department commander of the Ameri- can Legion, began his stirring talk that cli- maxed the country’s first attempt to teach Americanism by demonstrating what “a day under communism” was like here in Mosinee on Monday. Commander Larson held his vast audience, during the evening’s Americanism rally, by dramatically showing the relationship be- tween the teachings of Christianity and the practices of democracy. At one point he sald: “In sharp contrast to our fundamental philosophies, the Communists place the state in the supreme position and make all indi- viduals subservient to the state. Personal dignity is unknown in a Communist land, and Communists teach, whether they believe it or not, that there is no God.” The Legion commander brought his fine talk to a conclusion with the thought that: “To preserve those freedoms for which our forefathers fought and died, those freedoms and that form of government under which our Nation has advanced beyond any in the history of the world we must do more than merely be law-abiding: citizens. It is our duty to guard against subversion, to be ac- tively interested in our Government, to be eternally vigilant. May God in His wisdom put an end to the scourge of communism.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD May He bless the people of all lands as we are blessed.” SUNDAY NIGHT The pageant really began on Sunday eve- ning in the American Legion club when the 58 members of the press, radio, and movies, here to cover the event, were given a drama- tization of the organizational preparations of communist party cells in Mosinee to seize the government of the city of Mosinee the following day. A large number of residents of the community attended this part of the press conference. At 9:30 the same evening, with the public excluded, the press conference for the work- ing press, was held with Francis Schweinler, general chairman of the event outlining the Monday activities; Paul Thielen, public rela- tions director for the Wisconsin department of the /merican Legion, coordinating the ac- tivities of newspapermen and photographers, radiomen, and movie cameramen. Joe Korn- feder, Detroit, a former Communist organ- izer, and technical adviser to the committee, outlined the work of the real Communists in a project of this sort and pointed out where and why some of the real things couldn’t be done on Monday. MAY DAY The activities of “A Day Under Commu- nism” got under way at 6 a. m. on Monday with the arrest of Mayor Ralph E. Kronen- wetter. (The schedule from here on is as it appeared on the schedule of events given to all the members of the press, but not released to the public in order to'avoid crowds at the points of activities —Editor.) 6:00 a. m. Arrest by Communist combat team of Mayor Ralph E. Kronenwetter at his home at 303 Fourth Street. 7:00 a. m. Arrest of Chief of Police Carl Gewiss at his home at 301 Fourth Street. 7:30 a.m. Scene at city hall. Police chief refuses to do as Communists command and is summarily dealt with. 8:00 a. m. Violent seizure of the power- house at Mosinee paper mill. 8:30 a. m.: Arrest of clergymen and con- finement of them in concentration camp. While all this is going on “Communist” action will be taking place in all parts of the city as road blocks are organized and manned; “activists” put up many different kinds of banners and placards and the “Red” flag is raised over the city hall and other public buildings. 9:15 a. m.: Parade to huge mass meeting of the populace in “Red Square.’’ Parade starts at football practice field at Mosinee High School and moves as follows: North on Eighth Street to Main; east on Main Street to Fifth; south on Fifth Street to High; east on High Street to Fourth; north on Fourth Street to Main; east on Main Street to Water; north on Water Street to Buchanan; west on Buchanan Street to “Red Square.” 9:80 a. m.: Mass meeting. Mayor is forced to make a statement and introduce “Chair- man of the Council of Peoples” Commissars, Comrade “Joseph Zack Kornfeder,” who.reads brief dictatorial proclamation outlining what people of Mosinee, henceforth, must do. This will be followed by brief address on The Role of the Communist Party by the general secre- tary of the Communist Party of the United Soviet States of America, Benjamin Gitlow. 10:30 a. m.: Seizure of the Mosinee Public Library at east end of Main Street. 11:00 a. m.: Confiscation of sporting fire- arms at home of John Drengler above Dreng- ler Tavern. 12:00 noon: Scenes at Princess Cafe and Quality Bakery. 1:00 p. m.: Social service class being taught “Communist line.” : 2:00 p. m.: High school, General Secretary Gitlow addresses YCL. 3:00 p. m.: Seizure of Mosinee Paper Mills with arrest of management and such of workmen as do not cooperate. 4:00 p. m.: Scenes at concentration camp. For the next 3 hours various dramatic scenes will be going on in different parts of the city—inspections of homes for anti- Communist literature, etc. 7:00 p. m.: Scene at theater. Seizure and confiscation of current film Guilty of Trea- son and substitution of film of Communist propaganda. 8:15 p. m.: Grand finale, Dessert Park. Loyal Americans from all parts of Mosinee and Marathon County gather; “Communists” cast aside their subversive roles and join in raising of the American flag. Boy Scouts burn all Communist banners, etc. in huge bonfire. Charles L. Larson, of Port Wash-~ ington, Wis., Commander of Wisconsin De- partment of the American Legion will speak. Then whole multitude will join in singing God Bless America, and then start peace- fully home thankful to God that they live in America. THE SECURITY POLICE The men who made up the security po- lice for the day were from the local Ameri- can Legion post and about 15 from the Wau- sau post. The political police were from many American Legion posts throughout the Wisconsin department. A large group came from Milwaukee post, and smaller numbers from Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Waupun, South Milwaukee, and Seymour, United States Maritime Commission EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN F. SHELLEY OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Speaker, on April 6, 1950, I commented on H. R. 7786, the omnibus appropriation bill, which con- tained a suggested limitation on the granting of operating subsidies by the United States Maritime Commission. This objectionable limitation was the subject of consideration by the Commit- tee of the Whole on Friday, May 5, at which time a substitute amendment was adopted which substantially relaxes the limitation. This modification resulted from conferences between the chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, The compromise adopted by the Com- mittee of the Whole imposes an over-all limitation on the Maritime Commission, but expands the size of the limitation by fixing the total number of vessels which may be subsidized at an aggre- gate of the following categories: (a) Vessels covered by existing sub- sidy contracts, authorizations, commit- ments, or obligations on January 1, 1950. (b) Vessels under construction or con- tracts of construction on January 1, 1950. (c) Vessels covered by subsidy appli- cations filed prior to January 1, 1950. I understand that a total of the fore- going categories equals or exceeds 281 A3d71 vessels, and that this will permit the Maritime Commission to function until such time as the question of a long-range subsidy program can be fully considered by the legislative committees and appro- priate action taken. As I explained in my remarks of April 6, the merchant marine is faced with a major crisis which can only be resolved by greatly expanding our subsidy pro- gram in order to avoid annihilation of the unsubsidized portion of our mer- chant fleet. This position was developed before the Senate Committee on Com- merce. I wish to quote the following paragraphs from a statement by one of the witnesses which, in my opinion, well states the problem with which the American-flag merchant marine is con- fronted and the dangers of imposing any limitations on the subsidy program through the appropriation-bill device: According to statistics filed with your com- mittee, there were on January 1, 1950, a total of 600 American-flag vessels, aggregating ap- proximately 6,304,000 deadweight tons, em- ployed in the foreign trade. This is a sub~« stantial reduction from the number em- ployed in 1949. Of the 600 vessels, 62 are Government-owned, and most of these may be expected to be withdrawn from the for- eign trade during the current year. Of the privately owned vessels (588 in number), only approximately 28 percent were receiv- ing operating subsidies. Thus, on January 1 of this year over 300 privately owned Ameri- can-flag vessels were operating in the for- eign trade without subsidy. During 1949, when as many as 800 American-flag vessels were operating in the foreign trade, the total American-flag participation for both sub- sidized and nonsubsidized vessels was less than 650 percent, which is usually taken as the minimum objective of the act. The 235 subsidized vessels alone probably handled less than 25 percent of the total volume of export traffic. Therefore, any hope of ac< complishing the over-all objective of 50 per- cent is dependent upon continued operations in the foreign trade by a number of vessels which are now operating without subsidy. In our opinion, the period of profitable operation by unsubsidized vessels is rapidly coming to a close. Increasing low-cost for- eign-~flag competition has already resulted in substantial reductions in our basic freight rates, a trend which probably will become further accentuated in the future. This and other developments will deprive the unsubsidized high-cost American-flag op- erator of arty hope of operating successfully without subsidy in the future. The choice before the United States Government, there- fore, is to increase the number of subsidized vessels by an amount sufficient to insure 50 percent participation in the foreign trade, or to abandon that target, restrict subsidies to @ smaller number of vessels, and accept a much reduced target for over-all American- flag participation in the foreign trade. The last alternative will automatically result in surrender of the seas to foreign-flag vessels and acceptance by the United States of a participation perhaps as low as 20 to 25 percent over all. Any such development will mean the failure of the American maritime policy. I am sure that no member of this committee or Member of Congress would advocate any such result. I am confident that when the House Appropriations Com-= mittee suggested a provision limiting sub- sidies to the number of vessels actually re- ceiving subsidy on January 1, 1950, that the
