1950 he would impose upon them, and for his Profit dollars, or going to jail for con- tempt of court. Mr. President, do not mistake me. I do not condone any failure on the part of any workers in the country to obey the spirit and the intent and letter of the law on the books, or of a court order seeking to carry out the law. I do not condone any violation of the law or violation of an injunction issued thereunder. But I can not remake human nature. The Con- gress of the United States cannot remake human nature. We must face some of the ugly realities of human nature, and One of those realitics appears tonight to be that a great many thousands of coal miners are in effect saying, “We just won’t mine coal for a private employer, in the absence of an agreement.” They have not said, “We will not mine coal under terms and conditions imposed by the Federal Government through a sei- zure of the mines.” The difference is a great difference in human psychology. If there is anything I learncd in my more than 15 years’ experience in the field of labor relations, it is that, when all is said and done, the human factor is the con- trolling factor in most labor disputes. It 1s necessary in each dispute to get down to an understanding of the human factors that have caused the disagree- ment which has sprung up between the parties. I am convinced that if we pass a fair seizure law which protects the legitimate rights of both the workers and the employers for the period of govern- ment operation of the mines, the coal miners and the operators will rise to their patriotic obligation of supporting the flag that will fly over their properties, and will proceed to work out some agree- ment satisfactory to the two sides, for the operation of the mines on their re- turn to the owners. I believe that is true, and that is the third major premise I have laid down in this speech, Mr. Pres- ident. If I am wrong about that, then on that premise, my argument will fall to the floor of the Senate. If I am wrong in my conviction that the miners will dig coal when the flag flies over the mines then, truly, I shall be stumped, Mr. Pres- ident, because I shall then be hard put to think out any constructive answer to the question, What now? I think we should try it, and if our seizure bill is fair, I thimk it will work and work immediately, and proceed to produce immediatcly the coal necessary to relieve the great suffering which is sweeping across America tonight. I said many of these things during the last ses- sion of the Congress when I pleaded on the floor of the Senate for a seizure bill of this type. I am just as convinced to- night that this is a much sounder ap- proach to the problem than the provi- sions of the Taft-Hartley law, which cer- tainly have demonstrated, at least in this instance, that they cannot produce coal. I am afraid that what the Taft-Hartley Jaw is producing, Mr. President, is a deepened resentment in the hearts of miners, which will plague us long after this dispute is finally settled. That is one of the things that worry me so much, Mr. President. That is why I keep pleading with the Congress, “Let us go to work on this labor law, let CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE us reevaluate it, let us modify it, so that we take out of it those sections which the evidence clearly demonstrates are the breeders of resentment in the hearts of American workers.” The record is overwhelming, Mr. President, that the Taft-Hartley law has become a great cause of growing re- sentment in the breasts of free workers in this country. They feel so many of its provisions are untair, unjust, and dis- criminatory against their legitimate rights. I do not want to see this second session of the Eighty-first Congress go by without our coming to grips with the great problem of passing fair labor legis- lation. I believe we are so close together, Mr. President, as the result of our ex- periences under the Taft-Hartley law. I think we can get togethcr, if we have the will as legislators in this second ses- sion of the Eighty-first Congress, on those modifications of the Taft-Hartley law necessary to make it a fair law and to remove from the hearts of millions of American workers the feelings of resent- ment which they now hold toward that law. I do not think we should play poli- tics with it. We should not let it go into the 1950 congressional elections as one of the political issues, because I do not think it should really be considered an issue any longer. The time has come to operate on the Taft-Hartley law in this session of the Eighty-first Congress. I offer this bill tonight as the first proposal in this ses- sion of Congress for a modification of the Taft-Hartley law. It goes to the very vital issue of how to handle emergency disputes. The second provision of the bill that I would mention is the one which pro- vides that a board is to report to the President with recommendations not later than 30 days after appointment. Third, at any time after issuing a procla- mation of a national emergency, the President may rcport to Congress, mak- ing such recommendations as he sees fit. Fourth, in any case where a strike or lock-out continues after issuance of a proclamation, the President is required to submit to Congress a full report and whatever recommendations he sees fit to make, including a rccommendation that the United States take possession of the business enterprise involved in the dis- pute. I emphasize that provision, Mr. Presi- dent, as one of the safeguards I have deliberately placed in the bill to avoid some of the dangers of unnecessary seizure, which might be proposed if the Congress did not have a check upon the executive branch of Government, which might want to seize when seizure in fact might not be necessary, Mr. President, we must make this system of checks and balances work in practice, and not merely talk about it. When we pass Icgislation we must keep in mind the great consti- tutional principle of our form of govern- ment that the legislature should check the executive, and the executive should check the legislative branch. The courts sit to check them both, and we in turn have our checks upon the courts. Here is one of the checks which I pro- vide specifically in this type of seizure bill in order to avoid some of the dangers 2651 of seizure that the Junior Senator from Oregon fears very much. He wants to make certain that his bill is one which can be used only as a last resort and one which cannot be used arbitrarily by a President of the United States, but which can be used only after careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of an emergency board both by the President and by the Con- gress. If the President recommends the tak- ing of possession, he has the authority under the bill to take such action unless Congress, by concurrent resolution, with- in 5 days after the submission of such a recommendation, determines that such action should not be taken or enacts leg- islation to resolve the dispute and ter- minate the emergency. During the period of Government operation, which is hmuited to 60 days, unless the period is extended by concur- rent resolution of the Congress—another example of the congressional check I have in my bill, Mr. President—the Fed- eral Mediation Service shall continue to encourage settlement. The Government agency operating the seized property has no authority to ne- gotiate with the employer or union, or to alter wages or conditions of employ- ment except in conformity with the rec- ommendations of the emergency board or concurrent resolution of Congress. I do not know whether I can succeed in getting that point across, Mr. President, but that point is basic to the theory of this bill. It carrics out a fundamental principle of negotiations for settling any labor dispute. I have said it before, but I want to get it into this speech, too, that the one thing, above all else, that must characterize negotiations for a settlement of a labor dispute when the Government has to intervene—mark what I say, Mr. President—when the Government has to intervene, is the principle of keeping the disputants in doubt about what the final settlement will be. Unless that be done, Mr. Presi- dent, we play right into the hands of either labor’s or the employer’s side of the table, which may find it to its ad- vantage to let the procedures of the law run their course. That is one of the difficultics involved in the present dis- pute. We could take the Taft-Hartley Jaw in its present form and, as counsel for the union or for the employer, tell them with almost complete certainty just what is going to happen, step by step, as the law proceeds to be applied to the dispute. Therefore, Mr. President, either side, under the existing Taft-Hartley law, can determine at the very beginning of the dispute whether it is to its ad- vantage to let the Taft-Hartley law flow in its procedures and be applied to the dispute. I mean no criticism when I say this, Mr. President. I speak for a moment from a lawyer’s standpoint as to what I think has happened, in part, in the coal case. I do not claim to know all the details of what has gone on in this case, but judging from what I have been ad- vised in regard to the case, the attitude of at least one the parties, the operators, has been to sit tight and let the law follow its coursa
2652 I was interested some time ago in reading an article in the Washington Post in which Cyrus Ching, the head of the Federal Mediation and Concillation Service, said, in effect—I do not have the article before me, so I not purport to give it verbatim—in answer to a question put to him by a newspaperman, that, for the most part, the negotiations have been characterized by the union making various offers and the employers saying, “No, no, no.” I have seen that happen in many cases, Mr. President. During the war, we sent many cases back to the parties because we became convinced that they were try- ing to use the board as the determiner of their dispute, rather than try to use the free collective-bargaining table as the medium for settling their differences. So whenever we became convinced that collective bargaining had broken down because either side thought there would be an advantage in having the case go to the Board for determination, we sent the case back and said: We shall take jurisdiction over this case only if we are convinced that you have acted in good faith and that you have really tried in all honesty to settle your differences be- twecn yourselves but can find no basis or common ground for settlement. Only then wlll we take jurisdiction. I am suspicious, Mr. President, that in this particular case there are some per- sons among the operators who thought it would be to their advantage to let the Taft-Hartley law be applied to the dis- pute. Therefore, that is at least part of the explanation for the breaking down of negotiations between the parties. If that is true, Mr. President, it is an un- fortunate thing. If it is true, I think we should do something about it. If it is not true in this case, Mr. President, it may very well be true in many cases. I think it has been true in many cases since the passage of the Taft-Hartley law, because that law does not leave the parties in doubt as to what the legal pro- cedures and legal consequences are go- ing to be if they simply permit a given dispute to reach the point that a na- tional emergency is created and the law has to be applied. So, Mr. President, in my seizure bill I have left the parties in doubt. I do not propose a law which would allow either side to sit down and figure out in advance whether it will be to its advantage to look out the window when collective bar- gaining should be going on in good faith. and to say “No, no, no” to offers made by the other side. I have phrased the bill so that both will be in great doubt as to the economic consequences if they permit a situation to develop of such a national emergency that it threatens the health and safety of the country to the extent that the Government has to step in and exercise the arm of the law to protcct the public welfare. How have I done it? I have done it, Mr. President, as I did in my proposed amendment in the first session of this Congress, and which is one of the great differences between my seizure proposal and the other seizure proposals which have been offered on the floor of the Senate, by leaving it to the Government to dctermine, when seizure has been ap- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE plied, what the wages, hours, and con- ditions of employment shall be and what the compensation of the operators shall be. In other words, Mr. President, mine is a flexible procedure as far as economic compensation to both parties under Gov- ernment seizure is concerned. It has some weaknesses. I know of no perfect solution, I can see some disadvantages to the economic compensation provision of my bill. But, in contrast to the pro- visions which last session were offered on the floor of the Senate, I think my pro- vision is far superior, because it leaves the parties in doubt. That 1s in induce- ment for them to get together around the free collective bargaining table and keep the Governnient out of the dispute. I believe that free employers and free workers in America should recognize be- fore it is too late that every time their course of conduct makes it necessary for the Government to enter into a labor dis- pute they jeopardize economic freedom in this country. After all, economic freedom belongs to us. It belongs to the people. Whether we have it or not is pretty much up to us. If labor and em- ployers lose any degree of economic free- dom in this country because of the Gov- ernment’s stepping into a labor dispute to protect the public interest, the fault is theirs, and not the Government’s, be- cause Government can do no less, as I said at the beginning of my speech. So here I have a provision which I think will be an inducement to collect- ive bargaining. It is a provision which keeps the parties in doubt. Here is what is going to happen to them economically if the Government must seize a plant or amine. The Chair will remember that in some of the other seizure proposals which we had in the first session of the E.ghty-first Congress there was a specific requirement to the effect thet during the period of Government seizure wages, hours, and conditions of employment had to remain the same as they were at the time the dispute started. What good is that provision? How much doubt does that create in the mind of an employer as to what is going to happen economically to the in- dustry if Government seizes it? None at all. He might find, under that kind of law, that Government seizure would be a great advantage to him, and there- fore he could just “sit tough,” as we say in labor cases, and make no cffer, make no concessions, and exercise no at- tempt at all to reach a good-faith agree- ment with the union. Likewise, Mr. President, suppose there were a provision like that included in some previous proposals, to the effect, as I have seen recently in the press, that during Government seizure no profits shall go to the employer at all. That is just as unfair to the employer as a pro- vision which states that the Government could not pay what the facts showed to be fair wages, and allow fair hours and fair conditions of employment. The principle that I apply in labor re- lations is to make the law work the same way on both sides, I do not believe in ap- lying a procedure in a labor case which nefits only one side to the dispute, or penalizes only one side to the dispute, MARCH 2 This matter of fairness in labor disputes is a matter of applying procedures which give equality of procedural rights to both parties. That is why I have said so many times that one of the great weaknesses of the Wagner Act was that it violated the principle of equality of procedural rights of both sides to a dispute. Pro- cedures under the Wagner Act were weighted in favor of labor. Procedural equality was not given to the employers under the Wagner Act. As I have stated before, the Wagner Act violated a simple rule of the Amcr- ican playground—that the same rules should apply to both sides participating in a game. An umpire in a labor case cannot apply one set of rules to laior and another sect to employers. That just is not fair. What I have pleaded for is a fair procedure for the setttlement of labor disputes. I think the procedure which I have just mentioned does exactly that in regard to the economic comp2n- sation which shall be allowed to both the workers and the employers under my seizure bill. It keeps both sides in doubt. I think that will prove to be a great inducement to the parties entering into an agreement between themselves, and doing it far in advance of seizure. Let me emphasize that, Mr. President. The great advantage of putting my seizure procedure on the books is that it will prove to be an inducement to the parties to enter into a free collective-bargaining agreement to avoid seizure. Not because my seizure bill, if we have to apply it, is unfair, because I think it is so worded that neither side can get an advantage from its operation, but knowing that they cannot get an advan- tage from its operation, I think it will be a@ great inducement to them to settle their case without letting the conditions in the industry reach a point whcre the national health and safety are endan- gered. The next point is No. 8. During the period of Government operation, all in- come received shall be held in trust for the payment of general operating ex- penses, just compensation to the own- ers—that is, Mr. President, until the decision is made as to what just com- pensation is, based on the facts of the individual case. For example, if em- ployers are shown by the facts and the decision in the recommendations of the Emergency Board to have been guilty of bad faith, and if it is shown that they should have granted some of the requests of the union, their compensation is not going to be as much as would be the case if the Board finds that the union was at fault. That is the way I propose to keep the parties in doubt as to the economic effects of the bill. It is a very important procedure. I repeat that point: During the period of Government operation, all income re- ceived shall be held in trust for the pay- ment of general operating expenses, just compensation to the owners, as deter- mined by the compensation board sat up in the bill, and reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Government. Any income remaining is to be covered into the United States Treasury. In determining just comp2nsation, the compensation board must give consid-
