A174 His policies, without a doubt, will be the Truman-Byrnes policies. Throughout all the war years it was Gen- eral Marshall who made American military policy fit into ths complicated picture of a war that was fought on three continents and on the islands of the seven seas. He and the United States Army were dominant among the forces of all the Allied Powers in wartime. Since the war he has taken the China as- aignment, a much tougher job in a smaller sphere than Byrnes had. No, George Mar- shall didn't bring Chiang Kai-shek and the Chinese Communists together. Is there a human being on earth who could? Just as Jimmy Byrnes refused to let the career men of the State Department live his life for him, so we believe will George Mashall quickly teach the traditional spats-and- striped-pants boys that he 1s going to run the State Department, with their help and not on their sufferance. Nearly every time the chips have been down, the United States has come up with a leadership that sometimes seemed to ma- terialize out of nowhere. We had a Wash- ington in our Revolution, a Jackson when the first industrial economic pains hit us, a Lin- coln for the Civil War, a Roosevelt to end our great depression and win World War II. We seem to have been a fortunate Nation as Well as a great one. We were lucky to find a@ Byrnes when our State Department was saturated with second-raters at Franklin Roosevelt’s death and he was no longer here to run it. We're fortunate now to have a George Marshall. [From the Philadelphia (Pa.) Bulletin of January 8, 1947] 4A GREAT SECRETARY GOES It is on the record in correspondence dis- closed at the White House that Secretary Byrnes had since last April been doing his exacting work at Washington, Paris, and New York in flat disregard of medical counsel. It adds to the American people's appreciation of the great services Mr. Byrnes has rendered to know that it was at the risk of a physical break-down that he labored day and night to perform his exacting task. Senator VANDENBERG’s tribute to the retir- ing head of the State Department, testifying that he has been an able, courageous, effective Secretary in the best American tradition, well expresses what the country feels. Our rela- tions with Russia today show, despite re- maining stresses and tensions, an improve- ment, compared with conditions last winter that would have seemed almost incredible at many times in the intervening months. Mr. Byrnes’ policy of mixing friendliness with firmness, of making no concessions on essential principles, has amply vindicated itself. The country has assurance that the Presi- dent intends that the same policy shall be adhered to throughout the coming months. Of the ability, courage, and sound Amer- icanism of General Marshall, who will take over, there can be no question. In the se- lection of a head of the State Department at this time the fact that the man chosen would stand first in line of succession to the Presi- dency could ant be ignored. There need be no fear that General Marshall will not meas- ure up to any responsibilities the future holds in store for him. {From the Baltimore (Md.) Evening Sun of January 8, 1947] MARSHALL SUCCEEDS BYRNES Secretary Byrnes’ decision to retire brings the third change in the leadership of the State Department since the 1944 elections. First, Mr. Hull stepped out because of his health, His successor, Mr. Stettinius, re- signed in July 1945. And now Mr. Byrnes, who succeeded Mr. Stettinius, himself gives way on the advice of his physicians to Gen- eral Marshall. The retiring Secretary leaves behind him & record of growth and achievement. Pres- ident Truman had given him a wider discre- tion than President Roosevelt had allowed to either Mr. Hull or Mr. Stettinius. Coming to the office without experience in international negotiation and with no great background in world affairs, Mr. Byrnes has developed in the way an able man conscious of great re- sponsibilities might be expected to develop. He has shown great patience and tact as a negotiator and has acquired an extensive knowledge of the field in which he operated. He has not always carried his point. What negotiator could expect to do that? But he has managed to round out the work of peace- making with the German satellite states, and has at the same time laid the groundwork for the larger settlement with Germany. It is unfortunate that his resignation deprives us of the experience he has gained in a year and a half of almost continuous negotiation. Any successor must of necessity spend a great deal of time in acquiring what Mr. Byrnes has acquired. But if Mr. Byrnes had to resign, General Marshall fs, of all possible successors, the one likely to suffer least from this handicap. As chief of staff during the war, General Marshall was in on all the conferences of the Big Three. He has been in the field as an executant of foreign policy for more than @ year in China. His work in China has not been crowned with the success he sought, but who can doubt its competence? Cer- tainly he had unusual opportunities for ob- serving Russian policy while he was in the Far East, and it will be with Russia that he will have to conduct most of the nego- tiations concerning the German and Austrian treaties, which will constitute his first as- signment as Secretary of State. As for the British, he was in intimate touch with them throughout his tenure as chief of staff. There is one further point at which Gen- eral Marshal] promises to measure up to the standard set by his predecessor. Because of his long service in the House and Senate, Mr. Byrnes was as well equipped as Secretary Hull had been to deal with congressional committees on foreign policy. His ability to work with Senators CoNNALLY and VAN- DENBERG was one of the elements in the suc- cess of the bipartisan approach to foreign policy. General Marshall also enjoys the confidence of congressional leaders. This ‘was demonstrated repeatedly during the war. Now, as he takes over at the State Depart- ment, his congressional support will lend great promise to his work as a negotiator and as a prime figure in the bipartisan policy, the continuance of which is essential. General Marshall is, to be sure, an Army man, and Army men are not always accept- able in civilian offices. This reservation is less important in his case, however, than it would be with most generals. He has al- ways been the military statesman rather than the glamorous man in uniform. He has com- manded confidence not because he was a romantic figure, but because of his solid abilities. It is these solid abilities which have brought about his appointment to suc- ceed Mr. Byrnes, just as they occasioned his appointment to the China mission. In a word, the departure of Mr. Byrnes is regrettable, but there is every reason to believe that one good man has been replaced by another, [From the Los Angeles (Calif.) Times of January 8, 1947] BYRNES OUT, MARSHALL IN Although Secretary of State James F. Byrnes’ successor is one of the most dis- tinguished of Americans, the resignation of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the man who with patience and firmness stopped the expansion of Russia will cause regret, even dismay, in the United States and in those parts of Europe which are freer and easier because of his labors. When Mr. Byrnes, a United States Senator from South Carolina, a Supreme Court Jus- tice, an “assistant President,” and then a Secretary of State, took the last office, there were some misgivings. It was recalled that when he was in the Senate his eminence was attributed to his flair for compromise; he was called a fixer. After he returned from Mos- cow in December 1945, the misgivings grew. He had talked to Stalin, but it seemed that his talent as a senatorial compromiser failed him at the Kremlin. The Russians were unlike United States Senators; they thought & concession was a sign of weakness. But Mr. Byrnes learned quickly. At the first United Nations meeting in London in January 1946, he was bewildered by the Russian double cross. Molotov was very rough. Conciliation and appeasement did not work with the Russians any better than they had worked with the Nazis. So Mr. Byrnes and Senator VANDENBERG got to- gether and wedded patience with firmness. Assured of bipartisan support through the prestige of Senator VANDENBERG, Mr. Byrnes started to get things done. He engineered the 21-nation peace confer- ence in Paris and skillfully used it as a sounding board to answer the Russian propa- ganda. And he gained great prestige by insisting, over the objections of Molotov and his entourage, that the smaller nations be heard. He could be as sharp as Molotov and as stubborn. His stock began to climb. When he wrote the note to Tito after the Yugoslavs shot down the American fiyers, the opposition knew that the United States was not in a dilettante mood on European affairs, Then Mr. Byrnes made his great speech at Stuttgart on the unification of Germany, and that is likely to become known as the most notable document of the reconstruction era. By this time Mr. Byrnes had thoroughly convinced the men of the Kremlin that an American concession had not been a sign of weakness. The Russians backed down. As Mr. Byrnes finished his year of 1946 he could take satisfaction in his accomplishments: he had saved Trieste from Tito'’s Reds and kept a Russian squadron out of the Adriatic Sea; he had reduced the pressure on the Dar- danelles; he had aborted the Russian attempt to set up a satelite state in Azerbaijan; he had won a Russian agreement to discuss peace treaties with Germany and Austria; he had wangied the American disarmament res- olution through the UN Assembly in New York. As he resigned he left the peace treaties with the five German satellites ready for signature by his successor. The United States had never had a Secre- tary of State who did so much for his coun- try in so little time when time was short. And the world had rarely seen a man who in @ year raised a reputation from so low a point to one so high. The hopes of all free- dom-loving Europeans resided in him as they did for a little while in Woodrow Wilson 27 years ago. And the regenerated German Nation of the future may bless him. His defect as a Secretary of State was that he was really not the Secretary of State at all, While he was holding th: Russians at bay in person—enough of a task for any man—he could not guide his Department in addressing the affairs of the rest of the world. This can be inferred from President Tru- man’s statement on foreign affairs in his message on the state of the Union. Mr. Tru- man reviewed those things that had been done vis-a-vis the Russians, but made no mention of what should be done, or might be done, in the Near East, the Middle East, the Far East, or Latin America.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD It is possible that the new Secretary of State, Gen. George C. Marshall, will mend these gaps in our foreign policy. His expe- rience tn China, whence he is now returning, surely has made him aware of the shortcom- ings of our policy in that quarter. His vale- dictory statement on Chinese affairs, calling down a plague on the House of Kuomintang and the House of Yenan, also, indicates that he knowe what is needed. General Marshall failed in his mission to Ohina, but his was an honorable failure which redounced to his credit. The Chinese fac- tions which he could not reconcile recognized that he was a great man while they rebuffed him. As the wartime Chief of Staff he earned a world-wide reputation. Presiient Truman called him the greatest military man this country has ever produced, and a great many of Mr. Truman's fellow Americans may agrce with him. His labors as Chief of Staff fit him admirably for the task of pulling the State Department together, for he has a pre- eminent gift for organization. It is not likely that he will spend as much time in the field as Mr. Byrnes did, although he certainly will go to Moscow in March in Mr. Byrnes’ place. That will be a mecting of foreign min- isters, rnd it would de taken ill. espectally in the Kremlin, if the American Foreign din- ister sent a deputy. It would be enlightening to know the thoughts in Moscow as the news is received of the American change. The Russians know the temper of General Marshail after watch- ing near at hand his adventure in China. They may wonder if there is any significance in the appointment of the greatest military man this country has ever producec as the Secretary of Stute. [From the Detroit (Mich.) News of January 9, 1947| WELL DONE. MR. BYRNES! James F. Byrnes retires from office assurcd of the gratitude and affection of his fellow citizens. He has been a great Secretary of State, as history unquestionably will record. He won that distinction in a service of only 18 months, but these were 18 difficult months in which a great war ended and an American foreign policy had to be devised and oriented to the developing, and in large measure unexpected, conditions of the peace. The chief new condition he had to facc was the revelation by events of an unex- pected ambition and aggressiveness in the postwar diplomacy of Russia. The policy of firmness and patience, with which he met that problem, is itself hardly more than a year old. The Stuttgart speech, in which Byrnes told the world that this country was in Germany for as long as the necessities of achieving peace and democracy in Europe might require, was delivered last September. But in the intervening period the policy thus launched had achieved a diplomatic equilibrium with Russia, which, at this writ- ing, appears to hold more promise of lasting world peace than had been visible at any time since the war ended. This policy was largely the personal work of the Secretary of State. The President, of course, was ultimately responsible, but wise- ly conceded the initiative to Byrnes, who, in turn, had the wisdom to welcome gratefully the able collaboration of Senator VANDENBERG. No small part, indeed, of Byrnes’ service to the Nation has been his contribution, with VANDENBERG, to the achievement of an un- precedented bipartisanship in the originat- ing and carrying out of foreign policy. The country has been fortunate to have had available to head the Department of State during these crucial 18 months a man of Byrnes’ special qualifications. He was new to diplomacy, as moet Americans must be who assume this post, but he learned fast and proved to have the qualities of statesman- ship. He has been both an able negotiator and a leader, able to mobilize popular support behind his policies, He matched ability with devotion. During the past 6 months he has continued with his arduous duties under his doctor’s warning that only rest might save his life. He per- sisted until, with the stage set for the Ger- man treaty negotiations, he felt he might turn over the responsibility to a successor. Well done, Jimmy Byrnes. x [From the Chicago (Ill.) Daily News of January 8, 1947] ONE GREAT MAN FOLLOWS ANOTHER AS SECETARY OF STATE One great American succeeds another as Secretary of State. James F. Byrnes, Who resigned, has earned his title to grentness in that office. Under most dificult circumstances, after an un- certain beginring, he finally hammered out an American foreign policy that the world recognizes and respects. His own people sup- port this policy almost unanimously, This achievement overshadows all of Byrnes’ previous career as Senator, Supreme Court Justice, and “war mobilizer.” President Roosevelt had made "'yrnes’ task extremely difficult, almost impossible. Roosevelt had been his own Stute Depart- ment. He had run the war with lttle thought as to the diplomatic problems that would tollow victory. He shaped our fighting strategy with no consideration as to its effect On the bases of power and influence in the postwar world. Believing tt would hasten victory, he al- ‘owed Stalin to dictate where we should fight und where ve should wot. Stalin, how- ever, considered every move in relation to the aggrandizemcnt of the Soviet Empire and the extension of its influence. Though this policy had been intended to speed the end of fighting, at the end in Europe it delayed pence. We halted our advance and sat on our weapons While we waited for Stalin to complete his promiscd conquests. When Byrnes became Secretary of State, he confronted the physical results of this policy. Neither he nor any other living man knew all that had gone on in Roosevelt's mind. He could not know for certain what had transpired in Roosevelt's conversatians with Churchill, Stalin, and lesser heads of states, including the Arabian. The Depart- ment did not have the records. Pe. aps Roosevelt believed the United Nations could rectify all frontiers, including the Russian; could safeguard democracy even on the soil occupied by the Red dictator's armies. Byrnes confronted the fact of a vast in- crease in the territory, power, and influence of the Communist dictatorship both in Europe and Asia, threatening the vestiges of democraty, capitalism, and liberty on both continents. It was not possible for peaceful diplomacy to roll back the Communist conquests. But when the Russians resumed the march, press- ing forward on many fronts, Byrnes deter- mined to bring them to a halt. He made a stand on the goal line of western civilization and the line held. . In the midst of this effort, he was cruelly betrayed by treachery in the Cabinet, treach- ery that President Truman appeared mo- mentarily to approve. When Truman re- canted his approval of Henry Wallace's stab in the back, Byrnes ly continued his labors for the President who had been dis- loyal to him, Byrnes was already tired from the struggle, and the manifest ingratitude and stupidity A175 of his Chief must have made the burden heavier than ever. Though his resignation had been the sub- ject of much speculation, it came finally as & surprise. General Marshall has won acclaim as one of the great men of his age through his conduct of the war. As United States Chief of Staff, he really exercised the chief in- fluence on both American and British strat- egy. There is an element of irony in the fact that he must now assume responsibility for the diplomatic problems that resulted in part from the plans he fostered and ap- proved. While Roosevelt was acting as his own for- eign minister, high military commanders had more to do with the toreign relations that really counted than did the civilians in the State Department. Men like Marshall, Eisen- hower, MacArthur, Walter Bedell Smith learned the business of diplomacy through practice. . The State Department, none too rich in talent, did not have the opportunity tu de- velop leadership from its own ranks. The morale of subordinates has been undermined by rapid chunges in the leadership of the Department. Marshall will be the fourth Sec- retary to serve in a little more than 2 yeurs. Recently he has been struggling with the most difficult task of all—the attempt to reconcile the Chinese nationnlists with the Communist revolutionaries. He has not suc- ceeded, for reasons he stated yesterday with eloquent candor. Yet this lack of succes;— under the circumstunces it does not deserve the name of fullure—has not diminished his prestige. Bernard Baruch has just resigned the post from which he directed the Nation's policy regarding control of atumic weapons. There js risk that his resignation, coupled with Byrnes’, may be interpreted abroad us u weak- ening of American support for the American policy. If su we believe the inverpretation will prove false. We regret the departure of both men. But we rejoice that su wise, unselfish, and pa- triotic a man as General Marsisll is available to head the State Department. In one respect his recent experience may strengthen our position. He will certatnly Give to Asiatic affairs thei: due share ot importance. Byrnes had been deeply, and necessarily, involved almost entirely in Eu- ropean problems. This may account in part for the flabbiness of our behavior over the incident at Dairen. With no Vice President in office, Marshall would succeed to the Presidency if the Pres!- dent died. He is big enough for the job Politicians will begin to think of him as an elective successor to the Presidency if Tru- man decides not to run again. We do not believe political ambition prompted him to accept the post. He 15 66 years ald. He, too, is a man tired from heroic labors for his country. The Nation ts grateful to him for the serv- ices he already has performed and equally grateful to him for accepting the new call tu duty. Displaced Jews im Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WAYNE MORSE OF OREGON IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, January 15, 1947 Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