A3572 committee was proceeding on the erroneous assumption that American-flag vessels op- erating in the foreign trade had already been granted subsidies for the most part, whereas the facts show that the major part of such tonnage has been operating without subsidy. Hawaii Musicians Ask Repeal of 20-Per- cent Cabaret Tax EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JOSEPH R. FARRINGTON DELEGATE FROM HAWAIL IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. FARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the ReEcorp, I wish to call to the attention of Members of Congress an appeal from 500 musicians in the Territory of Hawaii for repeal of the so-called 20-percent cabaret tax. Their letter follows: MUSICIANS’ ASSOCIATION OF HONOLULU, Honolulu, Hawaii, May 3, 1950. The Honorable Senators and Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: On behalf of 500 musicians who are members of local 677, A, FP. of M,, located in Honolulu, T. H., we are addressing this open letter to you for proper considera- tion: Like the rest of the musicians encompass- ing nearly 300,000 members of the American Federation of Musicians, we are appealing to each and every one of you to study and re- consider a measure which was enacted during the war but which, at present, has become discriminatory and the cause of unemploy- ment of thousands of musicians throughout the country. The 20-percent cabaret tax has not only brought a sad situation in the em- ployment of musicians in cabarets, night clubs, and hotels, but has caysed the liquida- tion of many an establishment. The establishments, because of their in- ability to continue to hire live talent due to the above tax law have been forced to turn to other means for entertainment in their places of business which is another direct im- position and discrimination of the employ- ment of live talent, the installation of canned music. France, with all the ill effects of the last war, has enacted a law absolutely prohibit- ing the use of any canned device for amuse- ment. It has a law that if you want enter- tainment and music, hire live talent. With establishments resorting to canned music, there is no 20-percent tax rolling in, and with musicians being out of employment, the situation becomes all the worse. There are a few items that should be ex-~ plained, but by this time we realize that you have read of them from numerous locals and dispensers throughout the country. There are, also, figures which could be used to compare the unprogressive effects of the 20-percent cabaret tax to both the employer and musicians. Therefore, we sincerely hope and pray that you gentlemen will give this matter your careful consideration and show the same response to the proposals now before Con-= gress for the repeal of the 20-percent cabaret tax, the most discriminatory, nonproductive, and unjust law. Sincerely yours, Atvin K. Isaacs, Secretary-Treasurer. Coal Controls EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. IVOR D. FENTON OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. FENTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to include therein in the Appendix of the Recorp, a letter which Mr. John Honicker, of St. Clair, Pa., addressed under date of April 27 to the editor of the Pottsville Journal, Pottsville, Pa., on the subject of Gov- ernment controls in view of the proposed controls for the coal industry. Aprin 2'7, 1950. To the Eprror, POTTSVILLE JOURNAL, Pottsville, Pa. Dear Sin: For the last 20 years, with the exception of World War II, we have been afflicted with a disease called depression, and while we have been given hot foot baths, doses of antitoxin, and blood transfusions, we are still bedfast and have a high fever. Yet they tell us the cure, prosperity, is Just around the corner. If it is, it is staying there and is well fortified and so far has defied all efforts of the PWA and WPA and the other dozens of different alphabetical agen- cies to dislodge it. It is estimated there are 5,000,000 people idle in the country now, yet old Doc Tru- man assures us there is nothing to worry about and that everything is tip-top and the only fiy in the ointment is coal, which, he says, is a sick industry and the only and sure cure is a Government control board. Here in the anthracite we have the bootleg problem. Specialists are springing up like mushrooms, who after taking X-rays and giving the patient the Wassermann blood test, have decided the only cure is Govern- ment or State control, as that will cure everything from a cold up to tuberculosis. If State, or any government control, is @ cure for all our ills, then why not put every- thing under State or Federal control, from a peanut roaster up to a locomotive works. Why not put sickness under control, as it is a well-known fact there are more people sick in the winter than in the summer. They could have a commission see to it that not too many of us get sick at one time, so we could keep the doctors steadily employed. Why not regulate and control the deaths so in case Jack Jones and I were both sick in bed, and both about to kick in, they could tell one of us to hold off and not both die at once so as to keep the undertaker steadily employed. Now, I would like to ask those throat and bone specialists a few questions, and I want straightforward answers, not buts, ifs, nor ands about it. Is this control going to be the same as crop control in the West, where they killed pigs and sheep by the millions, ploughed the cotton under, and destroyed the wheat, or are they going to increase pro- duction? If they are, where are they going to find the market for it? Are they going to send it to the tropical countries, or the heathen Chinese, or Alaskan Eskimos, or dump it in the rivers, or use it for ballast on the railroads? Maybe we can depend on the commission to effect a cure, or maybe take the advice of John L, Lewis, that mighty man who shakes the earth when he walks and people tremble when they hear his voice, who a few years ago made the statement there were too many miners and too many mines, and that the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD operators should shut down some of the mines and the men to go elsewhere. That is just what the operators did. The men were given a chance to go elsewhere and get a job, wherever that town or city may be. Yes; there are too many miners, and too many mines, too many carpenters, and too many plumbers, nat are we going to do about it—knock them on the heads? I am satisfied if this worthless coal-con- trol bill is enacted into law it will not put one miner to work or sell one more ton of coal, but it will create an army of soft-job holders and mean thousands more votes to perpetuate the New Dealers in office. You can’t change the law of supply and demand by legislation, no more than you can change the seasons of the year or in- crease the average length of life. People are not buying straw hats in the wintertime or felt boots in the summer. That law has never been amended. All the Congresses and parliaments in the world cannot repeal it and no Supreme Court hac declared it un- constitutional. I am sending a similar communication to Congressman FENTON and Senator Myers, Yours truly, Joun HONICKER, St. Cuarr, Pa. May Day, 1950 EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. REID F. MURRAY OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr, Speaker, the following editorial is from the Mosinee Times. This letter indicates the impression the May Day demonstra- tion made: As We Sen Ir—May Day, 1950 There are a great many things that we'd like to say about the experiences of “A Day Under Communism,” sponsored here on Mon- day by the American Legion and people of Mosinee, but we’ve been at a loss as to how to go about saying it. The answer to our problem came to our desk this morning in a letter from Josephine (Mrs. Louis) Kotora, of Knowlton. In our humble opinion, there is nothing more force- ful to be said for the program on Monday, and for that reason we are making it our editorial on the subject. It brought tears to our eyes, and we hope that you will read it a couple of times to get the full impact and meaning in this fine letter.—Editor. Know.ton, Wis., May 1, 1950. Drar Mr. SCHWEINLER: This is to tell you what your May Day program brought one American family in this community. As usual, at 8 o’clock in the morning we were all at the table eating breakfast, listen- ing to the news on the radio. This morning there was a recording played of the meeting that was held in Mosinee last night and tell- ing of the event that would take place today when a mock communistic party would take over the city. My thoughts were naturally of all the proceedings, food, clothing and gas rations, permits, the loss of freedom of speech, religion, concentration camps, etc. But what were the thoughts of my children? To find out, I asked them and they were as follows. Bob, age 14, said: “Well, base- ball season is on and I hope when I enter high school next fall I can get on their team.” Then I asked Dick, age 11: “Gosh, mom, I’m