1950 eration, among other things, to the fact that the owners or the union, as the case may be, have failed or refused to comply with the recommendations of the emer- gency board, or the conditions deter- mined by Congress to constitute a just settlement. The bill provides that the Norris-La- Guardia anti-injunction law shall apply to the Government, unless the Congress by concurrent resolution provides other- wise in the particular case. And last, provision is made in the bill so that no time will be lost in applying the bill forthwith to the pending coal case. . Mr. President, under the next to the last section of the bill the President does not have to go through all the proce- dure in the first part of the bill with respect to the appointing of a fact-find- ing board. That board exists already, and it is specifically provided in this section that the President can proceed right now, on the basis of the proce- dures already taken in the coal case, to make his recommendations to the Con- gress of the United States, the day after, or the same day, for that matter, that the bill passes the Congress, including a recommendation for seizure, if he be- Neves that such a recommendation should be made to the Congress. In other words, I have provided in this sec- tion of the bill a section which saves every minute of tume that can be saved under our legislative process in applying the seizure provisions of the bill to the pending dispute. I close, Mr. President, by saying that I regret taking this much time at this late hour to discuss this bill, but I know very well from past experience that had I not made a statement as full as the statement I have made, which can be used for future reference, I would find myself confronted with a great many misinterpretations and misunderstand- ings as to what I actually did propose. I offer the bill in the belief and hope that it is a constructive suggestion. I am open to any suggestions for mod- ification of the bill which any Senator wishes to offer who can demonstrate that his modification is to be preferred to some particular provision in my bill. I offer it because I am deeply moved by a sense of duty that, as a Membcr of the Senate of the United States, I owe it to my constituency and I owe it to all the people of this country to make an attempt to find the answer to the question, What now? Mr. President, I offer my bill as part of the answer to that question, and I plead with the Senate to recognize the great coal emergency which grips this country, I urge the Senate to set aside all other business until we dispose of this, because I think the American people have the right to have the Congress of the United States do all within its power to pass whatever legislation is necessary to meet the great emergency to our econ- omy caused by the pending coal dispute. RECESS Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I move that the Senate take a recess until 12 o’clock noon tomorrow. xCVI——167 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The motion was agreed to; and (at 8 o’clock and 11 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Friday, March 8, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate March 2 (legislative day of Feb- ruary 22), 1950: In THE Navy Vice Adm. Calvin T. Durgin, United States Navy, to have the grade, rank, pay, and al- lowances of a vice admiral while serving as commander, First Fleet. Tho following-named officers of the Navy for temporary appointment to the grade of captain in the line, subject to qualification therefor as provided by law: Jay 8. Anderson John G. Lewis Richard K. Anderson Robert E. Lockwood George D. Arntz Albert D. Lucas Robert P. Beebe Donald J. MacDonald Sherman W. Betts George B. Madden James O. Biglow Sanford L. Mead Charles T. Booth IT Francis B. Merkle William B. Braun Alfred B Metsger John H. Brockway John O. Miner Charles B Brooks, Jr. George W. Molesworth Eliott M. Brown Philip W. Mothersill Bruce L. Carr Henry Mullins, Jr. Max L. Catterton Francis W. McCann John L. Chew Francis A. McKee Charles O Cook, Jr. Bernard F. McMahon Richard H. Crane Ray C. Needham John D. Crowley Curl FP. Nieberle Freeman Cutter George R. Over Earle V. Dennett George E. Peckham Lucian F. Dodson James M. Peters John O. F. Dorsett Lawson P. Ramage Rudolph J. Fabian Frank G. Raysbrook William H. Farmer Henry A. Renken John B. Fellows, Jr. James R. Z. Reynolds Reid P. Fiala Robert M. Reynolds Maxim W. Firth Berton A. Robbins, Jr. Robert A. Fitch Edward L. Robcrtson, John A. Fitzgerald Jr. Joseph E. Flynn Anthony C. Roessler Joseph F. Foley Thomas W. Rogers Archie D. Fraser Albert K. Romberg Peter M. Gaviglio Emcry Roughton Harry M. &. Gimber, Jr. Emmanuel T. Goyette Myron W. Graybill Edward H. Guilbert Byron L. Gurnette Oscar E. Hagberg John F'. Harper, Jr. George A. Hatton Claude V. Hawk Richard Rh. Hay Nelson M Head Paul F. Heerbrandt Robert B. Heilig Morris A. Hirsch William W. Hollister Ernest C. Holtzworth Edwin B. Hooper Robert E. Hudson John N. Hughes Raymond P. Hunter Francis J. Johnson Ashton B, Jones, Jr. Victor A. King Walter P. Schoent William B. Sieglaff Ronald K, Smith Victor H Soucek Richard C. Steere Eugene Tatom Robert A. Theobald, Jr. Theodore A. Torgerson Thomas D. Tyra Gordon A. Uehling Schermerhorn Van- Mater Lows F Volk Hazlett P. Weatherwax Johu A. Webster Karl R. Wheland Albert F, White Donald T. Wilber George K. Williams Lowell W. Williams Russell C. Williams Walter C. Wingard, Jr. Charles C. KirkpatrickDarwin M. Wisehaupt Peter R. Lackner Sidney J. Lawrence William R. LeFavour Bafford ©. Lewellen James M. Wood Edward A. Wright Sinclair B. Wright John T. Wulff CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate March 2 (legislative day of February 22), 1950: DmEcToR OF THE CENSUS Roy Victor Peel to be Director of the Cen- 2653 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD William Webster to be Chairman of the Research and Development Board. In tHE Navy Rear Adm. John W. Roper, United States Navy, to have the grade, rank, pay, and allowances of a vice admiral while serving as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Person- nel). Vice Adm. John D. Pricc, United States Navy, to have the grade, rank, pay, and allow- ances of a vice admiral while serving as Chief, Nava! Air Training. Vice Adm. Donald B. Duncan, United States Navy, to have the grade, rank, pay, and allow- ances of a vice admiral while serving as Dep- uty Chief of Naval Operations (Operations). HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuurspay, Marcu 2, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Bras- kamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: Almighty and evcr blessed God, whose treasury of goodness ts inexhaustible, we tl.ank Thee for the gift of this new day with its opportunities to serve Thee and our fellow men. May we sense the sanctity of our high vocation and never be recreant in the performance of any duty. Emancipate us from those moods of discouragement and defeatism which storm the citadel of our souls when we face difficult problems. Grant that we may be the messengers and mediators of helpfulness in hasten- ing that glorious time when the forces of evil, which are impeding the progress of the kingdom of brotherhood and good will, shall be supplanted by the kind and gentle spirit of the Prince of Peace, To Thy name we give the praise. Amen, The Journal of the proceedings of yes- terday was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT A message in writing from the Presi- dent of the United States was communi- cated to the House by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries, who also informed the House that on February 21, 1950, the President approved and signed a bill of the House of the following title: H.R. 6486. An act to amend certain pro- visions of the Internal Revenue Code to per- mit the use of additional means, including stamp machines, for payment of tax on dis- tilled spirits, modify loss allowances for dis- tilled spirits, for the transfer and redistil- lation of spirits, and for other purposes. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. Carrell, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed a bill of the fol- lowing title, in which the concurrence of the House is requested: 6.3169. An act granting the consent and approval of Congress to a compact entered into by the States of Idaho and Wyoming relating to the waters of the Snake River. The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendments of the
2654 House to bills of the Senate of the fol- lowing titles: 8. Con. Res. 44. Concurrent resolution fa- voring the suspension of deportation of cere tain aliens; and 8. Con. Res. 45. Concurrent resolution fas voring the suspension of deportation of cers tain aliens. UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SELLING ITS LOCAL MEMBERS DOWN THE RIVER Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, the United States Chamber of Commerce is selling its members down the river. This organization, composed of 3,126 cham- bers of commerce and trade associations, is advocating concentration of industry and is opposing ‘decentralization of in- dustry by advocating the enactment of the so-called basing-point bill, S. 1008. It is time for the local chambers of commerce to take a look at their parent organization, or I wonder if the local chambers of commerce are quitting their fight for local industry. The basing- point bill is an effort to legalize the old Pittsburgh-plus system, which discrimi- nated against every section of the United States except the highly industrial areas around Pittsburgh, Pa. This system has been outlawed by the Supreme Court, but now an effort is made to legalize it through S. 1008. Local chambers of commerce are frequently voted in this way against the interest of their own localities. I wonder when they will wake up to what is going on. For more than 20 years, as a Member of this body, I have observed the activi- ties of the United States Chamber of Commerce. I have never known a time when there was a conflict of interest be- tween big-business monopolies and small business that the United States chamber did not take the side of the big monopo- listic interests. If Iam mistaken in this, I would like for some Member to point out one instance wherein the United States chamber has ever taken the side of small business in opposition to big business. The conferees, I understand, have agreed on a report on S. 1008. It is my understanding that it will not be taken up until after March 13 on the theory that the Supreme Court of the United States will probably pass on the Stand- ard Oil of Indiana case by that time. This bill, if enacted, will invalidate the decisions of the United States district court and the United States circuit court of appeals holding in favor of independ- ent gasoline dealers and against the Standard Oil of Indiana. Pennsylvania is a great State. I have great respect and admiration for the Members of Congress in both Houses and on both sides of the aisle from that State, but I cannot vote to favor the industrial areas of Pennsylvania and thereby de- prive my own section of Texas of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE opportunity of securing industries that cannot be destroyed overnight by the monopolistic powers. COCA-COLA Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the Empire State of the South, Georgia, and the home of Coca- Cola, I protest the recent action of the French Chamber of Deputies which in effect barred the sale of Coca-Cola throughout France. It is a calculated affront to the people of this country. If the French persist in this arbitrary movement, then I say that we should retaliate by taking proper action against certain French commodities, namely, wine, champagne and perfume. It is more than ridiculous to require the Coca-Cola company to prove that their product is not harmful before being al- lowed to resume distribution in France. In fact, it is such a healthful drink that doctors prescribe it for babies only a few months old. Mothers have found it to be a very effective colic remedy for their babies. The French would have a more stable population if they drank more Coca-Cola and less wine and cognac. In my opin- ion it would do the French a lot of good to drink an abundance of this refreshing beverage for it would give them some- thing they have needed since the war ended and that is a good belch. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. CLEMENTE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an article by George Sokolsky. Mr. KLEIN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp in three instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. CARNAHAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an address by His Excellency Dr, Dirk Uipko Stikker, Min- ister of Foreign Affairs of the Nether- lands. Mr. BARING asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REcorpD. Mr. PRICE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. THE WORLD CONGRESS OF PARTISANS OF PEACE Mr. KEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia? There was no objection. Mr. KEE. Mr. Speaker, the Commu- nist-front organization, self-styled “The World Congress of Partisans of Peace,” has announced that it is sending a dele- gation of 12 Europeans to the United MARCH 2 States on March 3. It is further an- nounced that the delegation expects to present a petition to this Congress. The so-called Partisans of Peace, who wish to present a peace petition to the Congress of the United States of America, seem to work in most mysterious ways their wonders of peace to perform. While mouthing their peace talk, the Partisans are actively engaging in a monster cam- paign directed towards closing European ports to American shipments under the military defense arms program, a pro- gram which was hailed in the United States and in Western Europe as one of the bastions of true peace and in com- plete accordance with United Nations principles. The campaign is not conte:.t with limiting itself to propaganda, but makes active use of strikes and actual sabotage. The second great peace effort of these partisans is to attempt to mobilize world public opinion behind a series of so-called peace proposals which coincide almost identically with those presented recently by the Russian delegation in the United Nations—and rejected promptly by that body. Perhaps we can understand the apparent anomaly between the talk and the actions of the Partisans of Peace when we consider that the best sum- mary of its peace program is to be found in the official organ of the Comin- form. I wonder if the members of this visit- ing delegation will expect us to roll out a red carpet, decorate the House Cham- ber with the emblems of their party and remove the statue of Freedom from the Capitol dome? THE ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTEENTH ANNIVERSARY OF TEXAS INDEPEND- ENCE. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, may I take the time of the House for just a few moments to call attention to the fact that 114 years ago today Texas pro- claimed her independence from Mexico with the aid of a handful of good old Southern boys, boys from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and several other States. As you all know by reading newspapers and through association we Texans are a modest crowd. We do not like to extol what few virtues we may have, but the point is that at this day and time when the world is squeaking with fear and trembling with horror of war and distrust of all nations, some of the people of Europe could look back and emulate the example of Texas and Mex- ico. We are friends and neighbors. We like each other, and we trust each other. Neither covets anything that the other has. If the remainder of the world did as we do, there would never be any war or disaster. Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the g2ntle- man from Tennessee.
1950 Mr. JENNINGS. May I remind the gentleman of this House that but for a man named Sam Houston, who went from Tennessee to Texas, there would never have been a Texas, and that an- other distinguished Sam who went from Tennessee to Texas sits in the Speaker’s chair in this House at this time. Mr. THOMAS. We acknowledge with great gratitude the truthfulness of the gentleman’s remarks. THE COAL SITUATION Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- consin? There was no objection. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Speaker, to- day’s headlines deal with coal. It was the same yesterday and it will be the same tomorrow. From day to day we struggle with the surface symptoms of coal strikes and coal shortages, never seeking a permanent solution. Let us at last face honestly one single fact. The coal industry is a sick indus- try, diseased and disabled beyond any one symptom such as the current labor- management dispute within the indus- try. I think it is time that the Congress recognize the serious economic problem that here exists. What are we to do about an industry which is gradually becoming uneconomic and yet is vital to the Nation’s welfare? What ere we to do about the technological results of the substitution of other types of fuel for coal? None of us knows the entire an- swers to these problems. I am, therefore, introducing a joint resolution calling for creation of a bi- partisan coal commission to study the problems and prospects of the American coal industry. The commission is to at- tempt to determine what policies and programs by Government, business, labor, and others would end the terri- ble pattern of poverty and disaster in the coal fields and coal shortages in our cities and industries. The commission would be formed in the same manner as the Hoover Com- mission; six members to be appointed by the President; six by the Vice President, three to be Senators; and six by the Speaker of the House, three to be Rep- resentatives. The Chairman of the Council of Eco- nomic Advisers, the Secretary of the In- terior, and the Secretary of Labor would be three of the President’s six appointecs. The commission would be expected to submit its final report in January 1951, The staff would remain on for 90 days to assist the Congress in any legisla- tive action contemplated. The commis- sion would then go out of existence. The entire cost would be $250,000, a modest sum considering the scope and impor- tance of the industry under study and the millions spent annually in an at- tempt to bring even an appearance of health to this sick industry. I want to remind you again that this resolution is not concerned with the pres- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ent coal situation, except as that situa- tion is another in the long series of crises in the coal flelds. We are seeking a long-range solution to a long-range problem of paramount importance. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr, BREEN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REcorD. Mr. RIVERS asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. Mr. BRYSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a radio address he delivered on Washington’s Birthday. Mr. FENTON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a proclamation is- sued by Governor Duff, of Pennsylvania, and other extraneous articles on Lith- uanian Day. Mr. COTTON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. PACKAGE FREIGHT SERVICE ON THE GREAT LAKES Mr. POTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. POTTER. Mr. Speaker, today, in conjunction with scores of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I have intro- duced legislation which will reestablish the package freight service on the Great Lakes. Prior to World War II we had 27 package cargo vessels on the Great Lakes. These vessels were, at the begin- ning of World War II, converted into war service. Since that time the cost of construction has been such that the op- erators have not been able to go back into that type of business, and there- fore this great inland waterway has been denied the carrying of package freight. I would like to call your attention to the fact that by reason of the Ship Sales Act, which was passed 4 yeurs ago, the Federal Government has sold to foreign countries 1,100 ships. The operators on the Great Lakes have been able to buy only two little LST’s. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this measure will receive the support of all Members of the House. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. GAVIN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial and a statement presented to the Ways and Means Committee on the oil and gas depletion allowance. THE PRESENT NATIONAL EMERGENCY Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. Mr. MASON. Mr. Speaker, on Janu- ary 12, more than 6 weeks ago, coal deal- 2655 ers from all over the Middle West came to Washington for a conference with Mem- bers of Congress concerning the serious situation that faced the Nation because of the coal shortage. At that time the miners, under orders from John L, Lewis, were on a 3-day workweek. After point- ing out the consequences that might be expected—consequences that are now upon us—those coal dealers asked the Members of Congress who were present at that ineeting what Congress could do to head off the suffering and hardship that were bound to come. My answer to that question was: “The only recourse or action the Congress can take in view of the situation is to bring impeachment proceedings against the President on the grounds that we have passed the Taft-Hartley Act giving him the machinery to use in the coal emer- gency, and that in spite of his oath to enforce the laws, he refuses to use the machinery the Congress has given him.” I say now that his refusal to act consti- tuted a flagrant case of—to paraphrase a@ well-known quotation—“Truman fid- dling while coal piles dwindle and Amer- ica freezes.” The situation at that time called for and justified impeachment proceedings. Today, Mr. Speaker, we face another national emergency, another threat to our Nation’s safety and general welfare, and President Truman not only refuses to do anything about it, but he stubborn- ly refuses to permit access to the evidence the Congress demands, the loyalty files of those playmates and collaborators of Alger Hiss that are still in the State De- partment—and he defies Congress to do anything about it. In the face of the conviction of Alger Hiss for perjury, a conviction that car- rics with it proof of treasonable acts dur- ing war; in the face of the confession of Dr. Fuchs, the British scientist; in the face of the charge made by Senator McCartHy concerning playmates of Alger Hiss still holding important positions in the State Department; President Tru- man locks up the evidence against these traitors in high places, the loyalty files, and defies the Congress to do anything about it. Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for treason. Yet our Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, still maintains he is a friend of Alger Hiss, the traitor, and President Truman backs him up in his position. When a congressional com- mittee started the investigation in the Alger Hiss case some 2 years ago, Presi- dent Truman made fun of the investiga- tion, made light of the charges against Hiss, dismissing them as a “red her- ring”—a red herring that has now come home to roost. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has the re- sponsibility of facing this situation squarely, and of doing something about it. What can or should be done in the ight of conditions in the executive department of the Government? I can see only one answer to that question, namely, impeachment pro- ceedings against the President, the man mostly responsible for the present danger within our gates.