A176 Appendix of the Recorp a very informa- tive address delivered by Rabbi Philip S. Bernstein, adviser to Gens. Joseph T. McNarney and Mark Clark, in New York City on October 1, 1946. I have an estimate from the Public Printer which indicates that the cost of printing the address will be $270. Not- withstanding the estimated cost, I re- gard the address to be so worth while as to justify the expense, and I make the request for its printing. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: At the outset, I wish to express appreciation to my predecessor, Judge Simon H. Rifkind, who left a heritage of respect and sound poll- cies which have made my task much less difi- cult than it might have been. In some ways, the problems have changed since his depar- ture, In his final report, he stated that there were a hundred thousand Jewish displaced persons in Europe. Tonight I report that there are over 200,000. He was dealing largely with the men and women recently liberated from German concentration camps. Today the majority consists of recent infiltrees from eastern Europe. However, although the basic problems are in some respects different and greater, the basic policies which Judge Rif- Kind helped to establish should be and are the same. The solid foundation laid by him has made it easier to build the subsequent superstruc- ture of care. I take this occasion also to express public appreciation to my own congregation, Temple B'rith Kodesh, Rochester, N. Y., for its under- standing cooperation and generosity. For 4 years now I have been its absentee rabbi, most of that time directing the Jewish relig- jous program for the armed forces and more recently as adviser of the United States com- manders in Germany and Austria. And now again at the request of the Secretary of War they have granted me a further leave of ab- sence to carry on this important undertaking. I cannot find words adequate to express my gratitude for their loyalty and on-going help- fulness. I wish to pay public tribute to the high- level United States governmental authorities who have had some direct association with my responsibilities in Europe. The President of the United States, the Department of State, and the Department of War, have steadily maintained a sympathetic, humanitarian at- titude toward the Jewish displaced persons. Under their direct responsibility, the borders of the United States zone in Germany and the United States in Austria have remained open to those of our people fleeing from per- secution in eastern. | . Their policies have been humanely and effectively impile- mented by the commanding generals of Ger- many and Austria, Gen. Joseph T. McNarney and Gen. Mark Clark. They have done more than implement policies from Washington. They have helped to fashion such policies as would give the maximum help and impose the minimur hardship. The United States governmental authorities, civilian and mili- tary together, have in my opinion, given the world the outstanding example of practical humanitarianism in this sorry postwar period. And now I offer both an expression of ap- preciation and a report to the five major Jewish organizations who were originally consulted about my appointment and who are recognized as having the principal re- sponsibility in matters affecting the Jewish displaced persons in Europe. I refer to the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Conference, the American Joint Dis- - tribution Committee, the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and the World Jewish Congress, Before I left for Europe, I called together the . procedures and disciplines. _ American GI finds it dificult to understand heads of these organizations and said, “There will be occasions when I will need the help and guidance of the organized Jewish com- munity. There may be times when I will have to convey information and counsel to the Jewish community. I cannot and will not deal with disparate and perhaps confiict- ing groups on such delicate and urgent mat- ters. In this, at least, there must be unity.” It is gratifying to report that so far as my re- sponsibilities are concerned, there has been unbroken working unity ever since. I in- formed the Secretaries of State and War as well as the theater commanders in Europe of my working relationship with these organiza- tions. They agreed that full consultation and cooperation were necessary to sustain the morale and the physical well-being of the Jewish displaced persons. They appreciate the understanding, the assistance, and the functioning unity of these Jewish organiza- tions and trust that it will continue at least as long as the need exists. My hope goes be- yond that point. I trust that this unified effort is thepromise, the symbol, and the pat. tern of a united Jewry in the years to come. I wish to report also an increasing under- standing in the relations between the United States Army and the Jewish community with reference to the displaced persons in Europe. For various reasons, for which it would serve no good purpose to recapitulate at this time, there was a period of criticism, irritation, and tension. The great disappointment of the Jews that displaced persons were still in camps in Europe somehow seemed to channel itself against those who were taking care of them and who also, I must add were equally disappointed that their charges had not been resettled elsewhere. In any event, that pe- riod has passed. Responsible Jewry knows now how indebted Jews are to the United States Army. On the other hand, the pro- motion of contracts between high military authorities and responsible Jewish leader- ship has increased the understanding, the appreciation and the dependence of the mili- tary in relation to these Jewish groups. Let us look now at the relations between the military and the Jewish displaced per- sons themselves. I wish to state, in the first place, that the basic policies of USFET and USFA are excellent. Generals McNarney and Clark continue to grant haven to Jewish persecutees. They continue to maintain a differential in food, housing, and care favor- able to the victims of Nagi persecution. They grant exemption to Jews from the pressure applied to other displaced persons to return to their countries of origin, fully recognizing the inhumanity of such a pro- gram for our people. They exclude Jews from all “no work, no eat” proposals. They give every possible assistance to the establish- ment of an adequate religious life among the displaced persons. Despite acute food shortages and the special problems of sup- ply onused by the shipping atrike, they granted extra rations to the Jews for the high holidays. In a communication which has just come to me from Frankfort, it is stated that the Army will not permit the Jews to pay for the publication of the talmud in Germany, which has recently been ap- proved. We felt that it would be an ap- propriate historic gesture and an eternal answer to Nazi book-burning to have the schass published by the displaced persons in Germany and were ready to arrange for its financing out of Jewish funds. USFET headquarters, I now learn, fs ready to make the paper and printing available out of its resources, consistent with its program of providing religious materials for displaced persons, ' The top policies are excellent. The prob- lems arise in the field, The displaced persons are not accustomed to American military The young APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the displaced person. His way of thinking, his behavior patterns are foreign to him. As time passes, the displaced persons become in- creasingly burdensome to those who are re- sponsible for their care. There is unaoubt- edly a subtle, unhealthy German influence which is probably growing. To counteract the effects of these factors and to reduce undesirable tension to a min- imum, we have undertaken a program of edu- cation and interpretation. I prepared an article on the Jewish displaced persons which appeared in three issues of the Stars and Stripes, the Army publication read by the military in Germany and Austria. It was also published in all of the unit newspapers and magazines and was distributed by the Information and Education Branch of USFET. In actual effect, therefore, this in- terpretation of the Jewish displaced persons was brought directly to the attention of the officers and enlisted men who are likely to have contact with them. There has been a similar effort to interpret American military policies and procedures through the Jewish chaplains, the central committee of liberated Jews, and the Jewish voluntary agencies. For example, when we found that inoidents were developing on trains carrying large numbers of displaced persons from Austria to Germany because there was no adequate Maison between American personnel who is- sued orders in English and the displaced per- sons Who failed to obey them in Yiddish, we arranged for Jewish chaplains to accompany these trains. At the point of origin they explained American military policies and pro- cedures. They related the contribution the Army is making toward the saving of Polish Jewry. They shared the hardships and pri- vations of the people on journeys of 2 or 3 days in boxcars, and then stayed in new camps for a day or two to help in the process of orientation. Our staff hes made an analysis of the inci- dents that have occurred since January 1, 1946, and on the basis thereof has prepared @ list of “do’s and don'ts” for the Army and for the displaced persons, pointing out con- cretely the things to avoid in order to reduce and perhaps eliminate unpleasant incidents. One cannot generalize about the total rela- tionship of GI and DP. In some places the Jews pay the highest tribute to the under- standing and helpfulness of the American military in their area. In other places there fs much criticism. We are doing what we can to obviate the difficulties and are receiv- ing the fullest cooperation from the high- level military authorities. The relationship between the Jews and the Germans is paradoxtcal. The studies made of German attitudes indicate no basic changes. I have seen nothing to prove that the Germans regret their anti-Semitism. They may regret the effects of it on world opinion. They may think that the Nazis were too crude in their techniques of perse- eution and extermination, just as most of them seem to regret only that Hitler lost the war, not that he started it. But they remain anti-Semitic. The Jews likewise regard the Germans, who despoiled them and murdered their families, with an unforgiving hatred. One might expect this combination of un- forgiving hatred and wunregenerate anti- Semitism to lead to grave friction. Actually, it does not. In many camps and centers the Jews live peaceably side by side with the Germans. Outbreaks of antagonism between them are rare, marginal rather than general. They may seem more general because it is the sensational isolated incident which is featured by the press, whereas the daily, quiet living together never makes the headlines. However, they do live together for the most part in an unbroken though uneasy peace. Some Germans are employed in Jewish camps even as vocational instructors. In a recent
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD incident in a camp near Munich the Jews actually took under their wing the German employees of the camp, not as hostages, as Was erroneously reported in the newspapers, but for their protection until the excitement was calmed down. Such incidents as have occurred were due for the most part to the use of German po- lice in or near Jewish camps. Before his departure, Judge Rifkind asked for discon- tinuance of such practices in the camps. His recommendation at the time was not ap- Proved because of the reduction of American military personnel. However, subsequent incidents and continued interpretation have brought about the elimination of German police from Jewish camps. They have not as yet, however, brought about the exclusion of German police from the neighboring areas of Jewish camps. I must state in explana- tion of the Army’s reluctance to take this step that: (a) There are not enough American troops in United States Zone in Germany for polic- ing purposes, , (b) Under the circumstances and because of larger policy, the Army finds it desirable to utilize Germans for German police pur- poses, | (c) If German police are pursuing actual or alleged law-breakers on a German road, their task would be made difficult, if not impossible, by the establishment, let us say, of a three-mile limit around Jewish camps. Nevertheless, we have recommended that German police be excluded from the con- tiguous area and this is receiving considera- tion from the appropriate authorities. . Much could be said about the internal conditions among the displaced Jews. How- ever, for the purpose of this report, let the following brief summary suffice. In the first place, we sought to build up a sense of responsibility, dignity and status among the DP's. This took shape in the Official recognition by General McNarney of the Central Committee of Liberated Jews. Hitler had outlawed Jewish communities from Europe and announced that he had forever destroyed them. The American Com- mander gave historic answer by granting legal recognition to a Jewish community within Germany itself. Even though, as we hope, this community will not long endure in Germany. as a gesture and as a symbol it is of profound significance. I wish you could have been present with me at the luncheon that General McNarney tendered in the Yankee Doodle Room of the Casino in Frankfort to the officers of the central committee. These Jews, so recently freed from concentration camps, still bearing upon their arms and upon their souls the marks of their persecutors, still having some excuse because of their experience with Nazis in uniform to question the intentions of any- one in uniform, conducting themselves as equals, with dignity, with propriety and with self-respect. The Army is now preparing to give them @ larger measure of responsibility in the administration of their own affairs, It calls on them to give orientation to the newcom- ers. It relies on them to help maintain law and order. On the other hand it is antici- pated that the military authorities will not obstruct them but will assist them in keep- ing constantly before the world the simple fact that their basic problem of resettle- ment has not been solved. I am pleased to report that on the occasion of its formal recognition, the committee brought to General McNarney the organized will of the Jewish displaced persons to work. This has been a difficult and complicated problem. The survivors of the concentration camps had neither the strength nor the will to work. Certainly they would not work for the German economy Through the months this unreadiness to work became almost a fixation, a kind of group psychosis. It exer- XOIlI—App.——12 cised a profound demoralizing influence. Steadily there has developed a healthy change. At present a substantial percentage of the employable Jews actually do some work in the administration of thelr own camps. The time has now come, they reported to General McNarney, when they are ready to go further. They are prepared now to do any work for the needs of displaced persons, non-Jewish as well as Jewish, for the Army and for its dependents, and for UNRRA, but not for the German economy. We are en- gaged now in planning for a realistic work program, which is extremely difficult because of problems of materials, machinery, financ- ing, and so forth. With the approval of the Secretary of War, I am at this time engaged in securing experts to come to Germany to set up such a program. In this connection, I wish to state that the recent infiltrees have contributed some- thing new to the total picture. Unlike the earlier displaced persons directly liberated from concentration camps, most of the new- Comers are from Russia, whither they fled before the advancing Nazi armies. They are not the products of the abnormalities of the concentration camps. They are accustomed to hard work. It would be a great pity if their capacity and will to work were to be dissipated. We shall do everything possible to prevent this. it became clear early in our experience that the problems of Jewish property restitution were too complex for a rabbi. We recom- mended to General McNarney and General Clay that a recognized Jewish expert be at- tached to thc military government staff to handle it. The recommendation was ac- cepted, the Jewish organizations were con- sulted, and a distinguished attorney with long legislative and governmental experience was appointed. Mr. Max Lowenthal is now engaged in this dificult and complex under- taking. The largest single problem that confronted us was the infiltration from Poland, which in a short time doubled the Jewish displaced persons population in Germany and Aus- tria. Even before the Kielce pogrom, the robbing, beating and killing of Jews in Poland had increased the flow of those seek- ing safety in our zone. On the 4th of July @& maddened mob of Poles gathered outside the Jewish Community House in Kielce and demanded the blood of the Jews. No one protected the Jews. No one helped them. The church authorities refusec to lift a fin- ger. The police either turned their backs or participated with the mob. The local gov- ernment was either helpless or indifferent, and it was only after 42 of these people, many of them the fine, young comrades of the Kibbitz, had been beaten to death, and many more severely, some fatally, wounded, that the national government effectively intervened and put a atop to the pogrom. The Polish Jews who were coming back from Russia hoping to get back some of their families’ possessions or property, had immediately learned that even when the law granted them restitution it was nullified by a letter from the Polish Fascist forces threatening their lives if they attempted to claim their rights. Polish anti-Semitism was as old as Polish history At regular intervals, it erupted into pogroms. The Easter season left no Jews free from a sense of fear. The old lies of Christ-killing and blood-letting were incul- cated in the churches and disseminated therefrom. Then the Poles learned some new things from the Nazis. They were given instructions and authorization to extermi- nate Jews. The more than 90 percent of Polish Jewry who were murdered during the Nazi regime actually perished, for the most part, at the hands of Poles working under German orders rather than at the hands of the Nazis themselves, The dis- Al77 turbed postwar conditions in Poland pro- duced tensions and frictions of which the Jews were made the scapegoat. The Commu- nist-dominated government is unpopular with the majority of the Polish people and in particular with the articulate, well-organ- ized Polish groups which are also anti-Se- mitic. The Jews were ground between the upper and lower millstones. The Kielce pogrom was the logical outcome of these conditions, Not long thereafter, I managed to get into Poland. I wanted to see with my own eyes the conditions which the refugees were re- porting to me. I desired to exercise, if pos- sible, some restraining influence on Polish anti-Semitism. And officially I was inter- ested in bringing back to General McNarney & realistic analysis of the problems and needs that were likely to confront him as Com- mander of the United States Forces in Eu- rope. I visited the larger centers of Jewish life in that country, including Warsaw and Lodz. I went then to lower Silesia where the gov- ernment had undertaken an interesting ex- periment in repatriating Jews, giving them the housing, farm lands, heavy industry jobs, and some of the businesses that had been formerly the possession of the Germans who had been expelled. I visited the repatriation centers into which flowed the tens of thou- sands of Jews coming back out of Russia whither the German armies had driven them. They returned to Poland with high hopes of finding some of their loved ones, of re- covering some of their possessions, of re- establishing their lives in their former home- land. But on all counts they found them- selves doomed to frustration and despair. Most of them decided to leave Poland, and no one was able to convince a single Jew to wait or remain in Poland who had reached the conclusion that his life was no longer safe there; that neither he nor his family had any future there. I could understand their feelings. I was drawn to the Polish ghetto as with a dark fascination. It is the last word in desola- tion and sorrow. Except for an empty, un- used church on the very edge of it, an apt symbol I thought of the ineffectuality of Christianity in preventing or mitigating the most un-Christian barbarism of all time, the ghetto is a vast sea of rubble. Every house, every building was systematically destroyed. There is a strange, weird, deathly silence about the area. Nothing living stirs in it. No traffic passes through it. The only peo- ple you see are the human vultures, the poor Poles who dig about in the ruins searching for money and valuables which Jews buried, hoping vainly to return from the camps where they were exterminated. I stood at the quiet, unused railroad siding at which each day Jews were loaded into locked box cars, and carried to the extermination cham- bers at Auschwitz and Treblinka. There is a memorial to the ghetto resist- ance. But, much more poignant were the unmeant memorials. The little heaps of bone fragments, the belt buckles, the uten- sils which the victims wore or used before they were killed. The stench of death was still in the air. I could easily see why the Jews would want to leave Poland. Every stone cried aloud of the blood of their loved ones. The very people with whom they were now being asked to help rebuild Poland were those who had helped to destroy their families. A rabbi in the Polish Army said to me, “I loathe this uniform. These Poles killed my wife and two children, I will stay here only long enough to help the survivors to escape.” In the hospital in Lodz I called upon those who had lived through the Kielce pogrom. For some it was only a temporary respite from death. One man, Sokolowsky, was dy- ing before my eyes from a crushed spine,