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. thinking of ever so many things—you know school will be out in a couple of weeks and that means fishing, swimming and maybe a new bike to ride around on.” And Louis, who is 7 years old, said: “Oh, I’m thinking of my next allowance and I’m going to buy five flying saucers, they're the new bubble gum they just got in at the store.” And I didn’t have to ask my 2-year-old daughter what was on her mind, sitting in her high chair, her eyes flashing, pigtails bobbing and sim- ply furious because none of her brothers knew what “mow butta on me bwed” meant. I wished you could have seen her grateful smile when I put more butter on her bread. Then a glance at the clock, the boys grabbed their hats and coats and with a ‘Bye Mom’ dashed to school. Then the usual, washing the breakfast dishes, making beds, dusting and marketing. After lunch I glanced at the day’s maul, the daily paper, a letter from grandma, your is- sue of the Red Star and the telephone Dill. The telephone bull always brings a smile to my face for I know already what’s in store for me when the man of the house opens it. It’s the same with every telephone bill. He hardly glances at the amount of the calls or their charges, but will notice the tax with raised eyebrows and again I’ll hear of how unfair he thinks it is for me to be taxed when I’m not feeling well and call up to have my groceries delivered, or for him to have been taxed when he called the hospital 4 times in 5 hours to find out how his son was getting along after a tonsilectomy. It was then that I realized what a won- derful country the United States of America is, how very proud I was to be its citizen and that all my loved ones were also citizens, That Bob could play baseball in high school, instead of a strict military schooling under acommunistic rule; that Dick in his summer vacation could swim, fish and dream of rid- ing a new bike. That flying saucers were in the form of bubble gum, and there’s plenty of butter on the table to satisfy my daugh- ter. That the man of the house could openly complain about the telephone taxes without being put in a concentration camp. Yes, indeed, this is a wonderful country to be from and to be in. The day is almost over, the children in bed and I'm so absorbed in writing all this that I didn’t hear my husband addressing me until I felt his hand on my shoulder and said: “Honey, writing your biography?” TI looked up at him, smiled, and asked him td read what I had written. After reading it he, too, said: “Yes indeed, this sure is a wonderful country, and honey, why don’t you call Stalin up and tell him what a heel we think he is.” And all I could think of was to say: “But dear, think of the telephone tax on a call to Russia.” JOSEPHINE KOoTORA. Tn Which Way Toward Peace and Freedom? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks I include an ad- dress given by me at the thirty-fifth an- nual convention of Kiwanis International at Miami, Fla., on May 8, 1950: Wich Way To Pracr aNnD FreEpom? Throughout the whole world today a flerce economic, political, and ideological struggle is being waged whose outcome will determine who really won World War II and whether, God forbid, there is to be world war ITI. In any time of uncertainty and danger, the first and most essential thing to do is to go back to fundamentals, make sure of our bearings, establish priorities. What must be the first concern of any intelligent nation? Its security. How can a nation best promote its secu- rity? There are two main methods. One is to try by all proper means to prevent the de- velopment or expansion of any nation or group of nations hostile to it. The other is to keep itself strong and to try by all legiti- mate means to keep as many other nations as possible strong and friendly to itself. In short, the first job of our diplomacy is to try to keep our side as big and powerful and united as possible, and to try by every legiti- mate means to keep all actual and potential enemies as small and weak and divided as possible. In a jungle world, such as we now live in, survival depends to a large degree on the ability to distinguish friend from enemy. For many decades our forefathers saw that truth clearly in Asia. They realized that it was important to our security that the oppo- site shores of the Pacific be in the hands of friends and not under the control of enemies or potential enemies. That was the key con- sideration underlying our insistence for al- most a century on the genuine independence of China, no matter what kind of govern- ment it had—the open-door policy. We did not see it in Europe. For more than 100 years our policy was: Have as little to do with Burope as possible; retain our freedom of action; do not get entangled in any permanent alliance with any nation or nations there. Then we got into two World Wars in one generation, in part because in- telligent concern for our own security dic- tated that we not allow the opposite shores of the Atlantic to come under the control of forces hostile to us and to everything we be- lieve in and stand for, We are now acutely aware of the necessity of having friends on our side in Europe. But, oddly enough, at the very time we were belatedly discovering this on our east, we forgot it on our west and were complacently watching China come under the control first of one enemy, Japan, and then of another, the Soviet Union. I have never been able to under- stand why our Government cannot get poll- cles that make sense in both oceans at the same time. For 10 years the world tried to get peace with Hitler and the Japanese militarists by ignoring or appeasing them. It did not lead to peace and freedom. It led straight to war and perilously near to slavery. No sooner were the aggressions of Hitler and the Japanese militarists defeated than we forgot the painful lesson and continued to appease everywhere another aggressor, world communism directed by the Kremlin— , far more dangerous than Hitler or Japan, be- cause it has greater resources and manpower and is sO much more clever. We tried to buy the Soviets off by yielding to their de- mands and pressures. Despite the repeated and forthright declarations by Communist leaders, in the Kremlin and elsewhere, that their goal is elimination of every non-Com- munist government, we refused to believe it. Our own leaders pretended that Com- munists are not international gangsters, but just Jeffersonian Democrats. To prove to them our own good intentions and calm their alleged fears, we scrapped our enor- mous military superiority within 6 months after VJ-day. We offered the atomic bomb to all on terms of complete equality with ourselves. We also scrapped a lot of our principles‘and our public commitments, in~ cluding those in the Atlantic Charter. In private conferences with Soviet leaders, we divided up other peoples’ rights and terri- A3573 tory—including those of loyal allies like Po-«= Jand and China, To try to win over our avowed enemies, we sacrificed our proved friends. Such conduct, of course, did not lead to better relations; they grew steadily worse. Finally, 8 years ago, our Government be- gan to wake up to the fact that the Soviet Union is not a peace-loving democracy and does not respond to reasonableness. sep by step we have embarked on a fivefold program with relation to Europe, which I believe is sound as far as it goes and has promise of success if continued firmly there and expanded to include Asia. First, rebuilding enough of our scrapped military strength to fulfill our commitments in Germany and Japan and to meet any probable emergencies or dangers. It is pains fully clear that strength here at home is in- dispensable if we hope to have any influence at all with the Kremlin. Second, resistance to any further spread in Europe and the Near East of the glacier of tyranny moving out of the Soviet Union into those areas. This began with the pro- gram of military aid to Greece and Turkey. Third, economic assistance on a coopera- tive basis to certain independent European nations struggling to recover their economic stability and overcome Communist efforts to weaken and subjugate them from within— the Marshall plan. Fourth, military assistance to certain wes- tern European nations—the North Atlantic Pact. From the beginning of the economic recovery program it was apparent that it could not move ahead at full speed without this additional step—a mutual defense pro- gram. A sense of security is essential if the people of Europe are to invest their resources ~ in long-range productive enterprises, and put everything they have into the recovery effort. In fact, economic development with~ out military security only increases their . peril because they become so much more tempting a prize for a potential aggressor. No one of the nations of western Europe alone, nor all of them together, can become strong enough in the next few years to with- stand Russian attack. They cannot achieve either military security or economic recovery, except by making a most vigorous collective as well as individual attack upon their prob- lems—with our active support and assistance based on this sound and simple principle: we help those who will help themselves—in- creased production; and help each other— increased trade within Europe including Wes- tern Germany: and thereby help us. They cannot recover without our assistance; but even with our aid they cannot recover with- out far greater unity among themselves, poth economic and military, than they have yet achieved. I hope and trust they will proceed more rapidly in that direction dur- ing the coming year. But success in these mighty endeavors in Europe, even if completely successful there, cannot be enough. It is daydreaming to imagine the Soviets will alter thelr policies enough to come to real agreement with us on traffic rules for carrying on peaceful re- lations between their world and ours, as long as they are winning anyawwhere—and they are winning spectacularly in Asia. For more than 3 years the Congress has tried in vain to get the administration to adopt and vigorously pursue policies in Asia similar to those it had adopted in Europe-— while there still was time to prevent the pres- ent developments in China which constitute ae catastrophe beyond estimation, both to our own security, to any hope of being able to reduce our military budget to manage- able proportions, and to any prospect of having a balance of power in the world so strongly favorable to the free world that it can perhaps influence the Soviets toward cooperation rather than attempted conquest.