2656 INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILL Mr. VORYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr. VORYS. Mr. Speaker, I under- stand that consideration of the confer- ence report on H. R. 4406, the interna- tional claims settlement bill, has been put off from today until next Tuesday. I hope the Members in the meantime will examine this utterly unnecessary and unjust bill and the amendments ap- proved in conference, which take away any rights of Americans ever to have their claims for nationalization by Yugo- slavia and other countries heard in any court in this country or elsewhere from now on. We are in the ECA law and in the pending point 4 bill urging pri- vate investment abroad by promising protection for private investors abroad. This bill goes in exactly the opposite di- rection by discouraging private invest- ment through encouraging nationahza- tion all over the world. The Yugoslav settlement has already been made. The Secretary of State now has authority to divide the settlement proceeds among American claimants, but their claims should be adjudicated either in the Court of Claims or the War Claims Commis- sion. Instcad, this bill sets up a new agency in the State Department, with three new $15,000 jobs. Under the con- ference report, they need not be lawyers, can write their own rules; a claimant will not need to know the law or evidence, but he will have to know the right peo- ple in the State Department. The con- ference report should be voted down. RETURN THE GREEK CHILDREN TO THEIR HOMES Mrs. BOLTON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and ex- tend my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mrs BOLTON of Ohio Mr. Speaker, I take the floor of this House today to join my voice with that of all the mothers of the free world in protest against the abduction of Greek children—28,000 of them—by the ruthless forces behind the iron curtain. History tells us that Greece suffered a like tragedy before. Can it be possible that mankind has not advanced beyond the point where little children are torn from their homes to be enslaved, to be trained in every form of degradation? Mr. Speaker, as I have read the ac- counts of this outrage and the many pro- tests that have been made against it, I have found no more poignant words than those of the Queen of Greece, the mother of all Greek children, in her broadcast of December 29 and her audience with the press. May I read them into the Recorp? In the name of the whole Greek nation, especially in the name of the stricken families, I ask the civilized world today: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Pray with me for the fate of these 28,000 abducted children. Their mothers have come to me and asked for help. I have seen into their desperate eyes and listened to their heartbreaking sobs, It is with their tortured souls and their empty arms that I turn today to all of you and beg you for God’s sake and your children’s sake, help me rouse the conscience of the world, add your voice to ours to bring back our children to thelr mothers’ arms. Too long has the civilized world remained silent. Silence in the face of such an outrage can only add to the crime itself and turn all of us into culprits. Have you forgotten that some years ao the fate of one little boy called Lindbergh shocked humanity as a whole? In Greece we mourn the fate of 28,000 little Lindberghs. Their fate is no less tragic. They have not only been physically torn from their families and beloved surroundings, but their innocent ttle souls are being systematically poisoned against their parents, their country, and our God. This Christmas no loving mother has told them the story of the smiling Jesus child. No message of love can come to them in the concentration camps behind the iron cur- tain But they are waiting to be saved by all of us who still believe and have taith in Christ Jesus when He said. “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not. For of such ts the Kingdom of God.” The same day the Queen made the fol- lowing statement in her audience with the foreign correspondents: I thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet you this evening. I would like to ask you, however, to feel that it was not you who came to me but that I came to you, for this day the whole of Greece will observe as one of deep mourning for the abduction of 28,000 of he: children My husband and I made many journeys to villages and have seen and heard stories of parents who had lost their chil- dren, We had always great hopes that in international conferences justice would be done. Unfortunately not a single child came back Icome to you tonight and I am beg- ging you as a mother and not as a queen— because queens do not beg, but mothers should—to help me rouse the conscience of the enlightened world. Mothers come con- fidently to me to help them find their chil- dren and tell me their grief. Their gricf 1s also my grief. Twenty-eight thousand chil- dren have been torn from their mothers’ arms and are suffering away from their tamilies, without their mothers and without God. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a reso- lution expressing it to be the sense of this Congress that the President and the Department of State take all possible action to find these Greek children and return them to their homes. OTTUMWA, IOWA, SITE FOR UNITED STATES AIR ACADEMY Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable interest in the proposal for the establishment of a West Point of the air, or a United States Air Academy, somewhere in the United States. Today I am introducing a bill provid- ing for the establishment of such an in- MARCH 2 stitution at Ottumwa, Iowa, which I be- lieve presents an ideal location for this school, and perhaps the best location in the State of Iowa and the only one that has any chance of being selected. In the early days of World War II when the Navy was seeking a location for a pri- mary air fleld, the citizens of Ottumwa, Iowa, a city of about 40,000, secured 1,440 acres in a square tract and comprising as rich and productive land as there is anywhcre on earth. This tract is 1%4 miles square and is about 6 miles from the city of Ottumwa. The patriotic people of Ottumwa raised the money to purchase this land from the several own- ers and decded it to the United States Government for the sum of $1, after pay- ing something lke $200 an acre for each of 1,440 acres—a sum approaching $300,- 000. Ihave not heard of any other prac- tical example of generosity and patriotic zeal to match that demonstrated by the people of Ottumwa, The Federal Government spent in the neighborhood of $20,000,000 in preparing a magnificent uir base with runways a mile and a half long, and constructed a Jarge number of permanent buildings— dormitories, hospital, and training quar- ters, and so forth. Among other build- ings there 1s a gymnasium or recreation building in which 1s located the largest indoor swimming pool 1n the world Should the Department of Defense in its plans for a permanent air academy require additional land for the school, it can be obtained at a reasonable price adjoining or adjacent to the present air ficld which has at the present time all the utilities—water, central heating plant, electricity, sewage disposal, and so forth, and a permanent all-weather highway from Ottumwa to the gate of the air base. Before any selection of a site is made for a permanent air academy certainly the committce will do well to look into the desirability of this location and fa- cilities offered at this site—alrcady owned and paid for by the Government, with many buildings, worth millions of dollars, already erected. Many of the splendid flying ofiicers of the Navy of the late war were trained at this base. The Government owns the site, and many of the buildings that would eventually be needed are already erected and ready for use. I know of no comparable site where facilities alrcady are available. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. HOPE asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend the remarks he expects to make in Committee of the Whole today in the consideration of the bill H. R. 2382 and include excerpts from the hearings as well as other extraneous matter. EMERGENCY ACTION IN COAL CRISIS Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is thcre objection to the request of the gentleman from South Dakota? There was no objection. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, many railroads have iess than
1950 10 days’ coal on hand. Schools are closing across the country. Even hos- pitals are pinched. Over 600,000 men are out of work. Here is a proposal for action: Let the President name an emergency coal award board consisting of the Di- rector of the United States Public Health Scrvice, the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, and three men chosen to represent labor, business, and the public. Let this seven-man board in closed session hear the reports of the Federal conciliators in the coal strike. Let the board then make its own recommenda- tions for an award for a 90-day contract subject to extension. Then let the President call upon both sides in the coal controversy, miners and operators, to get back to work on the basis of the award, and let him protect them, if necessary, in line with the pro- visions of H. R. 7417, which I introduced & week ago. Mr. Speaker, national safety and wel- fare are at stake. Itis late now. Fur- ther delay means national disaster. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. MERROW asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. Mr. SANBORN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include extraneous matter. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. [Mr. Jupp addressed the House. remarks appear in the Appendix.) EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. TALLE asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend the remarks he expects to make today during the consideration of the bill H. R. 2392, and include some pertinent matcrial rela- tive thereto. CANADA DOES IT Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and revise and extend my re- marks and include an article. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, the article is Canada Docs It. They are keeping their industries humming. They are having no strikes. They have cut down their taxes. They have reduced their budget, and they are getting along fine. I congratulate Canada, One of the Members said to me this morning, “After a while we will not only admit some of the provinces, but we will take Canada into our Government.” Let me say to you Congressmen, if you do not do the things like Canada is do- ing them in a good conservative, honest His CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE way, Canada will take over the United States, and you will be mighty glad to come in under Canada’s rule, because they are sound and sensible and they are doing the things that are right and honest and just for their own people. This Congress and administration is nothing but a bunch of squandcrers; the way we are handling things in the United States, you are going to wreck this Gov- ernment. If you do not honestly and sincerely rule our country with economy, justice, and sincerity as our Constitu- tion provides, Canada will be strong and we will be bankrupt. Canada seems to have sense and we will have no cents. The article I refer to is as follows: Canapa Dots IT In Canada industry is humming; there are no strikes, construction of all types is creating records; and an investment boom is developing untapped natural resources. From 1946 through 1949 the Canadian Gov- elinment not only balanced its budgets but had surpluses in each year. During the same period Canada’s national debt was re- duced 13 percent, or by $1.620,677,000 At the same time the Dominion Government has carried on a program of brond tax reduc- tion In 1946 a 16-percent cut in personal income taxes went into effcct. In 1947 larger cuts averaging about 23 percent of personal incomes went into effect. Incomo taxes were reduced further in 1948 and the excess-profits tax on partnerships and cor- porations was terminated January 1, 1948. At the same time the 3-percent tax on gas- oline was repenled, along with a number ot excise tuxes. The Canadian Government says that the cuts in taxes ordered fur 1949 meant an increase of more than $250,000,000 in the spending income of about 13,500,000 Canadians The Government also maintains that the tax reductions lowered the cost of purchases by the people by $92,000,000. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania has expired. THE COAL SITUATION Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to proceed tor 1 minute and to revise and exlend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin? There was no objection. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Speaker, I had visi- tors in my office this morning from one of the splendid cities in my district. The city hall has closed for want of fuel. The courthouse has closed for want of fuel. All of the schools of that city are closed for want of fuel. Now, what are we going to do about it? What can be done about it, and where is the organized effort on the part of the Congress to deal with this problem? The distinguished gentleman from South Da- kota (Mr. Case! has made the only sug- gestion that I have heard in the well of this House that proposes to deal with this problem. Unless we do deal with it in some manner pretty soon you will face disaster in this country of yours and mine that is unparalleled in its conse- quences. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Wisconsin has expired. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. ALLEN of Illinois asked and was given permission to extend his remarks 2657 in the Recorp and include a letter from a farmer in Illinois. THE COAL SITUATION Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the coal strike has developed into an _ insurrection against the Government and cannot be louger tol-vated. I would put it down if it callec for the use of every soldicr in the county. I am confident that the President !1as done his best in an en- deavor to bring about an amicable ad- justment. If he has not the power to enable him to deal adequatcly with the situation, I am confident that the Con- gress would give it to him for the asking. Mr. Speaker, this forcible display of opposition against law is creating a bad state of mind. People are beginning to ask embarrassing questions. They want to know where the supreme power re- sides, whether in the hands of the Gov- ernment or in the hands of the labor unions. Their faith in the strength and in the purposes of government is begin- ning to wane The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Georgia has expired. SURPLUS COMMODITIES Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana? There was no objection. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, on Feb- ruary 3 I introduced H. R. 7134, to pro- vide for authority for the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to give to all of the States, on the basis of popula- tion, the surplus Irish potatoes and eggs which had been acquired by the Com- modity Credit Corporation and which they were unable to dispose of as pro- vided by law and which were deteriorat- ing very rapidly and will soon spoil and be a total loss. Since that time I have learned that the Government has also acquired a surplus of 85,000,000 pounds of butter and that this butter will spoil very shortly unless the same is utilized. Therefore, on yesterday I introduced House Joint Resolution 430, to include in my suggested legislation, butter as well as all other commodities that are held by the Commodity Credit Corpora- tion and which cannot be disposed of in accordance with law. The bill also pro- vides that the same shall be distributed to the people of the United States gratuitously. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Louisiana has expired. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. WIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and ex.end my remarks,
2658 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. {[Mr. Wrer addressed the House. remarks appear in the Appendix.) GREAT LAKES SHIPPING LEGISLATION Mr. BLATNIK. Mr, Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced legislation to revive package-freight and passenger shipping on the Great Lakes, and an identical bill has been introduced by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Porrer] and by a number of other Congressmen from the States bordering the Great Lakes from Minnesota to New York. This bill has the support of businessmen, shippers, la- bor unions, port authorities, chambers of commerce, and other Great Lakes groups, who all agree that unless legisla- tion of this type is enacted into law, there is no hope for any possible revival of package-freight and passenger ship- ping on the Great Lakes. Package-freight service on the Lakes has always been an integral part of our national transportation system. Dairy products, flour, canned goods, packing- house products, and many others flowed eastward, while manufactured goods of all types supplemented by automobile traffic were carried northward and west-~ ward to vast consuming areas. This freight was carried at substantially less- er cost than offered by other mediums, In 1939 there were 24 ships on the Lakes engaged in package-freight trade, and 19 vessels carrying passengers. Today demand for package-freight and pas- senger service is greater than ever. But now there are no package-freight vessels on the Lakes and the number of passen- ger vessels has been reduced to a paltry few, which, with hardly an exception, are outmoded wooden-superstructure type, unfit for modern service requirements as well as unsafe for passenger travel. The recent Noronic disaster in Toronto points clearly to our duty to assist in providing modernized, fireproof ships for American service on these great inland waterways. It is impossible for ship operators to build ships for these trades today because of high capital outlay re- quired for new-vessel construction. This has resulted in tota) destruction of package-freight commerce on the Lakes and stops ship operators, despite urgent public demand in several highly congested traffic areas, from providing greatly needed passenger service. During the war, the Government built thousands of vessels costing billions of dollars. Almost 700 of these ships have been sold to American owners for ocean operation and over 1,100 have been sold to foreign-flag operators. All were sold under the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 at a fraction of today’s cost. Dur- ing the war, the Government requisi- tioned and removed most of the pack- age freight and passenger carriers from His CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the Lakes. But, while the Ship Sales Act has enabled American and foreign ocean-shipping operators to buy these Government-built ships at a moderate cost, only two small vessels—LST’s— have been sold for use on the Lakes. Great Lakes ship operators have been unable to take advantage of the prices established under the Ship Sales Act because of a technicality in that law. Under that act, allowances up to 99 per- cent of the sales price of a vessel have been given by the Commission to recon- vert ships for use in salt-water trades. But that act does not permit them, under existing legal interpretations, to grant similar allowances to Great Lakes pur- chasers to convert vessels for use on the Lakes. As ocean vessels require major conversion for use on the Lakes, this has prevented purchase of ships under that act by Lake operators. The pri- mary purpose of this bill is to remedy this situation. The essential effect of this bill is to authorize the Maritime Commission to make allowances up to 90 percent of the floor price to purchasers of a limited number of vessels for exclusive use on the Great Lakes for: First. The fair installed value of un- necessary existing ship's equipment, and the cost of removal thereof; Second. The cost of transfer to the Lakes; Third. The cost of conversion for Lakes service. The last sections of this bill merely extend the existing Federal Ship Mort- gage Insurance Act to cover purchase of these vessels for Lakes use and restrict time of completion of transfer. Enactment of this bill would require no appropriation of public funds. On the contrary, the Government will re- ceive money for vessels presently deteri- orating in laid-up fleets which annually cost the Government large sums to main- tain. It will, moreover, give jobs to thousands of seamen, longshoremen, and shipyard workers on the Great Lakes who are presently unemployed due to the inactivity of package freight and pas- senger trades. It will revive commerce and trade throughout the vast Great Lakes area. In addition, operation of these ships and the resulting wages will increase tax payments to the Treasury. This is the only piece of legislation I have seen in recent years which will give substantial benefits without cost to the Government. SMALL-BUSINESS FRONTS Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks and include an editorial. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Cali- fornia? There was no objection. Mr. HOLIFIELD, Mr. Speaker, I un- derstand that the National Small-Busi- ness Men's Association is holding its convention this week here in the Na- tion’s Capital. The Members of Congress should be under no illusion as to this particular organization. MARCH 2 It is strictly a phony front for big busi- ness. It is antilabor and therefore sup- ports the principle of big business, which frequently is the opposite of that which is good for small business. The organization is chiefly financed by million- and billion-dollar corpora- tions, as proved by the report of the House Committee on Small Business. PROPAGANDA BIG BUSINESS MONEY HIDES BEHIND FAKE SMALL-BUSINESS FRONTS (No. 8 of a series) This is a story of the way big business puts over its propaganda behind front or- ganizations which claim to represent small business. The story is not told by labor, or any organization of workers, but by a committee of the United States Congress, the House Committee on Small Business, which was organized to look out for the in- terests of small business throughout the country. It is the story of four organizations, of rather of two pairs of twin organizations, One member of each twin is supported, more or less openly, by contributions from big business. The other member of each twin claims to be a grass-roots organization of small-business men throughout the country. In each case, the committee found, the money from big business helped to pay the expenses of the small-business organization. The committee report asks whether such organizations, supported by big-business money, can really be relied upon to support the interests of small business. Labor unions their chief target One of the sets of twins is made up of the National Small Business Men's Association and the Small Business Economic Founda- tion, Inc. both of which are headed by DeWitt Emery of Akron, Ohio. Emery gets a salary of $18,000 a year from the asso- ciation. The foundation does not register under the Lobbying Act, so its finances are not a matter of public record. Although both use small business in their names, they avoid specifically small-business issues, the congressional report states. In- stead, they concentrate most of their guns on the labor unions. The association has not made public the source of its funds, but a letter sent out by Emery in 1947 seeking contributions for the foundation disclosed that the foundation's supporters include some of the largest cor- porations in the country, such as United States Steel and Standard Oll. He Histed 70 donors, of which 5 were billion-dollar cor- porations and another 12 in the $100,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 class. Took in $129,000 in year The association is registered as a lobby, listing total receipts in 1048 of $169,291. It has been a particular friend of the Taft- Hartley Act. The foundation confines itself to inserting advertisements in the newspa- pers and putting out pamphlets. The foundation even has printed comic books, including a labor sequence. “It ends,” the congressional committee report notes, “with a good strike-breaking punch line, ‘O. K. Let's go back to work.’” The other pair of twing is the National Tax Equality Association and National As- sociated Business Men. Here, ns labor dis- closed in a report of a committee hearing last fall, the link is the business counselor partnership of Scott & Schuler. Vernon Scott is executive head of the NTEA and Loring A. Schuler holds a similar post in NAB, but the partnership receives $48,000 a year from the NTEA and only $10,000 from NAB. The Tax Equality League is the major organization in the country for the spread of propaganda against cooperatives, sup-