A178 Another, dreadfully wounded, kept asking for his wife. Because his own life hung in the balance, they told him she was in another hospital, but they told me she was dead, murdered by the pogromists. One woman, whose body had been pounded out of human shape, told me how miraculously she and her husband had survived the war and the Nazi concentration camps. They had been sep- arated by a thousand miles but managed, as if drawn by a magnet of love, to find each other when the holocaust had passed and now with a new-born child had settled in Kielce when the pogrom struck and her hus- band was slain. There was a certain almost objective be- wilderment and horror with which these people described what had happened to them. They just could not understand how other human beings could hate them so, There had never been any personal difi- culties between these Jews and their attack- ers. Most of them in fact had but recently come to Kielce and were known to be on their way to other places. They described how their attackers, including women and children, had used bricks and rocks, clubs, pieces of iron and steel, and had concen- trated particularly in attacks upon their heads and genital organs, so that most of the dead were beaten into unrecognigability. Only the concentration camp numbers on their arms testified to their identity. Yes; I could understand why the Kielce pogrom deprived the Jews of Poland of what- ever scnse of security they had formerly possessed. And then I saw them on the move. Per- haps in some ways, this was worst of all. Together with the Christian Poles they had been persecuted and despoiled by the Nazis and their families had been murdered. To- gether with the Poles they had yearned, lived, and fought for the liberation of their coun- try and of al! Europe, and now they had to run away from Poland. Tragedy com- pounded, disillusion without end! On the way to the points in lower Silesia from which the movement started which brought them eventually to the United States Zone, Ger- many, they were again beaten, robbed and some of them were killed. They were gath- ered in shelters near the border where they lay on the floors, no beds, no pillows to rest their heads on; and in some cases, no food, for everything was taken from them. Like criminals, they had to steal out at night. As one of them said to me, “Apparently we are criminals. Our crime is that we are Jews.” I saw them crowded into trucks, 58 by actual count in one truck, men, women, and children, the old, the infirm, and the sick, the pregnant women and little babies, each allowed space only for such possessions as could be carried in a small bag or a brief- case, and again on the way to the borders their last possessions were stolen from them. If they couldn’t pay the bribes demanded by the petty Polish officicls, sometimes they would be thrown into jail. The crowning indignity was their inahility to be trans- ported across the border by vehicle. They were dumped unceremoniously some distance east of the border and then had to walk with their possessions and children and ail- ments over the frontier to Czechoslovakia where they received more humane care but were expeditiously moved on their way out of the country. Before I left Poland, I was able to do two things for these people. For the survivors of the Kielce pogrom, I was able to secure from the Jewish agency a commitment for the earliest possible shipment to Palestine of these survivors, when they could move. I met with the Prime Minister of Poland who quite genuinely, 1n my opinion, proclaimed his Government's good will toward the Jews and its opposition to anti-Semitism. However, particularly since the Kielce pogrom, they felt they had no right to insist that the Jews remain in Poland. I asked him then why, if his government permitted the Jews to depart, they were also allowing the soldiers and petty officials to rob, beat, and extort bribes from them as they were leaving. He promised to try to correct this, and subsequent reports indicated that he kept his promise—that the outward movements thereafter were pro- tected by the government, that they took place in daylight, not at night, and that the people, apart from the dangers they were flee- ing and the uncertainties to which they were going, at least were reasonably safe in the process of moving. But these were minor matters compsred with the great tasks confronting us. For it was perfectly plain to me that most of the 160,000 Jews in Poland were on the move and that their immediate destination was the United States Zone in Germany. Yes, they were on the move. On one night alone, ac- cording to a telephone message from Prague, 3,900 people crossed the border. Can you begin to visualize the problems of reception, housing, feeding, care, medical attention, clothing, as well as the longer range needs of education, work, roligious life? Until the middle of Beptember there was no day when fewer than 1,000 came our way. At this point, I say, “Thank God for the United States Army.’ The United States Army alone has given shelter and care to the great numbers of our people fleeing from eastern Europe out of fear and desperation. I flew back from Poland to my headquarters in Frankfort and reported to General Mc- Narney. I told him that 60,000 Jews would be fleein oland between August 1 and October 8fand most of them in the first 6 weeks, end that another 40,000 would prob- ably come out over the winter. leaving per- haps 60,000 who were planning to remain in Poland. I recommended to him the con- tinuation of traditional American policy of haven for the persecuted. Similar recom- mendations were conveyed to the President of the United States. Despite pressures to the contrary, despite the critical housing and food shortages of Germany, despite the lack of any clear outiet for these people, the borders were kept open. However, appreciating the problems of the Army, recognizing the fact that, although more than half of the housing in the United States Zone in Germany had been destroyed by bombing, the total population was already 3,000,000 above the prewar level, and hun- dreds of thousands of expelled Germans were yet to be returned to Germany by countries such as Czechoslovakia, which was forcing them out. I took it on myself to attempt to arrange for some dispersal of the flow from Poland. This was something which General McNarney, as United States military com- mander, could not undertake, but which I, with the cooperation of the major Jewish agencies, could properly do. I met first with the leaders of the major Jewish groups who were at that time gathered in Paris for the Peace Conference. We agreed on a program and swung into action. First, Gen. Mark Clark, commander of the United States Forces, Austria, whose adviser I had also become, agreed to raise the level of his settled Jewish displaced persons popu- lation from 5,000 to 80,000. In this, as in all other matters on which we have dealt, he was willingly cooperative. He orders his staff to take the “can-do” attitude on these matters and gives them the example himself. Next, we sought to set up campe for 25,000 Jewish displaced persons in Italy. At first, Mr. LaGuardia, the Director General of UNRRA, declined to assume such responsibil- ity because of UNRRA's intentton to liqui- Gate its affairs, Subsequently, in the com- pany of some of the Jewish leaders, 1 called APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on Mr. LaGuardia, and he agreed to UNRRA's eee responsibility for such camps, pro- viding: 1, The United States State Department would get the consent of the Italian Govern- ment. 2. That the War Department would provide the food for the camps. These were difficult conditions to meet, and even today the program has not been ac- cepted. However, I flew to Italy with General McNarney, and with him discussed the proj- ect with the American and Allied military commanders. I presented it as effectively as I could to the head of the UNRRA mission in Italy and to the Italian Cabinet member responsible for such matters. Finally, I was granted a 45-minute interview with Pope Ptus XII at his summer residence at Gastel Gandolfo. It was a satisfying talk. He sat behind a desk and I sat by its side, and we proceeded from the realms of generalities to the specific matters which were my respon- sibility. I requested certain specific action. He agreed to take it. I now await results. In France we secured temporary visas for a large number of Jews from Poland. They are to be supported by JDC until they can be moved to their ultimate destination, Simi- lar arrangements are now in process for Bel- gium, Holland, and Sweden. I met with the Prime Minister of Czecho- slovakia and urged on him the establishment of camps for 10,000 in his country. He asked if I could get him some guaranty that these Polish Jews would not remain in Czechoslo- vakia. Alas, even in Czechoslovakiu, Jews were fearful lest this project jeopardize their security. They, too, did not want Polish Jews to remain in their country. Once again the United States Army came through. Gen- eral McNarney authorized me to give his per- sonal guaranty to the Czechoslovakian Gov- ernment that on July 1, 1947, if so requested and with 30 days’ notice, he would take these Jews from Czechoslovakia to the United States Zone in Germany. When I left, we were awaiting a defintte answer from Czecho- slovakian Government. Before my departure from Europe we were setting up a plan to settle 2,000 children in a well-equipped, for- mer German camp in Norway where a num- ber of groups, the Norweriun Government, the United States Army, UNRRA, JDC, were assuming combined responsibility. My heart is heavy as I report that not a single government in Europe has been pre- pared to offer more than temporary shelter to these people. In spite of all that these Jews and the others have suffered together at the hands of the Nazis, these Jews are still unwanted, still stigmatized, still ex- cluded from the normalities of life. It has been my difficult task as well as great opportunity and privilege to arrange at least for the physica] safety of these people and for their shelter and care. In spite of all that we are doing for their dispersal, most of them still come to territory controlled by the United States. Coming in such vast numbers before adequate accommodations can be se- cured or gotten ready, there are many diffi- cult problems. The life for the new people is not pleasant. The conditions which con- front them at the beginning are cheerless and discouraging. Their basic problems are still unsolved; but they are safe. When my prede- cessor laid down his responsibilities, he said that there were 100,000 displaced Jews in the occupied countries. Today there are 200,000. In these few months we have saved more Jews from death and despair than per- haps bas ever been accomplished in so short a time in all our tragic history. Let us look ahead at some of the impending probiems and difficulties. The steady reduction of United States mili- tary personnel carries with ft some poteritial dangers to the Jews. For, with the reduction
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of American personnel, it follows that more responsibility in Germany must be borne by German personnel, and the Jews do not trust the Germans, for good reason. The drastic reduction of appropriations to the United States forces in Europe creates some grave problems in the care of the dis- Placed persons, for the displaced persons budget comes out of Army appropriations. If there is not enough money to go around, the displaced persons will feel the shortage as the GI's will, but since they live much closer to the edge, they will feel and suffer the results more keenly. It is not enough for the United States Government to establish and maintain a policy of haven and care to persecutees, but must also provide the Army with necessary funds. All men of good will should do everything in their power to induce the Congress of the United States to give the Army of the United States the funds with which to carry out its responsibilities. If this is not done, there will be increased pressure to lower standards which are al- ready at the minimum. There have been proposals already to eliminate the differential for persecutees. There have been proposals to cut their rations below 2,200 calorics, which allows them little more than coffee and bread and margarine for breakfast; a stew for dinner; coffee, cheese, and crackers for supper. There have been some proposals to place Jewish infiltrees under the administration of German welfare agencies. This would be hateful to Jews. It could not be admin- istered smoothly or effectively. It would be offensive to the World Jewish Community. It would be in violation of basic policies established by the President of the United States, the State and War Departments, and the Theater Commanders. Thus far, these proposals have been re- jected by the responsible military authori- ties, but they continue to hover about the Margins of the situation. So long as the Army does not have enough money to fulfill its responsibilities, we will not be free of the threat of it. It is imperative, I repeat, that every effort be made to induce Congress to give the Army the means with which to do its job. There is another grave danger which is the product of the total situation. It is not only because of reduced personnel and appro- priations that more responsibility and auton- omy are being granted to the Germans but also because of the desire to reestablish the German economy and to reduce the cost of the occupation to the American taxpayer. For the Jews, the implications are not good. It becomes just that much more difficult to take a German house or German farm for displaced persons despite the fact that the Germans robbed the Jews of infinitely more than could ever be taken away from them for this purpose, despite the fact that the Ger- mans are still the beneficiaries of the Jewish property that they confiscated; deapite the fact that the Jews are still homeless in camps while the Germans are reestablishing their national life in their own homes and on their own soil. It is not my province to discuss American foreign policy in the current delicate inter- National situation, but it is my duty to indl- cate the need for the greatest vigilance to protect the elementary rights of the people whom the Germans slew and despoiled. The final danger of which I wish to speak is the threat of demoralization to the dis- placed persons themselves. It is in the na- ture of almost of a miracle that they main- tained their sanity and balance and hope so long and in the face of such obstacles. But how much longer can this go on? And, remember that we are speaking now of the second largest concentration of Jews on the European continent. These displaced per- sons are now exceeded in numbers only by the Jewish population of Rumania. Let me give you the statistics: Jewish displaced persons in United States Zone, Germany---------.. 130, 300 Jewish displaced persons in United States Zone, Austria....-----.--- 33, 901 Jewish displaced persons in British Zone, Germany (approximately). 23, 000 Jewish displaced persons in French Zone, Germany (aprpoximately). 2,000 Jewish displaced persons in British, French Zones in Austria (approx- imately) ...-...----------.-----. . 8,000 Jewish displaced persons unde~ UNRRA in Italy (approximately). 9,000 Jewish displaced persons in France (approximately) --..------------. 7, 000 Jewish displaced persons temporar- ily in European continental coun- tries (approximately) ..---.----- 10, 000 Total___-_--.........------- 218, 201 What needs yet to be done? In the first place, we must give material help on a scale never before required. There are about 1,250,000 Jewish survivors on the European continent, apart from those in the Soviet Union. Nearly a million of them are in need of help. Hundreds of thousands are com- pletely dependent for food, clothing, and shelter on Jewish voluntary relief agencies. The balance get some indispensable, sup- plementary help from them. The Nazis systematically and completely despoiled the Jews. With rare exceptions, they are utterly destitute. There are no indigenous Jewish communities to carry these burdens. Even the elementary pro- gram of rescuing Jewish children must be financed entirely by American funds. Be- cause sO many children were exterminated each child has a thousandfold worth. Most of them have to be ransomed; substantial sums are paid to the non-Jews who kept them tn their homes during the Nazi regime. The movement of the refugees up to this point has had to be financed by Jewish funds. There are way stations where shelter is pro- vided, hot meals are served, clothing is dis- tributed, medical care is available. When you remember that in one night lone 8,900 people crossed the border from Poland to Czechoslovakia, that the average in the past 2 months has exceeded a thou- sand a day, you will have some idea of the cost. Even in Germany and Austria where the United States Army has assumed the prin- cipal burden of care, life would be intolerable for these poor people without the supple- mentary help of the joint distribution com- mittee. In Germany, for example, these displaced persons receive 2,200 calories per day. In Austria the Army is able to pro- vide out of its reduced appropriations only 1,200 calories a day. The diet is not only inadequate but monotonous and dreary. JDC supplements it in both countries so as to maintain health and morale. Our Jewish agencies provide teachers and materials for the education of the surviving children and practical programs for vocational training. They have reestablished a religious life among these people so that they have some- thing to cling to. Material help is therefore a prime neces- sity. The second concerns the United States and has to do with the early resettlement of these people. As I will indicate later, most of them want to go to Palestine. But there are considerable numbers who desire to migrate to the United States. For most of them, the prospects are almost hopeless, Even under the existing quota arrangement, very little has been done to expedite im- A179 migration. A maximum of 3,900 people a month is possible under the reestab- lished quota laws. In actual fact, I have been informed that fewer than 3,900 have entered the United States not in the last month, but in the last 6 months. The whole program is cluttered with red tape. It has never been galvanized into dynamic action. When I was in Poland I learned that despite the Polish quota, not a single visa had yet been issued in Poland. They had not even opened the Consular Office to do this. However, we should go beyond existing im- migration policies. We are the richest coun- try in the world. Our economy has expanded beyond our fondest hopes. There is a grave labor shortage. The acceptance of another 50 or even 100,000 displaced persons into the United States would not adversely affect our social order. Many of these people bring needed skills with them, as for ex- am} le, tailoring, which is very much in de- mand at the present time. Others can create new products. The organized Jewish community through the National Refugee Service provides trans- portation for these people, gives them care on their arrival and offers assurances to our American communities that they will not become a burden. Palestine is the major hope. Over 90 per- cent of these Jewish displaced persons insist on going to Palestine. They don’t want to be pushed around any more. They want to start life on thelr own land and on their own terms—they don't want to be tolerated somewhere else. They don’t want to live in the graveyard of both memory and of hope which Europe has become for them. I can assure you that they will brave every hard- ship and every danger to settle in Palestine. They will not be daunted by Arab terrorism or British obstructionism. For them it is literally Palestine or death. Palestine has had a wonderful effect upon those who have already found a home there. It heals them of their wounds, straightens out their complexes, washes them clean of the scars of the ghetto. They are entitled to this new, free, clean life and they are going to get it. It is my opinion that the United States Government will find it far less costly in money, irritation, and even life to take the positive steps now to resettle these people in Palestine than to temporize. Finally, I wish to say that the treatment of these Jews is the ultimate test of our war and peace aims. It has been the crucial but tragic role of our people to reflect the health of world society. When the bady politic was sick, Jews were persecuted; when men lived in peace and freedom, Jews shared the com- mon blessings. So in our time the Nazi assault upon the Jews, as some of us vainly tried to tell the world 15 years ago, was the prelude that contained the pattern for the attacks upon and for the catastrophe that would yet befall the entire family of nations. It was all there in what happened in the early 1930’s to the Jews of Germany. So will it be again today if the surviving Jews of Europe will be be- trayed or abused or neglected; that will be the pattern, the shape of things to come. But if these, the first and worst victims of the Nazi enemy, who fought hardest and suffered the greatest losses, will be cherished as comrades in a common struggle for human rights and human emancipation, if we will together bind their wounds and hea] their sorrows, if we will stand by their side in their reestablishment as normal, self-respecting human beings, it will be the promise and ultimately the fulfillment of a better day to come for all mankind.