A3574 Tragically, our Government has followed opposite policies on the opposite sides of the world. To European nations striving to re- sist the Communist aggression, from within or from without, it said, “We will help you only if you keep the Communists out of your government.” To Chinese striving to resist Communist aggression our Government said, “We will help you only if you take the Communists in.” The Chinese being somewhat simple- minded have had difficulty in understanding that. I hope you understand it. In Europe we adopted a policy of resist- ance to communism and assistance to free- dom—and are making real headway; in Asia we have followed the incredible policy of trying to appease communism, or of only half-hearted resistance, or of wait and see— with total disaster. Unless immediately—and I have warned for 5 years that if and when China goes down completely, it may be too late—there is a drastic reversal of policy in Asia simi- lar to that of 3 years ago in Europe, history can only record that we defeated Japan, but Russia won the war—certainly in the Pacific and not improperly in Europe, too. We and the free world lost it. With China conquered and Communist sat~ ellites all along Russia’s Asiatic border, she is free to turn to Europe or the Middle East without peril of a two-front war. She cer- tainly will do so—in fact, already is. For the second time within a decade We are faced with the prospect of a world war be- cause of the very same mistake—failure to appreciate how imperative it is to our own security that the opposite shores of the Pa- cific as well as of the Atlantic be in the hands of friends, not enemies. Just as the decisive area in determining the enslavement or survival of a free Europe is Germany, so the crux of the problem of our security in Asia always has been and still is China. First, to mention a few of the reasons—because it occupies the strategi- cally advantageous central position in east Asia. Second, because of its long border with Russia, which can serve as either an asset or a liability to Soviet plans for dom- ination depending on whether the border is in the hands of friends of the Soviet Union or friends of ourselves, Third, be- cause of China’s vast manpower and re- sources. Fourth, because of Japan’s depend~ ence on China for materials and markets. Fifth, because of the influential role China bas played for milleniums in determining the history of east Asia. For several years administration spokes- men have talked almost casually of writing China off and then keeping the countries around her free. That is like letting the hub of a wheel be chopped out and imagin- ing we can save or hold together the indi- vidual spokes—Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Indochina, Siam, Malaya, Indonesia, Burma, and India. Or to change the figure—how are you going to make much out of these coun- tries which are the fingers, if China, which is the hand, is gone? What is long overdue is a change of our basic policy toward Communist expansion In Asia from appease to oppose, just as we made such a change $3 years ago in Europe. The risk is greater if we do not make such an effort than if we do. For instance, the Communists are now at the doors of Hong Kong. One way for them to win the sup- port, or at least the approval, of almost every Chinese, is for them to get Hong Kong, whether by boycott or attack, They will make that attempt whenever it becomes expedient todoso. Shall we then help white men shoot down Chinese and unite all Asia against us? Again, the Chinese Reds are now in direct contact with strong Communist forces in Indochina. If they get all China subdued and organized, they can then move south in strength which cannot be stopped except by direct American aid to Frenchmen killing Asians. That could set Asia afire. Siam, Malaya, Singapore, and all the rest would almost certainly go under Communist con- trol. Then how would France and England and Holland ever recover? England’s largest source of dollars has been tin and rubber from Malaya. How could she become self- supporting with the loss of that source of the hard currency foreign exchange on which her very survival depends—unless we are able and willing to support her indefi- nitely? Our problems in China heretofore and in Asia now are as nothing compared to the difficulties complete conquest of China and Formosa will bring to us—in Europe as well as Asia. In short, the establishment by the Com- munists of complete control in China will permit them to shift their efforts from the hub to the spokes in a way that will consti- tute a mortal peril to Korea, the Philippines, and all southeast Asia. Loss of southeast Asia will gravely endanger, probably make impossible, European self-support. Failure of western Europe to recover will constitute an obvious peril to ourselves. Therefore, our first and most important task in Asia—not more important than our task in Europe but not less important—still is to try to keep the Communists from gain- ing complete mastery of China and Formosa. Opposition to the Communists within China proper is greater today than ever pefore. People there know the reality now, not the utopian propaganda that still beguiles some Americans. The farmers, workers, intellec- tuals, are poorer than ever before—and en- slaved besides. Even the students are be- ginning to lose their illusions. There are known to be half a million guerrillas still re- sisting. We should take advantage of this reaction and move at once to encourage the Chinese to keep the Reds so busy in China that they will not be able to give full assist- ance to Communist forces in the countries on ber borders, until we can perhaps be able to improve conditions in those countries, The stubborn refusal of the Chinese Gov- ernment to collapse according to the sched- ule our State Department has been perlodi- cally announcing for 6 years, directly or through inspired writers, has already won us more than a year of invaluable time in which mouch progress has been made in strengthen- ing three countries—Indochina, Burma, and Indonesia. If Chiang Kai-shek and other Chinese who still resist no matter what the odds, can manage to hold on a while longer, despite our denunciations of them, then perhaps with the return of Mr. Jessup from his leisurely trip to Japan, the Philippines, Bangkok, and way stations, the paralysis of policy planners in Washington can be ended, and @ positive program be thought up and inaugurated. If we make no effective effort to assist the armed forces which already - exist in China and Formosa, how will we aid forces which don’t exist in the neighboring countries? Maybe even the point 4 program can be- come something more than words, if only continued Chinese resistance will buy us another year or so. On the other hand, once the last strong- hold of the Chinese Government, Formosa, is overwhelmed by the Communists, it will not make much difference whether we get a China policy or not, or even an Asia policy. The followers of the Kremlin will have power in China that cannot be challenged in any foreseeable future, no matter how unhappy or angry the Chinese people may be. Amer- ican influence in that vast area will be al- most a thing of the past, We will have suffered the greatest defeat in our history, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Pearl Harbor was puny by comparison. It is relatively easy to rebuild a fleet; how will you recapture a continent? But as long as Formosa stands as the final bastion of the free Chinese and resistance continues on the mainland, there js still a chance for the United States to play a de- cisive role in preventing such a catastrophe to our own interests. A decent concern for our security should dictate that we help the free Chinese maintain on Formosa the legiti- mate Government of the Republic of China, in order (1) to maintain a symbol of hope and encouragement to the hundreds of mil- lions of our wartime allies now behind the Asian iron curtain; (2) to strengthen resist- ance to Communist seizure of Formosa which would give Russia such a valuable air and submarine base in the heart of our western Pacific security system; (3) to encourage Chi- nese to work toward eventually removing China from the Soviet side of the balance and returning her to the side of the free nations; and (4) to buy us time. What is necessary to achieve these ends? The first requirement is that we wake up to the true nature of the Communist movement in China and to the fact that its real target is ourselves. The State Department and a handful of writers on China have for years followed the line that we should not give effective aid to the Government of China, but rather should be neutral in what they mis- represented as just a civil war, a war between alleged feudalism and alleged democracy; or should even favor the Communists, be- cause, so they said, there was some hope in the Communists and none in the Chinese Government. Many of us have maintained the opposite, namely, that there was and still is some hope in the Chinese Government, and none in the Communists, because the Communists are committed to the Kremlin, to dictatorship and to world conquest, including conquest of ourselves. Whatever confusion may have ex- isted on this point heretofore, surely the facts are clear today—even to the blindest. A policy of supporting the Chinese Gov- ernment and all those who are resisting Communist subjugation will not require a large expenditure of effort, money, or mate- rials on the part of the American Govern- ment and people as compared to what we are doing in Europe and to what it will cost us later if we do not make such an effort now, It will, however, require positive action and @ genuine determination to find ways to help effectively. Until there is such a will on our part, there can, of course, be no way. The biggest reason for our debacles to date is that there has been no will in Washington to discover and do the things necessary to pre- vent them. Second, we should not grant diplomatic recognition. to the Communist regime at Peking. Such recognition would bring us no benefits, and would greatly weaken the will- to-resist of the Chinese already under the Communists on the mainland, the free Ch{- nese in Formosa, and the strong communities of Chinese in all the countries of southeast Asia. It would shake the confidence in us of other peoples in Asia—those still unde- cided. Our greatest immediate stake in Asia is to keep these seven or eight hundred mil- lion people on our side. If they witness official abandonment by the powerful United States of an ally which stood by us during the nightmare period following Pearl Har- bor, can they then be expected to have any faith in American declarations that we will help resist the spread of Communist aggres- sion beyond China into their own territories? Why should they resist communism when to do so brings trouble from their Communist minorities and no assurance of ald from the democracies; whereas going over to the Reds brings immediate Russian support, and then