1950 ported in large part by private utility com- panies, NAB, of course, is its small-business front. In fact, Scott told the committee that NTEA pushed the organization of NAB be- cause it wanted its literature distributed and wanted to gather facta at the local level. Put up money for local branches Although it was claimed that the two or- ganizations were entirely separate, the com- mittee found that in many instances they had the same officers, and the NTEA was found to have fostered the growth of local branches of NAB to the tune of $28,000 by Payments to the local secretaries. A study of Lobby Act reports presented the committee staff with one mystery in the form of three different figures as to the retainer paid to Scott & Schuler by NAB for the year 1948. Scott gave the figure as $20,- 000, Schuler gave it as $9,999.97, while the NAB report put it at $8,333 30. The report notes that efforts to get fur- ther information on financing @nd other matters met with no success. ‘Their repre- sentatives,” the committee says, “have been short on promises, and even shorter on per- formance.” EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. BLATNIK asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the REcorp. Myr. GRANGER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include an editorial. Mr. O’SULLIVAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp in two separate instances, in each to include extraneous matter. Mr. VORYS asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and include a radio debate between Senator BrickER and Senator TosBry. PRONOUNS HAVE GENDER Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nebraska? There was no objection. Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of little consequence perhaps to some frustrated individuals who want to do their “big stuff” and impeach President Truman and prosecute Secre- tary of the Navy Francis P. Matthews, but to all decently chivalrous men the fol- lowing matter which I am about to refer to is and should be a matter of great moment—great importance and real concern. I now call attention to what our United States Government Printing Office has done to one of our very worthy lady Members. I quote from the cal- endar of Thursday, March 2, 1950: On motion of Mrs. Roarrs, and by unani- mous consent, ordered: That on Thursday, March 2, 1950, immediately after the address by Mr. Mason, “he” be permitted to address the House for 10 minutes. True, old Joe Stalin must get great aid and comfort from reactionaries who demand the impeachment of our Presi- dent, the prosecution of the Secretary of the Navy, thc cries about national chaos and bankruptcy, and the creeping pa- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ralysis drift of our Nation toward wel- fare statism, socialism, and other weird, wild preachments which confirms the lies he, Stalin, has told and is telling, about ineffective, decadent democracies and their over-all unfitness; but what will old pipe-smoking Joe Stalin say about us when we begin to refer to our distinguished Member of Con- gress the gentlewoman from Massachu- setts, Mrs. Eprra Nourse RoceERrs, as “he’? I think the United States Gov- ernment Printing Office should be ad- monished, at least, and I recommend that we give our great impeachers and prosecutors their big chance to do the admonishing, because they excel greatly along that sole line, anyway. THE COAL SITUATION Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr, Speaker, I do not know what is biting our distinguished friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Kreere], whom I greatly admire. He says we have not done anything about the strikes. In the first place, we Re- publicans, his party, my party, is not in power. The President, whose duty it is to enforce the law, refuses to act. More- over, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. CasE] and the gentleman from Wis- consin [Mr. BIeMILLER] both made sug- gestions. To my mind both suggestions tended in the same direction, that is, the appointment of a commission, a decision by the commission and acceptance by industry and the labor unions. The end of that type of procedure is Government operation—in the end Government ownership. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BIEMILLER] says coal is a sick industry. Sure it is sick. Why is it sick? Because the increased cost of coal is taking away the coal market and that the operators cannot afford to operate. They are los- ing the market. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. KELLEY], a coal oper- ator, a very successful one—a reasonable man, a friend of the men who work, especially of the miners—and other oper- ators, cannot afford to produce the coal at a price so that it can be sold profita- bly and in quanties great enough to take all that is produced. That is one thing. The next thing and the fundamental issue down at the very bottom, I may say to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox], is that there are plenty of strip mines in this country and enough miners who want to work so that if the local and State authorities would enforce the law or if they fail, if the National Gov- ernment would protect the men who want to dig coal there would be coal for everyone. Until we get protection, or miners who want to work, our suffering people will not get coal. The failure of loca) and State authorities to enforce the law is no excuse for the President's failure to protect those who would dig coal if they had prevection from violence. 2659 EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. POTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend the re~ marks he made earlier tn the day and to include extraneous matter. Mr. MACE of Washington asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Recorp in two instances and include extraneous material. THE WORLD CONGRESS OF PARTISANS OF PEACE Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There. was no objection. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to compliment the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. KEE) on his remarks in reference to the World Congress of Partisans of Peace. As a matter of fact, the first announcement of the proposed trip of this delegation of 12 people to the United States was made in the Paris Communist newspaper Humanité, Feb- ruary 18 issue. The trouble with these partisans of peace is that they are simply a propa- ganda front. If they are really sincere in trying to address the American Con- gress and promote peace they should likewise certainly try to arrange with Joe Stalin so that 12 Members from this Congress could go over to Russia and address the Supreme Council of the Soviet and explain our point of view. The State Department should make as a necessary condition that when the right is given to our Congressmen to go and address the Sovicts under similar conditions, then the people representing this Communist group should also ad- dress us. In all fairness, this group should understand that international cooperation is not a one-way street. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania has expired. MEETING OF THE SMALL-BUSINESS MEN'S ORGANIZATION IN WASHINGTON Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to take exception to the remarks made by the gentleman from California in which he charged the little-business men who are assembling here in Washington are a@ front for the big business of the Nation. That same charge was made a year ago. It was denounced as being untrue by the president, Mr. Emory, of the lttle- business men’s organization. Mr. Speaker, the little-busincss men of this country are the backbone of this Nation and employ two-thirds of the laboring men of the Nation. The gentleman from California also states that the little-business men are antilabor. A question has been asked why we cannot do something about these
2660 strikes. The fact is that the Taft- Hartley law was passed by a tremendous majority of both Houses and became law over the veto of the President. Politics has caused the condition nationally that we are in today, with the men refusing to go back to work. It has been caused by politics and nothing else, which is dividing the country today. The President has never fully sup- ported or executed the law. He has con- tinucd to speak against it. It has not had a fair trial, with the result of the present chaos. KEY DEER Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and exten my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Speak- er, we have many serious problems be- fore our country today, problems of great magnitude. The problem I am going to speak to you about in this little talk 1s not one of great magnitude, but I think of great importance. I have introduced a bill today to provide for the protection of the Key decr, now almost extinct. There are only 25 of them left. Colum- bus mentioned them on his fourth trip to the New World. Three years ago there were 70 of these deer 1n existence, and in earlier times they were quite numerous, but there are only 25 left to- day. They are only 25 inches tall, only about 3 fect long, and weigh about 40 pounds. They are extinct except for this little herd of 25 ncw on the Florida Keys. People are killing them, both tourists and the people that live there and settlers are gradually destroying their breeding grounds. The bill authorizes the establishment of a national wildlife management area, primarily on Big Pine Key, north of Key West, Fla. The majority of the deer live on that Key. Although these derr can put up with the hazards of nature, swim- ming great distances from island to is- land in search of water and forage, they are becoming extinct because of the en- croachments of civilization and on ac- count of their slaughter by residents and tourists. It was in 1915 that the last of a species of wild parakeets was killed in Florida; and the last passenger pigeon, formerly @ native, died in captivity in a zoo in 1914 The preservation of this interest- ing little deer may some day be of eco- nomic value, even if we did not consider the mora] obligation which I feel is also present. The limited area of habitat of this deer is also occupied by the roseat spoonbill— the pink curlew—now approaching local extinction. The reddish egret is stag- ing a limited recovery from near extinc- tion in the same area and the rare great white heron and white-crowned pigeon are also found there. The vanishing manatce, a sea Mammal, is found in small numbers in the locality. It has been a practice of some resi- dents and visitors to put dogs on the Keys to run the deer to the beaches where they CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE are killed from boats. Another method used is fire lighting at night. Also areas of brush are burned to attract concen- trations of the deer on new growths of grasses. But the encroaching human uses of the limited land area involved are almost as destructive by eliminating forage. It will be a nip and tuck fight to save the deer from extinction. I hope these plucky Httle animals, which survive hur- ricanes and droughts and the other haz- ards of this rugged semimarine habitat, can be helped to survive the hazards of civilization. If their rate of decrease continues at the average decrease of the last 3 years there will be none alive by this time next year. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr PATMAN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Record in three instances and include statements and excerpts. THE COAL STILIKE Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Specker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute The SPEAKER Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. Mr CHURCH. Mr. Speaker, I meas- ure my words in what I am going to say. Before we adjourned last fall, I called upon the President of the United States to follow the law of the land 1n order to settle the coal strike. During the past 2 months many of us, in remarks here on the floor of the House, have repeated that call. The President’s lack of respect for the law of the land has encouraged others to disrespect the Taft-Hartley Act, the law of the land. Is the President on the side of law and order or not? Mr. KELLEY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. KELLEY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues stood in this well this morning and talked about the problems of the coal indus- try. My good friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Horrman] referred to me as a coal operator suffering from lack of markets due to the high cost of production. No; Iam not suffering from high cost. Iam suffering from too much Taft-Hartley. I have the firm convic- tion that if the Taft-Hartley bill had been repealed we would have had no problem in the coal industry today. We would have had _ honest-to-goodness, solid collective bargaining, and the coal problem would have been settled over the bargaining table. Now it cannot be done. The Taft-Hartley Act has so re- stricted collective bargaining and has thrown the balance to one side to the extent that we do not now have free collective bargaining. The quickest way to settle the coal strike would be to re- peal the Taft-Hartley Act and Ict the operators and the miners get busy over the bargaining table, MARCH 2 THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extond my remarks The SPEAKER Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from In- diana? There was no objection. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I had intended to make some reference to some suggestions that were made about the small business organizations now meeting here In view of these remarks just made, however, let me say this to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that when there was an amendment here in this E'ghty-first Congress to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act there were only 57 votes for 1t on a record vote out of 455. Secondly, the provisions of the Taft- Hartley Act to deal directly with na- tional emergency strikes were written after very careful consideration. Those provisions have provided the best pos- sible way yet to be devised by anyone to deal with these national emergency strikcs that threaten the safety, hcalth, and welfare of the American people. The blame is not on the Taft-Hartley Act. The blame 1s on the President of the United States for not invoking the provisions of the act when he should have invoked them The blame is upon the President of the United States for throwing that act and those provisions into the arena of politics in the last cam- paign, for constantly criticizing the act, sccorning its provisions. Be 1t remembered that six times be- fore that conduct took place the act was invoked, with success and without preju- dice to the mghts of anyone. It could have been successful again hrd it been invoked in proper time and in proper spirit. The responsibility ought to be where it belongs. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. HARRIS asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Rec- orD and include a statement he made to the Committee on Ways and Means on February 14. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION— MFSSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO 491) The SPEAKER laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States, which was read, and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency and ordered to be printed: To the Congress of the United States: In accordance with the provisions of section 13, Public Law 806, Eightieth Con- gress, approved June 29, 1948, I transmit herewith for the information of the Con- eress the report of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1949. Harry S. TRUMAN. THE WHITE House, March 2, 1950. FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A further message from the Senate by Mr. Carrell, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passcd a concurrent
1950 resolution of the following title, in which the concurrence of the House is re- quested: 8 Con. Res. 77. Concurrent resolution re- questing the President to return to the Sen- ate the enrolled bill (8. 204) for the relief of Eugenio Maisterrena Barreneche, and au- thorizing its reenrollment. STATE RURAL REHABILITATION CORPORATIONS Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 382 for further consid- eiation, and yicld 5 minutes to the gen- tleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays]. Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday afternoon we had just listened to the ex- planation of the bill by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. I shall support the rule because I am convinced that some legislation may be in order on the subject of the rural rehabilitation corporations that were set up some years ago. However, I find myself in disagree- ment on some points with the chairman of the committee and unless amend- ments are accepted which will meet these objections I cannot support the bill. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with an extremcly important measure. Some- thing like $50,000,000 is involved. Unless we weigh carefully the provisions of this bill we could allow several million dollars to gct out of the Treasury to be used in an improvident and unbusinesslike way by revived rural rehabilitation corpora- tions that are now latent, or invite the States to develop new and overlapping plans for the use of this money. I plead with the House to listen care- fully to the discussion of this measure. As I indicated, I will support the rule be- cause I think the House should take a look at the problem. I have not seen the proposed amend- ment referred to by the gentleman from North Carolina. I have seen the amend- ment which the gentleman from Kansas |Mr. Hore] proposes to offer as a sub- stitute for it. Iam very much impressed by the reasons advanced by the gentle- man from Kansas for his substitute ap- proach. I think perhaps I should reserve any further comment until the debate in the Committee of the Whole. My purpose in asking for time in the discussion of the rule is to emphasize the critical im- portance of this measure. The Congress can take great pride in what we have done for rural rehabilita- tion. Beginning with the early relief measures millions of dollars have been spent in a loan program and to some extent in a grant program to help farm- ers readjust their economic situations and to find their place on the land in a self-sufficient way and not bccome charges on our relicf rolls. I wonder if you know that almost 1,000,000 farmers have been rehabilitated under that pro- gram. A great part of the loans have been repaid. In 1937 Congress adopted what I re- gard as one of the most significant social programs ever undertaken by any gov- ernment. Inspired aS we were by the famous Bankheads of Alabama, the be-~ loved Speaker at that time, William Bankhead and the Senator from Ala- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE bama, John Bankhead, and by Marvin Jones, one of the great men who have served in the House of Representatives, we enacted the Bankhead-Jones pra- gram with two titles, She a loan program to help in current farm operations and the other a farm-tenant program to help them acquire land for family-sized farms; both of these programs have worked remarkably well. After the corporations were set up early in the rehabilitation program it became evident that the money was not being used profitably and in line with the purposes of that legislation. So the re- lief organizations ordered the return of those funds to the United Statcs, and they have since been administered by the Department of Agriculture. Under the bill in its present form, as advanccd by the gentleman from North Carolina, this money would be returned to those cor- porations with no integrated plan what- ever. We stand to love literally millions of dollars because of the abandonment of a unified plan which the Conrress worked out under the Tarver amend- ment to the Bankhead-Jones Act and the various bills relating to the Farmers Home Administration, which under the able leadership of Dillard Lasseter is making good. It is proposed under this bill to turn that money back to 43 States. We do not know what the respective plans will be. We cannot be sure at all it will be used in accordance with the purposes of the original act, and for that reason unless these amendments which are to be offered provide for some protec- tion to the Government, we shovld not pass this bill The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr Mack of Illinois). The time of the gentleman from Arkansas has expired. Mr. COLMER Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minne- sota [Mr. MARSHALL]. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who preceded mec has had wide experience in connection with this program. I doubt if there is a better informed man in the Halls of Congress. No man could more ably express his views on the provisions of this bill than the gentleman who preceded me. I would like to call the attention of the Members to the importance of this bill. There are a number of Members who have said, “Well, this does not affect us very greatly. Since we do not have any corporations in our State, or since it is of such insignificance anyway, we do not need to pay any attention to it.” I want to impress upon the Members of the House that the bill we are about to consider will provide for the dissipa- tion of about $50,000,000 worth of assets. I think that is very important. If these assets which are now being used in a revolving fund for the furtherance of the work of the Farmers Home Administra- tion are so dissipated so that it will mean adding to the annual appropriation in order to make up that difference, which will amount to between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000 every year, I am sure Mem- bers will realize the importance of the situation. Also, you must remember in the liqui- dation of this trust it is apt to throw the country into a great state of con- 2661 fusion even to the extent, perhaps, of creating 43 separate agencies to carry on the work which is now being done by one Federal agency. I think that is something we ought to pay a great deal of attention to. I am in favor of the rule which will give the House an oppor- tunity to consider the bill, and I urge the Members who can possibly do so to look into and study the issues involved. Some of you will recall that in the clos- ing days o: the last session I called the attention of the Members to the fact that it would effect some of them in their States. I have not heard any criticism of the way in which the bill is being ad- ministered by the Farmers Home Ad- ministration. Mr TALLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARSHALL. league from Iowa. Mr TALLE I want to underscore what the gentleman said just a moment nzo. These funds cen and should be administered by the Farmers Home Ad- mimstration, a Federal agency that has done 2 good job in the field of rural re- habilitation ever since it was created in October 1946 To set un State agencies duplicating the present FHA programs docs not make sense to me. Mr. MARSHALL. I thank the gentle- man. I know he has given much con- sideration to the present measure, and I am hopeful thet when some of these amendments are proposed they will clear up the situation. I think as far as the bill is concerned it will be ve.y detri- mental to the work of the Farmers Home Administration and the work being done. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Minnesota [Mr. MarsHatu] has expired. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I sk unanimous consent to proceed out of order and to revise and extend my re- marks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. RICH. Mr. Speakcr, I make the point of order that there is no quorum present. The SPEAKER. Evidently there is no quorum present. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: : I yield to my col- [Roll No. 76] Abbitt Coudert Holifield Allen, La, Davenport Jackson, Calif Arends Dawson Jacobs Barrett, Pa. Dingell Jennings Beall Douglas Kunkel Bentsen Eaton Latham Blackney Ellsworth Lichtenwaltoer Boggs, Del. Engle, Calif, Lovre Boykin Fellows Lylo Brooks Ford McConnell Buckley, Il. Fugate McGrath Bulwinkle Gilmer McKinnon Burton Gianahan McMillen, Ill. Carlyle Hall, Macy Carroll Leonard W. Marcantonio Cavalcante Hébert Martin, Mass. Celler Hedrick Meyer Chatham Herter Miller, Calif. Christopher Hoffman, Ill. Morrison