A180 Necessity for Work EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, January 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr.CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “There’s a Four-Letter Word for It,” written by Mr. W. E. Zipp, vice president of the Ceco Stee] Products Corp. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rscorgp. as follows: THERF’S A FOUR-LETTER WORD FOR IT (By W. E. Zipp. vice president, Ceco Steel Products Corp., Chicago, Il.) America has the highest standard of living im the world, but something is happening to it. There is talk of a recesslon—even a depression. We at Ceco do not believe a depression has to come in the building in- dustry. We know nothing about nylons, breakfast foods, or radios. But 35 years in the con- struction industry have taught us some- thing about building and its problems. We believe the construction industry can and should lead the way back to an even higher standard of living. We admit the complexities of today’s situ- ation. But we feel that these complexities can be circumvented. So why think a de- pression? Why not do in peace as we did in war, expect prosperity, plan prosperity, work for prosperity? Let’s took at the facts a minute. Today our needs for everything are the greatest in our history. There is accumulated purchas- ing power to keep industry humming for years to satisfy those needs, particularly the building industry. Then what is the fly in the ointment; why the fear that we are headed for collapse? We at Ceco believe it's something the economists haven't analyzed. We believe that prosperity depends on a different kind of straight thinking—on whether we, as In- dividual Americans, are willing to work to make prospertty work. It’s as simple as that. It won't be easy. We said “work!” and we mean “work!” We of management must really work at managing. We must junk the too-frequent wait-it-out idea. And tabor must work—produce more in- stend of less—reduce over-all costs per unit— justify high wages. Wages must not spiral after prices and prices after wages. Labor and management both must have something left after they’ve made their investment of time and capital. It can be done if we're intelligent enough. willing enough, fair and square enough. Of course, we can‘*t do it overnight. We can‘t provide a new home or plan for every- one who wants one next week, or next month, or even next year. But we can start—and keepon * * * and once the ball ts rolling the results can astound even our- selves. When Roosevelt announced our pro- duction goals for the first year of the war, the world laughed. It was a different story when we exceeded them. Then, we were unprepared. Today, we have everything to work with if we're permitted to use it—and will use it. Sure, during the war, costs were a sec- ondary consideration. But today, in a freer economy, the same will-to-work can drive down costs and prices, and drive up the pro- duction which labor needs to stay pros- perous. We eased up after the shooting stopped— all of us. That's understandable. We needed to. But we've had our dreathing spell. Now let's face the fact that there is no magic road to prosperity—that we cannot get something for nothing indefinitely. Al- ways, eternally and inevitably, we of man- agement and labor are going to have to work for prosperity. Here at Ceco we have fatth—faith that horse sense is finally taking hold. The pro- ductivity of labor is increasing. Absentee- ism and turnover are decreasing. Output per man-hour is on the upgrade. Cantrols are no longer the bug-a-boo they were. Many critical material shortages are leveling of. Some cities have modernized their building codes, and a general] revision is in progress In the past year unfavorable factors plagued us and at times we were not pleased with the service we gave. Shortages of steel and manpower, coupled with many deluys, held down our production levels. We are apologetic to all of aur good customers, who for the most part have been understanding and tolerant. Yet us we look back over 1946 we're really surprised to see how much we did acoomplish. We performed the following things in prepa- ration for greater prosperity: 1. We doubied manufacturing capacity in our plant No 1. Also, expansion plans went forward in our 14 other plants and ware- houses, coast to const. 2. We facilitated management operations by centering our general offices at pliant No. 1. 38. Company-wide, we increased our plant and erection organization by 40 percent, our offee personnel by 30 percent. 4. With additions to our research facilities and personnel, we developed 16 new major products. More than 100 others stil) are un- der study War experience is refiected in expanded use of diversified metais. 5. We-—management and labor—increased production. Shipments of several principal! lines, including ecreens and windows, were and now are greater than ever before. 6. We—management and labor—reduced absenteetsm tn our plants by 60 percent. 7. We consistently modernized our equip- ment and mechinery for maximum produc- tion. 8. We improved our agent-desaler structure and our service to agente-dealefs. What we did, many others did. In the days ahead we all can do even better. Just a few fundamental virtues are neces- sary. Hard work, intelligence, and sympa- thetic understanding of labor's problems upon the part of management. Hard work —ever-increasing production—understand- ing of management's problems upon the part of labor. We can say that here at Ceco we have the finest working conditions, the finest safety record, and the greatest opportunity in the history of our company, We believe that production wiil maintain these high standards and even better them; production that justifies high wages; produc- tion sufficiently great for the costs involved, to make the selling price within the reach af the widest possibie markets. America hes never yet admitted defeat. Why start now? High living standards can be cushioned against depression. Let's quit doodling and get to dating. Yes, there's a four-letter word for it—w-o-r-k. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Reciprocal Trade Agreements and Tariffs EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. OWEN BREWSTER OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, Janwary 17 ‘tegisiative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an ad- dress on the subject Reciprocal Trade Agreements and Tariffs, delivered by the senior Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Hawkes) before the Mining and Metal- lurgical Society Mining Club, at the an- nual dinner meeting in New York on January 14, 1947. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: This ts the subject on which | was asked to address you, but I that we shorten that title and talk only about tariffs und tar- iff policy. Personally, I dislike double talk and certainly the name “reciprocal trade agreements” would fall in the general cate- gory. The word “reciprocal” was used as bait in the desire to have people think in terms of an exchange with some element of equal- ity. The word “agreement” was used only as & device to avoid the constitutional require- ment for Senate approval of treaties. These agreements are treaties. of course, and in the negotiation of them we departed far encugh from the idea of reciprocity to comply with the scriptural admonition that it is more blessed to give than to receive. What I have to say to you about tariff pol- icy will come under three headings, namely, some elementary facts; what is currently transpiring; and what our attitude or pro- gram should be. Now for a few elementary facts. All nations regulace their foreign trade. This fe not a new development; they have al- ways done 80. Many devices ure used to ac- complish this, of which tariffs are the least objectionable. Obviously, ail theer reguia- tory devices are restrictive in cne way or an- other, so it is tmportant to know what they restrict. The reason, I say that tariffs are lesat ob- jectionable is because you know in advance what duty you must pay in order to enter a given merket. You can enter the market at a price, and you know what that price is. Naturally, the amount of the duty must be calculated in order to determine your ability to compete. Also, it is true that there are tartffs so high as to be prohibitive. The truth js that there are few such rates remaining in the United States tartf%. If {t were not s0, we would hardiy be the wortd’s largest im- porter. On the other hand, many nations main- tain tariffs higher than thoee of the United States, but where they are really cent on trade, tariffs are ineffective. That is why most nations use quotas, tmport per- mInits, exchange restrictions, end other de- vices that really restrict or stop the move- ment of goods, You can readily see the dif- ference, for whereas these devices restrict the movement of goods and in many cases completely stop such movement, tariffs per- mit the movement but impose a tax on it. This aleo is restrictive. But what does it restrict? Well, it tries to prevent the lower standards of other countries from under- mining our higher ones. It does this ty
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD making an approximate equalization of the differences in the cost of competitive goods as such differences reflect lower standards of wage and living. Please note that I said Competitive goods. Contrary to popular be- lief, the United States has for many years followed the policy of admitting noncom- petitive goods free of all duty. Few nations have such an extensive free list as the United States and that is why over a period of many years, more than two-thirds of all our im- ports pay no duty at all. So, when we talk of United States tariffs, we mean the tariffs that provide this equalization on those things that we can produce in the United States just as efficiently as they can be pro- duced anywhere else. And may I remind you at this point that efficiency and cheap- ness are not synonymous terms. Cheapness may result from efficiency. Unfortunately, it may also result from low wage and living standards. Before going on to matters of immediate interest, may I recommend to those of you who are interested, a study of tariffs made several years ago, in which the relative heights of tariffs in the United States and other nations were compared. It is rather amazing to find that, contrary to the propa- ganda of more than a decade, our tariffs are lower than most nations—not higher. If I remember rightly, this study was published by the American Tariff League in New York under the title of How High Are American Tariffs? and I suppose you could get u copy from them if it is still in existence. Let’s review a little history: The Recip- rocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 ceded to the executive branch of the Government certain powers Congress possesses constitu- tionally under the commerce clause. How- ever well intended this move may have been, merits which its supporters claimed for the theory o! reciprocal trade ugreements could not be proved at that time, for World War II was coming on, and by the time any sub- stantial number of reciprocal] trade agree- ments were mude and ready to operate, the economy of the world was badly out of bal- ance because of the war. Now for current happenings: The State Department is proceeding to commit us in- ternationally to a system we haven't our- selves had sufficient experience with to prop- erly evaluate. A conference took place in London beginning October 15, 1946. It was attended by representatives of 17 or 18 na- tions. They considered proposals made by the State Department of the United States for a world charter for an International Trade Organization. These charter pro- posals are an elaboration of proposals made by the State Department in December 1945, under the title: “Proposals for the Expan- sion of World Trade and Employment.” The latest published document is a State Department publication No. 2598 which is entitled ‘‘A Suggested Charter for an Inter- national Trade Organization of the United Nations.” Since this booklet was published in September, the London Conference I men- tioned above has been concluded and publi- cation No, 2598 has been superseded by a new draft which has not yet been generally released to the public by the State Depart- ment. Further, a subcommittee of the United Nations is scheduled to do more re- drafting at Lake Success, N. Y., from January 20 to February 28. IT hope that the results of the redrafting will be promptly thereafter published by the State Department and made available to the gen- eral public, because the plans and potential commitments contained therein will be of great importance to all Americans, How- ever, I fear that there will be little oppor-~ tunity for the public at large to become very well acquainted with these proposals inas- much as hearings have already been sched- uled to begin early in March in several dif- ferent cities in the United States, Presum- ably, every interested American citizen will have an opportunity to express his opinion at these hearings, but I ask you how can we expect our citizens to familiarize themselves with a complicated document which in its form today contains 89 articles and which is to undergo further redrafting, if the redraft- ing is completed on February 28 and hear- ings begin on March 3? Aside from the grave danger that there will be complacency on the part of most people, actually, I be- Heve that it will be next to impossible for anyone to completely familiarize himself with what the proposals contain, much less make his wishes known in respect to them and their implications and effect. My own impression is that these proposals embody a strange and unfortunate mixture of good and bad. Everyone of us who has ever had any contact with international trade is aware of the fact that a tremendous amount of constructive work can be done by some international organization created for the purpose. General agreement as to rules of the game, collection and dissemination of accurate statistics, general agreement on ad- ministrative practices, and other such mat- ters which I need not mention, can be ex- tremely constructive. The preliminary charter contains proposals for doing these very things. Unfortunately, it also contains other matter to which many of us are or should be unalterably opposed. One such is the very considerable discus- sion of cartels, private and intergovern- mental. The underlying theory seems to be that all of the former are bad but that just as soon as the sume practices, except on a more grandiose and complete scale are done by government, they become positively an- gelic. I repudiate that assumption as whol- ly fallacious. In either case the agreements, whatever their nature, must be made and administered by human beings. If such hu- mans are disposed to practices that are rep- rehensible, it should be obvious to everyone that their powers for evil are increased when they have behind them the authority of gov- ernment. Then, too, I do not like the trend toward the creation of a world trade bu- reaucracy with authority to carry out their edicts. I think we have seen quite enough of that here in the United States to have war- ranted the repudiation the idea received at the polls some weeks ago. It is true that we are hopeful for maximum progress in setting up a world in which there shall be peace and amity among all people. That is a goal that will require hard work and great patience to achieve. Not losing sight of our goal, we should nevertheless realize the great danger of assuming that we have already achieved it and that we can act ac- cordingly. It seems to me there ts just such an assumption involved in these proposals under which world commissions and world agencies are created in which we have but one vote against their many, and yet these agen- cles and commissions would be given consid- erable power to make decisions in the eco- nomic sphere that could require revolution- ary changes in our domestic economy. Someone might say such changes should be made. I can only answer that I have no objection to change, provided always that it is a change for the better and also that I prefer evolution rather than revolution. Our power for good leadership is almost wholly dependent upon our keeping ourselves strong enough to be leaders. I want to refer only very briefly to the question of the authority under whieh the Department of State makes its proposals. Presumably it does so under the authority of the President to conduct foreign relations. It may also be argued that it does so under authority which came to it upon the ratifica- tion of the Bretton Woods agreement, for resolution VII, contained in the final act of A181 the Bretton Woods Conference, in part states: “The United States Monetary and Financial Conference recommends: “(1) reduce obstacles to international trade and in other ways promote mutually advantageous international commercial relations; “(2) bring about the orderly marketing of staple commodities at prices fair to the pro- aducer and consumer alike; “(3) dea’ with the special probi+ms of in- ternational concern which will arise from the cessation of production for war purposes; and “(4) facilitate by cooperative effort the harmonization of national policies of mem- ber states designed to promote and maintain high levels of employment and progressively rising standards of living.” But the regulation of commerce is specifi- cally assigned by the Constitution to the Congress of the United States. That is to say, to the legislative branch of Government. The Congress, jt is true, has in the so-called Trade Agreements Act delegated to the execu- tive department the authority to make cer- tain changes in tariffs. It seems to me that this limited authority to change tariffs hardly covers some of the proposals to which I have already briefly referred. At this point also I want to point out to you the progressive deterioration in our for- mer American practice of government of laws contrasted with a government of men. First was the usurpation of legislative functions by the Executive under the Trade Agreements Act. Now the next step proposed ts that tariff rntes for the United States be arrived at by bargaining with 17 other nations, almost all of whom have interests quite dif- ferent in many respects from our own. Bargaining is hardly the word, for we are one in a total of 18. You can’t give the United States away and have it too, neither can you get it back easily if you blunder too far. I am informed that a poll issued in the last Fortune magazine shows that 68 percent of our people say we must protect ourselves first and help the world after. This might be misconstrued, but to me it means we must preserve this Nation if we wish it to be strong enough to help the world and lead it to peace. Immediately following the November eiec- tions, the Department of State announced its intention to proceed in a further reduc- tion of tariffs. I hope you have examined the lst of several thousand commodities on which the State Department professes will- ingness to negotiate. Hearings on these commodities began yesterday, January 13, in Washington. A number of realists in the United States have suggested that in nego- tiating these trade agreements, we must not give away all of our trading stock before we get the things that really bring reciprocity. Reciprocity consists in giving something in return for something which we get. If we make all of our valuable concessions with too free a hand, we may find ourselves out of trading stock at a time when we need something to trade for something we need. What should our programs be? I think that the current emphasis on foreign trade and the part that it is represented to play in the prosperity of the United States, com- pletely obscures the fundamentals of the situation. Much of the current propaganda implants the idea that an increased exchange of goods in world trade will create prosperity. Of course, we all want to see a mut'lally profitable and expanding world trade but we know that the fundamental fact is that prosperity does not come from the exchange of goods but from their production. You and I know that present-day demands for goods are terrific. Not only have all regions of the world been starved for goods during the war years but tremendous areas have also been laid waste by the devastation of war, so that besides the pent-up but more
A182 normal demand, there is also superimposed the tremendous abnormal demand for re- construction of these devastated areas. These facts create a great problem for us here in the United States. We have tremen- dous capacities to produce and to export. It should be clear to everyone that these fan- tastic demands of all the rest of ‘he world are far in excess of any demands that we have for things that we need to import. Yet the only real way of getting paid for our exports is through the imports of other things that we need, so that if these two do not eventually balance, we are in a bad way indeed. This question of dollars is assuming rather huge proportions. Of course, otrer nations do not want our dollars really. What they do want is our goods and the dollars are the means of acquiring those goods. A scheme has been evolved that seems very attractive while it lasts. We presently are making huge exports and those who make them are being paid in American dollars. We are preserving the illusion of a great ex- port business by making loans of more and more dollars abroad. T hope you all remember our unsatisfactory experience with foreign loans and invest- ments after the last war. But realizing that goods eventually must be paid for in other goods and that the dol- lars loaned only can be repaid if we import increasingly larger amounts of foreign goods, it 1s proposed that we greatly reduce tariffs so that any nation that can produce cheaper than we can will have free access to our markets. As we buy these goods we again provide a steady stream of dollurs for the foreign seller. Getting these foreign food- stuffs and manufactured goods so cheaply will just be wonderful. The people who now produce cattle and cotton or textile goods, or who are engaged in mining or forestry, can quit thelr arduous toll. We can buy these things cheaper. And think how much ad- ditional employment we will be providing for people in other parts of the world. Things like textiles, watches, chinaware, all can be bought much cheaper. Can’t you picture the bene- fits? We get the goods cheaply and we pro- vide the foreign nations with the dollars. But one thing may bother us a bit. What employmen* will our own people have? They must have jobs in order to get dollars to loan the Government so the whole scheme will work. Fu:ther, let us remember that 85 per- cent of all costs of the normal things of life comes from wages, and if we make unfair tariff provisions, which destroy our selling prices and do not protect our established casts, then we have injured the workers of America in their wage program and standard of living. Now, seriously, no such foolishness will last for very long without the dissipation of everything we have built up since this country was founded. Remember that it is the same administration who misied labor with the mistaken assurance that wages could be increased without affecting prices, that now says that we can import the things we now produce without disturbing jobs. I ask if any among you thinks he knows what our costs of production are to be in this country to the point where he is willing to use his judgment. ir figuring out now a tariff on a basis that will properly protect us in innumerable industries and products upon which our workers and our people rely for a living. I confess that the unsettled conditions of the world are too great for me to make any forecasts in this direction at the moment, What then should be our tariff policy? T believe the legitimate purpose of tariffs is to adequately protect our national wage and living standards. This does not mean either high or low tariffs. It does mean rates sufficient to provide protection to the degree and at the time it is needed. It should not protect operations which continue to be in- efficient. The rates should be such, however, as to make it possible for domestic products to compete on at least equal terms with simi- lar commodities produced abroad under lower standards than are tolerated here in the United States. Many agricultural and indus- trial products can be produced cheaper some- where else. These lower foreign costs may be the result of one or the other of two broad basic factors. Firat, are more efficient opera- tions or natural advantages, such as climate. As I have said earlier, most of the things having natural advantages are already on our free list, and, in my opinion, they should stay there. But the second reason for lower for- eign costs is the existence of much lower wage and living standards. Wherever these are reflected in the unit costs of production we need an equalizing device, if we expect to permit those goods to come into our market without upsetting our higher living and wage standards. As you know, the tariff-making function has been transferred from the legislative branch of the Government to the Executive by the passage of the so-called Trade Agree- ments Act. I do not believe that it should continue as an Executive function. What- ever advantages of technique may have been developed in the conduct of this program can be preserved and continued just as well, and even better, as a legislative function. I am not advocating the making of actual rates by the Congress as a whole. However, such criticisms as there have been in the past about political logroliing in Congress are dwarfed into insignificance by the possibility of much greater logrolling on an interna- tional scale, if rates are to be made through international conferences at which the Unit- ed States will be consistently in the minority. Tarif? rates cannot be static in a changing world and for this reason it is not practicable for the Congress itself constantly to con- sider alterations in the tariff. I believe that the Congress should formulate a tariff policy which will provide for true flexibility, making it possible to change rates up or down with the minimum of delay when and as the need for such changes becomes apparent. My thought 1s this: If, by legislation, we could revamp the method of studying and preparing for the trade agreements so that industry would have a voice in the prepara- tion of the plan before it is ready to be con- summated, and that voice might be an in- dependent voice not tied in with any of the present committees, it might help us in reducing trade barriers where such reduc- tion is justifiable and safe, and it might keep us from making agreements from which we would have to withdraw, thereby making enemies rather than friends. If we could devise a way to have the great business organizations, farming organiza- tions, and labor organizations recommend a group of men to serve on an advisory com- mittee for the purpose of checking and as- sisting ‘in the formulation of reciprocal trade agreements and tariff reductions, we might avoid doing some things which we will regret, and from which we must withdraw if we are to protect the American economy and the welfare of the workers in this Nation. My thought at the moment is that such committee should consist of 16 of the ablest men in the country, all of whom are recog- nized as believing in the American system and wishing to preserve it, so as to keep America strong for the welfare of our own people und to enable us to render a decent and fair service in leadership toward proper international relations and peace. Those 16 men could be composed of 8 from business and industry, 4 from agricultural organizations, and’4 from labor organiza- tions. They would be appointed for a pe- riod of 5 years each with proper arrangements for the first appointees, so that all would not retire from the advisory committee in the same year. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of the eight appointed from business and industrial organizations, two should be ap- pointed to represent those who are chiefly interested in foreign trade; two should be appointed from those who are interested in domestic trade; four should be appointed from those who are chiefly interested in do- mestic trade but who, nevertheless, are en- Gaged in foreign trade. This may not be the final way the appointments should be made, but it gives you the thought I have in mind. The purpose of this advisory committee would be to know promptly when any foreign nation requests a reciprocal trade agreement or the reduction in our tariffs, and the peo- ple of the United States should be apprised of such a request in its beginning. This committee should be informed immediately of the findings of any committees studying the proposed trade agreement. This advisory committee should give to the people of the United States their well-con- sidered opinion of the propriety and safety of making any agreement which involves the manufacturers and businessmen and the labor of the United States. You might well say that this would slow up the process of making these agreements. My reply is that the tmportance of protecting business, industry, labor, and the farmer in this country justifies any such delay, because their whole future economic welfare depends upon the wisdom of these agreements. Perhaps you will wonder whether in out- lining my plan for a permanent policy I am indirectly suggesting that international co- operation in economic matters be scrapped. Not at all. If it is to be cooperation, nothing in my plan would interfere. If, on the other hand, it is to be more of coercion than co- operation, then my plan would quite properly apply the brakes. The representatives of the nations who conferred in London in October-November, are to meet again as an interim tariff com- mittee. This next conference is scheduled to meet on the 8th day of April in Geneva, Switzerland, at which time it is planned that they shal] make mutual reductions in trade barriers. Among these, tariffs are prom- inently and constantly mentioned, even though they are the least restrictive. This jis not accidental. Foreign nations would find it easier if they could take over our existing markets rather than painfully build up the markets in dominions and colonies in the sare manner we built up ours ‘ere. The fact seems to be overlooked that the announced object of the first conference and the State Department proposals was the expansion of trade, not its redistribution. A tariff? advisory commit‘ee such as I have described could prepare the information as to the amount of further reductions we can make in United States tariffs without injury to our domestic economy. It should be done, however, by an independent determination of facts, free from any directive from the executive department, based on predeter- mined conclusions. Moreover, what reduc- tions we offer should be substantially matched by each other nation in the con- ceasions it will make. This is a more im- portant point than most people realise. Let me give you an illustration. When most British traders speak or write in their own trade journals they indicate that the success of the international effort at economic cooperation will depend on the willingness of the United States to drasti- cally reduce its tariffs. When they mention the preferential treatment they give others, it is usually to declare their unwillingness to give up this form of discrimination against us. They have followed the same line of argument since the early thirties. But what are the facts? Whereas since then they have kept most of their tariffs, preferences, import licensing, etc., the United States has reduced over 1,200
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of ite tariff rates. Almost half of these have been by 50 percent. And every one of these reductions has been immediately made avail- able to Britain. In exchange she made about one hundred and fifty reductions in her tariff rates in the United Kingdom-United States trade agreement. Most of these, however, were only reductions in the amount of pref- erence she granted others. The “most favored nation” clause has seri- ous implications and great dangers. We may have sound reason for granting a special con- sideration to some country in return for what they do for us. I ask you, if another nation does not qualify and give us the equivalent in return, why should it be favored with special consideration? It does not make good sense to me. I have no fault to find with the British when they seek their own advantage, but I would like to see Americans show as much concern for our best interests as the British do for theirs. As you doubtless know, the briefs of Ameri- cans who are vitally affected by the negotia- tions I have mentioned had to be filed by December 21 last. Oral hearings are now in progress in Washington. These began on January 13. We can increase our mutually profitable foreign trade but we should do it through measures consistent with the preservation of employment, the protection of our living standards and the wages of our workers, and the income of our farmers. The important point I would like to leave with you is that we should strive for a truly constructive tar- iff policy, that rates should be neither higher nor lower than are actually needed, and there should be no tariffs at all if we don't actually have a need fo: them. Whatever modifica- tions are made from time to time should be through research and expert study rather than through processes of logrolling, whether it be national or international logrolling. Let those who crave an increase in foreign business carefully meditate upon a decrease in domestic business if we, through hurried and ill-advisec action at a time when rel- ative cost of production is unknown due to disturbed world conditions, do things which seriously disturb a fair balance of trade and thus produce unemployment at home. Protection of Public in Labor Legislation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITEI STATES Friday, January 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, one of the biggest problems before Congress is obvi- ously the need for equitable reforms in the Wagner Act which will protect the interests of the public. One of the pro- posed reforms that must be given due consideration is the matter of compul- sory arbitration of labor disputes in key industries. Last year, when the Senate considered the Case bill, it voted down my compulsory arbitration amend- ment in the mistaken belief that the President would sign the Case bill if the arbitration feature were omitted. That belief was mistaken, because the Presi- dent vetoed the Case bill anyway. But this issue will not down, and must be met squarely in order that we may be adequate. I ask unanimous consent, therefore, that an article which I wrote on this subject for the October 1946 issue of Kiwanis magazine be reprinted in the Appendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: WE NEED A Pro-Pustic Lasor Law, Says Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, UNITED STATES SENATOR; MEMBER, KIWANIS CLUB OF CHIPrEWA FALLS, Wis. One of the many outstanding contributions to public service of the 1946 victory conven- tion of Kiwanis International was its labor resolution. Unanimously adopted, the reso- lution petitioned Congres: to enact laws clearly defining the respective duties and responsibilities, rights, and privileges of man- agement and labor, with adequate provision for enforcement of the duties and responsi- bilities. The resolution further asked the national legislature to control industrial dis- putes and “provide for compulsory arbitra- tion of all disputes prior to the calling of a strike which might endanger the national welfare or impinge upon the constitutional Tights of the citizen.” The passage of this pro-American resolu- tion clearly showed that Kiwanians know our country is faced with the choice of either compulsory arbitration of disputes in key in- dustries as a last resort to prevent strikes or what amounts to compulsory chaos. The one-sided Wagner Act, as it now stands, leg- islates compulsory chaos because it forces a strait-Jackect upon management while encour- aging irresponsible labor leaders to the wild- est excesses in violatior. of the public interest. Under the Wagner Act, management, for ex- ample, must bargain collectively while the unions can blithely walk away and stay away from the conference table. The assembled Kiwanians clearly showed further that they want the rule of law and the rule of equality in industry and com- merce rather than such anarchy as we ex- perienced in the disastrous railroad strike of May 1946 when two irresponsible men para- lyzed the Nation’. transportation, and in the similarly disastrous Nation-wide shipping strike of September 1946. Particularly in this atomic age, when our National security could be breached by a split-second attack by atom-carrying rockets launched thousands of miles away, it is es- sential that we prepare against all emer- gencies by setting up compulsory arbitration machinery in public utilities and key Nation- wide industries. Let us never forget that even during World War II, while our men were dying overseas, 14,000 strikes occurred, costing us 24,000,000 man-days. Dare we risk such an eventuality in the future when & war will be settled not in years or months or days but in the first seconds and minutes while some vital industry may be on strike and the enemy sees a fine opportunity for attack? Compulsory arbitration machinery is re- quired not only because we are living in an atomic age but because: We are living in an economically complex age, when, even in peacetime, all parts of the economic order—agriculture, industry, min- ing, forestry, trade, utilities—are interde- pendent with every other part: a break-down in any one part cripples all other parts. We are living in a revolutionary age in which we are faced by a tremendous vitalized power. Russia, with whom we are rightfully trying to establish a realistic basis for coop- eration for a just and lasting peace, but which we nevertheless recognize is actively promoting world communism through planned chaos in every country. We are living in an inflationary age in which prices are constantly rising because full production, the greatest obstacle to in- flation, has not been achieved on account of strike after strike and because of OPA maladministration—the hindering of busi- ness through regimentation. A183 We have seen that voluntary mediation and arbitration simply have not been ade- quate enough to prevent strikes and in- crease the supply of goods so as to balance demand and hold back inflation. THE COST OF STRIKES Merely since the end of the war, strikes have cost us 113,000,000 man-days directly and untold millions of man-days mor? indi- rectly because of employees thrown out of work due, for example, to the absence of parts supplied by strike-bound feeder plants. We have lost a billion dollars in striking work- ers’ wages and untold billions more in indi- rect wage losses and in Jost employer profits and investor dividends. We have lost 3,000,000 autos and trucks, 1,000,000 mechan- ical refrigerators, 415,000 washing machines, 3,000.000,000 board feet of lumber, including enough construction lumber for 100,000 desperately needed houses. We have lost vital farm implements and vital fruit crops, the latter particularly through jurisdictional strikes. What is more, we have lost, if only tempo- rarily, American cooperation, good will be- tween citizens, and community spirit. Well, what are we going to do about it? Let us enact a compulsory arbitration law as @ part of a pro-American labor law—a law with guts in its vitals and teeth in its jaws in order to insure industrial peace. This law need not be antilabor nor antimanagement, but propublic for the welfare of all of us. Such a general law would provide for: (a) A Federal mediation board with powers of conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration in all industries during a 60-day prestrike truce in which all strikes, lock-outs, and walk-outs would be banned. (b) Special emergency fact-finding com- missions to look into disputes involving util- ities and key industries and to make recom- mendations on wages, hours, and working conditions. (c) Prohibition of royalty payments to unions except for specified purposes such as health and welfare funds, which must, how- ever, be administered jointly by labor and management. (d) Union liability before the law in the event it breaks contracts. (e) Outlawing of secondary boycotts. (All the above are general provisions of the Case bill which Congress passed but which the President vetoed.) (f) A requirement that labor as well as management bargain collectively in good faith. (g) Banning of jurisdictional strikes. (h) Democratic and secret union elections and strike votes. (i) Publicity on union finances. A final element in this law woutd be com- pulsory arbitration. It would be a logical extension of provision (b). After all efforts at voluntary conciliation, mediation, or arbi- tration fail, after the report of the Emer- gency Fact Finding Commission in a utility or Nation-wide industry proves of no avail, then the compulsory arbitration machinery would go into operation. The exact details of such operation were incorporated in an amendment to the Case labor bill which I introduced but which the Senate voted down in the hope, as many of my colleagues told me, that President Tru- man would sign the Case bill if compulsory arbitration were omitted. That hope was mis- taken. The President vetoed the Case bill anyway. However, I believe the Case bill should be enacted by the Eightieth Congress, over the President's veto if necessary, and compulsory arbitration should be provided as follows: 1. In the event a strike threatened in a Nation-wide or key industry, such as fuel, transportation, communication, or steel, the President of the United States would be empowered to require labor and management to submit to arbitration, The parties would
A184 have 20 days to draw up an agreement to arbitrate, covering all issues, such as wages, hours, and working conditions, The arbitration board would consist of three or seven members, as determined by the President, with an equal number of members chosen by labor and by management and an- other member chosen by both Jabor and management. In the event the parties failed or refused to prepare an arbitration agreement or ap- point arbitrators, the Federal Mediation Board would do so for them. STRIKES PROHIBITED 2. From the day the President required the parties to arbitrate to the entry of final judg- ment upon an award, strikes, lock-outs, and slow-downs would be prohibited. If man- agement violated this prohibition, its action would be deemed an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. if the employees violated. this requirement, they would be deprived of certain of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. 8. Both parties would be free to settle their dispute during the arbitration proceed- ings. Such settlements would be effective for 6 months. Thus collusive settlements to defeat the arbitration and resume industrial warfare would be prevented. 4. The arbitrators would hand down an award which would be enforcible by the courts like any other contract. No one regrets more than I do the neces- sity for compulsion. I would infinitely pre- fer that reason would prevail and that both labor and management would be free to en- gage in voluntary mediation and arbitration. But reason does not always prevail as has been proven so many times in the past when labor leaders and men of management have forgotten their obligations to the public interest. The issue is drawn for us. We may wait and see; we may ignore the lessons of recent industrial history. Or we may embark on the new, legal course of compulsory arbitra- tion as proposed by Kiwanis. We may insure industrial peace or we may doom our Nation to perpetual industrial chaos. The New Research Law EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, January 17 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I send to the desk an editorial entitled “The New Research Law,” appearing in the Farmers Build News under date of November 1946, and ask unanimous con- sent that it be printed in the Appendix of the REcorD. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE NEW RESEARCH LAW While the principal objective of the new research law is to assure agriculture an equality in research equal to industry, it could be more clearly defined if it were that of improving the economic position of farmers. Existing facilities are adequate to meet the production problems of cotton, wheat, corn, mung beans, and everbearing raspberries. The farm problem is not production. The farm problem is that of price. Prices of not ‘less than cost of production should be the first objective of research in marketing. Farmeré cannot stay in business on any other basis. If agriculture accepted war-price ceilings as its share of preventing inflation, then it is entitled to a cost-plus floor to prevent deflation. A fundamental of marketing is a legitimate merket free from racketeering. Too long have farm prices been determined by “fu- tures” gamblers. No other business would tolerate such an outrage. Witness the Octo- ber crash in the cotton-futures market where the manipulations of one man caught “long” cost our cotton growers over 200,000,000 through no fault of their own. The South is not in a position to absorb these losses. It is surprising that economists, land-grant colleges, old-line farm organizations, and the United States Department of Agriculture have never studied the devastation in agri- culture resulting from futures trading. A cursory examination of the evil would enable anyone to see eye to eye with one of Amer- ica's truly great economists, Ernest D. Mac- Dougall, when he so aptly wrote, “the prac- tice of gambling under the forms of trade can hardly be considered as an economically productive occupation.” The average economist deals in facts, but often he is tempted in his conclusions to accept unproven theories as facts on the au- thority of other economists who have copied from other equally uninformed economists. In the field of futures trading these same economists publish as factual findings infor- mation which has been released by the prop- aganda press bureaus of the commodity gam- blers. It should be a signal that all is not well when the volume of futures trading al- ways exceeds by many times the production of a commodity. Can it be that some econ- omists are under the same pressure as the honest college professor whose conscience balked at giving good grades to the athletic ignoramus? In view of the huge appropriations and the trust given by farmers on the goals of the new law. it is hoped that its administrators will start from scratch and take nothing for granted. With such procedure there should come recommendations for a workable plan for Congress to stabilize agricultural prices. On these premises conclusions are bound to follow that farming cannot be done for less than cost and that much agricultural in- stability can be averted by eliminating fu- tures trading. Investigation of commodity gambling will reveal the following facts: That the futures contract is not a warehouse receipt for the commodity but only a lottery ticket with no assets back of it; that those who buy or sell a cotton, corn, wheat, egg, butter, lard, etc., futures contract deal only in price differ- ences; that a futures contract does not per- mit the naming of grades; that the huyer of a futures contract, when delivery is made, has nothing to say about the kind or grade he shall receive; that the determination of kind or grade to be delivered under a futures contract is at the option of the seller, usually resulting in the delivery of dog-tail cotton or skin-grade wheat; that, for example, de- liveries of wheat under a futures contract are negligible—not more than one-third of 1 percent of the total volume of futures trading; that those who buy specified grades of a commodity for spot delivery to arrive do so in the cash markets and not in the futures markets. The investigators probably would also find that propaganda press releases have duped our educators and economists into thinking that the price problem is insoluble except for the Government to give subsidies to farmers. It should not strain the courage of the investigators to uncover these truths, and it should be less a strain to recommend the remedy. Though they will encounter the Yreaistance of a few gamblers, they will win the gratitude of 6,000,000 farm families. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD What Makes CAB Tick? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOMER D. ANGELL OF OREGON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 20, 1947 Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include as @ part thereof an editorial which ap- peared in the January 13 issue of the Oregonian, a daily newspaper published in Portland, Oreg. Following is the edi- torial: WHAT MAKES CAB TICK? This page confesses inability to explain the actions of the Civil Aeronautics Board, which has rejected the application of an American line for commercial air service from Seattle and Portland to Honolulu, but has authorized an Australian firm to enter Honolulu from Vancouver, B. C., via Seattle and Oakland. Matson Navigation Co. has been seeking a certificate since 1942, without success, but the CAB granted the Australian permit after & 1-day hearing. The CAB consistently has refused to au- thorize an American steamship line to start air service, though the advantages of ship- Plane tie-up to the traveling public are ob- vious. But the certificate just granted is to an air line wholly owned by foreign steam- ship companies. The CAB not only refuses to permit American business to compete with foreign business on equal terms but actually discriminates against an American applicant by turning over its potential territory to a foreign line. The Matson Co.’s withdrawal of its appli- cation for the Northwest-Hawail service co- incided with the Board’s decision to reopen the field to other applicants, which was tan- tamount to another rejection of the Matson request. There were no other applicants at the moment. Additionally, opening the ter- ritory to a foreign air line reduces the amount of business available. The Aeronautics Board's new Chairman. James Landis, hus hinted that if the Board grants a certificate for direct Vancouver- Honolulu service to Trans-Canada Air Lines, 8 firm controlled by the Canadian Govern- ment and also with shipping connections, it will be more disposed to favor a Portland- Seattle-Honolulu line. This page is not op- posed to reciprocity, but why should it be necessary for American business to wait until our own Government installs a foreign rival before authorizing a competitive American line? Northwesterners, who want direct service to Honolulu and are told that they must travel via Oakland, demand a clearer expla- nation than any yet given by the Civil Aero- nautics Board. Matson’s latest decision to renew its application, and a revival of in- terest by Northwest Airlines, calls for a pub- lic definition of CAB policy. Sugar Shortage EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 8, 1947 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, the shortage of sugar is creating a des- perate situation in the family life of this Nation. I am flooded with propaganda