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD recognition, trade and good relations with the democracies too. In short, recognition by us would prove to all that the way to get help from both sides is to go Communist. That is the real meaning and the pro-Com- munist effect of the negative policies in Asia advocated for so many years by the Latti- mores, Fairbanks, Snows, and Peffers, the In- stitute of Pacific Relations and the Foreign Policy Association, as well as the Far Eastern Division of the State Department. Furthermore, to recognize the Communist regime would put an avowed enemy instead of a proved friend in China’s seat on the United Nations Security Council. It would put enemies instead of friends in all Chinese embassies, legations, and consulates all over the world, carrying on espionage, intrigue, and propaganda against ourselves in the very midst of the countries which we hope to keep out of their control. Surely that would not be in the interest of our country or of peace and freedom. ‘ Third, we should make a forthright state- ment of support of the Chinese Government and all other anti-Communist forces in China in their struggle to remain free. Can anyone remember a single kind word for China from our Government since VJ-day, or one of understanding, sympathy, and en- couragement? More than anything else, the Chinese—exhausted from over 12 years of war and invasion, discouraged because of double-crosses and abandonment by their allies—need moral support, the same sort of support we have given to the Greeks, Italians, Turks, and others in Europe engaged in ex- actly similar fights to prevent being taken over by Communists and made Soviet satel- lites. Some of those governments do not come up to our standards, either. Western sentimentalists and shrewd pro- Communist propagandists harp on the theme that such action in China would aline us with a reactionary and undemocratic govern- ment and thereby injure our moral standing in Asia. Well, who thinks that after Yalta we have any moral standing in Asia, except in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines, and it is slipping rapidly in the latter. Few of the peoples of Asia have the slightest notion of what we mean by democracy. But to a man they understand the meaning of loyalty and faithfulness to friends. They know that, whatever the weaknesses and short- comings of the Chinese Government, its loyalty to the United States has never been questioned. They also know that, whatever the strengths or alleged virtues of the Commu- nists, they are avowed enemies of the United States. Do you imagine we will hold the confidence of Asians, or win new allies there, by continued unfaithfulness to an old ally, China, which itself has been wholly faithful to us? I warn you that few, if any, in Asia are going to put much trust in the United States unless we change our policies, and fast. They may well conclude that we have lost the capacity to distinguish friend from enemy and are therefore too immature and undependable to tie themselves, to. Surely it cannot be wrong for people to strive to remain free—or for the land of the free to be openly on the side of those who are so striving, and to give them moral sup- port and encouragement. Fourth, we should extend effective military aid to the defenders of Formosa. By effec- tive military aid I mean the same sort of military assistance program we have carried out successfully in Greece, but have not even tried in China since the recall of General Wedemeyer in early 1946—four long years. Effective military ald includes, first of all, putting in over-all charge of America’s secu- rity in that part of the world, the most ex- perienced and successful man we have in dealing with east Asia, is General MacArthur. It includes some top-flight American mili- tary spark plugs, like General Wedemeyer, Admiral Cooke, Admiral Badger, with ade~ quate American staffs to train and advise the Chinese armed forces at all levels—and in strategy, tactics, and operations—which our premous mission in China was not per- rltid 2} our Government to do. Surely it 1s of some significance that the seven American admirals, all men with bril-~ liant records—Yarnell, Hart, Barbey, Kincaid, Cooke, Badger, and now Radford—who in succession have been in command of our Asiatic Fleet, have been unanimous in be-~ lieving that such an effort should be made and could be successful, 1f made with a firm will to win victories rather than just to ex- plain defeats. Generals MacArthur, Wede- meyer, and Chennault believe the same. These men are hardly amateurs or arm- chair theorists or sentimentalists. Should we follow the judgment and advice of those who have been most successful in dealing with Asia? Or follow the judgment and ad- vice of those who have been least success- ful—-Generals Stilwell, Marshall, and Barr— and a few dozen pro-leftist writers, lec- turers, and State Department men led by Alger Hiss who was a keyman in the Far Hast division from 1939 to 1944 when the policy pattern and the propaganda line which lost China to Russia were being established? These are the men who tell you on every occasion that nothing can be done. How do they know? They have never tried them- selves or allowed others to try. Effective military aid for Formosa includes & relatively small amount of munitions, light arms, equipment, and supplies carefully planned for the particular type of operation needed. It includes spare parts and fuel for the Chinese air force and navy, and a few hundred of our World War II planes now lined up on Okinawa and never to be used again by us. We are giving some to the Philippine air force. Why not to the Chinese? Perhaps 50,000 World War I type rifles and ammunition for them may be needed in addition to the 130,000 rifles al- ready sent under the program the Congress voted in 1948. Money for all these has long been available. The road block has never bean in Congress. A military-aid program does not include American combat troops. I do not know any- one who has ever suggested that we should send American combat troops to Formosa, or that we should occupy it with American forces, even though the State Department frequently engages in shooting down that straw man set up by itself. It would be neither justifiable nor advantageous for the United States to occupy or seize Formosa for herself; but it is extremely important to our security that it be denied to our enemies. The way to accomplish that end, and at the same time to strengthen the spirit of resist- ance among all Chinese and other free peo- ples in Asia, is to help the Chinese and For- mosans hold their island, as many of our best military students of the problem believe they still can do with such aid, although the time left is short indeed. At this point someone always brings up the argument that we have given lots of aid and it was useless. It is unfortunate that so few people know enough about the facts in China to be able to refute the half-truths, even lies, on which such attempted explana- tions of our own failures are usually based. Bome of them are: 1. That the Chinese have no will to fight. But in 1946 General Marshall was out there berating them because they had too much will to fight, and for a year insisted they cease fire, and embrace the Reds instead. We ourselves did more than anything else That man, of course, A3575 to destroy the will to fight, for which we now eriticize them. 2. That all our aid has been wasted. The fact is that the Communists have officially admitted that Chinese Government troops killed 248,000 of their troops and wounded 650,090 more in the 8-year period, 1916-49, which is more than the Germans and Jap-= anese were able to do to us in 8% years. Apparently much of our aid was used very effectively indeed. 8. That we have given the central gov- ernment enormous aid. Unfortunately it has not been pessible to find out just how much of what items were actually delivered to whom in China on what date, Our Gov- ernment talks in dollar figures, using the original cost plus transportation of a lot of stuff which was sent out by us for the war against Japan and later sold to the Chinese at a higher rate than we charged most of our other allies, although in the words of an American admiral on the ground, “at least half of it was junk.” Besides most of it was not sulted for the kind of guerrilla operations needed in China. Since VJ-day all the military aid that has actually been delivered to China is sub- stantially as follows: One hundred and five million four hun- dred thousand dollars, mostly in 1945. Al- most nothing in 1946, 1947, and the first 10 months of 1848—the three crucial years dur- ing which the decisive shift in the relative strengths of government forces and Commu- nist forces in China took place. One hundred and twenty-five million dol~ lars’ worth of new material since November 1948. One hundred and forviy-one million three hundred thousand dollars—the original cost of 131 old naval vessels which were turned over to China, partly because they were not valuable enough to justify our bringing them home from the far Pacific to put in moth balls here. Total, at original cost prices, $371,700,000. In addition, $335,000,000 was figured for services and expenses—mostly transporting Chinese troops from southwest China and Burma to eastern and northern China to accept the Japanese surrender. This rep- resented a saving, not an outlay for the United States, because if we had not trans- ported Chinese troops to take over from the Japanese, we would have had to send in and maintain American troops to do the job—at far greater cost. Furthermore, when military aid was voted by Congress in April 1948, the administra- tion systematically sabotaged it by delays, overcharges, and unbalanced shipments. For example, the Chinese were charged $85 per thousand for old .80-caliber cartridges as compared to $4.60 per thousand charged Greece and Turkey for the same type of ammunition whose original cost to us had _ been $46 a tholsand. That is, $1 of Ameri- can military aid for Greece delivered 220 bullets; but $1 of American aid for China Gelivered only 12 bullets. As a result of these and similar overcharges, China, with a pop- ulation of 450,000,000, actually received less useful military supplies than Greece with ‘a population of 7,000,000. The further fact is blissfully ignored that to send even a surplus of some of the items “essential for a given operation, but little or “none of the other essential items may be useless, no matter how many millions the items which were sent had cost. Again, the charge is made that the Chi- “nese would never take our advice. The fact jis that their biggest errors were the times when they did take our advice, such as agreeing to our iniquitous Yalta deal, giv- ing Russia control of Manchuria after we had promised at Cairo it would be returned to China, and agreeing to the truce with the Communists in January 1946, when the