Norton Ecott Hardie Towe O'Hara, 111. Scott, Whiteker Powell Huph D., Jr White, Calif. Redden Shafer White, Idaho Regan Shelley Wilson, Texas Rooney Sheppard Woodhouse Sabath Smithers Sadow'ki Smith, Ohio The SPEAKER. On this roll call 355 Members have aiuswered to their names, a quorum. Ey unanimous consent, further pro- ecedings under the call were dispensed with. EXTENSION OF REMARAS Mr. JACKSON of Washington (at the request of Mr. MANSFIELD) was given permission to extend his remarks in the Reconrp and include an editorial. BRASS AND GOLDPLATE—A REPORT ON TEE DEMOCRATS $100-A-PLATE JEF- FERSON-JACESON DAY DINNER Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have requested and obtained permission to speak out of order because of a re- markable change which seems to be ap- pearing in American political hfe and which I believe should be brought to the attention of the House. For some years now the Democratic Party has been masquerading as the champion of the common people while using the facilities of governmental propaganda to claim that the Republ- cans were the servants of the vested and special interests. This falsehood, mul- tiplied a millionfold under the Hitler technique of endless repetition, has been repeated so often that many people got to believing that 1t was a fact. But facts have a strange way of overtaking falsehood. Year after year the number of large contributors to the Democratic Party, contributors who represent the corporate and the special interests of this country, have far exceeded those contributing to the Republican Party. At the same time the number of small contributions, ranging from $1 and up, which have been made to the Republi- can Party have far exceeded similar con- tributions made to the Democratic or- ganization. Even so-called New Deal columnists have noted repeatedly how Wall Street executives moved into high official posi- tions in Government during the past 6 or 7 years, but the oft-told falsehood seemingly persisted. In recent weeks two events have oc- curred in Washington which sort of demonstrate to the country the real truth of the situation. I refer to the Lincoln Day box supper held by the Re- publican Party in the Uline Arena in Washington on February 6, and the Jef- ferson-Jackson Day dinner held in the District of Columbia National Guard Ar- mory 10 days later. I would like to quote some of the re- marks of the well-known nonpartisan radio commentator, Walter Cronkite, Jr., concerning these two events. I quote: The Republicans filled Uline Arena. They called it the greatest crowd in the arena’s history—and this is possible. Hundreds were turned away. Hundreds sat crossed-legged on the floor, packed in so close that there wasn't even room to stretch a leg. There were thousands of men and women in their early twentics in that crowd Per- haps a lot of them were Democrats or of no CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE party. They had come because it was the cheapest admission fee they'd ever had to pay to listen and dance to a top name band. * * * Thursday night the Demo- crats held their party. They could have packed nearly twice as many people into the armory as the Republicans had into the arena. But they chose not to. Instead they invited just a third that number, and they asked them to pay $100 a plate for a steak dinner, complete with wine, instead of one buck for » box supper. They seated their tuxcdoed men and be- frocked and bejeweled ladies at lavishly spread tables. They put the distinguished leaders of the party—membcrs of the Cabi- net, visiting Governors and thelr ladies—at a long head table on a raiscd dais * * * A half block away from President Truman and another Kunsss Citian, the one-time wonder boy and soap King, Charles Luck- man—master of ceremonies for the eve- ning a half block away ucross the hall a local theater-pit orchestra played, the De- Mcareos danced, and Phil Rogan and Lena Horne sang * * * At 8 380 Luckman began introducing the lenders at the head table This, at a nor- mal democratic tunction, would call for a leng series ol resounding ovations Insteud, the lack of applause as Cabinet secietaries and congress:onal leaders were introduced was acluully embarrassing Little knots of people applauded for cach secretiry—seem- ingly to indicate to the party bosses that the secretary had succeeded in selling that many seats at a hundred per to his employ- ecs * * * Then the President spoke When he was introduced the crowd rose, applauded se- dately for just half a minute. * ™“ * And the evening was over As far as en- thusiasm goes, it was a frost. * * * JT had a strong feeling that the leaders who spoke, including the President, weren't fired with the old zeal And I couldn’t help but wonder if the whole thing—the type of party selected for the campaign kick-off, and the way it was han- dled and received—doesn't reflect something which might be called the senility of power I have some rather interesting printed matter to which I want to call the at- tention of the House. Here is a beauti- fully embossed program of the Jefferson- Jackson Day dinner staged by the party of the people. I also have the seating arrangement by tables—another beauti- fully embossed piece of printing. I am engaged in the printing business and I know good and costly printing when I see it. I even have something which, for a Republican, is very unusual, I might say to my colleagues. It is a special pass for the dinner, a beautifully printed, beautifully embossed, engraved card. Yes, it is in gold. It is the only thing I know of which indicates that gold still stands in our Nation. It has a bright yellow ribbon, not like a girl would wear around her hair; but it is a beautiful golden cord with the seal of the United States embossed on it. This, my col- leagues, is a really splendid piece of printing production. Now I show you this smaller booklet which shows the seating arrangements. These special passes that I mentioned & moment ago were provided so that people who did not have tickets for the dinner could at least get in the armory. That is the way I got it. They were given to the waiters, to the kus boys, the newspapermen, photographers, func- tionarics of different kinds, and lackeys. MARCH 2 I want to tell you about, and show you, if I can, the contents and the pic- tures in the wonderfully embossed main program of the dinner. The program of events is displayed in a finely printed page. I notice that one of the principal entertainers was Lena Horne. I cannot help thinking of Lena Hornc’s association with so many Communist Party and front organizations and sim- ilar activities. I have here, as a matter of record, a list of the organizations she is associated with: The American Committee fo1 the Pro- tection of Foreign Born; Civil Rights Coneress of New York; Civil Rights Con- egress of somewhcre else; the Committee for Reelection of Benjamin J. Davis, New York, Communist councilman; the Council of African Affairs; Fishters for New Liberty; Southern Confcrence for Human Welfare—altogether, I think 10 or 12 Communiust-front organizations to which this splendid entcrtaincr belongs. And she had been singularly honored by the Democrats to sing at this great rally. I also think you will be interested in the menu—and I would like to compare the Republican and Democrat menus. The Republicans had 7,500 box suppers, prepared and ready to sell, but 12,000 persons showed up with tickets. Three thousand more were turned away. They all came voluntarily, bought their own tickets with their own money. Nobody had to hit them over the head to get them to come to the Uline Arena supper. The box supper cost each person $1. The admission was $1, plus 20 cents tax. You may be interested, if you were not there, in Knowing what we had in the box supper. We had a buttered roll; potato salad in a paper container; two pieces of fricd chicken—but 1 got only one—two sweet pickles; one fruit bun; some coffec, a paper napkin; and, be- lieve it or not, a small American flag. Here 1s the menu for that $100-pcr- plate Democrat dinner. It certainly should have been good at that price. I may need some help on this because my French is not as good as it should be. But they had “pink grapefruit, au kirsch” I do not know what kirsch is, Then there was cclery with queen olives; French filet mignon, bordelaise; pom- mes Rissoles. I think that is right. That is French for potatoes. I do not know whether they were actually French potatoes or Canadian potatoes. I have a report that the Democrats actually served Canadian potatoes, Back to the menu. New string beans provencale; Great Western American Burgundy; hearts of lettuce with Roquefort cheese dressing; fancy ice cream, petit fours, and demi tasse, They do not drink coffee any more. The party of the common people has to have demi tasse. I would like to especially call atten- tion to the fact that there was no Ameri- can flag brought along with the dinncr as we had 1n our box supper, Here is a list of the dinnerware and the cutlery that was used at the Armory: 16,000 salad plates, 5,600 dinner plates, 5,200 demi tasse cups and saucers, 5,200 wine glasses—I wonder what they wanted those for?—1,100 salt shakers, 11,000 tea- spoons, 5,200 banquct-plate rings, 11,000
1950 dinner forks, 5,600 dinner knives, and 1,100 ice buckets. What on earth would you want with an ice bucket in a place like that? Incidentally, just ordinary plain drink- ing water was not good enough; so min- eral water, bottled mineral water, was donated by the B. & O. Railroad. That is an organization, I understand, which is engaged in transportation. That was a donation from the railroad. Their water is not for sale, incidentally. And along with the special water were sundry numbers of bottles of scotch and bourbon, according to a local paper. I thought this was an American dinner, but here we have scotch and bourbon on each table in addition to the burgundy. Of course they had the finest of table linen, and I think that fine table linen should be used when you have all the gentlemen in tuxedos or evening dress and when the ladies are all wearing eve- ning gowns and wearing mink coats, sables, ermine, and chinchilla. Fine linen just naturally goes along with a dinncr by the party of the common people. I might point out that there were all sorts of fine vehicles, as compared to the old jalopies that were used to transport the Republicans out to the arena for their box supper. The President, by the way, chose this occasion to make the first use of his new specially built Lincoln which is said to be the most expensive automobile ever constructed. He rode in this car which has gold-plated door handles, gold- plated door sills, gold-plated cigarette lighters, and gold-plated intercommuni- cation phones to talk to the chauffeur This automobile is specially designed with tall doors so that people can enter it wearing their high-top hats. It was, incidentally, the first of sevcral Lincolns which will be delivered to the White House. The President just the day before, on February 15, made a speech to the na- tional law-enforcement officers in which he said: I always abide by the traffic regulations, even though I am President; I never go through red lights, despite the prerogatives attached to the Presidency According to reports I got from the police department, or rather which my staff got from the police department, on the way to the Jcfferson-Jackson Day Dinner the President went through 20 red stop lights. But, then, this was a great big new car, and I presume rather difficult to control. Hustory speaks of the Roman rulers riding to banquets in their chariots, riding over people in high style to get to their sumptuous feasts. I read in the Washington newspapers that 96 United States District Attorneys had been individually summoned to Washington to attend a conference the day before the Democratic dinner and each official had to dig up enough funds from his own pecket to buy a tickct to this big dinner. The taxpaycrs, of course, paid the traveling expenses of each offi- cial, I do not know whether all 96 bought tickets or not. My staff has been checking on that but we had to <top because of time limitations. We found CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the names of 36 of these gentlemen and we had only got about one-third the way through the list. I have it here. Then, I understand that the collectors of internal revenue from all over the country were called to Washington by the Treasury Department for an official conference coinciding with the Democrat dinner. And it seems that approximately 100 regional officials of the Production and Marketing Administration of the Department of Agriculture likewise had been called to Washington—just another coincidence, of course, you understand— and that they, too, attended the dinner. The ‘axpayers, of course, footed the bill rat their traveling expenses and hotel Then, of course, the lobbyists. Well, there are quite a number of these boys and girls that I have heard of. I have been serving on the Lobby Investigating Committee, and I talked to some of them. They insisted that they just had to go to that Democrat dinner ‘They did not say anything about pressure. Of course, we are investigating the pressure of the lobbyists on Congress. I do not know whether there was any pressure put on o1 not for them to attend the dinner, but we recognize many names on the seating list, and who they represent. I wonder just how many tickets the lobbyists did purchase. I would like to say something about corporation officials. This is the party of the people's banquet I am talking about. The Republicans are supposed to be the representatives of the special interests. It seems that most of these special intcrests got to the Democrat dinner. I was not even invited and I re- sent it. One of the largest cotton operators in the country was there, a large num- ber of oi] operators, many of them you know. The head of the biggest power company was present, the heads of two great stcamship companics, the board chairman of a big film company, sev- eral becr distributors and several dis- tillers, were present. Also on hand were the heads of air- craft companies, the president of one of the largest ball-bearing manufacturing companies in the world, and bankers— why, they were a dime a dozen. There also was a more selected list, a selected list of those who bought entire tables. Purchaser of an entire table for 10 was the board chairman of one of the biggest watch companies 1n the country, which does a multi-million-dollar busi- ness importing Swiss movements while the American watchmakers go bankrupt. Another table purchaser was the chair- man of one of the largest distilling firms in the country and he had quite a number of guests. Another table purchaser was the board chairman of the largest soft drink company. I cuuld not check all of the names, but I found 30 corporate executives who had spent $1,000 or more for a table each. I am going to make public the name of only one man who was ea guest and a@ big contributor to the dinner. I am doing this because he is a mystery man. NoLody, including officials of the Demo- cratic Nat.sonal Committee, can identify 2663 him, He bought $4,000 worth of tickets. He is listed as C. E. Kaufmann Every check that has been made, including with the Democratic committce, does not tell us who Mr. Kaufmann is. He is not listed in any directory of any kind available in this city or from any of the cities of the East and Middle West. So I just think perhaps he ought to stand up somewhere and identify himself. There is another gentleman here I see whose name I will not mention be- cause we do know who he is. He boucht $5,000 worth of tickets In case you are worried, I want to tell you right now I am not putting all these names in the CONGRESSIONAL ReEcorp. I will be glad to show them to anyone who wants to see them, simply because I do nol want to practice discrimination. I am afraid I have misscd a number of the boys and gils who have contributed to the Democratic Party and, who may, if there is an official record here, want the record to show their names in case there is any question about further con- sideration in matters in which they may be interested later on. I had no diffl- culty finding the names of all the big- business men, the executives, the big contributors, on the guest list of the banquet for the party of the people. But there was one person most con- spicuous by his absence. He is the com- mon man. Of course, a lot of us have realized for a long time that the com- mon man is really the forgotten man of this administration, but we never ex- pected the Democratic Party to stage a half-million dollar gold plate feast as a public demonstration to prove that the common man was not good enough to associate with such high and mighty folks The President's speech was a rcmark- able document. It was remarkable, in my opinion, because he did not say any- thing about Communists in the Govern- ment, he did not even sey anything about potatoes, although he seemed to eat them; he did not say anything about cutting the taxes, except to remark that any talk about a general tax reduction was political hypocrisy. He did not say anything about anti- lynch legislation, he did not say any- thing about the poll tax; he did not say anything about the FEPC, and that was a pretty hot issue at that time. I followed him over television and I rather regretted that he did no’ say any- thing about these things. I have riven a lot of thought as to why the President was so Silent on the issues which he claims to champion. The morning after this dinner I discovered why there was so much silence on civil rights. I quote from the morning paper: The Democrats, who preach against scz- regation, scated almost all of the Negros in the hall together before the bandstand of Sam Jock Kaufman. I do not think it necessary for me to comment further on the speech or its lack of coming to grips with political issues which the President says he stands for. Now, another rather peculiar thing about this dinner There were a num- ber of missing elements. This dinner
2664 was given ostensibly in honor of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. The dinner was outstanding for the fact that nothing connected with it reflected the spirit of those two former Presidents of the United States. It should be remembered that Andy Jackson took enormous pride in an achievement that is pretty much for- eign to the current occupant of the White House. Old Hickory paid off the national debt and accumulated a Treas- ury surplus. Jefferson also had some idcas about debt. He once said: I place economy among the first and mest importa..t virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers * * * We must malce our choice between economy and lib- erty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they must become harpy. There is a rathe: peculiar thing about the President’s speech at the dinner. He did not say much about labor. I have been given to understand by the President and his associates that they are the exclusive friends of labor. They have trumpeted this claim up and down the country. Earlier I showed you this gold-em- bossed program which I hold in my hand. I had a printing and engraving firm make an estimate of the cost of this pro- gram and the other two gold-embossed pieces of material which I showed you. They estimated—and they said this was as low a figure as they could reasonably arrive at—that the printing and engrav- ing costs alone, not counting the cost of this very fine paper, would amount to approximately $3,000. I happened to be glancing through this luxurious program and I noticed in small print on the back page these words: “Produced by Brewood, Washing- ton.” I wanted to see who turned out this beautiful engraving job. Then I started to look for the union label and to my amazement I could find none. I phoned Brewood and they told me the reason that a union label was not on the pro- gram was that they were a nonunion shop. My friends, it will undoubtedly come as a surprise to union labor of this country that the gold-embossed program which was the official program of this so-called Jefferson-Jackson Day $100-a- plate dinner was engraved and printed by nonunion labor. I hope that some of my good friends will take that matter up and see that out of all these thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars that are ex- pended on meetings like this, that per- haps a little of it will go to support the union members, whose cause the admin- istration champions. I want to say one or two other things, if I may. I have a list of all these big- business and big-interest people who con- tributed to the dinner—1,000—not all of them, but a great many of them. I will not include their names in my remarks, because I do not want to miss anybody and discriminate against them. I do want to include in the REcorpD, however, as a part of my remarks, a statement by CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Representative Leonarp W. HaLt about one guest at the dinner, Edward Lamb. Mr. HALL said: STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE LEONARD W. HALL, or NEw York It should be of interest to the American people that within a few hours after the New York Times had printed President Truman's reaffirmation of his red-herring stand, that the President should receive at the White Hause one Edward Lamb, a man whose asso- clation with Communist fronts and Commu- nist causes is a matter of public record. The official White House calling list issued today, February 15, reads in part: “12:15: Mayor Lawrence, of Pittsburgh, with Pub- lisher Edward Lamb, of Erie Dispatch.” An hour after Mr. Lamb had visited the White House, the Associated Press carried the following report on the AP wire: “Edwaid Lamb, Toledo, Ohio, lawyer and publisher of the Erle (Pa) Dispatch, told reporters after seeing the President: ‘The President said he would wage as aggressive a fight to elect a Democratic Congress this fall as he did to get himself elected in 1948’ “Another White House visitor, Mayor David L. Lawrence, of Pittsburgh, joined Lamb in making the announcement. “Mr. Truman is expected to go into other States in a speaking tour for Democratic nominees after the primaries are over, White House nides say. “The President himself has said that he does not expect to participate in any Demo- cratic primaries outside of his own State of Missouri. “Lainb said Mr. Truman assured him and Lawrence that after the nominees have been chosen he would be ‘free to campaign aggres- sively in Pennsylvania and Ohio for a Demo- cratic, aggressive Congress ' “He and Lawrence are here to attend to- morrow night’s Jefferson-Jackson Day din- ner” Mr Lamb's affinity for Red causes has been the subject of debate on the floor of the House of Representutives on at least five oc- casions. The discussions are to be found in the CONGRESSIONAL REcoRD, volume 93, part 1, page 538; volume 94, part 4, pages 6327-5328; volume 94, part 5, page 6616; volume 94, part 11, page A3653. In addition, a special House committee to investigate the Federal Communications Commission (80th Cong., 2d sess.) devoted five and one-half pages of its final report to the House to publication of Mr. Lamb's rec- ord. This document is known as House Re- port No. 2479, and the pages cited are pages 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 265. I was a member of the special committee investigating the FCC and signed the final report. Congress interested itself in Mr. Lamb's record because Mr. Lamb, within the space of 2 weeks in 1948, received five operat- ing licenses from the FCC. Congress consid- ered it a proper matter, and perhaps the President might also, to inquire into the Communist associations of a man who would control the airways of five outlets under Government license. Here is Mr. Lamb's record in part: Mr. Lamb was executive vice president of International Labor Defense; he was vice chairman of the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born; he was 8 member of the executive committee of the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties. All three of these organizations have been cited in the Attorney General's list, and have been cited by the House Committee on Un-Ameri- can Activities. Mr. Lamb was an executive vice president of the National Lawyer's Guild, which is now seeking an investigation of the FBI; he was a member of the National Committee of the International Juridical Association; he was MARCH 2 &@ sponsor of the Civil Rights Congress. All three of these organizations have been cited by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Mr. Lamb was the signer of a telegram ad- dressed to the President in 1940 and sent by the Emergency Peace Mobilization condemn- ing military conscription as un-American; he was a signer of the call for the Interna- tional Action Conference for Civil Rights; he was a signer of a statement addressed to the President of the United States on March 6, 1941, defending the Communist Party; he was a signer of the Open Letter for Closer Cooperation with the Soviet Union, in Sep- tember 1939. Mr. Lamb was twice the author of articles appearing in the magazine of the Friends of the Soviet Union; he was a signer of a letter to President Roosevelt protesting attacks on the Veterans of the Abraham Lin- coln Brigade and condemning the “war hysteria being whipped up by the Roosevelt administration.” Mr. Lamb acted as counsel for Mrs. Sarah V. Montgomery when she was a witness before the Speclal Committee on Un-American Activities, and he stated at that time that he was attorney for the American Peace Mobilization; he was an attorney for Alex Balint, a witness called before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, who was a Communist later ordered deported. Mr. Lamb also is the author of a book called The Planned Economy in Soviet Russia. The record cited above dates from 1934 into 1948. Mr Lamb has been mentioned favorably on numerous occasions by the Daily Worker and by New Masses. The records of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities lst 21 citations involving Mr. Lamb's name. This is Mr. Lamb's record and it is appal- ling thet President Truman should summon him to the White House to help make cam- paign plans for the election of Democratic Congressmen in 1950. In his interview in the New York Times today Mr. Truman as- serts that his loyalty board has done much more effective screening of Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers than has Congress through the action of its commit- tees. While this may be questioned by the American public in the Mght of the Alger Hiss case and numerous other cases, perhaps the American interest would be better served if the President's loyalty board moved over to the White House doorstep and screened the guest list. It is high time that somebody in this administration determined when “herring” ends and “red” begins. Now I want to conclude by saying this—this Belshazzarian feast was un- doubtedly the greatest in the history of American politics, a chapter in the his- tory of a gold-plated Democratic Party riding in luxury, feeding sumptuously, and raking in the sheckles with one hand and embracing the aspirations of the common people with the other. For the life of me, I cannot believe that the American people are going to be fooled much longer. There is a famous passage from the Rubaiyat which my democratic colleagues may want to read to comfort them in their moment of tra- vail, It reads like this: The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. In my opinion, when the American people learn the true story of this dinner, the moving finger will write once more.