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from my district and I assume that each Member of the House is likewise receiving mail urging that Congress take action with reference to the shortage of sugar. I have devoted many hours of time, as I know each Member of the House has done, in an effort to ascertain from what source the black market procures the sugar which it offers all the way from 30 to 45 cents a pound. I want to urge upon the Congress that some action be taken to protect the people of this country from being gouged by any action which may be taken by the Internationa] Emergency Food Coun- cil, successor to the Combined Food Board, with reference to the allocation of sugar to foreign countries during this year. I am sure that you all realize that allo- cations of 1947 are about to be made by the International Emergency Food Council and the Secretary of Agriculture, the United States representative in the sugar section of the Council. I believe it the duty of every member of Congress to see to it that this Inter- national Emergency Food Council does not permit large allocations of United States supplies of sugar to foreign coun- tries and thereby reduce for this year the amount of sugar to our own con- sumers. I believe that fair treatment should be accorded to the American consumers and Congress should insist upon this. I understand that there is an effort being made by our foreign neighbors to get large allocations of sugar for their nationals and that such allocations be made upon the basis of the entire year of 1947. To allocate sugar for a whole year on a basis unfair to the United States would be a dangerous move not only for the supply of sugar for our own people but as an international commitment. If too large a commitment for a whole year is made under an international agreement, we as a nation would be morally bound to observe the terms of that agreement inasmuch as our agency of government is a party to the allocation agreement. The least that should be permitted by Congress is an allocation on a quarterly basis with an opportunity for Congress to see that the consumers of our own country are protected. The fact that the 1947 crop, so the ex- perts inform us, is likely to be a possible one and a half million tons more of sugar than 1946 for home consumption and export may tempt the International Emergency Food Council to urge this as a basis for a larger allocation to foreign countries. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that Members of the House who are interested in obtain- ing additional supplies of sugar for their constituents should know that today here in Washington a meeting of the Sugar Section of the International Emergency Food Council may reach an agreement which will result in curtailing supplies of sugar available for use in this coun- try. For years now the United States has allocated to Britain and Canada large quantities of sugar and it may be that we should continue some allocation. However, in view of charges that have been made that excessive quantities of sugar have been allocated abroad, I think that the Members of Congress should have an opportunity to examine this question and if necessary establish a new Policy for this country to assure fair treatment to our citizens. I dislike to be in the position of being accused of desiring to violate interna- tional commitments because I want this country to live up to its obligations. The point is that we do not want an obliga- tion which unfairly deprives our citizens of needed sugar, and unless the Mem- bers of Congress act promptly in ‘this matter the meeting today of the Interna- tional Emergency Food Council may well result in an obligation binding this coun- try for all the rest of this year. I think that if it is necessary to make an allo- cation it should certainly be for not long- er than the first quarter of this year. Bills have already been introduced to embargo exports of sugar. This may seem a drastic step but unless the bu- reaucrats downtown are willing to pay better attention to the problems of our citizens we may need to take drastic steps and take them promptly. Since the Second War Powers Act ex- pires on March 31, 1947, I wonder if the administration has any statutory au- thority to effectuate an allocation of sugar to foreign countries after that date. I, for one, would not be well dis- posed toward being confronted with an agreement covering the whole year and being requested simply because of that agreement, concerning which the Mem- bers of Congress have not been consulted, to enact legislation carrying it out, un- less at that time I should be entirely convinced that the American people had been given fair treatment in the agree- ment. I may add that the United States will have available from its own crops possi- bly 600,000 tons more sugar in 1947 than it had in 1946, and in addition to this we will likely obtain from Cuba nearly a@ million tons more this year than last year in our purchase of the large current crop. Thus, the United States in 1947 should have possibly 1,500,000 tons more of sugar than in 1946 for home consump- tion and for export. It is recognized, of course, that the United States, in con- tracting to buy virtually the whole Cuban crop, had committed itself to share part of the Cuban supply with the United Kingdom and Canada, as these countries had normally been mar- kets for part of the Cuban crops and these countries had not bid against the United States for the Cuban crop. In sharing United States supplies of sugar, it should be explained that dur- ing the war the Combined Food Board, made up of representatives of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, allocated food supplies, including sugar, on an international basis. These three countries had experienced about the same per capita consumption of sugar before the war. Thus, under the alloca- tions of the Combined Food Board, the aggregate supplies of the three countries were allocated to each country, roughly, on its population basis, sugar now being rationed to consumers in each country on about the same per capita basis. Any allocations of this aggregate supply to A185 countries other than these three thereby reduces the quantity available to each of the three countries, including the United States. I propose, with the help of my col- leagues, to bring all possible pressure, legislative or otherwise, to the end that our people get a fair deal on this inter- national sugar agreement, even going to the extent of preparing a bill to prohibit the export of sugar, unless some relief can be procured for our own consuming public. Old-Age Pensions EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GERALD W. LANDIS OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 20, 1947 Mr. LANDIS. Mr. Speaker, the need is greater than ever before for enactment of legislation that would assist our old folks. This group has been neglected too long and should be granted a liberal Federal pension. I have brought this issue to the House floor, to the press, and over the radio many times and it is my conviction that everyone over the age of 60 who is not required to pay a Federal income tax should be provided an adequate old-age pension. We have seen the costs of living soar to a point where the pitiful allowances in the form of old-age pensions for our elders have become a disgrace to the world’s richest Nation. The executive agencies of our Government continue to come to Congress with requests for more and more money to spend in foreign lands and to loan foreign governments to improve living conditions abroad, but they have consistently failed to bring in proposals for extending old-age assist- ance to the many who are now ineligible to receive it or for liberalizing old-age pensions so that those who are eligible for assistance can maintain themselves in conformity with the American stand- ards of living. The United States has loaned billions to foreign nations but the loans have never been repaid. We must call a halt on these foreign hand-outs until our old folks are provided an ade- quate assistance. For years we have been conserving forests, lands, wild game, and oil. We guard the flying geese and ducks and we protect the mineral wealth under the ground. I believe it is time to conserve human beings and make life comfortable for our elders. This country has the natural wealth, the resources, the raw materials, the manpower, the mills, fac- tories, and industrial machinery to give every American family all it needs in the way of food, clothing, educa- tion, luxuries, and pleasures. There is enough food to feed every hungry per- son; there is enough wool and cotton to clothe every man, woman, and child in the country; there are materials in mines and forests, mills, factories, and warehouses to house every family if re- strictions are removed; there are raw
A186 materials and modern machines suffi- cient to equip these homes with both necessities and luxuries; there are cnough railroad engines and freight cars to transport these needs of men to every nook and corner of the country. When a wage earner has toiled for 40 years or more, he should be retired with a@ pension that will enable him to live in comfort and dignity the rest of his days. Under present legislation, there is a great and unjust discrepancy in the pay- ments received by old people in our vart- ous States. Average monthly allow- ances for the aged range all the way from as low as $12 to as high as $53. It is urgent that action be taken to correct these injustices and establish a program equally fatr to all concerned. We need a soctal-security system based upon need which will eliminate thousands of investigators and super- visors. Our elders want security and peace. They do not. want to be upset every 6 months by a Federal reinvestiga- tion to see whether or not they have gotten rich from their meager allowance during the precedingeperiod they have been receiving welfare assistance. On January 10, I introduced H. R. 781 which provides a direct Federal old-age pension of $60 per ronth to needy citi- zens 60 years of age or over. The text of H. R. 781 follows: Be it enacted, etc., That (a) the Social Security Board (hereinafter called the Buard) shall pay, out of any funds hereafter appro- priated for such purpose, old-age assistance to qualified individuals at the rate of ¢60 per month. (b) For the purposes of thts act an individ- ual shall be deemed to he a qualified indi- vidual— (1) who is 60 years of age or over on the first day of the payment year; (2) who has been oa citizen and resident of the United States for not less than 10 years; (8) whose gross income. or whose gross income combined with the gross income of @ spouse, as the case .way he, for the tax year p~eceding the year in which the pay- ment year begins is less thar the minimum amount with respect to which a Federal in- come tax return ts required to be filed; and (4) who makes timely application for the benefits of this act. (c) Payments to qualified individuals sball be made monthly for each month dur- ing @ payment year. A “payment year” shall begin April 1 and end March 81. Application for the Jenefits of this act dur- ing any payment year shall ‘be made on or before March 15 of the calendar yeer in which the pryment year begins. Src. 2. Any individual raaking application for the benefits of this act shall furnih such evidence of age and citizenship as the Board may by regulation prescribe. The gross income of any individual for the purposes of this ect shall be established from records and data in the possession of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treas- ury shall upon request furnish to the Board any documents, records, or information which he may have relating to the gross income of any applicant for the benefits of this act. Sec. 8. The first payment year under this act shall begin April 1, 1947. No payment to any State under title I of the Social Security Act, as amended, shall be made for any quar- ter beginning on or after such date. Src. 4. The Board shall prescrihe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. Sac. 6. As used in this act the term “United States” shall include the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii. Src. 6. There are authorized to be appro- priated such amounts asa may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. Mr. Speaker, I feel that the matter of liberalizing and extending old-age as- sistance is one of the outstanding do- mestic problems that confronts us to- day. I request all of the Members of the House of Representatives who are interested in an adequate legislative pro- gram for the care of our senior citizens, join me in urging that this matter be brought to the House floor for considera- tion at the earliest possible date. Government and a Free Press EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 20 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to insert in the Appendix of the Recorp a very able speech deliv- ered by my colleague the gentleman from Virginia |Mr. Ropertson} at the annual banquet of the Virginia Press Association of Richmond, Va. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: In this critical period of our history, when institutions deemed by us to be fundamental are being chellenged both here and abroad, I welcome this opportunity to reaffirm my belief that without a free press our democracy would soon perish because, us Jeffersan said: “The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.” I Wkewise belleve that any plan for a lasting peace which does not include our conception of a free press will rest upon a precarious basis, No one in public life in Virginia has greater cause than I to be grateful for a free press. During my 30 years of public service I served tn the State senate both before and after World War I and in the house of representa- tives both before and after World War It, and in such service was called upon to take a@ stand on many controversial issues. Never was my Gesire to do my duty as I saw it chal- lenged by any paper tn the State, and often the course I pursued was commended. In assuming this month my duties in the high- est legislative body in the world, it is my hope und my prayer that I can justify the confidence expressed in me last summer and last fall by the press of the State. When thc distinguished president of your association extended to me the much-ap- preciated invitation to address you tonight an the subject of Government and a free press, he, of course, knew that on the basis of personal experience I favored a free press. I am happy to be able to assure you that by inheritance and training, as well as by ex- perience, belief in the principles of a free preas is fundamental with me. In my classes in history and government at Richmond College under that brilliant teacher, Dr. 8. C. Mitehell, we were taught that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were of the essence of our democracy, and I entered public life as a member of the Virginia State APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Senate in 1916 fully conscious of the fact that freedom of the press was a principle for which my colonial ancestors had stood. Two of my direét ancestors, James Gordon, of Lancaster, and James Gordan, of Orange, were members of the Virginia Convention which ratified the Philadelphia Constitu- tton in 1787. Another member, Benjamin Harrison, was a close relative of my ancestor, Nathaniel Harrison. Those three members of the Virginia Convention not only voted to ratify the Federal Constitution but thoy supported the proposal of Patrick Henry to have expressly reserved in the greatest in- strument ever struck off by the hand and purpose of man certain fundamental human rights, including the freedom of the press, which the framers of the Constitution had evidently taken for granted. In urging upon the Convention expressed dcclarations in the Constitution similar to pe. Virginia Bill of Rights, Patrick Henry said: “The necessity of a bill of rights appears to me to be greater tn this Government than it ever was in any government before. I have observed already, that the sense of the European nations, and particularly Great Britain, is against the construction of rights being retained which are not expressly re- Unquished. * * * If you intend to re- serve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; for, tf tmplica- tion ts allowed, you are ousted of those rights. * 8 «& “With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing: for {t is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as ttle as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from thetr integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the righte of their constituents. They are not, how- ever, expressly restrained. But whether they will intermeddile with that palladium of our Mberties or not,” said he, “I leave you to determine.” T have frequently expressed the belief that Thomas Jeffcrson was our greatcost political philosopher. His principles of democracy have been the North Star by which I have steered my political course, believing that. truth is eternal and that the problem of succeeding generations is to perceive it and to apply it to existing conditions. Thomas Jefferson said in one of bis Ictters: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without news- papers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” In that statement Jefferson, no doubt, was using the familtar device of exaggeration for the sake of emphasis. Jefferson knew, as we all do, that while a free press is essential to a democratic form of government, no press could survive where some orderly form of government did not exist. As a matter of fact, the functions of Gov- ernment and the press are as closely inter- twined as the expression describing the prets as “the fourth estate” would suggest. Government without the vaice of the peo- ple, as expressed through their media of communication, to guide it becomes autoc- racy. The press and its younger sister, the radio, would be voices crymg in the wilder- ness without a government able to give sub- stance to the expressed desires of the people. As a result of the efforts of Henry, Jeffer- son, and Madison, the bill of rights which became part of our besic law in 1791 caon- tained a clause forbidding Congress to make any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” But, as I suggested at the outset, the chain of responsibility which attaches Gov- ernment and the press has links thet are binding at both ends,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The English jurist, Blackstone, warned that liberty of the press meant “laying no previ- ous restraint upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for, criminal matter when published.” He said: “Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleased be- fore the public * * * but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own te- merity.” In our own Government's early days, when there was fear that the United States would be destroyed by the type of anarchy that came to France in its revolution, there were doubts as to how far a free press could be trusted. George Washington was one of the ad- vocates of the sedition law of 1798, which forbade publication of matter intended to defame the Government or bring its officers into disrepute. Jefferson opposed that law, which expired by limitation in 1801—the year he became President, but his own experience with the press while he was in office was trying enough to have discouraged a less firm believer in individual liberties. It is natural, I think, that cach war and its aftermath should bring a new test of the theory that a democratic government and a completely free press can coexist. During World War I we passed an espionage Jaw which forbade anyone to wilfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, dis- loyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces. It was tested by those who claimed that a prohibition against writing or speaking against our participation in the war violated the right.of free speech. In upholding that law in 1921, the Supreme Court of the United States held that freedom of the press may protect criticism and agita- tion for modification or repeal of laws, but it does not extend to protection of him who counsels and encourages the violation of the law as it exists, Our press has had no difficulty surviving under that interpretation and successfully passed its greatest test during the last war when it proved that a system of voluntary censorship would work. It would be hard to find a stronger bulwark for a free press of the future than the record which shows that the American preas, through self-discipline, kept out of print matter that would give aid and comfort to the enemy and which might have cost American lives while it still retained the privilege of print- ing what it chose without anyone to say in advance, “you must print this” or “you can- not print that.” There did come out cf this war, however, & new realization that a free press, like many other things which once were matters only of national concern, now has become an international problem. Sumner Welles, telling of his 1940 mission to Germany, said he never before had realized so vividly the tremendous power which au- thority to dictate to the press gave to a government. “From that moment I have been con- vinced,” Welles said, “that when this war is over the peoples of the earth must never again permit a situation to arise where any people shall be deprived of their inherent right to know the truth.” Fhe Congress has been on record since September 1944 with a resolution expressing its belief in the world-wide right of inter- change of news by newsgathering and dis- tributing agencies, without discrimination as to sources, distribution, rates, or charges, and that this right should be protected by international compact. Iam happy that in the program for world- wide freedom of information, sponsored by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and by such individuals as Kent Cooper of the Associated Press and Hugh Baillie of the United Press, the Virginia Press Association has played an active and effective part. Last October the issue reached the Assembly of United Nations in a stirring speech by Brig. Gen. Carlos P. Romulo of the Philippines, in which he said: “A free press is essential to peace.” The framers of the United Nations Charter, like the framers of the Federal Constitution, included no specific provision on the sub- ject of human rights, although the phrase “human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, or religion,” occurs no less than five times in the final draft of the Charter. Referring to that fact, Sigrid Arne, writing last spring for the Associated Press, said: “One human right—freedom of the press— is so important that at London the Philip- pines proposed a special conference to adopt it.” Writing in a recent issue of Newsweek con- cerning the Russian censorship of the press during the war and increased restraints since the war, a foreign correspondent gave it as his opinion that the chief stumbling block to friendship, understanding, and mutually helpful cooperation between the United States and Russia was the