A3576 government forces had overwhelming mili- tary stperiority, which truce the Commu- nists used to expand their holdings five- fold—from 60 counties to more than 300. I can give you a dozen more instances if you desire. What kind of sportsmanship, not to mention integrity, is it to denounce the Chinese for the inevitable bad results of decisions which we made, not they? In short, what China has most needed all along and most needs now is not more aid but proper aid. Proper aid is the kind we gave Greece, but have not given China since 1945. Munitions without such American advice and assistance in their use cannot succeed any more than advice without mu- nitions could succeed. If we kad tried in China the sort of pol- icy we have followed successfully in Greece, or if we had followed the recommendations made by General Wedemeyer almost 3 years ago, and still failed, then neither I nor any other person could say a word of criticism. But we have not tried. How does anyone know whether we can succeed or not, until we do try? As a fifth component of an Asia policy, we should continue to give economic as-~ sistance to the Chinese Government on For- mosa, One of the reasons the economy of the island is sorely strained is because it is having to export materials meeded for ‘home consumption, in order to get foreign exchange to buy commodities like cotton and oil which must be obtained from abroad. If we will help provide such commodities to Formosa—the money has heen available for 2 years—exactly as we are helping pro-~ vide them to Korea, Japan, and western EHu- rope, the economy of Formosa can be made reasonably stable. Ordinarily it has a fa~ vorable balance of trade, in sharp contrast to that of England, for example, which we are helping even though it is doubtful whether it can ever again become self-sup- porting. Economic assistance includes the so-called point 4 program of industrial development and technical assistance in the parts of Asia still free. We must get it going at once if it is to be of any value. It cannot be ex- pected to produce substantial physical re- sults, within several years, but the psycho- logical lift could be tremendous. Sixth, we should give leadership, encour- agement, and assistance to the free peoples of east Asia in their proposal to get together in a mutual assistance defense pact, such as we have sponsored in the North Atlantic. ‘Without some such cooperative effort to de- fend the whole area there is every reason to expect that the Communists will be able to pick the countries off, one by one. And let me repeat, if England, Greece, and Holland are deprived of access to the resources and markets of southeags Asia on a mutually beneficial basis, what chance is there for them and the rest of western Europe to be~ come self-supporting? If we are then com- pelled to continue beyond 1952 the heavy burden of supporting the countries of west- ern Europe, how long can we ourselves re~ main solvent and safe? The Congress last year wrote into the dec- laration of policy in the Mutual Defense As-= sistance Act—the so-called military-aid pro- gram for Europe—a statement urging Amer- ican leadership for organizing in Asia some- thing similar to what we have helped develop in Europe. That became the law of the land on Octo- ber 6, 1949. Yet, the Secretary of State ad- mitted recently before my committee—For- eign Affairs—that nothing had been done by his Department to implement the policy de- clared by the Congress. Why? It is unex- plained, and, to me, unexplainable. Appar- ently, we are still waiting for more dust to settle—which means waiting for the patient to die. What, pray tell, can be done then? That brings me to the compelling reason why I believe we must adopt in Asia some such positive policy as I have outlined in place of the wait-and-see, do-nothing-effec- tive no-policy our Government has followed these last 5 years with such spectacular benefit to the Communists and such dis- astrous results to ourselves. That compel- ling reason is self-preservation. I am not and never have been interested in any persons, groups, or parties in China or Asia. I am interested in the security of the United States of America, and in free- dom, world order, and peace. It is the job of responsible American officials to find ways and means to achieve those goals; not ex- euses for not achieving them. Those who think nothing effective can be done in China, should step aside or be removed to make way for those who believe something effec- tive can be done and must be done-—-and now. It is not enough just to recite the weak- nesses of China—the five adjectives which the apologists of our Government’s negative policies always use as their excuse for not giving effective aid, namely that the Govern- ment of China is “inept, incompetent, in- efficient, undemocratic, and corrupt.” Cer- tainly those conditions exist in China, just as they do in every Asian country—and everywhere else in greater or less degree, espe- cially after long exhausting wars. They are the problems it is the business of responsi- ble statesmanship to solve; not the alibi for failure to solve them, or for doing nothing. The pro-Communists in this country are now skillfully promoting the same line with respect to Korea and the Philippines seek- ing to discredit those governments also and persuade us to forget again where our own self-interest lies. When they are ready to take over India the same line will begin with regard to its government which will become Fascist, reactionary, feudal, undemocratic, corrupt, and incompetent. On the other side, I am fully aware of all the myths which have been so skillfully propagated regarding the Communists in China: For example, that they are not really Communists, but just agrarian reformers, patriotic peasants leading spontaneous rev- olutionary forces against alleged warlordism, landlordism, and feudalism; that they are not connected with or subservient to the So- viet Union; that they won’t be able to or- ganize and administer a government in China without our help, which will supposedly make them susceptible to our influence; that they will not be able to convert the Chinese to communism; that they will not be able to solye China’s economic problems; that they will probably develop Titoism; that they will have to cooperate with the west. All of these myths have proved or are being proved cruel hoaxes. They were designed not to tell the truth, but to lull us to sleep while the Com- munists were getting control of China. They have been exceedingly successful, If we cannot decide what is best in China and Asia because we think neither side is good, then let us decide what is worst, as a physician does when confronted with no good alternatives. What is the worst thing that can happen in Asia? There can be no ques= tion about the answer to that. The worst thing from the standpoint of our own inter~ ests, those of the people of Asia, and of world peace, is for China and then the other coun- tries to come wholly under the Communists and become new satellites of Russia. There- fore, that is the thing which we must, if pos- sible, prevent. The first requirement of our security in the Pacific is not democratic governments or even better governments, but independent governments. The present disaster began when we abandoned in 1945, starting at Yalta, our historic policy of supporting res- olutely “the sovereignty, the independence, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the territorial and adm/‘nistrative Integrity of China.” That had been our consistent and sound policy previously—whether under John Hay in 1899, Woodrow Wilson in 1915, Charles Evans Hughes in 1922, Hoover and Stimson in 1931 or Roosevelt and Hull in 1941—and no matter how good or bad a goverment China had at the time. We got off the track because from 1943 on some Officials high in our Government for some unexplained reason failed to realize that the Communist movement in China and Asia is and always has been an instrument of Soviet aggression, and allowed themselves to be beguiled into thinking that it was just one faction in an internal conflict which was none of our business. Now it is plain to all that the Communists have as their aim not just China, but all of Asia and Europe, and then ourselves. In such a situation it has always seemed to me the decision as to what we should do ought to be extremely simple: We should op- pose whatever assists our mortal enemy; we should assist whatever opposes that mortal enemy. However great the risks and diffi- culties of such a positive policy may be, the risks of a negative and defeatist policy of doing-nothing-effective are greater. However late it is today, it will be still later tomorrow. However much it will cost to make the effort now, our choice is not be- tween that and something less; it is between that and something more. Which do we want? There are two lessons we could still learn from our experience in Europe if we would. The first is that when Communist expansion is stopped, it begins to fall apart, because it cannot deliver on its fancy promises. The second is that it cannot be stopped except by resistance all along the line of its ad- vance. ‘That requires assistance to all in its path who will resist, even though some of the governments involved do not meet with our full approval. If we will apply those lessons with imagination and resolution in Asia as we are in Europe, the situation may still be retrieved. There is hope if we try; there is none if we don’t try. We have learned that to keep western Europe free there must be a regional effort— assistance to all in the given area. If we would keep Asia free, there must be a pro=- gram of regional defense there also, Ultimately, and soon, there must be global defense against the strong cruel enemy we and the free peoples of the world face; or else all of us, not just weakened and ex~ hausted China and backward Asia, will fall before its ruthless and skillful onslaughts from within and without. Must we once more dawdle and daydream until after the blow actually falls, and then have to fight for our own survival under the most difficult circumstances possible? That brings us to the last step in the over- all foreign-policy program on which our Gov= ernment has embarked and which is neces~ sary if we hope to influence the thinking and the actions of both friends and enemies, The four steps I have already discussed—re- arm, resist Communist expansion in Europe, economic and military assistance in Europe, Japan, and Korea—are mainly defensive or negative. We must have a positive program also. In addition to firm opposition to fur- ther extension of the Soviet system based on compulsion, we must gain a sense of mission to spread throughout the world our system based on free and voluntary cooperation. At last we are beginning to give to other coun- tries a more adequate presentation of the thrilling story of what has happened here and can happen with them also under free- dom. Through press, radio, films, books, and magazines, and exchange of teachers, stu- dents, scientists, and technicians, we must give hope to the oppressed peoples of the world and the undecided peoples by showing