1950 STATE RURAL REHABILITATION CORPORATIONS Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox]. Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the gentle- man from Ohio [Mr. Brown], in a mo- ment of sarcasm and ridicule, is usually superb. But, in this latest speech which he has made there is not a single thing that is strong or funny. The gentleman is a giant attacking a mouse. It jis more becoming of him when firing a cannon than it is when shooting a popgun. Mr, COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massa- chusetts [Mr. Furcotol. Mr. FURCOLO. Mr. Speaker, with reference to the remarks of my good friend from Ohio, I think probably his remarks have brought at Icast some de- gree of satisfaction to both the Demo- cratic Party and the Republican Party. From his remarks, I gather the Republi- cans had about twice as many people at their dinner, and they are happy about that. And of course we on this side are somewhat happy over the fact that where it counts, right here in the Congress, where the people have chosen their Rep- resentatives, we have twice as many peo- ple as the Republicans. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HaLieck]. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time in order to call the at- tention of yourself and the Members of the House to the decision that has just been handed down by Judge Keech in the contempt actions against the union and leaders of the mine workers. In that decision Judge Keech said: It may be the mass strike of union mem- bers has been ordered, encouraged, recom- mended, instructed, induced, or in some wise permitted by means not appearing in the record. But this court may not con- vict on conjecture, being bound to act only on the evidence before it, which is insuf- ficient to support a finding of either crim- inal or civil contempt. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the court has found against the Government and has raised the question of the inadequacy of the evidence and inferentially indi- cated that such evidence should have been produced. Why was not that evidence produced? Are we to assume that the evidence could not have been produced? As far asIam concerned, I cannot indulge in any such assumption. I think the history of the past will in- dicate that when Mr. Lewis and his un- ion leaders really wished to get the men back to work they could get it done. Whenever they have wanted the men to stay out of the mines they have been ef- fective in keeping them out. When they have really wanted the men to go back to work the men have complied. What other word, then, might have gone out other than the letter and the telegram from Mr. Lewis which are now defied? Why did not the Government produce the evidence referred to by Judge Keech in his decision? For my- self, I just cannot believe and I do not CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE think the American people are going to believe that if the great resources of the Federal Government had been properly put to work this evidence to which Judge Keech refers could not have been pro- duced. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 2392) to provide for the liquidation of the trusts under the transfer agreements with State rural rehabilitation corporations, and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill H. R. 2392, with Mr. Gore in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I made a very brief speech about the bill which is now under consideration. At that time I emphasized the legal issue which is in- volved in this legislation. I do not think there is anything sacred about the money involved here, but I do attach great im- portance to the written contract which was executed several years ago between the Rural Rehabilitation Corporations and the Secretary of Agriculture, who was at that time representing the great Government of the United States. Perhaps some of the Members of the House are not entirely familiar with the matters we have under consideration. I desire to give just a little history. Back in the days of the depression, when there was much distress in the rural areas of America and much unemployment, the Federal Government embarked upon a relief program in an effort to relieve the distress of the rural people. Here in Congress we approved at that time what we might now refer to as a Marshall plan for the rural areas of America. We set up a fund from which we made grants. Agents of the Federal Government, of- ficials of the Department of Agriculture, went into the scveral States with cor- porate charters already prepared and presented these charters to the State legislatures, which created corporations, legal entities, which could receive and handle these relief funds. Having en- couraged the State to put themselves in a position to accept the grants from Fed- eral funds, the States created the corpo- rations, as I say, at the suggestion of the Department of Agriculture, and started out to do something to relieve distress—and they did relieve distress in many areas of the country. Then, as time moved on, the Farm Se- curity Administration was created by an Executive order and went into the fleld of rural rehabilitation. For that agency this Congress has appropriated millions and hundreds of millions of dollars for 2665 rural-rehabilitation programs of all kinds. Finally the Secretary of Agricul- ture communicated with the State cor- porations again and, in effect, said to them, “You turn back to me these funds. I will accept them as trustee. I will ad- minister the fund and I will take over the problem of relieving distress and bringing about rural rehabilitation.” Another document was prepared here in Washington—many of them were pre- pared, one of which I hold in my hand. These were trust agreements, legal docu- ments, prepared here and presented to the State corporations; and the boards of directors of those State corporations authorized the execution of those legal documents. This legal document is the monument of the solemn agreement be- tween the State corporation and the Sec- retary of Agriculture. It is binding and legal in all respects. No man, in good faith, could question the legality of this trust agreement. The trust property consisted not only of money but of farms, and houses, and buildings, and notes, and choses in action. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has ex- pired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself five additional minutes. The contract to which I want to ad- dress myself is the one affecting my own State, which is typical of others. It has a termination date of 12 years. Now we are only about 60 days away from the termination date of this agreement. It provides: In the event that the authority of the Secretary or his successor, as provided in article XII, section 1 hereof, shall cease, this agreement shall be forthwith terminated. We terminated the Secretary’s author- ity in 1946 when we passed the Farmers Home Administration Act, and directed the Secretary to liquidate these trusts. That brought about the automatic ter- mination of the trust agreements con- taining that provision. Section 3 provides:: If neither of the contingencies provided for in section 1 and section 2 of this article shall earlier occur, then this agreement shall in any event terminate at the end of 12 years from its date, unless the same shall be re- newed by the mutual agreement of the par- ties hereto. That agreement was signed in May or June 1938, and signed by the North Car- olina Rural Rehabilitation Corporation; Mrs. Thomas O’Berry, president; and Henry Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, for and on behalf of the United States Government. When we directed liquidation of these trusts it did not occur to anybody that the Federal Government had any fur- ther interest, legal or equitable, in or to any part or parcel of the property in- volved; but some smart boy down in the Department conceived the idea that here was about $50,000,000 remaining and “we must get our hands on it so that we can hold it and control it.” So for the first time we heard the suggestion, “Why, this is Uncle Sam’s money. Uncle Sam is broke, and Uncle Sam is in great need,
2666 and we should recapture this money for the Treasury.” So then the suggestion came up to us, “You told us to liquidate but you did not say how. Now we are saying, don’t liquidate, but let us take this money back and put it into the Treasury.” So we had two bills proposed in the Eightieth Congress. I introduced one and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Hope) introduced the other. One would provide for putting the money back into the Treasury, and the other one pro- vided for keeping faith with these solemn agreements. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. FULTON. Do I understand from the gentleman’s remarks, then, that the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Brannan, might be opposed to this particular bill, or is it somebody within the Department who is opposed to it; and if so, who is it? Mr. COOLEY. Frankly, there is dif- ference of opinion in the legal family in the Department of Agriculture. The spokesman for the Solicitor’s office, as I pointed out in my remarks yesterday, made a very laborious effort to justify a legal opinion which would support the position that the money should be put back into the Treasury. He did that merely by saying that the depression was over. I asked, ‘““‘When was it over? Who told you it was over’? The truth is that since this thing occurred in the early 1930’s we have continued to recognize the distress of the agricultural sections of this country and have continued to appropriate money, and every single Congress since that time has realized that we needed to do something by way of rural rehabilitation. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has again expired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself eight additional minvtes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for eight additional minutes. Mr. FULTON. May I ask this further question: Can the gentleman tell us what is Mr. Brannan’s personal opinion on this bill? Mr. COOLEY. I, unfortunately, do not know what his personal opinion is. But we have an issue here, and it is a clear-cut issue. Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. HOPE. On the question as to whether Mr. Brannan expressed a per- sonal opinion, is it not a fact that there is in the hearings a copy of a letter from Mr, Brannan as Secretary of Agricul- ture reporting adversely upon this bill? Mr. COOLEY. Yes; that is true. Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. REES. Do I understand that there is about $50,000,000 included in this legislation. I notice that the report states that it is a comparatively small sum. After all, $50,000,000 is $50,000,000. As I understand the bill before us, it is proposed to divide this money among the States. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. COOLEY. No; we do not propose to do anything of the kind. The money has been divided, was divided when it was granted. The title to it, legal and equitable, is vested in the corporations, and not in the Federal Government. We are not going to divide it; we are not dividing it. We are going to keep faith with this document. Mr. REES. But the money came from the Federal Treasury. Mr. COOLEY. Yes; that is so. Mr. REES. If you are going to dis- solve the corporatior and get rid of it, that would be a very good solution, would it not? Mr. COOLEY. We are not getting rid of the corporation. If the gentleman will let me finish, I will tell him that actually no legislation on this subject is needed. The only thing needed is a law- yer in the Department of Agriculture who has enough legal sense to know and to understand a written legal document. If a lawyer should come up and say, “Mr. Secretary, you have no alternative other than to keep faith with this document,” we would not be here. Instead of that, we have all this hemming and hawing and dilly-dallying around. My corpora- tion is going to bring a lawsuit—there is no getting around that—whether we pass an act of Congress or not. But they are willing to accept the provisions of this bill which gives the Secretary of Agriculture authority to see to it that there is no duplication of effort, that there is no wasting of the moneys, that no foolish un-American program is em- barked upon. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. POAGE. The gentleman from Kansas has suggested that this money is in the Treasury. Is it not a fact that this money is in the Treasury only as a trust fund and not as money of the United States? Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman is ex- actly right. I just communicated with the Treasury. It is not only there in trust but it is marked “State rural re- habilitation corporation funds.” Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. POAGE. Surely, neither the gen- tleman from North Carolina nor the gen- tleman from Kansas, nor any other Mem- ber of Congress would contend that we as Members of Congress have the power to take funds that are the trust funds entrusted to the safekeeping of the United States and divert them from the purpose of the trust, would he? Mr. COOLEY. I do not see how any- body could suggest it, and I want it thoroughly understood I am not ques- tioning the motives of anybody in this matter. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Is it not a fact that if that trust fund is not returned to the States it goes into the Federal Treasury and that the Federal deficit will be $50,000,000 less? Mr. COOLEY. How is it going into the Federal Treasury unless, just by main MarcH 2 strength and awkwardness, we take it and put it in the Federal Treasury? As I said a moment ago, I know that my corporation is going to bring suit to re- cover this property. I do not know of any defense that the Federal Govern- ment can have to the suit which will be instituted; and that suit will be followed by a multiplicity of similar suits. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. FULTON. In reference to these assets that are listed, for instance, there are loans receivable and accounts and notes receivable. Is there any estimate as to how good they are or are they just old notes and accounts receivable that have been standing, due from reliefers, as they are in connection with other activities of the States? In other words, do these figures mean they are worth their face amount? Mr. COOLEY. That is the face value. Mr. FULTON. Are they worth that? Mr. COOLEY. I doubt that they are worth that. I understand there is about $10,000,000 in cash. The rest is in notes and other property. Mr. FULTON. Has there been any banking estimate of what is collectible of these and what is uncollectible? Mr. COOLEY. I am not quite certain. We had very lengthy hearings, but it has been some time since we held hearings and I do not recall what was said about the actual value. Mr. FULTON. Actually, then, the $50,000,000 mentioned is not the correct amount because we do not know what the value is of one of the major portions of the fund? Mr. COOLEY. That is right. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. KEATING. Would the gentleman tell us what in his judgment would be the result 1f we passed no bill at all? Mr. COOLEY. This crowd down there will keep dilly-dallying with the money and force the corporations to bring suit, pach will involve us in expensive litiga- on. Mr. KEATING. There are many points on which I do not see eye to eye with the Department of Agriculture as it is now administered, but in this case is it not a matter that should be deter- mined in the courts rather than here in the Congress? Mr. COOLEY. No. The gentleman is a lawyer and if he will look at one of these agreements he must conclude that the Government has no more right to this money than he has. Mr. KEATING. Well, now, will the gentleman answer another question. I notice under this list of assets in the table on pages 6 and 7 that except for the States of Oregon and Vermont the State of New York got the least money under this of any State in the Union, yet it paid by far the biggest part in taxes, What is the explanation? Mr. COOLEY. The explanation is that probably the State of New York did not have distressed rural areas like we had in other sections of the country.