Russian censor- ship which completely controlled all news sent out from Russia and all foreign news published in Russia. We all know that there can be no Satisfactory solution of peacetime control of the atomic bomb with- out the right of inspection upon which the American representatives have insisted. We all know that if we are dented information concerning what the Soviet Union is doing it is a breeding ground for suspicion that what is being done is not for the best inter- ests of the democracies of the world. It is well for us to remember the impor- tance placed by the founding fathers, whose wisdom in government has never been ex- celled, upon the freedom of the press as an instrumentality for the preservation of democratic institutions, In this country that fact has become 50 firmly established that I do not expect to see it challenged. But since, in the words of Wendell Willkie, we are now living in “one world” in which what is done abroad vitally affects us, our program of government and a free press must of necessity embrace a@ world-wide program. In advocating such a world-wide program, I was interested in this comment by Gen- eral Romulo, with whom I served for a num- ber of years in the House and for whose ability and integrity I have a high regard: “The press, the radio and the movies, to be free, must not only be able to operate without fetters; they must be inwardly free of corrupting motives and self-limiting prej- udices.” That statement, of course, posed the basic problem of difference of opinion between Russia and affiliated countries and the An- glo-American countries on what constitutes freedom of the press. The problem will con- tinue to be studied and it is our hope that in the interests of a lasting peace a solution can be found, notwithstanding the fact that so far the Soviet Union has not accepted the invitation to become a member of the in- ternational commission which 1s studying it. The Romulo statement which I have quoted likewise poses for us the issue of the responsibilities of freedom. In no State in the Union has the press been freer from ‘‘cor- rupting motives and self-limiting preju- dices” than in Virginia. That, however, might be termed the negative phase of the responsibilities of freedom. I desire to close this discussion of the freedom of the "ress with an appeal to the members of the Vir- ginia Press to take the fullest advantage of their great opportunity for positive responsi- bilities of freedom. A187 Shortly before Christmas we had a heavy sleet: storm. As I walked down an avenue in Lexington named for the immortal Stone- wall Jackson, a large and old apple tree in the backyard of a fraternity house toppled to the ground. The load that had been im- posed upon its branches was more than its roots could sustain. If a democracy is to survive, the roots of Christian living, of self- discipline, of unselfishness, and of equal rights for all, special privileges for none, must be deep and strong to support the privileges of freedom which are demanded in an age of unparalleled scientitic development and creation of wealth. In a word, the rights and privileges of democracy must be properly balanced by duties and obligations if our cherished institutions are to endure. In such & program there is a part to be played by every paper in the Old Dominion. Not every paper will win an award at one of these annual dinners for its contribution to an America in which every man shall have an equal opportunity with every other man to be the master of his own fortune, but in every great undertaking the sum total of the effort is what counts most, May the words of Patrick Henry at the opening session of the First Continental Con- gress in Philadelphia in 1774 be our motto: “I now speak no longer as a Virginian, I speak now and henceforth as an American.” Presidential Succession—Necessity of Providing for Someone To Act as Pres- ident in Event President-Elect and Vice- President-Elect Fail To Qualify EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ESTES KEFAUVER OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 20, 1947 Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill designating a person who shall act as President, if a President shall not have been chosen be- fore a time fixed for the beginning of his term, or when neither a President-elect nor a Vice-President-elect shall have qualified. The present tragic situation in Geor- gia is certainly evideuce of the urgent necessity of getting our own Federal laws in order so as not to be confronted with the confusion and chaos which would come to the Nation and to the world if we should reach an inauguration day without anyone qualified to act as Presi- dent or named to act until a President shall have qualified. It is not necessary that I discuss the confusion and havoc that would result from our failure to have a President, even for a very short time. The difficul- ties that would arise are obvious to everyone. There would be no head of the executive department. The mem- bers of the Cabinet and the chiefs of the departments could not be appointed. No vacancies in the executive department could be filled. The Army and Navy would be without a Commander in Chief. All laws would have to be passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress, and it is doubtful if any valid
A188 law could be enacted by even a two- thirds majority, as under the Constitu- tion a law must be presented to the Pres- ident before it can be passed by a two- thirds majority. Feeling that this legislation should be given immediate attention, and for the purpose of calling it to the attention of the Members of Congress, I have secured unanimous consent that the bill be here inserted. The bill is as follows: A bill to provide for the selection of an act- ing President in the case of failure to qualify of both President-elect and Vice- President-elect Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the “Presidential Succession Act of 1945.” Sec.2. (a) If neither the President-elect nor the Vice-President-elect has qualified at the time fixed for the beginning of his term, the House of Representatives shall proceed under it. rules, but not before noon of the January 3 preceding the time fixed for the beginning of the term, to the selection of an individual to act as President. (b) The same action by the House shall be taken in the case of the death, resigna- tion, removal from Office, or inability of an individual] acting as President under this sec- tion, and in the case of the disqua)ification or failure to qualify of an individual selected under tris section. (c) An individual acting as President un- der this section shall continue to rct until the expiration of the then current Presi- dential term, except that— (1) if his discharge of the powers and du- ties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President- elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until one of them qualifies; (2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the disability of an individual acting under this‘section, then he shall act only until the removal of such disability. Sec.3. (a) Whenever, under section 2 (a) or (b), the House of Representatives is to select an individual to act as President, and the House has not made the selection, or the individual so selected is disqualified or has failed to qualify, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as Presi- dent: Provided, That if the House of Repre- sentatives shall not have elected a Speaker, the President of the Senate pro tempore shall then act as President. (b) An individual acting as President un- der this section shall continue to act until either the President-elect or the Vice-Preai- dent-elect qualifies, or until a qualified indi- vidual selected by the House under section 2 (a) or (b) ts able to act, but in no event beyond the expiration of the then current Presidential term. (c) If, at the time when an individual enters upon the discharge of the powers and duties of the office of President under sub- section (a) of this section, the House of Rep- resentatives is not in session, or would not meet in accordance with law within 20 days thereafter, he shall issue a proclamation con- vening the House in extraordinary session, giving 20 days’ notice of the time of meeting. Src. 4. No individual shall act as President under this act if he is ineligible to the office of President under the Constitution or if he is under impeachment by the House of Rep- resentatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of President devolve upon him. Sec. 5. The taking of the oath of office by an individual] who is to act as President under this act shall be held to constitute his resig- nation from any office held by him in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States. Sec. 6. During the period that any indi- vidual acts as President under this act, his compensation shall be at the rate provided by law in the case of the President. 8c. 7. Sections 1 and 2 of the act entitled “An act to provide for the performance of the duties of the office of President in case of the removal, death, resignation, or inabil- ity both of the President and Vice President,” approved January 19, 1866 (24 Stat. 1; U. 8. C., 1940 ed., title 8, secs. 21 and 22), shall apply only in the case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of the Presi- dent and Vice President elected by the elec- tors provided for in section 1 of article II of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, on April 19, 1940, I intro- duced substantially the same bill in the House of Representatives. Thereafter it was unanimously approved by the Com- mittee on the Judiciary and passed the House of Representatives without a dis- senting vote on April 23, 1941. No action was taken on the bill by the Senate. In the succeeding Congresses I have intro- duced and tried to secure passage of this measure. You will notice that the bill names the Speaker of the House as the first in line to act as President in the event no one has qualified to act. The Speaker pro tempore of the Senate is named as the second in line to act. I felt that perhaps favorable action was not forthcoming in the Senate because the Senate felt that the President pro tempore of the Senate should be the first in line to act. Accordingly, in the Sev- enty-ninth Congress I introduced H. R. 4263, which would have the old Secretary of State and the others on down through the Cabinet act as President if the con- tingencies set forth in the bill arose. I think the Speaker of the House or the President pro tempore of the Senate are the proper ones to act because the mem- bers of the Cabinet might represent an administration going out of power. But even more important than the person who is going to act is to make sure that there is some person who can carry on in this hiatus. PROTECT THE UNITED STATES AGAINST TROUBLES LIKE GEORGIA’s Many leading newspapers of the Na- tion have editorialized recently upon the necessity of avoiding in the Federal Gov- ernment a situation like that in which the State of Georgia now finds herself. Typical of the editorial comment is an editorial of the Washington Post of Fri- day, January 17, 1947, which is as follows: GEORGIA'S MISFORTUNE For the Talmadge legacy of which the peo- ple of Georgia are now the unhappy in- heritors, they must blame the myopia which bedeviled the framers of their own coneti- tution. There is undoubtedly a great deal of ambiguity in the constitution respecting the succession to the governorship of the State in the situation that developed with the death of Governor-elect Eugene Tal- madge. His son, Herman Talmadge, was able to claim the governorship with some show, or at least some pretext, of legitimacy on the basis of his election to the office by the legislature. And perhaps the claim has as much legality as Ellis Arnall’s attempt to retain a position in which the constitution specifically forbids him to succeed himself. It may be set down as one of the minor fronies of history that the Georgia constitu- tion, written by friends of Governor Arnall, provided altogether needlesaly that the Lieu- tent Governer-elect could not be sworn in until after the Governor-elect had taken the oath. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Out of the internal contradictions of the Georgia constitution there developed a sit- uation as ludicrous as it was tragic. It was not surprising, of course, that the son of Eugene Talmadge should have grasped power by whatever pretext lay at hand. Eugene Talmadge himself was elected to the gov- ernorship by a kind of political chicanery that thwarted the will of a majority of the State's voters. The State legislature, rigged in ac- cordance with the same unbalanced county unit system, naturally supported his son, Herman. In the ctrcumstances, Governor Arnall’s effort to hold the fort seems somewhat quix- otic. It is dificult to see how he can succeed in view of the legislature's hostility. Nor in the showdown is Lieutenant Governor-elect Thompson likely to be recognized as Chief Executive by the legislature. Let us hope that the courts of the State will resolve the dilemma in their favor and that there will be enough respect for law and order left in Georgia to give effect to the derision, If the courts decide otherwise, however, the people of Georgia probably will be no wors: off under Herman—the son being so much like the father—than they would have been had Gene survived. But there is a moral] to this case which ought to be observed. So far as the good people of Georgia are concerned, it behooves them, if they ever get another Governor as good as Ellis Arnall, to draft a constitution sound enough to withstand the challenge of a@ pretender. So far as the Nation is con- cerned, it behooves us to plug the loophole that still remains in our provision for the Presidential succession. The twentieth amendment to the Constitution says that in the event that neither the President-elect nor the Vice-President-elect shal] have quali- fied, “the Congress may by law provide for the case.” The Congress has never so provided. Remote as the contingency may seem, it would be well to be forearmed against it. I also include a well-considered edi- torial of the Baltimore Sun of Friday, January 17, 1947, which is as follows: PROTECT THE UNITED 8ST. Faced with a surplusage of governors, the State of Georgia resounds with turbulence. As everybody knows, Gene Talmadge died in the gap between his election and his in- auguration. It says in Georgia’s brand-new constitution (1945) that the General Assem- bly can elect a governor in certain contin- gencies. Ol’ Gene's boy Herman claims the assembly has validly elected him in line with this provision. But the constitution also says that the sitting Governor shall con- tinue until his successor qualifies. The anti- Talmadge crowd questions the assembly election. So the sitting Governor, Ellis Arnall, looks on young Talmadge the way Henry VII looked on Perkin Warbeck—as a “pretender.” The spectacle may seem humorous at a distance and to outsiders, though it is no fun in Georgia. But it wouldn't even be funny to outsiders if a similar situation grew up in Washington affecting the Presidential succession. In these days of desperate grav- ity in the tnternational field and of grave Presidential responsibility in the domestic field, a break-down of the succession ma- chinery might be serious indeed. Yet the fact is perfectly obvious that the succession machinery already creaks badly and is wholly unprepared to cope with wholly possible con- tingencies. For instance, what would happen if the President-elect and Vice President-elect should die between the time of their elec- tion and their inauguration? There is liter- ally no provision in the present law covering such a h . When President Roose- velt died, in April of 1945, it is true that President Truman succeeded without any fuss under the Succession Act now on the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD books. But the act takes hold only after the President to be succeeded has taken office, as Mr. Roosevelt had earlier that year. This is one of the constitutional loopholes which Representative Kreravver, of Tennessee, has long had in mind. Under the twentieth amendment to the Constitution, a clear in- vitation is given Congress to legislate for this and all other conceivable contingencies in the Presidential succession. Mr. KEFAUVER has pressed in successive Congresses for some kind of action under this amendment. But he has steadily failed to rouse the congres- sional interest to the point required for legis- lation So far this session the judiciary com- mittee of neither House has given the matter any considcration whatever. It is time the thing was attended to. This is preeminently the kind of question which should be settled before it actually arises. EXPLANATION OF BILL Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to meet the contingency, remote, but nev- ertheless possible under certain circum- stance:, namely: First, if a President has not been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term; and, sec- ond, if a President-elect or a Vice-Presi- dent-elect shal] not have qualified. The first contingency may arise through failure, first, of the electoral col- lege to elect a President and, second, through failure of the House of Repre- sentatives to choose a President before the beginning of his term. The second contingency would arise by reason of the death or disqualification of both the President-elect and the Vice-President- elect, or through failure of the Senate to elect a Vice President when the right to choose one when that duty shall devolve upon them. Should the election of a President devolve upon the House and the election of a Vice President devolve upon the Senate, and a person for neither of- fice be chosen before the beginning of the term, this bill designates the Speaker of the House of Representatives as acting President until a President shall have qualified. If the House of Representa- tives has not chosen a Speaker, then, and then only, the bill designates the Presi- dent of the Senate pro tempore to act as President. It is more likely when the election is thrown into Congress that the Senate would elect a Vice President than that the House would elect a President before the beginning of his term, in which event the Vice President would become acting President until the House should elect a President. The Senate is a continuing body, and a majority of Senators would elect a Vice President from the two high- est on the list of those voted for in the electoral college. But the method of choosing a President by the House is more involved. It would be a new House, one elected at the previous election. It would meet on January 3. It would have to organize. It could not organize until it elected a Speaker. This may not be possible for days, or weeks, or even months. Dead- locks have occurred in the past over the election of a Speaker, one lasting several months. And it is reasonable to suppose that the strength of a third-party candi- date which should cause a stalemate in the electoral college would be reflected in the composition of the House vhere the vote for President from among the three highest on the list would be by States and not by individual Members as in the Sen- ate. The vote of each State would be de- termined by a majority of its delegation, and in case a State delegation is -qually divided that State would lose its vote. The electoral vote is required by law to be counted on January 6, only 3 days after the first meeting of a new Congress. Obviously, if a deadlock over the speaker- ship should ensue end not ve broken by January 6, the two Houses of Congress could not even meet in joint session on that drte to count the electoral vote, much less proceed to the election.of a President or Vice President. Assuming, however, that a Speaker of the House were to be elected promptly, and the count of the electoral vote disclosed a Stalemate, the House would proceed to ballot for President. Nec other business would be in order frcm day to day. The date for the inauguration of a President is January 20, as fixed by the Constitu- tion, allowing but 12 weekdays in which to make a choice, and if no one is chosen by that time the Vice President, if the Senate meanwhile has elected one, would become Acting Tresident, otherwise. un- der this bill, the Speaker of the House would become Acting Presiaent, and the House and Senate would continue to bal- lot for President and Vice President, re- spectively. In the election of a Vice Pres- ident by the Senate two-thirds of the Senators shall constitute a quorum, and a majority of the whole number is neces- sary to elect. It might Le an easy matter to prevent an election by the absence of & constitutional quorum. In the ex- tremely remote possibility of the death of both the President-elect and the Vice- President-elect or of some disqualifica- tion of each, then the Speaker of the House would become Acting President until a President should qualify. The bill designates the Speaker as act- ing President for the twofold reason that he is first elected by the people as a Rep- resentative and, second, he is elected by a majority of the House of Representa- tives as its Speaker. In other words, it might be said that he derives his power direct from the people as the result of a recent election. In lesser degree the same could be said of the President of the Senate pro tempore. This bill is in pursuance of the provi- sions of section 3 of the twentieth amendment to the Constitution and is made necessary by that amendment, sec- tion 3 of which is as follows: Src. 3. If, at the time fixed for the begin- ning of the term of the President, the Presi- dent-elect shall have died, the Vice-Presi- dent-elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his ’2rm, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law pro- vide for the case wherein neither a President- elect nor a Vice-President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. Under this provision it will be seen that Congress derives authority to desig- nate any person whomsoever it desires to act as President under the circum- A189 stances indicated. Hence, by designat- ing the Speaker of the House of Repre- sentatives, the Congress, by the enact- ment of this bill, would be designating a compatible officer just as it did some time ago when an Assistant Secretary of the Navy was designated as Acting Secretary. Also, an analogy is furnished in the tem- porary function exercised by the Chief Justice of the United States when pre- siding over the Senate in a trial of an impeached President. His authority so to act is in the Constitution. Likewise, the authority of Congress to designate a Person, any person to act as President is derived from the same source, the Con- stitution. Tribute to the Late Judge John D. Miller EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR CAPPER OF KANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 20 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, the farmers of America in general, and the farmer cooperatives more particularly, lost a dear and valued friend on Novem- ber 26, 1946, when Judge John D. Miller passed away. The Dairymen’s League News in a front-page stieame: headline properly described J:idge Miller, “store- keeper, lawyer, farme:, Dairymen’s League crusader and leader. trail-blazing champion of farmer cooperatives in America.” It was my pleasure and privi.ege to be closely associated with Judge Miller 25 years ago when legislation which eventu- ally was enacted into the Capper-Vol- stead Act was being presented to the Congress. No man in this country has rendered more valuable service to the cooperative movement than Judge Mil- ler. He was one of the pioneer advocates of the cooperative movement. His plan for the organization was sound and help- ful. The cooperatives of this country are under great obligation to him, particu- larly for his services in the carly days of the development of this movement. Mr. President, I send to the desk and ask unanimous consent that there be printec in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial tribute to the late Judge John D. Miller as it appeared in the De- cember 17, 1946, issue of the Dairymen’s League News. . There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: JOHN D. MILLER The passing of John D. Miller marks the end of an era in the history of the Dairymen’s League. His leadership always constructive, at critical times rose to the heights of fear- less crusading. It has been the One great continuing influence in the building of the league's cooperative structure. He, more than any other one individual, designed and guided the league organization from the beginning. In later years it was his wise counsel and abiding faith in farm peo- ple and their cooperatives that helped most in establishing the policies of the association along sound and progressive lines.