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD them a better alternative—based on per- formance, not just promises. Our broad- casts should be called not the Voice of Amer-= ica, but the “voice of freedom.” What has happened in the United States and Canada is not because we are Americans but because we have been free. The most explosive and dynamic idea ever turned loose in history is human freedom. The desperate measures Russia is taking to keep the story of freedom from getting through to those under her con- trol and her own stupendous efforts in the propaganda field are the eloquent proof of how great is her faith in the power of ideas, The Russian rulers know what one man, Karl Marx, was able to start with an idea— and what two other men, Lenin and Stalin, have been able to accomplish with that idea. They know what another man, Hitler, did with an idea. They know what another man, St. Paul, did with an idea. They also Know what 100 other men and women, the Pilgrims, did when they came to this country over 300 years ago, with their idea—political liberty. The greatest heroes in Russia are not scien= tists or industrial magnates or even gen-~ erals. The heroes in Russia, and the high- est paid persons in the land, are the skillful users of words—those who know how to take an idea, and no matter whether true or false, present 1t in attractive, convinc- ing form. They have learned it is their most potent and effective weapon through- out the world, in softening people up pre- paratory to taking them over by force, which is the only means by which they have ac- tually gained control of any country yet, beginning with Russia. Why should we be less effective in getting across our basic ideas? We do not have to sell falsehoods about America. But we do have to present the facts about it—and pre- sent them repeatedly and convincingly, em- phasizing the great advantages that have resulted under freedom—without in the least concealing the imperfections or lessening our efforts to correct them. Jesus did not say just “the truth shall make you free.” Rather, he said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” How will they know if we do not do a far better job of telling it? When our system is such that under it 7 percent of the people of the world have created more wealth and distributed it more widely than all the other 98 percent put to- gether, is it not shameful that it is pre- sented so inadequately that many people, not only abroad, but here at home, can be persuaded that it is progress, it is liberal, to advocate abandoning the system under which the 7 percent have accomplished so much and go back, not ahead, to one or another of the systems under which the 93 percent still struggle and suffer? Why should anyone be so almost apologetic about a system which, while far from per- fect, 1s still incomparably the best this earth has ever known—judged solely by results for human beings? All of the above measures—military, eco- nomic, and ideological—are essential ele~ ments of a world policy—but they are not enough. They merely buy time for a final step—give us one more chance to get the world organized politically on a sounder basis. If we hope to win the fierce economic and ideological war now raging throughout the world, before it degenerates into an atomic war with unforeseeable destruction, we must move boldly and imaginatively to try to strengthen the world organization so that it can handle effectively all threats tu uhe peace from whatever source. Concern for our own security has com- pelled us to assume in the present emergency the burden of assisting certain nations under Communist assault. But we cannot long carry that burden alone. We have neither the resources nor the wisdom. The real task is to stop the assault. The peaceful peoples of the world placed their faith in the United Nations as the agency to do that job. The experience of the last 5 years has demonstrated that in its present form the United Nations cannot do it. In fact it is so constructed that any one of the Big Five, by its veto, can use the United Nations machinery to prevent the establish- ment of a just and peaceful order—to defeat the very thing it supposedly was set up to guarantee. Most Americans were too naive to realize and too trustful to suspect that the Soviet rulers were coldly planning to use the big- power veto not to block war—-which was our concept of its function—but to block peace. They have not used the veto once to prevent war or sanctions. They have used it more than 40 times to defeat agreements most of the free nations wanted because they were in the direction of peace. At Tehran, Yalta, Potsdam, and elsewhere some of our leaders, in order to get Russia to come into the United Nations, yielded to her on matters of principle and even on our own solemn pledges to others, apparently assum- ing that if Russia Joined it would be for the same reason we and others joined, namely, to help solve world problems. But it soon became clear to all who would see, that the Soviet Government came in for precisely the opposite reason—not to get agreement, but to ensure disagreement; not to make the United Nations work, but to be in the best possible position to make sure that it does not work. Why? The reason is perfectly clear. The Kremlin already has a world organization of its own— the Communist Party. It has more than a dozen countries under its complete control, plus trained, disciplined units in every other country. Its world organization is already functioning, at full speed. It intends to win, and to do so it must keep any other world organization crippled and ineffective, which the veto machinery, drafted by Alger Hiss, enables it to do. The remedy to such an intolerable situa- tion is not to abandon the United Nations, or to continue to bypass it; but rather to improve it. We must get its structure modi-« fied so that it can and will work—with Rus- sian cooperation if possible, but without it if necessary. On one hand, we must initiate action to- ward getting the Charter itself amended to correct demonstrated defects. We should declare and pursue a policy of endeavoring to strengthen the United Nations and seek its development into some sort of world or- ganization, open to all nations, with care- fully defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation, and enforcement of world law. Suppose Russia will not agree to Charter amendments that would make all members subject to the same world law, and vetoes such amendments. I have no doubt that her present leaders would do that—but I shall let them make that decision and announce it, not we make it for them. If they decide to exclude themselves from cooperation, then we do not need to withdraw from the UN or to drive the Soviets or anyone else out. We should just organize on a closer basis with all the nations that will agree—not outside the United Nations, but inside it. That is, while seeking to strengthen the United Nations on the universal level, we must also work for better organization on a less-than-universal level within the or- ganization, Just as the Communist-dom- inated members of the United Nations have always been “a club within the club,” s0, under article 51 of the Charter, all the free nations—beginning with the 12 in the At- lantic Pact but not Umited to them—can A3577 unite firmly for collective self-defense in an- other “club within the club”—leaving the door open for Russia and any others to join if and when they are willing to agree and abide by the rules. That is what our forefathers did at the Constitutional Convention. They did not secede from the Confederation, or try to drive out those who did not agree with the new proposal. They simply drew up a tighter, more workable plan of organization, and pro~ vided that whenever 9 of the 18 States rati- fied 1t, the new club would be set up—others to join or not, as they wished. All did within about a year. As long as we indicate we will not do any-= thing unless or until Russia agrees, of course she will not agree. Why should she? But if we and the other free peoples dem- onstrate to the Russians, quickly, that we can and, if necessary, will move ahead with- out them, there is a chance—I suspect the only chance—that we may find it possible to get along better With them. Whenever enough of the peaceful nations get together in a workable organization that makes it clear to the men in the Kremlin, first, that they do not need to go to war to get security or satisfaction of any legitimate grievances; and, second, that they cannot win even if they do go to war—at that point, and probably only at that point, is there any likelihood that they will begin to come along, because there would be nothing to gain and much to lose by refusing. It is plain that we cannot get them to change from obstructionism to cooperation by persuasion, or exhortations, or bribery, or secret deals, or denunciations. These have all been tried in vain. The men in the Kremlin can be expected to cooperate only when we confront them with a set of cir- cumstances where agreement is more ad- vantageous to them than continued disagree= ment or attempted conquest. No great military expansion in history has ever stopped until it was checked. Neither will or can the Kremlin’s. War with it is in- evitable unless we can check it by other means—or are willing to surrender and be enslaved. The only other means is a giant coalition of the free nations—not, I repeat, outside the United Nations but inside it. The weaknesses which have brought our country to this ominous hour have not been primarily military or economic. Our greatest failures have been in the political and ideological and moral fields. Because for so long we had physical separation from the rest of the world, our young men and women were not challenged to become specialists in international relations and masters of the arts of diplomacy. Understandably we focused our efforts on the great task of de- veloping this vast virgin continent and its resources, As a result, how many Americans do we have in the fleld of diplomacy that are the equivalent of Marshall, MacArthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, Spaatz, and scores of others in the military fleld? Or of the Fords, Fire- stones, Edisons, Ketterings, Rockefellers, and hundreds of other giants in industry and finance? This grave deficiency in our human re«- sources is not the result of anyone’s design. It is the result of everyone’s neglect. We have tended to concentrate so largely on our domestic life that we failed to realize that whether it is to have a chance to continue depends to a great degree on what happens abroad—or rather, on how effective we can become in influencing what happens abroad in directions favorable to world order, peace, and freedom. I congratulate Kiwanis for its magnificent program for youth, and urge you to challenge and train them to under- stand better the nature of the world in which they live, America’s place in it, the condi-~ tions necessary for our survival, and how to fulfill the conditions.