1950 This was a relief measure to relieve dis- tressed areas in agriculture. That per- haps is the only answer. It may be that they did not handle the fund properly. I do not know what happened. Mr. KEATING. I feel sure they prob- ably handled it properly, but I am just worried about the position of one from New York State. As I view this, and I would be glad to be corrected, if this $50,000,000 is not turned over, as the gentleman is suggesting, it will become funds of the Government and, certainly, New York State will reap a benefit in ex- cess of $80,000. Mr. COOLEY. Here is what New York State can do, and I would like for the Members to know this. The bill pro- vides for a return of the trust property to the State corporations upon applica- tion being filed by the State corporation. In the event no application is filed, and in many States applications probably will not be filed, because no agency is in existence, the corporations have ceased to exist. We provide, however, that the corporation may be rehabilitated or an- other created. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has ex- pired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself three additional minutes. Mr. Chairman, the State corporation may no longer be in business, but we provide that another corporation might be chartered or some other agency set up to handle the funds. Then that agency can apply for it. But if no application is submitted in 3 years the money goes back to the Federal Treasury to be placed in a revolving fund to be used in the State affected. It further pro- vides that any State that is not inter- ested in this program, and I am assuming New York will not be interested because apparently you do not have the same situation that we have in other areas, all that State has to do is to relinquish the money and turn it back to the Fed- eral Government. Mr. KEATING. But we pay a share, do we not, of the money that gocs to these other States? Mr. COOLEY. Why, the gentleman knows that is not true. It is not a question of any State pay- ing or contributing. This bill provides only for a return of funds which were taken in trust. If New York made a contribution it was many long years ago when the relief money was made available. I am quite sure that New York got its full share of relief money. But, to show you the legal situation, here is a fund we had in North Carolina amounting to about $1,100,000. The Secretary of Agriculture induced our corporation to let him have $800,000 of it. We still have $300,000 down there. Our corporation is a going concern. Now they are saying in effect, “We have this $800,000, and we are not going to give it back to you.” Mr. KEATING, But you get 10 times as much as the State of New York. Mr. COOLEY. My State gets very little. Minnesota, for instance, gets two or three million dollars. I am not con- cerned ubout the money involved: I am CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE concerned about the principle and the morals involved in this issue. Mr. KEATING. Iam concerned about the morals, but if the Department of Agriculture takes the position as a legal matter that this fund belongs to the Government and not to the people to whom you want to give it, it seems to me that is an issue that should be tried in the courts. Mr. COOLEY. If the gentleman has no more respect for the solicitor’s opin- ion than I have, the opinion would not worry him any more than it worries me. Mr. KEATING. That puts me in a difficult position, because my respect is not as great as that of some people. Mr. COOLEY. I am not willing to follow his advice on this question, and neither was my committee, because the bill was reported by a substantial ma- jority. Incidently another bill, similar in character, has passed the Senate. When the Honorable CLinton ANDERSON was the Secretary of Agriculture, he was for the Hope bill, but when Secretary of Agriculture ANDERSON became Senator ANDERSON and could see this thing in its true light, he came out for a bill sim- llar to this bill, and the Senate has al- ready passed it. That just shows you how one in high place might perhaps be influenced by a bad legal opinion. Mr. KEATING. Of course, it may be influenced by other factors, too. Mr. COOLEY. I would rather take the opinion of Senator AnpEerson than thet of Secretary ANDERSON. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from New Mcxico. Mr. FERNANDEZ. The gentleman from New York seems to be concerned about the amount of money. In the State of the gentleman from North Car- olina, you get less money than, say, New Mcxico, because you gave back to the Government less money. You kept some of it. Mr. COOLEY. That is right. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Maybe New York kept some of it, too. Mr. COOLEY. I had not thought of it, but it is possible that the New York corporation did hold back some of its money. Maybe they still have it. I do not know. The hearings will probably show that. Mr. KEATING. But the schedule would not show that, Mr. COOLEY. That only shows that in North Carolina, for example, actually if we get $800,000, we will add it to the $300,000 we have now. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania, Mr. FULTON. I notice that South Dakota gets $3,395,000. The actual giv- ing of this money either back to the States or permitting the people to keep it is not made proportionate on the need within the States at this time for reha- bilitation money within that State, Mr. COOLEY. The genleman is cor- rect. But the fact is that the Farmers Home Administration is operating in Minnesota and all of these other States. Chairman, 2667 so there is a need, or otherwise we would not be lending the money to farmers in poor financial circumstances. Mr. FULTON. If we go through the ordinary practice that the Federal Gov- ernment is now pursuing in the States on farm rehabilitation, we will use the reg- ular channels and not this, because this will be extra money in addition to the regular Federal money. Mr. COOLEY. The need for Federal appropriations will be minimized to the extent that this money is available. Mr. FULTON. In some instances, un- der ihis bill, they will get more than they need. Mr. COOLEY. No, no. There is a Gesperate shortage in all places right now. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from South Dakota. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. If the Federal Government waives its claim under the terms of this bill, would the State corporation be free to use the money for research if it wanted to use some of it for research? Mr. COOLEY. Not unless the pro- grams were approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. While I do not believe that we have any legal right to exercise any degree of control over the money involved, we did put a provision in this bill which re- quires that the funds be used in the pros- ecution of projects and programs which have been approved by the Secretary. This is for the purpose of enabling the Secretary to exercise the degree of con- trol over use of the funds which may be necessary to prevent duplication and waste and to make sure that the funds are used for the purposes for which they were originally appropriated. Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Chairman, as has already been stated by the gentleman from North Carolina, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, this is a matter which has been hanging fire for some time. I want to go back into the history of these transactions a little bit to preface what I shall say as to what course I think we should follow in con- nection with this matter. I think it is important that this ques- tion be settled. While I am opposed to the bill which has been reported by the committee, I did not oppose the rule be- cause I believe we should take some ac- tion in the matter and dispose of it one way or another. As has been stated, these funds were set up during the depression and drought days back in 1934 and 1935. They were originally a part of three different ap- propriations which were made for re- lief during that period. Part of these funds came from the Emergency Appro- priation Act for the fiscal year 1935, and the pertinent part of that act which prescribes the use which might be made of the funds reads as follows: The Administrator 1s authorized to make grants to the several States to aid in meet- ing the cost of furnishing relief and work relief and in relieving hardship and euffer- ing caused by unemployment, in the form
2668 of money, service, materials and/or com- modities, to provide the necessities of life to persons in need as a result of the present emergency, or to their dependents, whether residents, transients, or homeless. That, of course, correctly described the situation that existed at that time. It was in the depths of the depression, when we had a bad drought situation, and it was absolutely necessary that these people on the farms in the drought areas and other depressed areas be fur- nished funds in order to keep body and soul together. That was the sole purpose of the legislation. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOPE, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. That act was passed in the early part of 1933; is not that correct? Mr. HOPE I believe this was the 1934 act It was the Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1935. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Prior to that time funds had been appropri- ated and turned over to the then Presi- dent for relief purposes in the respec- tive States, which money was turned over to the Governors in those States, Mr. HOPE. Yes; I think that is cor- rect, There were several acts. The act of February 15, 1934, appropriated the sum of $950,000,000 for carrying out the purpose of the Emergency Relief Act of 1933. That is the act to which I think the gentleman refers, The purposes for which that money might be used are de- scribed in this act of February 15, 1934, as follows: “making loans to farmers for and/or the purchase, sale, gift, or other disposition, of seed, feed, freight, summer fallowlng, and simular pur- poses.” Those are the purposes for which these funds are authorized to be used in the first place. It requires a stretch of the imagina- tion, it seems to me, to say that the pur- poses for which those funds are author- ized to be used still exist. Ido not know of any place in the United States where the conditions which prevailed in 1933, 1934, and 1935 still exist or where it is necessary to expend Federal funds for the purposes which are enumerated here. But I will come back to that a litle later. I want to go on with the history of this transaction. After this legislation was passed, State rehabilitation corporations were set up in at least 43 States. It was proposed to administer these funds through these State rehabilitation cor- porations and the funds which are in question here were granted to these State corporations. Subsequently, it was held by the Comptroller General that these relief funds could not be adminis- tered in that way and that they would have to be administered by the relief administration directly from Washing- ton. That being the situation, and the rehabilitation corporation having only this comparatively small amount of funds on hand and being unable to get any further funds, there was an arrange- ment made whereby all of these State corporations turned these funds over to the Secretary of Agriculture as trust CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE funds to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the purposes for which they were originally appropriated. As I said a while ago those purposes have ceased to exist. But, by action of the Committee on Appropriations from time to time since then, these funds have been appropriated for the use of the Farmers Home Administration and its predecessors in making rehabilitation loans to farmers and they are being used for that purpose at the present time. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Not being mingled, however, but within the States to which they were allocated, is that not correct? Mr. HOPE. Yes, I think the provision of the appropriation bill prov.des that the loans shall be made in the States to which they were allocated. I do not know how much significance there is in that. Whether it simply means that those States get less of other funds, or what. But as I understand it that 1s the way the funds are being spent at the present time. When we passed the Farmers Home Administration Act, the law directed that these funds be liquidated, without set- ting up, however, the method by which it might be done. It has been the contention of the De- partment of Agriculture, and I think rightly, that they do not have the au- thority to liquidate these funds under any existing legislation. That is the situation which prevailed when in the Eightieth Congress the Secretary of Ag- riculture sent to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate legislation which would au- thorize and direct the return of these funds to the Federal Treasury. As is customary in such cases, those communi- cations were transmitted to the appro- priate committees and pursuant to that letter I introduced a bill which would provide for the return of these funds to the Treasury. The gentleman from North Carolina introduced a bill which provided for the return of the funds to the various States, to the rehabilitation corporations, where they exist, and if not, to the governor or some other agency in the respective States. Hearings were held in the Eightieth Congress, but no disposition was made of the matter. After the convening of the Eighty-first Congress I introduced my bill and the gentleman from North Carolina introduced his bill. Some fur- ther hearings were held. The commit- tee reported out the bill of the gentleman from North Carolina, and by a substan- tial majority they voted down the sub- stitute which I offered, the substitute be- ing my bill. I yield myself five additional minutes. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOPE. I yield. Mr. ABERNETHY. Suppose the Rural Rehabilitation Corporation in the gen- tleman’s State had declined to enter into the trust agreement with the Govern- ment, as suggested by the Secretary of Agriculture, would the gentleman's cor- poration not have those funds in their possession at this time? MarcH 2 Mr. HOPE. Of course, that is suppos- ing a great deal, because we have no corporation in my State. Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, in a State which did have such a corporation. Mr. HOPE. Of course, I do not know what disposition might have been made of them in the last 12 years. That is just speculation. Mr. ABERNETHY. But the funds would still have been in the possession of those States which refused to enter into such agreements, if they had re- fused, and there would be no means whatever by which the Government could touch the funds. Mr. HOPE. If the funds had not been expended in some way authorized by law, it is quite hkely they would be in the possession of the rehabilitation corporations of those States, but it is my contention that they would have no authority to spend them for any pur- pose other than the purpose authorized by law, which has not existed for a num- ber of years, as the gentleman knows. Mr. ABERNETHY. But the fact re- mains that the Federal Government could not, by any manner or means, interfere with the State’s handling of the funds under those conditions, as it is doing today, inasmuch as it has posses- sion of the funds. Mr. HOPE I believe, and I have a well-supported brief from the Solicitor’s office of the Department of Agriculture, that under those conditions the Depart- ment of Agriculture could have ques- tioned the use of those funds, and I think that properly they could have re- covered the funds had they desired to do so. I understand there may be some difference of Opinion on the legal ques- tions, but this brief, which I expect to make a part of my remarks, under permission already granted, and which I do not have time to go into now, will, I think, furnish an answer that will satisfy every Member of the House who is a lawyer and who has given any study to this question. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOPE I yield. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. The gentleman has stated that the Depart- ment could possibly recover the funds held by the States, and to their credit. The reason for that is that the purpose for which the funds were originally ap- propriated no longer exists. Is that not correct? Mr. HOPE. That is absolutely cor- rect. The condition under which they were granted no longer exists. Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOPE. I yield. Mr.BREHM. Iam particularly inter- ested in the Farmers Home Administra- tion Act. There is not a day passes in which I do not receive letters from farmers wanting a loan under that act. I am wondering how the passage or failure of passage of this act will affect those funds, if any. Mr. HOPE. If we pass this act, those funds will go, in varying amounts, to 43 States. There may or may not be an organization in that State which can ad-
1950 minister the fund. In most States there will not be, but even assuming there is, if the funds are employed at all they will have to be employed in competition, in 43 States, with the activities of the Farmers Home Administration. In other words, in every State the Farmers Home Administration will be making loans, and this organization in the State, whatever it is, the Rural Rehabilitation Corporation, or some new organization to be set up, will also be making loans. That is to say that if we pass this bill, we are going to fritter away this money by putting a little of it into every one of the 43 States. If we want to maintain the integrity of this fund, if we want to do something which will be of some ben- efit to the farmers of this country who are in need of rural rehabilitation at this time, let us leave it in the hands of the organization that is set up to do that work, ° The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas has expired. Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself three additional minutes. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOPE. I yield. Mr. FULTON. I agree with the gen- tleman’s statement. May I ask if it is not true that in most of the States they do not have these rehabilitation cor- porations and the money will just go into the general funds of the State instead of the general funds of the Federal Treasury? Mr. HOPE. No. I think the State will have to set up some organization to administer the fund, that under the pro- visions of the gentleman’s bill that would have to be done. It would be turned over to the governor but he would have to set up some kind of an organization to administer it. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOPE I yield. Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Is it not a fact that if we do not pass this legislation the funds for the respective States will continue to be administered by the Farmers Home Administration as they have been in the past and funds allocated to each State will be used in the respective State as something of a revolving fund? Mr. HOPE. That will be dependent upon the action of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOPE. I yield. Mr. HESELTON. I notice in this opin- ion, that is, at the table here, there seems to be extremely significant legal lan- guage calling attention to the fact that the apportionment rose out of the eco- nomic depression of the 1930’s and the drought of 1934. The funds were made available for rural rehabilitation as such, as was the case in later appropriations. This distinction is important. As fully developed by the Resettlement Admin- istration and the Farm Security Admin- istration under appropriations made for rural rehabilitation that term was con- strued to encompass any program which had for its purpose the improvement of XCVI——168 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the economic status or physical well- being of the low-income groups of our farm population and the need for the program was not required to be based upon a particular drought or depression. I have read the North Carolina agree- ment; it seems to me to be an extremely tight one. It is my recollection that if the purposes of the trust have ceased to exist, the courts will not carry out the requirements in such an instrument for the disposition of the assets. I think it is highly important to consider that in the terms of the proper disposition of these funds. Now, I will go further. I call attention to the fact that further- more, the apportionment of funds under the bill among the States would bear little relation to the need as it exists today. Five States would receive no money at all, whereas three States would receive over $3,000,000. The five States, I understand, are Massachusetts, Con- necticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland. It does scem to me that it would be more equitable to let this matter go to the courts for settlement than for us to try to settle it. Mr. HOPE. In order to clarify the legal questions at issue here, I want to include as a part of my remarks the able opinion of the Associate Solicitor for the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Howard Rooney. It is as follows: STATEMENT OF HOWARD ROONEY, ASSOCIATE SOLICITOR, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, DE- PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The report of the Department on H R, 2392 was based on the premise that at this time there is no legal or moral obligation imposed on Congress that would require the return of the assets covered by the transfer agree- ments to the States or corporations for use in a rural rehabilitation program. The Sec- retary was so advised by the Solicitor’s office of the Department, and as a representative of that office my testimony will be for the pur- pose of acquainting the committee with the reasons for reaching the foregoing conclu- sion, A legal conclusion must always be tested in relation to the facts upon which it is predicated. It is agreed that the assets in question were derived from funds made avail- able under the terms of the Federal Emer- gency Relief Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 55); the act of February 15, 1934 (48 Stat 351), and the act of June 19, 1934 (48 Stat 1055). Sec- tion 1 of the Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933 contains the following language’ “That the Congress hereby declares that the present economic depression has created a serious emergency, due to widespread un- employment and increased inadequacy of State and local relief funds, resulting in the existing or threatened deprivation of a con- siderable number of families and individu- als of the necessities of life, and making it imperative that the Federal Government co- operate more effectively with the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia in furnishing relief to thetr needy and distressed people.” The act created the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, with a Federal Emer. gency Relief Administrator at its head. Funds of the Reconstruction Finance Cor- poration in the amount of $500,000,000 were made available for the purposes of the act which were set out in section 4 (a) as follows: “Out of funds of the Reconstruction Fi- nance Corporation made available by this act, the Administrator is authorized to make 2669 grants to several States to aid in meeting the costs of furnishing relief and work relief and in relieving the hardship and suffering caused by unemployment in the form of moneys, services, materials, and /or commodi- ties to provide the necessities of life to per- sons in need as a result of the present emer- gency, and/or to their dependents, whether resident, transient, or homeless.” Provision was made for investigation by the Administrator of expenditures made under the act and he could under the rules and regulations prescribed by the President assume control of the administration in any State where, in his Judgment, more effective and efficient cooperation between the State and Federal authorities could thereby be secured in carrying out the purchase of the act. The governor in each State was re- quircd to make application for the funds and the decision of the Adminitrator as to the purpose of any expenditure was to be final. In the act of February 15, 1934, there was appropriated from the Treasury the sum of $950,000,000 to provide additional funds for carrying out the purposes of the Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933 and for con- tinuing the civil-works program. This act also permitted the Federal Emergency Relief Administrator to make grants for relief within a State directly to such public agency as he might designate. In the act of June 19, 1934, $525,000,000 was made available to meet the emergency and necessity for relief in stricken agricul- tural areas and to supplement appropria- tions theretofore made for emergency pur- poses and for making loans to farmers for, and/or the purchase, sale, gift, and other disposition of seed, feed, freight, summer fallowing, and other similar purposes. The legislative history indicates that the addi- tional lending authority was for the purpose of relieving distressed conditions caused by the 1934 drought. The plain terms of these statutes reveal a congressional intent that funds granted thereunder were for the purpose of relleving distress attributuble to the emergencies caused by the depression of the 1930’s and the 1934 drought We doubt if anyone will seriously deny that these emergencies are now nonexistent. This fact leads to the conclusion that the funds in question can no longer be used for their original purpose. In this connection, it 1s significant that the Works Progress Administration was ordered liquidated on December 4, 1942, and on July 12, 1943, in the Department of Agricul- ture Appropriation Act, 1944 (57 Stat. 392) the Secretary was authorized to use funds administered pursuant to transfer agree- ments for the same purpose that funds were appropriated under the caption “Loans, Grants, and Rural Rehabilitation.” This authority was continued in the appropria- tion acts for the Department for 1945, 1946, and 1947. Moreover, section 2 (c) of the Farmers Home Administration Act of 1048, approved August 14, 1946, provided that funds made available in the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1947, were mad~ available for the making and servicing of loans under the Farmers Home Adminis- tration Act. Thus, after ordering Nquida- tion of the agency established to administer direct Federal relief during the depression, Congress without undue delay provided new authority for the administration of the funds transferred to the Secretary. On the basis of the forogoing facts it 1s our position that the fundamental legal question to be determined by the committee 1s the extent of the authority of the Con- gress over the residue of funds granted to a State for a particular purpose when that purpose can no longer be effectuated. Our answer to the question is that in such @ case the authorities clearly uphold the