A190 The imprint of his foresight, his legal knowledge, and his broad understanding of cooperative business is permanently upon every part of the league organization. That imprint is the record of 80 years of devoted and brilliant service. Yet through all the years of a busy life, even when responsibility weighed heaviest upon him, he kept the spirit of youth alive in his heart. He was never too busy to be Kind and helpful. He never lost his love for baseball, a lively game of cards, bowling, or a thrilling detective story. He enjoyed good literature, too, especially the classics. Forced to support himself from the age of 12, self- educated and disciplined in the hard school of experience, he knew the real values in life and had a natural understanding of farm people—their problems and aspirations. To no one man will league farmers ever Owe so much, He gave the best years Of his life to the cooperative cause, and like 80 Many other stalwart league leaders, fell on the field of battle. Only 2 weeks before his death, and on the eve of his ninetieth birth- day, he was not only carrying On the duties of general counsel, but also working hard to complete two major projects—a history of the Dairymen’s League and a commentary on Cco- Operative law. Both of these projects were practically finished. It might well be said of him, too, that he was the “happy warrior” of the Dairymen's League, for he never was happier than when he was in the midst of action, spending him- self in the service of farmers. Never did he waver in his conviction that only through cooperative enterprise could farm people ever hope to acquire economic independence and maintain the great institution of agri- culture on an equal footing with other in- dustries. More than this, he believed that farmers’ cooperatives might well prove to be the great bulwark of national democracy and freedom in the present world struggle between de- mocracy and radicalism of all kinds. League farmers will always be proud of the services rendered by their own “Judge” Miller to their hundreds of thousands of fellow farmers in other cooperatives throughout the Nation. An outstanding authority on cooperative law, he helped frame much Federal and State cooperative legislation. As president of the National Cooperative Milk Producers’ Feder- ation and later the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, he bullt those two na- tional organizations up to new high peaks of service and influence. Of his outstanding service in these broader fields, let his fellow leaders speak. Their tributes are printed on other pages in this issue. As for league farmers, the bright light of his leadership will shine on like a beacon through all the years. And in the farmers’ hall of fame, with such other league immortals as Albert Manning and Chester Young, the glowing record of his service to agriculture will be forever en- shrined. Attitude of Secretary Forrestal Toward Unification of Armed Services EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 20 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorlal entitled “Forrestal for Unification,” pub- lished in the Boston Herald of January 18, 1947, There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: FORRESTAL FOR UNIFICATION The “unification” plan for the armed serv- ices announced on Thursday by President Truman is a feather tn the cap of Secretary of the Navy Forrestal. It was the stiff-neck admirals and the “school tie” Annapolis boys who offered the greatest resistance to this obvious step toward defense economy and efficiency. It was Forrestal with the aid of his friend, Ferdinand Eberstadt, who broke down this opposition and made possible such “unification” as now seems probable. It is by no means complete or ideal unification, but it is an important step forward, breaking with powerful traditions of the past. In view of the consolidation of the military and naval committees of Congress in accordance with the Congressional Reorganization Act, we now have reacon to believe this first token “unification” will soon be a reality, and that more complete unification will follow later on, To have expected much more at first would have been to fight windmills with lances, We nominate James Forrestal to be the first Secretary of National Defense for the following reasons: 1. It was largely through his efforts that the hidebound Navy opposition to merger was broken down. 2. Mr. Forrestal, a public servant of unusu- ally high character and ability, has talked of leaving the Cabinet. He should be induced to stay. 3. The “unification” plan is popularly be- lieved to be a War Department stunt to gain control of the whole military establishment. A civilian and not a “Navy man,” Mr. For- restal’s connection with the Navy would, nonetheless, introduce equilibrium into a new structure which many citizens believe to be too heavily weighted on the Army side. He would be counted on to run the new organization in the interest of the country without regard to the special interests of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Forces. 4. In view of his record in bringing about the present compromise on unification, we believe that he could be counted on the Army side. He could be counted on to per- fect unification in the position of first Sec- retary of National Defense. We hope that President Truman will see these advantages in our proposal and that Mr, Forrestal can be induced to accept. The National Wool Picture EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WESLEY A. D’EWART OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 20, 1947 Mr. D’EWART. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include in the Appendix of the ConGrrssIONAL Record a speech prepared for the annual convention of the Montana Wool Growers Association at Billings, Mont., on January 16, 1947, on the subject entitled “The National Wool Picture.” Bad weather forced cancellation of airplane flights from Washington and prevented my attendance at the conven- tion, The address was sent to Carl O. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Hansen, secretary of the association. It follows: Members of the Montana Wool Growers Association, I am glad to be with you this morning and have an opportunity to sketch in some of the details of the wool picture as it appears in Washington at the present time. I do not come before you as a wool expert, but rather as one who, perhaps, has access to some information that wil] be helpful in con- sidering the difficult wool-market situation in which you find yourselves at the present time, I do not want to bore you with statistics, but a few are necessary if we are to have an understanding of the wool-marketing situa- tion. I should state that accurate figures as to the woo] situation are hard to get. Dif- ferent sources do not always agree. The fig- ures that I present come from the United States Tariff Commission and from the Wool Division of the Department of Agriculture, and were obtained last week. The total domestic production of shorn and pulled wool from 1933 to 1944 averaged 434,- 800,000 pounds; in 1945 it was 887,0v0,000 pounds; in 1946 it dropped to 356,000,000 pounds. I have seen one estimate that the 1947 clip would be only 250,000,000 pounds, although this would appear to be low. It is estimated that the decline in sheep population in 1946 will be about 10 percent. The total stocks of wool, domestic and foreign, in this country on July 1, 1946, are estimated to have been 1,000,000,000 pounds. This includes all wool in the possession of wool dealers, the CCC and on farms and ranches. The total world wool stock pile on July 1 was 4,958,000,000 pounds, which can be broken down as of that date (latest accu- rate figures) as follows: {In million pounds] Wool stock Exporting countries: Argentina. 240 Uruguay... 5 Grand total...-._----. meecccne 2, 695 Importing countries: United States___--..-....--..-.2 931 832 560 Total..--.---------...--..--..- 2, 263 Total w.rld supply--.----..... 4, 958 or almost 6,000,000,000 pounds. Since this date the countries of the South- ern Hemisphere have harvested a wool crcp. However, it is probable that about as much wool has been used as has been added to the world supply. You have read reports of tremendous sales of the British stockpile at auctions conducted by the Joint Organization in London and at other Empire markets. It has been said that these sales improve the picture greatly and are an index to the rate of wool con- sumption by countries in Europe recovering from the war. Actually, you should not be too optimistic about these sales. I am reli- ably informed that European mills devas- tated by war are not getting into operation much faster than was expected 2 years ago, and that the large sales are partly due to buying by continental governments as a hedge against inflation. Therefore, much of this wool is still, as a matter of fact, in stock pile and a part of the world supply which must be disposed of. Of the Empire stocks held on October 1, 1946, at least 75 percent are probably in- ferior, heavy, burry, and carbonizing types;
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD suited only or almost entirely for Conti- nental consumption. Not more than 10 per- cent of the Empire stocks of 38,400,000,000 pounds on hand October 1, 1946, are of the desirable ‘American types.” The British Empiré Joint Organization has estimated that it will take 13 years to liqui- date its stock pile. Our Tariff Commission expert estimates between 8 and 16 years, or an average of 12 years, depending on world conditions. While this Empire wool is not strictly com- petitive with our finer American wools, its price has a definite relationship to the price at which we can sell our wool. It is thought likely that the Empire will try to stabilize the price of its wool at a reasonably high level for at least several years, and this will, of course, be helpful to American woul mar- Keting, other things remaining equal. If duties are Cut, or there is a depression, it would adversely affect marketing operations. Imports of South American wool are more than twice the pre-war imports and from Argentina there are at the present time three times the pre-war quantities. This is, of course, of great concern to the domestic pro- ducers. The reason for the increase is that duties on South American wool are now about half what they were before the war, having been reduced by Executive orders is- sued under the reciprocal trade agreement program. This is at least an indication of what can be expected from future lowering of tariffs. Even though the South American wool is generally coarser than ours, it 1s competitive because the mills can regulate fashion and if they want to use this wool, they can decide that sports clothes and tweeds are fashionable rather than fabrics made of finer wools. Our textile and wool growers’ costs ure considerably above those of the Empire. In textile production the wage ratio here is three times higher than in the United King- dom. Labor costs in the United States are 2.3 times higher. The average production ratio in the United States is 1.3 times higher, In addition, our ranching costs, in- cluding herding, are 4 to 5 times higher than Australia. Turning now from the foreign to the do- mestic picture, the production of domestic wool has dropped from a 1935-44 average of 434,800,000 pounds to 358,000,000 pounds in 1946. [In million pounds] Shorn wool: Year: 1935-44 average 1946 --_-- 2-2 ---- 1946 _--_---_---.--.-----.-.... Pulled wool: Year: 1935-44 average__-.-.-..---... 65.8 1945 ... 22+ 1946 _--_---.~------~-----.. Total production: Year: 1935-44 average__-__.-..-.-.- 434.8 1945 It is interesting to note that from 1936-40 our growers supplied 76.4 percent of the wool that was consumed in this country, 43 per- cent in 1941-42. 34 percent in 1943, and that in 1946 only 23 percent. Our domestic con- sumption for 1946 is in excess of 1,060,000,000 pounds, of which 240,000,000 pounds was do- mestic and 820,000,000 »ounds foreign. In brief, wh:le our domestic consumption is over 1,000,000,000 pounds, our domestic production has dropped to 358,000,000 pounds, and we are now furnishing only 23 percent of the wool consumed in this country. The CCC has on hand, as of December 31, 1946, 461,600,000 pounds, and the stock pile in this country is around 1,000,000,000 pounds, @ year's supply. In addition, hanging over the market is the increased production from South America of wools that are more or less competitive, and at least 10 percent of the huge world wool strck pile of about 4,000,000,000 rounds. Since 1943 CCC has purchased 1,273,200,000 pounds of wool. Of this amount, 461,600,000 pounds remains unsold as of December 31, 1946. This reserve stock includes 163,700,000 pounds of the 1946 clip, 163,000,000 pounds of the 1945 clip, 87,000,000 pounds of the 1944 clip, and 47,600,000 pounds of the 1943 pro- duction. Dr. Louis G. Connor, of the Tariff Com- mission, says that even the higher prices paid in recent auctions in Australia for fine wools would not make it possible far the CCC to avoid a loss in disposing of its wool. Parity prices have gone «ip at least as much as the estimated 10-percent increases in prices paid at these auctions. The result is that the CCC price has risen, too. Austra- lian woo] would come into this country at about 61.11 with the duty paid. If the CCC sold any wool at the present time, it's price would be around 61.15, and there is a 10-per- cent differential against United States wool which would result in a loss to the CCC of some 16 cents per pound if it tried to meet the price of Australian wool. Before completing this part of the picture, T should add one more factor—that is, that 18 foreign countries have beer invited to meet in Washington this month to consider reductions in tariffs and eliminations of quotas In the public notice of this meet- ing, wool is listed among the items to be considered. You know that the world is now greatly in our debt. It will be further in our debt if it now accepts our exports freely, but how is it going to pay? Is it going to be in the form of an I1OU in the till of the Export- Import Bank, largely supplied with capital from the United States Treasury? If these countries pay at all it must be in commodi- ties and products which they produce. That is obvious. It would appear to be clear that our normal consumption of tea, coffee, spices, linen, bananas, and scotch whisky imports will not serve to balance the books. Could it be possible that countries pro- ducing huge surpluses of wool, beef, mut- ton, flax, wheat, and sugar would insist upon our acceptance of even larger sup- plies of such commodities? In fact, realiz- ing the low cost of production in countries burdened with a large exportable surplus of these commodities, and the artificial high- price levels in this country, it requires no proof to envision what will be done. No doubt, a cotton grower of the South and the eastern industrialist manufacturing com- plicated machinery protected by patents can view lowering of tariffs and doing away with quotas with complacency. But can the people of a land-bound agricultural State such as Montana? If such competition is to be met, it can be overcome only at the expense of longer hours at lower pay under & greatly reduced standard of living, not only for the farm people but also for those who supply their needs. I should mention one more factor—that is the adverse publicity that has been ap- pearing in the national magazines regarding the wool industry. I would like to call your especial attention to the article in the Janu- ary 1947 issue of Fortune magazine, entitled “The Trouble With United States Wool Is That It Is Uneconomic. The Industry Sub- sists on the Excessive Tariffs, Wartime Sub- sidies, and Political Shenanigans.” I be- lieve this article should be “must” read- ing for every sheepman attending this convention. The present purchase program that has been carried on by the CCC since 1943 will expire in April of this year unless extended by Presidential order or some action is taken by Congress. Therefore, you have facing your industry at the present time a large carry-over of wool, possible reduction in tariff A191 rates and a possible end of the present pur- chase program in April. A reduction under the reciprocal-trade agreements acts, combined with a termina- tion of the commodity credit wool purchase program in 1947, would certainly leave the domestic wool industry in a bad situation. It is something that should give great con- cern to this convention. An agreement should be reached between the Stute assucta- tions and your national associations as to steps to be taken to protect your fndustry in this emergency. You will remember at the last session of Congress Senator O'MAHONEY in the Senate and Congressman GRANGER in the House in- troduced legislation on which long hearings were held. Sheepmen from 11 Western States appeared at these hearings. Representatives of the State Department, Agriculture De- partment, and Tariff Commission all added their testimony. The President of the United States was prevailed upon to write a letter to Senator O'MAHONEY promoting woo] legislation. Various members of the wool trade presented their views on the legisla- tion. The wool producers were unanimous in their desire for legislation to protect the wool industry. The legislation was final- ly reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on July 25 in a considerably umended version. It contained three important provisions. Wool would have been designated by law as a Steagall commodity receiving a price sup- port of not less than 90 percent of the ad- justed comparable price for 2 years after the 1st day of January following the official declaration of the end of the war. A com- parable price would have been determined under the bill for wool and lambs which would have placed them in an equitable relationship with the basic agricultura) commodities. In other words, at that time wool would have been priced at about 42 cents a grease pound. The bill would have provided for the sale of domestic woo) in competition with foreign wool, thus permit- ting a reduction of the domestic stock pile. This legislation failed of passage, but I de- scribe it in some detail, as it is very similar to the legislation that has been introduced in the present Congress, again by Congress- man GrRaNcrr in the House and Senator O’MaAnHONEY in the Senate. This legislation was opposed by most wool trade members who appeared before the House committee. To quote from the testimony of Mr. Harold Lindsay, president of the National Wool Trade Association and director of the Boston Wool Trade Association. “(our) members (are) Opposed to any legislation which seeks to perpetuate the present system of Govern- ment purchase and sale of our domestic clip.” Mr. Grancer's bill in the present Congress is H. R. 63; Senator O'MAHONEY’s bill in the Senate is S. 103. These two bills should be given careful consideration by your con- vention. Are they what you want at this time? The fight to get them through the Congress is going to be a difficult one, and favorable action will be taken only because the wool industry is in agreement on what it desires and is willing to support the program Senator Rosertson of Wyoming has a pro- posal to establish a quota system for im- ports or to increase the tariff to protect domestic production. This would be the simple way to give the wool industry the pro. tection it must have to survive, but either of these proposals would run into formidable objections from the executive branch of our Government. Your industry should decide definitely and unequivocally where it stands with regard to lowering of tariff barriers and placing of quota restrictions, and as regards the O'Mahoney and Grunger bills. Wool and lamb production is one of the principal industries of Montana as well as of the 11 Western States. That fact is entitled to recognition, by the whole country. The industry must have such legislation as is
A192 necessary to place it on a long-time, sound basis. Possibly I have given you a picture of the wool-marketing situatior that is too dark. There are many things which should en- courage the sheepman, and they have been well expressed in Dr. M. M. Kelso's article in the January tissue of the Montana Wool- growers entitled “Pruspects in Sheep.” I would like to recommend it for your reading. In conclusion, let me summarize the situa- tion: 1. There is a stock pile of 1,000,000,000 pounds of woo] in this country which is enough to supply our domestic consumption for 1 year. 2. Outside the United States there is a stockpile o1 about 4 billion pounds, not to exceed 10 percent of which is a type and quality which is competitive with our wool. 8 In 1946 only 28 percent of the wool consumed in this countrv was domestically produced. We actually produced only a little over a vhird of cur needs. 4. CCC purchase prugram ends in April unless extended by Presidentin! or congres- sional action. 5. Eighteen countries are now mecting in Washington with our State Department for the Lurpore of Jowcring tariffs or quota barriers. There are five possible courses of action: 1 Let the CCC purchase program end, accept lower tariffs and let wool be sold in competition with world supplies. 2 Raise the tariff to cover the difference in cost of production between this and foreign countries. . 3. Establish a quota that will permit the entry of oniy such woo) as is needed to add to our domestic production to meet domestic consumption needs. 4. Enact legislation that will guarantee a comparable price as provided in the Granger and O'Mahoney bills. 5. A combination of these measures. Each has its faults and advantages. It ts for this association, together with other State associatiuns and the National Wool Growers, to determine the course they want to pursue. Your national] legislative committee did a splendid job in presenting your case be- tSre the committee of Congress during the last session. Such men as Byron Wilson, Casey Jones, and your own secretary, Kelly Hansen, did outstanding work. I have not discussed the matttr of com- petition with other products, nor studies and experiments that are being carried on look- ing t> a more efficient marketing and han- dling of your wool. Neither have I concerned myself with meat. I have limited these re- marks to presenting briefly the world-mar- keting situation as it appears at the present moment. Your Members of Congress have served, and will continue to serve, your great industry. Let us agree on the essentials of a sound, long-time, legislative program anc then go to Washington and see that it becomes the law of the land. The wool industry is of great importance to the West, but it is also eco- nomically important to the Nation, and it is entitled to legislation that will put it on a sound basis. The Late Mark Thistlethwaite EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FOREST A. HARNESS OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 20, 1947 Mr. HARNESS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to a friend whose untimely death brings sorrow and a deep sense of loss to most of us in this Congress and to a host of others with whom he lived and worked. Mark Thistlethwaite was truly a part of the Washington scene. I believe only three Members of this Eightieth Con- gress were serving here when Mark came to Capitol Hill as secretary to Vice Presi- dent Thomas R. Marshall in 1913. After 8 years in the office of the Vice President, Mark rejoined the staff of the Indianap- olis News. which he served as Washing- ton correspondent continuously to the time of his death. ° Mark Thistlethwaite was a gentleman in the finest sense of the word, a great reporter in the finest tradition of his profession. His was a rich and pro- ductive life. Kindly. tolerant, and help- ful, Mark made life richer and better for all who had the good fortune to know him. His death is a heavy loss to his pro- fession, to his State, and to his country. No Housing Shortage EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. GEORGE B. SCHWABE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 20, 1947 Mr SCHWABE of Oklahoma. On the day Congress convened, January 3, I in- troduced a bill to repeal the OPA in its entirety, including rent control. Since I introduced this bill, H. R. 299, I have received letters from all over the country, and particularly from my dis- trict, declaring that there is no rea] hous- ing shortage. The housing shortage, they say, is only apparent, and not genu- ine. They say that the arbitrary and un- reasonable enforcement of present rent contro] Jaws and regulations has de- veloped a situation which has been con- sidered a housing shortage, but which, in reality, is only an impediment put in the way of those who want to occupy premises which stand vacant or are only partially occupied. . An excellent illustration of the think- ing of some of the people on this subject is set forth in the following letter which I have just received from Mr. Oscar Bieser, of Oklahoma City, Okla.: OKLAHOMA City, OKLA, January 13, 1947. Mr. GrorcE B. SCHWABE, New House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Scuwase: I have spent most of my life in the rental business here. I started in 1924, about 22 years ago, and have man- aged or owned an average of 600 to 1,000 units all of those years, and during those 22 years have seen five recessions or depressions as we called them and of course the same number of highs. I have of course studied the so- celled housing shortage from every angle as it applies to Oklahoma City housing. I have also talked with many property managers and owners from Tulsa, Dallas, Cleveland, New York City, Seattle, Los Angeles, and other places, and I find the same condition exists in those places, so it is not only here that these same conditions hold true. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There is no real housing shortage here or anywhere that I can find. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? When there was no meat in the butcher shops, it sounded crazy to say there was no meat shortage too, didn't it, but price control was lifted and there is no meat shortage anc meat is not $1 per pound either, is 1t? I can tell you why if you will listen. I lke to give examples to illustrate. T bought two apartment buildings on West Thirty-first in 1938. The rent on each apert- ment then wus 840 per month on the average. They are efficiency upartments, and all of them were occupied eithe: by couples or by two single girls living tugether. These peo- ple all worked, in most cases both the man and wife worked. You wi"! recall the good stenographers then made $25 to @35 per week, now they make 645 to 860. Now 9 of those 15 units are occupied by single girls or single men. The rent is frozen at $30 per month. Why should these people be bothered by having to live with someone The OPA will not : low the owner any more rent for more tenants so why should ow‘jers try to get two or more persons. One tenant will do less damage than two or morc, and repairs will some day have to be made so when vacancies ao come up the owners try to get only one person. Furniture is much higher now than in 1942, and these are furn.shed apartments. I believe there are at least 10,000 such units here at this time. Of course, not all of these people would double if rent was increased but most of them would. Add to these maybe 2,000 units that are vacant be- cause the rent is frozen at, say. $15 per month with bills paid and the gas and light bills will run 612 to 815 per month. There is no reason for the owner to rent them. Would you, !f you owned them? Now add to those the 600 to 1,000 houses and duplexes that are vacant because the owners want to sell them, and a vacant house or duplex will sell for at least 81,000 more vacant than it will rented because it takes 6 months to get pos- session, unless the rent director does not like the color of your hair or the way you wear your hat, in which case he can refuse to issue the certificate and then you can- not get possession at all and there is noth- ing you can do about it. If rent control was lifted tomorrow, in 60 days or less there would be no housing shortage here. There is no meat shortage and meat is not 81 per pound, and so it would be with rent. You are not interested, or at least you should not be if you represent all of the people, in the welfare of any group but only as it applies to the average; that is, the over-all average of tenants. Let me tell you about that. I believe that 30 to 40 per- cent of the rent property here is rented at over the ceiling rents now, and if an owner is going to rent over the ceiling he will, of course, get all he can, which, in most cases, is $75 to @80 for a place that is only worth 840, while the units that are rented at ceil- ing rents are held to $20 to $25. In placing the worth of the units I am taking the rent as it was in 1942 and comparing it with the Prices of all the things property owners have to buy now. They have to eat the same as other people. Now look at the unfairness of this. The larger property owners are not the ones that are renting over the ceiling; it is the owner with only two or three units that will take the chance. These account for the 30 to 40 percent I set out. With larger Property owners, if the rent is too low on some of his units, he just locks them up and lets them stand; he is not hurt too bad, or maybe he might pay off to someone to get an increase, either of which is bad, don't you think? And it is costing us about 82,500,000,000, or maybe more this year, to maintain this gestapo control. The war has been over nearly 2 years. Of course, France and Eng- land kept rent control after World War I, and still have it, but this is the United States, remember? Think about this. If what I say