A3578 Our hopes of avoiding disaster lie in mobilizing to the utmost our strength and skill in political, ideological, and moral fields, as well as -economic and military. We will win only if we believe so intensely in those basic principles of freedom and federation on which the Nation was founded and which are responsible for its greatness, that we can outthink, outwork, outsacrifice, and outlast those whose world is founded on lies and violence. Our difficulties are not insurmountable if we can develop, here and among the other free peoples, a moral compulsion to build in the world the sort of decent order which our forefathers had the will to build in these United States—the will to make our system work here at home and to spread it abroad. It comes down to how sound and strong and deep is our faith. What our Nation and the world must have if they are to be saved is what Lincoln prayed for at Gettys- purg. “Under God, a new birth of free- dom,”—a new understanding of freedom— @ new dedication to it. Our fathers built the finest material civili- zation the world has ever seen—precisely be- cause they sought first the dignity and free- dom of individual man as a spiritual being. Because they put that first, not second, the political and economic system they estab- lished was one which released, as had never been done in any other time or place, the creative capacities that are in ordinary men everywhere. Thereby has our progress been achieved. Shall we now focus our effort just on try- ing to preserve the material results? Or on reproducing the spiritual causes? With all my heart I believe that the Con- stitution of the United States and the sys- tem of government by voluntary federation which our fathers established here, are the best set of political ideas ever put together in one place in the world’s history. I think they are the hope of mankind. Our freedom and our peace depend upon the spread of those ideas—everywhere. Aggressive citizenship to achieve these goals is indeed the safeguard of freedom, as your motto puts it. It is the only way we can ultimately turn back the tide of totalitari- anism and tyranny which is sweeping over the earth and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. A Fighting Faith in America EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL ALBERT OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I insert an address delivered by a young man in my congressional district, Mr. Eddie Men- asco. This was a prize-winning oration in an annual oratorical content held at the Eastern Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College at Wilburton, Okla. The oration follows: A FIGHTING FaIrH IN AMERICA Fear has won a beachhead in America, and the people of this country, although vic- torious in history’s most devastating wars, are retreating before the shadows of an un- easy peace. Fear, unknown in war, is pro- ducing an astonishing paradox in the rich- est and strongest nation in the world—it is persuading the American people to talk themselves into a depression. A defeatist attitude is encountered on all sides—from board rooms to  barrooms. Whether it’s a group of clerks in a cafeteria, or a group of corporation big-shots at a ban- quet, the main dish is likely to be despond- ency, seasoned with dire rumors, and gare nished with gloomy statistics. These dim views of America’s economic health have apparently gained wide accept- ance, although the facts of America’s eco~- nomic strength are known to everyone. On the radio, in magazines, in our newspapers, the basic soundness of America’s economic position has been clearly pointed out. Be- cause they do not fit into the melancholy fashions of the hour, such statements fail to register on the public mind. But they are startling facts and should be repeated again and again. Here they are: 1. Fifty-nine million workers on the job. 2. Two hundred billion dollars in liquid savings. 8. Two-hundred-and-fifteen-billion-dollar personal income for 1949. 4. High purchasing power—53 percent greater than prewar. It would seem preposterous that anyone could manipulate these figures and come up with an answer that equals disaster. Yet, that is precisely what many Americans are doing. By emotional arithmetic, these viewers-with-alarm add two and two and get zero. But the record they scan is their own fever chart—not the record of America’s eco- nomic health and vigor. Now, you and I know that as a Nation we cannot afford to be economic hypochon- driacs, because a country, like an individual, can worry itself sick. The reaction of many Americans to the problems of this postwar period suggests something Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in April 1816. Jefferson wrote: “T think, with you, that it 1s a good world. * * ™* There are, indeed, gloomy and hypochondriac minds, disgusted with the present, and despairing of the future; always counting the worst will happen, be- cause it may happen. To these I say: What grief has been caused by the evils that never happened. I steer my bark with hope in the head leaving fear astern.’ Today’s counterparts of these gloomy indi- viduals confuse fears with facts. Through knowing, in their hearts, the essential health and vitality of our free economy, they yield weakly to the counsels of despair. Seized with the jabber-jitters, they prattle about depression and collapse. But how can we confuse shadows with realities? With our spiritual heritage, and with vast material resources at our com-~ mand, how can we compromise our future by a liaison with fear? The answer is lack of faith—for, only through a lack of faith in America and in ourselves, could we mark down the world’s most dynamic economy. Too many of us have accepted jJabber-jitter estimates of what is wrong with America, such as welfare state, or any Government- provided benefits for that matter, instead of finding out for ourselves what is right with America, or what are some of the good points about our policy of government. No one can deny that America faces many grave problems today, both at home and abroad. No one can deny that American business has an ample share of these prob- lems which it must solve itself, if it is to continue its robust tradition of individual competitive enterprise. But I do deny, and most emphatically, that these problems pre- sent any logical reason for doubt. I deny that challenge is a cause for fear. ‘There is all the difference in the world be- tween being aware of complex problems and being afraid of them. This moment demands & clear-eyed appraisal of the facts—not an emotional concern with shadows. The history of America is an inspiring saga of great problems superbly overcome; of seri- ous setbacks serving only as new beginnings APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for even greater achievements. I reject the thought that at the midpoint in this twen- tieth century, we will reverse the course of that history. Not as a politician, not as a historian, not as an economist, but as a citizen, I call for a@ renewal of faith in the vitality of our Amer- ican way of life. By faith in America, I do not mean a list- less reverence for the past or a mere submis- sion to the present. By faith, I mean a cer- tainty based on the principles for which America stands, by which it has progressed, and through which it will realize its full po- tential of greatness in the future. Faith in America is not blind acceptance of things as they are—it is the belief that we, in America, can make them better. In declaring that today’s opportunities can be made the basis for magnificent progress and achievement, I am simply expressing a citizen’s estimate of what he sees through his own eyes. And what I see today, gives me unlimited confidence in tomorrow. Be- cause for every minor symptom of decline, there are a hundred major elements of eco- nomic stability. . Now, of course, nothing in this world is perfect and the American economy is no exception. But, if we were perfect, there would be nothing left for us to do—and we can be well assured there is a great job to be done. This may surprise those of us who believe that simply because we have the highest liv- ing standard in the world, we have every- thing we need. Some of us have become complacent through reading statistics about the number of bathtubs and telephones, mo- tor cars, and radios, owned by Americans as compared with Russians. Such comparisons are significant—yes. But they are phenomenal only by the Com- munist standard. By American standards they are not nearly good enough. Let’s face the cold facts. Twenty-seven million Americans have no kitchen sinks. Eighteen million Americans lack vacuum cleaners. One million American families need new homes this year. Forty million Americans have neither bathtub nor shower. So, let’s not talk about what we've got. Let’s be more concerned with what we haven't got. We must be concerned for two reasons: First, because these are human needs that should be met; and, second, be- cause these needs provide dramatic illus- tration of the fact that we haven’t finished anything—we're only beginning. As Woodrow Wilson once said, ‘America is not anything, if it consists of each of us. It is something only if it consists of all of us; and it can consist of all of us only when our spirits are banded together in a common enterprise.” Today, our common enterprise is clear—let us go forward together, and, by bold action, reaffirm our faith in America and in our- selves—we, the people, who are America. Inside Your Congress—True Liberalism and Human Welfare EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. RALPH W. GWINN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. GWINN. Mr. Speaker, at every whistle stop on his way to the West, Mr. ‘Truman is asking the people to put their