2670 right of Congress to revest the funds in the Federal Government and to order any dispo- sition thereof consonant with the plenary power of Congress over the property of the United States. Thus in Ashburner v. Cali- fornia (103 U. 8. 675), in construing the act of June 30, 1864 (13 Stat. 325) in which the United States granted the Yosemite Valley to the State of California to be held for public use, resort and recreation (but with- out a reverter clause) the Court said: “It [the land] must be kept for the use to which it was, by the terms of the grant, appropriated. If it should be in any respect d.verted from this use, the United States may be called on to determine whether proceed- ings may be instituted in some appropriate form to enforce the performance of the con- citions contained in the act of Congress or vacate the grant. So long as the State keeps the property {t must abide by the stipula- tion upon which the transfer of title was made.” And directly in point is the later case of United States v. Michigan (190 U. 8S. 379). In that case Congress had granted to the State of Michigan 750,000 acres of public land for the purpose of aiding the State in constructing and maintaining the St. Mary’s River Canal. The act contained no reverter clause except with respect to failure to be- gin or complete the canal within the speci- fied time, a condition which was comphed with by the State and not involved in the case. The act provided for rendering an ac- counting to the Government of the proceeds of the sale of the land and the cost of build- ing and operating the canal. There was no express provision, however, requiring any surplus to be paid over to the United States. The action was instituted on behalf of the United States by Attorney General Knox to recover a surplus of about $68,000. The case was decided in the favor of the United States and in the opinion at page 400 the Court said: “If there were funds arising from the sale of the lands over and above the cost of con- struction and other expenses of the canal, it could not, within reason (after a perusal of these two statutes, with the provisions for accounting for sales and net proceeds of lands, and the other provisions of the statutes already mentioned), be supposed the parties understood that Michigan was to have for its own treasury the balance arising beyond such cost, maintenance, etc., of the canal.” Legislative grants must be interpreted, if practicable, so as to effect the intention of the grantor; but if the words are ambiguous, the true rule 1s to construe them strongly against the grantee. (Rice v. Railroad Co. (66 U.S 358) ) In the light of this rule of law, we do not believe it 1s possible to con- strue the language of the granting statutes under consideration as evidencing an intent that it was the will of Congress for the States to keep for their own benefit any funds left over aiter the emergencies were met. This was the view of the State of Arkansns in Wiseman vy. Dyess (72 8 W. 2d. 617), where in the course of its opinion the court said: “The act of Congress (Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933) under which the appor- tionments are granted requires this (reports to Administrator) and negates that an ab- solute grant or gift had been made to the State. If by any possibility any of the funds thus apportioned were not required, the unexpended balance would revert not to the State, but to the Federal Government " This opinion has been criticized because it was contended that it was based on an er- roneous stipulation of facts. However, when this matter was brought to the attention of the court on rehearing (76 S. W. 2d. 979) the court said: “It is unnecessary to decide the technical question of whether Dyess, the appellant herein, {s acting for the State or whether the money with which he carries on the relief work technically belongs to the State. It is CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE certain, however, this money is not admin- istered or used through any of the regular channels of the State government. “The money is allotted for the rellef work in Arkansas and it is used for that purpose. It 1s a part of the plan and program of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Its ultimate aim is to relieve from the dis- tress and burdens of unemployment as an aid to the restoration of more nearly normal con- ditions. These funds appropriated by the Na- tional Government for such beneficent pur- poses should not be directed.” It was contended in the recent hearings on this bill that the cases of United States v. Louisiana (127 U. 8. 182 (1882)); Cooper v. Roberts (18 How. 173 (1855)); King County, Washington v. Seattle School District No, 1 (263 U. 8S. 361 (1923)) and Alabama v. Schm.dt (232 U. S. 168 (1914)) require a holding that the grants in question were so absolute that there was no legal power re- maining in Congress to question compliance by the States. In other words, that with respect to the United States any obligation assumed by the States as a result of the grants was purely honorary. The cases do not 60 hold. Cooper v. Roberts was a case in ejectment. One party claimed title from the State of Michigan which in turn had ob- tained the land from the United States through a grant for school purposes The other party claimed under a license granted under the Federal mining laws. In the course of its opinion the Court said: “In the present instance the grant is to the State directly, without limitation of its power, though there is a sacred obligation imposed on its public faith. We think it was competent to Michigan to sell the school reservation without consent of Congress.” This case is authority for two things: (1) an individual cannot question complance of a State with a Federal grant, and (2) under the school land grant acts it is proper for the States to sell the land. There was no intimation in the case that the State had diverted the proceeds from school use nor was there any discussion of the rights of the United States if the proceeds had been 50 diverted. Alabama y. Schmidt also involved school land. Schmidt claimed by adverse possession under the laws of Alabama. Alabama de- fended on the theory that the statute of limitations did not apply, apparently for the reason that if Schmidt recovered the land 1t would be diverted from school purposes. In the opinion the Court said: “The gift to the State is absolute, although no doubt as said in Cooper v. Roberts there is a sacred obligation imposed on its public faith. But that obligation is honorary like the one discussed in Conley v. Ballinger (216 U. 8B. 84), and even in honor would not be broken by a sale and substitution of a fund, as in that case; a course we believe that has not been uncommon among the States." Here the State having the right to sell under the decision of Cooper v. Roberts was not permitted to enjoy this privilege without assuming the corresponding disadvantages. The Court clearly indicates that if the State would place the value of the land in the school fund, there would be no breach of the grant, and, os in Cooper vy. Roberts, the rights of the United States in the event of breach are not discussed. Conley v. Ballin- ger, cited in the opinion, held that an in- dividual member of a tribe of Indians could not enjoin the removal of bodies of relatives buried in a cemetery which was reserved in & quitclaim deed executed by the tribe to the United States pursuant to a treaty. It was said the United States had legislative power over the cemetery before the deed and because of the unusual power resting in the United States with respect to Indian tribes the fulfillment of the treaty rested on the good faith of the United States and could not be questioned by a member of the tribe. The Court further found that the provisions Marcu 2 of an act of Congress making the proceeds of the sale of the cemetory available to the tribe was not a breach of that faith. The pertinent part of the opinion in United States v. Louisiana is as follows: “Under the act of 1850 the swamplands are to be conveyed to the State as an abso- lute gift, with discretion that these proceeds shall be applied exclusively, as far as neces- sary, to the purpose of reclaiming the lands. The judgment of the State as to the ncces- sity 1s paramount and any application of the proceeds by the State to any other ob- jective is to be taken as the declaration of its Judgment that the application of the pro- ceeds to the reclamation of the lands is not necessary. By the second section of the act of 1855 it is provided that the purchase money received by the United States for the swampleand sold by them shall be paid over to the State. There is nothing in these pro- visions of the character of a property trust and nothing to prevent the application by the State of a swampland fund to the gen- eral purposes. If the power exists anywhere to enforce any provision of the grant, it re- sides in Congress and not in the Court.” The distinction between the grant in this case and in the grants under discussion is obvious, since there is no language in the grants now under consideration which would permit the States to use only 59 much of the funds granted for relief as they found necessary. The King County case required @ con- struction of the act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260), which directed that 25 percent of all money received from each forest reserve dur- ing any fiscal year should be paid at the end thereof by the Secretary of the Treasury to the State in which the reserve was situ- ated “to be expended as the State. * * © legislature may prescribe for the bencfit of public schools and public roads of the county or counties in which the forest reserve is situated" The plaintiff school district con- tended that the receipts should be divided equally for school and road purposes. In the course of the opinion the Court said: “When turned over to the State, the money belongs to it absolutely. There is no limitation upon the power of the legislature to prescribe how the expenditures shall be made for the purposes stated, though by the act of Congress, ‘there is a sacred obligation imposed on its public faith.’ Cooper v Rob- erts (18 How. 173, 182); Alabama v. Schmidt (232 U. 8. 168, 173); Mills County v. Railroad Companies (107 U. 8. 657, 566); Hagar v. Rec- lamation District (111 U. S. 701, 718). No trust for the benefit of appellee is created by the grant. But, assuming the moneys paid over to the State are charged with a trust that there shall be expended annually one- half for schools and one-half for roads, the appellee has no right to enforce the trust. Congress alone can inquire into the manner of its execution by the State. United States v. Louisiana (127 U 8, 182, 185-192); Mulls County v. Railroad Companies, supra; Emi- giant Co. v. County of Adams (100 U. S. 61, 69); Barrett v. Brooks (21 Ia. 144, 148). See also Stearns v. Minnesota (179 U. 8. 223, 231). The act does not direct any division of the money between schools and roads. Its lan- guage above quoted indicates an intention on the part of Congress that the State in its discretion may prescribe by legislation how the money is to be expended. No distribu- tion to the appellee or any other schoo! dis- trict is required. The public schools and public roads are provided and maintained by the State or its subdivisions, and the moneys granted by the United States are as- sets in the hands of the State to be used for the specified purposes as it deems best.” In none of these cases was it found that a State was violating the terms of the grant under consideration, but in both United States v. Louisiana and the King County case the court clearly incicates that Congress would not be powerless in the event of a
1950 breach. In Langer v. United States (76 Fed. 2d 817, 824), all of the foregoing cases were cited by the defendant in support of the contention that money granted to a State under the Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933 could be used in any manner the State saw fit. The court flatly refused to sustain the contention. As has been pointed out to the committee, the Federal Emergency Relief Administrator and the Comptroller General regarded funds after grant as having the status of State funds. These decisions were made at a time when there was no question as to the proper use of funds by the States, and in the final analysis only meant that while being admin- istered for the purposes of the granting acts, the funds would not be subject to the gen- eral fiscal laws applicable to Federal agencies. These determinations, of course, arc not de- cisive of the present question any more than would the fact that the Yosemite Valley was not subject to Federal land laws while being properly used by California or that money being used by Michigan to build the St. Mary’s Canal was not subject to Federal fiscal laws require a different result in the Ash- burner and Michigan cases. These dcter- minations obviously did not purport to cover the status of funds which could not be used pursuant to statutory authority. In this connection, in 1935 the Supreme Court of South Carolina in Harris v Fulp (183 8S. E. 158) held that a State relief administrator could not be sued by an individual in view of the State's immunity against suit. In determining the then status of relief funds, the court relied principally on the Comp- troller General's opinion On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Maine in State v Mar- tin (187 Atl. 710), reversed a bribery con- victton under Stat law of a State emergency relief administration employee, saying “The State—no official, no employee of the Stute as such—huad title to or control of the funds apportioned by the United States or of food, clothing, or other supplies pur- chused therewith” And in Madden v United States (80 Fed 2d 672, 676, cert. den 297 U. S. 710), the Court said: “Defendant contends that there was a fatal variance between the proof and the in- dictment His argument 1s that funds granted by the Federal Emergency Relief Ad- ministration to the Emergency Finance Eoaid, a State agency, became State funds and thereafter no title thereto existed in any Fedcral agency, and when the Emer- gency Finance Board transferred part of its funds to the city of Boston for payment of Boston Public Library employees, title to such funds passed to the city of Boston, and thereafter the power of disposition of such funds was in the city of Boston and no Fed- eral agency had any power over them, This contention is not sound All projects car- ried on with money derived from the Federal Government had to be approved by the Fed- eral Administrator. Any diversion of such funds from the project to which they were assigned was a diversion of Government money Ag hereinbefore stated, all funds al- lotted by the Federal Government for the re- Nef of unemployment even though disbursed by State agencies were earmarked as Fed- eral funds, and if diverted from the use for which they were granted it constituted a fraud upon the Government.” More to the point than the decision of the Comptroller General heretofore cited to the committee is the report of the Comptrol- ler General to the Director of the Budget, dated November 26, 1946 (B-58301). The Comptroller then had under consideration a proposed bill under which the United States would be divested of any interest in the Ten- nessee Valley Assoclated Cooperatives, Inc. This Corporation was organized under the laws of Tennessce and financed by Federal CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Emergency Relief Administration money granted to the Governor. It differed from rural-rehabilitation corporations only in the fact that the stock wag issued in the name of the Secretary of the Treasury without vot- ing rights, whereas in the case of rural-re- habilitation corporations the stock was taken in the name of the incorporators and pledged with the Federal Emergency Relief Admin- istration to insure compliance with the grants. The pertinent part of the report is as follows: “Even if it may be conceded that it was not the Federal intent to retain control of the emergency relief funds involved other than as necessary to insure that the purpose for which granted would be carried out, it must be recognized that they have not been fully expended and that in continuing to hold them and in administering their use the Cor- poration performs basically a Federal govern- mental function. In an analogous situation involving the Virgin Islands Company, the capital of which likewise was obtained from emergency relief grants, this office has taken the position that whatever portion of such funds has not been dissipated by operating losses represents unexpended relief grants and, as such, will be required to be accounted for to the United States. See General Ac- counting Office Report on Audit of the Virgin Islands Company, 1945, printed as House Document No, 701, Seventy-ninth Congress. “In other words, the proposed legislation would divest the United States of a remain- der interest of approximately $183,000 in the Tennessee Valley Associated Cooperatives, Inc., representing an unexpended balance of emergency relief funds granted many years ago to assist in the organization and foster- ing of cooperative enterprises in the Ten- nessee Valley, and it would result in turning that sum over to a corporation or other agency disassociated from the Government for further use without limitation as to time. No convincing reason has been ad- vanced to me as to why that should be done and, consequently, I am unable to recom- mend favorable consideration of the specific proposal submitted ” It has also been suggested to the commit- tee that the transfer agreements require the return of the assets in question to the States or corporations and that any other disposi- tion by Congress would violate these agree- ments. Of course, this argument could be met by returning the assets pursuant to the agreements and then by congressional man- date require the States to return the funds to the Federal Treasury for such further dis- position as the Congress might deem appro- priate However, in the event Congress does not desire that the funds be further used by the States, the law does not require the useless and expensive formality of a trans- fer. In the first place, the parties to the transfer agreements did not purport to con-~ tract with respect to the use of funds that cannot be used in compHance with the grant- ing statute, and in the second place neither the Secretary nor any other official of the Government could by contract divest the United States of any interest it might have In the funds unless so authorized by Congress. We are unaware of any such authority having been granted to either the Secretary or the Administrator of the Resettlement Adminis- tration. To put it another way, the obliga- tion assumed by the States when the grants were made cannot be discharged by collateral agreements between the States or their agen- cies and the Secretary. This obligation was aptly stated by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in Harris v. Fulp, as follows: “The Governor of the State of South Caro- lina requests periodically from the Federal Emergency Relief Administrator under the said act of Congress, namely, section 5 and subsection (c) of section 4 of sald act, and for the purpose of subsection (a) of section 2671 4 of said act (15 U. 8. C. A., secs. 725, 724 (6, a)), funds in the form of grants, using there- for Federal Emergency Relief Administration form 11-B and the Treasurer of the United States sends the United States checks peri- odically for such funds to the Governor of the State, who, in his application, promises that these funds and the disbursement thereof shall be expended and made in ac- cordance with the said act of Congress and the rulings and regulations prescribed by the Federal Emergency Relief Administrator. It appears, therefore, that the Federal Emer- gency Relief Administration makes these grants under the said act of Congress to the Governor as the Governor of the State of South Carolina upon the promise that the Govornor shall expend the funds so received as the act of Congress intended it to be ex- pended, namely, for the relief of destitution and unemployment.” Finally, it has been contended before the committee that disposition of the assets in question in any manner other than return- ing them to the States for unrestricted use would be unconstitutional. Rice v. Railroad Company (supra), which was cited with ap- proval in the case of United States v. Min- nesota (270 U. 8 181), was cited in support of the proposition. In the Rice case, Rice, the plaintiff, claimed land by purchase and entry from the United States. The ratlroad company defended under a grant to Minne- sota for railroad-construction purposes. The plaintiff replied that the granting statute was repealed, and the defendant claimed the repealing statute was void. The Court held the repealing statute was valid. The follow- ing extracts from the opinion are pertinent here: “Omitting all such parts of it (the grant- ing statute) as are unimportant in this in- vestigation, it provides ‘that there shall be, and is hereby, granted to the Territory of Minnesota, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad * * * every alternate section of land, designated by odd numbers, for six sections in width on each side of said road within said Territory * * ° which land shall be hold by the Territory of Minnesota for the use and purpose aforesaid.’ Certain words in the clause are omitted, be- cause they are not material to the present inquiry, and if produced, would only serve to embarrass the investigation. Standing alone, the clause furnishes strong evidence to refute the proposition of the defendants, that a beneficial interest passed in presenti to the Territory; because it is distinctly pro- vided that the lands granted shall be held by the Territory for a declared use and purpose, evidently referring to the contemplated rail- road, which, when constructed, would be a public improvement of general interest. Re- sort to construction, however, on this point is wholly unnecessary, because it is expressly declared in the second provisio that the land hereby grantec shall be exclusively applied in the construction of that road for which it was granted, and shall be disposed of only as the work progresses; and the same shall be applied to no other purpose whatever, Beyond question, therefore, the lands were to be held by the Territory only for the use and purpose of constructing the railroad de- scribed in the act, and they were to be ap- plied to that purpose and no other.” e s * * s “That rule (strict construction against grantee) is plainly applicable to this case; and when applied, we think it 1s clear that the Territory acquired nothing under the act of Congress set up in the answer but a mere naked trust or power to dispose of the lands in the manner therein specified, and to apply the same to the use and purpose therein described. Suppose it to he so, then it 1s not controverted that Congress could at any time repeal the act creating the trust, if not executed, and withdraw the power.”